The House Judiciary Committee is planning to formalize its impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump by voting on a resolution outlining rules for the inquiry next week. The vote may end months of confusion over how — and whether — House Democrats plan to move forward with the probe in the shadow of the upcoming presidential election. A source close to the committee said the vote is intended to increase the “officialness” of the investigation, Politico reported. The probe has been ongoing for months, but has long been muddled by semantic debates over whether a formal impeachment inquiry has already begun, and substantive debates about what the committee hoped to achieve through its investigation. The committee has, for example, already called witnesses and sued the White House for blocking one of its subpoenas. Witnesses have been slow to comply to the committee’s requests for testimony, however, slowing the pace of the investigation. Proponents of the probe hope that by defining it, the committee might be better able to compel hesitant witnesses to testify, while also gaining access to top Trump aides currently shielded by the president’s claims of immunity. A growing segment of the party’s base has is calling for impeachment to get underway; however, party leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been hesitant to launch the impeachment process knowing the Republican-led Senate would never pursue an impeachment trial. Party leaders have also worried about the effect an impeachment attempt could have on Democrats in purple states. Formalizing the inquiry could help Democrats navigate this tension between the base and leaders, giving those calling for some action on impeachment what they want without forcing all members of the House — including Democrats in swing districts — to vote on the issue.The pressure for Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and House Democrats to clear up the scope and weight of their investigation into the president has been building for a while. In March, Nadler said his committee would look into “alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Donald Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration.” He sent record requests and subpoenas but stopped short of “opening a formal impeachment inquiry.”As Vox’s Andrew Prokop reported, the House’s pro-impeachment faction began arguing in July that the Judiciary Committee can conduct an investigation and both write and vote on articles of impeachment without opening a formal inquiry. But Nadler continued to waffle, refusing to define the scope and aims of the investigation. Last month, he went on CNN and said the Judiciary Committee was in the middle of “formal impeachment proceedings,” but in the same interview said “I think it’s important not to get hung up on semantics.”Meanwhile, House Democrats have increasingly begun to back some sort of impeachment inquiry: More than half of House Democrats (134 of 235, according to a recent CNN count) have said they support an impeachment inquiry, which would be just the first step in a lengthy process of booting the president out of office. Those numbers have grown since former special counsel Robert Mueller spoke before Congress in July. But as Vox’s Ella Nilsen and Andrew Prokop point out, that doesn’t exactly mean all those members would actually vote to impeach Trump. Voting to impeach would be a more complicated decision, embodied by the continued hesitance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to support calls for impeachment: Supporters of an impeachment inquiry are still being met with resistance from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She’s offered a variety of different reasons for her opposition to the move. But she likely believes (as most do) that there’s zero chance the Senate will remove Trump from office, and therefore fears a controversial impeachment vote would harm House Democrats representing districts that voted for Trump — something that could put her majority at risk.Estimates on how many Americans support impeachment vary, but polls indicate a majority do not support impeaching Trump. That fact puts many Democrats in vulnerable districts on edge, especially given they have history to warn them: Republicans who impeached former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s lost seats in the House and barely gained seats in the Senate, a decline experts later attributed to their pursuit of impeachment. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told Vox’s Ella Nilsen that history is very much on Democrats’ minds as they consider impeachment. “We also have lessons from the Clinton impeachment that when you do impeachment for primarily political reasons, that also causes problems for the country,” she said. “This is not something the country can enter lightly, but by the same token, the country cannot have a president that undermines the rule of law.”On the other side of the issue are Democrats at the grassroots level who want impeachment to proceed regardless of potential consequences. And they are joined by Democrats in the the House who haven’t been shy about their feelings, as Vox’s Ella Nilsen notes: Democrats know their best shot at getting rid of Trump is the 2020 presidential election. But at the same time, special counsel Robert Mueller laid out numerous instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump in his report, and Democrats know they can’t just ignore it. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party has been vocally pushing for impeachment proceedings, but they need buy-in from committee chairs and House leadership.The upcoming Judiciary Committee vote, which could happen as early as Wednesday, could help to get various factions of Democrats on the same page. While those who are hesitant to endorse impeachment will not suddenly give it their full-throated support, there will be new clarity as to what Nadler’s committee is doing, and where it sees the investigation going. And as Prokop has noted, “no Democrats are against a continued investigation by Nadler of potential crimes by Trump.” The real question will be whether Nadler’s probe actually goes anywhere; vote or not, he will still face resistance from the White House, and will be engaged in a politically fraught potential battle that has no indication of clearing up anytime soon.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson once again engaged in some thinly veiled dog-whistling on Thursday night, insisting that Democrats are trying to “get out the vote” by funding “race riots” or offering “mentally ill homeless” people “free cigarettes.”Carlson, whose racist rhetoric and fear-mongering over Black Lives Matter has caused internal strife at Fox, kicked off Thursday’s broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight by saying the Democratic Party has always had problems turning out its voters. (Forty percent of the Democratic electorate is non-white, according to Pew Research.)“On average, Democratic voters are much less likely than Republicans to vote,” the conservative host said. “Many of them can’t seem to make it out of bed in November. Democrats are also, surveys show, less likely to know much about the issues. They buy the bumper stickers, they don’t read the books.”After essentially describing the average Democratic voter as dumb and lazy, the Fox News star claimed it takes an “enormous effort” by the party to get its voters to come out on Election Day.“Sometimes it requires financial incentives, like walking around money or giving free cigarettes to the mentally ill homeless,” he said, without offering evidence of his claims.“Sometimes, under extraordinary circumstances, convincing Democrats to vote requires race riots and a nationwide fear campaign,” Carlson continued. “Unfortunately, that’s what we’re seeing right now. The only way to understand the last three months in this country is with the presidential election in mind.”Calling the months-long protests over police brutality that began with George Floyd’s death “the most radical and ambitious get out the vote operation” in history, Carlson added that “politicians are are now saying and encouraging things” that could destroy America.“Things that could fracture the nation, divide our people forever, turn this beautiful happy place into a permanent maelstrom of angry tribalism,” he said. “That’s happening now. Whether he is aware of it or not, Joe Biden is leading this effort.”Carlson then devoted a lengthy segment to attacking Biden and his campaign for visiting the family of Jacob Blake, who was shot in the back seven times by police last month, sparking violent protests in Kenosha. According to the primetime host, Biden was elevating anti-Semitism and hate by meeting with Jacob Blake Sr., the father of Blake. Recently unearthed social media posts show Blake Sr. expressing support for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has a history of virulent anti-Semitism, and making other comments disparaging Jews.

LONDON—Britain’s new Parliament voted overwhelmingly Friday to back Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit accord, a significant step toward the country’s departure from the European Union on Jan. 31.The vote isn’t the final endorsement that will be needed to pass the agreement into law—that is set to happen next month—but it symbolizes the end of years of political infighting over Brexit.Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party now has a majority of 80 in the House of Commons after his comfortable election win last week, and the House of Commons is packed with pro-Brexit lawmakers, making the vote for the divorce largely a formality.Lawmakers voted 358 for and 234 against the deal Mr. Johnson negotiated with the EU back in October, which stipulates how the U.K. will end its 46-year membership of the bloc. It covers issues such as citizens’ rights, a financial settlement the U.K. has agreed to pay the EU and an arrangement aimed at avoiding a physical border in Ireland.The law must still go through another vote in the House of Commons and win approval in the country’s upper chamber, the House of Lords. Such is the government’s majority, this process is expected to be easily completed early next month, allowing the country to quit the EU at the end of January. The approval of the European Parliament will also be needed, but isn’t in question.

Skateboarding brand Vans is facing a boycott in Hong Kong after it removed a shoe alluding to the city'santi-government protestsfrom a sneaker design competition.The company's decision to withdraw the proposed design was met with outrage on social media, where users began uploading videos and photos of themselvesthrowing their Vans sneakersin thetrash, and evensetting them on fire.Held annually, the Vans Custom Culture competition invites the public to submit their own shoe designs, with the winner of an online vote receiving $25,000 and having their sneakers manufactured by the brand. After voting opened last week, one entry quickly rose to the top, reportedly garnering tens of thousands of votes -- a shoe themed around the monthslong protests in the semi-autonomous city.A Vans store in Hong Kong. Credit: SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty ImagesThe design, attributed to a Canada-based user named Naomiso, features a red bauhinia, the flower on Hong Kong's flag, and one of the yellow umbrellas synonymous with the city's 2014 pro-democracy protests. Illustrations on the sneaker's side depict a crowd of protesters wearing gas masks, goggles and hard hats.On Saturday, with over a week of voting still to go, the submission was removed from the competition website. In astatement posted on Facebookin Chinese and English, the brand said that "a small number of artistic submissions have been removed ... to uphold the purpose of Custom Culture."'Be water:' Hong Kong protest mantra influences how art is designed and distributed "As a brand that is open to everyone, we have never taken a political position and therefore review designs to ensure they are in line with our company's long-held values of respect and tolerance, as well as with our clearly communicated guidelines for this competition," the statement said, without referring specifically to the protest-themed design. The statement drew condemnation on social media from Hong Kong protest supporters, where a number of posts were accompanied by the hashtag #boycottVans. Some users implied that the decision contradicted Vans' history and identity as a skateboarding brand rooted in youthful rebellion, while others created satirical posters that changed the brand's slogan, "Off the Wall," to insteadread"Lick the Great Wall," a jibe about bowing to Chinese pressure.Hong Kong and Beijing have long had a fraught relationship. Although Hong Kong is part of China, it's also a semi-autonomous city with its own language, currency, legal system, and culture -- and in recent years, its citizens have pulled further away, with some even calling for independence from China. Thissummer's protestshave seen anti-China sentiment in full force. Protesters have burned Chinese flags and thrown them into the harbor and spray painted "Hong Kong is not China" on walls across the city."This is a big move against the freedom of speech of all Hong Kong freedom fighters,"wroteone Twitter user, referring to the Vans controversy. "Now I see there is no way I can keep supporting your brand."Sneaker chain Dahood, which operates several Vans franchise stores in Hong Kong, announced Sunday that it was suspending operations at three locations because of "the controversy caused by the Custom Culture design contest."Permanent protest: Demonstrators in Hong Kong are getting tattoosThe widespread anti-government protests, which began in June over a since-withdrawn extradition bill, have grown increasingly violent in recent weeks. Friday night saw a second protester shot with a firearm during clashes between protesters and police officers. On Sunday, a drivermowed down protesters with a taxi cab and was subsequently beaten bloody by a mob.Vans joins a growing list of companies that have faced criticism from Hong Kong and Chinese consumers for taking perceived stances on the protests. Over the weekend, protesters attacked andvandalizedthe premises of businesses linked to mainland China, many of which had shut in advance.How a Hong Kong protest song became an unofficial 'anthem'In June, Nikepulled a number of productsin China after a fashion designer sparked social media backlash for expressing support for the protests. Versace, Coach, and Givenchy have alsocome under firefrom Chinese consumers for products that neglected to identify Hong Kong as part of China. CNN has reached out to Vans for comment.

A month after Seattle leaders applauded themselves for landing a small blow against big business in the form of an “Amazon tax”, on Tuesday they hurriedly abandoned it to avoid what they called “a prolonged, expensive political fight”.The tax, which would have assessed a $275-per-employee “head tax” on Seattle’s largest private employer, was slated to pay for new public housing and homeless services in the booming city. Passed unanimously on 14 May, the tax was also an unsubtle demonstration of the company town’s disaffection with its unofficial patron, Seattle-headquartered Amazon.A month of pressure from business interests broke city leaders. Seven of the city council’s nine members voted to repeal the ordinance, cutting short opponents’ efforts to put the tax up for a public vote.“This is not a winnable battle at this time,” councilmember Lisa Herbold said before voting for the repeal. “There is so much more to lose between now and November.”An Amazon spokesman, Drew Herdener, called the council vote “the right decision for the region’s economic prosperity”.“We are deeply committed to being part of the solution to end homelessness in Seattle,” continued Herdener, who went on to highlight Amazon’s support for charities involved in the issue.In recent years, Seattle has seen incomes and population climb, and housing costs rise, as Amazon and its downtown campus exploded. Aubrey Pullman, an Amazon employee, said he supported the tax even if it cost the city Amazon.“I want all kinds of people in the city, not just rich people,” Pullman said. “And if it means that I have to get a different job because Amazon moves, I will take that.”In Washington, a state with no income tax and ample restrictions on local taxing authorities, cities struggle for a cut of a roaring economy. Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, an architect of the head tax who voted against its repeal, described the head tax as one of the few options in the city toolkit. “It’s easy to say no, it’s harder to say yes to a solution,” Mosqueda said.The solution endorsed in May by the city council – after ample dickering over the dollar figure – would have raised $48m annually through a tax on the large businesses. Mayor Jenny Durkan signed off on the tax, which she described at the time as a compromise that would “address our homelessness crisis without jeopardizing critical jobs”.Nearly half of the Seattle’s renters are overburdened even as household incomes jumped 27% from 2012 to 2016, according to the US Census Bureau. The city’s forests, roadsides and sidewalks are increasingly packed with tents and shacks as the region’s population of unsheltered has grown to an estimated 12,500 people.Mosqueda argued that other funding be secured for housing programs before any repeal.“We need funding desperately to house the homeless,” Mosqueda said. “We need funding to shelter the unsheltered.”Seattle lawmakers appeared poised to again lead the way for other left-leaning cities; Seattle in 2015 was the first large American city to institute a $15- an-hour minimum wage. Leaders in San Francisco and several Silicon Valley cities have taken steps toward taxing tech giants reshaping their communities.Organizers in San Francisco expect to put a measure on the November ballot that would deliver $300m annually to house, shelter and assist homeless residents. Sam Lew, policy director for the city’s Coalition on Homelessness, said the measure amounts to a 0.5% tax on receipts from businesses grossing more than $50m.“In the face of the enormous 14% Trump tax break for large corporations, we hope to recapture just 0.5% of that tax on the local level,” Lew said Tuesday.A head tax will be on the November ballot in Mountain View, California, home to Google. Mountain View’s mayor, Lenny Siegel, described a situation similar to the one facing Seattle – rapid tech growth driving up housing costs and overwhelming community infrastructure – with a key distinction.“We have a positive continuing relationship with Google and other tech businesses,” Siegel said on Tuesday, noting that Mountain View’s tax on Google would amount to about $143 per employee.“A small tax – a fraction of a percent of payroll – is a good way to invest in transportation infrastructure, pay for local transit, and build housing,” he continued.In Seattle, the tax found plenty of critics. The city’s self-styled, unabashedly vocal “silent majority” decried the tax as a drag on Seattle’s economy, while socialist activists demanded double the tax rate approved by the council. They marched from the May meeting chanting: “We’ll be back for more!” Topics Amazon Seattle US taxation Washington state news

MADISON, Wis. -- A divisive leader drove the opposition to extreme measures. The political climate was toxic — with little civil debate or middle ground. The clash ended in a high-risk political showdown that captured the nation’s attention and shaped the next election.This was the 2012 battle to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker, not the 2019 fight to impeach President Donald Trump. But for some who lived through the former, the episodes have clear similarities and a warning for Democrats about overreach and distraction.“In both cases, they thought just as they were upset about something, everyone was,” Walker said, describing one of his takeaways from the campaign that failed to remove him from office. “Just because your base feels strongly about something doesn’t mean that the majority of other voters do.”Although moderates declined to join liberals back then in voting to eject Walker, Democrats warn against presuming they’ll break the same way for Trump next year in Wisconsin, a state seen as pivotal in 2020. Voters who were likely wary of undoing Walker’s election via a rare recall face a simpler choice in whether to hand Trump a second term, they say.“People may not like impeachment, simply because it adds to the drama of his presidency, but that doesn’t mean they are on the fence or sympathetic to Trump,” said Jon Erpenbach, a Democratic Wisconsin state senator.The Walker recall sprang from a law he signed just months into his first term that effectively ended collective bargaining for most public employees. Walker didn’t reveal his plan until after he was elected in 2010, and the move sparked massive protests that made Wisconsin the center of a growing national fight over union rights.Angry activists gathered nearly a million signatures to force the recall. Although Democrats had fought hard against the bill, with some state senators even fleeing the state at one point to avoid a vote, they were initially reluctant to embrace the recall for fear it would hurt then-President Barack Obama’s reelection hopes in 2012.The recall became a proxy battle ahead of the presidential election, with Democrats arguing that Walker unfairly targeted teachers, nurses and other public employees to weaken the unions that traditionally supported Democratic candidates. Walker argued that his proposal shouldn’t have been a surprise since he campaigned on forcing public employees to pay more for their benefits while capping how much they could bargain for in raises. He also argued that it wasn’t proper to use the extraordinary option of recall over a policy dispute.Walker ultimately won the recall election in June 2012, becoming a conservative hero on his way to a short-lived run for president in 2015. In a testament to Wisconsin’s political division, just five months after Walker won the recall vote, Obama cruised to victory in Wisconsin on his way to reelection.Trump is accused of improperly withholding U.S. military aid that Ukraine needed to resist Russian aggression in exchange for Ukraine’s new president investigating Trump political rival Joe Biden and his son. Trump has argued that he was within his rights to ask Ukraine to look into corruption and that impeachment is just an attempt by Democrats to remove him from office.Both impeachment and attempting to recall governors from office are exceedingly rare. Impeachment has only been leveled by the House against two presidents, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton 130 years later. Richard Nixon was on the brink of it in 1974 before he resigned. Walker was only the third governor in U.S. history to face a recall election and the first to survive it.The rarity of the remedy may help explain why voters are reluctant to do either one, said Charles Franklin, who has regularly surveyed voter attitudes in Wisconsin for Marquette University.A Marquette University Law School poll conducted just as public impeachment hearings were beginning earlier this month showed 53% of voters in Wisconsin were against removing Trump for office, with just 40% in support. National polls have shown a more even divide.Even more troubling for Wisconsin Democrats was that while 78% of Democrats supported removing Trump through impeachment, 93% of Republicans were against it. That stronger rallying behind the incumbent, with the other side not as unified, parallels what was seen during the Walker recall, Franklin said.Walker saw his support among independent voters go from about even six months before the recall election to positive 16 points just before the election. The latest Marquette poll also shows independents currently breaking against impeachment, with 47% against and 36% in favor.Mike Tate, who was chairman of the state Democratic Party during the recall and continues to work in the state as a consultant, cautioned against making too much of where independents are on impeachment — and where they may be next November. After the impeachment process runs its course, Democrats will move on to talk about many other issues throughout the presidential campaign, Tate said.“Impeachment will be in the rearview mirror,” he said.But Stephan Thompson, who led the state GOP during the recalls and went on to manage Walker’s successful 2014 reelection campaign, said impeachment is “such a monumental event in history and politics” that it will hang over Democrats the rest of the cycle and make it difficult for them to bring moderate voters back to their side.“When the left pushes this hard and overreaches, it helps you band together with people because you’re all in the foxhole together,” Thompson said. “I think that’s something they don’t realize.”Erpenbach, the state senator, was among those who fled to Illinois for two weeks to try to kill the anti-union bill. He argues that unlike the recall, which was motivated by a policy disagreement, Congress was forced to hold impeachment hearings because Trump is alleged to have violated the Constitution.Democrats are taking a political chance, Erpenbach said, but they’re doing what the Constitution requires, a key distinction from the recall.“It worries me that it could backfire,” Erpenbach said, “but that’s not the point.”———Follow Scott Bauer on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sbauerAP

Cory Booker on Friday morning jumped into the already busy field of Democratic candidates running for the White House in 2020 in a bid to oust Donald Trump.The New Jersey senator, long considered one of the Democratic party’s rising stars, launched his campaign in an email to supporters that promised to “channel our common pain back into our common purpose. Together, America, we will rise.”Booker, who first rose to prominence as the mayor of Newark, also released an accompanying video recounting the racial discrimination weathered by his family, while speaking to the power of civil rights movements.“The history of our nation is defined by collective action; by interwoven destinies of slaves and abolitionists; of those born here and those who chose America as home; of those who took up arms to defend our country, and those who linked arms to challenge and change it.”Booker, 49, was elected to the Senate in 2013 following a special election in New Jersey, becoming the state’s first black senator. He made his announcement on the first day of February, which is designated Black History Month, a time on the calendar for commemorations and educational programs about significant people and events in the history of the African diaspora.On Martin Luther King Day in the US last month, Booker spoke in South Carolina, as did a potential Democratic rival for the nomination, Bernie Sanders.Following Harris’s announcement about her run on MLK Day, Booker is the second black candidate in the race. Rather than opening an exploratory committee to test the waters, Booker took the direct step to open a campaign straight to the public, seeking the Democratic nomination.Booker plans to travel to the first caucus state of Iowa the weekend of February 9, then to early battlegrounds South Carolina and New Hampshire over the following week, according to his campaign.Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Booker has said he will not accept campaign donations from corporate political action committees and lobbyists. He also opposes Super Pacs supporting any candidacy.Booker previously served on the city council of Newark, the state’s largest city, and then as its mayor, cultivating a profile as a hands-on politician whose feats included racing into a burning building to save a woman from a fire and rescuing a freezing dog. He personally shoveled the snow of residents and earned a widespread following on social media.Since his arrival in the Senate, Booker had been widely viewed as a potential contender for president and was a finalist for Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential nominee in 2016.Branding himself as a progressive, Booker has embraced a ‘Green New Deal’ — a sweeping proposal that aims to combat climate change by zeroing out greenhouse gas emissions in a decade and reducing poverty with clean-energy jobs backed by federal spending.As with his Senate colleagues Warren, Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, he is a supporter of Medicare-for-All health insurance provisions, and has called for comprehensive immigration reform. Booker also played a key role in championing criminal justice reform efforts in the Senate, co-sponsoring bills that would do away with mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.He has, however, been criticized by leftwingers for strong ties to Wall Street firms and the pharmaceutical industry.A member of the Senate judiciary committee, Booker is known for his fiery questioning of nominees and administration officials in the age of Trump.The senator memorably lashed out at homeland security secretary Kristjen Nielsen over reports that the president questioned the need to accept immigrants from “shithole countries” in reference to Haiti, El Salvador and certain African countries. A visibly emotional Booker said he cried “tears of rage” upon learning of Trump’s comments.On Friday morning, Booker, who is fluent in Spanish, took part in call-in interviews with radio shows that are especially popular with African American and Latinx listeners. Later in the morning he will go on television to be interviewed on the popular daytime chat show The View, which has a majority female viewership. His mother will be sitting in the studio audience. Topics Cory Booker Democrats US elections 2020 US politics news

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A U.S. judge in Oregon on Tuesday granted a preliminary injunction blocking a Trump administration proclamation that would require immigrants to show proof of health insurance to get a visa.U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon said in a written opinion that the proclamation could not take effect while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality makes its way through the courts.The proclamation issued by President Donald Trump in October would only apply to people seeking immigrant visas from abroad — not those in the U.S. already.Seven U.S. citizens and a nonprofit organization sued to prevent the rule from taking effect, saying it would block nearly two-thirds of all prospective legal immigrants.ADVERTISEMENTThe lawsuit also said the rule would greatly reduce or eliminate the number of immigrants who enter the U.S. with family sponsored visas.“This decision is an important check on the Trump administration’s effort to rewrite our nation’s immigration and health care laws in violation of the boundaries set out in the Constitution,” said Esther Sung, an attorney with the Justice Action Center.In a statement Tuesday night, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Simon’s decision disregards federal law in violation of a Supreme Court decision last year recognizing the president’s broad authority to impose such restrictions. “We look forward to defending the President’s lawful action,” she said.Simon previously issued an emergency temporary restraining order on Nov. 3 in response to the lawsuit and heard oral arguments before issuing Tuesday’s opinion.Under the government’s visa rule, the required insurance can be bought individually or provided by an employer, and it can be short-term coverage or catastrophic.Medicaid doesn’t count, and an immigrant can’t get a visa if using the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies when buying insurance. The federal government pays for those subsidies.The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration think tank, says 57% of U.S. immigrants had private health insurance in 2017, compared with 69% of U.S.-born residents, and 30% of immigrants had public health insurance coverage, compared with 36% of native-born residents.The uninsured rate for immigrants dropped from 32% to 20% from 2013 to 2017, since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, according to the institute.There are about 1.1 million people who obtain green cards each year.Earlier this year, the administration made sweeping changes to regulations that would deny green cards to immigrants who use some forms of public assistance. The courts have blocked that measure.___Follow Gillian Flaccus on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/gflaccus

Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what’s happening in the world. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions. More is known about President Donald Trump freezing nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine thanks to the impeachment inquiry testimony of White House Office of Budget and Management (OMB) official Mark Sandy, which was released this week. [NPR / Elena Moore] Sandy told lawmakers Trump voiced concerns about the aid in June, and that by mid-July, there was open discussion of the president’s desire to withhold the aid at OMB. The hold was announced on July 18, and formally put into place following Trump’s July 25 call with the president of Ukraine. [Wall Street Journal / Andrew Duehren and Dustin Volz] According to Sandy, legal and process concerns over the hold led to at least two OMB officials resigning. [Washington Post / Erica Werner and Felicia Sonmez] And of course, concern over Trump’s interactions with Ukraine led to a whistleblower complaint that helped launch the impeachment inquiry. The public learned of the complaint in September, but the New York Times reports Trump found out about it in August. [New York Times / Michael S. Schmidt, Julian E. Barnes and Maggie Haberman] This means when Trump finally released the aid on September 11, he knew about the report. [Axios / Zachary Basu] Democrats will likely argue this bolsters their claim Trump released the funds because he got “caught” attempting to improperly pressure Ukraine. But in early September, Trump also believed Ukraine would be opening the investigations he’d requested. [Vox / Andrew Prokop] At a rally Tuesday night, Trump called the impeachment proceedings “bullshit” and said: “They’re attacking me because I’m exposing a rigged system that enriched itself at your expense and I’m restoring government of, by and for the people.” [Politico / Nancy Cook and Matthew Choi] But Democrats are moving forward with the inquiry as planned: Lawmakers are preparing a report on what they’ve learned so far, and House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler has announced his committee’s first impeachment hearing, to which he has invited the president. Trump has yet to RSVP. [BBC] In protest of the change in US policy toward Israeli settlements, Palestinians protested across the West Bank Tuesday. [Al Jazeera] Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the US will no longer consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank to violate international law. [The Guardian / Julian Borger and Oliver Holmes] Fatah, a Palestinian political party in the West Bank, organized a “day of rage” to protest the decision. [AP News / Matthew Lee] Tuesday, more than 2,000 people gathered in Ramallah to burn photos of Trump as well as Israeli flags. [Middle East Eye / Shatha Hammad] Mahmoud Aloul, a Fatah official, said protesters hoped to send this message: “The biased American policy toward Israel, and the American support of the Israeli settlements and the Israeli occupation, leaves us with only one option: To go back to resistance.” [Time / Mohammed Daraghmeh] The US policy change doesn’t alter international legal standards, but it could severely hinder the US’s ability to mediate for peace in the region. [BBC] Navigating Thanksgiving dinner with a variety of dietary restrictions among attendees isn’t easy. Here’s how to do it. [Vox / Julia Belluz] Russian cows are getting a new treatment in the hopes of increased happiness and better-tasting milk: augmented reality goggles. [CNN / Leah Asmelash] Winter threatens holiday travel as stormy weather looms nationwide. [Bloomberg / Vincent Del Giudice and Brian K Sullivan] If you want to include your furry friends in your holiday meals, here is a list of pet-friendly Thanksgiving foods. [The Advocate] In continuing with tradition, Butterball experts will be only a phone call away to answer your turkey crisis questions on the big day. [New York Times / Kim Severson] At a rally on Tuesday, Trump claimed that Democrats want to change the name of Thanksgiving. [Vox / Emily Stewart] Some say the Kardashian-endorsed keto diet craze that’s sweeping the nation could help fight epilepsy and cancer, too. Vox’s Julia Belluz separates fat from fiction. [Spotify]UN: Countries have failed miserably to cut emissions, and now must take drastic actionYou can now buy Star Wars hypebeast sneakers, fancy Dutch ovens, and status parkas. Here’s why.

During a Fox & Friends appearance on Monday morning, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) suggested that Turkey’s invasion of Syria and attack on America’s Kurdish allies was tied to Democrats launching an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.The Wyoming congresswoman and co-host Brian Kilmeade, both of whom have been critical of Trump’s decision to pull back American troops and abandon the Kurds ahead of Turkey’s invasion, expressed their concerns that ISIS could return to the area and the United States’ reputation among its allies will suffer.Cheney, meanwhile, took the opportunity to lay blame at House Democrats’ feet for pursuing impeachment against Trump over the Ukraine scandal.“I’m very concerned about it, Brian,” she said. “I think that what we’re seeing happen is going to have ramifications not just in the Middle East but around the world. If our adversaries begin to seek weakness, if our adversaries begin to think we won’t defend our allies, that we won’t defend our interests, that’s provocative.”Cheney continued: “But I also want to say that the impeachment proceedings that are going on and what the Democrats are doing themselves to try to weaken this president is part of this.”After Kilmeade agreed with Cheney, the Republican lawmaker added that it “was not an accident that the Turks chose this moment to roll across the border.”“And I think the Democrats have got to pay very careful attention to the damage that they’re doing with the impeachment proceedings,” she concluded.One of the most hawkish members of Congress, the House Republican Conference chairwoman has attempted to straddle a fine line when it comes to criticizing the president’s foreign policy while simultaneously kissing up to Trump. Just last month, Cheney found herself in a “butt-kissing” spat with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), with the two of them fighting over Trump’s attention.

On the weekend before Thanksgiving, Congress, surprisingly, seemed to beat a deadline. This past Saturday, negotiators in the House and Senate came to an agreement on top-line numbers for 12 spending bills, the Washington Post reported. These spending bills, which had been stalled, will keep agencies across the government funded through next September. While neither chamber has passed the updated legislation yet, the agreement in the House and Senate bodes well for their approval ahead of an upcoming December 20 cutoff. Earlier this month, Congress had passed yet another short-term measure aimed at giving lawmakers until that mid-December deadline to figure things out. They appear to have finished at least part of the task ahead of schedule, a sign of just how much lawmakers are focused on avoiding another government shutdown. This year’s funding process comes in the wake of the longest government shutdown in US history, after all. It’s worth noting, however, that while Congress has a deal of sorts, funding for the most contentious part of appropriations — President Donald Trump’s border wall — still hasn’t been finalized. The wall has long been the sticking point in funding talks, and it falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. The looming question around the wall underscores how President Trump remains the biggest outstanding variable in preventing a shutdown repeat. Although the circumstances of this year’s funding process are slightly different, the main wildcard is still President Trump. Unlike last year, Trump is going into this year’s funding talks with alternative ways to fund the wall, though some of these efforts are still caught up in the courts: If he doesn’t secure the $5 billion he wants from Congress, Trump could continue moving funds from other parts of the government as a result of the national emergency he’s declared. That said, since the wall has become such a political rallying cry for Trump’s base, it’s likely that he’ll continues to use it to energize supporters and push Republicans to advocate for it as part of the funding process. Last December, even though Senate Republicans were onboard with passing a funding measure to prevent a shutdown, Trump ultimately refused to support it because it didn’t include the wall money he demanded. The outstanding question is whether he will pull a similar stunt this time around, especially against the backdrop of the ongoing impeachment inquiry. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has vocalized such concerns, warning that Trump might consider this tactic in order to distract from the proceedings being levied against him. “He always likes to create diversions. I hope and pray he won’t want to cause another government shutdown because it might be a diversion away from impeachment,” Schumer told reporters in October. With House Judiciary Committee hearings slated to begin in early December and a possible vote on impeachment before the Christmas holiday, it certainly looks like the House’s impeachment push could overlap heavily with a government funding vote. As of yet, it’s unclear whether Trump will leverage that timing to advance his agenda — or if Congress will be able to move forward with the compromise it’s struck.

Paul Manafort, formerly Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, was taken into custody on Friday after a federal judge determined he had violated the terms of his bail as he awaits trial on multiple federal felony charges.Manafort, 69, thus became the second former Trump aide to go to jail related to charges brought by the special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian election interference and links between Trump aides and Moscow. Three other former aides, including the former national security adviser Michael Flynn, have been indicted and are cooperating with Mueller’s team of investigators. Former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulous was briefly held in custody. The charges against Manafort, which he denies, do not relate to his work on the Trump campaign or Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election.While Trump has distanced himself from Manafort, the arrest seemed likely to turn up the pressure in the White House. Mueller has asked the president to sit for an interview, which Trump has so far resisted.Hours after Manafort was jailed, Trump tweeted: “Wow, what a tough sentence for Paul Manafort.” Manafort has not been tried or sentenced. At the White House before the jailing, Trump falsely claimed to reporters: “Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. But … I tell you, I feel a little badly about it.”He added: “You know, Paul Manafort worked for me for a very short period of time. He worked for Ronald Reagan. He worked for Bob Dole. He worked for John McCain, or his firm did. He worked for many other Republicans. He worked for me, what, for 49 days or something? A very short period of time.”In fact, Manafort ran the campaign for five months and continued to advise Trump through the presidential transition.Trump also falsely claimed that a Department of Justice report issued on Thursday “totally exonerates” him and denied that Michael Cohen, his longtime attorney and fixer who is widely expected to be arrested soon in an investigation related to the Mueller inquiry, was his lawyer. “I haven’t spoken to Michael for a long time,” he said.Prosecutors alleged that Manafort sought to tamper with witnesses in his case by contacting them and attempting to coordinate testimony. Manafort is said to have told witnesses their work together to influence European politicians on behalf of Ukraine was restricted to Europe and did not happen in the US.Prosecutors argued there was no way to guarantee that Manafort would comply with orders if not in custody. A lawyer for Manafort said the court could be clearer on the nature of contact Manafort was permitted to have with potential witnesses.According to reporters in the room, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the US district court for the District of Columbia said she had “struggled” with her decision but could not “turn a blind eye” to Manafort’s conduct. He had, she said, “abused the trust placed” in him and treated the court proceeding as “just another marketing exercise”.“This is not middle school,” Berman Jackson said. “I can’t take away his cellphone. If I tell him not to call 56 witnesses, will he call the 57th?”As he was taken into custody, Manafort waved to his wife. He was not placed in handcuffs.Manafort who faces charges of alleged money laundering, tax fraud, failure to register as a foreign agent and obstruction of justice, faces a prison sentence of up to 20 years on the charges he faces in the District of Columbia. He also faces up to 270 years in prison on charges in district court in Virginia, meaning he could spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted.To diminish his potential sentence, Manafort, who denies all wrongdoing, may seek to reach a deal with federal prosecutors. His protege and longtime deputy, Richard Gates, cut a similar deal with prosecutors in February, pleading guilty to felony charges of conspiracy and making false statements.“I had hoped and expected my business colleague would have had the strength to continue the battle to prove our innocence,” Manafort said at the time.A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, did not immediately issue a statement on Friday.A political lobbyist and Republican operator whose career in Washington reaches back to the Nixon era, Manafort courted the Trump campaign in early 2016 and was hired that February to corral delegates for the presidential nomination as Trump won primary after primary.Manafort’s past, undeclared work in Ukraine and for Russian oligarchs drew scrutiny as the first questions began to surface about alleged coordination between the campaign and Moscow. Manafort then stepped down.The FBI has investigated Manafort, including conducting surveillance on him, since at least 2014. In late July 2017, agents conducted a pre-dawn raid on his home in Virginia, seizing computers and documents. After the raid, Trump admitted that he knew the man who ran his campaign at a crucial stage.“I know Mr Manafort – I haven’t spoken to him in a long time, but I know him,” Trump said. “He was with the campaign, as you know, for a very short period of time, relatively short period of time. But I’ve always known him to be a good man.” Topics Paul Manafort Trump-Russia investigation Donald Trump Trump administration Russia Europe news

Postwar German politics has a reputation for being moderate, consensual and a touch on the dull side. But there have been moments of high drama. In November 1959, for example, the Social Democratic party (SPD) abandoned its historic ambition to replace capitalism with socialism, dropped the Marxist account of class struggle and began to pitch itself as a broad-based Volkspartei (people’s party). History vindicated the decision. For the next 50 years or so, the SPD vied for power with the country’s other great political force, the CDU (and its CSU Bavarian ally), as both parties regularly achieved a vote share of over 40%.Famed for their practice of big-tent politics, what the CDU and SPD would give for such numbers now. The agonies of Brexit and the rise of rightwing populism have claimed the political limelight around Europe. But those looking for clues to the continent’s future would do well to watch Germany closely over the coming weeks.Results like that in Thuringia point both to Germany’s political fragmentation and to a more general challenge to the country’s economic orthodoxies. The new head of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, has suggested that Germany should spend more and save less to boost the eurozone economy. One of the four candidates for the SPD leadership, Olaf Scholz, is minister for finance in the coalition government and has reiterated his commitment to the so-called schwarze null (black zero) policy, which commits the country to balanced budgets. But the two leftwing candidates, Norbert Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken, have called for massive investment and an end to the borrowing-averse economics that German politicians have practised since the war. If they are victorious, they are likely to pull the SPD out of the grand coalition and force a snap election.Meanwhile, the CDU is conducting its own inquest, having been beaten in Thuringia by the far right nationalists of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). Angela Merkel has already said she will not contest the next federal election, due in 2021. But as the party prepares for its annual congress, which begins in Leipzig on Friday, there is talk of an attempt to block her presumed replacement, the unpopular CDU chair, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer. Some figures in the party are advocating an end to the ban on pacts with AfD, a terrible move that would significantly shift the centre of gravity on the right of German politics, and represent a definitive break with the liberal immigration policies of Merkel.As has happened elsewhere, the challenges of 21st-century capitalism in western European societies – low growth, the legacy of deindustrialisation, migration and the fallout from the crash – have eventually led to a crisis of the political centre. But Germany’s economic pre-eminence means that its response carries a special weight within Europe. Last week, it narrowly avoided going into recession. Its economy remains strong but the boom has ended and German politics will have to respond with more expansionary strategies. Stability has long been the dogma in Berlin, but 60 years after the legacy of Marx and Engels was discreetly put to one side by the SPD, revisionism is in the air again. Topics Germany Opinion Europe Angela Merkel Economics European Union The far right editorials

China isn't the only non-Arctic state interested in the region but it is by far the biggest, China and polar region expert Marc Lanteigne of Massey University in New Zealand told CNN. In 2013 it joined India, South Korea, Japan and Singapore in gaining non-voting observer status on the Council."Overall, there's been the acceptance that China is going to be a player there, but there is still some concern about the ambiguity to what China's endgame is," Lanteigne said.Arctic Council foreign ministers with then-US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on May 11, 2017.In January, Beijing published its first Arctic strategy white paper, claiming a vested interest in the region while attempting to allay fears over its territorial ambitions. It defines itself as a "near-Arctic state" in the document, saying environmental changes in the Arctic have a "direct impact on China's climate system and ecological environment." The white paper details Beijing's plans for a "Polar Silk Road" as part of its multi-trillion-dollar Belt and Road infrastructure program, a signature policy of President Xi Jinping whose government has spent big to build vast trade corridors across the world.While the Belt and Road initiative has drawn criticism in the West due to concerns that China is ensnaring developing countries in debt, Lanteigne says it's welcomed by some of the smaller Arctic players keen on building economic ties with Beijing."It has excited quite a few of the Nordic states who see the possibility of expanded Chinese sea traffic and potentially new ports," Lanteigne said. The idea of a mutually beneficial partnership is exactly the reassuring message China sought to drive home in its Arctic policy, with repeated references to "cooperation."Melting sea ice is seen from NASA's Operation IceBridge research aircraft off the northwest coast on March 30, 2017 above Greenland.It's a stark contrast to Arctic Council concerns before China's admission, when members feared it could seek to repeat its South China Sea territorial grab in the Arctic Circle.Beijing claims an enormous swath of territory in the South China Sea, and has created heavily fortified artificial islands to help assert its position in the Spratly and Paracel island chains.In comparison, the situation in the Arctic is relatively peaceful, according to experts, with no serious territorial disputes. And the Arctic states are eager to keep it that way.Beijing claims the main reason for its interest in the Arctic is scientific research.In the white paper, it detailed a desire to investigate the effects of climate change to "resolve global environmental issues." But skeptics have argued that China's Arctic ambitions are largely fueled by the economic and political appeal of dominating a resource-rich area.It is estimated that the Arctic may hold nearly one-third of the world's natural gas and 13% of global oil reserves, according to areportby Rachael Gosnell at the University of Maryland.And as rising temperatures melt the region's ice, shipping routes that were once impassible are now an attractive and feasible alternative for the world's second-largest economy."The Arctic is brimming with economic potential," said Gosnell, who estimates that the annual economy of the region exceeds $450 billion. According to NASA, some global climate models predict the Arctic will be ice-free during the summer months by the middle of this century, likely making its waters an important shipping route."China really wants to put itself in a position whereby, should there be some kind of scramble or push for Arctic resources, China would be very well placed to take advantage of that," said Lanteigne, the polar region expert.To secure that position, it is strengthening its Arctic capabilities. In September, China launched a second icebreaker known as Xue Long 2, or Snow Dragon 2, with an expedition scheduled for the first half of 2019,according to state-run media.The newly minted vessel is the first Chinese-built icebreaker. The China State Shipbuilding Corporation claims it will be more capable of cutting through ice and carrying out advanced research than its foreign-built predecessor.China's first domestically-built icebreaker, Xuelong 2, during a launch ceremony at a shipyard in Shanghai in September.China has been quick to recognize the importance of investing in the Arctic at a time when there are few participants and even fewer laws, so that it can eventually restructure Arctic governance in its favor, said Harriet Moynihan, associate fellow at the UK think tank Chatham House. China's increasing involvement in the Arctic Circle has also coincided with a growing lack of interest from Washington. US and China feud. Canada pays the priceFormer Secretary of State Rex Tillerson moved to eliminatea special envoy and representative for the Arctic regionin 2017, as climate change dropped down the list of priorities for the Trump administration.After World War II, the United States hadseven icebreakers in its fleet.In 2018 only two functioning icebreakers remain, one of which is a heavy-duty vessel overdue for an update.The Obama administration pursued an ambitious Arctic strategy to ensure the US remained a strong power in regional affairs, including plans to replace the heavy icebreaker by 2020.But it's unclear where the US now stands on those plans. The US Coast Guard, which runs the icebreakers, faces significant budget cuts as more and more funding is reconsidered for border security. "Because of the fact that the Arctic is not a priority for the Trump government, this has allowed China to take the steering wheel and accelerate their own Arctic policies," Lanteigne said.Russia is arguably the most active Arctic state, with a fleet of more than 40 icebreakers, and it is reluctant to allow non-Arctic countries to develop the region. But facing mounting Western sanctions, Moscow's attitude toward China has warmed considerably. "Russia realized that China was one of the few countries left that could really help with Siberian development," Lanteigne said."The two countries have cooperated in a number of Arctic ventures, including a liquefied natural gas project."With large parts of the Arctic still difficult for China to reach, it remains less important to Beijing than investments in other parts of the world, such as Africa and South Asia. But China's presence in the far north is only likely to grow -- whether the Arctic states are pleased about it or not.

There’s a shared feeling of helplessness, a destabilizing fear of not being able to control the vast hinterland. And a dazed recognition of the awesome power of wildfires. The aluminum wheels of cars melted into miniature rivers here, just as they have in California, a testament to the fires’ ferocious intensity.In the small town of Mogo, Andrew Graham stood in his backyard inspecting the ruins of his home. It had been a sturdy cinder-block structure, but the fire was so fierce it shattered the walls as if it were a missile. The glass from Mr. Graham’s windows appeared to have vaporized, leaving only a few curved pieces that could have been mistaken for sea glass collected from the beach.Mr. Graham and his wife had moved into their home on Christmas Eve. A week later, on New Year’s Eve, the firestorm came.“I have two sets of clothes and that’s it,” he said. “I lost everything.”Just as in California, many Australians have moved from cities into more affordable rural areas in recent years. Now Australia, like California, is counting the costs of communities pushing into the fire-prone wilderness.Firefighters in Australia have similar observations about the infernos they are seeing. Fires are more intense than in the past; they move more quickly, even at night. And just as in the United States there are acrimonious debates between left and right over the role of climate change in creating these conditions.

Last December, Facebook executives were in advanced discussions to buy Houseparty, a social networking app that lets multiple people video chat on their mobile phones at once, said two people with knowledge of the talks. Houseparty, co-founded in 2016 by two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Ben Rubin and Sima Sistani, was especially popular with audiences under the age of 24. Facebook, whose members are getting older, has coveted younger users.But weeks into the discussions, Facebook’s corporate development team killed the talks with Houseparty, the people said. Houseparty’s executives were told that a deal would draw unwelcome federal government scrutiny to Facebook, they said. Houseparty was later purchased by Epic Games, the makers of the video game Fortnite.Facebook’s changes that appear to make a breakup of its apps more difficult began more than a year ago. Mr. Zuckerberg focused on combining the underlying infrastructure of WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger. The project, called “interoperability,” requires years of deeply technical and difficult engineering work.The aim, in part, was to create less of a hodgepodge of companies and more of a unified network, said people briefed on the strategy. Publicly, Mr. Zuckerberg has said the initiative will help build a more “private” version of Facebook so customers can “communicate across networks easily and securely,” as users flock to messaging services en masse. People will also get a better and more streamlined user experience, he has said. Mr. Zuckerberg has added that a unified messaging system would better lend itself to moneymaking efforts on WhatsApp, which today brings in little revenue.But the idea of “interoperability” was a departure for Facebook. While Facebook and Instagram have long shared much of the same infrastructure, its different messaging products generally operated independently.Though employees at Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp are in separate physical buildings, executives have also pushed for them to share more internal resources and have reorganized their reporting lines. In one instance, Facebook executives ordered a change in the messaging teams, two of the people said, requiring the Instagram messenger division to report to the leaders at Facebook’s Messenger app. Bloomberg earlier reported on the internal reorganization.Last year, Facebook also began a rebranding project, tapping at least one outside agency for help, said three people familiar with the initiative. The agency, Prophet Brand Strategy, was asked to make Facebook into a “branded house,” where Facebook’s moniker always preceded the names of WhatsApp and Instagram, they said. The rebranding mandate came from Mr. Zuckerberg and Antonio Lucio, Facebook’s chief marketing officer, they said.

What Really Happened: One of the stranger stories last week came during a Trump rally where a conspiracy theory that had been under the surface for quite some time finally started to get some attention. It all started on Tuesday when folks noticed one letter in particular was making a lot of appearances at the president's event in Tampa.Q? This Q?Apparently not, as fun as the idea of a Star Trek: The Next Generation movement starting at Trump rallies may be. This Q, as it turns out, is something far more disturbing.Indeed, thanks to the appearances at the rally, the "QAnon" conspiracy theory—in which Trump is a heroic figure pushing back against a conspiracy running America that makes the "Deep State" look like an after-school glee club—went mainstream with all manner of explainers and descriptions. This wasn’t something that went over well with everyone, as some complained that it was merely helping the conspiracy theory become more easily shared (as was apparently happening, it should be noted).But what drove many people to distraction about the conspiracy theory was the way in which it overlooked actual facts that are happening right now:As with all conspiracies, the response to this got wonderfully complicated for those into the Dark Web of it all, with Anonymous coming out against Q.But what's the scariest thing about this whole subject? How many people eagerly ate up the genuinely mystifying, contradictory nonsense, and what that means for the future.The Takeaway: But we still don’t know! Who is Q? What could he want, besides simply whipping a whole swath of Americans up into a frenzy for nefarious purposes? If only he’d come forward and tell us what he wan—What Happened: Turns out, there's something about Paul Ryan that even Paul Ryan didn't know. But no one seems to be particularly excited over the news.Still, at least Ryan seemed to be excited about it:Guess how that went down...The Takeaway: This is getting out of hand. We need someone to bring a sense of perspective here…More Great WIRED StoriesHow straws slip through the cracks of waste managementMeet the digital sleuth exposing fake newsHow to secure your accounts with better 2FAOne young boy's magnificent obsession with fansWant Facebook to censor speech? Maybe think twiceLooking for more? Sign up for our daily newsletter and never miss our latest and greatest stories

closeVideoSen. Cory Booker quotes this Old Testament Bible verse to defend LGBTQ rightsNew Jersey senator and 2020 hopeful Cory Booker quotes Old Testament book, Micah, to defend LGBTQ rights.2020 Democratic presidential primary hopeful Cory Booker defended his flagging campaign on Sunday and pleaded with voters to support his White House run after he swore off taking money from political action committees. “We need to unite and the next president has to be a healer and get us back to one nation under God,” Booker said during an appearance on CBS’ “Face The Nation. “Partisanship has divided us and made tribalism. We need a leader to inspire.”Booker is sitting in the middle of the crowded Democratic field with a campaign that is struggling to bring funds after swearing off donations from PACs.Earlier in the week, a super PAC formed to support Booker’s Democratic presidential campaign announced it was shutting down.VideoThe group’s founder, San Francisco lawyer Steve Phillips, indicated in a news release Wednesday that Dream United had struggled to raise money. Booker, a New Jersey senator, has publicly disavowed support from super PACs, which aren't required to disclose their donors.Phillips, a former college classmate of Booker’s, said that it became clear while trying to fundraise for Dream United "that the donor community is strictly adhering to Senator Booker’s publicly articulated wishes that he does not welcome independent support." The group raised a little over $1.1 million during the first six months of the year, far short of Phillips' stated $10 million goal.Booker’s campaign has been floundering in the polls, with the Real Clear Politics average of national polls showing the New Jersey senator pulling in less than 2 percent of the vote, compared to the frontrunner, former Vice President Joe Biden, who has 27 percent. Booker’s fellow senators, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, are also faring much better – averaging around 18 percent and 16 percent, respectively.VideoBooker released a new digital ad on Sunday meant to sway voters in the early caucus state of Iowa, where he is polling at just under 2 percent. South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg holds a surprising lead in Iowa with 24 percent. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

When I heard that Michael Avenatti had been placed in the Special Housing Unit, or SHU, at Metropolitan Correctional Center, or MCC, I almost became nostalgic for my old alma mater. I spent most of 2019 at MCC, bunking with Paul Manafort and spending hours one on one with Jeffrey Epstein while he was on suicide watch. But I missed meeting Michael. Basta!Regardless, there are few people who understand exactly what Avenatti is experiencing, hardly a year after he was clashing with Trump concerning Stormy Daniels (among other issues) and talking about running for president himself. Thanks to my 10-month stay for tax fraud at the facility where Avenatti’s lawyer says that he’s huddled under three blankets in El Chapo’s old cell while he awaits his trial at MCC for allegedly trying to extort $20 million from Nike, a charge he’s vehemently denied, I have a pretty good idea about what Mr. Avenatti is going through. He was flown to the Manhattan prison last Friday from California, where he awaits trial on other charges, that he also vehemently denies. This all sounds par for the course. And I’m sure my ex-bunky, Paul Manafort, who blazed an eerily similar path at MCC, would concur. High-profile prisoners—be they rich white-collar criminals, or infamous sex offenders—are generally placed in protective custody for their safety. Jeffrey Epstein was somehow first admitted to general population, where inmates immediately set to shaking him down. “Put money on my books and I won’t kick your ass,” was the general theme. So he requested protective custody quickly and ended up in the special housing unit. The catch is that protective custody is intrusive, unpleasant and filled with the worst of the worst—the 10 percent of prisoners who simply will not follow the rules and have to get high, or use cellphones, or fight.So what’s it really like living in the SHU? What is Avenatti experiencing there as you read this? To start with, he’s cold. I froze my ass off my first week at MCC. Without thermals and a sweatshirt (which I couldn't get until commissary day), I was constantly under a blanket. That blanket was a scratchy cover which we called The Burberry because it had the pattern though certainly not the quality or comfort. MCC cells all have a vent blowing out cold air for 23 hours a day (at 10 p.m., it turned hot for an hour). So we fashioned cardboard rectangles and whammed them into the vents to block the wind. At least that eliminated the wind chill.The SHU itself is actually one unit with two sections: 9 South houses the unleaded regular-type guys, inmates who can’t follow rules; 10 South, where Avenatti is in Chapo’s old cell, is reserved for superstars, celebrities and big-time terrorists and drug dealers. Units at MCC evoke a six-legged spider. The body is the central area where guys congregate and watch television. The legs are the tiers, each containing eight 50-square-foot two-man cells and one private shower. Up a flight of stairs off the body is the classroom and offices of the unit team (counselor, case manager and secretary). But above 9 South, what had been classroom and offices have been converted into 10 South, cells for the infamous. SHU Inmates get a meal three times a day (6 a.m., 11 a.m., 5 p.m.). The food isn’t all that tasty, or even edible. But there’s a lot of it. While general population inmates receive meals on small brown trays, the SHU guys get at least twice as much on big orange trays. The elite 10 South prisoners are served on blue trays the same size as the orange ones. Down in the kitchen, we'd generally make 75 orange SHU trays for 9 South and maybe 2 or 3 blue trays for 10 South. To make up the regular brown trays, we spooned the meal into the tray. For the SHU trays, we used the brown tray as a spoon. You get the idea. One of the first questions I asked upon viewing the discrepancy between g pop and SHU trays was "Why do the SHU inmates get a bigger meal when they're the prisoners getting punished?" The answer was that they have no access to commissary and thus are given more food to sustain them.With respect to visitors and phone privileges, SHU residents don’t really get any. But legal visits are allowed, and often the only time that they can leave their cell (which perhaps explains why Epstein was spending eight hours a day with his lawyers). In a letter sent to authorities, Avenatti’s lawyer complained that he wasn’t allowed to make proper legal visits over the holiday weekend. Totally believable by me. We had only one half-day window for visiting hours every week while I was at MCC. And often, that half-day was canceled with very little notice. Avenatti, his lawyer wrote, is being held in a cell by himself, with two cameras clocking him—and isn’t even allowed to shave. I get it. After Epstein’s highly publicized suicide, the prison staff doesn’t want to take a chance on a reprise. The authorities don’t want him anywhere near a razor blade. Inmates at MCC (Nicholas Gibson for one) have tried to slit their throats with blades they hid after breaking open disposable shavers.Avenatti’s lawyer speculates that his client is “apparently under special administrative measures,” and it doesn’t sound like Avenatti has even been getting his hour a day of recreation on the roof of the prison. Rec is another realm at which MCC, long ago hailed as a flagship modern prison, fails, partially owing to its urban location. There is no yard, like in most prisons. Rec happens instead on the roof, where inmates exercise on a basketball and handball court surrounded by four walls topped off with caging. Because of those walls, inmates will not get any sunshine unless their unit has early afternoon rec. My unit had rec at 5:30 PM. I was down in the kitchen working at that hour, so even if there was any sun to get, I wouldn’t have gotten it. It did occur to me that the administration could have rotated rec hours among units so everybody got at least some sun at some point during their stay. And if possible, a second rec time for workers would have been appropriate. (Even Rikers had that!) When I got out, friends commented, “You look especially pale!” You can guess why.With respect to personal hygiene, SHU residents are allowed three showers per week. Will Avenatti get more access to the shower owing to his celebrity? Possibly. But probably not. Welcome to prison. Club Fed and Club Med bear little resemblance.Institutionalized inmates know how to hustle for a good mattress (all things being relative). I don’t imagine Avenatti is in a position to do that in 10 South. In any event, Avenatti is sleeping on a metal bunk with what would be more accurately called a pad than a mattress. The variation is in how thick that pad is. I settled for one that was a little short but not too thin, and made up for the shortness by piling up blankets to about the level of the mattress.Oddly, MCC doesn’t allow pillows. Which meant we took to hiding them in our lockers whenever leaving for work so they wouldn’t be confiscated by a guard doing a random walk-through. One day I returned to my cell and found two of the three pillows I’d collected confiscated. I never forgot to lock them up again. Fortunately, I was friendly with the unit tailor (self-proclaimed, not prison-sanctioned) and for a tuna pack from commissary (or was it a chicken from the kitchen?), I got a replacement quickly. With no opportunity to barter with the tailor, chances are Avenatti is using a towel or blanket to rest his weary head.Beyond being cold, confined for 23 hours a day (unless his lawyer visits), not showering most days, never seeing sunlight and having no TV or phone calls, the worst part of the SHU is still the noise. Remember, the special housing unit is where the worst 10 percent of the prison population is held. The boys scream and yell at each other from tier to tier and pass things on a string from cell to cell. If one decides to spend a night banging and screaming his guts out (which happened on a number of occasions even in the more civilized g pop unit), officers rarely do anything about it. Sleep deprivation can be a real issue anywhere you live in MCC — and especially in the SHU. At one point, I was on suicide watch with an infamous chomo (child molester) who’d requested protective custody because he tired of the physical intimidation he was experiencing in g pop. White (not his real name) reported that the SHU was so intolerable that he feared he was going mad and went back to g pop to take his chances, and beatings. Living in the SHU was that bad. When I heard (while I was still locked up inside) that Epstein had killed himself, my first thought was that the insanity of the SHU caused his suicide. Just a thought, mind you—because in the hours I’d spent with him, Jeffrey never struck me as actually being suicidal or horribly depressed.But I digress. I get why Avenatti is currently housed in the SHU (for his safety). I get why he is under constant watch: for fear that the conditions that drove Epstein to suicide might do the same to Avenatti. More bad publicity is the last thing MCC needs. They're not going to let him die in their custody.Given how bad the SHU is, the authorities may eventually move Avenatti into g pop—just as they did Manafort. If they pursue that course, the staff will carefully consider who to room him with. But there is one wrinkle in that idea: Manafort was a sentenced prisoner, who could be placed in the relatively civilized cadre unit (where I was) with the other sentenced inmates. Guys who know their out date are much less prone to violence because they don't want to lose their good time by fighting. Pre-trialers, the population Avenatti would be released into, are more dangerous. Many live in suspended animation, with a propensity for violence that reflects that limbo. Virtually all the blood shed at MCC is spilled in pretrial units.When Epstein requested me as his bunky as an alternative to the SHU or suicide cell, he was told that was impossible because I was a sentenced inmate and he was awaiting trial. Avenatti will have the same problem. William Mersey is a writer and blogger who's been published in the New York Times, the New York Daily News and New York magazine, as well as in Gallery, Oui, and Screw magazines. From Jan. 3 to Nov. 18 of 2019, Mersey was imprisoned in the Metropolitan Correction Center for tax fraud, where he spent a significant amount of time in the company of Paul Manafort and Jeffrey Epstein. For more of his thoughts on prison life, the BOP and MCC, visit db-lockdown.com.

LONDON—U.K. lawmakers endorsed a Brexit deal for the first time on Tuesday, raising the prospect that the country’s protracted divorce from the European Union is finally entering its endgame.It was an important step that gave critical momentum to the deal negotiated by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but not a decisive one. In a vote minutes...