A bipartisan group of House lawmakers investigating Amazon for possible antitrust violations have demanded that Jeff Bezos testify before Congress to address statements by the company that “appear to be misleading, and possibly criminally false or perjurious”. “Although we expect that you will testify on a voluntary basis, we reserve the right to resort to compulsory process if necessary,” seven leaders of the House judiciary committee, including the chair Jerry Nadler, wrote in a letter to the Amazon CEO on Friday.Representative David Cicilline, the chair of the House’s antitrust subcommittee who has been leading investigations into the major internet platforms, further stated on Twitter that he is considering a referral to prosecutors.“As CEO and founder of the company, [Jeff Bezos] must be accountable for Amazon’s record of dishonesty before Congress,” he tweeted. “In light of the gravity of this situation, I am also considering whether a perjury referral is warranted.”While Amazon had already been a subject of the antitrust subcommittee’s investigation, pressure on the company increased following the publication of a Wall Street Journal investigation into the company’s use of data to compete with sellers on its marketplace.Amazon was launched as an e-commerce site where customers could buy products directly from Amazon itself, but in 2000 it began allowing third-party retailers to sell goods through the site as well. The move to running a “marketplace” allowed Amazon to increase the range of products offered on its site, while giving sellers access to Amazon’s vast customer base.In 2019, Bezos told shareholders that third-party sellers accounted for more than half (58%) of the physical gross merchandise sold on Amazon.But the situation caused unease among antitrust campaigners and advocates for fair competition, especially as Amazon moved more aggressively into selling private label goods that compete directly with marketplace sellers. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a fierce critic of the company, has compared Amazon’s position with regard to the marketplace as akin to being “both the umpire and a player in the game”.In July 2019, Nate Sutton, the associate general counsel for Amazon, provided sworn testimony to congress that Amazon does “not use any seller data to compete with” third-party sellers or to inform decisions about launching its private label brands.But more than 20 former employees of the company’s private label brands told the Wall Street Journal that it was “standard operating practice” for Amazon employees use data about individual sellers to inform decisions about their own products.Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has previously denied misleading Congress and has said that it is investigating the “serious allegations of employee misconduct” described in the Journal’s report.— Amazon Policy (@amazon_policy) April 24, 2020 “Amazon often acts as though it’s above the law,” said Stacy Mitchell, the co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. “Today, the House judiciary committee firmly demonstrated that it’s not.”Mitchell also testified before the House committee, at the same hearing in which Sutton made his disputed statement.“Amazon doesn’t just dominate markets,” she said at the time. “Through its control of essential infrastructure, it has assumed governing authority over a growing share of our commerce … Amazon has the power to regulate, tax, and punish Americans engaged in trade … To restore competition and safeguard our liberty, we need to both restructure and regulate Amazon.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday offered some of his first public comments on his company's controversial decision to buy Instagram amid intensifying scrutiny over Facebook's power and market dominance. During a quarterly call with investors, Zuckerberg said he believes many of the recently launched antitrust investigations into Facebook "are going to be about our acquisition of Instagram."He spent several minutes laying out Facebook's view on why it acquired Instagram, a popular image-sharing platform, in 2012."If it’s helpful, I’ll go back to what it was like at the time," Zuckerberg said, responding to an investor's question about government scrutiny of its market dominance. "In 2012, we didn’t think about Instagram as competing with our core service," he said, referring to Instagram as a "complementary" service to Facebook's main app. He said the company hoped at the time it would reach 100 million users.Instagram reached 1 billion monthly active users in 2018. "I know it can be really hard, given how well things have gone, to look back and remember what the world was like when we made this acquisition," Zuckerberg said. "We ultimately thought we were going to do better work if we were building with Instagram."Critics have accused Facebook of quashing an up-and-coming competitor with its decision to buy Instagram, a platform that is popular with young people. Zuckerberg's remarks came as Facebook faces antitrust investigations from the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice and a coalition of 47 state attorneys general. The House Judiciary Committee has also launched an investigation into competition in the digital marketplace, which has focused heavily on the dominant players — Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon. The government investigators are also likely to look into Facebook's acquisition of popular messaging app WhatsApp and its digital advertising business practices.

“The bottom line is Trump doesn’t get that the California suburbs reflect the views of suburban voters all over the country,” Carrick says.In fact, Baldassare notes, air quality and environmental safety have been bipartisan concerns in California for more than half a century; the reason the federal government has granted the state waivers from federal emissions rules—a tradition Trump wants to stop—is that it already had strict antipollution measures in place when the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. “It’s not an issue that matters just to Democrats,” he says. “It’s very important to Republicans and to their quality of life and to the economy of the state. These moves by Trump are things that go against not just whatever the current Democratic leaders in Sacramento are doing, but against the way that Republicans and Democrats have been seeking to do things for years.”Bruce Cain, a political-science professor at Stanford University and a longtime student of the state, notes that Trump’s brand of anti-Californianism is different from, and starker than, that of 50 years ago. “Version one of California-bashing was against white, liberal, middle-class, hippie-dippie countercultural kids,” Cain told me. “Starting with Reagan and his picking on kids at the University of California.“Trump’s attack is less humorous and, I think, darker and more sinister,” Cain adds. “He’s trying to talk about terrorists coming up with Central American refugees, and has really taken the fear of violence against persons and fear of terrorism to a new level.”Cain says that’s dangerous for Trump: “Inside his own party, he’s continuing to put pressure on the well-educated suburban women who enjoy their tax cuts and regulatory relief and the fact that they don’t have a Democrat in the White House, but are really squirming more and more over the racialized aspect of his criticism. And they have the example, particularly here in California, that this is long-term harmful to the party.”Trump’s broadsides also ignore the reality that however much he might try to paint California as an overregulated, antibusiness crucible of failed liberal economic policies, it has nevertheless managed to spawn Tesla, Uber, Apple, Facebook, Google, Intel, Netflix, and Oracle. It is still, as it has been for decades, the place where the future so often begins.At the same time, there is no doubt that the state has grave problems. It has 12 percent of the country’s population, but half of its homeless people. A yawning gap between rich and poor—and, perversely, a generally robust economy—has produced skyrocketing housing prices and a resulting shortage of homes, and strict building, zoning, and environmental codes often impede the kind of quick construction that might ease the problem in the short term. The mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles acknowledge that the sprawling tent cities of homeless people on their streets have produced an untenable situation that amounts, in some cases, to a public health emergency.

The lineup for the fourth Democratic presidential debate in Westerville, Ohio, on October 15 has been finalized. One night. One stage. Twelve candidates. Former Vice President Joe Biden will take center stage, flanked by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The debate will be hosted by CNN and the New York Times and be held at Otterbein University, outside of Columbus, Ohio.CNN reported the Democratic National Committee decided to hold the debate on one night, with all 12 qualifying candidates — two more than the September debate, despite having capped the number of candidates onstage together at 10 for past debates. Here’s the podium order: Podium order announced for the CNN/New York Times Democratic presidential debate https://t.co/R41KgORK1V pic.twitter.com/gLiJOiUofY— Vaughn Sterling (@vplus) October 2, 2019 Sen. Bernie Sanders was hospitalized October 1 after experiencing chest pain on the campaign trail, and underwent an emergency procedure to insert two stents. Sanders says he is recovering and feeling “really good.” He will be at the debate.To make it on to the stage in October, Democratic candidates had to raise donations from 130,000 people and earn 2 percent support in four polls approved by the Democratic National Convention between June 28 and 11:59 pm. Eastern on October 1. Both Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer qualified for the fourth debate, after coming up short on making it to the stage in September. The thresholds to make the fourth debate were the same as the September one, but candidates had a little more time to qualify this time. It’s clear that the these rules are already winnowing the field on the national stage. Former Vice President Joe Biden New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro California Sen. Kamala Harris Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders California billionaire Tom Steyer Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren Entrepreneur Andrew Yang Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Seven candidates did not meet the threshold: Author and activist Marianne Williamson Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet Montana Gov. Steve Bullock Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan Former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak The Democratic field has slimmed in the past month; New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has dropped out, as has former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who has now decided he will challenge Republican Sen. Cory Gardner in the Colorado Senate race instead. Rep. Seth Moulton dropped out, as did Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who has instead been elevated as Democratic candidates’ climate guru.Still months from the February Iowa caucuses, when the first Americans will be able to vote for one of the Democratic candidates, the Democratic presidential primary remains a three-way race between Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Warren inched ever so slightly ahead of former Vice President Joe Biden in the RealClearPolitics polling average this week to at least briefly take the lead in the field of 2020 Democratic contenders. Biden finds himself at the center of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and Sanders, who hasn’t shaken a third-place standing in national polls, told reporters he’ll have to initially level back his campaign appearances after a heart attack.Going into the September debate, candidates like Bennet and Bullock both told the Washington Post that they weren’t deterred by being shut out of the event. But missing two debates will certainly be difficult for candidates with already low national name recognition.The debates serve as an important opportunity for smaller campaigns to get their names and message out to the rest of the country. But between the three rounds — and five nights — of debates so far, none of the break out moments have gone to lesser-known candidates. Instead, polling shows the Democratic primary increasingly looks like a three-way race between Biden, Warren, and Sanders.Whether the lesser-known candidates will withstand missing out on two debates remains to be seen.From Buttigieg on rural America to Warren on breaking up Big Tech, these Vox podcast episodes dive into how candidates think about policies that affect your lives.

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA was charged for conspiring to fix prices for generic drugs, the Department of Justice announced today.The charge, filed today in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, alleges that Glenmark conspired with other generic drug companies, including a company with its principal place of business in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and Apotex Corp., to increase and maintain prices of pravastatin and other generic drugs beginning in or around May 2013 and continuing until at least in or around December 2015. Pravastatin is a prescription medication that reduces cholesterol, helping to prevent heart attacks and strokes. The charge alleges that the gain to the conspirators, and the loss to the victims, was at least $200 million.“By cheating through fixing prices, generic drug companies artificially raised prices even though prescription drug costs were already sky high,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “As today’s charge shows, the Antitrust Division will not hesitate to charge these companies, and litigate where necessary, particularly where their crimes resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges for life-saving medications.”“During these difficult times, it is more important than ever that our pharmaceutical companies conduct business with the well-being of the consumer in mind,” said Deputy Special Agent in Charge Steven Stuller, U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General. “When generic drug companies conspire to artificially increase prices, they do so to the detriment of many who depend on these medications to maintain good health. Along with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and our partners at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the USPS Office of Inspector General will remain committed to investigating those who would engage in this type of harmful conduct.”“The FBI will continue to work closely with our partners to pursue companies and individuals who seek to manipulate the economic system to their benefit,” said Timothy R. Slater, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office. “Today's charge demonstrates the FBI's ongoing commitment to rooting out this greed and illegal activity. There are real victims in these crimes; they are the patients around the country who rely on these vital medications.”“Artificially inflating the price of medication is reprehensible and illegal,” said Jennifer Arbittier Williams, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. “This ill-gotten gain by the pharmaceutical industry potentially put the health of millions of Americans at risk. Just as with the other charges that have been brought out of this investigation into generic pharmaceuticals, today’s announcement demonstrates that we will continue to hold accountable any company that engages in this type of conduct.”Glenmark is the fifth company to be charged over the last 13 months in connection with antitrust violations in the generic pharmaceutical industry. The previous corporate charges, including the charge against Glenmark’s co-conspirator Apotex, were resolved by deferred prosecution agreement. Four senior executives have also been charged. Three entered guilty pleas and the fourth is awaiting trial.A criminal Information merely alleges that a crime has been committed, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.The offense charged carries a statutory maximum penalty of $100 million, which may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by victims if either amount is greater than $100 million.This charge is the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into market allocation, price fixing, bid rigging, and other anticompetitive conduct in the generic pharmaceutical industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division with the assistance of the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington and Philadelphia Field Offices, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Anyone with information on market allocation, price fixing, bid rigging, or other anticompetitive conduct related to the generic pharmaceutical industry should contact the Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center at 1-888-647-3258 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html.

It’s not over. For a few anxious, or jubilant - depending on which tribe you belong to – minutes between 7.15pm and 7.30pm, it seemed as if the Brexit saga might just be on the verge of resolution, after three and a half agonisingly long years. The House of Commons voted to allow Boris Johnson’s withdrawal agreement bill to advance to the next stage, a prize that had eluded Theresa May not once, not twice, but three times.What’s more, MPs gave it a green light more emphatically than even the most ardent Brexiters had dared hope. While May had been crushed by triple-figure majorities, Johnson won his meaningful vote by 329 to 299 votes, a majority of 30. Put another way, and as if to reflect this divided nation through what have become the defining numbers of the Brexit era, he won by 52% to 48%.For a prime minister who lost his governing majority within days of reaching Downing Street, and who lost six of his first seven votes in the House, this tasted like a rare and substantial victory. All he had to do next was win approval for his accelerated timetable, one that would cram line-by-line scrutiny of a 110-page bill giving legal effect to a 585-page withdrawal agreement, into 48 hours. For a few fleeting, clammy-palmed moments, it seemed as if he might pull it off. The naysayers of the DUP remained in their seats. Did that mean they were they going to abstain, thereby handing Johnson a second win?It did not. They rose and walked through the no lobby, confirmation of their fury at a Tory prime minister who has done what he himself had said no Tory prime minister should ever do – agreeing to separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK to such an extent that Northern Irish businesses will need to fill in customs forms to ship goods to their friends and cousins in England, Scotland and Wales. The result was defeat by 322 to 308 – all but 52-to-48 in reverse. Denied his fast track to approval, Johnson announced he was not pulling the bill – as he had threatened – but “pausing” it, as he waited to hear how long an extension the EU would grant to the Hamlet nation across the channel, forever paralysed by indecision.Posing as a man whose determination would not be deflected, Johnson said that we would “definitely be leaving the EU with this deal”. But note what he did not say: he dropped his customary reference to “by October the 31st”. For all the talk of corpses in ditches, and “do or die”, it was that promise that expired this evening.What does it mean? First, don’t fall for the hype that says that parliament approved Johnson’s deal. It did not. MPs simply voted for it to receive a second reading, some of them motivated by the desire not to endorse it but to amend it. As Labour’s Gloria De Piero confessed, she voted yes, “not because I support the deal but because I don’t”. That 30-vote majority will include MPs who wanted to propose UK membership of a customs union, others keen on conditioning the deal on public support in a confirmatory referendum. Screen out the Tory spin: those MPs should not be counted as backers of the deal.As for the defeat on the timetable, that is the result of what now looks like a tactical misjudgment by the government. By making such a fetish of the 31 October deadline – arbitrarily imposed by Emmanuel Macron when Theresa May missed the last one – Johnson painted himself into a corner whereby even a delay of a few days looked like a humiliation. Both Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Clarke signalled that it might not need much more than a few extra days to undertake the necessary scrutiny – though Nikki da Costa, until recently Johnson’s head of legislative affairs, had said it required at least four weeks – which is hardly that long to wait. Instead of taking that pragmatic course, Johnson felt compelled to call the whole thing to a halt.Why? The obvious explanation is that this gives the PM a pretext to grab what he really wants: an early election framed as a battle to get Brexit done, with him as the people’s tribune pitted against those wicked remainer saboteurs.But another explanation suggests itself, too. Any period of scrutiny is unpalatable to Johnson, because he fears that the threadbare coalition that might exist to back his deal will unravel once it engages in closer examination of the withdrawal agreement. Its erosion of workers’ rights; its creation of a new no-deal cliff edge in 2020; its entrenchment of a hard Brexit in law – all those dangers would only become more visible under the spotlight of protracted (or even normal) Commons scrutiny. Bits of his coalition – especially among those Labour MPs who backed him on Tuesday – would begin to flake off.The truth is, Johnson will never have a bigger vote for his deal in this House of Commons than the one he assembled tonight. It will only get smaller. No wonder he had to pause. His next option is to call an election – and gamble that the next parliament will be more forgiving than the last. Either way, we are not free of the Brexit saga yet, not by a long way.• Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist

President Donald Trump became the third president in American history to be impeached, exactly one week before Christmas. He now faces a trial in the Senate that will decide whether he remains in office.The Washington International Chorus performs the 12 Days of Christmas carol, with specially adapted lyrics by BBC News, to explain how the impeachment inquiry unfolded.Shot and edited by Tristan Cimini and Peter Murtaugh.Produced by Bella McShane.

A former House information-technology staffer who became the center of fevered right-wing conspiracy theories about espionage and extortion filed a lawsuit Tuesday against The Daily Caller, alleging the conservative website defamed him and his relatives.The 23-page complaint from former Democratic IT staffer Imran Awan was filed Tuesday afternoon in D.C. Superior Court. Awan and the other plaintiffs—his wife, two of his brothers, and a friend, all of whom worked with Awan in Democratic House IT services—named as defendants The Daily Caller, the nonprofit Daily Caller News Foundation, DCNF reporter Luke Rosiak, and conservative publisher Regnery, which published a 2019 book Rosiak wrote about Awan. The Daily Caller was founded in 2010 by Fox News host Tucker Carlson.The Awans’ lawsuit accused the defendants of both defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, subjecting them to “a relentless, xenophobic campaign of defamatory attacks.” The Awans’ lawyer, Deepak Gupta, told The Daily Beast that the heart of the complaint lies in the notion that “the victims of fake news and right wing conspiracies are not just our politics and our discourse—it’s also real people, whose lives can be ruined.”“The state of our politics is so polarized and so combative that people can forget that there are real people who might find themselves in the crosshairs,” Gupta said. “That’s what happened here.”The Awans claimed that they received death threats, were forced to move, and their children were forced to change schools as a result of The Daily Caller stories. One of the plaintiffs attempted suicide, according to the complaint.“It’s hard to overstate the degree to which this has ruined their lives,” Gupta said. “They lost their jobs. Their children were targeted.”“This all put a strain on Imran and Hina’s marriage,” he added.Awan immigrated to the United States from Pakistan as a teenager, and his relatives were thrust into pro-Trump conspiracy theories after the House Inspector General investigated their use of House servers and adherence to technology procurement rules. That investigation prompted conservative media outlets like The Daily Caller to portray the Awans as somehow subversive elements within the House, with one story written by Rosiak in 2017 declaring that representatives had been “compromised by rogue IT staff.”“Other outlets piled on, no doubt aware that a ‘national security scandal’ involving Pakistani-born Muslims would find a predisposed audience,” the lawsuit alleged. Reporting from The Daily Caller and other conservative outlets fueled speculation on the right-wing internet about the Awans, including claims that they worked for the Pakistani intelligence service or the Muslim Brotherhood. Other outlets seized on the baseless claimed that the Awans, not Russian hackers, were behind the 2016 Democratic National Committee email hacks. The Daily Caller’s reporting was also picked up by President Donald Trump, who called Awan a “Pakistani fraudster” and a “Pakistani mystery man” in tweets. The president even discussed Awan during a press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in July 2018. “What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?” Trump said. The Awans eventually lost their jobs amid the heightened scrutiny. The House Inspector General report found only that they had shared login credentials, inappropriately used government servers for personal use, and structured some technology purchases to avoid inventory reporting rules. (The Awans’ lawsuit alleged the purchases were made with approval from the Democratic representatives who employed them.)Imran Awan eventually pleaded guilty to making a false statement on a home loan, which was sparked by a Department of Justice bank fraud investigation his lawyers claim was the result of “political pressure from the highest levels of the Trump Administration.” Awan was charged after falsely claiming a property as his primary residence in an attempt to secure what his lawyers describe as money for his ailing father.He was sentenced to time served in the case after prosecutors sought no jail time in the case and federal Judge Tanya Chutkan blasted “scurrilous media attention” leveled against him and his family. The stories about Awan and his associates prompted an unusual statement from the Department of Justice in Awan’s plea deal, which disproved speculation about him.“The Government has uncovered no evidence that your client violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems,” read the plea agreement. “Particularly, the Government has found no evidence that your client illegally removed House data from the House network or from House Members’ offices, stole the House Democratic Caucus Server, stole or destroyed House information technology equipment, or improperly accessed or transferred government information, including classified or sensitive information.”Despite that, Rosiak kept up his criticisms of the Awan family after the Justice Department statement, according to the complaint, claiming the Awans were involved in blackmail and receiving money from Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah. Rosiak and Regnery published a book in early 2019 about Awan, Obstruction of Justice: How the Deep State Risked National Security to Protect the Democrats, that quickly rose up the Amazon book sales ranks and earned blurbs from Carlson and fellow Fox News host Sean Hannity. “People who were not public figures—who were just doing their jobs and living quiet lives—were targeted because of their race and their religion and thrust into the spotlight with a series of conspiracy theories and attacks,” Gupta told The Daily Beast on Tuesday. “Those claims were amplified on every possible mass communications platform.”The Awans’ lawsuit alleges that Rosiak’s book is “riddled with outrageous, false, and defamatory attacks against the Awans,” including claims that he “hacked the House,” solicited a cash bribe, and stole hundreds of thousands of dollars in government equipment. Awans’ attorneys say Rosiak even claimed that Awan boasted about having his enemies tortured in Pakistan.“Imran Awan is basically an attempted murderer, an extortionist, a blackmail artist, a con man,” Rosiak said in a July 2019 interview with right-wing newspaper The Epoch Times. In an appearance on Lou Dobbs’s Fox Business show, Rosiak allegedly implied that the Awans had stolen “millions” from the U.S. government.“These guys are out free, probably running around in Pakistan with the millions of dollars that they funneled from Congress over to Pakistan,” Rosiak said, according to the lawsuit. Gupta said the Awans now just want to “clear their names” and “move on.” “They’re looking for an end to this campaign of lies against them,” he said. “It’s very important that nothing like this be allowed to happen to other people like them.”The Awans’ lawsuit marks the latest complaint filed by the targets of right-wing conspiracy theories. Their legal team includes two Texas lawyers who have sued conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his InfoWars website on behalf of families whose children were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting.Rosiak, The Daily Caller, and Regnery did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Beast on Tuesday.Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that Hina and Imran’s marriage was not “ended” by the conflict described in the lawsuit, as Gupta first stated erroneously.

Enlarge this image White House counsel Pat Cipollone typically works behind the scenes. That's about to change when he takes a central role in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial. Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Drew Angerer/Getty Images White House counsel Pat Cipollone typically works behind the scenes. That's about to change when he takes a central role in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial. Drew Angerer/Getty Images President Trump has often surrounded himself with lawyers whom he sees as being good on television. But Pat Cipollone, the attorney who will play a leading role in Trump's Senate impeachment trial defense, is better known for working behind the scenes.Even as an architect of the White House's fight against impeachment, Cipollone has performed his most prominent work from behind his desk, writing strongly worded letters rebuffing congressional subpoenas and instructing other White House aides not to cooperate.Trump has lauded him as "the strong, silent type." But that silence is expected to end with the Senate impeachment trial. Jay Sekulow, another one of Trump's attorneys in what he said would likely be a "multifaceted" legal team, said Cipollone is ready for the spotlight."He's a really great lawyer, but he also understands the political side of this — and especially an impeachment proceeding," Sekulow said in an interview. "You have dual issues: the legal issues and the political issues. And it's not every lawyer that gets both. And Pat clearly does." Trump Impeachment Inquiry The son of Italian immigrants, Cipollone grew up in the Bronx. He went to Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky and worked part time at a McDonald's.He was valedictorian of his college class at Fordham University and then went to law school in Chicago on a full scholarship.Melanie Sloan, a friend and law school classmate, said the University of Chicago was where Cipollone became immersed in conservative legal thought."My friends tended to be in the Progressive Law Students Association and were on the liberal side of the spectrum, and Pat and the crowd he hung out with were on the more conservative side of the spectrum, including people who are often now shortlisted for the Supreme Court in the Trump administration," said Sloan.Sloan, who is now senior adviser to the liberal watchdog group American Oversight, told NPR she thinks "incredibly highly" of Cipollone. "He is a very warm, friendly person who would go out of his way for anybody, and I have the highest regard for him, despite how strongly I disagree with the positions the White House is taking on impeachment."Other former classmates have a different view. Nearly two dozen signed a letter stating that his position on impeachment "distorts the law and the Constitution.""We are sorry to see how your letter to the congressional leadership flouts the traditions of rigor and intellectual honesty that we learned together," wrote the members of the class of 1991 at the University of Chicago Law School. Politics Trump Administration Says It Won't Comply With Impeachment Inquiry Cipollone was managing editor for the law review. He worked closely with Eugene Scalia, son of conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia. Eugene Scalia is now Trump's labor secretary.Other friends of Cipollone went on to become prominent judges and have been touted as future candidates for the Supreme Court, including Allison Eid and Thomas Lee, who is the brother of Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. Cipollone clerked for federal Judge Danny Boggs, known for giving new hires a famously difficult trivia exam. "Pat is a very smart, very competent lawyer and a great guy," Boggs told NPR.Boggs' 64-question test for Cipollone included questions like "How many chromosome pairs are there in a human genome?" and "Give the number and popular name of any Beethoven symphony.""That is in and of itself a badge of distinction among lawyers," said Mike Lee. "It's well known that you can't clerk for — you can't even interview for — Judge Boggs without passing with a pretty high score." Lee told NPR that Cipollone's wide-ranging base of knowledge has served him well in his job as White House counsel.His Catholic faith is another big influence in Cipollone's life and career."One of the many things I like about Pat is this: Faith is a big deal to him," said Bill Nettles, a former U.S. attorney for South Carolina in the Obama administration, who has worked with Cipollone."But I live in a part of the world where people routinely wear it on their sleeve. And Pat is not like that. ... He doesn't use it as a vehicle to judge other people," Nettles told NPR. Enlarge this image White House counsel Pat Cipollone (center) stands with acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (left) and spokesman Hogan Gidley at an event this year. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Alex Wong/Getty Images White House counsel Pat Cipollone (center) stands with acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (left) and spokesman Hogan Gidley at an event this year. Alex Wong/Getty Images Cipollone, 53, has 10 children. He is among a group of elite conservative Catholics who serve as close confidants to Trump — including Attorney General William Barr and Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, who has helped Trump pick judges, including for the Supreme Court.Cipollone, Barr and Leo have served on the board of directors of the Catholic Information Center, an organization for powerful Washington Catholics. The center is affiliated with the conservative Opus Dei movement.John Allen, a veteran Vatican reporter and author of the book Opus Dei: An Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church, called the Catholic Information Center a premier place for conservative Catholic movers and shakers in D.C."Cipollone is part of this broader sort of spectrum of conservative Catholic thought and activism that, in some way, is dedicated to the idea of trying to translate the kind of conservative reading of the Catholic Church's social agenda," Allen said in an interview.The White House declined to make Cipollone available for an interview. Politics As Investigations Ramp Up, Trump Has Expanded White House Counsel's Office Before joining the administration, Cipollone was a partner at two prestigious law firms with a wide range of clients.One very high-profile case was when his firm represented the woman known as "Jackie" who was featured in a 2014 article in Rolling Stone magazine. The article, about a gang rape at the University of Virginia, was later retracted and became the subject of lawsuits. But even then, Cipollone worked behind the scenes helping supervise the lawyers at his firm leading Jackie's defense.Cipollone also worked a stint in the public sector. Early in his career, he joined the Justice Department working for Attorney General William Barr during George H.W. Bush's administration. Enlarge this image Cipollone watches a White House event from the sidelines. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Cipollone watches a White House event from the sidelines. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Like Barr, Cipollone has argued that the president wields broad executive powers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has described Cipollone's arguments as outrageous."That letter that came from the White House was a joke, beneath the dignity of the presidency of the United States, in defiance of our Constitution. Shame on them," Pelosi said this year.Critics say Cipollone is twisting the law to serve the president's benefit. Kimberly Wehle was formerly an assistant U.S. attorney and associate independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation led by special prosecutor Ken Starr. She said impeachment can't be unconstitutional when several provisions in the Constitution say otherwise."He's serving the president at the expense of the Constitution, at the expense of his true client, the American people, because he's operating to create a mega-presidency that has more power than the other two branches," she said. "And that's dangerous."Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and an informal adviser to Trump, pushed back against that criticism and said Cipollone has been a stabilizing force in Trump's White House."You're in a fight over executive power," said Gingrich, who has also worked with Cipollone. "And I think in that sense that the Trump administration, across the board, sees itself as an active force for transformation."Greta Pittenger, Will Chase, Barclay Walsh and Sarah Knight contributed to this report.

A group of Democratic senators on Wednesday urged antitrust regulators to monitor Uber's potential acquisition of GrubHub and to launch an investigation if any deal goes through.Multiple outlets reported last week that Uber, which operates Uber Eats, is in discussion to acquire GrubHub in a deal that would consolidate two of the biggest players in the meal delivery business."A merger of Uber Eats and Grubhub would combine two of the three largest food delivery application providers and raise serious competition issues in many markets around the country," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joseph Simons.Sens. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharBattle lines drawn on precedent in Supreme Court fight Sunday shows - Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death dominates Klobuchar: GOP can't use 'raw political power right in middle of an election' MORE (D-Minn.), the ranking member of the Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust issues, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.) and Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerBipartisan praise pours in after Ginsburg's death DHS opens probe into allegations at Georgia ICE facility Democratic lawmakers call for an investigation into allegations of medical neglect at Georgia ICE facility MORE (D-N.J.) called on the regulators to launch an investigation if a deal is met "to ensure that competition is preserved."The letter cites work from research firm Second Firm reviewing the food delivery market in April.The analysis found DoorDash as the national food delivery leader, earning 45 percent of meal delivery sales last month.GrubHub, at 23 percent, and Uber Eats, at 22 percent, were not far behind."The merger under negotiation would create a sector in which the top two players control 90 percent of sales," the lawmakers wrote."At the local level, the competitive effects of the merger would be felt most intensely. For example, a combined Uber Eats/Grubhub would control 51 percent of the market in Atlanta, 68 percent in Boston, 60 percent in Chicago, 65 percent in Miami, and 79 percent in New York City."Food delivery has soared in popularity as the coronavirus pandemic keeps many Americans home.While Uber saw a record $2.9 billion in losses in the first quarter of 2020, its food delivery business showed significant growth.Eliminating a direct competitor could boost that business further and spell trouble for other firms.The lawmakers warned that a potential merger would "likely threaten competition and consumer welfare.""That could mean higher fees, reduced services quality, fewer choices, and less innovation for consumers and the restaurants that serve them," they wrote.

But the program’s relationship with the CCP, while offering non-Chinese participants a rare inside look at the future elite of a one-party state, highlights a growing moral hazard confronting Western universities: As Xi Jinping’s China descends deeper into repression, curtailing personal as well as academic freedoms, at what point do the restrictions placed on American, British, and other institutions seeking to establish campuses and joint programs in China—a lucrative market and crucial subject of study—become too much to bear?Dozens of Sino-foreign institutes and hundreds of joint educational programs exist in China. Among them, the Schwarzman Scholars program is particularly vulnerable to pressure from the CCP. That’s because, unlike other U.S.-China education initiatives, it has no American academic institution as a partner. Its primary institutional tie to the United States is the private education foundation of Stephen Schwarzman, a billionaire with extensive business dealings in China. In 2007, a year before his private-equity firm, Blackstone, opened an office in Beijing, Schwarzman’s firm announced that China Investment Corporation, China’s state-investment vehicle, would acquire a $3 billion stake in the company. (China sold the stake in 2018.) Schwarzman Scholars’ institutional home, Tsinghua University, is subject to Chinese laws and owes its continued existence and funding to the Chinese government’s largesse. Though the program is staffed with highly respected individuals, it isn’t affiliated with any Western-based academic institution that could serve as a moral counterweight, or draw a line in the sand, should the situation in China deteriorate.The program has particularly close ties to the United Front, which is key to understanding the CCP’s influence both at home and abroad. The party exercises tight discipline over its 90 million members, and the United Front is responsible for establishing ideological sway over everyone else, including foreigners and Chinese nationals who live overseas. Under Xi, the United Front has undergone a restructuring that has amplified its power and strengthened its clout both inside and outside of China. One of its bureaus focuses specifically on students and professors, and sent a top representative to participate in Schwarzman Scholars’ 2015 admissions seminar. A United Front magazine, Exchange Student, has also featured the Schwarzman program.The program and the United Front share personnel ties too. The United Front views David Daokui Li, who was the Schwarzman Scholars’ founding dean and is now a finance professor at Tsinghua, as an especially reliable ally. Beijing Education, a magazine published by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission, dedicated an entire April 2017 article to praising Li as an “outstanding nonparty representative”—a term used by the United Front for people who are not official members of the CCP but who promote its goals and mission, and who “have the willingness and ability to participate in political affairs.” Li’s résumé is filled with recent United Front affiliations: He has served as a national representative to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a party organization of more than 2,000 delegates that is an important domestic arm of the United Front; has attended numerous conferences hosted by the State Council and the United Front, according to the Beijing Education article; and has “received a high degree of recognition from the Central United Front Work Department and the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.” (Li did not respond to a request for comment.)

closeVideoRove: Pelosi has no constitutional role in the Senate so she's trying to create oneKarl Rove reacts to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi holding impeachment articles from the Senate.Nancy Pelosi wants a fair impeachment trial in the Senate … and Donald Trump is helping her get one.Before the House voted to impeach Trump, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he would work in “total coordination” with the White House on the Senate trial. Immediately after the vote to impeach, Pelosi said she wouldn’t send the articles of impeachment to the Senate until she knew what kind of trial McConnell would conduct.“Let me tell you what I don’t consider a fair trial,” the House speaker explained. “This is what I don’t consider a fair trial — that Leader McConnell has stated that he’s not an impartial juror, that he’s going to take his cues, in quotes, from the White House, and he’s working in 'total coordination' with the White House counsel’s office.”JESSICA TARLOV: IN TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, TOP SENATE REPUBLICANS WILL IGNORE FACTS AND BLINDLY SUPPORT HIMPelosi rightfully wants to know the process McConnell is undertaking so she can determine how many House managers to send to make the case against Trump and whom. Like the master strategist she is, Pelosi wants to send her best lineup to argue for removal against McConnell’s team. That’s the right way to do it and it’s smart politics.But, there’s more to it.A fair trial would have witnesses, testimony, a presentation of the facts, and no predetermined outcome. That is what Pelosi wants in the Senate. By refusing to send the articles of impeachment, Pelosi is negotiating the terms the trial that will be conducted by McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. McConnell doesn’t want any of it. The shorter the trial the more McConnell can control the outcome.But there is one person who wants a high-profile trial with witnesses, testimony and fanfare – Donald Trump.Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to be vindicated. That means a proceeding looking more like the O.J. Simpson trial than what McConnell has planned in the Senate. Trump wants a parade of his witnesses who would clear him of any wrongdoing and attest to his perfect call to the president of Ukraine. He wants to call former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Congressman Adam Schiff, who led the impeachment inquiry, the whistleblower who started it all, and more – all in an attempt to secure vindication while embarrassing Democrats.That is the last thing McConnell wants. He knows a Trump trial would not only be more likely to lead to the president’s removal from office but it would also create a political nightmare for Republican senators, especially the 20 up for re-election, which includes McConnell and Lindsey Graham. The GOP would not only lose control of such a trial, but they would also likely lose the case and then the election in November.By refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Pelosi is denying Trump the vindication he seeks. It puts him in political purgatory.That’s why McConnell so quickly rejected Schumer’s request for four Trump administration witnesses: Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, his adviser Robert Blair, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Michael Duffey of the Office of Management and Budget, all of whom have knowledge regarding the White House’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine.VideoBy refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Pelosi is denying Trump the vindication he seeks. It puts him in political purgatory. That is unacceptable to the president and has made that known publicly and privately. But with a trial in limbo, Trump can’t get what he wants: people fighting to defend him.And that’s where Trump is doing Nancy Pelosi’s work for her. The more Trump wants a real trial the more it helps Pelosi undercut McConnell’s effort to stop it.Trump’s base also wants a trial with witnesses because that’s what the president wants. And the more calls for a trial with witnesses the more the American people want one too. A Morning Consult poll released Friday showed that 54 percent of voters want the Senate to call additional witnesses while only 27 percent said it wasn’t necessary. Half of Independent voters support more witnesses and even Republicans were split on it.McConnell said in an interview that having witnesses would turn the trial into “a kind of mutually assured destruction,” hurting the president and GOP senators in tough re-election fights. But those senators don’t want a sham trial because voters will punish them for it. If those senators seek a fair trial with witnesses, they’ll be listened to. It takes just 51 votes to do it and only three Republican senators are necessary to make it happen.As we head into the holidays, with Trump on vacation for two weeks in Mar-a-Lago, the public pressure will continue to mount for a trial with witnesses and Trump will be leading the charge. The temptation to make his case will be too great to ignore. So, with time on his hands and his Twitter account at his fingertips, Trump will continue to demand a trial with witnesses.And that’s exactly what Nancy Pelosi wants.

Nearly every state attorney general announced this past week that they will investigate Google and Facebook for potential antitrust violations, alleging the Silicon Valley giants have amassed too much power and taken advantage of consumers and competitors along the way.But the probes are on a collision course with antitrust statutes written about a century before the internet existed, raising questions about whether some antitrust laws are malleable enough to take on the powerful digital marketplace.The slew of recently announced investigations into Big Tech at the state and federal levels have put a renewed focus on the country's antitrust statutes and how they've been interpreted in the courts.“At a high level, I think the law is flexible enough to allow for a successful case to be brought against Google and Facebook,” John Newman, a former Justice Department antitrust attorney who’s now an assistant professor of law at the University of Memphis, told The Hill. “That said, there are going to be some hurdles that the law has erected.”At a widely publicized press conference on Monday, 50 attorneys general stood in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., to announce their investigation into Google’s advertising business for potentially anti-competitive conduct. The attorneys general, hailing from a broad range of ideological backgrounds, have offered scathing criticisms of Google’s market power.“My fellow attorneys general and I launched this investigation because Google’s enormous economic power, fueled by advertising, gives it unprecedented influence over Americans’ lives,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Friday. “Information is power, and Americans are beginning to realize how much power Google has over them.”California and Alabama are the only states that did not join the lawsuit.New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) previously announced that a bipartisan coalition of eight attorneys general is investigating Facebook for possible antitrust violations."We will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook’s actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers’ choices, or increased the price of advertising," James said in a statement.The effort by the state attorneys general is the latest headache for the world’s most powerful tech corporations in the past month. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) separately revealed they are investigating Big Tech over antitrust concerns.Google and Facebook have maintained they are not violating antitrust laws and will cooperate with investigators.Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee has launched its own bipartisan probe into competition in the digital marketplace. On Friday, the panel issued extensive document requests to Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook seeking internal documents and communications that could help the committee establish whether the companies intended to quash competition throughout their years of fast-paced growth.Experts warn it can be complicated to apply antitrust laws to companies such as Google and Facebook, which offer their services to consumers for free. Traditional antitrust cases have revolved around evidence that firms are using their dominant market position to raise prices for customers.When it comes to Google and Facebook, the process is more opaque — the companies offer their services for free, but in exchange, they gather reams of data from users to use for their advertising businesses.Maurice Eitel Stucke, a former DOJ prosecutor who’s now a professor of antitrust law at the University of Tennessee, said the attorneys general may have to prove Google’s dominant market position harms privacy protections even if it does not raise prices.He said they could find that “rather than elevating price above competitive levels, [Google] degrades privacy protection below competitive levels.”Antitrust cases often require the plaintiffs to prove consumers have been harmed in a tangible way, a high bar for companies such as Google and Facebook, where harms can include intangibles such as privacy violations or excessive surveillance.“You would have to show ... that their practices cause people to have to surrender more of their data than they would in a competitive market or look at more advertisements than they would in a competitive market,” Newman said.The lawmaker heading the House Judiciary Committee probe into digital markets, Rep. David CicillineDavid Nicola CicillineClark rolls out endorsements in assistant Speaker race Races heat up for House leadership posts The folly of Cicilline's 'Glass-Steagall for Tech' MORE (D-R.I.), has made clear that the investigation could result in legislative proposals to modernize antitrust laws in order to overcome some of those obstacles.“One of the things we’re looking at during the investigation is whether or not we need to update our modernize our statutes because … those statutes were written 100 years ago in response to the railroad and oil monopolies,” Cicilline told reporters on Capitol Hill this past week. “It’s a very different economy today.”There is more appetite for changing antitrust laws in the Democratic-controlled House than in the GOP-led Senate. The biggest tech critics on Capitol Hill are split over whether it’s necessary to change antitrust law to take on Silicon Valley or if the key is to push the federal agencies and states to aggressively interpret the law.“Existing laws have been shown to work with Big Tech,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a former state attorney general who helped bring a landmark antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s, told reporters this past week.Sen. Brian SchatzBrian Emanuel SchatzCDC causes new storm by pulling coronavirus guidance Overnight Health Care: CDC pulls revised guidance on coronavirus | Government watchdog finds supply shortages are harming US response | As virus pummels US, Europe sees its own spike Video of Lindsey Graham arguing against nominating a Supreme Court justice in an election year goes viral MORE (D-Hawaii) said he is “open to” changing antitrust law, which mainly revolves around the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Sherman Act of 1890.“I think we need a more modern interpretation of existing law,” he told The Hill, noting the courts and DOJ could choose to pursue a “more vigorous enforcement of antitrust law.”Over the past 40 years, federal courts have shifted away from a stringent enforcement of antitrust law, functioning largely under a theory of the law that assumes "big is not necessarily bad." Several Supreme Court decisions have made it more difficult to bring antitrust cases, which advocates have argued puts the onus on Congress to take action.“There have been a number of precedents in antitrust law in the past 40 years that I think are making it a lot harder to bring cases that the agencies and state AGs and private plaintiffs even should have an easier time of bringing,” Charlotte Slaiman, an antitrust attorney with the advocacy group Public Knowledge, told The Hill.There is little movement to change antitrust laws in the Senate, but there is widespread support for the probes by state attorneys general.Sen. Mark WarnerMark Robert WarnerIntelligence chief says Congress will get some in-person election security briefings Overnight Defense: Trump hosts Israel, UAE, Bahrain for historic signing l Air Force reveals it secretly built and flew new fighter jet l Coronavirus creates delay in Pentagon research for alternative to 'forever chemicals' House approves bill to secure internet-connected federal devices against cyber threats MORE (Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told The Hill he spent time over August recess meeting with experts about whether antitrust law is sufficient to take on the country’s most powerful tech companies.“I walked away with the sense that actually the power is there in the law, but you have to have a theory of antitrust that goes beyond lowest price only,” Warner said. “Part of the thing with the Facebooks and Googles of the world — the premise that they’re free services — there’s nothing free about their services. They are giant sucking sounds of information and data being taken from all of us that’s in a sense traded for their ability to market that to advertisers.”“So I do think there is appropriate teeth in the law,” he said.In the House, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a member of the Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, said he’s been having conversations with the state attorneys general involved in the Google and Facebook antitrust probes and has faith they have the proper tools at their disposal. “In my discussions with state attorneys general — and I’ve had many since that announcement — they are confident that our existing antitrust laws are being violated by many of these technology platforms,” Gaetz said.He added that he recently met with Attorney General William Barr to discuss the DOJ's Big Tech probe, which he described as a serious endeavor. The DOJ and FTC will mainly use federal antitrust statutes during their investigations. But the states have more options. The coalition of attorneys general will use state antitrust laws, which mainly track with federal statutes, as well as laws around deceptive or unfair trade practices.“You can see the states have even more tools in their toolbox,” Stucke said, predicting the states could argue “the data-opolies were being deceptive in how they collected their data.”So far, the DOJ, FTC, House and state attorneys general investigations are moving on separate tracks. But regulators, states and lawmakers will likely work more closely together as the probes move forward.Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who launched the country’s first investigation into Google during his time as Missouri’s attorney general, called the multistate probe “tremendous.”“It shows [the concern about tech] is bipartisan — it sweeps across the country — and that these law enforcement leaders understand that there are real consumer welfare issues at stake here,” Hawley said. “And I hope it will be a wake-up call to the people in this building to do something on tech.”

Judge Ellis, who did not issue a ruling, acknowledged that prosecutors often hope to turn defendants into witnesses who can give evidence against more important targets. “The vernacular is ‘to sing,’” he said, or “tighten the screws.” He added, “I’m not saying it’s illegitimate.”But he questioned why the special counsel’s team had pursued the charges against Mr. Manafort when it had referred allegations about the president’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, to federal prosecutors in Manhattan.“Why in New York did you feel it wasn’t necessary to keep that, but it is necessary to keep this?” he asked. “I don’t see the difference.”He mused at one point about whether the United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia might handle the prosecution instead of Mr. Mueller’s team. He also asked whether the special counsel’s office had already run through its $10 million budget — a question that Mr. Dreeben said he could not answer.The judge ordered prosecutors to give him a complete copy of an August memo in which Mr. Rosenstein outlined the authority of the special counsel. Mr. Rosenstein has specifically authorized Mr. Mueller to investigate allegations that Mr. Manafort, who lobbied for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine, committed crimes involving payments from the Ukrainian government, according to the brief part of the memo that was made public when it was filed in court. Most of it was blacked out.House Republicans allied with Mr. Trump have also sought a full version of the memo, the latest salvo in a tug of war with Mr. Rosenstein over records related to some of the Justice Department’s most politically charged investigations. The department has declined to hand over the document, citing a policy against sharing information on a continuing investigation.The bank and tax fraud charges that Mr. Manafort faces in Virginia are rooted in the Ukrainian line of inquiry, as is a second indictment in the District of Columbia that accuses him of money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent and making false statements to investigators. Mr. Manafort’s lawyers are seeking to dismiss those charges on the same basis.

Former FBI director James Comey has reached a deal to testify privately to the House judiciary committee, his attorney said on Sunday.Comey, whose lawyers went to court to challenge a congressional subpoena, said in a tweet that it was “hard to protect my rights without being in contempt”.He added: “Republicans agree I’m free to talk when done and transcript released in 24 hours. This is the closest I can get to public testimony.”On Friday, Comey’s lawyers told a federal judge the interview should be done in a public setting because they feared statements would be selectively leaked as part of Republican efforts to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference and links between aides to Donald Trump and Moscow.A lawyer for Congress argued that committees can conduct investigations however they please and Comey had no right to refuse a subpoena or demand a public hearing.Comey is expected to be questioned about decisions made by the FBI in 2016, including a call not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server and the FBI’s investigation into potential coordination between Russia and Trump’s campaign. Trump fired Comey in May 2017.The interview is scheduled for Friday and Comey will be “free to make any or all of that transcript public as he is free to share with the public any of the questions asked and testimony given during the interview”, said his attorney, David Kelley.Because of the deal, Comey has agreed to withdraw his challenge to the subpoena. A judge had been set to rule on the matter on Monday. No federal district court has ever granted a request to quash a subpoena and suspend congressional proceedings. Topics Trump-Russia investigation Trump administration Donald Trump James Comey Robert Mueller US politics FBI news

He began his campaign last Feb. 1, the first day of Black History Month, with a clarion call for unity in a deeply polarized time. He was unrelenting in his optimism and his push for love and healing, a message he stubbornly pushed throughout the primary even as it consistently fell flat with voters energized by a fervent dislike of President Trump. And despite introducing notable policies on gun control, criminal justice reform and the racial wealth gap, his candidacy lacked a defining issue or position on the ideological spectrum in a contest defined more by the divide between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party. But his campaign also suffered from factors beyond its control. In a historically diverse field, Mr. Booker struggled for attention amid the excitement of new candidates like Senator Kamala Harris of California, who allowed voters to imagine a black woman as president, or Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., whose campaign as an openly gay man is also historic. Aspects of Mr. Booker’s political life that were advantages for decades suddenly became less so. His broad fund-raising base of Wall Street bankers, pharmaceutical executives and Silicon Valley billionaires had become pariahs to many Democrats, who viewed the influence of big donors as corrosive. Rivals like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders moved exclusively to small dollar fund-raising and sought to make that a litmus test for the Democratic field. The decision to drop out of the race came over the weekend, aides said, with Mr. Booker huddling with top staff members as he wrestled with the decision. On Sunday, he told his wider staff. The decision to drop out largely came down to finances. Despite years of relationships in the finance world of New York and the high-tech corridors of California, Mr. Booker struggled to raise money throughout 2019. All told, he collected about $22.1 million — less than Mr. Sanders, former vice president Joseph R. Biden Jr. or Mr. Buttigieg raised just in the fourth quarter.Money was so tight that Mr. Booker had scheduled fund-raisers in the final two-week sprint of his campaign in California and New Jersey — far from the crucial battlegrounds of Iowa and New Hampshire.

A Texas school district is coming under fire for suspending a black prospective graduate over his refusal to cut his hair.Deandre Arnold, a senior, is being barred from walking across his graduation stage in May unless he cuts his dreadlocks.Arnold points to his Caribbean heritage in defending his hairstyle. In Trinidad, where his father is from, men often wear long dreadlocks in professional and educational settings.“I really like that part of Trinidadian culture,” he told local KPRC.A public meeting on the issue, notably on the Martin Luther King Jr Day holiday earlier this week, sparked a storm of criticism and accusations of racism.“The dress code is designed by white people for white people and is damaging to black bodies,” Ashton Woods, a Black Lives Matter activist, said in the meeting.“This is a black and white issue,” added Gary Monroe, a local educator and activist. He added: “His family should not have to go through this. But I expect it from a board that has zero diversity.”Monroe added the alumni association will take Arnold’s fight to federal court if the school district fails to resolve the issue.The Barbers Hill independent school district school board in Mont Belvieu, Texas, is denying accusations of racial bias, telling KHOU that its dress code policy does not prohibit “any cornrow or any other method of wearing hair” but rather regulates length for males.“It’s been that way for 30 years,” said superintendent Greg Poole. Critics, however, argue the policy actually changed shortly after Christmas break – just three months before Arnold’s graduation.Arnold is receiving support from dreadlocked celebrities, including his namesake, Houston Texans star DeAndre Hopkins.Never cut your locks Deandre Arnold.— Deandre Hopkins (@DeAndreHopkins) January 22, 2020 Federal regulations on black hairstyles are inconsistent. While a federal court ruled in 2016 that employers can legally fire employees or deny applicants for wearing dreadlocks, a ban on them was lifted in all branches of the US military after a four-year legal battle.Several states have weighed legislation banning hair discrimination in the workforce and classroom. Known as the Crown Act, it protects against discrimination based on hairstyles by extending statutory protection to hair texture and protective styles.The Crown Act has passed in three states including California and New Jersey. Thirteen additional states are considering similar legislation.

Enlarge this image The mother of the victim of the fatal 2012 gang rape said the "execution of the four convicts will empower the women of the country," on Tuesday in Delhi. AP hide caption toggle caption AP The mother of the victim of the fatal 2012 gang rape said the "execution of the four convicts will empower the women of the country," on Tuesday in Delhi. AP A court in India has issued a death warrant for four men convicted in the fatal 2012 gang rape of a college student on a New Delhi bus, a crime that sparked huge demonstrations and a nationwide reckoning over sexual violence in India.The men are scheduled to be executed by hanging at 7 a.m. on Jan. 22, the court in New Delhi announced Tuesday. India's president can still stay their execution, but he is not expected to intervene.Last month, the Indian Supreme Court rejected a final appeal by one of the men convicted of rape and murder in the attack on a 23-year-old physiotherapy student, who cannot be named under Indian law. She has become known across India as "Nirbhaya," or "The Fearless One."Prosecutors say she boarded a private bus with a male friend after seeing a film at a movie theater. Inside the vehicle, a group of men beat the man with a metal bar, raped the woman and used the bar to inflict massive internal bleeding to her. The two were abandoned on the side of the road. About two weeks later, the woman died of her injuries.Amid outrage over her death, protests erupted across India, and the country is still grappling with how to confront what activists call a national epidemic of sexual violence against women. The "Nirbhaya" case prompted the Indian government to increase prison time for convicted rapists, and fast-track their trials.But last month, new and similarly horrific rape cases grabbed headlines and once again sparked nationwide protests.In the southern Indian city of Hyderabad, police say a group of men deflated a 27-year-old woman's tires, posed as good Samaritans to trick her — and then gang-raped and killed her. Authorities discovered her burnt body in a wooded area the next day. The suspects were arrested, but before they could be charged, police shot them dead in what many suspect was an extrajudicial killing, fueled by national anger.Meanwhile, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, a 23-year-old woman on her way to testify at court against her alleged rapist was set on fire by a gang of men, allegedly including her man she had accused. She also died of her injuries.The brutality of these cases has renewed attention on the 2012 "Nirbhaya" case.Indian media coverage of rape tends to focus on sensational details of cases in which victims are urban, educated professionals who get attacked by strangers. But experts say those cases are very rare. Most sexual assaults in the country are believed to happen within families. Most victims are thought to be poor, lower-caste women who know their attackers.In 2017, the most recent year for which data was available, there were nearly 33,000 cases of rape reported in India, according to national crime statistics. That's a quarter of the number of rapes reported in the United States that year, which has a quarter of India's population.Most rape is believed to go unreported in India. According to the National Family Health Survey, 80 percent of women who experience sexual violence never tell anyone about it.Executions are legal in India but rare. The last time the country used capital punishment in a rape and murder case was 15 years ago. The country has carried out three executions since then, in terrorism cases. The last execution in the country happened in 2015.The mother of the "Nirbhaya" victim told reporters outside the Delhi court Tuesday that it is the appropriate punishment for the four men convicted in her daughter's death."My daughter has got justice," said the mother. "Execution of the four convicts will empower the women of the country. This decision will strengthen the trust of people in the judicial system."The four men scheduled to be executed later this month were convicted and sentenced back in 2013 and have been detained since then. A fifth man convicted in connection with the killing died in prison. A sixth man, who was a minor at the time of the attack, was sentenced to the maximum penalty of three years in a reform facility.

Enlarge this image Death rates in the U.S. declined and life expectancy showed a slight uptick in 2018, while drug overdose deaths declined for the first time since the 1990s. Andrew Harnik/AP hide caption toggle caption Andrew Harnik/AP Death rates in the U.S. declined and life expectancy showed a slight uptick in 2018, while drug overdose deaths declined for the first time since the 1990s. Andrew Harnik/AP For the first time since 2014, death rates in the U.S. declined and life expectancy showed a modest uptick, according to new data released in two reports Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Life expectancy at birth in 2018 was 78.7 years, 0.1 year longer than the previous year.It may seem like a small increase, but for a population of around 350 million, the shift represents improvements in the lives of many people, says the CDC's Bob Anderson, the chief of the Mortality Statistics Branch at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, who oversaw the new reports."That's a lot of people who ... avoided premature death," he says.The average lifespan of an American had risen for decades, reaching 78.9 years in 2014. But it took a dip in 2015, held steady in 2016 and dipped again in 2017, largely driven by the steep growth in drug overdose and suicide deaths. Loading... Don't see the graphic above? Click here.The recent improvement was driven by decreases in death rates from six of the 10 leading causes of death, including a 2.2% decrease in cancer deaths (part of an ongoing downward trend since the 1990s) and a 2.8% fall in deaths from unintentional injuries, which include drug overdoses.The new numbers show that in 2018, there were 4.1% fewer drug overdose deaths than in 2017, mostly in deaths involving natural and semi-synthetic opioids. That "includes drugs like oxycodone, which are commonly available by prescription," says Anderson. "We [also] saw declines in deaths involving methadone and even ... heroin."This is good news, says Dr. Daniel Ciccarone, a professor of medicine and an addiction researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. "It's really the first positive change that we've seen in a 20-year-long trend of drug overdose deaths."As the new report shows, drug overdose deaths had risen every year since 1999, until 2018. Loading... Don't see the graphic above? Click here."I think these numbers suggest that some positive news is starting to come out of the many efforts to try to stem the tide on overdoses," says Kathryn McHugh, a psychologist at McLean Psychiatric Hospital and Harvard University.Those efforts include improving access to treatment for opioid use disorder and access to overdose rescue, she notes.But the new data "need to be interpreted with the utmost caution," she says. "I don't think we can interpret this as a win based on one year."After all, more than 67,000 people still died from drug overdoses in 2018, says McHugh. That's "still a tremendously high number of fatalities."Besides, she adds, the decrease in deaths from opioids wasn't uniform around the country. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia showed a decrease, whereas five states — California, Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey and South Carolina — saw an increase, and the other states didn't change significantly."This has been an issue that has varied regionally from the very beginning," says McHugh.Also, the improvement in drug overdose deaths "could be a one-year pause in a continuing trend," says Ciccarone.Troubling new addiction trends emergeHe also points to more sobering data in the new report — the continuing increase in deaths from other drugs, especially synthetic opioids like fentanyl, but also stimulants like cocaine and methamphetamine.The rate of deaths involving synthetic opioids (except methadone) increased by 10% between 2017 and 2018, according to the new report. The rate of overdose deaths involving cocaine increased by an average of 27% per year from 2012 to 2018. The rate of deaths involving stimulants like methamphetamine also increased on average by 30% annually during that time period."It's worth noting that in many instances those stimulants are combined with opioids," notes Anderson. "So it's fairly common to see fentanyl and methamphetamine, for example, or fentanyl and cocaine mixed together."The use of a combination of drugs has increased over time, he says. "We seem to have sort of traded one set of drugs for another."Ciccarone calls this disturbing trend the "fourth wave of the opioid crisis," following a first wave fueled by prescription pills, a second wave from heroin and third, starting in 2014 from synthetics like fentanyl.The drug combinations makes addiction a harder problem to tackle, he says. "The crisis deepens because of the poly-drug phenomenon."McHugh agrees. "If we ignore that part of the crisis, we are going to see these numbers probably move in a bad direction," she says.Tackling this will need a serious look at prevention efforts."We have to move away from this understanding that we're just going to treat it as a supply-side phenomena," Ciccarone says. "As 'let's stop the opioid pills, let's stop the excess prescribing.' "Instead, we also have to address what's driving the demand for these drugs in communities, he says."There's a large amount of social, economic, spiritual despair in this country," says Ciccarone. "And because we've underappreciated that phenomena, we've under-appreciated that there's a demand side to problematic drug consumption."Addressing that despair, he says, will be key to preventing more people from turning to drugs in the first place.Suicide rates still rise, but slowerAmong other leading causes of death, the new data also showed a 1.4% rise in suicide deaths rates between 2017 to 2018. "It's sadly consistent with previous years," says Jerry Reed, a suicide prevention expert and the senior vice president for practice leadership at Education Development Center, a non-proft organization. "We've seen a gradual incline in suicide deaths from about 2000 until the present."But he also sees a glimmer of hope in the new numbers — the rate of increase of suicide deaths had slowed down. It was "markedly lower than the 4.4 % increase we saw from 2016 to 2017," he says.He says the change likely reflects the cumulative effects of years of suicide prevention efforts. That includes having a national strategy for suicide prevention, a national suicide hotline for people in suicidal crisis, training health workers in hospitals and clinics in suicide prevention, and funding for prevention efforts and mental health care access for youth. If you or someone you know may be considering suicide, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (En Español: 1-888-628-9454; Deaf and Hard of Hearing: 1-800-799-4889) or the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741. "We [now] have an awareness in our nation that suicides are preventable, not inevitable public health problem," says Reed. "And I think we're beginning to see the fruits of our labor. Now, it's that that moment when we need to keep the light on and keep the investments coming so that people who struggle don't have to do so in silence."Overall, the new CDC data suggest that "we certainly can't take our foot off the gas," says McHugh. "If anything, we should be pushing harder on the public health [front] and try to continue to make progress."

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has often seemed much in the mold of President Trump — gleefully shattering political norms, challenging the legitimacy of democratic institutions, accusing those who disagree with him of betraying the country.On Friday, however, as final ballot-counting sealed an overwhelming victory for Johnson’s Conservative Party after a scorched-earth election centered on Britain’s planned exit from the European Union, his message appeared quite different: “Let the healing begin.”Johnson’s conciliatory words, in a nationally televised address delivered in front of the iconic dark-brick facade of 10 Downing Street, were aimed, he said, at those who voted against him, or who voted for him while figuratively holding their noses, or were gripped with despair over his intention to carry out Brexit by Jan. 31, a scant seven weeks away.“This country deserves a break from wrangling, a break from politics, and a permanent break from talking about Brexit,” he said. Pugnacious on the campaign trail, the prime minister spoke soothingly of “closure.” People scuffle with police during an anti-Boris Johnson demonstration, at Trafalgar Square in central London, Friday Dec. 13, 2019. (Kirsty Wigglesworth/Associated Press) For more than three years, the battle of Brexit has torn at the fabric of British society, turning neighbors and family members against one another, toppling two prime ministers, throwing business dealings small and large into expensive uncertainty, pitting the native-born against immigrants. Now, fully empowered to push through his departure plan, the prime minister talked like a Europhile, praising “Remainers” for their “good and positive feelings of warmth and sympathy towards the nations of Europe.”Relations between Britain and the EU, he said, should be those of “friends and sovereign equals.”But after so raw and divisive a campaign, that may be a highly aspirational sentiment. Some observers likened Johnson to the dog who finally caught the car he was chasing — a politician who, having achieved a five-year term and a commanding parliamentary majority, suddenly realizes he is expected to deliver on a daunting agenda. “The test will not be what he says in the days after the election but what he does in the next five years,” said Matt Cole, a political historian at the University of Birmingham.It’s not even clear that the prime minister will be able to hold the United Kingdom together, with Brexit opening deep fissures in Scotland and Northern Ireland. And despite implied finality of Johnson’s much-repeated campaign slogan — “Get Brexit done!” — the planned departure date will in fact trigger months or years of complex negotiations with the EU. Brexit may also cause the country significant economic harm, experts have said, and already many EU nationals are making the difficult decision to pack up and leave, sometimes after years or decades in Britain. The prime minister has promised to negotiate a comprehensive new accord with the bloc before the end of 2020. But the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, warned Friday that 11 months was an “extremely short” window for such a monumental task. Many critics, both at home and on the EU side, doubt it can be done, again raising the specter of a disorderly split.“It’s not only about trade,” Von der Leyen told a news conference in Brussels. “We are also speaking about education, transport, fisheries — many, many other fields are in the portfolio to be negotiated.” European leaders who had once hoped to keep Britain in the EU fold expressed relief that the vote had provided some long-sought clarity about the intentions of the British government. That view was echoed by investors, with stocks and the British pound buoyed by the welcome prospect of greater economic certainty.With the vote-counting virtually complete, Johnson’s Conservative Party secured its biggest vote share in more than 30 years, winning 365 seats, while the main opposition Labor’s allotment in the 650-member House of Commons plunged to the lowest level since 1935, 203 seats. Despite the carefully statesmanlike tone he struck in his address, Johnson reveled in the party’s victory. He’d had cause for concern: In the days before the vote, some polls suggested that Labor was closing the overall gap. He even appeared to have a last-minute scare that he might lose his own parliamentary seat, though in the end he prevailed.“We did it — we pulled it off, didn’t we?” he crowed to a crowd of supporters Friday. The result, he said, showed that leaving the EU was the “irrefutable, irresistible, unarguable decision” of the voters.Trump, who has has consistently cheered Britain’s planned break with the EU, discomfiting European allies such as Germany and France, celebrated Johnson’s win. But the prime minister will have to strike a delicate balance in dealing with the mercurial U.S. president, who tends to view alliances in transactional terms. Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday he expects Brexit to pay commercial dividends for the United States, in the form of “a tremendous amount of trade.”For Johnson, the coming year will likely be dominated by an effort to maintain close trade ties with European partners. But cultivating those ties would mean greater adherence to EU regulations, which helped spur the campaign to leave in the first place.In talks to date, the EU has demonstrated an impressive degree of bloc solidarity — insisting, for example, that it will not allow Britain to undercut worker protections or food standards, or to impose a “hard” land border, with customs checks, on the island of Ireland in defiance of peace accords.Johnson’s vanquished opponent, Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn, resisted calls to step down immediately after the party’s crushing defeat, saying a “process of reflection” was in order. Many within the Labor ranks blamed the election debacle on the party’s muddled message on Brexit, combined with the 70-year-old party leader’s personal unpopularity and a hard-left social agenda.“I’m very sad for many people in this country,” a wan-looking Corbyn told the BBC.On Friday morning, Johnson paid a visit to Buckingham Palace to secure the queen’s consent for forming a government. Greeted by sustained cheers from colleagues upon his return to Downing Street, he and his backers swiftly rebranded his new administration “the people’s government.”Even as he touted unity, Johnson faced an immediate challenge from the Scottish National Party. The nationalist party’s strong showing in Scotland was described by its leader, Nicola Sturgeon, as an unambiguous rebuke of the prime minister and his Brexit plans.“Scotland has rejected Boris Johnson,” said Sturgeon, who has pledged to seek an independence referendum, a rerun of a failed 2014 effort to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. Johnson has flatly ruled out another independence vote, setting the stage for confrontation.Disunity among the nations making up the United Kingdom “is going to be the next big thing,” said Michael Gordon, a constitutional law professor at Liverpool University. “The next big constitutional dispute looks set to be a really serious one over Scottish independence,” he said.Britain has been locked in discord since the country narrowly voted in June 2016 to leave the EU, with Parliament repeatedly rejecting plans negotiated by Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May. Johnson faced a string of defeats himself before finally managing in October to secure preliminary approval for a renegotiated withdrawal accord.Lawmakers rejected his timetable and banned him from “crashing out” of the bloc without a deal, so he was forced to seek an extension of the Brexit deadline of Oct. 31, something he had vowed never to do.Next week, after the new Parliament convenes, Johnson is expected to introduce a similar withdrawal measure — this time with its passage assured.Special correspondent Boyle reported from London and staff writer King from Washington.