WASHINGTON – The House Judiciary Committee Friday morning voted along party lines to approve two impeachment articles following a marathon hearing that went late into Thursday evening.
The articles – one on President Donald Trump’s alleged abuse of power and the other on obstruction of Congress during the impeachment inquiry were both approved in separate votes by a 23-17 margin with democrats for and Republicans against.
Democrats allege Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden in exchange for military aid and a White House meeting. Trump, they said, then stonewalled the investigation he called a partisan “witch hunt,” which led to the charge of obstruction of Congress.
If the Committee votes to approve the articles of impeachment, they will go for a full vote in the House of Representatives. That vote could come as early as next week.
If the House passes the articles of impeachment, the Senate could hold a trial in early 2020 to decide whether Trump should be removed from office. If two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators, vote to convict, Trump would be removed and Vice President Mike Pence would take over as commander in chief.’
First article approved 23-17
The House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote approves first article of impeachment against President Trump – abuse of power – and moved to vote on obstruction of Congress.
The vote was 23-17 with all Democrats for and all Republicans against.
Trump attacking Democrats ahead of hearing
The president started Friday on the offensive, attacking Democrats and praising Republicans hours before the scheduled hearing.
“How do you get Impeached when you have done NOTHING wrong (a perfect call), have created the best economy in the history of our Country, rebuilt our Military, fixed the V.A. (Choice!), cut Taxes & Regs, protected your 2nd A, created Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and soooo much more? Crazy!” the president wrote on Twitter.
He also slammed the Democratic party as the “”Party of lies and deception” while exalting Republican House members who spent Thursday arguing against impeachment.
“The Republicans House members were fantastic yesterday,” he said on Twitter. “It always helps to have a much better case, in fact the Dems have no case at all, but the unity & sheer brilliance of these Republican warriors, all of them, was a beautiful sight to see. Dems had no answers and wanted out!”
Trump became only the fourth president to have the committee recommend articles of impeachment against him. Former Presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 were impeached, but not removed from office. Nixon resigned in 1974 after the committee approved articles against him, but before he was impeached.
“There is no chance the president is going to be removed from office,” McConnell told Fox News’ Sean Hannity, adding that he thought it was unlikely any Republican senators would vote for impeachment.
Continue to follow along with updates as they develop.
“I am sure that a lot of Remainers voted for Boris Johnson because they are fed up of not knowing what is going to happen, and they wanted just to have a finish, arrival, basta, finito. They wanted to have clarification,” he said.
China was uncharacteristically quiet after news broke that the U.S. had agreed to a phase one trade deal in principle with the Chinese. But that changed Friday morning when Chinese officials started a press conference regarding the trade talks.
Around 9 a.m. ET, President Donald Trump denied a report saying he has signed off on the “phase one” deal, pushing stocks down.
The briefing is being hosted by the State Council Information Office. Chinese officials attending include Zheng Zeguang, vice minister of foreign affairs, Han Jun, vice minister of agriculture and rural affairs and Wang Shouwen, vice minister of commerce and deputy international trade representative.
A notice to reporters had said China would discuss “issues on relevant progress of China-U.S. economic and trade consultation.”
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday the U.S. has reached a deal in principle, which would delay another round of duties set to kick in on Sunday and slash some existing tariffs in half. Trump said in a tweet the report is “completely wrong.”
Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the state-run tabloid Global Times, said the trade talks “have moved a step forward, but how to define this step, and what real significance does it have, the answers lie in joint efforts of China and the U.S.”
In an earlier Tweet, Hu said it’s “a delicate situation.”
CNBC’s Eunice Yoon learned through a source that China has concerns regarding hard targets the U.S. is pushing for in terms of agricultural purchases. China has committed to buying $40 billion in agricultural products. President Donald Trump, however, wanted a number closer to $50 billion.
The source told Yoon that China is afraid those purchases could put them in conflict with other trading partners. There is also concern that Trump could eventually reimpose tariffs on Chinese goods despite a phase one deal being signed.
In a regular press briefing Friday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said the Chinese “always insist consultations must be based on the principles of equality and mutual respect, and agreements must be mutually beneficial and win-win.” She didn’t elaborate on the limited deal.
The pound has gained more than 3 percent against the dollar since Parliament voted on Oct. 29 to hold a new election.
A stronger pound can be a bad thing for British companies, making it harder for them to sell their goods in the eurozone and beyond and diluting the profits they bring back from overseas. Nonetheless, British markets have also risen since the campaign began, reflecting the prospect of a Conservative victory that would not only reduce the chances of a no-deal Brexit but also avoid the nationalization ambitions of the opposition Labour Party.
The FTSE 250 is up more than 6 percent over that period, pushing the benchmark index of British stocks to a nearly 23 percent gain for the year.
Yields on government bonds have also risen slightly, suggesting that investors are starting to move away from safer investments. Bond yields rise when bond prices fall, and vice versa.
“The market has become less worked up about the chance of a Labour government, and also some hope that a good-sized Conservative majority could kind of lift some Brexit uncertainty,” Andrew Wishart, U.K. economist for Capital Economics, a consulting firm, said before the voting.
Such signals have been a welcome development for the British economy, which has slowed since the 2016 referendum. Amid weak business investment and consumer confidence, economic growth fell to a 1 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the slowest pace in about a decade.
While the pound rallied in recent weeks, it is roughly 10 percent lower than it was immediately before the 2016 referendum. Markets were unprepared for the result, and in the hours after the vote the pound plummeted by about 10 percent. That is the equivalent of an earthquake in the normally subdued foreign-exchange markets. Daily moves of 1 percent are considered quite large for the currencies of rich nations like Britain.
It might be a far cry from a winter storm, but ice could make for slippery roadways during Friday morning commute as rain moves in and temperatures hover around freezing — prompting some schools to issue delays.
As of 7:40 a.m., Loudoun, Fauquier and Rappahannock county public schools are closed for the day, a change in status from an earlier two-hour delay. Prince William and Stafford county public schools have announced a two-hour delay for Friday classes. See WTOP’s closings and delays page for more.
Showers will overspread the region around daybreak, with D.C.’s southern and western suburbs the most likely to see freezing rain during morning rush hour and the city itself sticking to a cold rain.
Plan for slow travel and use caution on roads and sidewalks. Look on the bright side: There’s no snow in the forecast. Not today, at least.
“Light rain will arrive around dawn Friday with freezing rain and drizzle in western suburbs,” said NBC Washington meteorologist Steve Prinzivalli. “This could lead to slippery roads, especially those untreated roads such as bridges, overpasses, secondary roads and ramps.”
Rain will overspread the area this morning. Temperatures will be below freezing when the rain starts Appalachians → Blue Ridge, resulting in freezing rain and icy surfaces. A Winter Weather Advisory remains in effect for this area. Drive with caution this morning. pic.twitter.com/pm6YYwX7iZ
The further north and west, the slicker roads are likely to get — especially in higher elevations of Virginia and Maryland.
Both Prinzivalli and the National Weather Service agreed areas to the west of D.C. such as the Blue Ridge and Interstate 81 corridor, as well as communities such as Frederick and Purcellville, should expect icy conditions lingering into the afternoon.
“Areas of greater concern for freezing rain and ice accumulations are along and west of U.S. Route 15 from Frederick County, Maryland, southwest into western Loudoun and northern Fauquier Counties in Virginia, and all other areas to the southwest and west,” the weather service said in their Friday morning forecast discussion.
In its winter weather advisory, the National Weather Service said it expects up to one tenth of an inch of ice in those areas from around 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. before a change to plain rain.
As for the rest of the D.C. area? “Expect a chilly rain Friday with highs near 40 degrees,” Prinzivalli said.
That storm will push north on Saturday morning, bring a warm front and cloudy and damp conditions to the region, with milder highs in the low 50s. There may be occasional showers, but the worst of the winter weather should abate for the weekend.
“By Saturday night, a low pressure center will drag a cold front through the area,” Prinzivalli said, which will bring “drier and cooler air for the second half of the weekend.” Sunday will be partly sunny and breezy, with highs near 50 but winds of 10 to 20 mph.
Prinzivalli warns that the workweek may start off with some messy weather due to a fresh low pressure system.
“We may see a wintry mix of snow, sleet and freezing rain develop Monday morning and continue into the afternoon,” he said. “As temperatures will struggle to reach the middle to upper 30s, we will have the risk of slippery travel conditions Monday into Tuesday morning.”
Check out the current conditions below:
Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.
During an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, the Majority Leader said that “everything” he does “during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can.”
“We don’t have the kind of ball control on this that a typical issue, for example, comes over from the House, if I don’t like it, we don’t take it up,” McConnell stated about an impeachment trial. “We have no choice but to take it up, but we’ll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the President in the well of the Senate.”
The interview came hours after McConnell, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, and Legislative Affairs Director Eric Ueland met privately in the Majority Leader’s office in the U.S. Capitol to discuss the matter.
“The president deserves to have his case heard,” Ueland told reporters as he left McConnell’s office earlier Thursday. “We’re having good, close communication and conversation with Senate Republicans in the event the House goes ahead and actually produces articles of impeachment. We’re going to continue to work closely with Senate Republicans as well as other members of Congress on the questions and continue to be very cooperative and collaborative with our friends up here on the Hill as we work through this process.”
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., read part of McConnell’s interview out loud during Thursday’s impeachment markup, stating that: “In other words, the jury — Senate Republicans — are going to coordinate with the defendant — Donald Trump — on how exactly the kangaroo court is going to be run.”
According to the rules expressed in the Constitution, during an impeachment trial of the President of the United States, the Senate takes an oath to act as impartial jurors.
While the Democratic-controlled House is likely to vote to impeach the president and send the articles up to the Senate, it will be up to the Senate to conduct a trial on any articles. If two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators, vote to convict, Trump would be removed from office and Vice President Mike Pence would become commander in chief.
The Majority Leader’s interview came on the heels of Senate Republicans sending signals that they did not want to call witnesses that the president has suggested as part of a trial, explaining that it was best to keep the trial short and without the added spectacle of high-profile witnesses.
McConnell told Hannity that, “We know how it’s going to end. There’s no chance the president’s going to be removed from office.”
“My hope is that there won’t be a single Republican who votes for either of these articles of impeachment and Sean, it wouldn’t surprise me if we got one or two Democrats,” McConnell said.
Contributing: Ledyard King, Nicholas Wu, Christal Hayes
Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks to party supporters after his Conservative Party’s landslide win.
Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images
Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks to party supporters after his Conservative Party’s landslide win.
Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images
Updated 3:45 a.m. ET
British voters have delivered a stunning victory to Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party, giving the champion of Brexit a large majority in the House of Commons and the support he needs to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union in January.
With almost all results in, the BBC projects that Conservatives will win an absolute majority of 78 seats in the 650-seat chamber, giving Johnson a firm mandate to form the next government. Johnson has been prime minister since July following the resignation of his predecessor, Theresa May, and called early elections in a gamble that he has won handily.
Speaking to supporters Friday morning, Johnson said the results mean “getting Brexit done is now the irrefutable, irresistible, unarguable decision of the British people.”
The opposition Labour Party suffered its worst defeat in decades, losing at least 59 seats. Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, although he won re-election in his constituency, announced he will not lead Labour in the next election.
Corbyn, who sought to remake Britain in a socialist vision of nationalized industries, called for “a process of reflection on this result and on the policies that the party will take going forward.”
Since the 2016 national referendum in which a narrow majority voted to take Britain out of the European Union, Parliament has repeatedly rejected proposed exit agreements negotiated with the EU. The political dysfunction led Johnson to call early elections in hopes it would give him the majority he needed to pass a plan for Brexit.
It now appears likely Parliament will vote Brexit into law and the U.K. will meet the EU’s most recent deadline for Britain to formally leave by Jan. 31.
The results closely tracked voting patterns in the Brexit referendum of three years ago.
Scotland, which had voted to remain in the EU, delivered a nearly clean sweep to the anti-Brexit Scottish National Party. Party leader and First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon suggested there should be a second referendum on Scottish independence.
“Just as I reluctantly accept … that Boris Johnson has a mandate now to take England out of the EU,” Sturgeon told the BBC, “he must accept that I have a mandate to offer Scotland the choice of an alternative future.”
Northern Ireland, which also voted to remain in the EU, for the first time elected a majority of Irish nationalists to the House of Commons. Its open border with Ireland is perhaps the major stumbling block for implementing Brexit.
Two party leaders lost their seats. Jo Swinson of the Liberal Democrats, who had suggested she could serve as a compromise prime minister in a coalition government, was tossed out by a candidate from the Scottish National Party. And Nigel Dodds of the Democratic Unionist Party, which had propped up the minority Conservatives in the previous Parliament, lost his seat to a candidate from the Irish nationalist Sinn Féin.
Markets reacted to the news Friday morning with apparent relief that the three-and-a-half years of political uncertainty over Brexit may finally be coming to an end. The British pound sterling rose nearly 2% and European exchanges were modestly up.
Britain will have a record number of female members of Parliament after Thursday’s vote, when women won at least 220 of the 650 seats, according to the Press Association.
At just over one-third of the House of Commons, women remain far short of parity with men, but they have made tremendous gains since the mid-1980s, when there were only 23 in Parliament. In the last general election, in 2017, women won 211 seats, a record at the time.
This year’s increase comes at a time when many people feared that women were being driven away from politics in a climate of heightened divisions. Online threats and abuse have risen sharply, and were disproportionately directed at female candidates.
An analysis of Twitter during the campaign, conducted by PoliMonitor, showed that all candidates received about four times as much abuse as in the 2017 election. The hostility aimed at women, the study said, was often based specifically on their sex or appearance.
Reporting was contributed by Richard Pérez-Peña, Megan Specia, Benjamin Mueller, Steven Erlanger, Ceylan Yeginsu, Amie Tsang, Stephen Castle and Alan Yuhas.
What happens next: The House Judiciary Committee meets Thursday to consider those articles and possible amendments. The articles will then be voted on, one by one, by the Judiciary Committee, setting the stage for a full House vote next week. Here’s a guide to how impeachment works.
Want to understand impeachment proceedings better?Sign up for the 5-Minute Fix to get a guide in your inbox every weekday. Have questions?Submit them here, and they may be answered in the newsletter.
India is home to 200 million Muslims. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they have faced mounting threats to their status in the majority-Hindu country. And on Wednesday, they were walloped by a new worrisome development: The upper house of India’s Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB).
The legislation turns religion into a means of deciding whom to treat as an illegal immigrant — and whom to fast-track for citizenship. The bill is being sent to President Ram Nath Kovind for his approval (he will almost certainly sign it), and then it will become law.
At first glance, the bill may seem like a laudable effort to protect persecuted minorities. It says Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians who came to India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan won’t be treated as illegal. They’ll have a clear path to citizenship.
But one major group has been left out: Muslims.
That’s no coincidence.
The CAB is closely linked with another contentious document: India’s National Register of Citizens (NRC). That citizenship list is part of the government’s effort to identify and weed out people it claims are illegal immigrants in the northeastern state of Assam. India says many Muslims whose families originally came from neighboring Bangladesh are not rightful citizens, even though they’ve lived in Assam for decades.
When the NRC was published in August, around 2 million people — many of them Muslims, some of them Hindus — found that their names were not on it. They were told they had a limited time in which to prove that they are, in fact, citizens. Otherwise, they can be rounded up into massive new detention camps and, ultimately, deported.
So far, this measure affects potentially 2 million people, not all 200 million Muslims in India. However, Modi’sruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has said it plans to extend the NRC process across the country.
Muslims have faced increasing discrimination and violence over the past few years under Modi’s BJP. But the one-two punch of the NRC followed by the CAB takes this to a new level. The country is beginning to look less like a seculardemocracy and more like a Hindu nationalist state.
If the Indian government proceeds with its plan, in a worst-case scenariowe could be looking at the biggest refugee crisis on the planet. The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom have all warned that this could soon turn into a humanitarian disaster of horrifying proportions.
The Citizenship Amendment Bill
The CAB is only the latest measure the Indian government has taken to marginalize its Muslim minority (more on this below). This measure is particularly blatant in its discrimination.
The CAB will grant citizenship to a host of religious minorities who fled three nearby countries where they may have faced persecution — Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan — before 2015. But Muslims will get no such protection.
The BJP is positioning the CAB as a means of offering expedited citizenship to persecuted minorities. “It seeks to address their current difficulties and meet their basic human rights,” said Raveesh Kumar, a spokesman for the country’s Ministry of External Affairs. “Such an initiative should be welcomed, not criticized by those who are genuinely committed to religious freedom.”
After the CAB passed on Wednesday, Modi tweeted: “A landmark day for India and our nation’s ethos of compassion and brotherhood! … This Bill will alleviate the suffering of many who faced persecution for years.”
In fact, this bill is likely to increase the suffering of many Muslims and is discriminatory on its face, as some of the BJP’s political opposition and several human rights advocates in India have noted.
Shashi Tharoor, whose Congress party opposes the CAB, dubbed it “fundamentally unconstitutional.”
Cedric Prakash, a Jesuit priest and human rights advocate, said in an emailed statement that by “assuring citizenship to all undocumented persons except those of the Muslim faith, the CAB risks … destroying the secular and democratic tenets of our revered Constitution.”
India’s Constitution guarantees everyone equality under the law. Religion is not a criterion for citizenship eligibility, a decision that goes all the way back to the 1940s, when India was founded as a secular state with special protections for minorities like Muslims.
Harsh Mander, a noted rights advocate of Sikh origins, wrote that the CAB represents “the gravest threat to India’s secular democratic Constitution since India became a republic.” He said that if the bill becomes law, he’ll declare himself a Muslim out of solidarity. Meanwhile, he’s also calling for Indians to fight the CAB with a nationwide civil disobedience movement.
Already, protests are underway. In Assam’s capital, authorities have shut down the internet and implemented a curfew. The New York Times reported:
The Indian Army was deployed in the northeastern states of Assam and Tripura as protests grew bigger and more violent. The police were already battling demonstrators over the past few days with water cannons and tear gas. More than 1,000 protesters gathered in the heart of Assam’s commercial capital, Guwahati, yelling: “Go Back Modi!” In other areas, angry men stomped on effigies of Mr. Modi. Crowds set fire to tires and blocked thoroughfares with trees.
As protests against the legislation erupted in different corners of the country, the debate centered on what kind of country India should be.
“The idea of India that emerged from the independence movement,” said a letter signed by more than 1,000 Indian intellectuals, “is that of a country that aspires to treat people of all faiths equally.” But this bill, the intellectuals said, is “a radical break with this history” and will “greatly strain the pluralistic fabric of the country.”
Meanwhile, international human rights organizations are up in arms. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom said India is taking a “dangerous turn in the wrong direction,” adding that the US should weigh sanctions against India if it enshrines the bill in law.
However, Modi enjoys strong support from the Hindu majority, members of which seem to applaud himeven more loudly when he cracks down on Muslims. And the country has swung to the right since he first came to power in 2014. It’s noteworthy that the bill passed not only in the lower house of parliament, where the BJP enjoys a majority, but also in the upper house, where it does not.
Now, the CAB will almost certainly be signed into law. The only hope for those who oppose it is that it will be struck down in court on the grounds that it’s unconstitutional.
Muslims stripped of citizenship may end up in massive detention camps
Exacerbating Muslim Indians’ anxiety about the citizenship bill is the recent rhetoric around the NRC.
Those in Assam whose names do not appear on the NRC have been told the burden of proof is on them to prove that they are citizens. But many rural residents don’t have birth certificates or other papers, and even among those who do, many can’t read them; a quarter of the population in Assam state is illiterate.
Residents do get the chance to appeal to a Foreigners’ Tribunal and, if it rejects their claims to citizenship, to the High Court of Assam or even the Supreme Court. But if all that fails, they can be sent to one of 10 mass detention camps the government plans to build, complete with boundary walls and watchtowers.
The first camp, currently under construction, is the size of seven football fields. Even nursing mothers and children will be held there. “Children lodged in detention centers are to be provided educational facilities in nearby local schools,” an Indian official said.
If the detainees in the camps end up being expelled from India — and that is the government’s plan — this could constitute a wave of forced migration even greater than that triggered by Myanmar in 2017, when hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims were displaced.
And it’s not clear where the newly stateless people would go. Neighboring Bangladesh has already said it won’t take them. All this has induced such intense anxiety that some Muslims are committing suicide.
By undermining the status of Muslims, India is undermining its own democracy
India is known as the largest democracy in the world. But its current government is leading it away from democratic norms.
Modi champions a hardline brand of Hindu nationalism known as Hindutva, which aims to define Indian culture in terms of Hindu history and values and which promotes an exclusionary attitude toward Muslims. UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet recently expressed concerns over “increasing harassment and targeting of minorities — in particular, Muslims.”
Muslims comprise approximately 14 percent of the national population. and more than twice that in Assam state. In the 2019 Indian election, one of Modi’s central campaign promises was that he’d get the NRC in shape and deal with the Muslim migrants in Assam once and for all. Other BJP members have used dehumanizing language to describe the Muslims there.
“These infiltrators are eating away at our country like termites,” BJP president and home minister Amit Shah said at an April rally. “The NRC is our means of removing them.” Shah has openly said the goal is to deport those who are deemed illegal immigrants.
Last month, Shah said the government will conduct another count of citizens — this time nationwide. This could be used to clamp down on Muslims throughout India, potentially triggering a huge humanitarian disaster.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.
WOODLAND PARK, N.J. – One of the shooters in this week’s deadly attack in Jersey City was an Army veteran with a lengthy criminal history related to violence and weapons, according to law enforcement and public records.
The shooter, David Anderson, was arrested at least five times since 2003, the year he was discharged from the Army, the records show.
Anderson, 47, died in the firefight, which authorities say he and the other shooter, Francine Graham, 50, set off Tuesday afternoon at a cemetery and which carried on for several hours at a kosher grocery store. Four other people were killed, including veteran Jersey City detective Joseph Seals.
State and federal authorities are still piecing together the motive behind the shooting, but Anderson and Graham “held views that reflected hatred of Jewish people and law enforcement,” Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said at a Thursday news conference.
Grewal said it appears the two acted alone. He also said authorities have identified social media accounts used by the two that may espouse anti-Semitism.
Anderson ran into trouble at the end of his military service. He served in the Army Reserve for four years as a specialist, repairing fuel and electrical systems, according to military records. A database of addresses indicates he had been stationed in Europe, but the Army could not confirm that.
The Army said he was discharged in September 2003 but did not have additional information about his service.
Hudson County Corrections records show that he was arrested in May 2003, the first of at least three times that he was arrested and spent time in the jail. The records show Anderson had been in jail at the time of his military discharge.
Anderson relocated to Ohio at some point after that. In 2009 he was living with his girlfriend in Kent, a city of roughly 30,000 people about 40 miles southeast of Cleveland, when police were called to the home for a domestic dispute, according to police records obtained by the Trenton bureau of the USA TODAY NETWORK New Jersey.
Anderson’s girlfriend told police that during the argument he punched a hole in a closet door and at one point Anderson grabbed her cheeks and said, according to the police report, “I’m gonna kill you. I feel like killing you. You made me lose everything, you can leave this world. Call the police because I’m gonna kill you.”
Anderson was arrested for domestic violence threats, according to the police report. Public records show Anderson was convicted of criminal mischief that year.
Anderson was arrested again in 2011 while staying with the same girlfriend and her children without the consent or knowledge of the Portage County Metro Housing Authority, according to Lt. Michael Lewis of the Kent Police Department. Police had been called to the home for a domestic incident involving the girlfriend of Anderson and her daughter, according to police records.
At the time of the arrest in Ohio, Anderson had an active warrant in Hudson County for a weapons offense, Lewis said. Anderson was “completely cooperative” when he was detained, according to police records. The case file shows that police seized from Anderson a .22-caliber revolver at the time of his arrest.
State records show Anderson was sent to state prison in 2011 after being convicted of a weapons offense out of Hudson County but was paroled after serving a little more than four months of a multiyear sentence.
The Hudson County Sheriff’s Office made the arrest but said on Thursday that it did not have information about the incident, and details were not immediately available from other law enforcement agencies.
Hudson jail records show he was transferred to state prison on the weapon offense in 2011 to serve a five-year sentence. State records show that Anderson’s sentence was set to expire in the spring of 2014.
He had been arrested twice before, in 2003 and 2007, according to the county jail records.
Both arrests occurred in Jersey City and both led to him spending about a year in jail before a judge ordered his release, according to jail records. The charges related to those arrests were not immediately available.
A search of public records did not show a criminal record for Graham. But she and Anderson were named prime suspects in the slaying of a Jersey City man found in the trunk of a car Saturday night in Bayonne.
Grewal, the attorney general, said that authorities found that Anderson and Graham had expressed interest in the Black Hebrew Israelite hate group but no formal links between the two and the group were found.
More than $20 million of the Pentagon aid at the center of the impeachment fight still hasn’t reached Ukraine.
The continued delay undermines a key argument against impeachment from President Trump’s Republican allies and a new legal memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Initially, Trump directed officials to withhold roughly $400 million in assistance to Ukraine as he and aides pressured its new government under President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into Trump’s political rivals. The White House released the hold on the aid in September, but not before sparking a whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment inquiry.
On Thursday, as lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee debated articles of impeachment, Republicans on the panel continued to assert that Trump did not abuse his power because the aid was released before Ukraine’s new government announced any investigations.
“They got the money on Sept. 11,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said of Ukraine in the Thursday hearing. “That’s what happened. You can make up all the things you want, but those are not the facts.”
But $20.2 million of the Pentagon’s $250-million portion of the aid has yet to reach Ukraine and remains in U.S. accounts, according to the Department of Defense and Senate aides.
The OMB also released a new legal memo Wednesday night arguing it did not violate the law because the aid to Ukraine was released after a temporary pause “to study whether the spending complied with U.S. policy.”
“At no point during the pause” did Defense Department lawyers tell the OMB that the hold on the Ukrainian funding “would prevent DOD from being able to obligate the funds before the end of the fiscal year,” according to the memo, first reported by the Washington Post. Accordingly, the memo asserts, withholding the aid had little impact.
Several OMB officials resigned in part due to their concerns that the withholding was illegal, and witnesses from the Defense Department and other parts of the administration testified publicly in the impeachment inquiry that there was widespread concern that the aid could not be spent by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, and would expire.
When the Trump administration ultimately dropped its hold on the aid on Sept. 11, Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike had to scramble to save the money. Just days shy of the deadline, they passed — and Trump signed into law — a yearlong extension to allow the Pentagon to disburse the aid. But in late November The Times reported that $35.2 million of the initially withheld Ukraine assistance still sat in the U.S. Treasury.
About $15 million has since been contracted out, leaving $20.2 million remaining in U.S. accounts, according to the Pentagon and Senate aides.
Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Carla M. Gleason told The Times on Thursday that the remaining Ukraine aid that has yet to be transferred to the U.S. military services and contracted out “will be implemented as quickly as possible in accordance with contracting procedures and applicable law,” echoing earlier statements from October and November.
Letters from lawmakers to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and other officials seeking answers on the continued delay to disbursing the aid to Ukraine have gone unanswered, according to the Senate aides. A federal judge separately ruled late last month that the Defense Department and OMB must provide documentation regarding the aid holdup by Thursday in response to public records requests.
“We still don’t have a clear understanding of why this is taking so long,” one Senate aide said.
Gleason said the delay was due to requirements in the law that granted the Pentagon the extension to spend the Ukraine aid.
“Specifically, we needed to reach out to prospective vendors to obtain updated pricing data,” she said. “Delays in obtaining this information is impacting our overall time lines.”
But Senate staffers said that law contained no such requirements for the Pentagon to essentially start over on contracts.
Meanwhile, the Ukraine aid remains a political football in the impeachment fight.
At Thursday’s hearing, where members are expected to approve forwarding the impeachment articles for a full House vote, Republicans continued to argue that Trump was doing his job by withholding aid because of corruption concerns.
Several Democrats noted that Trump didn’t hold up millions of dollars in similar congressionally approved aid for Ukraine in his first two years in office. And the attempts to get Ukraine to investigate Ukrainian energy company Burisma and board member Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, only began after polls showed the elder Biden beating Trump in the 2020 presidential election, Democrats said.
“He released aid in 2017, he released aid in 2018 and suddenly he became concerned in 2019 right after Vice President Biden announced that he was going to run,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) responded that what changed is that Ukraine elected a new president, and Pentagon assurances that the money would be properly spent came under the previous administration. He said Trump released the aid on Sept. 11 after Zelensky had signed new anti-corruption policies a few days before.
“There was a concern whether Mr. Zelensky was the real deal,” Biggs said.
The Defense Department certified to Congress on May 23 that Ukraine had made the progress on corruption that was legally required to get the aid released — more than a month after Zelensky won the presidency and days after his inauguration. That was two months before his July call with Trump that kicked off the historic events expected to culminate in a vote next week by the Democratic-led House to impeach the U.S. president.
Lawmakers debate impeachment articles ahead of House vote; Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert weighs in.
House Judiciary Committee member Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, claimed Democrats are being hypocritical by impeaching President Trump for alleged “obstruction of Congress” while ignoring their presidential front-runner’s statement that he will not appear at any Senate impeachment trial.
Gohmert called Thursday’s proceedings the latest outrageous event in the “insane” impeachment saga in an interview with Brian Kilmeade on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
“They’ve abused power,” he said. “Like [George Washington University law professor Jonathan] Turley said, it is Congress that’s abusing power, and how ironic that … Joe Biden would say if he were subpoenaed to the Congress or the Senate, he would defy it, he wouldn’t do it.”
“That is what this mob is trying to kick out Trump from the White House [for],” he remarked.
In an interview earlier this week, Biden said that he is likely not to comply with any subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee if asked to appear during a prospective Trump impeachment trial to testify about his son’s dealings in Ukraine while he was vice president.
“No, I’m not going to let you take the eye off the ball here,” he said, according to Delaware Online. “Everybody knows what this is about.”
Biden called the idea that he testify about Hunter Biden’s involvement with natural gas company Burisma Holdings a “Trump gambit.”
“No, I will not yield to what everybody is looking for here. No one has … one scintilla of evidence that I did anything other than do my job for America as well as anybody could have done it,” he said.
However, in his interview with Kilmeade, Gohmert said the “silver lining” in the Trump impeachment proceedings is that the “swamp creatures” in Washington have been identified as the process wears on.
A Trump impeachment would guarantee the president’s re-election, according to political expert Jeanne Zaino.
Taking on the party’s leadership in a new episode of Fox Nation’s “Deep Dive,” Zaino called the impeachment push “dangerous” and warned of potential ramifications for Democrats heading into 2020.
“What the Democrats will do is, they will clearly impeach him and he will be acquitted in the Senate. And, I think they do themselves a disservice then, because this will engage his base and energize his base to get out. He will use this, as we’ve seen him use it in the last few days on the campaign trail,” she added.
The House Judiciary Committee became the scene of new partisan fighting Thursday as lawmakers pressed ahead with two articles of impeachment against Trump, as polling indicated a majority of Americans opposed impeaching and removing the president from office.
Zaino expressed opposition to the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, although she said she was not fond of Trump.
“People may not like Donald Trump. I am not a big fan of Donald Trump. I don’t like a lot of the behavior that he engages in, myself,” she said, “and yet we are talking about one of the most serious things that you can do as a member of Congress besides vote for war.”
Cautioning against the “dangers” that a Trump impeachment would present, Zaino, a professor of political science and international studies at Iona College, said the historic vote would have an impact not just on the current administration, but on future U.S. presidents as well.
“I think it’s a real danger for them politically, but more important for me as a political scientist, for the United States as a whole, because I fear when there is not one violation of law mentioned in an impeachment article, that the next president, whoever he or she may be, is going to face the same thing when opponents don’t like what they’re doing, because we all don’t like the president if they’re of another party. That’s the problem,” she explained.
The House has been composed of 431 current members, meaning Democrats would need 217 votes to impeach Trump. There are currently 233 Democrats, so they could lose only 16 of their own and still impeach the president. Among the House Democrats, 31 have represented more moderate districts that Trump carried in 2016.
To watch the full episode of “Deep Dive” featuring the latest in the impeachment probe, visit Fox Nation and sign up today.
Fox Nation programs are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers. Go to Fox Nation to start a free trial and watch the extensive library from Tomi Lahren, Pete Hegseth, Abby Hornacek, Laura Ingraham, Ainsley Earhardt, Greg Gutfeld, Judge Andrew Napolitano and many more of your favorite Fox News personalities.
“Boris Johnson seems to have won the U.K. general election by a huge margin,” Kallum Pickering, a senior economist at Berenberg, said in a research note.
He added that a win of this magnitude would mean the hardline euroskeptic wing of the Conservative Party would matter less than before, and it therefore lowers the risk of a hard Brexit.
The result of the election will have a decisive effect on the direction that Brexit takes, three-and-a-half years since the U.K.’s referendum on EU membership.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit divorce deal has been agreed in principle by the U.K. Parliament, but is yet to be fully ratified by lawmakers. There have been deep divisions over the deal on offer, and how close the U.K. should stay aligned to the EU after its departure from the bloc. The future of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland has also been a major sticking point.
The impasse and political chaos in the House of Commons ultimately led to Thursday’s snap general election as Johnson lost the slim majority he held in the U.K.’s lower chamber of Parliament. The vote is the first to be held in the winter months since 1974 and the first December election since 1923.
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"