Senators finally got to participate in the impeachment trial on Wednesday — and they did not hold back. For eight hours, senators were able to ask House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump’s defense just about anything they’d like to know about their respective cases, submitting written questions that were read aloud by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. While a large chunk of the more than 90 questions were designed to allow the two sides to simply reiterate the strengths of their case, several Democrats explicitly — and effectively — capitalized on this opportunity to call out the president for other weaknesses.Here are three instances when lawmakers used their questions to make a point about Trump. Question to House impeachment managers: “President Nixon said, ‘When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.’ Before he was elected, President Trump said, ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.’ After he was elected, President Trump said that Article II of the Constitution gives him ‘the right to do whatever [he] want[s] as president.’“These statements suggest that each of them believed that the president is above the law —a belief reflected in the improper actions that both presidents took to affect their reelection campaigns. If the Senate fails to hold the president accountable for misconduct, how would that undermine the integrity of our system of justice?”Asked by: Sen. Kamala Harris (CA)Harris’s question refocused attention on an explosive moment in Trump’s 2016 campaign, when an Access Hollywood tape leaked and showed him bragging about abusing his position of power to commit sexual assault. It raised a direct parallel with the way he has talked about his expansive power as president, and it also reminded lawmakers — and the public — about another damning set of allegations Trump faces: Currently, more than 20 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct. “If you look at the pattern in this president’s conduct in his words, what you see is a president who identifies the state as being himself,” impeachment manager Adam Schiff said in his response. Question to House impeachment managers: “Republican lawyers have stated on several occasions that two people, Sen. Johnson and Ambassador Sondland, were told directly by President Trump that there was no quid pro quo in terms of holding back Ukraine aid in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens. “Given the media has documented President Trump’s thousands of lies while in office, more than 16,200 as of January 20, why should we be expected to believe that anything President Trump says has credibility?” Asked by: Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT)Sanders’s question explicitly took a swipe at Trump’s trustworthiness, an ongoing pattern that’s been an undercurrent of his presidency ever since he took office. In the years since his election, Trump has lied about countless subjects including who will bear the burden of tariffs, his focus on protecting Americans with preexisting conditions, and the amount of money Puerto Rico has received for disaster aid. Sanders drew attention to this recurring issue. “I’m not quite sure where to begin with that question except to say that if every defendant in a trial could be exonerated just by denying the crime, there would be no trial. It doesn’t work that way,” said Schiff. Question to House impeachment managers: “The president’s counsel has argued that Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma created a conflict of interest for his father Joe Biden. President Trump, the Trump organization, and his family, including those who serve in the White House, maintain significant business interests in foreign countries and benefit from foreign payments and investments. “By the standard that the president’s counsel has applied to Hunter Biden, should Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump’s conflict of interest with foreign governments also come under investigation?”Asked by: Sens. Tom Udall (NM), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Patrick Leahy (VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)This group of lawmakers sought to underscore the hypocrisy of Republicans’ push to criticize Hunter Biden, whose seat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company, has been at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Although Hunter Biden’s board seat certainly doesn’t look good, Democrats noted that members of Trump’s family, who are also part of the administration, could similarly be scrutinized. Jared Kushner, for example, continues to own part of Cadre, a real estate company that has received an influx of foreign investment, even as he’s served as an adviser in the White House, the Guardian reports. “The reason why we’re here has nothing to do with anybody’s children,” impeachment manager Val Demings said. “The reason why we’re here is because the president of the United States ... used the power of his office to try to shake down a foreign power to interfere in this year’s election.”

closeVideoWATCH: Plagiarized speech that sank Biden's 1988 presidential campaignHowever, it was in Iowa in 1987 that then-Sen. Biden delivered a plagiarized speech that led him to abandon his first presidential campaign.In Fox Nation's new docuseries, "Proving Grounds: Iowa," Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume recounts the history of the Iowa caucuses, how they came to be the first contest in the primaries, and detailed the presidential campaigns that the state launched and abruptly ended."Joe Biden, a senator from Delaware... closed the debate at the Iowa State Fair with an emotional invocation of his coal-mining ancestors," narrated Hume in the Fox Nation show. "The rival [Michael] Dukakis campaign leaked a tape proving Biden had plagiarized the bit from a speech by a British politician talking about his family.""I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university?" said Biden in Iowa in August 1987."Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college?" he continued, gesturing to his wife Jill. "Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright?""My ancestors, who worked in the coal mines in northeast Pennsylvania, who would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours," he went on, arguing that he is fighting to help struggling Americans. "It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand.''VideoThe words and phrases mirrored -- almost exactly -- the campaign speech of British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.In his remarks, Kinnock said, "Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?""Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?" he said referencing his own wife."Was it because all our predecessors were thick?... Those people who could work eight hours underground and then come up and play football?""It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand," Kinnock concluded.It ultimately sank Biden's presidential ambitions that year."When more instances of plagiarism followed, Biden withdrew," narrated Hume.JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: JOE BIDEN HAD 'NO IDEA' WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AT CONFIRMATION HEARINGSThe Delaware senator also admitted to being accused of plagiarism in law school and was shown to have padded his academic record while speaking to voters in New Hampshire."I'm angry with myself for having... put myself in the position of having to make this choice," said Biden at a Sept. 23, 1987, news conference that he called to announced his decision to drop out of the race. "And I am no less frustrated for the environment of presidential politics."In the Biden campaign ad released on Thursday, a narrator reads over images of the Oval Office, "It’s said that in here, your character is revealed," the spot concluded. "Character matters, maybe more here than anywhere.""Proving Grounds: Iowa" is available exclusively on Fox Nation.Fox Nation programs are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers. Go to Fox Nation to start a free trial and watch the extensive library from Tomi Lahren, Pete Hegseth, Abby Hornacek, Laura Ingraham, Ainsley Earhardt, Greg Gutfeld, Judge Andrew Napolitano and many more Fox News personalities.

US Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker has announced he is ending his campaign after disappointing poll numbers.The African-American New Jersey senator had failed to qualify for the Democratic debate on Tuesday in Iowa.The former rising star's message of unity at a time of deeply divided politics failed to win over voters in the crowded 2020 field.There are now 12 Democrats remaining in the race for the White House."Today I'm suspending my campaign for president with the same spirit with which it began," Mr Booker said in a video announcing the end of his campaign.In an email to supporters he said: "I'm proud of the ideas we brought to this Democratic primary and, more importantly, the values we championed throughout - that the only way we make progress is by bringing people together - even when we were told that our approach couldn't win." Mr Booker, 50, had focused his campaign on a message of "love and unity" to combat what he depicted as Mr Trump's divisive rhetoric.But his prescriptions for criminal justice reform, as well as reducing economic and racial inequality failed to resonate with voters.At university with Cory BookerThe former Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, had polled an average of 2% nationally, according to RealClearPolitics data.Front-runners Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have been polling at 29% and 20% on average respectively.Mr Booker was unable to match his competitors in fundraising. Politico reported he pulled in only $6m (£4.6m) in the final quarter of last year, far less than his top-tier rivals.If political success came from the strength of a stump speech, Cory Booker would be on the way to the Democratic nomination. He was simply electric in small crowds, hosting events that were part political rally and part religious tent revival.Many popular candidates receive standing ovations when they begin a speech. Booker would regularly get them as he concluded - even from non-supporters.Especially, it seems, from non-supporters. That was the rub.Democrats tended to like Booker. Very few, however, told pollsters they would vote for him. Even fewer were interested in donating to his campaign.Booker consistently received plaudits for his skillful "happy warrior" debate stage performance. Without the requisite support, however, those debate invites dried up months ago.Some Democrats clearly wanted a warrior with a sharper edge and backed someone else. Those who sought an upbeat candidate have supported Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg - the younger, less experienced Rhodes scholar and former mayor in the race.That left Booker with no clear base of support - and it cost him. Booker's campaign had a lot of potential on paper. His career is far from over, but least for now, that's where his potential will remain. Meanwhile, with Booker's exit, there are 12 candidates still in the race. In a party that celebrates its diversity, all but three are white - none of whom will be on debate stage tomorrow night.That is a challenge the party will have to confront in the days ahead. Last week, Mr Booker said the impending presidential impeachment trial could deal a "big, big blow" to his campaign as he would be off the trail for weeks.On 9 January, he told the Associated Press: "If we can't raise more money in this final stretch, we won't be able to do the things that other campaigns with more money can do to show presence." The key issues for 2020 Democrats What can Democrats learn from Labour’s UK election defeat? The Democratic 2020 race - in five charts Fellow Democratic contender Marianne Williamson quit the race at the weekend, while Julian Castro, who was the only Latino in the field, dropped out of the race earlier this month.Mr Booker, who launched his campaign on the first day of Black History Month in February last year, had recently complained about the lack of diversity in the Democratic presidential field.He told MSNBC in December: "We're spiralling towards a debate stage that potentially could have six people with no diversity whatsoever."Just as he predicted, all six Democratic White House hopefuls who will take to the stage for a televised debate on Tuesday in Iowa are white; two are women.Most of the remaining Democratic candidates are male and white, which is provoking criticism for a party that prides itself on multiculturalism.Of the remaining contenders, only Andrew Yang, Deval Patrick and Tulsi Gabbard are not white.The Washington Post recently ran a column saying that the Democrats "are starting to look like a 'Whites only' party".Mr Booker had also struggled to attract black voters, many of whom favoured Mr Biden, Mr Sanders or Ms Warren in early opinion polls.President Donald Trump weighed in soon after Mr Booker's announcement, saying: "I was sooo concerned that I would someday have to go head to head with him!"Mr Booker's 2020 rivals have also responded to his exit. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar said she would miss him on the campaign trail, and Mr Biden said he had campaigned with "joy and heart".Mr Yang, calling Mr Booker a friend and brother, said "the fight continues".Fans of the New Jersey senator's girlfriend, actress Rosario Dawson, mourned what might have been had she become first lady of the US.Mr Booker had a quip ready.Find out who is still in the running and what they stand for

SOUTH BEND, Ind. (AP) — Karen DePaepe had been waiting all day for a call back from Pete Buttigieg.It was March 2012, and the 30-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, had just decided to replace the city’s first African American police chief over complaints that he illegally wiretapped police officers’ phone calls.DePaepe, who oversaw the department’s phone system, had called the mayor to try to talk him out of removing the popular chief. She wanted to tell him the situation was not that simple. It was DePaepe who discovered a mistakenly recorded phone line, and, she says, heard white police officers making racist comments. She said in an interview with The Associated Press that she reported what she heard to the chief, and the recording continued.ADVERTISEMENTButtigieg — who’s now competing for the Democratic nomination for president — never called her back. When DePaepe’s phone finally rang, she says, it was the young mayor’s chief of staff, who told her she, too, had to go. Federal prosecutors, he told her, had suggested that she and the chief could be indicted if they weren’t removed.DePaepe hung up, crying and in disbelief. She called one of the prosecutors, who she says told her she was not in trouble and should not quit.“Who do I believe? I’m being told two different stories,” DePaepe recalled thinking, adding, “Someone is lying to me.”Buttigieg’s demotion of Chief Darryl Boykins and firing of DePaepe has shadowed his presidential campaign, giving rise to complaints he has a blind spot on race and raising questions about whether he can attract the support of African Americans who are crucial to earning the Democratic nomination. It’s also reinforcing skepticism that the 37-year-old former mayor has the wisdom or experience to handle the demands of the Oval Office.Black Lives Matter activists have been protesting at his campaign events in recent days, spurred in part by his handling of the case.Buttigieg has defended his actions, saying he was responding to a “thinly veiled” message from federal prosecutors. In his telling, he saved two people from criminal charges and took the political heat for getting rid of a well-liked chief.But interviews with more than 20 people with direct or indirect knowledge of the events, along with a review of documents and contemporaneous news reports, paint a more complicated picture that is not as flattering to Buttigieg. While some said they believed the young mayor was trying to do the right thing, others told the AP that his lack of experience led him to take actions that weren’t well thought out, and that his explanations don’t ring true. His subsequent failure to include African American people in positions of power further damaged his standing in the community.ADVERTISEMENT“It left a really, really bad taste in my mouth,” said Pastor Wendy Fultz, who is black and a leader of the local chapter of the activist group Faith In Indiana.RECORDED CALLS, ALLEGED RACISMThe story begins before Buttigieg was elected.The South Bend Police Department had a long-standing practice of recording certain telephone lines, including front desk lines, 911 calls and the phone lines of most division chiefs. In 2010, some of those phone lines were switched, and a detective’s line began being mistakenly recorded, according to a federal investigation.DePaepe said she learned of the mix-up in February 2011. She was troubleshooting a problem when she says she heard what she describes as racist comments by officers and discussion about something she considered possibly illegal.She reported it to the chief weeks later. He was shocked, she recalled, but didn’t immediately tell her to do anything, and the recording continued.Just before Christmas, the chief asked her to make tapes of what she heard.Boykins, who did not respond to messages seeking comment, listened to at least one tape and made copies of some of them. He confronted an officer about his “loyalty,” then told him he would take the tapes to the mayor, according to a November 2012 FBI report on the case obtained by the AP through a Freedom of Information request.A 2015 investigation by a special prosecutor in Indiana found Boykins’ motivation for continuing the recordings was to gather evidence of disloyalty, rather than to expose racism. However, the prosecutor declined to bring charges.Shortly after Buttigieg was sworn in, multiple officers complained to the U.S. attorney’s office in northern Indiana, alleging that their phone calls were being illegally recorded and that Boykins had threatened to use the information to fire or demote them, according to FBI records obtained by the AP. The FBI launched an investigation of possible violations of the federal Wiretap Act.The tapes have never been released, despite repeated calls from the community. Buttigieg says he hasn’t heard them, and DePaepe won’t discuss details of what she heard, citing a settlement that bars her from doing so.The South Bend Common Council — the community’s city council — sued to release the tapes, and the lawsuit is pending. The next hearing is Jan. 22. At the heart of the lawsuit is whether the calls were recorded legally.Boykins and DePaepe, who is white, denied wrongdoing, and no one was charged.A lawyer for several officers who sued the city says the tapes were made illegally and were an invasion of privacy. He says his clients made no racist comments, and some had their jobs threatened by the chief.But Buttigieg, within months of becoming mayor, was faced with the dual challenge of a federal investigation into the police department and officers accused of racism.THE MEETINGButtigieg was sworn in on Jan. 1, 2012.In his memoir, he writes that he believed there were problems with the management of the police department and that cleaning it up would be a major task. Still, he reappointed the chief, who had the support of both the Fraternal Order of Police and the NAACP, and was known for his work with youth and in city neighborhoods.“He is liked and respected for very good reasons. And I have a lot of respect for him,” Buttigieg told the AP last month.But the decision to keep him on, Buttigieg wrote in his memoir, became his “first serious mistake as mayor.”Weeks after Buttigieg took office, three officers complained to his chief of staff, Mike Schmuhl, that Boykins was recording and listening to their phone conversations, according to a 2013 deposition of Schmuhl obtained by the AP through a public records request and first reported by the website The Young Turks. Schmuhl relayed the information to Buttigieg.A few days later, then-U.S. Attorney David Capp called Schmuhl to say his office was looking into it, Schmuhl said in his sworn testimony. Soon after, Schmuhl told Buttigieg about the investigation, campaign spokesman Sean Savett said.But what Schmuhl told him didn’t seem to make an impression.“I remember there were rumors going around about the internal politics inside the police department, and it might have had something to do with people recording each other, but not a way that I really understood and pieced together until that meeting with the prosecutors,” Buttigieg told the AP.On March 23, 2012, at Capp’s request, South Bend officials met with federal law enforcement. Buttigieg sent Schmuhl, a high school friend who is now managing his presidential campaign, along with acting city attorney Aladean DeRose and Rich Hill, an outside lawyer Buttigieg hired for advice.Capp brought then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald Schmid, two other federal prosecutors and an FBI agent.What happened at that meeting is hotly contested. It’s also the key to much of the acrimony that arose in the days and weeks afterward, and it has raised questions about Buttigieg’s management style and his forthrightness.Three days after that meeting, according to a lawsuit Boykins later filed alleging racial discrimination and defamation, Schmuhl met with the police chief to pressure him to resign, which he did three days later.The response was explosive: Angry members of the Common Council joined the next day with community leaders for a meeting attended by more than 100 people to demand Boykins’ reinstatement. The mayor refused.Local news reported over the following days that DePaepe had found recordings of officers making racist comments. More than a week later, on April 10, she, too, was fired.Buttigieg’s memoir glosses over that timeline, omitting the fact that he fired DePaepe well after racism allegations were reported.The mayor initially refrained from publicly justifying his decisions, but as rumors swirled across South Bend, he began to explain. He told the South Bend Tribune that “charges were not filed because we acted to satisfy federal authorities.”“It was still the right thing to do to prevent them from getting into deeper trouble, even if they were going to hate me for it,” he told the newspaper.He repeated that explanation in his memoir, published in 2019, and went on to question the U.S. attorney’s motives.“Why should a U.S. attorney shoulder the responsibility of taking down a beloved African-American police chief, if he can get the mayor to do it for him by removing him from his position?” he wrote.In an interview with the AP, Hill, one of the city’s lawyers in the meeting, backed up Buttigieg’s account.He said federal officials explicitly told them the city needed to take “personnel action.”“The U.S. attorney said, you have problems with two people and ... if you address the issues with those two people satisfactorily, then there would not be prosecution,” Hill said.Leaving the meeting, Hill said they all had the same understanding.“There was no difference in interpretation. There was no discussion about what we heard,” Hill said. “We were all three equally clear of what the message was that we needed to deliver to the mayor.”Schmuhl, through the Buttigieg campaign, declined interview requests but agreed to answer written questions. He said that it was clear the city needed to act to ensure the police department complied with the law and that “the people whose actions prompted a federal investigation into the police department could not remain in their positions.” In his 2013 deposition, Schmuhl said authorities gave them 60 days to address those issues.But he also said in the deposition that during the 30-minute meeting, the U.S. attorney never overtly said anyone had to be fired.Several people involved in the case have cast doubt on Buttigieg’s story.“I don’t feel he’s being accurate at all,” DePaepe told the AP. “When I listen to him speak, and somebody asks him a question, he sort of talks in circles.”DePaepe said she spoke three times with Schmid, the prosecutor who handled the investigation and who attended the March meeting. She said she asked him whether she was in trouble and needed a lawyer. “He said, ‘No, you’re a witness to a complaint,’” she told the AP.After Schmuhl told her she and Boykins could be indicted, she said she called Schmid and he told her she should not quit her job.Boykins’ lawyer, Tom Dixon, told the AP that three of the federal prosecutors who were in the March 23 meeting assured him that, as a matter of policy, the office does not involve itself in personnel decisions of local government.Dixon recalled they told him: “We just want to reiterate that we never get involved, regardless of what you hear on the news.”On May 31, 2012, Capp wrote in a letter to the city that during the March meeting, “We advised that our primary concern was that (South Bend Police Department) practices comply with federal law.”After reviewing the situation in South Bend, he concluded, “It is our opinion that no federal prosecution is warranted.”Buttigieg has pointed to the letter as proof that he made the right decision, but others have said the letter shows investigators were not planning to charge Boykins or DePaepe to begin with.The U.S. attorney’s office and current and former federal officials who attended the March 23 meeting either did not comment or did not respond to messages seeking comment.Former federal law enforcement officials who reviewed details of the case at the request of the AP agreed it would be unlikely for a U.S. attorney to suggest they would not pursue criminal charges in a public corruption case if a mayor fired or demoted staff.Brian Kelly, who specialized in public corruption as a federal prosecutor, said Buttigieg inherited a “fiasco involving inappropriate taping” but said any personnel decisions he made were his own.“It’s not surprising that a local mayor would try to deflect blame to the U.S. attorney’s office for a decision that was unpopular,” he said. “But ultimately, the U.S. attorney’s office would have nothing to do with the hiring and firing of people.”Buttigieg, in an interview with the AP, stood by his story. “It’s just what happened.”Boykins, he insisted, had to go because he “failed to tell me that he was under federal investigation.” DePaepe had to go, he said, “because her actions led to a federal felony investigation into the police department.”But even that is disputed. Boykins’ lawyer said investigators told Boykins he was not under investigation.Buttigieg said he should have insisted on getting something from prosecutors in writing “so that years later, there wouldn’t be a need to defend my account of what I believe happened, but that we would have a document that we could point to that was clear.”But Buttigieg also acted without having the city do its own investigation.DePaepe says she was never given the chance to explain what happened. Boykins told her and others who spoke with the AP he wasn’t either.Janice Hall, then the city’s head of human resources, told the AP that she was not consulted.“I would have wanted to hear the facts” from DePaepe, Hall said. “There was so much secretiveness involved in the whole process.”That failure had an important side effect. Buttigieg wrote in his memoir that he didn’t know about the purportedly racist comments until after he removed Boykins, allegations he called “explosive, and serious” if true. But his book leaves out DePaepe and fails to address why he went ahead with her firing with no internal investigation, even after local media reported on the comments on the recordings.Buttigieg said he didn’t think they were in a position to second-guess the FBI, and even if they did their own investigation, “the main investigative resource we would have had would be the police department, which obviously would not be able to conduct this one.”Tom Price, a top aide to Buttigieg’s predecessor, said, “It seemed like a quick reaction that wasn’t well thought through.”NO BLACK LEADERSButtigieg’s response raised questions about his age and ability to manage, questions that are echoed in his presidential run. It also damaged his relationship with the African American community in South Bend, a rift that has led to doubts about whether he can attract the support of black voters nationwide.Former Councilman Oliver Davis, a vocal critic of Buttigieg who has endorsed Joe Biden, said people understood he would pick his own chief, but the way he went about it brought disrepute on one of South Bend’s most respected African American leaders.“The issue is not that he removed and demoted the chief. You can change people around all you want to. But you disgraced him. You disgraced him for your own political good,” Davis said.Boykins was at that time the only African American in a senior position in city government.The previous mayor had three black men in top-level positions: Boykins, the fire chief and a senior mayoral adviser.When Buttigieg took over, the adviser left. The fire chief, Howard Buchanon, retired because Buttigieg chose another chief. That appointee was a white man. Buchanon told the AP that after the Boykins situation blew up, Buttigieg asked to meet to discuss it.“I said, ‘You led us to believe that a lot of minorities were going to be in your administration,’” Buchanon recalled telling him. “But Mayor Pete, I don’t see that.”He recalled asking the mayor where black and Hispanic leaders were in his administration: Buttigieg’s head dropped — a tacit acknowledgement that there were none.Pastor J.B. Williams, a leader in Faith In Indiana, told the AP: “We did not see a plan to have minorities involved in decision-making processes. That, to me, was a big mistake.”Asked about the criticism, Buttigieg highlighted his 2013 appointment of an African American woman as the city’s top lawyer — an appointment made more than a year after Boykins’ demotion. Among the steps Buttigieg took to address allegations of racism in the department, his campaign said, were requiring all officers to take civil rights and implicit bias training, and installing a majority-minority civilian police board.South Bend’s population is 53% non-Hispanic white, and more than one-quarter black. But more than three-quarters of the people Buttigieg chose as top advisers or department heads during his eight years in office — including two police chiefs — were white, according to an AP analysis of information provided by the campaign.Buttigieg’s defenders say he knew there would be implications within the black community if he removed Boykins, but he had to do “the right thing.”“There was never a good choice,” said Mark Neal, Buttigieg’s first city controller. “Like any good leader, you live with the consequences of that.”His critics are unmoved.Buchanon said if Buttigieg’s record in South Bend is any indication of how he’d run the White House, “I don’t see any black person in leadership for him.”“He had the opportunity to change some things,” Buchanon said. “And he didn’t.”Around South Bend, opinions about Buttigieg’s tenure and abilities are as varied as the people who hold them.Many people say he entered the mayor’s office with good intentions but not enough experience — less than three years as a consultant at McKinsey, a position he recently described as mostly doing research and analysis. He was also an intelligence analyst in the Navy Reserve and in his memoir referred to himself as “a more junior employee ... rather than the boss.”Hall, the former HR director, said Buttigieg got poor advice from people he depended on, including Schmuhl, who now runs his campaign.“They had not had a lot of experience,” Hall said.Davis and others noted Buttigieg got rid of veteran leadership, instead going with what Davis called a “millennial crowd” that had “no muscle memory” for how things worked.Price, who supported Buttigieg in the past, said his experience running a city of just 100,000 doesn’t make him ready for the White House. “I think he’s massively underqualified to be president,” Price said. “I think he would be a dreadful mistake for our country, and for the Democratic Party.”Buttigieg told the AP he has learned from the Boykins affair, which he calls a “no-win” situation. Sometimes, he said, you can’t find a perfect answer — only an approach that’s going to involve “the least harm.”When you’re young and encounter a problem, Buttigieg said, people who disagree will say you did it because you were young.“If you were older, they would still disagree,” Buttigieg said. “They just wouldn’t say it had to do with being young.”___AP writer Stephen Braun in Washington and researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York contributed to this report.___Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast, “Ground Game.”

Boris Johnson has signalled that he wants Huawei to be deployed in British 5G mobile networks in defiance of US objections and widespread concern from party colleagues that doing so would create a long-term surveillance risk.The prime minister said he would unveil a compromise plan to restrict the Chinese company’s role in 5G, although it has to be accepted by senior cabinet ministers at a crunch meeting of the national security council (NSC) on Tuesday.Priti Patel, the home secretary, heads the sceptical ministers, whose numbers are also said to include Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, but others in Westminster say they are mounting “a rearguard action” that will ultimately make little difference.On the eve of one of his government’s first major decisions since his election win, Johnson said that the “way forward” was to have a system that “delivers for people in this country the kind of consumer benefits that they want through 5G technology”.But the prime minster added that it “does not in any way compromise our critical national infrastructure, our security, or jeopardise our ability to work together with other intelligence powers around the world”.The expectation is that the UK will allow Huawei to supply 5G equipment, which phone companies Vodafone and BT say is more advanced and cheaper than its rivals – but with a string of restrictions aimed at placating Washington.Sources believe that Huawei will be designated a high-risk vendor and subject to a series of controls such as a market share cap and a ban on supplying 5G technology to sensitive parts of the public sector and strategically important sectors.But an emergency Commons debate highlighted the scale of unhappiness amongst Conservative ranks, following an urgent question from the Conservative backbencher Tom Tugendhat. He told MPs that allowing Huawei to supply 5G technology would “nest a dragon” in the heart of the UK’s “critical national infrastructure”.Several senior Conservatives joined in, including former minister Owen Paterson, and Julian Lewis, a former chairman of the defence select committee. One backbencher, the former party leader Iain Duncan Smith, claimed he had been told previously that Johnson would not go along with an initial decision to allow Huawei to supply “non-core” 5G equipment. “I was led to believe this government would not make that decision,” he said.Some support for Johnson’s anticipated compromise came from Labour benches. Kevan Jones, a Labour backbencher and former member of the intelligence and scrutiny committee, said the committee, which has access to classified material and has reviewed Huawei, had said “from the briefings and information I have seen, I think that any risk can be mitigated”.After the debate, Bob Seely, a Conservative who is running to be chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said the debate revealed “the amount of opposition that is out there”. But he added that he thought the prime minister had already made up his mind to allow Huawei “which is weird, given the amount of cyber warfare the Chinese conduct against us”.Britain’s spy agencies have long argued that any risks from Huawei – which already supplies 3G and 4G equipment – can be contained. The intelligence chiefs are also due to attend the NSC, alongside heads of the armed forces, to give their advice in person.What is less clear is whether the UK’s compromise position will placate the White House, which has lobbied with increasing intensity over the issue, just as critical post-Brexit trade talks with the UK are due to to begin.On Sunday night, Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, said that “only nations able to protect their data will be sovereign”. Pompeo is due in London on Wednesday and Thursday, where he will meet with Boris Johnson.British officials, however, have been increasingly irritated by American lobbying, which it says has been simplistic, and failed to highlight any viable alternatives to Huawei that would allow the UK to take a different decision.The US has told the UK that it should sacrifice cost for security by banning Huawei entirely, although that would mean higher bills. According to one American analysis, the average US mobile bill is $80 a month, whereas UK consumers pay $30, partly because the equipment used by the companies is cheaper.A statement communicating the final decision is expected at around lunchtime on Tuesday. Formally, the matter sits with the Department of Culture, which is responsible for the telecoms supply chain review, meaning that the lead minister is Lady Nicky Morgan.Huawei declined to comment ahead of the decision. Its key goal is to avoid an outright ban, and is otherwise expecting to fall in line with the restrictions spelled out. Topics Huawei Boris Johnson 5G Cyberwar Foreign policy Espionage news

LONDON -- Britain decided Tuesday to let Chinese tech giant Huawei have a limited role supplying new high-speed network equipment to wireless carriers, ignoring the U.S. government's warnings that it would sever intelligence sharing if the company was not banned.Britain's decision is the first by a major U.S. ally in Europe, and follows intense lobbying from the Trump administration as the U.S. vies with China for technological dominance.It sets up a diplomatic clash with the Americans, who claim that British sovereignty is at risk because the company could give the Chinese government access to data, an allegation Huawei denies.“We would never take decisions that threaten our national security or the security of our Five Eyes partners," Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said, referring to a security arrangement in which Britain, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, share intelligence. “We know more about Huawei and the risks that it poses than any other country in the world.''The decision was awkward for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who risks the fury of one of Britain's closest allies at just the moment it needs the Trump's administration to quickly strike a trade deal after Brexit. Britain officially leaves the European Union at the end of the week, and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is due to pay a two-day visit starting Wednesday to meet with Johnson and Raab to reaffirm the tran-Atlantic relationship.A senior Trump administration official said the U.S. is disappointed by the decision, adding that the U.S. government would work with the U.K. on a “way forward” that leads to the exclusion of “untrusted vendor components” from 5G networks. The official was not authorized to comment on the sensitive diplomacy between longstanding allies and spoke on condition of anonymity.In its decision, the British government said it was excluding “high risk” companies from supplying the sensitive “core” parts of the new fifth-generation, or 5G, networks. The core is the brain that keeps track, among other things, of smartphones connecting to networks and helps manage data traffic.But Britain will allow high risk suppliers to provide up to 35% of a carrier's less risky radio network, based on factors including the amount of data traffic and the number of base stations.The announcement did not mention any companies by name but said “high risk vendors are those who pose greater security and resilience risks to U.K. telecoms networks" - a clear reference to Huawei.Huawei said it was reassured by the “evidence-based decision," portraying it as a victory. Executives said 35% of a market would be a good result for most companies.“We need to have strong competition to make sure the consumer can enjoy the best possible technologies," Vice President Victor Zhang said on a conference call with reporters.By giving Huawei limited access, Johnson's government is attempting to thread a path between the U.S. and China, analysts said.“In truth the U.K. had little room to manoeuvre," said Emily Taylor, CEO of Oxford Information Labs, a cyber intelligence company. The decision “seeks to carve an acceptable middle ground that will keep various contending forces happy," she said, noting that British wireless carries have already been using Huawei gear for 15 years.The 5G technology is expected to drive the next wave of innovation, transmitting massive amounts of data from more objects and locations. It would, for example, help make possible self-driving cars or remote surgery.Huawei is the top global supplier of mobile networks, and it's considered a cost-effective and high-quality alternative to its main rivals, Finland's Nokia and Sweden's Ericsson.The United States says that China's communist leaders could, under a 2017 national intelligence law, compel Huawei to carry out cyberespionage. The U.S. has threatened repeatedly to cut off intelligence sharing with allies that use Huawei."Here’s the sad truth: our special relationship is less special now that the U.K. has embraced the surveillance state commies at Huawei,'' said U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “During the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher never contracted with the KGB to save a few pennies.''With 5G, U.S. officials also worry that because the “core” will run extensively on software, it could be nearly impossible to spot an accidental vulnerability or a malicious “backdoor” among millions of lines of computer code. Huawei denies the allegations, saying there's never been any evidence it is responsible for a breach.For Britain, the 5G infrastructure program is considered critical as it leaves the EU and aims to position its economy to benefit from technological innovation.The government said Tuesday it is taking some steps that will allow it "to mitigate the potential risk posed by the supply chain and to combat the range of threats, whether cyber criminals, or state sponsored attacks.'' The plans include encouraging smaller suppliers such as South Korea's Samsung and Japan's NEC to enter the British market.The government will draft legislation to make the security requirements mandatory. In the meantime, cybersecurity officials will advise wireless carriers, some of whom have already installed Huawei 5G-capable gear that exceeds the 35% cap, on how to comply.Mobile phone companies said they were analyzing the decision. Vodafone, which uses Huawei for parts of its radio network but not in its core, said that using multiple suppliers “is the best way to safeguard the delivery of services to all mobile customers."———Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this story.———Follow the AP’s coverage of technology at: https://apnews.com/apf-technology

On the day of Wong’s pork protest, Tang had been summoned by councilors to answer questions about police conduct during the protests, and anticipation of a showdown turned the meeting into a political spectacle. (Public trust in the police has collapsed since protests began, and there is widespread support for an independent inquiry into the numerous allegations of the misuse of force. Lam has rejected those demands, saying that claims of police violence are “a campaign smearing and demonizing the police.”) On the 14th floor of a drab office tower, journalists spilled out of the meeting room into narrow hallways and jammed themselves into doorways, holding their cameras above their head to catch the proceedings inside. Officials hurried to print a new batch of press passes to accommodate the influx of reporters. Outside the building, dozens of sunglasses-wearing pro-police protesters gathered, waving Chinese flags and holding posters depicting valiantly posed officers, clad in futuristic body armor.Wong told me later that the issue of police misconduct was personal: He alleges he and others were beaten by officers in a police van in 2014, and he has sued the force. The case is ongoing. His pork stunt grabbed press attention, and a few laughs. He was happy to hear Tang say that the police were looking into expanding CCTV systems in police stations, but without a firm timeline, he remained highly skeptical that it would be implemented. Tang was more defiant on other issues, refusing to apologize for police actions and saying instead that “rioters” owed the city an apology. As prodemocracy councilors put forward a motion to condemn the force, government officials and police then walked out of the meeting, later saying that they did so because the proposal was based on “unfounded allegations.”Seated near Wong was Sam Yip, another district councilor who in November ousted a pro-Beijing incumbent who had held his seat since 1988, the year after Yip was born. Yip, who was himself arrested in September, kept a white construction helmet on the meeting-room table and, during a brief break, strapped it on as he walked into the hallway. It was meant, he said, to serve as a reminder of the protesters. A lanyard around his neck held his identification card, serving not just its obvious purpose but also to needle police officers who frequently remove or obscure the IDs they are required to wear on their uniforms.Yip told me he wanted to run for office after attending the Umbrella Movement protests in 2014 with his younger brother. Inside areas occupied by protesters, he said, activists and demonstrators shared similar ideas, but just outside, pro-Beijing parties had set up shop and were more organized, with greater resources to promote their own message. “It made me and my friends think, Where is our district councilor? Where are the prodemocracy district councilors?” Yip ran in 2015, but lost. Now in office, he said he had discovered the job was “way busier than what I thought before,” but he was adjusting to the pace and balancing more traditional council matters, such as traffic congestion and holiday decorations, with the broader prodemocracy fight.

It is crucial to understand that the general oversight power and the specific impeachment-investigation power are not mutually exclusive. In other words, if Congress is concerned that a president is acting contrary to law or misbehaving in his direction of agencies of the executive branch, that is a proper subject of its oversight authority. Inquiring into the conduct of the executive branch, including its constitutional head, is the purpose of the oversight power. The fact that the president’s behavior in a particular matter might become grounds for impeachment doesn’t exempt that matter from ordinary oversight.With this constitutional background in mind, consider the sequence of events that led to Trump’s impeachment.On August 28, 2019, Politico reported that aid to Ukraine previously authorized by Congress was being withheld by the Trump administration. Within a week, The Washington Post reported that the hold might have been placed to induce Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. This was obviously a matter of legitimate legislative concern because it related both to the proper expenditure of particular congressionally appropriated funds and to more general issues of the conduct of American foreign policy and election integrity. Not to mention it also implicated the president’s own conduct.Accordingly, on September 9, three standing House committees—Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight—announced investigations into the blocked aid. Two days later, on September 11, the White House released the hold. Over the ensuing weeks, the committees issued a series of subpoenas to the administration for testimony and records. The administration complied with none of them, and on October 8, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter declaring a policy of total noncooperation with House investigations.The president has maintained that policy since. At least 12 administration witnesses sought by the House have declined to appear, on White House instructions. Some current and former government employees have testified in compliance with subpoenas, but all of them did so contrary to White House directives. The House subpoenaed more than 70 categories of documents from executive-branch agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy, and the Office of Management and Budget, and received exactly zero documents in return.This categorical refusal is without precedent or legal justification. Past presidents have certainly resisted production of specific testimony or particular documents. But even then, they have done so by invoking judicially recognized doctrines such as executive privilege (which applies only to communications with the president’s closest advisers and must yield to a showing of need). No recognized privilege authorizes government-wide noncompliance with Congress. No president has ever presumed to order the entire executive branch to refuse to respond to congressional subpoenas, whether issued pursuant to oversight power or as part of a specifically designated impeachment investigation.

The rapid change in Sihanoukville illustrates the risks of that approach, both for Hun Sen and for Beijing. China’s move into this city, at remarkable speed and scale, has fostered resentment among Cambodians toward new arrivals who, locals complain, flaunt laws and treat long-time residents with contempt. The changes here illustrate the costs to China—tangible and intangible—of its hefty outward expansion, both through its Belt and Road initiative, and with the huge numbers of Chinese who are moving to fast-developing places such as Sihanoukville to capitalize.Many Cambodians I spoke with voiced concerns about Sihanoukville turning into a de facto Chinese colony, and the consensus was that they were being treated like second-class citizens in their own homeland. At one restaurant, when I told a Cambodian employee that I was visiting from Taiwan, he referenced the opposition in other locales where Beijing has sought to impose its will. “Taiwan says no to China, Hong Kong says no to China,” he told me, “but Hun Sen only says yes to China.”There are roughly as many Chinese as Cambodians in downtown Sihanoukville, perhaps more, and this sudden influx has sent the cost of living skyward. Small, basic rooms that had a few years earlier rented for $25 a month now rent for four times as much in a country where the monthly minimum wage in the garment sector, a key export industry, is just $190. Vegetables, once cheap, are now prohibitively expensive—one roadside restaurant I stopped at charged $8 for a small plate of stir-fried broccoli. Yet few Cambodians appear to have benefited from this economic boom. Native residents have been more or less relegated to the lower rung of the city’s service economy, employed as tuk-tuk drivers, parking attendants, and restaurant and hotel staff. Small-building construction tends to use Cambodian labor, but the colossal casino-and-resort developments being built in parts of Sihanoukville like Zhongguo Cheng (“China Town”) primarily use labor imported from China’s largely rural southwestern provinces. These regions, especially Sichuan and Yunnan, are well represented among the Chinese restaurants found throughout the city, whereas Cambodian restaurants are almost impossible to find. And the English-speaking Cambodians who served the tourist industry here in years past have found themselves incapable of communicating with most of the Chinese who have arrived in their city.The Chinese push into Sihanoukville has not only changed the economic landscape of the city, but the actual landscape, too. Cranes and scaffolding are ubiquitous, hills and forests have been bulldozed, and a lake that was once vital for drainage during heavy rains has been filled, causing flooding. Most of the city’s road network has been heavily damaged by the constant traffic of heavy trucks and cement mixers. Even the omnipresent SUVs driven by the more moneyed Chinese here must carefully navigate potholes that resemble lunar craters, often filled with water. With development far outstripping wastewater treatment and other vital infrastructure, piles of trash are everywhere, and sewage is often piped out to the city’s three miles of beachfront, which are now covered in garbage as well. China’s development of Sihanoukville has not only proven unsightly, but deadly: In June, a seven-story building that was under construction on a Chinese-owned site collapsed, killing 28 workers sleeping inside. Five Chinese nationals were charged over the high-profile tragedy.

Former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort said Fox News host Sean Hannity was his “back channel” to the White House while Manafort was being investigated for financial crimes, according to newly released documents obtained by BuzzFeed News. Text messages released in June 2019 showed how friendly Manafort and Hannity were as they complained together about the investigation into Manafort. But the newly released documents show Manafort thought Hannity was a conduit for receiving messages from the president. The memos from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election were obtained through a freedom of information request, and contain summaries of FBI witness interviews. In his interview summary dated October 2018, Manafort told the special counsel’s office that he “knew Hannity was speaking to Trump around then because Hannity would tell Manafort to hang in there, that he had been talking to Trump, that Trump had his back, and things like that.” BuzzFeed News Paul Manafort special counsel interview The memo said that Manafort understood that if he wanted to send a message to Trump he could go through one of their mutual friends, like former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or businessman Tom Barrack (or two other names which were redacted), but he chose not to do so. While Manafort appeared to believe he was receiving messages of support from Trump via Hannity, former White House staff secretary Rob Porter said in a separate interview in May 2018 that Trump “never liked Manafort.” Manafort is serving more than seven years in prison after pleading guilty in federal court and being convicted in Virginia on tax and bank fraud charges. Fox News didn’t immediately return a request for comment. testPromoTitleReplace testPromoDekReplace Join HuffPost Today! No thanks. Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost

Hong Kong riot police have used tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon to disperse crowds as tens of thousands marched in the city, defying a ban.Officers also fired live warning shots as they tried to clear the streets.Protesters lit fires, threw petrol bombs and attacked the parliament building. A number of people were later held as they fled into metro stations. Saturday's event to mark five years since China ruled out fully democratic elections was banned in Hong Kong.On Friday, several key pro-democracy activists and lawmakers in China's special administrative region were arrested.The protest movement grew out of rallies against a controversial extradition bill - now suspended - which would have allowed criminal suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial. What led to a single gunshot being fired? Joshua Wong, the poster boy for protests Is this proof the 'Umbrella Protests' failed? It has since become a broader pro-democracy movement in which clashes have grown more violent. Protesters took to the streets in the Wan Chai district, many joining a Christian march, while others demonstrated in the Causeway Bay shopping district in the pouring rain. Many carried umbrellas and wore face masks.On the 13th weekend of protests, demonstrators - chanting "stand with Hong Kong" and "fight for freedom" - gathered outside government offices, the local headquarters of China's People's Liberation Army and the city's parliament, known as the Legislative Council.In the Admiralty district, some protesters threw fire bombs towards officers. Earlier, protesters marched near the official residence of embattled leader Carrie Lam, who is the focal point of much of the anger.The riot police had erected barriers around key buildings and road blocks, and fired tear gas and jets of blue-dyed water from water cannon. The coloured liquid is traditionally used to make it easier for police to identify protesters.The police later confirmed that two officers fired into the air during operations to clear protesters from the streets. Both officers fired one shot each when they felt their lives were threatened, the police department said.Eric, a 22-year-old student, told Reuters news agency: "Telling us not to protest is like telling us not to breathe. I feel it's my duty to fight for democracy. Maybe we win, maybe we lose, but we fight."The recent demonstrations have been characterised as leaderless.On Friday police had appealed to members of the public to cut ties with "violent protesters" and had warned people not to take part in the banned march. Police made a number of arrests late on Saturday.Danny Vincent, BBC News, Hong KongA sea of young people gathered on the streets surrounding the government headquarters. Like most weekends many came prepared. Protesters pushed wheelbarrows full of broken bricks to the front lines. They were thrown and pushed to the front over barricades in an attempt to slow the police's advance. Rounds of tear gas, now the go-to weapon of the police, hung in the air, followed by rubber bullets fired towards the ground and in some cases nearly horizontally. But police projectiles were met with rounds of petrol bombs thrown over police barriers and into the makeshift no-man's-land which separated the police and protesters. Many young protesters have become battle-hardened by nearly three months of demonstrations. They are strategic, organised and increasingly willing to resort to violence.During a 24-hour police crackdown, at least three activists - including prominent 23-year-old campaigner Joshua Wong - and three lawmakers were detained.Mr Wong, who first rose to prominence as the poster boy of a protest movement that swept Hong Kong in 2014, was released on bail after being charged over the protests which have rocked the territory since June.Speaking to the BBC, Mr Wong said: "Organising protests, having assembly on street is the fundamental right of [the] Hong Kong people... People will still gather on [the] street and urge President Xi [Jinping] and Beijing [that] it's time to listen to people's voice."Hong Kong is part of China, but enjoys "special freedoms". Those are set to expire in 2047, and many in Hong Kong do not want to become "another Chinese city".Beijing has repeatedly condemned the protesters and described their actions as "close to terrorism". The protests have frequently escalated into violence between police and activists, with injuries on both sides.Activists are increasingly concerned that China might use military force to intervene. On Thursday, Beijing moved a new batch of troops into Hong Kong, a move Chinese state media described as a routine annual rotation. Summary of the protests in 100 and 500 words All the context you need on the protests The background to the protests in video More on Hong Kong's history Profile of Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam

Baghdad and Washington are in talks to transfer and place on trial tens of thousands of suspected Isis fighters and their families from detention centres in Syria to prison camps in Iraq, with Iraqi officials seeking a multibillion dollar fee to receive remnants of the terror group captured over five years of war.Discussions about what to do with Isis members, among them thousands of foreign men, women and children, have been pushed intensively by US officials, who have also lobbied coalition partners to remove their citizens from two cramped detention centres in Syria’s north-east, which one former senior US official described as a “volcano”.Baghdad has asked for a $10bn (£7.6bn) fee up front, then $1bn per annum to receive the detainees, senior western officials have told the Guardian. The size of the mooted price tag has led some in Washington and London to view it as a rebuff of a US plan, rather than a willingness to take a stake in a politically sensitive and dangerous operation, just as a war-weary Iraq had begun to recover.Other Iraqi pre-conditions include no access for humanitarian workers to any facilities on Iraqi soil, or objection to the death penalty. Neither is likely to fly with Britain or France, which remain opposed to sending its citizens to countries that carry out executions.The US state department did not respond to a request for comment. Current and former US officials have said the administration wants to do everything possible to guarantee the security of its Kurdish allies, and to remove the burden of holding the Isis fighters, all while withdrawing US troops from northern Syria. A significant break-out by Isis detainees would undermine the justification for the withdrawal, which the US president, Donald Trump, has insisted must take place.A regional intelligence official said the plan to remove all non-Syrian alleged Isis members from Syria follows two-way talks that started late last year between Baghdad and Damascus about transferring Iraqi citizens back across the border. Those talks stalled partly over a dispute about where to house up to 35,000 Iraqis currently thought to be in one of the two camps alone – among them at least 2,000 battle-tested fighters.One site mooted for a camp inside Iraq was at Awinat, between Tal Afar and Sinjar, but it was quickly rejected because it could place nearby Yazidi communities still recovering from an attempted genocide at grave risk. The area’s proximity to Mosul, one of two former centres of gravity for Isis, was also seen by Kurdish leaders as a deal-breaker.What to do with at least 20,000 foreigners detained in north-east Syria continues to vex the international community, with no country wanting to repatriate adult citizens who had willingly travelled to join Isis and only a few willing to retrieve children who were born in the so-called caliphate.France recently sent officials to collect five children whose French parents were either killed, or in detention. But only a handful of other children have been sent back to their homelands.A western official familiar with the Baghdad–Washington talks said: “Now that the Iraqis have put something on the table, the US will jump on it. It doesn’t mean it will lead to anything, but regardless of how it was intended, the US will see it as an opening bid. So, the coming weeks will determine if there’s any mileage, as otherwise the west really is out of options.”Brett McGurk, the former US presidential envoy to the global coalition to counter Isis, said: “Iraq would be a good option if the terms can be agreed upon but I suspect it would be a difficult negotiation.“This needs to be an international problem. The SDF (the Kurdish led force raised by Washington to fight Isis) and the United States are sitting on a volcano in north-east Syria, with tens of thousands of foreign fighters and families in cramped detention centres. This problem is likely to get worse as the US draws down resources, as Trump has ordered.“We risk a serious gap between the situation on the ground and our stated objectives – and the resources being devoted to achieving those objectives. That means risk increases week by week. I would encourage the coalition to do all it possibly can to help because resources from Washington will be quite limited.”A source close to the Iraqi leadership said Washington had been intensively lobbying Baghdad to help find a solution to the crisis in Syria, where overwhelming numbers of detainees and chaotic conditions in the two camps is seen as an ongoing threat to post-war stability and global security. The official denied that a fee had been tabled. However, four western officials said it had, along with the other preconditions.Protection obligations to 3,500 children in Syrian camps born to Isis-affiliated families remain overshadowed by security concerns and uncertainty surrounding the legal positions of those wanting to return home. Many hundreds of women say they were coerced into joining Isis and had no means to leave the terror group. Their claims remain difficult to verify, and there is little political traction behind efforts to repatriate them.US officials are understood to be in frequent discussions about ways to advance a mass transfer, and have seen the Iraqi response as the start of a substantive negotiation. One former official said the size of the sum demanded and the conditions attached should give less reason for optimism. “In my experience that would be what we call an Arab ‘no’,” the official said.

The investigation into Russia’s influence on the 2016 presidential elections is the talk of the town again. Since special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 Russians last Friday, social and traditional media have exploded with speculations about the next step, because, in the end, the only question everyone really seems to care about is whether Donald Trump was involved – and can therefore be impeached for treason.Democratic party leaders once again reassured their followers that this was the next logical step in the inevitable downfall of Trump. And on Twitter Trump attacked everybody and everyone, from Hillary Clinton to Oprah Winfrey, to keep the topic on the agenda and spin it in his own favor.While Democrats believe that time is on their side, this is highly doubtful. The longer the investigation lasts, the bigger the charge will have to be to justify the time and money spent. Sure, the Republicans wasted massive amounts of time and money on the Benghazi investigation, which had even less evidence to support it, but they controlled Congress. With Trump shouting “witch-hunt” and Republicans talking “waste of resources”, Mueller will have to come up with a smoking gun soon, and I’m not talking fraud or golden showers.I seriously doubt he will. While there is no doubt that the Trump camp was, and still is, filled with amoral and fraudulent people, and was very happy to take the Russians help during the elections, even encouraging it on the campaign, I do not think Mueller will be able to find conclusive evidence that Donald Trump himself colluded with Putin’s Russia to win the elections. And that is the only thing that will lead to his impeachment as the Republican party is not risking political suicide for anything less.But maybe the Democrats don’t really believe in collusion and are just riding the Russia investigation to win the next elections. After all, the Republicans kept the Benghazi investigation going for years. But the difference is they were pandering to a much more emotional base, which is more easily mobilized. And they targeted Hillary Clinton, the liberal demon that many conservatives had hated for decades.At first sight, polls seem to indicate that the Democrats do have a potential winner in the Russia investigation. When White House spokeswomen Sarah Sanders said that “no one cares about this issue”, the Washington Post claimed to prove her wrong by showing that “nearly half – 49% – of Americans believe Trump tried to interfere with the Russia investigation in a way that amounts to obstruction of justice”. Indeed, other polls confirm that a plurality of Americans believes Trump “acted improperly when it comes to any alleged coordination between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.” But that was not Sanders’ point!While Sanders definitely exaggerated when she said that no one cares, she did have a point when she elaborated “it’s certainly not the thing that keeps people up at nigh.”. Only 35% of Americans said that the investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia should be a “top priority” for Congress. Another 18% says it should be “an important, but lower priority.” While this amounts to 53% overall, even that number was lower than that for any of the other seven issues included, with the exception of Trump’s much desired wall on the US-Mexico border.In other words, the Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country. Just four in 10 Americans believe the Russia investigation is “extremely” or “very” important to them, while issues like immigration, taxes and health care are all considered much more important, also by most Democrats. These are the issues that will bring them out to vote, not the Russia investigation.Unlike the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, nominally Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders does get the point. Already two months before Sanders’s statement, he said on NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers, “Americans are not staying up every day worrying about Russia’s interference in our election” and called upon his colleagues to “focus on the bread and butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans”. With the midterm elections less than nine months away, I hope the Democratic Party will at l(e)ast listen to him. Cas Mudde is Associate Professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. He is the author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction and The Far Right in America Topics Trump-Russia investigation Opinion Robert Mueller Donald Trump Russia Europe Trump administration comment

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 faxThe contents of this site are ©2020 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

Ms. Harris was trying to loosen Mr. Biden’s grip on African-American primary voters, and her searing reference to her own childhood experience with integration might have been the high point of her campaign. But it came at the expense of an older, white candidate who was already fending off questions about his record on matters of race. And Mr. Biden was personally stung by her attack, his advisers said, because he considered her a friend.Yet Ms. Harris’s surge in the polls did not last, and the two candidates never sparred again in the same way. By October, aides to both Democrats recall, they were getting along well when they ran into each other at the Des Moines airport before heading to Ohio for the debate there.Election 2020 ›Live UpdatesMore significant than their personal rapport, a Harris endorsement of Mr. Biden would be politically useful for both of them.A 55-year-old woman of African and Indian descent with law enforcement credentials, Ms. Harris was already likely to be on Mr. Biden’s short list, should he emerge as the nominee. Yet she could bolster her chances to be his running mate if she backed his campaign at a critical time, particularly if he did not win in either Iowa or New Hampshire next month and needed a boost in Nevada and South Carolina. And even if she is not chosen for vice president, she would be a leading contender for a cabinet post, such as attorney general.For Mr. Biden, who is working to consolidate support from Democratic leaders as Senator Bernie Sanders’s progressive candidacy gains strength, an endorsement from Ms. Harris would signal that party leaders were rallying behind his candidacy and offer him a well-known surrogate to stump on his behalf as the race goes on.The risk for Ms. Harris would be if she were to get behind Mr. Biden only to see him lose in California, which votes on March 3 as part of Super Tuesday. A survey of the state’s Democratic voters, conducted this month by the Public Policy Institute of California survey, found that Mr. Biden was in second place to Mr. Sanders, of Vermont. But the poll highlighted the strength of the progressive bloc in the state: Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren combined were capturing 50 percent of the vote.Rose Kapolczynski, a longtime Democratic strategist in California, said Ms. Harris would not damage her prospects for re-election in 2022 by backing Mr. Biden. But if Democrats were to lose the presidency this fall, supporting him could shape how she was perceived by the left, were she to run again for president four years from now.

These are the same people insisting that the world is a safer place during the cascade of bad news that has followed Soleimani’s death—even as the State Department told all U.S. citizens in Iraq to leave immediately.Yet the general’s killing only accelerated trends that were already under way. Iran had been blowing through its commitments under the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal for months by the time its leadership announced yesterday that it wouldn’t observe any more of the agreement’s limits on its nuclear program. The Trump administration left the nuclear deal in 2018 and vowed to get a better one—one that would check Iran’s proxy violence and missile development in addition to its nuclear program. None of those things have happened.As for Iran’s growing influence in the region, Pompeo tends to trace it to the nuclear deal, which gave Iran sanctions relief he says has been used to fund terrorism. But Iran’s recent expansion started much earlier, with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which gave Iranian-backed militias a foothold in the country and a base from which to attack U.S. forces. The anti-ISIS fight only empowered them further as the Iraqi government relied in part on them to beat back the insurgents. Iraq has ever since been struggling to bring them under government control. And the U.S. has spent millions of dollars training Iraqi forces and trying to pull the country out of Iran’s orbit. Meanwhile, the Syrian conflict, in which Iranian forces and their proxies have backed Bashar al-Assad, has helped the country consolidate what officials call a “Shia crescent” of influence extending from Iran, through Iraq, and into Syria and Lebanon. The Iranian military has also conducted joint exercises with China and Russia.And once again, part of the ISIS fight is on hold. Not only have the Americans paused their cooperation with Iraqi units since Soleimani’s killing; the rest of NATO has suspended its operations in Iraq too. This is the second time in three months that counter-ISIS operations have had to be stalled; the first was after Trump opted to move U.S. forces in northeastern Syria out of the way of a Turkish attack against America’s Kurdish allies there.In the short term, Trump officials keep saying their goal with Iran is to “restore deterrence,” that each additional movement of troops to the region—or as of last week, each military strike—aims to stop the cycle of violence by making clear to Iran the consequences of its actions. The problem is that if the Iranians aren’t deterred, they may take violent steps of their own for much the same reason the U.S. has: to prove that there are consequences.One advantage to having mutually contradictory policy goals is that when one fails, another might succeed. Yes, what the military calls the “enduring defeat of ISIS” achieved “by, with and through” local partners like the Iraqis may now be coming to an end—it’s hard to be “with” them if you’re leaving. But that’s just the goal of executive-branch institutions like the State Department and the Pentagon. As for the president himself—and even though he’s declared that the U.S. is not leaving unless the Iraqis pay for the air base the U.S. constructed in their country—his real preference has been clear since the 2016 election campaign. “We should have never been there in the first place,” he said in October 2017. “Let someone else fight over this long-bloodstained sand,” he said two years later.The contradictions are not just between Trump and the rest of his administration, but within Trump himself. He has twice now declared the defeat of ISIS and tried to leave Syria, only to get talked out of it. He professes to hate war, but he loves killing bad guys. What happens after they’re dead is someone else’s responsibility. Kathy Gilsinanis a contributing writer atThe Atlantic.Connect Twitter

WASHINGTON (AP) — The wife of Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang says she was sexually assaulted by an obstetrician while she was pregnant with the couple’s first child.Evelyn Yang said in an interview televised Thursday by CNN that the assault happened in 2012 and that she was initially afraid to tell anyone. She and 31 other women are now suing the doctor and the hospital system, saying they conspired and enabled the crimes. Yang said she was encouraged to speak out after seeing the positive reception she and her husband had been getting on the campaign trail by being open about their son’s autism. ADVERTISEMENT“Something about being on the trail and meeting people and seeing the difference that we’ve been making already has moved me to share my own story about it, about sexual assault,” she told CNN.Yang said she first began seeing Dr. Robert Hadden in New York in early 2012. As the months went on, Yang said, Hadden began asking her inappropriate questions about her sexual activity and spent more time conducting examinations.When she was seven months pregnant, Yang said, she believed her appointment was done and she was getting ready to leave when the doctor told her abruptly that he thought she might need a cesarean section. She said Hadden pulled her to him and undressed her, then used his fingers to examine her internally.“I knew it was wrong. I knew I was being assaulted,” she said.But Yang said she “just kind of froze” and didn’t react. “I remember trying to fix my eyes on a spot on the wall and just trying to avoid seeing his face as he was assaulting me, just waiting for it to be over,” she told CNN. After the doctor left the room, she left the practice and didn’t return.Hadden’s lawyer has denied Yang’s allegations in legal filings. His attorney declined a request to be interviewed by CNN.Yang said she initially didn’t tell anyone what had happened to her. She said she blamed herself, thinking she must have done something to “invite this kind of behavior.”Months later, after the couple’s son was born, Yang got a letter in the mail saying Hadden had left the practice. Curious, she looked him up online and saw that another woman had made a police report accusing him of assaulting her.She said she realized then that she wasn’t to blame for his actions.“This was a serial predator, and he just picked me as his prey,” she told CNN.She said only then was she able to reveal the abuse to her husband.ADVERTISEMENTIn a statement Thursday, Andrew Yang said he was “proud” of his wife and no one deserves to be treated as she was.“When victims of abuse come forward, they deserve our belief, support, and protection,” Yang said. “I hope that Evelyn’s story gives strength to those who have suffered and sends a clear message that our institutions must do more to protect and respond to women.”He later tweeted, “I love my wife very very much.”Evelyn Yang said several women came forward with similar stories about Hadden, and she learned the Manhattan district attorney’s office had an open case against him.In 2016, she said, the DA’s office agreed to a deal with Hadden in which he pleaded guilty to one count of forcible touching and one count of third-degree sexual assault. He also lost his medical license and had to register as the lowest level of sex offender.Yang said she felt betrayed by the plea deal, which allowed the doctor to avoid jail. The counts he pleaded to didn’t involve her case, she said.Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said in a statement to CNN, “Because a conviction is never a guaranteed outcome in a criminal trial, our primary concern was holding him accountable and making sure he could never do this again -- which is why we insisted on a felony conviction and permanent surrender of his medical license.”Yang and 31 other women are now suing Columbia University, where Hadden worked, along with its affiliates and the doctor itself, saying they “actively concealed, conspired, and enabled” Hadden’s crimes, according to CNN.The lawsuit claims that medical assistants who worked with the doctor knew of the abuse but didn’t intervene because of a power imbalance and lack of training, CNN said.Hadden has denied the additional allegations in court papers, CNN reported. Columbia University and the hospital system are fighting the lawsuit on procedural grounds, according to CNN.A university spokeswoman told CNN in response to a detailed list of questions that the accusations are “abhorrent” and they “deeply apologize to those whose trust was violated.”___Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast, “Ground Game.”

By,and Jan. 27, 2020 10:22 am ET The Trump administration’s bid to replace Venezuela’s authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro hit a roadblock after a meeting with Russian officials in Rome last year—and has never recovered. U.S. envoy Elliott Abrams arrived at the Westin Excelsior hotel hoping to persuade Russia to withdraw its support for Mr. Maduro and to recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov instead demanded the U.S. back down from military threats and lift the economic sanctions intended to... To Read the Full Story Subscribe Sign In Continue reading your article with a WSJ membership View Membership Options

Some of us here at the Gadget Lab really love winter. After the holidays, the season kicks into high gear. The coming months bring peak ski, snowboard, and sledding season, without the inconvenience and expense of "holiday travel" and "family time." (Just kidding! Maybe.) At the end of the month, outdoor gear manufacturers will be showing their wares at Outdoor Retailer, which means you'll soon be able to pick up bargains on snow gear at some of our favorite retailers—for example, this week is Backcountry's winter sale.In the meantime, we rustled around the internet to find deals on some of our favorite wirefree buds and one of our favorite smart displays. Read on for more of our picks.When you buy something using the links in our stories, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Here’s how it works. You can also support our reporting and reviewing by purchasing a 1-year print + digital WIRED subscription for $5 (Discounted).Headphone DealsApple AirPods Pro for $235 ($14 off): This isn't a stellar discount, but if you have an iPhone, you're probably going to buy the ProPods anyway. They're so much more comfortable than the originals, sound wonderful, and their noise-canceling capabilities are truly astounding.JBL E35 On-Ear Headphones for $15 ($65 off): In the past, we've been favorably impressed by the quality of JBL's affordable wares. Even if the sound on these doesn't blow you away, this is a great price for a pair of leather, wired, on-ear headphones.Samsung Galaxy Buds True Wireless Earbuds + Galaxy Fit for $150 ($70 off): To get the discount, add both to your cart. This is a good workout bundle; the Fit is a basic fitness tracker, but we love the Galaxy buds, which cost $130 on their own.Westone W40 Gen 2 Four-Drive True-Fit Earphones with MMCX Audio and Bluetooth Cables for $219 ($281 off): Westone makes high-end headphones that audiophiles love. These have four drivers, as well as audio and Bluetooth cables. They're also really pretty.

At least 170 people have died as a result of the outbreak of a new coronavirus, The number of confirmed cases of the virus in China has risen to 7,711 and infections have been reported in at least 15 other countries.But not only has the virus spread, so too has misinformation. Numerous conspiracies have appeared since the outbreak - not to mention dubious health advice.The BBC Monitoring team has been taking a look at where these have all come from.False health adviceAs the death toll from the coronavirus outbreak continues to rise, social-media users have been sharing advice on ways to treat or prevent the disease.But at least some of the tips have proved to be misleading or false.One such claim - shared 16,000 times on Facebook - advises users in the Philippines to "keep your throat moist", avoid spicy food and "load up on vitamin C" in order to prevent the disease. The information is said to be from the country's Department of Health but it does not match the advice on the DOH website or its official press releases on the outbreak. Journalists and fact-checkers have found posts with identical or slightly altered wording - said to be from local health authorities - are also being circulated on Facebook and WhatsApp in Canada, Pakistan and India.As was the case with the Philippines, the advice does not match the information provided by health officials in those countries.Another unsubstantiated claim shared online suggests avoiding cold or preserved food and drinks, such as ice cream and milkshakes, for "at least 90 days".One of the first to share this advice was a Facebook page called ForChange. It accompanied the post with a video of a parasite being removed from a person's lips, suggesting the procedure was somehow related to the new coronavirus. But, as Altnews fact-checkers pointed out, the video is in fact three months old and unrelated to the virus. Facebook has since marked the ForChange post as "false information" but dozens of identical messages are still being circulated on the platform. The World Health Organization's official advice for the public on the new coronavirus suggests only avoiding consuming "raw or undercooked animal products".There is currently no vaccine against the virus but standard recommendations to prevent infections apply. These include: regular hand washing covering your mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing and sneezing or, failing that, with the crook of your arm thoroughly cooking meat and eggs avoiding close contact with anyone showing symptoms of a respiratory illness, such as coughing or fever From the very beginning people speculated online about the origin of the coronavirus. This was exacerbated by a slew of videos said to be showing Chinese people eating bats amid the deadly outbreak in Wuhan.One such clip shows a smiling Chinese woman holding a cooked bat on camera, before admitting it tastes "like chicken meat". The video prompted outrage online, with some users blaming Chinese eating habits for the outbreak.But the video was not shot in Wuhan, or in China for that matter. Originally filmed in 2016, it shows popular blogger and travel show host Mengyun Wang during a trip to Palau, an archipelago in the western Pacific Ocean.The clip resurfaced on social media after cases of the new coronavirus emerged in Wuhan late last year.Following online backlash, Ms Wang apologised, saying she was "just trying to introduce the life of local people" to the audience and had not known that bats could be a virus carrier. Her video has since been taken down. The new coronavirus is believed to have emerged from illegally traded wildlife at a seafood market in Wuhan. Although bats have been named in recent research from China as a possible source of the virus, bat soup is not particularly commonplace in the country and the investigations into its exact origins continue. Coronavirus: How worried should we be? China coronavirus: A visual guide Has China learned lessons since deadly Sars epidemic‎? As the United States reported its first case of the coronavirus last week, several patent documents started to circulate on Twitter and Facebook that at first glance appear to suggest experts have been aware of the virus for years.One of the first users to float these allegations was conspiracy theorist and YouTuber Jordan Sather.In a lengthy thread that has been retweeted thousands of times, he shared a link to a 2015 patent filed by the Pirbright Institute in Surrey, England, that talks about developing a weakened version of coronavirus for potential use as a vaccine to prevent or treat respiratory diseases. The same link has also been widely circulated on Facebook, mainly in conspiracy and anti-vaccination groups. Sather used the fact that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a donor to both Pirbright and vaccine development to suggest that the current outbreak virus has somehow been deliberately manufactured to attract funding for the development of a vaccine."And how much funding has the Gates Foundation given to vaccine programs throughout the years? Was the release of this disease planned? Is the media being used to incite fear around it?" Sather tweeted.But Pirbright's patent is not for the new coronavirus. Instead, it covers the avian infectious bronchitis virus, a member of the wider coronavirus family that infects poultry.As for the speculation about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Pirbright spokeswoman Teresa Maughan told Buzzfeed News that the institute's particular work with the infectious bronchitis virus was not funded by this foundation. You asked, we answered How worried should we be? Can wearing masks stop the spread of viruses? Follow all our coverage here Another baseless claim that has gone viral online suggests the virus was part of China's "covert biological weapons programme" and may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.Many accounts pushing the theory cite two widely-shared Washington Times articles both of which quote a former Israeli military intelligence officer for the claim.However, no evidence is provided for the claim in the two articles, and the Israeli source is quoted as saying that "so far there isn't evidence or indication" to suggest there was a leak. The two articles have so far been posted to hundreds of different social accounts to a potential audience of millions.The Daily Star published a similar piece last week, claiming the virus might have "started in a secret lab". However, it has since amended the piece to add there is no evidence for the claim.BBC News approached the Washington Times for comment.You may also be interested in: Fact-checkers sceptical about Instagram fake news plan How disinformation spread in Brexit Facebook groups The (almost) complete history of 'fake news' Another claim inaccurately linked the virus to the suspension of a researcher at Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory. Virologist Dr Xiangguo Qiu, her husband and some of her students from China were removed from the lab following a possible "policy breach," according to a report by Canada's national broadcaster CBC last year. Police told CBC News there was "no threat to public safety". Another report said Dr Qiu had visited the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences twice a year for two years.A tweet with more than 12,000 retweets and 13,000 likes - claimed without evidence that Dr Qiu and her husband were a "spy team", had sent "pathogens to the Wuhan facility", and that her husband "specialised in coronavirus research".None of the three claims in the tweet can be found in the two CBC reports and the terms "coronavirus" and "spy" do not appear even once in either. CBC has since reported that these claims are baseless.Different versions of a "whistleblower" video, alleged to have been taken by a "doctor" or a "nurse" in Hubei province, have racked up million views on various social media platforms and mentioned in numerous online reports. The most popular version was uploaded to YouTube by a Korean user, and included English and Korean subtitles - the video has since been taken down. According to the English subtitles, the woman is a nurse in a Wuhan hospital. However, she does not claim to be either a nurse or a doctor in the video at all. This seems to be merely an assumption on the part of those who have uploaded various versions of the video to social media. The woman, who does not identify herself, is wearing protective suit in an unknown location. However, her suit and mask do not match the ones worn by medical staff in Hubei. Due to a lockdown being enforced by the authorities, it is difficult to verify videos from the province. But she makes a number of unsubstantiated claims about the virus, making it unlikely for her to be a nurse or a paramedic. She also claims the virus has a "second mutation", which can infect up to 14 people. But the World Health Organization has preliminarily estimated the number of infections an individual carrying the virus can cause is 1.4 to 2.5"She doesn't sound like someone from [a] medical professional background," Muyi Xiao, a Wuhan native and the visuals editor for the ChinaFile online magazine, told the BBC. Although the exact location of the video is unknown, it is likely that the woman is a Hubei resident sharing her personal opinion about the outbreak."I think there is [a] possibility that she thinks she is telling the truth. Because no one knows the truth," Badiucao, a Chinese political activist currently based in Australia, told the BBC."No transparency [has] just left people guessing and panicking."Have you been affected by any of the issues raised? Have you come across any examples of misinformation regarding the virus? You can share your experience by emailing [email protected] include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways: WhatsApp: +44 7756 165803 Send pictures/video to [email protected] Or Upload your pictures/video here Tweet: @BBC_HaveYourSay Please read our terms & conditions and privacy policy