October 1 at 9:13 AM

 Hong Kong police for the first time fired live ammunition directly at protesters, injuring at least one seriously Tuesday, in a dramatic escalation against demonstrators as China celebrated the 70th anniversary of Communist Party rule.

The live fire brought a new level of violence that shocked a city already worried about police brutality and erosion of freedoms — all unfolding on a sensitive date for China under its leader, Xi Jinping.

Xi, in a grandiose ceremony in Beijing, spoke of uniting his whole country, an aspiration that appeared to be wholly disconnected with the hundreds of thousands who defied warnings from authorities, the risk of violence and a transportation shutdown in Hong Kong to protest increasing Chinese control. 

Authorities in the Chinese city tried to hold muted parallel celebrations with Beijing right after daybreak on Tuesday, but the flag-raising ceremony was under such threat that no one could be outside to watch it. As the fire-red Chinese flag was hoisted accompanied by the rousing national anthem, officials watched from inside a sprawling convention center. 

By midday, people were carrying Chinese flags with its stars rearranged into swastikas, and ripping celebratory banners from buildings in protests and marches that spread out over more than five Hong Kong districts. 

The demonstrations descended into panic and chaos by sundown, as police used huge amounts of tear gas, a water cannon and brute force to clear away the protesters, some of whom were peaceful while others threw bricks and petrol bombs at them. Marches earlier in the day had featured families, the elderly and children.

According to a pro-democracy lawmaker and a video filmed by the Hong Kong University Students’ Union Campus TV, a protester in the Tsuen Wan neighborhood who was dressed in black, wearing a helmet and respirator, and carrying a homemade shield was shot by a police officer wielding a revolver. The video shows the man swinging a rod at the officer before the officer fired once, at close range. 

The shot sent the protester tumbling backward over another officer, who was already on the ground.

Witnesses also saw another protester who appeared to be hit by a live round in his hand in the same neighborhood. Ken Lui, a 21-year-old student at Hong Kong Baptist University and part of the Students’ Union Editorial Board, said he heard a “loud bang” and ran toward it. He saw a man surrounded by police whose hand was bleeding after it was hit by a bullet.

People “were shouting at the police, asking why they had fired at the protesters,” Lui said.

Local media outlets reported that the police used live ammunition in several parts of the city, all of them in the Kowloon and New Territories areas. 

A spokeswoman for the police said an officer shot an attacker who was posing a “huge safety threat” in order to protect the officer himself and his colleagues. The spokeswoman identified the injured man as an 18-year-old and said he was shot in the left side of his chest.

A group of Hong Kong police officers speaking privately over the WhatsApp messaging service had already begun discussing how to “protect and support” the officer who opened fire and urged one another not to share his photo, according to a police officer who is part of the chat group. 

Hong Kong’s Hospital Authority said at least 51 people were injured, including two men in critical condition. The authority said it had no further details on the man who was shot by police.

In the high-end central shopping area of Causeway Bay and the nearby bar-filled district of Wan Chai, a large crowd, which included families and the elderly, was allowed to march for hours along the deserted main thoroughfare toward central Hong Kong. 

Just before sundown on Harcourt Road, the scene of numerous clashes over the past few months and a midway point of the march, police opened up on protesters with a water cannon sending many scattering.

From a pedestrian bridge, police then fired a barrage of rubber bullets and tear gas into a group of protesters attempting to advance up the road under the cover of umbrellas. Eventually, the protesters retreated from their position amid plumes of tear gas so thick it was difficult to see even a few feet.

Protesters were hoping to send a clear message to Beijing on the 70th anniversary of Chinese Communist Party rule: protect Hong Kong’s freedoms and grant it full democracy, or face continued and unending dissent designed to shame Chinese leader Xi as he faces challenges on multiple fronts.

“We have to send a message to the government and the police, that we are not afraid of them, and that going out to protest is our right,” said Fok, a 24-year-old who spoke on the condition that he be identified only by his last name, as he has already been arrested for protesting. “It is time to show China they picked the wrong people to bully. This is a war, and we will win it.”

Carrie Lam, the beleaguered Hong Kong chief executive who protesters decry as a pawn of Beijing, was not in the city, but instead attending the parade in the Chinese capital. Lam had traveled to Beijing for the anniversary with a delegation of more than 200, including tycoons and pro-China lawmakers. 

The protests started as a rebuke against a now-scrapped piece of legislation that would have allowed fugitives to be transferred from Hong Kong’s independent legal system to mainland China. But perceptions of government inaction and shock over police use of force have turned the movement into a full-blown rebuke of Beijing’s tightening control over the city, and revived a years-long demand for direct elections of city leaders. 

Former pro-democracy lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung, who helped to organize Tuesday’s march after permission was denied, said Hong Kong resembled a “semi-police state” and authorities had created a de facto “curfew under sunrise” by closing subway stations and searching vehicles and people throughout the city. 
“Most of the people think it should be a day of mourning,” he said of China’s National Day. “For 70 years, the Communist regime has killed people. Carrie Lam is a political puppet of China; that’s why she has refused the demands and relies on the police force.” 

In Wan Chai district, the Chan family — a 55-year-old mother and her two daughters, ages 20 and 25 — said they walked for an hour and a half to reach the rally.

“I would like to stand and speak out for the people, to show that we aren’t going to give in to the brutality of the police,” said the 20-year-old, declining to give her full name because the demonstration was illegal. “There is too much injustice going on for us to stop now.”

Some of the people in the march wore “We are Hong Kongers” T-shirts, a rejection of Chinese identity, and held their hands up showing all five fingers for their five demands. The government has met one of these demands — the withdrawal of the extradition bill — but has declined to make further concessions, including an independent investigation into the police.

A smattering of pro-China rallies took place around the city, with people gathering in small groups to wave the Chinese flag and sing the national anthem. At the base of the city’s peak tram, a historic funicular that is a major tourist destination, Mandarin-speaking visitors posed to snap smiling selfies with riot police. Hong Kong residents predominantly speak the Cantonese version of the language.

In the Sha Tin area, the large malls that often attract droves of mainland tourists were quiet or shuttered. Protesters built barricades to slow police who fired tear gas. Some canisters were quickly picked up by protesters, who tossed them into a nearby river. 

“I can see that our freedoms are being taken away,” said one protester with the last name Lee. “When I walk out of the door, I need to bring two phones in case I get stopped and searched by the police.”

Word of the protester shot by the police officer spread quickly through groups of protesters still gathered at the time. Some gasped, and others were in tears. 

“I can’t describe it,” said Nicole, a 27-year-old consultant who was marching. “Words can’t describe the things happening in Hong Kong.”

Tiffany Liang contributed to this report. 

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/clashes-expected-in-hong-kong-as-protesters-try-to-spoil-chinas-70th-anniversary-celebrations/2019/09/30/a54fb004-e396-11e9-b0a6-3d03721b85ef_story.html

Troops prepare for the military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China on Tuesday in Beijing.

VCG/VCG via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

VCG/VCG via Getty Images

Troops prepare for the military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China on Tuesday in Beijing.

VCG/VCG via Getty Images

Near Beijing’s center, along Chang’an Avenue or the Avenue of Eternal Peace, more than 100,000 performers and soldiers readied for mass military parade that would unveil China’s newest fighting technology, including a hypersonic missile and stealth fighter jets.

At promptly 10 a.m., the parade began with 70 rounds of cannon fire.

The event was the culmination of celebrations of the Chinese Communist Party’s 70th year in power. Much of it was dedicated to showcasing military hardware; 160 aircraft flew overhead, while more than 600 tanks, missiles and other weapons systems slowly rolled past carefully selected onlookers throughout the morning.

“There is no force that can shape the foundation of this great nation and no force that can stop the Chinese people and the Chinese nation from getting ahead,” Xi Jinping, China’s top leader and party chairman, said in an opening speech. He framed the parade as a moment of triumph over the “humiliation” of foreign imperialism beginning with the Opium Wars of the mid-19th century.

Tuesday’s celebrations were first and foremost a projection of military might, now technologically advanced enough to counter the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

Since 2015, Xi has consolidated his direct control over China’s now 2 million person-strong People’s Liberation Army (PLA). An ambitious modernization effort trimmed the force by 300,000 and restructured its command system from seven to five zones. That allowed the PLA to streamline operations – and laid the foundations for Xi to purge three top generals in the following years.

Among the military hardware shown to the public for the first time: 16 of the long-anticipated Dongfeng-41, China’s longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile, which is capable of reaching the United States with nuclear warheads. Onlookers were also given the first glimpse of the Dongfeng-17, a medium-range missile that can travel at hypersonic speeds with the aim of breaking through U.S. anti-missile shields.

Military vehicles equipped with the latest DF-41 ballistic missile roll by during the parade to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of Communist China in Beijing on Tuesday.

Ng Han Guan/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Ng Han Guan/AP

Military vehicles equipped with the latest DF-41 ballistic missile roll by during the parade to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of Communist China in Beijing on Tuesday.

Ng Han Guan/AP

Military analysts had closely monitored satellite images of Chinese military facilities and nearby traffic for signs of the missile being readied for display.

The pomp and circumstance of Beijing’s celebrations were in stark contrast to another day of mass protests planned in the city of Hong Kong against Beijing’s influence and for democratic reforms.

Police officers detain a pro-government supporter during clashes with demonstrators in the Wan Chai district of Hong Kong on Tuesday.

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Police officers detain a pro-government supporter during clashes with demonstrators in the Wan Chai district of Hong Kong on Tuesday.

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Protestors attempted to disrupt a flag-raising ceremony commemorating the anniversary earlier Tuesday morning, but the ceremony’s participants continued by watching from inside an adjacent convention center. Several of Hong Kong’s busiest metro stops were closed in anticipation of another day of mass protests, now in their 17th week. A march planned for the afternoon did not get permission from Hong Kong police, but protestors say they will convene anyway.

Xi’s brief opening speech Tuesday included strong language reiterating Beijing’s control over Hong Kong and the nearby island of Taiwan: “We will maintain long term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and Macau, advance peaceful development of cross strait relations, unite the whole country and continue to strive forward with complete unification of our country.”

Hong Kong’s embattled Chief Executive Carrie Lam was in Beijing as a guest of honor at the parade, seated overlooking Tiananmen Square in the second row of the box reserved for officials.

Beijing’s parade was also an important show of party unity. Xi appeared flanked by the six other members of the powerful Communist Politburo standing committee.

He was also accompanied by his predecessors — Hu Jintao and 93-year-old Jiang Zemin, whose death has been frequently rumored. Jiang was very much alive, albeit held up by two assistants.

Amy Cheng contributed reporting from Beijing.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/10/01/765948838/china-flexes-muscles-in-parade-marking-70-years-of-communist-rule

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., criticized a report by the New York Times that claimed President Trump “pressed” the prime minister of Australia for information to discredit the probe conducted by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, calling it an “effort” to shut down Attorney General William Barr‘s investigation.

“This New York Times article about Barr talking to Australia is the beginning of an effort to shut down Barr’s investigation to find out how this whole thing started,” Graham said on “Hannity” Monday.

TRUMP DEMANDS SCHIFF RESIGN OVER ‘PARODY’ READING OF UKRAINE CALL

A Justice Department official told Fox News on Monday that Barr asked Trump to make introductions to foreign countries that might have had information pertinent to U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing probe into possible misconduct by the intelligence community at the outset of the Russia investigation.

But, a person familiar with the situation told Fox News it would be wrong to say Trump “pressed” the Australian prime minister for information that could have discredited Mueller’s now-completed probe, as the New York Times reported earlier Monday.

Graham said that Barr should be talking with Australia as well as the U.K. and Italy in order to do his job properly.  He also said he would write a letter to those three countries asking them to cooperate with Barr and cited a letter his colleagues sent to Ukraine last year asking them to cooperate with Mueller or the U.S. would stop sending aid.

“So here’s what I want American people to know: it’s OK to cooperate with Mueller to get Trump but it’s not OK to cooperate with Barr to find out if Trump was the victim of an out-of-control intelligence operation,” Graham said. “We’re not going to have a country like that.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE ALL-NEW FOXBUSINESS.COM

The senator told host Sean Hannity it “bothered him” that “the left” would say it was wrong for Barr to talk with other countries.

“This New York Times article is an effort to stop Barr from looking at how this whole thing began in 2016 regarding the Trump campaign,” Graham said. “What are they afraid of.”

Fox News’ Gregg Re and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/media/sen-graham-calls-out-ny-times-report-saying-trump-pressed-aussie-pm-calls-it-an-effort-to-stop-barrs-russia-origins-investigation

The intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) on Monday appeared to push back on allegations that the rules regarding whistleblower reports had been changed shortly before the complaint regarding President TrumpDonald John TrumpAmash calls McCarthy incompetent, dishonest after ’60 Minutes’ interview GOP lawmaker blasts Trump for quoting pastor warning of civil war over impeachment ’60 Minutes’ correspondent presses McCarthy on impeachment inquiry MORE‘s dealings with Ukraine was filed. 

The Office of the Inspector General issued a four-page news release in which it made clear that the whistleblower complaint focused on Trump’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian president was processed under procedures put in place in May 2018.

The inspector general wrote that under the statute, a complainant is not required to have firsthand knowledge of the matter they are referring. However, the anonymous author of the Aug. 12 complaint wrote that they had both firsthand information and information from others about the subject. 

“The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible,” the Office of the Inspector General said in Monday’s news release. “From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower’s filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress’s intent, and the whistleblower’s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.”

The clarification came as Trump and Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamTrump allies go on the offensive against whistleblower complaint, Democrats Graham: ‘I have zero problems with this phone call’ Where’s my Roy Cohn? MORE (R-S.C.) have claimed the rules for filing a complaint were changed just before the whistleblower on the Ukraine call came forward.

“This is a sham as far as I am concerned,” Graham said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “I want to know who told the whistleblower about the phone call. I want to know why they changed the rules about whistleblowers not — the hearsay rule was changed just a short period of time before the complaint was filed.”

Trump echoed the senator on Monday, asking in all caps “who changed the long standing whistleblower rules just before submittal of the fake whistleblower report?” 

Sens. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyIntelligence community strikes back — an impeachment game-changer Impeachment fight threatens trade deal Impeachment push threatens to derail bipartisan efforts on health care costs MORE (R-Iowa), Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeGOP opposition threatens to sink Trump’s ATF pick Overnight Defense — Presented by Huntington Ingalls Industries — Furor over White House readout of Ukraine call | Dems seize on memo in impeachment push | Senate votes to end Trump emergency | Congress gets briefing on Iran Senate again votes to end Trump emergency declaration on border wall MORE (R-Utah) and Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonRepublicans show signs of discomfort in defense of Trump   GOP battens down the hatches after release of Trump whistleblower complaint Impeachment fight threatens trade deal MORE (R-Wis.) wrote to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Monday asking for clarity about a reported change in the whistleblower complaint process that no longer required complainants to have firsthand knowledge.

Those senators wrote to Atkinson that they were not aware of any federal regulation that required whistleblowers to have firsthand knowledge, and they sought information on why such a policy might have been enacted.

The whistleblower complaint was made public last week. The individual’s recounting of events matched up with a rough White House transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president in which he urged the foreign leader to “look into” Democratic presidential candidate Joe BidenJoe BidenAmash calls McCarthy incompetent, dishonest after ’60 Minutes’ interview GOP lawmaker blasts Trump for quoting pastor warning of civil war over impeachment ’60 Minutes’ correspondent presses McCarthy on impeachment inquiry MORE.

The whistleblower further alleged that the White House sought to conceal the contents of the call and restrict access to the transcript to a small group of people.

The president has railed against the whistleblower, accusing the individual of being partisan and decrying their allegations as secondhand information. Trump has said he does not know the whistleblower’s identity but told reporters earlier Monday that the White House was working on learning it.

The Whistleblower Protection Act makes it a violation for federal agencies to threaten retaliation against individuals who come forward to raise concerns of wrongdoing within the government.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire last week called the complaint “credible” and said the whistleblower “did the right thing.”

Source Article from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/463737-intel-community-watchdog-clarifies-processing-of-whistleblower

China is not the only one that has to change its practices:…

The U.S. also has to re-look the way it’s engaging with China to address its complaints, said Stephen Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University.

read more

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/boris-johnson-defends-leaked-brexit-plan-after-eu-criticism.html

Beijing called Washington’s potential restrictions on U.S. investments in China “the latest attempt at a decoupling,” in a Global Times piece published on Sunday.

The Chinese state-owned media said that even news of measures like delisting Chinese companies from American stock exchanges “is expected to have significant repercussions for the Chinese and US economies, as well as their companies, in the future.”

The White House has discussed some curbs on U.S. investments in China, a source familiar with the matter told CNBC last Friday.

But U.S. Treasury assistant secretary for public affairs, Monica Crowley, said in a statement over the weekend that “the administration is not contemplating blocking Chinese companies from listing shares on U.S. stock exchanges at this time. We welcome investment in the United States.”

Still, the Chinese propaganda arm criticized the move by the U.S. politicians, saying that they “seem to believe that a decoupling from China will be simple” and “won’t significantly impact its economy.”

Meanwhile, China’s top trade negotiator will be leading the country’s delegation to the U.S. for the next round of discussions one week after China’s National Holiday, Commerce Ministry Vice Minister Wang Shouwen said Sunday.

“We look forward to the 13th round of negotiations,” Wang said in Mandarin, according to a CNBC translation. “We hope both sides, on the basis of equal and mutual respect, jointly take care of each other’s concerns and, with a calm attitude, use negotiations to resolve differences, and find a resolution that’s beneficial to both sides.”

The U.S. and China have been locked in a protracted trade war for more than a year, with each country slapping tariffs on goods worth billions of dollars.

Chinese tech giants listed in the U.S. immediately reacted. Alibaba shares slipped more than 5% on the reports, while Baidu and JD.com also fell 3.6% and 6% respectively on Friday after the news came out.

— CNBC’s Evelyn Cheng contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/beijing-warns-us-in-response-to-possible-investment-restrictions.html


President Donald Trump. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo

Congress

Dems believe the special counsel’s grand-jury materials could aid their Ukraine investigation, according to a court filing.

09/30/2019 08:01 PM EDT

Updated 09/30/2019 11:02 PM EDT


Lawyers for the House of Representatives revealed on Monday that they have reason to believe that the grand-jury redactions in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report show that President Donald Trump lied about his knowledge of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks.

The attorneys made the stunning suggestion in a court filing as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s bid for Mueller’s grand-jury materials, which have remained secret by law.

Story Continued Below

“Not only could those materials demonstrate the president’s motives for obstructing the special counsel’s investigation, they also could reveal that Trump was aware of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks,” the lawyers wrote in the filing, which was in response to the Justice Department’s opposition to the disclosure of the grand-jury information.

To back up their claim, the House’s legal team — led by House General Counsel Douglas Letter — cited a passage in Mueller’s report about former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s testimony that he “recalled” Trump asking to be kept “updated” about WikiLeaks’ disclosures of Democratic National Committee emails. There is a grand-jury redaction in that passage, the lawyers note.

“The text redacted … and any underlying evidence to which it may point are critical to the committee’s investigation,” they wrote.

“Those materials therefore have direct bearing on whether the president was untruthful, and further obstructed the special counsel’s investigation, when in providing written responses to the special counsel’s questions he denied being aware of any communications between his campaign and WikiLeaks,” they added.

In a text message to POLITICO, Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal attorney, said the suggestion that Trump lied to Mueller’s investigators is “absurd.”

The White House, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Monday’s filing also referenced the most recent scandal engulfing the Trump White House — the president’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden — which caused Speaker Nancy Pelosi to formalize an impeachment inquiry. Letter, the House general counsel, and his deputies argued that Mueller’s grand-jury evidence could also be useful for the House’s ongoing Ukraine probe.

“Those events may also be relevant to the House’s investigation of the president’s solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election,” the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump’s efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.

More specifically, they said Mueller’s grand-jury materials “would further” the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Trump’s alleged attempts to pressure Ukraine to prosecute individuals who testified against Manafort.

The House lawyers also argued in Monday’s filing that the Justice Department has no grounds to determine whether the House is engaged in an impeachment inquiry, which is the House’s central claim to Mueller’s grand jury files.

“Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, and the authority the Constitution vests in the House alone to structure its proceedings, that power is not DOJ’s for the taking,” the lawyers wrote, adding a reference to Pelosi’s pronouncement last week that the House was launching an “official impeachment inquiry.”

In its previous filing, the Justice Department seized on House Democrats’ lack of a consistent message on impeachment, which came amid divisions among party leaders over whether to pursue the president’s removal based on Mueller’s evidence that Trump sought to obstruct the investigation.

Mueller did not reach an official conclusion as to whether the president obstructed justice, however, and Attorney General William Barr, along with his then-deputy Rod Rosenstein, concluded that the evidence Mueller‘s team assembled “is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

But in the wake of new revelations about Trump’s efforts to pressure Zelensky, House Democrats have adopted a unified front in favor of an official impeachment inquiry.

Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/30/trump-mueller-house-democrats-lie-1520156

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that Senate rules would require him to take up any articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump if approved by the House, swatting down talk that that the GOP-controlled chamber could dodge the matter entirely.

“I would have no choice but to take it up,” McConnell said on CNBC. But he cautioned, “How long you’re on it is a whole different matter.”

House Democrats are pushing for quick action on their probe into a phone transcript and whistleblower complaint that Trump pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate Democratic foe Joe Biden’s family. If the House approves articles of impeachment — not introduced at this point — they would be sent to the Senate for trial. McConnell suggested he does not have the 67 votes to change the rules. But the Kentucky Republican, the Senate’s chief strategist, left open what he means by taking up the issue.

Those tricky procedural questions could affect Trump’s political future and next year’s presidential and congressional election.

As Trump raged on Twitter on Monday, the House plowed ahead with formal impeachment proceedings into whether the president pressured the leader of an Eastern European country to investigate former Vice President Biden and his son.

Democrats are driving the proceedings toward what some hope is a vote to impeach, or indict, Trump by year’s end, and they have launched a coordinated political, messaging and polling strategy aimed at keeping any backlash in closely divided districts from toppling their House majority.

House intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff is expected to issue new subpoenas, depose witnesses and perhaps hold a hearing as soon as this week. He said on Sunday that the panel would hear from the still-secret whistleblower “very soon,” but that no date had been set and other details remained to be worked out.

Polling showed some movement in public sentiment. A one-day NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted Sept. 25 found that about half of Americans — 49% — approve of the House formally starting an impeachment inquiry into Trump.

There remains a stark partisan divide on the issue, with 88% of Democrats approving and 93% of Republicans disapproving of the inquiry. But the findings suggest movement: Earlier polls conducted throughout Trump’s presidency have consistently found a majority saying he should not be impeached.

The sometimes-confusing challenge of defending Trump broke into the open on Sunday’s talk shows. Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, insisted the real story is a conspiracy theory that has been debunked. Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior policy adviser, blamed a “deep state” of Democrats within the government. And Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio pointed at Biden’s son.

But the real question for Republicans is what happens if the House votes to impeach Trump and sends the issue to the Senate for trial.

A memorandum that Senate Republicans circulated over the weekend acknowledged it would be hard for McConnell to “bar the doors” and prevent the resolution managers from presenting the articles to the Senate. After that, though, McConnell has procedural options, including limiting the time they could be considered.

“How long you’re on it is a whole different matter,” he said, without elaborating.

Republicans, meanwhile were split over how and whether to defend Trump’s own words contained in a phone transcript and his actions, described by a whistleblower’s report — both of which were made public by the White House.

The result has been a rainbow of approaches, led by Trump, who stormed on Twitter that the whistleblower was “fake” and suggested the people leading the probe should be arrested and charged with treason.

“The Fake Whistleblower complaint is not holding up,” he tweeted Monday morning.

“I am deeply frustrated with what he and the legal team is doing and repeating that debunked theory to the president. It sticks in his mind when he hears it over and over again,” said Tom Bossert, Trump’s former homeland security adviser. “That conspiracy theory has got to go, they have to stop with that, it cannot continue to be repeated.”

Not only did Giuliani repeat it Sunday, he brandished pieces of paper he said were affidavits supporting his story.

“Tom Bossert doesn’t know what’s he’s talking about,” Guiliani said. He added that Trump was framed by the Democrats.

Senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller, meanwhile, noted that he’s worked in the federal government “for nearly three years.”

“I know the difference between whistleblower and a deep state operative,” Miller said. “This is a deep state operative, pure and simple.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, heatedly said Trump was merely asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to root out corruption. That, Jordan said, includes Hunter Biden’s membership on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Kyiv. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either of the Bidens.

Trump has insisted his call was “perfect.”

“He didn’t even know that it was wrong,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, describing her own phone call from Trump in which the president suggested the documents would exonerate him.

Bossert, an alumnus of Republican George W. Bush’s administration, offered a theory and some advice to Trump: Move past the fury over the 2016 Russia investigation, in which special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy but plenty of examples of Trump’s obstruction.

“I honestly believe this president has not gotten his pound of flesh yet from past grievances on the 2016 investigation,” Bossert said. “If he continues to focus on that white whale, it’s going to bring him down.”

A Word to Our Loyal Readers

Support Snopes and make a difference for readers everywhere.

Most Snopes assignments begin when readers ask us, “Is this true?” Those tips launch our fact-checkers on sprints across a vast range of political, scientific, legal, historical, and visual information. We investigate as thoroughly and quickly as possible and relay what we learn. Then another question arrives, and the race starts again.

We do this work every day at no cost to you, but it is far from free to produce, and we cannot afford to slow down. To ensure Snopes endures — and grows to serve more readers — we need a different kind of tip: We need your financial support.

Support Snopes so we continue to pursue the facts — for you and anyone searching for answers.

Team Snopes

Source Article from https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/09/30/mcconnell-senate-must-take-up-impeachment-if-house-approves/

President Donald Trump’s recent tweet quoting a longtime evangelical pastor who warned of a “Civil War” if Democrats seriously pursue removing him from office could actually be grounds for impeachment, one Harvard Law professor said.

“If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal,” Trump tweeted on Sunday night.

The tweet was a quote from Robert Jeffress, a Southern Baptist pastor who gave the comment during an appearance on Fox & Friends Weekend. Trump added his own parenthetical aside to Jeffress’ quote, in which the president asserted that Congress won’t be successful in their impeachment efforts.

The president’s tweet was immediately met with backlash, and Harvard Law professor John Coates argued that the social media post itself is an “independent basis” for lawmakers to remove him from the White House.

“This tweet is itself an independent basis for impeachment – a sitting president threatening civil war if Congress exercises its constitutionally authorized power,” Coates wrote on Twitter on Monday.

The House of Representatives officially launched an impeachment inquiry last week amid reports that Trump tried to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

The communication between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was first revealed in a whistleblower complaint to the inspector general of the intelligence community. The complaint detailed concerns that Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”

The whistleblower also implicated Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr in the Ukraine debacle. Giuliani was described as a “central figure” in the situation.

Since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry, it’s been reported by several news outlets that at least 218 lawmakers in the House (the exact number of votes needed to impeach Trump in the chamber) support moving forward with impeachment. At least 217 Democrats and independent Representative Justin Amash have favored the inquiry.

Democrats say they intend to move quickly on impeachment, but so far have only opened an inquiry into the matter. The House will decide after the investigation whether to actually impeach the president. If the chamber votes for impeachment, the Republican-controlled Senate would then decide whether to remove Trump from office or exonerate him.

Historian Kevin Kruse slammed Trump for suggesting in his “Civil War” tweet that only Democrats are responsible for impeachment. Kruse, a Princeton University professor, noted that in order to successfully remove the president there needs to be a significant amount of Republicans backing impeachment.

“Trump can only be removed through impeachment if two-thirds of the Senate votes to remove him. To do that, 20 Republicans would need to join the 45 Democrats and 2 Independents,” Kruse wrote. “Removal would be bipartisan. Framing it as some kind of civil war isn’t just dangerous. It’s dumb.”

p:last-of-type::after, .node-type-slideshow .article-body > p:last-of-type::after {
content: none
}]]>

Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/trump-civil-war-tweet-grounds-impeachment-1462044

On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick spoke with Walter Dellinger, former acting solicitor general and emeritus professor at Duke Law School (and occasional Slate contributor). The two talked about all things impeachment, and the whole episode is worth a listen, but we’ve excerpted one of Dellinger’s answers here, edited lightly for clarity.

Dahlia Lithwick: Regardless of what we’re calling it today, Walter, whether it originated in the Judiciary Committee or in Nancy Pelosi’s statement, is it fair to assert that the impeachment process has begun?

Walter Dellinger: The impeachment process has begun. Be careful, though—a slight majority of the House membership has said they support beginning the impeachment proceedings. They have not yet committed to how they would vote on any article of impeachment.

Good clarification—this is why we pay you the big bucks, Walter. Now, my second just-clarifying question: Can Mitch McConnell just decide that he refuses to hold a trial in the Senate?

Yeah, that is a good question. We’ve only had two Senate trials of presidents: That is Andrew Johnson, who was undercutting the Civil War victory, and Bill Clinton, who lied in a deposition about his sexual relationship with an intern. We’ve only had those two, so we have very little in the way of precedents. There’s virtually no case law, except case law that says that the court is going to stay out of the substance of these issues and leave it all to Congress. The big question is, is it true that McConnell can, I think the current term is, “Garland” the impeachment process? That is to say, ignore the House’s articles of impeachment the way he had a majority of the Senate simply ignore the fact that the president of the United States had made a nomination to the Supreme Court? I tend to think the answer is that it’d be very hard for him to avoid a roll-call vote.

Because what few people realize is that in the case of the impeachment of the president, the presiding officer is the chief justice. Now, that’s actually quite important. There are 53 Republicans, but it’s normally thought that you needed more than three Republicans to come over on any vote in the Senate because Vice President [Mike] Pence would break the tie. Now, Vice President Pence is not going to be there to break the tie. So, while it takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict on articles of impeachment, it only takes a majority to pass on rulings of the chair.

And if you think about the number of senators who are from states where they’re just not solidly committed to the protection of Donald Trump at any cost, you’ve got Sen. Romney, who has already been critical of what President Trump has done. You’ve got Susan Collins, who is up for election in a moderate state. You’ve got the senator from Colorado, Cory Gardner. You’ve got a pretty moderate senator from North Carolina—two, in fact, [Thom] Tillis and [Richard] Burr, who’s been a fair chair of the Intelligence Committee. You only need three of those to have a 50–50 tie on a procedural question to be ruled on by the vote of the chief justice and the chair. That’s important because if a well-thought-out, well-crafted article of impeachment supported by nearly incontrovertible evidence—including in the most recent case, the actual assertions by the president himself—comes over, it’s unclear to me who decides when to convene the Senate, since the chief justice is the presiding officer.

When an article of impeachment is voted on, the House appoints House managers who present the articles of impeachment to the Senate and who would notify the chief justice. The House managers would propose a briefing schedule and debating schedule. The president’s attorneys would have their own counter briefing schedule, and the chief justice, I think, would confer with, certainly, the majority and minority leaders in the Senate about when it would be convenient. But it’s not clear to me that it’s Mitch McConnell rather than John Roberts, chief justice, who decides to commence the proceedings. Now, political friends tell me that Majority Leader McConnell would wish to avoid a roll-call vote. He’s got too many members who might be exposed that time either to say, “What is clearly established to have happened didn’t happen,” or to acknowledge that it happened, but say, “It’s OK for a president to do things like those that are detailed in articles of impeachment.” I don’t think the majority leader can make motions. It has to be that the president’s lawyers could move to dismiss without any further proceedings and avoid the Senate trial.

So, on that motion to just simply dismiss all the charges—which I believe they could make—if it were carried by a majority vote, I believe that’s the end of the matter in the Senate, as a matter of the Senate’s sheer power to try impeachments. But I think that the chief justice would call the question and listen to the ays and nays, and almost certainly they would be close-enough ays and nays that the chief justice would say, “The voice vote being inconclusive, the clerk shall call the roll.” Senators would have to vote without hearing any evidence, or testimony, or briefing, or presentation, and I think that would be a tough vote, particularly since the chief justice would have the vote to decide whether to proceed or not. The framers didn’t contemplate that there would be a political party that had one member that could control how every member of that party voted—that is the present system where McConnell controls his caucus. But with the chief justice in the chair, I am not at all confident that the majority leader of the Senate can successfully make this go away without having at least an initial vote.

Listen to the rest of the episode here:

Source Article from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-inquiry-in-the-senate-chief-justice-oversees.amp

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Monday he would have “no choice” but to hold a trial if the House of Representatives decides to impeach President Donald Trump.

The Democratic-led House initiated an impeachment inquiry against Trump, a Republican, on Tuesday after a whistleblower report raised concerns that he tried to leverage nearly $400 million in U.S. aid in exchange for a political favor from Ukraine’s leader.

“I would have no choice but to take it up,” McConnell told CNBC.

If the House approves bringing charges, known as “articles of impeachment,” against a president the process moves to the Senate which holds a trial to determine the president’s guilt.

“Under the Senate rules, we are required to take it up if the House does go down that path. “The Senate impeachment rules are very clear,” McConnell said in an interview.

According to a Republican Senate leadership aide, any senator could attempt to have the articles of impeachment dismissed in the early stages of the trial, which would trigger a vote with a majority of the Senate needing to vote in favor for it to succeed.

“How long you’re on it, is a whole different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up,” McConnell said.

There has been speculation over whether McConnell, who has defended fellow Republican Trump, would try to find a way to avoid a Senate trial. The Senate leader controls what is to be debated on the Senate floor and sets the schedule for those debates.

Reporting by Richard Cowan and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Alistair Bell

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-mcconnell/senate-would-have-no-choice-but-to-hold-impeachment-trial-mcconnell-idUSKBN1WF1VW

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani blasted the Biden camp for what he characterized as trying to “silence” him by encouraging media outlets not to book him.

Giuliani also claimed Monday on “Hannity” that the Democrats are going to turn into the “party of corruption.”

“It is outrageous,” he said, explaining allegations of unsubstantiated wrongdoing involving Hunter Biden, the 49-year-old son of former Vice President Joe Biden. “The only really sad part of this is how much in-the-tank and how corrupt the media have become.”

“He is a laughing stock,” Giuliani said of Biden.

BIDEN SEEKS TO BAR GIULIANI FROM TV NEWS, AFTER TRUMP LAWYER ALLEGES POSSIBLE BIDEN CORRUPTION

He claimed Biden was dispatched to Ukraine while in the Obama administration with the goal of rooting out corruption, but instead watched as Hunter Biden did work on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company.

Giuliani also said that, while accusations against Hunter Biden go without much attention in the media, a lot of attention has been paid to the contents of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that was exposed by a whistleblower.

“They make up charges against President Trump that are not true,” he said.

HILLARY CLINTON CALLS TRUMP ‘ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT’ AND ‘CORRUPT HUMAN TORNADO’

Regarding the Biden campaign expressing to major media outlets their concern over having Giuliani on air, the former mayor said the reasoning is obvious.

More from Media

“Why do you think they’re silencing me?” he asked.

“Because I’m not making any valid points? They’re silencing me because I showed up with an affidavit yesterday — an accuser who’s willing to stand up and point the finger at Joe Biden and say ‘you’re a crook’.”

The Biden campaign wrote to NBC News, CBS News, Fox News, and CNN to voice “grave concern that you continue to book Rudy Giuliani on your air to spread false, debunked conspiracy theories on behalf of Donald Trump,” according to The Daily Beast, which first reported the existence of the letter.

GIULIANI WASN’T WORKING ALONE IN BIDEN UKRAINE PROBE

The memo, drafted by Biden aides Kate Bedingfield and Anita Dunn, continued: “While you often fact check his statements in real-time during your discussions, that is no longer enough. By giving him your air time, you are allowing him to introduce increasingly unhinged, unfounded and desperate lies into the national conversation.”

Should a network choose to book Giuliani, the Biden campaign called for “an equivalent amount of time” to be provided “to a surrogate for the Biden campaign.” The letter noted Giuliani was not a public official, but Trump’s lawyer and personal advisor.

Speaking separately to Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Giuliani brought up the affidavits and called the situation Clintonesque.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ALL-NEW FOXBUSINESS.COM

“The pattern is a pattern of pay for play. It includes something very similar to what happened to the Clinton Foundation,” Giuliani said, “which goes to the very core of, what did Obama know and when did he know it?”

Giuliani referred to a December 2015 New York Times article about Hunter Biden, Burisma and a Ukrainian oligarch, and how the younger Biden’s involvement with the Ukrainian company could undermine then-Vice President Biden’s anti-corruption message.

“The question is,” Giuliani asked, “when Biden and Obama saw that article, about how the son was pulling down money from the most crooked oligarch in Russia, did Obama call Biden in and say ‘Joe, how could you be doing this?'”

Fox News’ Gregg Re contributed to this report

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/media/rudy-giuliani-blasts-biden-camp-for-trying-to-silence-him-claims-democrats-are-party-of-corruption

CLOSE

The whistleblower’s complaint that sparked an impeachment inquiry into President Trump has been released.
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – Former Sen. Jeff Flake, who has been a harsh critic of Donald Trump, is calling for Republicans on Capitol Hill to announce that they will no longer support the president’s reelection campaign regardless of the outcome of the Trump impeachment inquiry.

“My fellow Republicans, it is time to risk your careers in favor of your principles,” Flake wrote in an op-ed published in the Washington Post Monday. “Whether you believe the president deserves impeachment, you know he does not deserve reelection.”

Flake retired from Congress this year, after announcing in 2017 that he wouldn’t seek reelection due to the nastiness of Trump-era politics. 

The Arizona Republican noted in his op-ed that his constituents wanted a Senator that would support Trump, and that if he had tried to seek reelection he would “need to support policies I could not support and condone behavior I could not condone.” He said that he is now paying the cost for not supporting the president.

Pelosi vs. Trump: Combatants in a historic impeachment showdown that will test them, and the nation

CLOSE

Impeaching a U.S. president might not be the be-all-end-all for their career. We explain why this is the case.
Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

“I am not oblivious to the consequences that might accompany that decision,” he wrote of not endorsing Trump. “In fact, I am living those consequences. I would have preferred to represent the citizens of Arizona for another term in the Senate.

“But not at the cost of supporting this man,” he continued.

Flake also expressed that he has “grave reservations about impeachment” and believes it could be beneficial to Trump.

More: Whistleblower attorney expresses ‘serious concerns’ over client safety to acting DNI

“I fear that, given the profound division in the country, an impeachment proceeding at such a toxic moment might actually benefit a president who thrives on chaos,” Flake wrote. “Disunion is the oxygen of this presidency. He is the maestro of a brand of discord that benefits only him and ravages everything else.”

On Friday, Flake said he believes that at least 35 Republican senators would vote to have Trump removed from office if they could vote in private. 

CLOSE

US President Donald Trump is lashing out at House Democrats amid an impeachment investigation and a whistleblower complaint over his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden. (Sept. 26)
AP Domestic

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week announced the House was opening an impeachment inquiry into Trump following revelations from a whistleblower complaint. The complaint expressed concern that Trump attempted to use his power as president for political gain by urging Ukraine to open an investigation that could be damaging to former Vice President Joe Biden, who is running for president.

Flake said that at this point, Trump’s conduct as commander-in-chief “should not surprise us.” But noted the “tolerance of that conduct” and the “embrace of it” is “perhaps the most horrible — and lasting — effect on our democracy.”

‘Treason,’ ‘spying,’ ‘civil war’: Donald Trump lashes out at impeachment accusers

Flake continued to say that “we have failed not just as stewards of the institutions to which we have been entrusted but also as citizens,” adding that Republicans “have failed each other, and we have failed ourselves.”

“For those who want to put America first, it is critically important at this moment in the life of our country that we all, here and now, do just that,” Flake concluded. “Trust me when I say that you can go elsewhere for a job. But you cannot go elsewhere for a soul.”

Contributing: Savannah Behrmann

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/30/jeff-flake-republicans-dont-support-trump-reelection/3818466002/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday said the Senate would have “no choice” but to move forward with impeachment proceedings if the House ultimately votes to bring charges against President Donald Trump.

“I would have no choice but to take it up,” McConnell said in a CNBC interview. “How long you are on it is a different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up based on a Senate rule on impeachment.”

Prior to this interview, there were some questions about how McConnell would handle impeachment charges. Although the Constitution designates the Senate as the body in charge of a potential trial, it does not require the upper chamber to actually follow through with such action. And given McConnell’s track record on congressional norms — in particular his decision to hold up Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination — there was speculation that he might use the constitutional wiggle room to avoid addressing any articles of impeachment.

As McConnell noted, however, the Senate rules themselves are a bit more specific. And in the case of impeachment, McConnell is somewhat bound by them.

“It’s a Senate rule related to impeachment that would take 67 votes to change,” he added.

As McConnell alluded to Monday, Senate Republicans could make impeachment proceedings as perfunctory as they’d like, but if the House sends them charges, they’ll at least have to do something with it.

The Senate rules on impeachment, briefly explained

The Constitution offers some leeway on how an impeachment trial could be handled but Senate rules lay it out in more detail.

Under existing Senate rules, the upper chamber “shall” begin the process of considering articles of impeachment if charges are officially brought by the House:

Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, 102 the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.

According to Matt Glassman, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, the Senate is fairly wedded to these rules, though it could always change how they’re interpreted if it had enough votes from its membership. A reinterpretation could involve a senator overseeing the rules deciding that they could be followed a different way, even if they remain in place. Such efforts would require both a recorded vote and a simple majority of senators to agree to them, notes the Niskanen Center’s Keith Whittington.

A wholesale revision of these rules, however, would require the support of 67 senators, as McConnell pointed out.

“All the standing rules of the Senate require 67 votes to formally change,” Glassman tells Vox. “However, the Senate can ‘reinterpret’ those rules and set new precedents via a majority vote — by appealing decisions of the chair and having the Senate vote as a majority to alter the interpretation.”

Although Senate Republicans would theory have the numbers needed to push through a possible reinterpretation of the impeachment rules, a move like this could be risky, especially for lawmakers hailing from swing states.

Instead, a safer bet might be for Republicans to go forward with an impeachment trial and ultimately vote to acquit, a way to demonstrate their commitment to historic precedent while achieving the same result. Republicans could also use other procedural maneuvers to prevent the completion of a trial, even if the impeachment charges are taken up by the upper chamber.

“The trial could start and a senator could make a motion to dismiss (as Byrd did, unsuccessfully, in 1999) that would end it immediately,” Glassman adds. “Or a majority could move to table the articles of impeachment upon receiving them from the House and set a precedent that such a motion was in order.”

McConnell’s comments on CNBC also allude to the length of the impeachment proceedings, which is under Senate discretion. Typically, in an impeachment trial, witnesses are called and evidence is presented. Republicans could keep such efforts short if they wanted to move quickly to an acquittal.

As things stand, the Senate Republicans are expected to stand by Trump and acquit him if a full trial were to happen. For a conviction to actually take place, 67 senators would need to vote in favor, meaning at least 20 Republicans would have to join with the Democratic caucus.

Two presidents have been impeached by the House in the past, but the Senate did not convict either of them. For now, it’s not set to do so this time around, either.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2019/9/30/20891463/senate-rules-mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-donald-trump

Judge Tammy Kemp meets with the attorneys at her bench upon their request during fired Dallas police officer Amber Guyger’s murder trial, Sept. 25, 2019, in Dallas.
Photo: Tom Fox (The Dallas Morning News via AP, Pool)

Closing arguments wrapped up Monday in the trial of Amber Guyger, the former Dallas Police officer who fatally shot her black neighbor after walking into his apartment last year. But on the trial’s final day, Judge Tammy Kemp made two key decisions that could determine whether the jury ultimately finds Guyger guilty of murder.

As CBS DFW reports, Judge Kemp heard arguments in a closed session from prosecutors and Guyger’s defense attorneys on whether the jury can consider the Castle Doctrine in their deliberations. The Castle Doctrine functions much like “Stand Your Ground” laws in other states, allowing a person to use “force (even deadly force) in the protection of a home, vehicle, or other property if someone attempts to forcibly enter or remove an individual from the premises.”

Advertisement

In what will appear to many as a bizarre reconfiguration of the law, Judge Kemp ruled that jurors can consider the Doctrine in their deliberations, where it could be used to defend Guyger’s actions—despite the fact that she was intruding on her upstairs neighbor Botham Jean’s home the night of Sept. 6.

Because Guyger has claimed that she mistook Jean’s home for her own and thus, misidentified Jean as a burglar, a jury could use the doctrine to justify her use of force in shooting Jean.

Advertisement

Judge Kemp also ruled that the jury may consider returning a lesser charge—manslaughter, as opposed to murder. As NBC News explains, this means prosecutors must prove that the 31-year-old Guyger must have “intentionally or knowingly” caused Jean’s death for the jury to return a murder verdict. For Guyger to be found guilty of manslaughter, jurors must find she “recklessly” caused Jean’s death.

Throughout the seven-day trial, prosecutors tried to convince jurors that Guyger made a series of “unreasonable decisions” the night she shot and killed Jean. They drew attention to sexts she had sent to a former partner in the hours leading up to her confrontation and highlighted painfully obvious differences between Jean’s and Guyger’s apartments. It was ultimately Guyger’s negligence, prosecutor Jason Fine argued in his closing remarks, that “put…Bo in the ground.”

Advertisement

Guyger’s defense, on the other hand, framed Jean’s death as a tragic accident. She was off duty but in uniform the night she killed Jean, having just completed a nearly 14-hour shift. One Texas Ranger who investigated the case said many residents at the housing complex Jean and Guyger lived in told authorities that they, too, had accidentally parked at the wrong floor or attempted to enter the wrong apartment.

Advertisement

Still, no other accidental encounter at the South Side Flats complex resulted in a death. According to investigators, Jean was relaxing at home alone after just completing an errand; he was eating a bowl of ice cream when Guyger barged through his door, her gun drawn.

Taking the stand last Friday, Guyger confirmed that she had intended to kill Jean when she shot him in the chest. At one point, she also testified that being alone with Jean in the moments after she shot him seemed, to her, the “scariest thing” she could imagine.

Advertisement

“Can you imagine Mr. Jean’s perspective? An intruder barging into his apartment,” Lead prosecutor Jason Hermus asked during Guyger’s cross-examination. “And then having been shot and fallen and being alone in that apartment—can’t you imagine that being a little bit scarier than you just being alone at the moment?”

Source Article from https://www.theroot.com/judge-in-amber-guyger-trial-just-made-it-easier-for-the-1838639060