Until recently, speculation abounded that Mr. Trump would make history by meeting with President Hassan Rouhani of Iran. But the Sept. 14 attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, which American and Saudi officials blame on Iran, has made such a meeting unlikely at best.

American officials are expected to present what they have described as evidence that Iran carried out the attack with drones and cruise missiles. Iran has denied the accusation. Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who are supported by Iran in their fight against a Saudi-led coalition that has been bombing their country for more than four years, have claimed responsibility.

Mr. Rouhani speaks on Wednesday, and he will almost certainly assert that Mr. Trump ignited the cycle of conflict by withdrawing last year from the 2015 nuclear agreement with major powers and reimposing onerous sanctions that are crippling its economy.

The United States is trying to build a coalition to deter Iran, even if it is unclear what form such deterrence would take. The General Assembly gives the administration an opportunity to “continue to slow walk a military response in favor of more coalition-building and political and economic pressure,” said Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The climate crisis is at the top of the General Assembly’s agenda. About 60 heads of state plan to speak at the Climate Action Summit on Monday, and officials aim to announce initiatives that include net-zero carbon emissions in buildings.

The United States has no such plans — Mr. Trump announced in 2017 that he was withdrawing the country from the Paris Agreement on climate change. But some state governors who have formed the United States Climate Alliance said they would attend the summit and meet with other delegations.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/world/americas/united-nations-what-to-expect.html

When the July 24 congressional testimony of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III deflated the impeachment hopes of Democrats, President Trump crowed “no collusion” and claimed vindication from accusations that he had conspired with Russia in the 2016 election.

Then, the very next day, Trump allegedly sought to collude with another foreign country in the coming election — pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up what he believed would be damaging information about one of his leading Democratic challengers, former vice president Joe Biden, according to people familiar with the conversation.

The push by Trump and his personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to influence the newly elected Ukrainian leader reveals a president convinced of his own invincibility — apparently willing and even eager to wield the vast powers of the United States to taint a political foe and confident that no one could hold him back.

“We haven’t seen anything like this in my lifetime,” said William A. Galston, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution who graduated from college just before Watergate. “He appears to be daring the rest of the political system to stop him — and if it doesn’t, he’ll go further.”

The effort — which came as the Trump administration was withholding financial and military support from Ukraine to help the small democracy protect itself against Russian aggression — illustrates Trump’s expansive view of executive power and what appears to be a cavalier attitude about legal limits on his conduct.

While Mueller’s investigation did not place Trump directly in the Russian conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and boost Trump’s candidacy, the president was an active participant in the Ukrainian episode, which was brought to light by an intelligence official’s whistleblower complaint.

Trump has said he did nothing improper in his calls with Zelensky or any other foreign leader, and on Saturday he derided Democrats and the media for what he dubbed “the Ukraine Witch Hunt.”

But the scrutiny surrounding the phone call has brought fresh peril to Trump’s presidency and could turbocharge the drive by some House Democrats to open impeachment proceedings.

Democrats’ frustration with their inability to check Trump and hold him accountable for his conduct after nine months in the majority is starting to boil over. Lawmakers for the first time are saying publicly that their caucus looks feckless, and some are fretting that their flimsy oversight and reliance on the courts to eventually rescue them have proved fruitless.

“We back off everything,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.). “We’ve been very weak.”

House Democrats already are probing whether Trump and Giuliani withheld U.S. assistance to the Ukrainian government until it agreed to investigate possible corruption involving Biden and his son Hunter. But asked whether he or Trump were worried about congressional investigations, Giuliani laughed.

“They’re a bunch of headhunters and have lost any credibility,” the president’s lawyer said.

Giuliani said new scrutiny of Trump’s communications with Zelensky is welcome because it draws attention to Biden and his family’s involvement in Ukraine.

“The reality is, the more the Democrats press for an investigation of what I did in the Ukraine, I invite it,” Giuliani said. “I’m just doing my job as a poor, simple, little defense lawyer who’s defending his client.”

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump ally, said the president has calculated that there is a political upside to spotlighting Ukraine and a story he believes “would crush Biden if people came to believe it was true.”

“If you’re going to be Andrew Jackson, there will be consequences, but he will be called ‘the great disrupter,’ ” Gingrich said, drawing parallels between the seventh president and 45th. “He gets up every morning and thinks, ‘What can I disrupt?’ He’s not going to back off.”

Trump’s sense of himself as above the law has been reinforced throughout his time in office. As detailed in the Mueller report, he received help from a foreign adversary in 2016 without legal consequence. He sought to thwart the Russia investigation and possibly obstruct justice without consequence. Through the government, he has earned profits for his businesses without consequence. He has blocked Congress’s ability to conduct oversight without consequence.

Now he is alleged to have leveraged taxpayer dollars and U.S. military might to extort a foreign government for opposition research on a political opponent, and it is unclear what consequences, if any, he may face.

“We got progressively desensitized,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney in the Obama administration. “We’re learning progressively about wrongs, and one part gets absorbed before the next part gets revealed, so for whatever reason the public doesn’t get excited about it. It’s mystifying.”

One explanation is that Republicans in Congress have almost uniformly fallen in line behind Trump, reacting with instinctive nonchalance and blocking efforts to investigate his actions or hold him accountable.

“What we’re discovering is that the Constitution is not a mechanism that runs by itself,” Galston said. “Ultimately, we are a government of men and not law. The law has no force without people who are willing to enforce it. The ball is now squarely in the court of the Republican Party, and particularly Senate Republicans. Will they ever be prepared to say enough is enough?”

Legal experts said it is extraordinary that Trump allegedly sought political assistance from a foreign government after a tortured, nearly three-year national conversation about the illegality of doing so. Asked what the president had learned from the Mueller investigation, former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman said, “Nothing. Zero.”

“I think he thinks it’s perfectly okay,” Akerman said. “This guy has got no scruples whatsoever. I don’t think he would stop for a second.”

Trump said in June that he would accept help with his 2020 reelection campaign from another country, which would be against the law.

“There’s nothing wrong with listening,” he told ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos. “If somebody called from a country, Norway — ‘We have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”

This past week, in a federal lawsuit in New York to block a subpoena issued by Manhattan prosecutors for his tax returns, Trump’s lawyers argued the sweeping legal theory that the Constitution does not allow for the president to be criminally investigated while in office. While the Justice Department has concluded that a president could not be indicted while in office, it has never suggested that simply investigating one would be off limits.

Trump’s moves in Ukraine are not a tertiary interest. For years, it has been a priority of the United States to boost the effective power of the Ukrainian military to form a bulwark against Russia.

Nicholas Burns, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and a senior national security and diplomatic official in past Republican and Democratic administrations, said Ukraine has been “a major interest of the United States — and if the stories are true, the president cavalierly thrust the national interests aside in favor of his personal political interests.”

“That is clearly wrong and clearly an abuse of power,” added Burns, who is informally advising Biden on foreign policy.

Trump has mocked the media for covering the whistleblower complaint, which he derided Friday as a “partisan” attack. Right-wing media personalities have buoyed Trump amid the onslaught, disparaging the anonymous whistleblower as part of a “deep state” conspiracy to remove the president from office.

“The coup actually is ongoing; it hasn’t stopped,” Rush Limbaugh insisted to his listeners this past week on his radio program, claiming there were “speech police” in the intelligence community.

Matthew G. Whitaker, Trump’s former acting attorney general, said on Fox News Channel, “This is a clear example of someone that’s part of the deep state in the intelligence community taking advantage of this whistleblower procedure and then trying to create this firestorm.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who recently met with Zelensky in Ukraine, said he and other Democrats are frustrated with the pervasive culture of inaction among congressional Republicans.

“If it’s true that the president requested that the president of Ukraine interfere in an American election, we are in really dangerous, brand-new territory,” Murphy said. “That’s absolutely, completely unacceptable in a democracy.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) often declares that “no one is above the law” and has vowed that her party would hold Trump “accountable.”

But she has refused so far to green-light impeachment proceedings — creating tensions with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), among others who favor impeachment — and instead has looked to the courts to counter the White House’s moves to stonewall Congress.

“When are we going to get serious about enforcing our subpoenas?” asked a frustrated Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), who has pushed for leadership to fine Trump officials who are not compliant with their investigations. “We have to put some teeth into this.”

Some Democrats have gone so far as to suggest that House Democrats’ unwillingness to impeach Trump has only encouraged the president’s lawlessness.

“After the Mueller report, Congress had a duty to begin impeachment,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a top-tier Democratic presidential candidate, wrote Friday evening on Twitter. “By failing to act, Congress is complicit in Trump’s latest attempt to solicit foreign interference to aid him in US elections. Do your constitutional duty and impeach the president.”

Democrats’ vocalization of a sense of helplessness was particularly acute at the end of an embarrassing week that underscored how the Trump administration has been able to run circles around their investigations.

Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski turned in a defiant performance in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, dodging questions, talking over members and even promoting his own potential Senate bid and book sales.

Two days later, news broke that the administration was refusing to turn over the whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump compromised national security with some sort of “promise” to a foreign official. Although the inspector general of the intelligence community deemed the matter credible and of “urgent” concern, the administration blocked the complaint from being shared with Congress.

“As president, he just overwhelms us,” lamented Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a former 2020 presidential candidate. “I mean, you’ve got kids in cages — we’re trying to deal with that. We’ve got the continued mass shootings, and he won’t help us with that. And then you’ve got the urgency of this [oversight]. So, I mean, it’s really just kind of, where do you prioritize your resources and your time?” 

Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-reveals-a-president-convinced-of-his-own-invincibility/2019/09/21/1a56466c-dc6a-11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html

Either way, they risk cracking the bipartisan consensus that has firmly supported Ukraine against Russia since 2014, when the Kremlin annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region and stoked war in Ukraine’s east. If Ukraine becomes associated with one U.S. political party or the other, it could jeopardize ties with its most important security backer.

“It’s a diplomatic disaster for our relations with the United States,” said Alyona Getmanchuk, the director of the New Europe Center, a Kiev-based foreign policy think tank. “I don’t know what could be the way out of this story.”

The predicament could come to a head Wednesday, when Trump is to sit down, for the first time, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Zelensky has sought the meeting for months, seeing it as a way to demonstrate U.S. support for a country that is still fighting a war in its east and enduring Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Trump has been reluctant, and he pressed Zelensky about Biden in a July phone conversation that is the subject of an extraordinary intelligence community whistleblower complaint.

In an interview with Ukrainian television station Hromadske on Saturday, Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko denied that Trump had pressured Zelensky during the phone call.

“I know what the conversation was about, and I think there was no pressure,” he said. “There was talk, conversations are different, leaders have the right to discuss any problems that exist. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on a lot of questions, including those requiring serious answers.”

Diplomats, politicians and analysts inside and outside Ukraine said Saturday that Ukraine was in a precarious position.

“Really couldn’t get worse” for Kiev, said a senior European diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid aggravating the situation.

“I’m afraid to do even more harm to Ukraine,” said a normally gregarious former policymaker, turning down a request for comment.

Zelensky — who until recently was a comedian with no political experience — will have to tread carefully. A misstep could further inflame the situation in Washington, costing Ukraine its ties either to Republican or Democratic lawmakers. 

Since Trump has embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin and questioned both NATO and the reasons to support Ukraine, the bipartisan backing for the country in Congress has come to represent the main U.S. security guarantee for Kiev. If that were eroded, Ukraine could be in an especially dangerous position.

“Our vital interest is to ensure and to protect and to strengthen the bipartisan support for Ukraine,” said Danylo Lubkivsky, a former Ukrainian deputy foreign minister. “This is not all about Ukraine. Don’t impose some domestic issues, problems on Ukraine, while Ukraine fights against Russia’s aggression and struggles for its independence and freedom.”

Trump’s freeze on Ukraine aid draws new scrutiny amid push for Biden investigation

Zelensky is also talking about meeting with Putin as well as with the leaders of France and Germany in the coming weeks to try to hammer out a settlement to the conflict that is in its fifth year. That makes the uproar in Washington especially unsettling, because it weakens Ukraine’s negotiating position.

Zelensky has been more open to Russia than his predecessor, negotiating a major prisoner swap with the Kremlin in addition to suggesting discussions with Putin.

“The ultimate beneficiary of all this story is Russia,” said Daria Kaleniuk, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a clean-governance organization in Kiev.

Already, some Ukrainians worry that Zelensky may have offered too much to Trump’s team.

“Just stay away from it. It is not our story. There is nothing to gain, there is lots to lose,” said Victoria Voytsitska, a former Ukrainian lawmaker who was swept into office in 2014 in a wave of Western-oriented activists who entered politics after the political upheavals that year.

Using an investigation “as a tool to say we’re reopening this to provide a benefit, leverage to a particular candidate, would be a mistake,” she said.

Ukrainian policymakers and analysts worry that their leader is walking into an ambush by meeting Trump on Wednesday. They fear it could set back efforts to improve the rule of law made since the 2014 revolution, which overthrew a deeply corrupt leader.

One irony is that U.S. resources have been poured into Ukraine since its 1991 independence from the Soviet Union to try to foster an independent judiciary, one that could stand up to political pressure — the exact sort of pressure Trump is now applying, Getmanchuk said.

Capitulating “would be a disrespect to all the Americans who gave funds and investment from U.S. taxpayers for 28 years for reforms,” she said.

Days after the July phone conversation between Trump and Zelensky, Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani followed up with an in-person meeting with Andriy Yermak, a top Zelensky aide, in Madrid, Giuliani said. Giuliani said that he met with Yermak to suggest two matters for investigation and that Yermak indicated the Ukrainians were open to pursuing the investigations. Yermak did not respond to a request for comment.

How Trump and Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate the president’s rivals

The first matter concerned allegations that Ukraine’s government colluded with Democrats in 2016 to try to derail Trump’s presidential bid.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the release of a ledger documenting millions of dollars of off-books payments from the former Ukrainian government to Paul Manafort helped lead to Manafort’s ouster as Trump’s campaign chairman. Manafort had been a consultant to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the Russia-friendly leader who was forced to resign in 2014. 

Giuliani said that the release of that information was part of a coordinated campaign by the Ukrainian government to help Democrats. He offered no evidence.

Serhiy Leshchenko, the Ukrainian lawmaker who revealed the ledger, says he released the information to try to fight corruption in Ukraine, not intervene in U.S. politics.

The second matter raised by Giuliani involved a probe of the Ukrainian gas tycoon who put Hunter Biden on the board of his company Burisma.

In 2016, then-Vice President Biden demanded the ouster of Ukraine’s top law enforcement official, Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Trump and Giuliani have accused the elder Biden of pushing for Shokin’s dismissal to protect Hunter Biden from an investigation into Burisma.

But it is unclear how seriously Shokin was pursuing Burisma at the time he was forced out. Diplomats said at the time that Shokin’s ouster was tied to Western worries about corruption in Ukraine’s justice system. Washington’s concerns were widely shared by Ukraine’s European partners, and they embraced Shokin’s departure.

“The Fake News Media and their partner, the Democrat Party, want to stay as far away as possible from the Joe Biden demand that the Ukrainian Government fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son,” Trump wrote Saturday on Twitter.

Biden said Saturday that he had never spoken with his son about his business in Ukraine and accused Trump of “doing this because he knows I will beat him like a drum.”

Trump pressed Ukrainian leader to probe Biden’s son, say people familiar with the matter

Trump defends call with Ukrainian president, calling it ‘perfectly fine and routine’

As vice president, Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.

Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukrainian-leaders-feel-trapped-between-warring-washington-factions/2019/09/21/f0ff90ac-dbf1-11e9-a1a5-162b8a9c9ca2_story.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., surged ahead of former Vice President Joe Biden in a new poll of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers released late Saturday, with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg slipping into a distant third and fourth, respectively.

The Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll showed Warren as the first choice of 22 percent of the voters surveyed, while Biden was the first choice of 20 percent of the voters. By comparison, the Register poll in June showed Biden leading with 24 percent support, nine percentage points clear of Warren and eight points clear of Sanders.

J. Ann Selzer, president of pollster Selzer & Co., told the Register the survey represented “the first major shakeup” of the Iowa race, because: “It’s the first time we’ve had someone other than Joe Biden at the top of the leader board.”

BIDEN GOES ON THE ATTACK OVER UKRAINE CONTROVERSY, PLEDGES TO BEAT TRUMP ‘LIKE A DRUM’

Sanders was in third place with 11 percent support, a five percentage-point drop from the Register’s June poll. No other candidate cracked 10 percent of the first-choice vote, with Buttigieg garnering nine percent. That also represents a five percentage-point drop from June.

Warren also had the highest percentage of poll respondents (20 percent) who said she was their second choice in the February caucus. By contrast, Biden and Sanders each garnered 10 percent of the second-choice vote. Warren also had the highest favorability rating of any candidate, with 75 percent of respondents saying they had a very or mostly favorable view of her compared to 66 percent for Biden and 58 percent for Sanders.

BERNIE SANDERS RELEASES PLAN TO ELIMINATE $81B IN PAST-DUE MEDICAL DEBT

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., rounded out the top five, with six percent of voters saying she was their first choice. Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Cory Booker, D-NJ, both received three percent. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, former Congressman Beto O’Rourke, entrepreneur Andrew Yang and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer each received three percent.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The polling shakeup may not be done, as 63 percent of respondents said they could still be persuaded to support a different candidate. Harris, Buttigieg and Booker could still benefit from late deciders, as 39 percent, 37 percent and 35 percent of poll respondents said they were still actively considering those respective candidates.

The poll came from a sample size of 602 likely Democratic caucusgoers with a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points. It was conducted from Sept. 14-18.

The most recent Fox News poll of Democratic primary voters nationwide showed Biden with 29 percent support, down six percentage points from his peak in May. Sanders was in second place at 18 percent, up eight percentage points from the previous month’s poll, while Warren was on 16 percent, down four points from August.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-leads-new-iowa-poll-for-the-first-time

CLOSE

ATHENS, Greece – Greek police said Saturday they have arrested a suspect in the 1985 hijacking of a flight from Athens that became a multiday ordeal and included the slaying of an American.

Police said a 65-year-old suspect in the hijacking was arrested Thursday on the island of Mykonos in response to a warrant from Germany.

Lt. Col. Theodoros Chronopoulos, a police spokesman, told The Associated Press that the hijacking case involved TWA Flight 847. The flight was commandeered by hijackers shortly after taking off from Athens on June 14, 1985. It originated in Cairo and had San Diego set as a final destination, with stops scheduled in Athens, Rome, Boston and Los Angeles.

The hijackers shot and killed U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, 23, after beating him unconscious. They released the other 146 passengers and crew members on the plane during an ordeal that included stops in Beirut and Algiers. The last hostage was freed after 17 days.

The suspect was in custody Saturday on the Greek island of Syros but was set to be transferred to the Korydallos high security prison in Athens for extradition proceedings, a police spokeswoman told The Associated Press. She said the suspect was a Lebanese citizen. The spokeswoman spoke on condition of anonymity because the case was ongoing.

Police refused to release the suspect’s name.

In Beirut, the Foreign Ministry said the man detained in Greece is a Lebanese journalist called Mohammed Saleh, and that a Lebanese embassy official planned to try to visit him on Sunday.

However, several Greek media outlets identified the detainee as Mohammed Ali Hammadi, who was arrested in Frankfurt in 1987 and convicted in Germany for the plane hijacking and Stethem’s slaying. Hammadi, an alleged Hezbollah member, was sentenced to life in prison but was paroled in 2005 and returned to Lebanon.

Germany had resisted pressure to extradite him to the United States after Hezbollah abducted two German citizens in Beirut and threatened to kill them.

Hammadi, along with fellow hijacker Hasan Izz-Al-Din and accomplice Ali Atwa, remains on the FBI’s list of most wanted terrorists. The FBI offered a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to each man’s capture.

News agency dpa reported Saturday that Germany’s federal prosecutor’s office declined to comment on news reports about the case.

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/09/21/twa-hijacking-suspect-arrested-1985-attack-killed-navy-diver/2405810001/

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard is ready for combat and “any scenario,” its chief commander said Saturday, as the country’s nuclear deal with world powers collapses and the U.S. alleged Iran was behind a weekend attack on major oil sites in Saudi Arabia that shook global energy markets.

Iran has denied involvement in the Sept. 14 attack that was initially claimed by Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who is in New York for the U.N. meetings, has warned that any retaliatory strike on Iran by the U.S. or Saudi Arabia will result in “an all-out war.”

On Saturday, Gen. Hossein Salami, at a ceremony displaying pieces of an American drone Iran shot down in June, said that his forces have carried out “war exercises and are ready for any scenario.”

He added: “If anyone crosses our borders, we will hit them.”

Zarif claimed in a tweet that Saudi Arabia does not believe its own allegations that Iran was responsible for the attack on Saudi oil sites.

RELATED: Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities attacked




“It is clear that even the Saudis themselves don’t believe the fiction of Iranian involvement”, Zarif said, pointing to what he described as a Saudi retaliatory attack on Houthi forces in southwestern Yemen.

Saudi Arabia has been at war with the Houthi rebels since March 2015. The U.N., Gulf Arab nations and the U.S. accuse Iran of supplying arms to the Houthis, something Tehran denies.

The Houthis announced Friday they are halting all drone and ballistic missile attacks on Saudi Arabia — a move welcomed Saturday by Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths.

If implemented in good faith, he said, a halt to hostile military acts against the Saudis “could send a powerful message of the will to end the war.”

Griffiths said in a statement that he also welcomed the Houthis’ “expression of further openness” to implementing a prisoner exchange agreement, “and the desire for a political solution to end the conflict.”

He stressed “the importance of taking advantage of this opportunity and moving forward with all necessary steps to reduce violence, military escalation and unhelpful rhetoric.”

Analysts say the missiles used in the Sept. 14 assault wouldn’t have enough range to reach the oil sites in eastern Saudi Arabia from impoverished Yemen. The missiles and drones used resembled Iranian-made weapons, although analysts say more study is needed to definitively link them to Iran.

Salami added that Iran does not want to start a conflict, but appeared to warn the U.S. and Saudi Arabia that Iran is prepared.

“We won’t stop until the destruction of any aggressor. And we will not leave any secure spot,” he said. “Do not miscalculate and do not make a mistake.”

In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s minister of state for foreign affairs criticized Iran.

“The more engagement you have with Iran the more Iran believes its aggressive behavior is acceptable in the world, and that is not acceptable, so those issues need to be considered,” Adel al-Jubeir told a news conference. He said the kingdom was waiting for the investigation’s conclusion on where the strikes came from “so we can respond.”

Meanwhile, tiny, oil-rich Kuwait continued to sound the alarm over the potential for tensions to spiral out of control. Its state-run KUNA news agency on Saturday quoted the CEO of Kuwait Flour mills and Bakeries Co. as saying that it has foodstuffs available for upward of eight months if necessary. Mutleg al-Zayed said the company had a readiness to cope “with ramifications that may emerge as a result of conditions in the region,” without elaborating.

Already, Kuwait has raised the readiness of its armed forces and increased security at its ports.

President Donald Trump signaled on Friday that he was not inclined to authorize an immediate military strike on Iran in response to the attacks on the Saudi oil industry, saying he believes showing restraint “shows far more strength” and he wants to avoid an all-out war.

The Pentagon said the U.S. will deploy additional troops and military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to beef up security.

Trump, who withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear deal more than a year ago, said separately Friday that America “just sanctioned the Iranian national bank.” He did not elaborate.

The U.S. Treasury Department said it took action against the Central Bank of Iran.

Iran’s central bank chief, Abdolnasser Hemmati, sought to shrug off the new sanctions on Saturday. According to the state-run IRNA news agency, Hemmati said re-imposing sanctions on Iran’s central bank shows the U.S. has little leverage left.

___

Associated Press writers Fay Abuelgasim in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/09/21/irans-guard-says-ready-for-any-scenario-amid-us-standoff/23817353/

Three months later, some of Mr. Trump’s own allies fear the failure to follow through was taken by Iran as a sign of weakness, emboldening it to attack oil facilities in Saudi Arabia this month. Mr. Trump argues his decision was an expression of long-overdue restraint by a nation that has wasted too many lives and dollars overseas.

But he finds himself back where he was in June, wrestling with the consequences of using force and the consequences of avoiding it, except now Iran is accused of an even more brazen provocation, and the stakes seem even higher.

As Mr. Trump again weighs retaliation against Iran, this time for the Saudi attacks, the choice he made in June is instructive in the insight it provides into how the president approaches a life-or-death decision committing American forces against an enemy.

This account of that day in June is based on interviews with White House aides, Pentagon officials, military officers, American and foreign diplomats, members of Congress and outside presidential advisers, most of whom asked not to be identified describing private conversations.

That day clearly stays with Mr. Trump, who has ruminated on it over the past week.

“When I was running, everybody said, ‘Oh, he’s going to get into war, he’s going to get into war, he’s going to blow everybody up, he’s going to get into war,’” he told reporters on Friday. “Well, the easiest thing I can do — in fact, I could do it while you’re here — would say, ‘Go ahead, fellas, go do it.’ And that would be a very bad day for Iran.”

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/us/politics/trump-iran-decision.html

 

WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) – U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker will drop out of the running for his party’s 2020 White House nomination unless he can raise $1.7 million over the next 10 days for his struggling campaign, his campaign said on Saturday.

The mounting scale of rival campaigns and the prospect of higher thresholds for participating in future Democratic debates have forced Booker’s campaign to an “inflection point” where it must grow quickly or have no “legitimate long-term path forward,” according to campaign manager Addisu Demissie.

“If we’re not able to build the campaign organization, which means raise the money that we need to win the nomination, Cory’s not going to continue running and consuming resources that are better used on focusing on beating Donald Trump,” Demissie told reporters in a conference call.

The announcement came as the large, racially diverse Democratic presidential field shows signs of eroding, with fundraising largely dominated by four candidates: former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.

Booker, a black U.S. senator from Newark, New Jersey, whose support in national opinion polls stands in the low single digits, needs to raise $1.7 million by the time the financial quarter ends on Sept. 30, according to a campaign memo sent to supporters and posted online on Saturday.

On Friday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio ended his 2020 presidential campaign, leaving 19 other Democrats including Booker to vie for the chance to take on Republican Trump.

Booker and his rival Democratic candidates were due to speak later on Saturday at the Polk County Democrats’ annual Steak Fry in Iowa, which will hold its presidential caucus on Feb. 3.




Demissie denied suggestions that Saturday’s announcement was simply a campaign ploy to spur fundraising, telling reporters that the funds would be invested in campaign operations in October and November to better ensure success in next year’s early voting states and Super Tuesday primaries.

Demissie dismissed Booker’s weak poll numbers, predicting that the Democrat’s efforts in early voting states would quickly change the dynamics once voters start casting ballots next year, if he could raise the funds necessary to stay in the race.

“The final field that is going to be offered to the Democratic Party come February, March and April and beyond, is being determined right now, here, in September,” he said. (Reporting by David Morgan in Washington Editing by Matthew Lewis)

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/09/21/booker-seeks-dollar17-million-infusion-to-stay-in-democratic-white-house-race/23817367/

It is unprecedented. One 16-year-old Swedish girl with a vision for a viable planet has inspired a global movement for change. The millions of people, predominantly young, all around the world who made a powerful but peaceful protest about the transcendent issue facing the world – the future of the life on Earth itself – constitute by far the most hopeful development since we first became aware of the damage human activity is inflicting on Gaia. For these are the very people who, perhaps before it really is too late, will be voting, agitating, arguing and delivering the changes to lifestyles so desperately needed. 

We owe an enormous debt to Greta Thunberg. Reviled though she may be in some quarters, her message carries an extraordinary power and resonance, much of it down to its sheer earnestness. As she told the United States congress this week – and there are few other groups on the planet who need to hear the voice of the global young more urgently – dealing with the climate emergency is not a matter of choice, of options to be weighed and assessed, of considering matters or planning ameliorative palliative measures.

“This is above all an emergency, and not just any emergency,” she said. “This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced. And we need to treat it accordingly so that people can understand and grasp the urgency. Because you cannot solve a crisis without treating it as one. Stop telling people that everything will be fine when in fact, as it looks now, it won’t be very fine.”

It is this blunt speaking, and the bold statement of the truth, that has led some, consciously or not, to belittle her and her motivations. It is foolish to do so, and pointless, because, while the critics can attack Greta all they like, the data and the science speak almost for themselves. They have, though, benefited from the amplification supplied by this remarkable young woman. 

She states the position admirably precisely: there is a 66 per cent chance of averting some of the worst aspects of climate change if action is taken on a 10-year timespan. Some countries, regions and cities are making impressive progress, pulling their targets for carbon neutrality and eliminating the internal combustion engine ever closer to today. Theresa May, in her last act as prime minister, pledged to make the UK carbon neutral by 2050. This is progress, but not enough. The remaining signatories to the Paris climate change accords at least acknowledge the reality of the threat, its immediacy and the scientific evidence.

Yet the world knows there are others resistant to reason and the cause of self-preservation. Despite frequent and freakish weather that is already costing lives and damaging their economies, the American and Australian governments, with their large natural resources sectors, could go so much further than they have. It is also distressing to witness the wilful destruction of the rain forests of Brazil and central Africa, sometimes encouraged by figures such as President Bolsonaro. China has invested much in its electric vehicle industry, but is still building power stations fed by fossil fuels at an alarming rate. There, and in too many other countries, the authorities simply do not permit the kind of strike actions and protests that have promoted renewed global debate. 

Above all, this is the perfect reminder to all those attending the UN Climate Action Summit in New York about what is at stake. The issue could hardly be bigger. As the placards say, There is No Planet B, and, as the young are saying to the generation of today’s leaders that holds the very existence of future generations of humanity in its hands, you may die of old age, but your children and grandchildren will die of climate change. We have been warned.

Source Article from https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/greta-thunberg-climate-change-congress-new-york-paris-climate-accord-a9113756.html

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden says President Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president was “an overwhelming abuse of power.”

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden says President Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president was “an overwhelming abuse of power.”

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Joe Biden, the former Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate, is accusing President Trump of “an overwhelming abuse of power.”

Biden’s comments on Saturday come amid reports that President Trump urged the leader of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Biden’s son during a phone conversation this summer.

According to multiple reports, what was allegedly said during that July 25 conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president is now at the center of an intelligence community whistleblower complaint that has roiled the White House.

Speaking to reporters at the Iowa Steak Fry, Biden said that if the reports are true, Trump crossed a line.

“Trump’s doing this because he knows I’ll beat him like a drum,” Biden said. “And he’s using the abuse of power and every element of the presidency to try to do something to smear me.”

Trump and his allies allege that while vice president, Biden sought to have a Ukrainian prosecutor that was reportedly looking into his son Hunter’s business affairs fired. In 2014, Hunter Biden was a board member of a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings.

According to a report by Bloomberg in May, the prosecutor general in Ukraine said there was no evidence that either of the Bidens committed any wrongdoing.

The older Biden was asked by reporters Saturday if he ever had discussions with his son about Hunter’s business dealings. He denied ever doing so.

He then turned the discussion back to President Trump.

“I know Trump deserves to be investigated,” Biden said. “He’s violating every basic norm of a president.”

Biden has called for the release of the phone transcript of the Trump conversation.

Earlier Saturday, Trump in a series of tweets doubled down on his stance that he did nothing wrong in his conversation with the Ukrainian president.

He called it “a perfectly fine and routine conversation” where “nothing was said that was in any way wrong.”

As NPR reported Friday, President Trump dismissed the whistleblower allegations as a “political hackjob.”

The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Trump “repeatedly pressured” the Ukrainian leader “about eight times” to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, on a probe of Hunter Biden.

The Washington Post reported that the conversation also included an unspecified “promise” made by President Trump.

A little more than two weeks after that conversation, on Aug.12, the acting Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, said his office received a disclosure involving an alleged “urgent concern.”

The Trump administration has so far ignored calls to release the contents of the whistleblower complaint, even though congressional Democrats say they are legally entitled to the information.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement Friday, that Congress “must be sure” the administration is engaging in national security and foreign policy that’s “in the best interest of the American people.”

“The Administration’s blocking of Acting [Director of National Intelligence] Joseph Maguire from providing Congress with the whistleblower complaint violates the federal statute, which unequivocally states that the DNI ‘shall’ provide Congress this information,” Pelosi said.

Trump on Saturday accused the media and Democrats of trying to protect the Democratic front-runner.

He even gave the controversy a new moniker: the “Ukraine Witch Hunt.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/09/21/763067894/on-ukraine-call-biden-says-trump-is-violating-every-basic-norm-of-a-president

CLOSE

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says President Trump’s attack on a whistleblower who alerted intelligence officials to a serious and urgent matter is “disturbing.” (Sept. 20)
AP Domestic

DES MOINES, Ia. — Former Vice President Joe Biden said Saturday he hasn’t spoken to his son Hunter Biden about his overseas businesses while forcefully calling again for an investigation into President Donald Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president.

“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said. “Here’s what I know. Trump should be investigated.”

“You should be looking at Trump,” Biden told reporters in Des Moines shortly after arriving at the Polk County Steak Fry, an annual Democratic fundraiser. “He’s doing this because he knows I’ll beat him like a drum. And he’s using an abuse of power and every element of the presidency to try to smear me … Ask the right questions.”

The comments are the latest in a back-and-forth between Biden and Trump related to Trump’s reported discussions with the Ukrainian president, a whistleblower complaint involving Trump and Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine.

Multiple news outlets reported this week that a whistleblower from the intelligence community filed a complaint with the inspector general overseeing that community concerning a phone call Trump made with a foreign leader.

Lawmakers are separately investigating whether Trump pushed for Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to probe Biden’s family’s dealings in his country.

Before Biden’s comments, Trump fired off several tweets Saturday morning, defending himself and his phone call with Zelensky as a “fine and routine conversation.”

“Nothing was said that was in any way wrong, but Biden’s demand, on the other hand, was a complete and total disaster,” Trump tweeted. 

Biden briefly addressed supporters at a pre-steak fry rally Saturday and warned that Trump would try to murky the waters as the election cycle heats up.

“Be prepared for every lousy thing coming from him,” Biden said. 

What has happened already

The president’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has previously raised questions that Biden, as vice president, pushed for the ouster of former Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, who had investigated a private Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Group. Hunter Biden was a board member of Burisma.

But Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Bloomberg News Service in May that he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son.

“Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing,” Lutsenko told Bloomberg. “A company can pay however much it wants to its board.”

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden and work with his personal attorney, Giuliani, on the matter.

Biden has previously said he wanted Shokin out as prosecutor general because he wasn’t doing enough to investigate corruption. The former vice president in March 2016 called on Ukraine’s Parliament to dismiss Shokin, or the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees, according to the New York Times. Shokin was voted out by parliament, but no evidence showing Biden intentionally tried to benefit his son has surfaced.

Still, Trump in a May interview on Fox News suggested Biden engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine’s government.

“Look at Joe Biden … he calls them [Ukrainian government leaders] and says, ‘Don’t you dare prosecute,'” Trump said in the interview. “‘If you don’t fire this prosecutor’ — the prosecutor was after his son — then he said, ‘If you fire the prosecutor, you’ll be OK. And if you don’t fire the prosecutor, we’re not giving you $2 billion in loan guarantees,’ or whatever he was supposed to give. Can you imagine if I did that?”

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/09/21/joe-biden-never-talked-ukraine-son-trump-needs-investigated/2401830001/

There’s an old saying that wars are easy to get into but hard to get out of. President Trump understands this, which is why he wisely resisted the temptation to launch a military strike against Iran after that nation launched a missile and drone attack last week against Saudi Arabian oil facilities.

When he was running for president, Trump promised the American people he would not jump into endless conflicts in the greater Middle East, where thousands of members of the U.S. military have been killed and wounded in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fighting began in 2001 in Afghanistan and 2003 in Iraq and still continues in both countries. U.S. forces have also fought on a smaller scale in Syria to strike at terrorist targets.

ATTACK ON SAUDI ARABIA OIL FIELD WOULD LIKELY NOT HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY ANY COUNTRY: EXPERT

U.S. taxpayers have spent trillions of dollars on these wars, but our involvement has done little or nothing to make our nation more secure.

More from Opinion

And Trump is old enough to remember the Vietnam War. That started as a small-scale conflict with U.S. advisers and wound up claiming the lives of more than 58,000 members of the U.S. military and wounding more than 150,000. Trump does not want to see anything approaching that scale happen in a war with Iran.

The president announced Friday that he is imposing new sanctions on Iran’ national bank in response to the attack on Saudi Arabia. And Pentagon officials announced they will deploy several hundred additional U.S. troops and air defense assets to Saudi Arabia to help the Saudis defend their nation against future attacks.

Those measured actions are a smart move by the president. He understands going further could start a war with Iran that would have devastating consequences in terms of U.S. lives and treasure.

Trump would be justified in striking Iran, which has recently been acting like a rogue nation looking for a fight. Tehran has attacked oil tankers, shot down a U.S. drone, and continued aid to terrorists in civil wars in Syria, Yemen and around the borders of Israel. Iran remains the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism in the world today.

Trump would be justified in striking Iran, which has recently been acting like a rogue nation looking for a fight.

I suspect Trump, despite all the reasons for striking Iran, will hold out unless his back is completely against the wall because he understand that striking Iran could set off a bloody war that would not be easy to win.

“Going into Iran would be a very easy decision,” Trump said at the White House on Friday. “Most people thought I would go in within two seconds” of the attack on Saudi Arabia. “I think I’m showing great restraint.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif warned Friday that a military attack on his country by the U.S. or Saudi Arabia would lead to “all-out war.” His warning needs to be taken seriously.

What would a war with Iran be like?

I have “fought” Iran many times in simulations in my national security work at the Center for the National Interest in Washington.

Going back as far as 2013, a bipartisan group of experts has gathered semi-regularly to test out scenarios if a war broke out.

In one scenario, Tehran is upset over a large increase in U.S. forces to the region to counter recent Iranian military advances in new submarines and missile platforms. Tehran decides to push back, testing a salvo of intermediate-range missiles – with an ICBM test looming in the next few months.

When Iran decides to test a second batch of missiles just days later – with the missiles flying close to U.S. missile defenses in the Persian Gulf – the U.S. destroys the Iranian missiles in mid-flight to teach Tehran a lesson.

Iran then declares a “naval exclusion zone” where it claims to be conducting nay exercises. The problem: the exclusion zone encompasses the Strait of Hormuz, where millions of barrels of oil pass through daily. Tehran declares that for the next month the strait will be closed during the exercise.

Global economic panic ensues. In only the first hours of the closure, oil prices spike 10 percent. In response, America demands the so-called exercise end in 24 hours. If not, U.S. military forces will clear the area of any naval or military forces in the area.

How does Iran respond? Tehran senses America is bluffing and doubles down, increasing the amount of naval and missile forces in the area. Additionally, Iran tests several new ballistic missiles that could, in theory, sink a U.S. naval warship.

America then strikes hard, making sure that if military force is going to be used, Washington gets the maximum amount of benefit with such an escalation. U.S. forces in the region attack with a series of cruise missile strikes from U.S. nuclear attack submarines sitting offshore. The attacks focus on clearing out the strait of Iranian naval assets and damaging Tehran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure.

At first, it seems the move is a resounding success. But then Iran decides that America must pay a price for its actions, with an attack on the symbol of U.S. military might, a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier that is operating in the region.

Iran launches a salvo of over 100 missiles, the U.S. carrier’s defenses are overwhelmed, and the 100,000-ton vessel is destroyed and 2,000 America’s die – the worst loss of U.S. lives since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Then things get even worse. Iran knows a massive U.S. counterattack is coming, so Tehran decides to go all in, striking U.S. naval assets in the region to limit such actions and hopefully get Washington to stand down and come to the bargaining table.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

What should America do now that U.S. men and women are dying in combat? As the simulation had fixed time limits, we never found out. With only a five-day window in our wargame, and with Iran’s last move now over, time expired.

Over the years, I have rerun this and other similar scenarios and all end in a similar way: no clear victory for the U.S. without sending in more forces to destroy Tehran’s military capabilities in a conflict that could last months or even years.

Would a real war play out like the simulation? No one can say for sure, but it easily could.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Our simulations should stand as a giant caution flag waving in front of President Trump and his military advisers. A military attack on Iran could quickly spiral out of control and spark a long and costly war.

My advice to President Trump: think very carefully about your actions. And if you do decide to strike Iran, strike with overwhelming force.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY HARRY KAZIANIS

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/harry-kazianis-trump-wise-to-avoid-a-devastating-war-with-iran-in-wake-of-attack-on-saudi-arabia

WASHINGTON — Sen. Cory Booker must raise nearly $2 million in the next 10 days or the presidential candidate has no “legitimate long-term path forward,” according to a memo to staff from the campaign manager obtained by NBC News.

The struggling candidate’s campaign manager, Addisu Demissie, warned that after weaker-than-expected fundraising in the early part of September, the campaign needs to rake in another $1.7 million before the last day of the financial quarter on Sept. 30.

“Without a fundraising surge to close out this quarter, we do not see a legitimate long-term path forward,” Demissie wrote in the Saturday memo to staff and supporters. “The next 10 days will determine whether Cory Booker can stay in this race.”

Booker was one of the first candidates to build a substantial operation in critical early states, and his ground game in Iowa has been praised by local activists, but the large headcount is expensive.

Demissie said the campaign has enough money to keep going at its current pace if it wanted to, but not enough to expand operations before voting starts early next year and that Booker doesn’t want stay in the race if he doesn’t think he can win.

“If our campaign is not in a financial position to grow, he’s not going to continue to consume resources and attention that can be used to focus on beating Donald Trump, which needs to be everyone’s first priority,” Demissie wrote.

Booker’s campaign has struggled nationally. He averages at just under 3 percent support in the polls, according to Real Clear Politics.

He warned other candidates were in similar situations and that the historically large 2020 field “is about to narrow dramatically.”

“Booker might not be in this race for much longer — the same is true for other important voices in the field,” Demissie wrote.

He argued there probably only four campaigns with the “money necessary to build and sustain the national organization needed to win,” presumably referring to former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, who raised more money last quarter than any other candidate.

Candidates often use sky-is-falling language in fundraising emails, but Demissie insisted that is not the case for Booker — even if he is hoping to use the warning to raise money.

“I want to be clear: This isn’t an end-of-quarter stunt or another one of those memos from a campaign trying to spin the press,” he wrote. “This is a real, unvarnished look under the hood of our operation at a level of transparency unprecedented in modern presidential campaigns.”

Booker and the rest of the Democratic field will address Iowa Democrats at the Polk County Steak Fry Saturday as some candidates have begun taking more drastic action to try to shake up what has been a surprisingly static race so far.

Starting there, Booker and his campaign will try to remind Democrats why they made the former Newark mayor a national star in the first place and what they might miss if he were to exit the race, such as his powerful, optimistic oratory and roots in a poor inner-city neighborhood, according to aides.

“The fourth quarter’s when you gotta grow,” Booker told MSNBC’s Vaughn Hillyard at Steak Fry. “Grow or get out and we are not in this for an ego exercise, this is not a vanity play. I’m in this to win the nomination and beat Donald Trump. And so if you believe in my campaign, if you believe in my voice being on this stage, this is a determining moment for us, we either are going to reach a 1.7 million dollars to stay in this race or we’re gonna have to make really tough decisions at the end of this quarter.”

And in a bid to sell transparency, the campaign will keep a constantly updating tracker of their progress toward the $1.7 million goal.

Booker is a crowd favorite at candidate events and he’s on many voters list of potential favorites to support, even though he occupies the top slot for a much smaller number. But his campaign will lean into that, urging rank-and-file Democrats to chip into to keep him in the race even if they’re not planning to vote for him.

Minyon Moore, a veteran Democratic strategist who is neutral in the 2020 race and has donated to multiple candidates, said while she understands voters’ fatigue with the massive field, Booker is a valuable addition.

“I think that it would be a travesty not to have him in the race,” she said. “We need him in the race. His race is one factor, but his voice is another factor.”

Money is typically what forces candidates out of a presidential contest. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio on Friday became the latest candidate to quit the race after realizing he had no chance of making the October debate stage.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/cory-booker-memo-may-not-be-race-much-longer-if-n1057196

As Congress and the White House wrestle over a whistleblower’s complaint against President Trump, the story took a new turn late Friday when the Wall Street Journal reported that, in a July phone call, Trump “repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine” to investigate the dealings of Joe Biden’s family in Ukraine.

Trump’s call is reportedly the source of a complaint by a whistleblower against the president that has sparked a furor among Democrats in Congress, who are demanding to see the complaint.

If, as multiple news organizations are reporting, the whistleblower’s complaint centers on Ukraine, there is strong evidence that it relates to President Trump’s urging the Ukrainian government to investigate Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son.

NEW DETAILS REPORTED ON TRUMP-UKRAINE CALL AS DEMS CLASH WITH WHITE HOUSE ON COMPLAINT

The story behind that story is itself worthy of serious scrutiny.

More from Opinion

The proposed investigation involves Hunter Biden’s involvement with a controversial Ukrainian natural gas company while then-Vice President Biden was overseeing America’s Ukraine policy.

Critics of the president have accused Trump of attempting to “extort” Ukrainian officials for “dirt” on Biden, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination to run against Trump next year.

But why would Ukraine have dirt on Joe Biden? For answers, one must look at Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company which, until earlier this year, employed Hunter Biden.

In April 2014, Hunter Biden agreed to join Burisma’s board of directors, ostensibly to advise on legal issues, The New Yorker reported. Biden had no known expertise on the natural gas industry, but Burisma was certainly in need of help.

Earlier that month, British officials had frozen the London bank accounts of Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, and soon after, Ukrainian officials opened their own corruption investigation into Burisma, the Kyiv Post in Ukraine reported.

Hunter Biden helped to recruit a legal team for Burisma, including former Obama administration Justice Department official John Buretta and several American consulting firms, The New York Times reported.

The younger Biden was well compensated for his efforts. Records obtained by the Government Accountability Institute show he was paid as much as $83,333 per month for his work at Burisma.

Hunter Biden claims he had no role in the investigation of the company, and that he never spoke about it with his father – but the facts show a troubling overlap with the Obama administration’s actions in Ukraine.

On April 16, 2014, White House records show that Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s business partner, made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. Five days later, on April 21, Joe Biden landed in Kiev for a series of high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials.

Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy, as I wrote in the New York Post.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was officially announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Like Hunter Biden, Archer had no background or experience in the energy sector.

In March 2016, Ukrainian officials fired Viktor Shokin, the controversial prosecutor general whose office was overseeing the investigation into Burisma, The New York Times reported.

Six months later, the Burisma case was dropped entirely, the Kyiv Post reported.

According to Joe Biden himself, the former vice president played a key role in the prosecutor’s dismissal.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In March 2016, the then-vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loans if Shokin was not fired, according to Biden, who recounted the exchange in a 2018 speech: “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b—-. He got fired.”

While the propriety of Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president is certainly questionable and worthy of inquiry, the investigation he was hoping for certainly seems warranted on its own merits.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY PETER SCHWEIZER

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/peter-schweizer-trump-is-right-to-call-for-probe-of-biden-dealings-with-ukraine

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday that despite reports President Donald Trump may have attempted to have Ukraine interfere in the 2020 presidential election, she still does not support impeachment proceedings. Instead, she suggested that laws ought to be passed to make clear when and how a sitting president could be indicted once Trump is no longer in office.

Many Democrats, including presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Julián Castro, called for Congress to begin the impeachment process after a whistleblower complaint alleging Trump engaged in an improper conversation with a foreign leader was made public last week. But the speaker’s statements show that it will take more than allegations of election meddling to join those in her party pushing for impeachment, and make clear her focus is on protecting — and expanding — Democrats’ majority in the House of Representatives, which depends on protecting seats the party won in districts Trump carried in 2016.

Pelosi made the comments during an interview on NPR’s All Things Considered Friday, arguing Congress should push to amend the Justice Department’s guidance that says a sitting president cannot be indicted by passing a law that makes the procedure for indictment explicit. “A president should be indicted, if he’s committed a wrongdoing — any president,” Pelosi said.

Such a law has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate, and it would not be in Trump’s self-interest to sign such a measure into law. Seeming to acknowledge these facts, Pelosi said such a law would work to govern the behavior of “future presidents” rather than being aimed at reining in Trump.

While she declined to endorse impeachment proceedings, the speaker did put her support behind current investigations being carried out by various House committees, saying Congress has a duty to abide by “the facts and the law.”

She acknowledged, however, that these investigations have been stymied by the executive branch’s lack of cooperation and by the White House’s declarations of executive privilege, arguing that both are simply more evidence that new laws are needed, given “the Founders could never suspect that a president would be so abusive of the Constitution of the United States, that the separation of powers would be irrelevant to him and that he would continue, any president would continue, to withhold facts from the Congress, which are part of the constitutional right of inquiry.”

New questions about impeachment are being raised following reports that began emerging this week in the New York Times and Washington Post that an intelligence official had registered a complaint about Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian officials.

The details of the complaint remain cloudy, but it reportedly outlines a phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president, in which Trump is said to have asked the Ukrainian government to investigate Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden who is currently a leading contender for the Democratic nomination, no less than eight times.

This would suggest an attempt by Trump to use his presidential influence to leverage foreign involvement in a reelection campaign — the very behavior that he has spent much of his time in office saying he did not engage in during his 2016 campaign.

In a news conference Friday, Trump insisted he’d done nothing untoward: “I’ve had conversations with many leaders. They’re always appropriate,” he said, calling the allegations a “political hack job” and “another media disaster.”

And Saturday, he continued to attack the allegations of wrongdoing, tweeting a complaint that journalists and Democrats are colluding against him:

The call is already under investigation by House Democrats, who are trying to understand whether the Trump administration did indeed solicit reelection help from the Ukrainian government.

In the NPR interview, Pelosi said that this case already reveals at least one violation of the law, because Joseph Maguire, the director of national intelligence, declined to relay the whistleblower’s complaint to Congress, as is required by law.

Despite this, it remains to be seen whether Maguire or Trump himself will face any consequences. Republicans have begun to echo the president’s claim that the allegations are a partisan attack, and Pelosi’s comments clearly signal she is not yet ready to expand Democrats’ current strategies.

A whistleblower claims Trump tried to get Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election

Reports about the whistleblower complaint have been unfolding for the last few days. The complaint was filed in August, and includes details of a July phone call in which Trump is alleged to have attempted to pressure Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to work with his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate Hunter Biden’s business ties in that country.

The call took place on July 25, the day after special counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress about Russian interference the 2016 presidential election.

As Vox’s Andrew Prokop has explained, the behavior alleged within the call — asking a foreign power to dig up dirt on a potential opponent for the 2020 election — treads back into the territory of alleged election interference from which Trump has been trying to wrest himself since 2016:

Ukraine-related corruption has played an outsized role in Trump scandals already — a major part of the Mueller probe was Paul Manafort’s prosecution for financial and lobbying crimes related to his work for a former Ukrainian regime. And back during summer of 2016, when Manafort was Trump’s campaign chair, he was plagued by reports that the Ukrainian government was looking into his payments. (Manafort was convicted and is serving a seven-and-a-half year prison sentence.)

But the phone call is just one component of the behavior outlined in the whistleblower complaint, according to reports. Details have remained murky, in part because of attempts by members of the administration to keep the report from Congress, as Prokop writes:

On August 12, a whistleblower who is part of the US intelligence community filed a complaint with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. Atkinson deemed the complaint credible and a matter of “urgent concern,” and wanted the congressional intelligence committees informed.

But his superiors at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have stepped in and refused to give any details of the complaint to Congress — even though a law seems to require them to do this.

Atkinson ended up telling the House Intelligence committee of the complaint’s existence himself in a September 9 letter — but he didn’t give any details on what it was about. But in a subsequent letter, he said the complaint “relates to one of the most significant and important of the DNI’s responsibilities to the American people.”

House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff is the one who eventually went public with this information, saying he feared a coverup.

Trump has argued there is nothing to cover up, and has defended himself from all accusations of misconduct, albeit, as Vox’s Aaron Rupar has reported, in contradictory ways. Friday, for instance Trump told reporters couldn’t remember his conversations with Ukrainian officials, and said he hadn’t read the complaint before claiming “everyone’s read it; they laughed at it.”

Democrats are divided on the issue of impeachment

In the face of these explosive allegations, many Democrats have begun calling for impeachment proceedings. One of the leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, called Congress “complicit” in presidential corruption.

Former HUD official and presidential candidate Julián Castro said Trump “needs to be impeached,” and called on House Democrats to “do something.”

Neither politician is in a position to do anything at the moment; however. Impeachment has to begin in the House: Warren is a senator, and Castro currently holds no office at all. However, there are representatives who, like the candidates, would like to see impeachment begin — in fact, more than half of all House Democrats now support for some form of impeachment inquiry, including full impeachment proceedings.

In the face of these strong demands from members of her party, Pelosi’s insistence on avoiding impeachment points to a desire to retain the Democratic majority in the House. Moderate Democrats and those representing swing districts have warned the speaker that moving forward on impeachment would alienate their voters.

American voters, including Democratic voters, are themselves divided on the subject of impeachment. According to recent polling by Politico and Morning Consult, 37 percent of voters support impeachment, while half outright oppose it. Predictably, the support comes nearly entirely from Democratic voters: about 70 percent of Democratic respondents said they support impeachment proceedings, while just 6 percent of Republican voters said the same.

All of this comes as the House Judiciary Committee has begun ramping up an impeachment investigation into Trump on the basis of Muller’s work investigating allegations of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. The probe has been going on for months, but earlier this week, the committee outlined its plans for continuing with the investigation. The plans mirror the 1974 investigation into Richard Nixon that led to his ouster, and will now likely also include an inquiry into the president’s discussions with Ukraine.

In a closed-door meeting earlier this week, Pelosi reportedly made it clear that she does not support House impeachment proceedings, telling Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY) that an impeachment would not pass a vote on the floor of the House. With this interview, she has made her opposition a matter of public record.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/21/20877023/whistleblower-donald-trump-2020-election-interference-ukraine-nancy-pelosi-democrats-impeachment

Cokie Roberts makes a speech at the Buell Theatre.

Hyoung Chang/Denver Post via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Hyoung Chang/Denver Post via Getty Images

Cokie Roberts makes a speech at the Buell Theatre.

Hyoung Chang/Denver Post via Getty Images

Cokie Roberts was fierce and funny, hard-nosed and kind-hearted. She was steeped in politics, as the daughter of two Louisiana pols, Hale and Lindy Boggs, and enjoyed the game. But she also elevated politics with her elegant reporting.

Cokie wasn’t fooled by the blather of politicians, but also wasn’t smug about journalism. We covered a few primaries and papal trips together, and Cokie used to caution young reporters with preconceptions, “Stories are so simple until you actually cover them.”

It may be hard for many to understand today how great female reporters used to so often be assigned just to cover flower shows, dog pageants, and recipes.

But Cokie Roberts covered the U.S. Congress for a fledgling NPR, while Linda Wertheimer reported on politics, and Nina Totenberg covered the nation’s highest court. Susan Stamberg gave NPR a distinctive voice: astute and warm, not sonorous. They’ve been called The Founding Mothers, who brought the voices of women into the news, and made NPR into a fixture of American life. There are women with vital jobs all over America today who came of age hearing Cokie and those other voices.

But in a profession that can consume people, Cokie Roberts stayed herself. She had a genius for friendship. She wrote notes and made calls. She brought food and books to friends when they were sick, or sad. She remembered birthdays and wrote job recommendations. She laughed – she cackled – at all kinds of jokes.

Cokie once called a hospital when she heard I’d been brought in with typhoid fever, contracted while covering a war, and demanded to speak to the chief physician. He found me in the emergency room and said, with astonishment, “You know Cokie Roberts? She called to tell me to take care of you.” My hospital food improved immediately.

Our mothers died within days of each other a few summers ago. Both of our mothers had taught us the importance of writing notes, so Cokie and I sent emails that crossed at almost the same instant.

“We both woke up this morning without a mother,” said Cokie. “But two classy gals will be friends up there.”

She told people – she certainly told me, and she exemplified it – to make time in your life and space in your heart for family, friendships, and faith. Cokie blazed a trail in this business, and a trail of friendship in so many lives.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/09/21/762823495/opinion-remembering-cokie-roberts

September 21 at 10:54 AM

Rep. Joe Kennedy, the latest generation of a famous political family, announced Saturday that he would challenge Sen. Edward J. Markey in Massachusetts’s Democratic primary, a bid certain to divide the party in the state and in Washington.

In the basement gym of a community center in East Boston, Kennedy cast his candidacy as part of a long-overdue revolution to change government and issued a rallying cry to those disheartened in the Trump era.

“Donald Trump has forced a reckoning in our nation, without question,” Kennedy told the crowd. “But to meet this moment it requires more than just beating him, it requires taking on a broken structure that allowed him to win in the first place … the daily acts of oppression and injustice that enabled 63 million Americans to believe he was the best stewards of their dreams and hopes and aspirations.”

Ahead of a rally here, Kennedy emailed supporters a video officially declaring his candidacy and mentioned the need for a new generation to take on “outdated structures and old rules,” an implicit nod to the decades that separate him and his opponent.

Kennedy, who turns 39 next month, is the grandson of the late Robert Kennedy, who was attorney general and New York senator when he was assassinated in 1968 during his bid for the presidency. He is also the great-nephew of President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Family was a strong theme at Kennedy’s announcement, attended by a number of relatives, including his father and twin brother. As he began his announcement, Kennedy’s toddler son, dressed in a light blue striped sailor’s suit decorated with American flags, tugged on his leg.

In his 10-minute speech, Kennedy ticked through his family’s history, beginning with Patrick, who arrived in East Boston in 1848 with empty pockets, Patrick’s son who served as a state senator and became the scion of the Kennedy dynasty.

Kennedy talked of his desire to defeat Trump and overhaul the Senate’s partisan culture. “I’m running for the U.S. Senate to tear that down,” he said, to cheers from the crowd.

While Kennedy is buoyed by his famous last name, he’s also been held up as a rising star in the party, having been picked to deliver the Democrats’ official response to President Trump’s State of the Union address in 2018.

However, some in Massachusetts and the national Democratic Party see his candidacy as damaging: why challenge a successful Democrat with nearly identical policy positions at a time when the real focus needs to be on defeating Republicans, they argue. Others say Kennedy is the future of the party, and that a primary challenge will strengthen, not weaken whoever goes forward.

Markey, 73, has held the Senate seat since 2013, and served in Congress for 37 years before that. He has the backing of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Just ahead of Kennedy’s event, Markey challenged him and other candidates in the race to a debate focused solely on climate change, Markey’s marquee issue, the week of Nov. 11.

“I’m the author of the Green New Deal, along with my good friend Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” said Markey, nodding to his work with the 29-year-old congresswoman and liberal favorite.

Environmental activists in particular seemed upset by Kennedy’s decision, because Markey has long championed issues they care about, and co-sponsored the Green New Deal, legislation that would address climate change and economic inequality.

“This is the moment for defeating a corrupt and planet-killing president — not for taking down a longtime environmental hero like Edward J. Markey just because you think you can,” Lise Olney, a volunteer grass roots organizer and climate activist from Wellesley, Mass., said via email. “Launching an internecine battle to defeat him is the very definition of hubris. And it’s hard to see how it can possibly be good for Massachusetts.”

Attending Kennedy’s announcement, Teresa Aravena of Wakefield, Mass., said she was impressed with Kennedy’s positive comments on immigration – to counter all the negativity about immigrants from Washington. She doesn’t mind, she said, that Kennedy is challenging someone who had the support of the Democratic establishment.

“I think the Democratic Party has a lot to improve,” said Aravena, adding that she came to the event with her 11-year-old son to show him the importance of politics. “I think we all need to be more involved,” she said.

Community activists Yamina Lachmi of East Boston and Micaela Younger of Boston said they came to the announcement because they were curious about what Kennedy had to say and feel strongly about immigration, the environment and education. They haven’t made up their minds yet who they will support in the race.

“I need him to distinguish himself,” Younger said. “Why would I change my vote if you’re exactly the same?”

Although it’s far too early to predict an outcome, Peter Ubertaccio, a political scientist and dean of the School of Arts & Sciences at Stonehill College in Easton, Mass., said Kennedy is a very serious competitor. “He brings name recognition, money, talent, organization and at least in the very early polls, a decent lead, so it’s going to be a really hard-fought race,” Ubertaccio said.

While others wondered why Kennedy would challenge a well-liked incumbent, Ubertaccio said it makes sense that Kennedy would want to be in the Senate, at a time when there’s a chance both the presidency and the Senate will turn Democratic.

“If a Democrat wins in 2020, he’s going to want to be playing a leading role in passing Democratic legislation,” Ubertaccio said of Kennedy. “Many members of Congress would prefer to be in the Senate, particularly if their party comes into power.”

But Ubertaccio noted that Markey isn’t going to go quietly. As Kennedy has been making noises about challenging him, Markey has been staffing up his campaign and going on the offensive — rather than rolling over and allowing Kennedy to win. “Massachusetts hasn’t had a primary quite like this since the early 1980s,” Ubertaccio said, citing the 1978 and 1982 gubernatorial races between Michael Dukakis and Edward King, both of whom had served as governor.

In those competitions, there was a clear distinction between the candidates’ policies, Ubertaccio said. But not now. “It really isn’t about significant policy differences,” Ubertaccio said of the Massachusetts Senate race.

Instead of distinguishing himself on policy issues, Ubertaccio said Kennedy will have to convince Democratic voters in the state that he hasn’t undermined the party by going after an-already Democratic seat.

Scott Gilman, a volunteer with Sunrise Boston, the local chapter of a national environmental group made up of young people, said he’s been very happy with Markey’s leadership on climate change. He said he hasn’t followed Kennedy’s climate stance closely, but assumes that his environmental policies will also be liberal.

“I could see myself voting for him in another race,” Gilman said, “but for this race, I don’t see it making sense.”

Gilman said he doesn’t understand why Kennedy would challenge such a strong advocate for the environment. Markey’s “been in this fight since before it was cool. Before GenZ and Millennials were a voting block — since I was in middle school and high school,” Gilman said. “I don’t understand why you would want to challenge that if you’re somebody who’s concerned about climate.”

Mary Olberding, a resident of Belchertown, Mass., and the elected Hampshire County Register of Deeds, said she’s thrilled that Kennedy is entering the race. Trump’s 2016 win and the “blue wave” that followed in 2018 showed that the country is ready for new leadership, she said.

Olberding said she’s also focused on the long-term. Markey might do a great job for the next six years, but by then, he’ll be in his 80s, and he would be unlikely to run again, she said. Kennedy, on the other hand, has decades of leadership ahead of him — time he can spend throwing support to other Democratic candidates and helping to build the party, Olberding said.

Two other candidates are also in the primary race, labor attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, a proponent for women’s rights and worker’s issues, and businessman Steve Pemberton, who grew up in foster care.

Colby Itkowitz reported from Washington.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/massachusetts-rep-kennedy-announces-democratic-primary-challenge-to-sen-markey/2019/09/21/7f40384c-dbef-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html

The antipathy toward those women reflects a widespread fear of the growing influence of mainland Chinese in Hong Kong, a former British colony that was handed back to Beijing’s control in 1997 under a “one country, two systems” arrangement that guaranteed it a high degree of autonomy for a half century.

A protester in the park, Phoenix Leung, 30, said the Tuen Mun march was part of a broader struggle for freedoms in the territory.

“The government wouldn’t do anything about this, and it’s up to us to defend the rights we’re supposed to have,” said Ms. Leung, who works in a hospital. “The parks are for our leisure, not for their private activities or to dance and collect money; it’s become like a pornographic venue.”

The Hong Kong protests began in June in opposition to contentious legislation that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China, where the courts are controlled by the Communist Party. The Hong Kong government has since promised to withdraw the bill, but the protests have continued anyway, driven by demands for universal suffrage, greater police accountability and other significant political reforms.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/world/asia/hong-kong-protests.html

The focus on candidates’ past departures from contemporary progressive politics stemmed in large part from the lack of daylight between most of the major candidates on issues of L.G.B.T.Q. equality: nearly all back banning conversion therapy for minors; rolling back the spread of rules that allow religious businesses to decline serving L.G.B.T.Q. customers; and ending the Trump administration transgender military ban. Most have promised to pass the Equality Act, legislation opposed by the White House that would bolster the list of protected classes under civil rights law to include discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

“It’s about time we had a woke president on these issues,” Senator Cory Booker said, “so we see everyone for the equal dignity and equal citizenship we all have.”

The candidates boasted about their accomplishments — large and small — on behalf of L.G.B.T.Q Americans.

Mr. Booker noted that as mayor of Newark, he had vowed not to officiate any weddings until everyone had the right to wed. Senator Elizabeth Warren opened her appearance by reading the names of 18 trans women of color who have been killed this year.

Mr. Biden said he has been sympathetic to same-sex couples since he was a boy, when, he said, he and his father witnessed two men kissing while disembarking from the train station in Wilmington, Del.

“He said, ‘Joey, it’s simple,’” Mr. Biden said. “They love each other.”

In a historically diverse field, the L.G.B.T.Q. community has celebrated their own record-breaking first: Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., the first openly gay man to mount a major campaign for president.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/us/politics/lgbt-forum-2020.html