Congress has invited US President Donald Trump to its first impeachment hearing on 4 December.Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Mr Trump could either attend or "stop complaining about the process".If he does attend, the president would be able to question witnesses.It would mark the next stage in the impeachment inquiry, which centres on a July phone call between Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.In that call, President Trump asked Mr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, currently the front runner to be the Democratic candidate in next year's presidential election, and his son Hunter Biden, who had previously worked for Ukrainian energy company Burisma.The probe is looking into whether Mr Trump used the threat of withholding US military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens. The president has denied any wrongdoing and has called the inquiry a "witch hunt".Last week, the House Intelligence Committee wrapped up two weeks of public hearings, which followed several weeks of closed-door witness interviews.Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said the committees leading the probe - Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs - are now working on their report, which will be issued on 3 December.On Tuesday, the latest transcript of inquiry evidence was released, detailing testimony by senior budget official Mark Sandy.Mr Sandy told the House investigators that two White House budget officials had resigned following the withholding of military aid to Ukraine. He said that one, a lawyer, had expressed concern that the action could be a violation of a 1974 budget law.Mr Nadler said in a statement that he had written to Mr Trump inviting him to the hearing next month."At base, the president has a choice to make," Mr Nadler said. "He can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process."I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other presidents have done before him."In his letter to the president, Mr Nadler said the hearing would be an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis for impeachment."We will also discuss whether your alleged actions warrant the House's exercising its authority to adopt articles of impeachment," he added.He has given Mr Trump until 18:00 EST (23:00 GMT) on 1 December to confirm whether or not he will be at the hearing, and if so, to let the committee know who his counsel will be.The Judiciary Committee is expected to begin drafting articles of impeachment - which are the charges of wrongdoing against the president - in early December.After a vote in the Democratic-controlled House, a trial would be held in the Republican-run Senate.If Mr Trump was convicted by a two-thirds majority - an outcome deemed highly unlikely - he would become the first US president to be removed from office through impeachment.The White House and some Republicans want the trial to be limited to two weeks. Ask a question GO DEEPER: Here's a 100, 300 and 800-word summary of the story WHAT'S IMPEACHMENT? A political process to remove a president VIEW FROM TRUMP COUNTRY: Hear from residents of a West Virginia town ON THE DOORSTEP: A Democrat sells impeachment to voters

Yet of the 13 candidates there, just one mentioned impeachment: Tom Steyer, the billionaire activist whose political group and TV ads over the past two years have helped mainstream the idea of removing the president. Steyer argues that his long record of being outspoken in favor of impeachment is a key part of why people should support his candidacy, yet his mention of impeachment Friday night got a warm but not overwhelming response. For the rest, despite all their Trump bashing that the crowd ate up—starting with Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price’s introduction with “Let’s beat Donald Trump and send his ass back to Russia!”—impeachment was absent.Was that the right call? I asked Janet Petersen, the leader of the Democrats in the state Senate, at the end of the night. “Probably,” she said. Iowans care about impeachment, and are paying attention to the national-security and economic-security issues at stake, “but that doesn’t prevent them from paying attention to things that matter, like paying for preschool.”It’s not that the candidates are going easy on the president. They appear to hate Trump and everything he stands for. The most cynical view is that candidates are making a brute-force political calculation, allowing others to speak up so that they can avoid risk. But Pete Buttigieg claims at least part of what’s going on is that candidates, like everyone else, can’t quite wrap their head around everything happening. “On some level, you could say that the stakes right now, the level of crisis we’re facing, is so great that it’s almost impossible to speak to it through a traditional political process like a campaign,” Buttigieg told me in South Carolina last weekend. “In many ways, we may yet be underreacting.”Of course, part of being a politician is giving people what they want to hear. The candidates aren’t just guessing that they shouldn’t be talking about impeachment—they have teams of advisers and internal polls and focus groups and months of personal interactions that are telling them the topic gets them nowhere, for the same reasons they didn’t talk much on the trail about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report before or after a redacted version of it was released in the spring.Even Andrew Yang—the candidate who finishes his rallies chanting, “Not left, not right—forward!”—on Friday afternoon threw in this line as he spoke to the crowd in Iowa: “If this is a game of rock-paper-scissors, Donald Trump is the scissors and I am the fucking rock!” But a few minutes later, marching across a bridge in front of hundreds of supporters chanting his name and his slogans, Yang told me that voters don’t want to hear about impeachment, and that he doesn’t think there’s much point in talking about it anyway. “We have to face facts, where not a single Republican crossed the aisle to support the impeachment vote,” he said. “That would certainly suggest that impeachment’s going to run aground in the Senate and this is going to wind up Donald Trump claiming innocence and vindication.”

A former Venezuelan state governor who years ago broke ranks with the ruling Socialist Party has emerged as President Nicolás Maduro’s sole notable election rival, thwarting the opposition’s effort to secure a total boycott of the April 22 vote.The candidate, Henri Falcon, was expelled Wednesday from Venezuela’s opposition alliance of two dozen parties hours after he formalized his candidacy and defied its call for abstention. Countries across the Americas have condemned Mr. Maduro’s plans to hold the vote, with the U.S. signaling the prospect of expanded sanctions if it takes place.“We repudiate Henri Falcon’s unilateral inscription” as a candidate, Democratic Unity, the coalition, said in a statement. “We cannot recognize a fraudulent electoral process.”The playing field is vastly tilted in Mr. Maduro’s favor. The most popular opposition politicians are jailed, in exile or otherwise barred from running. The electoral board is under the president’s control, and Venezuela doesn’t permit international monitoring of elections. Mr. Falcon, 56 years old, launched his campaign late Tuesday, casting himself as an outsider seeking to lift the country after 19 years of Socialist Party mismanagement and economic ruin. As governor of Lara, he broke with then-President Hugo Chávez over the fiery leader’s efforts in 2010 to expropriate facilities belonging to the Polar food conglomerate, with which Mr. Falcon had good relations.

“We don’t have a path forward,” she said. “I share the frustration with all the City Council that we have been out-messaged.”Kshama Sawant, the other opponent of repeal on the council, called the vote “both capitulation and betrayal.”“They are choosing to base themselves on making Amazon executives happy,” she said. That “is the biggest lesson that should reverberate to other cities as well.”The city’s initial plan was for the tax to collect about $500 per employee a year. Amazon responded in early May by stopping its expansion in the city “pending the outcome of the head tax vote.” That was sufficient to get the tax knocked down to about $275 per employee and scaled back in other ways. The tax was limited to companies with at least $20 million in revenue a year.As the largest private employer in the city, with more than 45,000 local workers, Amazon would have had to pay initially about $12 million a year — a relative pittance for a company with revenue last year of $178 billion and whose chief executive, Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world, said recently that the only thing he could think of to spend his fortune on was space travel.Amazon officials have said the company is not against helping the homeless. But it thinks Seattle would just waste the money it raised. The city, the company believes, “has a spending efficiency problem.”The retailer selected 20 finalists in January as possible sites for its new second headquarters, a process that has generated an enormous amount of attention and interest, even by Amazon’s standards. It has indicated that the community that won the right to as many as 50,000 new jobs would have to be an accommodating partner. Some of the finalists have offered extraordinary tax breaks.

Facebook and Google are two of the world's largest and most ubiquitous tech companies. The billions who use their services for making social media posts, uploading videos or searching ads are targeted by the tech companies for their personal data — a prized asset that enhances the companies' power. Regulators are examining whether the companies have used their market power to crimp competition, potentially raising prices and hurting consumers."The states see it as part of their role to fill a vacuum," said Jay Himes, an antitrust lawyer in New York. Himes, a former head of the antitrust bureau in the New York attorney general's office, worked on the states' antitrust case against Microsoft about 20 years ago.New York Attorney General Letitia James said Friday her probe will look into Facebook's dominance and any resulting anticompetitive conduct.A separate group of state attorneys general is announcing Monday in Washington the launch of an investigation into "whether large tech companies have engaged in anticompetitive behavior that stifled competition, restricted access and harmed consumers," an advisory from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Friday. The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, citing sources they didn't identify, have reported that target will be Google.Both groups of state attorneys general include Democrats and Republicans. Joining James, a Democrat, in the Facebook investigation are the attorneys general of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and the District of Columbia.With some 2.4 billion users around the globe and a huge social media presence, Facebook has sparked outrage with a series of privacy scandals and its use by Russian operatives in the 2016 presidential campaign."Even the largest social media platform in the world must follow the law and respect consumers," James said.Critics worry that Facebook can squash competitors either by buying them or using its enormous resources to mimic services they offer. That ultimately could reduce viable alternatives for consumers looking, for instance, for comparable services that do less tracking for targeted advertising. Businesses, including mom and pop shops, might have to pay more for ads if they have fewer choices to reach consumers online.The U.S. Justice Department opened a sweeping antitrust investigation of big tech companies this summer, looking at whether their online platforms have hurt competition, suppressed innovation or otherwise harmed consumers. The Federal Trade Commission has been conducting its own competition probe of Big Tech, as has the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.The lawmaker leading that investigation, Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., said Friday the states' probe of Facebook is "completely appropriate.""Facebook has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted to regulate itself," Cicilline said.The states have the power to make big changes to the tech industry — especially if enough of them band together, said Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, a group that advocates for the breakup of corporate monopolies. Though states have limited jurisdictions, he said, once a few of the bigger states get involved, changes can come that can affect most of the country."You really have to break their power, and I think the states are more likely to do that than anyone else," Stoller said in an interview.Facebook said it plans to "work constructively" with the state attorneys general and welcomes a conversation with policymakers about competition."People have multiple choices for every one of the services we provide," said Will Castleberry, a vice president of state and local policy. "We understand that if we stop innovating, people can easily leave our platform. This underscores the competition we face, not only in the U.S. but around the globe."Google said it welcomes government oversight to make sure companies comply with the law. The company said it has already responded to many government agencies around the world on how it conducts its businesses and expects state attorneys general to ask similar questions."We look forward to showing how we are investing in innovation, providing services that people want, and engaging in robust and fair competition," Kent Walker, a senior vice president for global affairs, said in a blog post.Big Tech won't be an easy target. Current interpretations of U.S. law against monopolies don't obviously apply to companies offering inexpensive goods or free online services.Traditional antitrust law focuses on dominant businesses that harm consumers, typically through practices that raise prices for consumers. But many tech companies offer free products that are paid for by a largely invisible trade in the personal data gleaned from those services. Others like Amazon offer consistently low prices on a wide array of merchandise.———AP Technology Writer Matt O'Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island. Associated Press writers Kiley Armstrong and Tali Arbel in New York and Rachel Lerman in San Francisco contributed to this report.——Follow Gordon on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/mgordonap and O'Brien at http://www.twitter.com/mattoyeah

In the Senate, Mr. Booker has been one of the most aggressive critics of the Trump administration, breaking with Senate precedent and testifying against the nomination of a fellow senator, Jeff Sessions, for attorney general. He also vigorously criticized a top Trump official, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, for concealing a racist comment made by Mr. Trump.Using his perch on the Judiciary Committee, he has been a forceful opposing voice to many of Mr. Trump’s key nominations, releasing confidential emails during the confirmation hearing of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and, more recently, questioning the attorney general nominee William P. Barr’s record and past statements on race and criminal justice.Mr. Booker has a relatively thin record of signature legislative accomplishments in the Senate. He did notch a major victory in co-sponsoring and pushing for a bipartisan criminal justice bill signed by Mr. Trump at the end of 2018, capping a long effort of advocating criminal justice reform in the Senate.Though he has been courting political operatives in Iowa and New Hampshire for months, Mr. Booker will likely focus heavily on South Carolina and other southeastern states with large black voting populations.His first campaign events as a candidate will be a two-day swing through Iowa on Feb. 8, followed by two days in South Carolina. He plans to visit New Hampshire over Presidents’ Day weekend.Mr. Booker, who visited a church in Newark on Thursday night to pray before his announcement, said that he hadn’t quite settled on a campaign theme song, though Kirk Franklin’s “Stand” had been in heavy rotation.“This last week, leading up to this day,” Mr. Booker said on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show,” “all I’ve been listening to is gospel.”

closeVideo‘Green New Deal’ test run falls short in TexasCapitalist Pig Hedge Fund’s Jonathan Hoenig, Economist Steve Moore, FOX Business’ Kristina Partsinevelos and Jackie DeAngelis on Georgetown’s plan to generate all of its electricity from wind and solar power.Presidential hopeful Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., on Tuesday revealed a sweeping $3 trillion plan to combat climate change, calling to "accelerate the end" of fossil fuels and achieve “100% carbon-free electricity” by 2030.Like the costly and controversial Green New Deal, which Booker co-sponsored in the form of a Senate resolution, Booker’s plan aims to address both climate change and economic inequality.SANDERS RELEASES $16 TRILLION ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’ PLAN, PROMISES IT WILL ‘PAY FOR ITSELF’“To end the real and growing threat of climate change and to create a more just country for everyone, we must heal these past mistakes and act boldly to create a green and equitable future. That’s exactly what I’ll do as president,” Booker said in a statement.VideoThe plan includes an array of executive actions, such as taking on companies that pollute with increased EPA enforcement, requiring all new passenger vehicles to have zero emissions by 2030, and imposing a ban on all new fossil fuel leases. Booker also intends to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and revoke orders from President Trump to approve the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines.Additionally, Booker wants to push Congress to create a United States Environmental Justice Fund, which would commit $50 billion a year “to advance environmental justice and invest in communities long left behind.” Goals include replacing lead drinking water service lines in residences, schools, and daycares; cleaning abandoned uranium, coal, and hard rock mines; and planting 100 million trees in urban areas that Booker's plan says suffer disproportionately from air pollution.The plan sets a goal of 2045 for achieving a completely “carbon-neutral” economy through investments in clean energy such as wind and solar, and “a next-generation smart grid.”Booker’s plan joins other costly proposals put forth by fellow Democratic candidates.

Apple Inc. and Google both removed apps associated with Hong Kong’s antigovernment protests from their digital stores in recent days, thrusting the two Silicon Valley giants into a controversy engulfing other U.S. companies.Apple removed from its App Store a crowdsourced map service that allows Hong Kong protesters to track police activity, one day after the Chinese Communist Party-run People’s Daily newspaper lashed out at the iPhone maker, calling the app “toxic software.”...

Expedited removals begin when an immigration officer determines that a noncitizen lacks legal authorization to be in the United States. That is also how expedited removals end—noncitizens are removed “without further hearing and review,” subject to one narrow exception. (If a noncitizen indicates an intent to apply for asylum, then an asylum officer will assess their eligibility for asylum. The asylum officer’s determination is also final.)The government defended the expedited-removal system by arguing that its expansive immigration powers are not subject to constitutional constraints such as the suspension clause and the due-process clause. That idea originated in the Chinese Exclusion Cases of 1889 and 1893, which suggested that the Constitution does not apply to noncitizens who are seeking entry into the United States or to noncitizens challenging deportation. The cases upheld laws that barred Chinese nationals from reentering the United States, as well as laws that deported Chinese laborers who did not have a certificate of residence or a white citizen willing to testify on their behalf.At the time, the Court upheld the laws on the ground that courts should not second-guess the political branches’ response to “vast hordes of … people crowding in upon us.” The Court defended this principle with further racist vitriol: “If the government of the United States … considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security … its determination is conclusive.”In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit relied on these doctrines to uphold the expedited-removal system. That court reasoned that “an alien … has no constitutional rights regarding his application” to enter the United States, and that noncitizens therefore have no right to judicial review of their detentions or removals.The Supreme Court had other options. The Court could have instead turned to Boumediene v. Bush, a 2008 Supreme Court decision that found the suspension clause applies to noncitizens who are outside the territorial sovereignty of the United States (specifically at Guantánamo Bay). The Court could now have applied this same logic to persons who are physically, but perhaps not lawfully, present in the United States. But no, the Court instead turned to the Chinese Exclusion Cases, which provide an excuse to ignore Boumediene and other cases. Citing a slew of cases that relied on the Chinese Exclusion Cases, the Court concluded that undocumented immigrants lack rights under the due-process clause, and that the Constitution guarantees no right to judicial review of removal proceedings to deport people from the United States, even though removals can in some cases amount to a death sentence. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s predecessor Justice Anthony Kennedy authored Boumediene. It is hard to think that Kennedy would have joined such a broad evisceration of his prior decision.

His soaring rhetoric has drawn comparisons to former President Barack Obama. He prides himself as the only Democratic presidential hopeful to live in an inner-city neighborhood. Reforming a criminal justice system plagued by racial disparities is central to his campaign.Yet New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, one of two top-tier African American candidates in a crowded Democratic field, continues to struggle making inroads with black voters — something he addressed on Saturday in a wide-ranging interview with two voters that was moderated by NPR's Ari Shapiro."Let my work speak for me," said Booker, responding to a question about why some residents in his hometown of Newark, N.J., don't see him as "the voice" of black youth. Enlarge this image Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker and NPR host Ari Shapiro sit during an NPR-moderated discussion with potential voters in Booker's hometown of Newark, N.J., on Oct. 12. A.J. Chavar for NPR hide caption toggle caption A.J. Chavar for NPR Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker and NPR host Ari Shapiro sit during an NPR-moderated discussion with potential voters in Booker's hometown of Newark, N.J., on Oct. 12. A.J. Chavar for NPR The interview — part of an NPR series with Democratic presidential candidates called Off Script — touched on an array of issues, from the student loan crisis to Booker's relationship with actress and activist Rosario Dawson and the candidate's stance on the Tupac vs. Biggie debate. At Vonda's Kitchen in Newark, N.J., Booker spoke with education advocate Shanell Dunns, economist Diana Candelejo and Shapiro. [Watch the full conversation here.]Dunns, who runs an education and leadership consulting business in Newark, told Booker that many of the young people she works with say criminal justice is a top issue. She then added:"When we talk about the presidential candidacy, a lot of times they say they don't feel like you are the voice — the black voice — for the black youth. How do you respond to not being able to connect to that demographic of youth?" Enlarge this image Shanell Dunns, 48, runs an education and leadership consulting business in Newark. A.J. Chavar for NPR hide caption toggle caption A.J. Chavar for NPR Shanell Dunns, 48, runs an education and leadership consulting business in Newark. A.J. Chavar for NPR Booker rejected the characterization."Well, No. 1: I think we actually do connect to it. Some of our biggest support is from HBCUs [historically black colleges and universities] to African American young people who are big activists for our campaign. It's one of the groups we do very well in," Booker said.Booker routinely polls in the single digits in most presidential preference surveys. Enlarge this image Presidential candidate Cory Booker takes selfies with supporters outside Vonda's Kitchen in Newark, N.J. A.J. Chavar for NPR hide caption toggle caption A.J. Chavar for NPR Presidential candidate Cory Booker takes selfies with supporters outside Vonda's Kitchen in Newark, N.J. A.J. Chavar for NPR When surveys are broken down by race, as in a recent poll released last week, African American respondents often place Booker behind other Democratic presidential candidates, including former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.Booker called the criminal justice system a "national crisis." And he pointed to his record as a senator fighting for reforms such as the First Step Act. Signed into law by President Trump last year, the measure is designed to overhaul federal prisons and broaden rehabilitation opportunities for inmates. 2020 Candidate Conversations: Off Script VIDEO: Beto O'Rourke Wants To Ban, Confiscate Some Guns. Texas Voters Want Details 2020 Candidate Conversations: Off Script Julián Castro On Impeachment: 'How Much More Evidence Do People Need?' "So let my work speak for me. In the United States Senate, I've pushed more than a dozen bills on these issues that span from police accountability all the way to the bill that I actually got passed ... the First Step Act, which has already led to the liberation of thousands of people, overwhelmingly black and Latino people."Shapiro pressed Booker about his record as mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013. During his tenure, the Justice Department opened an investigation into the city's police force, saying it had received "serious allegations of civil rights violations.""I inherited the police department with decades-long problems and patterns and practices," Booker said in defense of his record.He said his administration made "tremendous strides" to correct the issues but admitted that it came after the Justice Department produced its findings and provided additional resources."At first I was like, 'Why do I need the DOJ?' But when they presented us with the data, we saw that we were not moving fast enough to correct the problems."Candelejo, who works for a local health care network, quizzed Booker on prison privatization and how he would combat escalating student loan debt impacting millions of Americans, among other issues. But it was her icebreaker question to Booker that got the candidate flustered. Enlarge this image Diana Candelejo, 29, a potential Cory Booker voter and Newark resident, works for a local health care network. A.J. Chavar for NPR hide caption toggle caption A.J. Chavar for NPR Diana Candelejo, 29, a potential Cory Booker voter and Newark resident, works for a local health care network. A.J. Chavar for NPR "I don't think it's going to get better than Rosario Dawson, so when are you proposing?" Candelejo asked."You've got me stammering," the senator said, laughing through his response."I would ... I will ... should I ever get to that point, I will try to embarrass her and put her on the spot," Booker said, adding that he's not making any announcements on NPR on that front. "But I'm very happy where I am right now."He also joked about being her "arm candy" at two of her recent movie premieres, including Zombieland: Double Tap. Enlarge this image Booker spoke to NPR from Vonda's Kitchen in Newark, the same city where he served as mayor from 2006 to 2013. A.J. Chavar for NPR hide caption toggle caption A.J. Chavar for NPR Booker spoke to NPR from Vonda's Kitchen in Newark, the same city where he served as mayor from 2006 to 2013. A.J. Chavar for NPR On the long-running debate about which rap legend was better, Tupac Shakur or The Notorious B.I.G., Booker said this:"I just always love Biggie. He's just a person that I just feel this affinity for, because he was unapologetically who he was. So if you had to force me to choose, then I'm going to say Biggie."And just for those voters who cast their ballots based on hip-hop preferences, Booker added: "But, I probably listen to Tupac's music more."Booker and 11 other candidates are debating for the fourth time on Tuesday. The CNN/New York Times Democratic presidential debate airs at 8 p.m. ET on CNN. You can also listen to it on your local NPR station.

Enlarge this image U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions (left) speaks with former FBI Director James Comey (center) and other officials at the Department of Justice in April 2017, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption toggle caption Alex Brandon/AP U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions (left) speaks with former FBI Director James Comey (center) and other officials at the Department of Justice in April 2017, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Updated Sept. 18The Justice Department, which the Trump administration says needs the controversial citizenship question added to the 2020 census, initially did not want to make the request, according to newly unredacted portions of a memo.The internal document was written for Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau and approved adding the question in March.Ross has testified before Congress that the Justice Department "initiated" the request for the question, in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act's Section 2 provisions against racial discrimination.But memos and emails released previously as part of the lawsuits over the question already have contradicted Ross' testimony. They make clear that Ross was eager to add the question shortly after he was confirmed as commerce secretary in February 2017. National Census Citizenship Question Trial Could Start Day Before Midterm Elections Ultimately, the Justice Department did send a formal request to the Census Bureau in December 2017 for a question about citizenship status — a topic that has not been included in the census for all U.S. households since 1950. That happened, however, months after Ross and his staff first reached out to the department about the request.Earl Comstock — a key Commerce Department official on census-related issues — first approached Justice Department officials in May 2017. Comstock eventually discussed the issue with James McHenry, a Justice Department official working on immigration issues who now oversees the immigration courts as the head of the Executive Office for Immigration Review."Justice staff did not want to raise the question given the difficulties Justice was encountering in the press at the time (the whole Comey matter)," Comstock wrote to Ross in a newly unredacted portion of the memo, which is dated Sept. 8, 2017.Comstock's memo, which recounted his discussions with McHenry, appears to refer to media attention on President Trump's surprise, early-May firing of then-FBI Director James Comey, and the subsequent fallout.The search for an agencyUnder pressure from Ross to get a citizenship question onto the 2020 census, Comstock moved on to the Department of Homeland Security. But then-DHS official Gene Hamilton — a former Capitol Hill staffer to Sen. Jeff Sessions who eventually followed the now-attorney general to the Justice Department — referred Comstock back to the Justice Department.In another previously redacted portion of the memo, Comstock concluded by noting that he then directed James Uthmeier, an attorney at the Commerce Department, "to look into the legal issues and how Commerce could add the question to the Census itself."The internal memo was filed with Manhattan federal court on Monday by attorneys for plaintiffs in the citizenship question lawsuits from the New York state attorney general's office, the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm Arnold & Porter. National 'I Will Call The AG': Trump Officials Pushed For Census Citizenship Question A spokesperson for the Justice Department, Devin O'Malley, declined to comment. The Commerce Department also declined to comment, citing pending litigation.In July, the Trump administration released a version of the September 2017 memo with redactions, citing "deliberative inter-agency communications regarding census discussions with DOJ."But last week, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ordered the memo to be released in full, as well as a redacted line in an Aug. 8, 2017 email to Comstock from Ross, who wrote about a call "about Census.""They seem dig in about not sling the citizenship question," Ross wrote in the email, "and that raises the question of where is the DoJ in their analysis ? [sic]"The "heart" of the legal fightDuring a court hearing last Friday in Manhattan, Furman said that these documents get to the "heart" of one of the central issues in this legal battle — Ross' intent in approving the addition of a citizenship question. He also noted the "need for public confidence" in the transparency and integrity of the 2020 census.The constitutionally mandated head count of every person living in the U.S. — regardless of citizenship status — is expected to reshape how political power and federal dollars are distributed in the next decade. The data affect the number of congressional seats and Electoral College votes a state gets, as well as how much of an estimated $800 billion a year in federal funding for schools, roads and other public institutions and services each state receives. National Trump Officials Say They Can't Recall Discussing Census Citizenship Question Plaintiffs in the six lawsuits around the country argue that including a citizenship question risks harming the accuracy of the upcoming head count. Census Bureau research suggests heightened sensitivity towards such a question will discourage households with noncitizens from participating and lead to an undercount — one that could shift power and funding away from states with high populations of noncitizens, including immigrants who are living in the U.S. illegally.Ross is facing allegations that he misused his authority over the census and discriminated against immigrant communities of color by adding the citizenship question. "He personally lobbied the Attorney General to submit the memorandum that the Secretary 'then later relied on to justify his decision' ... after DOJ had already concluded they 'did not want to raise the question,' " the plaintiffs' attorneys write in a new court filing. National Citizenship Question Controversy Complicating Census 2020 Work, Bureau Director Says A potential trial for the two New York-based cases is scheduled to start Nov. 5. Plaintiffs have been preparing by gathering documents and out-of-court testimony from Trump administration officials to prove their case.Judge Furman is deciding whether to order Ross' deposition as the plaintiffs have requested. Lawyers from the Justice Department, which is representing the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau in the lawsuits, have said they are prepared to ask the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to block such an order, but the plaintiffs' attorneys say only Ross can provide more insight into his decision."This is astonishing, unprecedented conduct from a Cabinet member," the attorneys write in their filing. "It has consequences not for some minor or ministerial matter, but for the accuracy of the decennial census — which the Secretary agrees will affect 'foundational elements of our democracy.' "

On a frigid Saturday morning a full 14 months before the New Hampshire primary, Democrats warmed themselves with coffee as they waited for Cory Booker. The New Jersey senator, a potential candidate for president in 2020, was to appear in the suburban living room of a former state senator.When he arrived he took time to chat, snap selfies and record video shoutouts. When he finally spoke, he told those gathered of a “moral moment” requiring love, unity and strength. Rather than alienate supporters of Donald Trump, Booker told the crowd, why not invite them to dinner.“Patriotism is love of country and you cannot love your country unless you love your fellow countrymen,” he said. “We need to get back to the understanding that you cannot lead the people if you do not love the people.”Later, at a Democratic midterm victory celebration in Manchester, the state’s largest city, he said: “This is not a time to meet hate with hate. It is not a time to meet darkness with darkness. The call of our country has always been love.”Booker has not committed to a run for the White House. But attorney Jim Demers, who co-chaired Barack Obama’s campaign in New Hampshire in 2008 and advised Hillary Clinton in 2016, is encouraging the former mayor of Newark. He helped arrange meetings this weekend. Appearances in living rooms and coffee shops – and onstage alongside the state’s top Democrats – signal a run is being considered.“I think this weekend is going to be a really good experience for him, to get a taste of what campaigning in New Hampshire is really like,” Demers said.Demers sees Booker as a viable candidate to win the White House. But he was more cautious about predicting victory in the New Hampshire primary, particularly if two other senators, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, also enter the race.“I don’t want to underestimate the impact that neighbours of New Hampshire have in the New Hampshire primary,” he said. “Historically, if there’s a neighbour running, they win. But I think [Booker] can be extremely competitive and I think he can certainly be in the top tier.”This early, though, primary watchers say the contest remains in play.“I think it’s fairly wide open at this point and Booker is in fairly good position in that regard,” said Dante Scala, a professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. “I think he does enjoy name recognition: it’s not up there with Sanders, Biden and Warren, but it stands pretty favourably to the rest of the field.”Christopher Galdieri, associate professor of political science at Saint Anselm College, said he didn’t “know that [Booker] necessarily needs to win in New Hampshire so much as run well. If he does well enough in Iowa and he does well enough in New Hampshire … I think he’s someone who could potentially be a viable nominee.”Sanders, Biden and Warren have not so obviously laid the groundwork in the granite state. But Booker is not alone. Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was in the state last week and in an October visit, the Colorado governor, John Hickenlooper, said he was running – then quickly backtracked. The New Hampshire Young Democrats have invited Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke and other candidates to visit. O’Rourke has not yet responded to the overture. Booker speaks. Photograph: Cheryl Senter/APOther potential candidates will soon begin operations in early voting states – and even announce their candidacies. This week, the Associated Press reported that the Democratic party is considering holding a first debate in May, three months earlier than the first debate in the 2016 election cycle.Booker’s message of love and unity – and his professed refusal to hate Trump – may win voters over. Or maybe they will prefer a candidate who wants to go blow-for-blow with the president. Demers thinks the senator’s approach is one of his best attributes.“When you listen to him speak you realise that he’s not always bashing the other side like some politicians do,” Demers said. “He’s a real unifier and I do believe that more than anything in this country, people want to see Washington function.”Like other prominent Democrats and potential candidates, Booker has faced attacks from the president. Speaking to the New York Post last month, Trump claimed without evidence that Booker did not live in Newark while he was mayor and repeated his charge that Booker “ran Newark into the ground”. Such attacks will only increase if Booker does decide to run.Lucas Meyer, president of the New Hampshire Young Democrats, said for any potential candidate, doing well in New Hampshire – usually a stepping stone to the Oval Office – will likely come down to their pitch.“The beautiful thing about the New Hampshire primary and why I think it’s valuable to the country, is you’re going to have to meet people on the street, look them in the eye and convince them,” Meyer said.“It doesn’t matter about TV ads, it doesn’t matter that you have the most money. It matters that when you look into a voter’s eyes, they believe what you’re pushing.”

House Democrats have formally demanded Donald Trump’s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service, marking a major bid to obtain information about the president’s finances and business dealings.Richard Neal, the chairman of the House ways and means committee, issued the request on Wednesday evening, stating: “It is critical to ensure the accountability of our government and elected officials.”“I today submitted to IRS Commissioner [Charles] Rettig my request for six years of the president’s personal tax returns as well as the returns for some of his business entities,” Neal wrote.“We have completed the necessary groundwork for a request of this magnitude and I am certain we are within our legitimate legislative, legal, and oversight rights.“This request is about policy, not politics; my preparations were made on my own track and timeline, entirely independent of other activities in Congress and the administration,” he added.“My actions reflect an abiding reverence for our democracy and our institutions, and are in no way based on emotion of the moment or partisanship. I trust that in this spirit, the IRS will comply with Federal law and furnish me with the requested documents in a timely manner.”Trump refused to release his tax returns in the 2016 campaign – breaking with a nearly 40-year precedent of major-party presidential candidates.In testimony before Capitol Hill last month, the president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, alleged that Trump inflated his assets to banks and insurance companies.Democrats are seeking Trump’s tax returns from 2013 to 2018.

It is, at its heart, a remarkable story of political change brought about by voters and politicians—and one politician in particular. Those who worked on the 2016 Vote Leave campaign believe that without Johnson’s support, Brexit would not have happened. And without Brexit, Johnson would have been entirely unable to fight the campaign he did, breaking through into areas that have not voted Conservative for generations but that switched, however skeptically, to “get Brexit done.” And yet, while this is a story with one central character, it is also about the deep structural and demographic currents working under the surface, eroding Labour’s historic heartlands and dragging Johnson to victory thanks to a new coalition of voters, transforming the Conservatives into a party that prioritizes national sovereignty and controls on immigration over economic growth, one that had the good fortune to face a Labour Party more out of touch with its base than ever before.To understand the interplay between Johnson’s triumph and the forces he helped unleash in the Brexit referendum, I spoke with senior campaign insiders from both the Conservatives and Labour, as well as cabinet ministers, Johnson himself, election candidates, party activists, pollsters, and friends of the prime minister.I returned to where I grew up, in England’s northeast, to tell this story. It was here, in Sedgefield, that Blair was a member of Parliament, where his political career began, where his Labour machine was in total control. That is, until last night.When my parents moved to Sedgefield, in 1987, Blair was just another MP. Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, fresh off a second election victory. Even then, at the peak of Thatcher’s powers, Sedgefield and the wider northeast remained high ground the Tory tide could not reach. It was always hard to imagine anything else. In my early life, Blair was an ever present figure. My parents were Labour activists; I was taken to Labour meetings when he spoke; he once made me tea in his pajamas. Though his visits were rarer as he rose in the national consciousness, Blair’s political operation here was all-controlling.It remained so after Blair departed: In 2017, all seven constituencies in the county of Durham, where Sedgefield lies, voted Labour, as they had done for the previous 25 years. This part of the country—overwhelmingly white, largely working class, poorer than average, and now older than average—was the party’s core, with voters who’d stuck with it for generations, tied by culture, politics, and raw economics. Even as the Labour Party transformed under Blair, becoming more economically centrist, less left-wing, they supported it.That world has now all but disappeared. In seat after seat across the northeast, Labour was swept from power. In former mining villages, industrial towns, rural valleys—and, finally, in Blair’s seat of Sedgefield. Early this morning, the result was confirmed: For the first time since 1931, the constituency that served as Blair’s stepping-stone to power had voted Conservative.

closeVideoDNC spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa: Biden’s campaign is focused on uniting AmericaDNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa weighs in on the Democratic National Convention on ‘America’s Newsroom.’Former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang accused the Democratic Party of "patronizing" his fellow Americans at times during an interview on Wednesday ahead of his Thursday speech at the Democratic National Convention.“If we're not standing up for the trucker, the waitress or the retail clerk, who are we standing up for?" Yang told The Washington Post. "Democrats have this tendency to have a message out there and then if you don't like the message, it's like, well, it's your fault. …There's this patronizing element to a lot of what we say and do, and it's hurting us, and it's wrong, unproductive, it's a great way to not win."AOC'S IDEA TO SAVE USPS: 'PROGRESSIVE PEN PAL PROGRAM'But Yang did say that some of the party's problems relating to working class voters are mitigated by having former Vice President Joe Biden as the Democrats' presidential nominee.“I think the concern is alleviated in large part by who Joe Biden is," Yang noted. "Joe Biden comes across as the guy he is. He grew up in Scranton and has lived a life that many, many Americans can relate to.”Yang also weighed in on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who nominated Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., during her Tuesday night speech. The populist senator was the running up to Biden in the Democratic nomination race.“She was asked to nominate Bernie, which I thought she did very effectively, but I thought that was a misuse of AOC," Yang told The Washington Post. "She is one of the people who can cut through this medium and deliver a message very powerfully, so I feel like the DNC just missed one on that."Unlike some of his Democratic primary rivals, Yang openly wooed President Trump's supporters and was reluctant to blame the nation's problems on Trump alone. In this Feb. 7, 2020, photo, Yang speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola) "You are missing the lesson of Donald Trump's victory," he said during a February presidential debate. "Trump is not the cause of all of our problems and we are making a mistake when we act like he is. He is a symptom of a disease that has been building up in our communities for years and decades. And it is our job to get to the harder work of actually curing the disease."Yang is scheduled to speak between 9 and 11 p.m. ET on Thursday, during the convention's final night. He was added to the speaker lineup last minute after tweeting about his disappointment at being left out.

There are as many as 80,000 fires blazing in Brazil, more than half of them in the Amazon. The Brazilian minister of the environment may be tweeting that the fires are driven by “dry weather, wind, and heat,” but experts disagree. “The blazes are surging in a pattern typical of forest clearing, along the edges of the agricultural frontier,” Science magazine reported. This deforestation has been encouraged, in turn, by Bolsonaro, who has repeatedly said the Amazon should be open for business—for mining, logging, and agricultural purposes.But this isn’t just about one rogue head of state. To get to the underlying forces of much of the world’s deforestation, from the lush Amazonian rain forest or the carbon-rich peatlands of Indonesia, you need to follow the money: Who is profiting from the development that led to these fires?Earlier this year, the U.S-based nonprofit Amazon Watch, which has worked closely with indigenous groups in South America for 20 years, published an analysis showing that “foreign investors have enormous influence over what happens in the Brazilian Amazon … Big banks and large investment companies play a critical role, providing billions of dollars in lending, underwriting, and equity investment.”In its research, Amazon Watch found that just a handful of global financial companies have been profiting from these exports. The global agribusiness giants Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Bunge dominate Brazil’s soy-trading market. Their major shareholders include Vanguard, State Farm, BlackRock, State Street, and T. Rowe Price. Collectively, these financiers own more than $9 billion of investments in these two companies. The privately held U.S.-based Cargill and Netherlands-based Louis Dreyfus are the other two companies that dominate global grain trade. As for the banks providing lines of credit to these agribusiness giants, five provide the lion’s share: BNP Paribas, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, Bank of America, and Citigroup. Together, these banks “provided more than a billion dollars in credit apiece,” according to Amazon Watch.

Antitrust law was not written for modern acquisitions like Instagram. A traditional monopoly was a company with such a hold on its industry that it harmed others by fixing prices or controlling a supply chain. Facebook and Instagram presented no obvious consumer harm because their products were free to use, as long as people were willing to give up their data to the network. Facebook’s advertising business was relatively new, especially on mobile phones; Instagram didn’t have a business model at all. Something was a monopoly if it undermined its rivals; Instagram had many rivals. Instagram wasn’t even the first company to make a mobile photo app with filters.So the Federal Trade Commission started its investigation with a simpler question. Were Facebook and Instagram competing with each other? If they were, it would reduce competition in the marketplace if they were allowed to merge.First, regulators needed a clear picture of what Instagram thought of Facebook and vice versa, based on internal emails and text messages. Oddly, the FTC would not be gathering this documentation itself. The lawyers for Facebook and Instagram—the same ones who had worked on the deal—were now tasked with finding any evidence showing that the deal shouldn’t go through. They were paid by the companies to investigate the companies.Employees surmised the federal government didn’t have the resources to do its own digging. They were shocked to learn the scenario was routine for deal approval in the U.S. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, the lawyers had an incentive for doing a thorough job—the threat of being disbarred if they did not. Instagram’s lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe asked the founders and some of the longest-standing employees to turn over all their email and text histories. They even pored through Systrom’s written notebook, page by page, seizing on items that the FTC might find problematic.At one point, they found a concerning text message—about the expensive bourbon Systrom had gifted to his employees when Instagram passed Facebook in app store popularity. The Orrick lawyers asked Shayne Sweeney what it meant. He told them that Facebook was one of the most popular apps in the world, and that beating them would be a meaningful milestone for any startup, not just for a competitor. He never heard whether that was a satisfying answer.No Filter, by Sarah FrierThe law firm Fenwick & West was conducting a similar probe on the Facebook side. After the lawyers presented their materials to the FTC, Systrom and Zuckerberg were asked to go to Washington, DC, for further questioning. Zuckerberg declined the invitation, choosing to do the interview over video conference. But Systrom went, and sat through gentle interrogation by a room of junior employees, some of whom were clearly excited to meet the head of Instagram. They asked him a lot of technical questions about how Instagram worked, perhaps trying to suss out whether Facebook was telling the truth that Instagram served a completely different purpose in consumers’ lives than Facebook did.In information it gave to another regulator, the U.K. Office of Fair Trading, Facebook made the case that while it wasn’t directly competitive with Instagram, its just-launched Instagram copycat app called Facebook Camera was. Other apps, like Camera Awesome and Hipstamatic, were downloaded three times more than Facebook Camera, and Instagram was downloaded 40 times more. The argument smartly reframed Facebook as an underdog, trying to compete in a tough new market, as opposed to a giant with 950 million users.The market sounded crowded the way Facebook described it. The company said there were plenty of other apps like Instagram, including Path, Flickr, Camera+, and Pixable. So the U.K. regulators said they were convinced that allowing the acquisition wouldn’t remove competition from the market. The Office of Fair Trading wrote in its report that it had “no reason to believe that Instagram would be uniquely placed to compete against Facebook, either as a potential social network or as a provider of advertising space.”They didn’t realize Instagram had already won. The only names on the list that were truly similar to Instagram, complete with filters and social features, were Path, which had fewer than 3 million users, and Hipstamatic, which had peaked at 4 million users and was about to lay off half a dozen of its employees. PicPlz, the app that Systrom and Krieger were so determined to beat after Andreessen Horowitz’s investment in 2010, had shut down in July 2012 and wasn’t even mentioned.The regulators were shortsightedly looking at the current marketplace and ignoring what Facebook and Instagram had the potential to be in a few years or even months. The real value of Facebook and Instagram was in their network effects—the momentum they gained as more people joined. Even if someone enjoyed using an Instagram competitor like Path more, if their friends weren’t on it, they wouldn’t stay. (Path shut down in 2018 after selling to a South Korean company, Daum Kakao, three years before.) Zuckerberg understood that the hardest part of creating a business would be creating a new habit for users and a group they all wanted to spend time with. Instagram was easier to buy than to build because once a network takes off, there are few reasons to join a smaller one. It becomes part of the infrastructure of society.That’s why Zuckerberg was ignoring the headlines that called the $1 billion price ridiculous, and was unconcerned that Instagram had no business model. Making money, in Zuckerberg’s opinion, is something to try only once a network is strong enough, so valuable to its users that advertisements or other efforts aren’t going to turn them off. Facebook’s users were comfortable with sharing their intimate data on the social network before they had any reason to question the site’s motives.The network effect was also why Facebook would eventually recover from its investors’ panic about making money on mobile. Facebook had millions of users on its mobile phone app—it just hadn’t fully turned on the money machine. Instagram’s network would be lucrative one day too. The way Zuckerberg saw it, as long as there were users, there was a potential to create a business around them—and the more users, the better.Instagram was also a threat to the thing Facebook wanted from its users the most: time on its site. Facebook was in fierce competition with any other network that people would choose to visit in a spare moment— anything that allowed people to see what was going on in other people’s lives and post about their own. The stronger Instagram’s network got, the more it would become an alternative to Facebook for those moments of blank space in a day—in a cab, in line for coffee, bored at work.Facebook was a master at strategically massaging the truth to reduce government scrutiny, presenting itself as a scrappy upstart when it wasn’t. But the company’s paranoia was real. Any fast-growing social media product was a threat to Facebook’s network effect and the time users spent there. It was Facebook’s job to not let anyone else catch up; Zuckerberg had instilled this value in his employees by ending all staff meetings with an unambiguous rallying cry: “Domination!”There were signs Instagram was achieving a winner-take-all effect. Its growth was accelerating. At the time of the acquisition, the company had 30 million users. By the middle of the summer, it had more than 50 million. The Office of Fair Trading’s report says nothing about network effects, indicating that Facebook didn’t fully explain its logic behind the deal. They took an opposite read on Instagram’s growth. “Whilst this indicates the strength of Instagram’s product, it also indicates that barriers to expansion are relatively low and that the attractiveness of apps can be ‘faddish,'” the report said.Today, Facebook is still the most dominant social network in the world, with more than 2.8 billion users across several social and messaging apps, and the primary driver of its revenue growth is Instagram. Analysts would later say that approving the acquisition was the greatest regulatory failure of the decade. Even Chris Hughes, one of the cofounders of Facebook, would in 2019 call for the deal to be undone. “Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American,” he wrote in The New York Times.The FTC’s investigation in the summer of 2012 happened behind closed doors, with no public report about its findings. Facebook says “the process was both robust and thorough,” led by “very competent staff.” When the proceedings closed, the regulator sent letters to Facebook and Instagram telling them that “no further action is warranted at this time.” The letters included a caveat that they might take another look later, “as the public interest may require.”From No Filter: The Inside Story of Instagram, by Sarah Frier. Copyright © 2020 by Sarah Frier. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

TAIPEI—An emphatic rebuke from Taiwanese voters against China’s authoritarian influence drew disdain in Beijing, prompting some in Taiwan to brace for greater coercive measures from the Communist Party.Taiwan’s leader, President Tsai Ing-wen, secured re-election on Saturday with 57% of the vote and a record tally of nearly 8.2 million ballots—a resounding endorsement of her pitch to defend the island’s democratic freedoms against encroachment from China, which claims Taiwan as its territory....

Federal prosecutors have told a judge they don’t oppose former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates’ request for probation when he's sentenced next week — as long as he continues to cooperate with them.Gates, who was Paul Manafort’s business partner and worked on the Trump campaign, pleaded guilty in February 2018 to conspiracy against the United States, lying to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, and other related charges.He testified against Manafort, and was also a key witness in the trials of former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone and Greg Craig, a former White House counsel during the Obama administration turned private lawyer who was accused of lying to federal officials about work he did for Ukraine.Manafort and Stone were both convicted, while Craig was acquitted.In their sentencing memorandum, prosecutors said Gates "should be commended for standing up to provide information and public testimony against individuals such as Manafort, Craig, and Stone, knowing well that they enjoy support from the upper echelons of American politics and society.”Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.“Gates received pressure not to cooperate with the government, including assurances of monetary assistance,” the court filing notes.Prosecutors did not detail in their memo who had offered the “monetary assistance.”The memo said Gates “has provided significant information contributing to the convictions of Manafort and Stone, and to other investigations that are ongoing.”"Since entering his guilty plea, Gates has worked assiduously to provide truthful, complete, and reliable information to any government investigators who have asked to speak with him,” prosecutors said.In their own filing, Gates' lawyers asked the judge presiding over the case, Amy Berman Jackson, to sentence him to probation. They cited the extraordinary amount of time he spent cooperating with Mueller's office."His time spent with OSC and other federal and state prosecution offices totals over five hundred hours. He has responded to three Congressional subpoenas and has been interviewed by Congressional staff. He has turned over documents at the request of each committee," the filing notes. "While it is fair to contend that all his cooperation was 'required' of him, it is also fair to say that he embraced his obligations as part of a determined effort to redeem himself."He also acknowledged "he assisted Mr. Manafort in some of his criminal activity, and in the process he succumbed to temptation and engaged in unlawful conduct on a much smaller scale for his own benefit," the filing says.Under the terms of his deal with prosecutors, Gates faces up to 71 months in prison for pleading to two felony counts, but could also ask for probation without opposition if he "fully cooperates."Gates is due to be sentenced in Washington, D.C., federal court on Dec. 17.

Trump sets 'terrible precedent' by crossing red line on Huawei caseSpecifically, the Trump administration's approach appears to lean heavily on the promise that the US will be able to advance trade and commercial ties with nations across the region by exposing the "predatory practices pursued by Russia and China." "Great power competitors, namely China and Russia, are rapidly expanding their financial and political influence across Africa. They are deliberately and aggressively targeting their investments in the region to gain a competitive advantage over the United States," Bolton said. By focusing economic efforts "on African governments that act with us as strategic partners, and, which are striving toward improved governance and transparent business practices," Bolton said the US will help prepare those nations address security threats, including terrorism and militant violence." US to reduce number of troops in Africa"Our goal is for the nations of the region to take ownership over peace and security in their own neighborhood," he added. CNN reported last month that the Pentagon has already approved a long-awaited plan toreduce the number of US troops conducting counterterrorism missions in Africa over the next three years, despite senior US military commanders warning last year that the terror threat in many African nations was growing, particularly in West Africa.The planned reductions are part of a broader global effort intended to help better align the US military's global posture with the Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy, which focuses more on "near-peer" competitors like Russia and China as opposed to counterterrorism missions. A senior defense official said that the US would be "changing, and yes, reducing some of our efforts" and said "by recouping some of this investment, it allows us to train, experiment and plan for the near peer competitors."The administration's economic push in Africa is also intended to challenge inroads that have allowed China and Russian to exert a growing amount of influence on the continent. China has a strong foothold in Africa, though, with massive infrastructure spending and development. While it will be difficult for the US to confront Beijing's influence in the region, distrust of China's lending policies is growing and Bolton said the administration intends to capitalize on that discontent. In October, theNew York Times reportedthat "episodes involving discriminatory behavior by the region's growing Chinese work force have unsettled many Kenyans, particularly at a time when their government seeks closer ties with China."Senate prepares to condemn Saudi crown prince for Khashoggi murder For it's part, Russia "is also seeking to increase its influence in the region through corrupt economic dealings," according to Bolton, who said Moscow "advances its political and economic relationships with little regard for the rule of law or accountable and transparent governance.""In short, the predatory practices pursued by China and Russia stunt economic growth in Africa; threaten the financial independence of African nations; inhibit opportunities for US investment; interfere with US military operations; and pose a significant threat to US national security interests," Bolton said.One problem is that the US is not clearly seen as the better option for African nations with Trump at the helm. The Trump administration has cut aid to Africa for vital health programs that have real impact on lives and no one forgets the January Oval Office meeting where the Presidentdecried immigrants from the continent as coming from "shithole" countries, comments that prompted a rare public a rebuke from several African leaders.Trump also waited more than a year to meet an African leader, though Bolton alluded to a potential upcoming presidential trip to the continent. Still, Bolton claimed that the Trump administration is prioritizing Africa in a way previous administration's failed to do, emphasizing the long-term goal of helping nations in the region become self-sufficient. Yemen rivals agree to ceasefire around 'lifeline' port city of Hodeidah, UN saysBut at the same time, the Trump administration has already cut several programs intended to foster long-term development from the ground up, a move that has raised questions about the US commitment to working with nations in the region in a mutually beneficial way.One such program is the State Department's Young African Leaders Initiative, a group of young people who have been chosen from pool of applicants in the tens of thousands, to come study in the US because they are actively making their communities better in some way at home.Under the Trump administration, YALI programs have been cut by one-third, meaning hundreds fewer students from throughout sub-Saharan Africa are able to come to the US, according to Neil Piper, executive director of The Presidential Precinct, which hosts the Mandela Washington Fellowship. "This program is reaching people throughout Africa, in places where no one else is going. There is a lot of bipartisan support for it," he told CNN. "Now this is 250 fewer young leaders per year -- who are actually making positive changes in their home communities -- who won't have this kind of support and exposure to the United States. It's a big missed opportunity.""In Africa, it's clear that China is making investments on the ground. Looking for opportunities to make real connections will be key. Otherwise, we're going to be left behind by other countries willing to do this," he added. But Bolton argued that the US has spent billions of taxpayer dollars on aid to Africa and little has changed."They have not stopped the scourge of terrorism, radicalism, and violence. They have not prevented other powers, such as China and Russia, from taking advantage of African states to increase their own power and influence," he said."Our new foreign assistance strategy would ensure that all US foreign aid, in every corner of the globe, advances US interests," Bolton added. "From now on, the United States will not tolerate this longstanding pattern of aid without effect, assistance without accountability, and relief without reform."Bolton's approach was also criticized by humanitarian groups."While we commend the recognition of African countries as important trade and security partners, the strategy falls short in providing a coherent approach to preventing violent conflict and terrorism across the continent," Richmond Blake, Director of Policy and Advocacy for Mercy Corps said.Blake also observed that "a commitment to advancing human rights and democracy" was absent from the strategy.