“I did not intentionally mislead or deceive the Mayor or the people of Chicago,” he said in a statement, while also acknowledging “I made a poor decision and had a lapse of judgment” in connection to an October incident in which he was found asleep behind the wheel of his car.
“That was a mistake and I know that,” Johnson, 59, added. “However, I have no interest in fighting a battle for my reputation with those that want to question it now. Reputations are not built in a day and not damaged in a day either. They are the result of years of living. We reap what we sow in this world.”
Johnson’s first public comments following his unexpected firing on Monday shed no further light on what occurred after midnight on Oct. 17 as well as in the hours leading up to his decision to drive home.
Lightfoot has declined to share details about what happened that evening and how she says Johnson repeatedly lied to her afterwards. An investigation into Johnson’s actions being conducted by the city’s Office of Inspector General remains ongoing, although Lightfoot said the details in it may eventually become public.
She said she reviewed the inspector general’s report and videotape evidence to come to her decision.
A source confirmed to NBC Chicago that Johnson had been out to dinner that evening with a female colleague of the police department. The source also said Johnson has not yet seen the video to which the mayor is referring.
In announcing Johnson’s firing, Lightfoot said he had “told me something that happened that night that turned out to be fundamentally different than what he portrayed to me and what he portrayed to members of the public.”
“Perhaps worst of all,” she said, “Mr. Johnson has misled the people of Chicago.”
On Monday, Lightfoot alluded to Johnson’s actions having an effect on his family, and didn’t want to go into detail because “I don’t feel like it is appropriate or fair to Mr. Johnson’s wife or children to do so at this time.”
A driver first reported to 911 that Johnson was slumped behind his steering wheel at about 12:30 a.m. in front of a stop sign near his home. A breathalyzer test was not administered at the scene, but according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Lightfoot said Johnson had later told her that he had “a couple of drinks with dinner” before the incident.
Johnson told reporters in October that he pulled over because he wasn’t feeling well, and that while he had changed out his old blood pressure medication, he failed to take his new prescription. Last month, Lightfoot continued to laud Johnson for his service in the department — he began his career as a patrol officer in 1988 — as he announced he planned to retire as superintendent at the end of this year.
But Lightfoot’s announcement on Monday took the city by surprise.
In his statement, Johnson, a Chicago native who grew up in public housing, thanked both Lightfoot and her predecessor, Rahm Emanuel, who tapped him to lead the nation’s second-largest municipal police force in 2016 at a time of turmoil following the police shooting of black teenager Laquan McDonald.
He also thanked the interim superintendent, former Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, who began his duties on Monday, as well as the people of Chicago who have “treated me with respect and decency during these past few years, even when we had disagreements about particular issues.”
At an unrelated news conference Tuesday, Beck said he remains friends with Johnson and will continue to seek his advice during this transition.
“I’ll say this, none of us are perfect and everybody makes mistakes, but we have to live with that,” Beck said.
Jeremy Corbyn was never expected to be the leader of the UK Labour Party, until he was. He was never expected to last in the role, until he did. He was never expected to seriously challenge Theresa May and the Conservative Party in the 2017 election, until he did.
And he is never expected to be prime minister of the United Kingdom.
Corbyn is a left-wing member of Parliament who calls himself a socialist; who’s had decades in politics to accumulate a lengthy record; who’s been haunted by charges of anti-Semitism in his party; who was called everything from a “big girl’s blouse” to “Joseph Stalin” by his main political rival just this year; who’s been noncommittal about Brexit; and who’s currently the most unpopular opposition leader since people have been tracking these things.
So he’s not someone who could ever really be prime minister, right?
And yet maybe, it could still happen.
The United Kingdom is holding general elections on December 12, in what Corbyn himself has called a “once-in-a generation” vote. Corbyn will lead the Labour Party against Boris Johnson, the current prime minister and head of the Conservative Party.
Labour’s somewhat muddled stance on Brexit in an election that is absolutely all about Brexit may also be a liability. Labour has said it will renegotiate a new Brexit deal with closer EU ties but will also back another referendum, giving voters the option to remain within the European Union.
Meanwhile, Johnson and the Conservatives are staking their political fortunes on the promise of delivering Brexit by January 31. Other opposition parties, most notably the Liberal Democrats, have carved out a strong position on staying in the EU.
Labour’s platform is trying to please both Brexit supporters and opponents. Amid such polarization, that stance might please no one at all.
Yet Corbyn remains enormously popular with Labour’s activist base, and his ascension to Labour leader has energized the party as he’s moved it leftward, crowding out more centrist figures. He may be the best hope for those who want to figure out a way to stop the UK from leaving the EU — or those who, at the very least, aren’t interested in Johnson’s brand of Brexit.
If British politics in the age of Brexit have proven anything, predictions (or even polling) are not always reliable. A Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn looks unlikely right now. But nothing is for sure until British voters go to the polls on December 12.
To understand why Corbyn is such a divisive figure, and why his party has struggled to define itself during Brexit, here’s what you need to know about the Labour leader who may never enter 10 Downing Street, but who will shape his party — and Britain’s political future — no matter what.
A brief introduction to Jeremy Corbyn
Corbyn describes himself as a socialist. His politics are a throwback to an older version of Britain’s Labour Party, which embraced government control of parts of the economy and big social welfare programs.
Corbyn was first elected to Parliament in 1983, representing Islington North, a reliable Labour seat in London he’s now held for more than 35 years.
Corbyn came to Parliament in a year that was otherwise horrible for the Labour Party. Its 1983 election manifesto (sort of like a party platform in the US) was one the most left-wing in the party’s history to date. One Labour MP at the time famously called it the “longest suicide note in history” after Conservatives, led by Margaret Thatcher, destroyed Labour that year in one of the largest electoral victories in the postwar era.
That helped begin Labour’s rightward shift to a more moderate, centrist party that is socially liberal but somewhat more fiscally conservative and free-market oriented. That transformation culminated in the election of Tony Blair as Labour leader in 1994. Under Blair, Labour took power in 1997, an era that’s sometimes referred to as “New Labour.”
But Corbyn didn’t shift to the center with the rest of his party. He stayed on the margins, maintaining his ties with other veterans of old Labour and those outside of the party in leftist UK politics.
“He basically spent most of his time opposing the policies of his own party,” Steven Fielding, a professor of political history at the University of Nottingham, told me. Especially when Tony Blair was prime minister, “he was in opposition to everything that was going on,” despite his party being in control of government.
Corbyn, then, was very much an outsider who remained on the backbenches (meaning he never held a ministerial position) for years.
Corbyn’s foreign policy in particular has gotten him into quite a bit of trouble, and it continues to today. He worked closely with Stop the War coalition, which was formed after 9/11 to oppose the intervention in Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, the Stop the War coalition opposed the Iraq War, as did Corbyn. Blair, of course, supported it, a position that would come back to haunt Blair and the Labour Party.
Corbyn has a lot of political baggage, and for 30 or so years, he was kind of an obscure figure in Labour politics — until 2015, that is.
How Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader — and why he’s stayed there
Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015 in an extraordinary upset. He started as a 200-to-1 outsider when the contest began but ended up winning 60 percent of the vote from the Labour Party.
His victory was startling at the time, but in retrospect it makes some sense. The era of New Labour had lasted for more than a decade, but Labour lost its majority in 2010, and Conservatives beat them again in 2015.
The dissatisfaction with Labour during this period had a lot to do with its policies under Blair, namely support for the Iraq War. Many British voters also blamed Labour for the 2008 recession, since the party was in charge at the time of the financial market crash.
Voters, particularly younger ones, didn’t love the policies of the Conservatives. The party pursued austerity — in other words, basically lots of spending cuts to social and public services. Other issues, like climate change, also motivated the next generation of voters.
Taken together, voters began to blame the establishment politicians of the past for these failures. Within the Labour Party, some also saw the more moderate Blairites as not all that different from the Conservative politicians.
Corbyn emerged against this backdrop as a politician in his 60s who was untainted by those establishment politics. “What you got was the oldest candidate looking like the freshest and the newest,” David Kogan, author of Protest and Power: The Battle for the Labour Party, told me. It’s not unlike the political rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders in the US.
Corbyn went from impossible odds to looking like the favorite. This was terrifying for most politicians in the party, who saw Corbyn’s ascension as a huge electoral disadvantage, given his leftist politics. At the time, Blair said that with Corbyn as leader, “The party won’t just face defeat but annihilation.”
But Labour’s membership also surged after Corbyn’s victory. The party had less than 200,000 members (people who pay dues) before the 2015 election; in 2018, that number surged to more than 500,000 members, making Labour the largest political party in the UK.
As Kogan explained, Labour’s ranks swelled because Corbyn’s victory brought back those traditional Labour members who had fallen away during the Blair years. It also attracted a new base of young voters, many of whom came of age post-2008 recession and supported Corbyn’s left-wing economic policies, though they were also motivated by those other issues, like climate change.
Corbyn energized the activist base of the Labour Party. But divisions between this coalition of “Corbynistas” and other veterans of the party, specifically lawmakers, did not disappear. In 2016, Corbyn faced a leadership challenge shortly after the June Brexit referendum. Labour lawmakers voted against him in a confidence vote, citing, among other things, his failure to do enough to promote Remain, Labour’s official position in the 2016 referendum.
But Corbyn soundly defeated his challenger in that contest, achieving the party’s backing with a slightly greater margin than in 2015. It showed just how strong Corbyn’s support was among the party base, and how quickly he — and his supporters — had started to reshape the party.
The next test for Corbyn came in the 2017 election. Then-Prime Minister Theresa May called a vote in an attempt to shore up her Brexit mandate. She started out with a 20-point lead and looked likely to deliver another Conservative majority.
Instead, that advantage evaporated. Conservatives lost seats and their majority. Labour increased its number of seats in Parliament by 31. May managed to form a government and retain control by entering into an arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party, a conservative party in Northern Ireland. But as Brexit unfolded, that control proved to be pretty precarious.
Meanwhile, Corbyn once again defied expectations with Labour’s relative success. That helped undercut some of the doubters.
But not all of them. Those divisions within Labour persist. Though the base of the party has mostly gone all-in for Corbyn, many lawmakers are still in that more moderate mold. Controversies, particularly criticism of Corbyn for his handling of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, have publicly torn the party apart.
And, of course, there’s the Brexit debate.
Jeremy Corbyn’s big, huge, unavoidable Brexit problem
Corbyn has always been ambivalent about the European Union, which has made him something of an odd fit to be leader during the Brexit debate. Though he voted Remain in 2016, he hasn’t exactly been a full-throated defender of the EU. And he was outright antagonistic at the start of his political career.
Corbyn’s left-wing critique of the EU is a minority view within the party, Eric Shaw, an honorary research fellow in politics at the University of Stirling, told me. But it’s a view some of Corbyn’s associates, who share his ideological bent, support. “The European Union embeds free market principles, embeds corporate power, and membership impedes the capacity of the British government to achieve socialism,” Shaw said, summing up the left-wing critique of the EU.
They’re sometimes called “Lexiteers,” essentially left-wing Brexiteers.
Corbyn voted to leave the European Economic Community, the precursor to the EU, in 1975. As a member of Parliament, he voted against the Maastricht Treaty, which helped form the current version of the EU.
“The whole basis of the Maastricht Treaty is the establishment of a European central bank which is staffed by bankers, independent of national Governments and national economic policies, and whose sole policy is the maintenance of price stability,” Corbyn said at the time, arguing against the treaty in Parliament. “That will undermine any social objective that any Labour Government in the United Kingdom — or any other government — would wish to carry out.”
Fast-forward to the Brexit referendum in 2016: Labour and Corbyn officially supported Remain (so did then-Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron as well as his successor, Theresa May.)
But Corbyn’s Brexit problem hasn’t gone away. It’s only gotten worse — for both him and the Labour Party.
Labour’s “fence-sitting” on Brexit is hurting its chances in the 2019 election
In March 2017, the UK Parliament overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50, the provision in the EU’s Lisbon Treaty that gives countries the power to withdraw from the bloc. That set off a countdown to a March 2019 Brexit, which, of course, has not happened yet.
At the time, Corbyn and Labour supported triggering Article 50, though some members of his party joined the more than 100 MPs that rebelled against initiating the divorce. This vote happened before the EU and UK ever sat down for serious negotiations, so few knew what kind of Brexit deal then-Prime Minister Theresa May would bring back from Brussels. But the argument at the time was pretty simple: The UK voted to leave, 52 percent to 48 percent, so their representatives had to back the will of the people.
As mentioned above, the UK held general elections in June 2017, a few months later. May wanted to bolster her majority for Brexit negotiations. Labour backed Brexit, but campaigned for a softer version, meaning closer ties with the EU. In that election, May lost her Conservative majority and Labour did much better than expected.
But “better than expected” meant that Labour remained in the opposition, which also meant it didn’t have the power to solve Brexit. Still, Labour frequently joined with the pro-Remain opposition — such as the Scottish National Party and some pro-Remain rebels within the Conservative Party — and helped spoil the Brexit plans of both May and Johnson, forcing all those extensions and blocking a no-deal Brexit.
Corbyn and the Labour Party, then, stood against whatever the Conservative government brought back. At the same time, Labour vacillated on coming up with its own clear position that wasn’t simply anti-May or anti-Johnson or anti-no-deal.
Labour has some reason for this ambiguity on Brexit. Much of his party favor remaining in the European Union, and that includes a huge portion of its base in cities and even those young, grassroots activists who helped get Corbyn elected. But there are Labour seats in constituencies that voted Leave, many in traditional working-class strongholds such as in the north of England.
Though such voters make up a much smaller percentage, they’re still seen as an important part of Labour’s traditional base. (Does this sound familiar, maybe?) And that’s why Labour defended its somewhat amorphous position on Brexit. Unlike Conservatives, who are more explicitly in favor of leaving the EU (though there are pro-Remain people among them), Labour had a much more complicated coalition to represent.
But in trying to please everyone, Labour risks disappointing everyone. If you want to Leave, you have the Conservative Party and the Brexit Party, both of which promise to deliver that. Johnson and the Conservatives have a clear message: Brexit by January 31. The same is true on the other side of the political spectrum. The much smaller Liberal Democrats, as well as the Greens and the Scottish National Party, also have clear messages: no Brexit.
Labour is trying to find a compromise between the two extremes. And in the polarized Brexit era, that might be the worst of all strategies.
In a recent tweet, here’s how Corbyn described Labour’s position: “Secure a credible deal in three months. Put it to the people for the final say, with the option to remain, in six months.”
“That’s our Brexit policy,” he concluded.
Secure a credible deal in three months.
Put it to the people for the final say, with the option to remain, in six months.
The problem with that Brexit policy: it runs into the same problem Labour has had all along: It’s not quite a commitment to Brexit, but it’s also not quite a commitment to stay in the EU.
“It’s a position that is Labour sitting on the fence,” Eunice Goes, a professor of politics at Richmond University in London, told me. “They’re not declaring in favor of Brexit or of remaining” in the EU.
If you’re a voter who’s eager to stay in the European Union, Labour’s policy doesn’t guarantee that. And if you’re a voter who really wants to Leave, Labour’s policy doesn’t guarantee that either.
Corbyn is selling this as, “We’ll give you a final say on Brexit in six months.” But contrast that with the coherent messages of Labour’s competitors, from Johnson and the Conservative (“Get Brexit Done”) to the Liberal Democrats (“Stop Brexit”). Labour’s stance is much more complicated and unclear, and it will also prolong the divorce process even more — taking weeks or months for negotiations, weeks or months for a referendum, and then who knows what comes after that. It’s just a lot.
There are also some logistical problems here. Renegotiating a new deal and getting those extensions also depends on the EU. After May, and after Johnson, will the EU renegotiate with a third prime minister?
Then there’s the issue of holding a second referendum with the option to Remain. If Labour holds such a referendum, will the party — including Corbyn — campaign against the brand-new deal he just renegotiated, and urge people to vote for Remain? Why would the EU go through the exercise of renegotiating a deal if the UK government is going to actively campaign against it?
And then there’s dealing with the fallout of whatever the outcome: a Brexit plan, or voting to Remain, which is likely going to enrage a huge chunk of people in a polarized country.
It’s still not really clear where Corbyn himself stands on the issue of leaving or remaining. Sure, he supports a second referendum — but what outcome does he want? Corbyn has repeatedly dodged this question. During his first debate with Johnson in November, he wouldn’t give a straight answer other than to say a second referendum was the best option.
In a BBC Question Time session with party leaders, Corbyn, when pressed, finally said he would take a “neutral stance” on any referendum — meaning he wouldn’t campaign for Leave or Remain. In other words, he’ll sit on the fence regarding Brexit, right up to the end. What that might mean for his party, especially the pro-Remain lawmakers who really want to remain, is unclear.
Many experts I spoke to think Labour is taking this muddled approach for the wrong reasons. There are Labour districts that voted Leave in 2016, but Labour is still largely a Remain-leaning party. Even in 2017, research showed that most people who voted Labour — even in those Leave-voting districts — voted Remain.
Paul Webb, a professor of politics at the University of Sussex, said that based on analysis of the 2017 election, even in those Leave-voting areas, “The overwhelming majority of people who voted for Labour in those seats were Remainers, and they weren’t Leavers. So they might have been majority Leave seats, but Labour voters in those seats were Remainers.
“In a sense, by worrying too much about these places,” Webb added, “Labour is kind of pandering to its opponents and people who weren’t inclined to vote for the party anyway.”
In other words, Labour’s attempts to retain Leave voters may not be a winning electoral strategy. And even if it was, a soft Brexit/second referendum might not be the option that appeals to them, especially if Brexit is driving the vote. (And in this election, it’s all about Brexit.) And Conservatives are still framing a vote for Labour as a vote to Remain, anyway.
This is where Corbyn’s public skepticism of Europe comes in. Corbyn’s biggest critics say it’s his distaste for the EU that’s ultimately preventing him from taking Labour off the fence and embracing a more explicitly Reman position.
In other words, it really doesn’t matter what Corbyn says or does — he still comes off as a secret Leave supporter. And Labour’s half-baked Brexit stance hasn’t dispelled that impression.
“He actually wants a position going into this election that will allow him to Leave, because that’s what he really wants to do,” Fielding, the University of Nottingham professor, said, though he acknowledged others might disagree with him.
But, he added, that’s why Corbyn is “to-ing and fro-ing and why he’s been so unwilling — on this one issue — to defy Labour members.”
Brexit isn’t Corbyn’s only problem
Brexit may be a huge problem for Labour. But if you hate Brexit, you’re probably not going to cast a vote for a Conservative MP. There’s a risk, though, that Remain-leaning parties like the Liberal Democrats and Greens could split the votes with Labour, allowing a more pro-Brexit candidate to slip through.
The bunch of Remain parties — including the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the Welsh party, Plaid Cymru — have pledged to only run the strongest candidate among their parties in certain districts in an effort to avoid any vote-splitting. Some polling has shown that so-called “tactical voting” could boost Labour’s electoral chances, but the party hasn’t signed on. Voters may take it on themselves to vote tactically, or to bet that voting Labour is still the best option to defeat Brexit. But it’s hard to say right now how that will shake out.
And Corbyn is still a problem even beyond Brexit. His political past is still a weakness; voters outside of the core of the Labour Party still see him as a radical figure who espouses extreme positions. His critics are also trying to paint him this way — but many of the policies Labour is promoting in its 2019 manifesto, such as more money for the National Health Service, more affordable housing, and evens some of those the nationalization plans, are pretty popular with the general public.
The anti-Semitism crisis within Labour is likely to be another problem for Corbyn. As mentioned above, Corbyn has been more critical of Israel’s government than most members of his party.
But since his ascension to party leader in 2015, he’s also been accused of showing “poor judgment” on the issue of anti-Semitism.
Some Jewish Labour MPs came under attack from the far right, specifically Jewish women MPs who faced incredible vitriol. But there was also evidence that some Labour Party members were also spewing hateful rhetoric at lawmakers. This turned into a crisis this past spring, when nine Labour MPs left the party. The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission launched a formal investigation into the party over those anti-Semitism allegations, a pretty dramatic step.
Corbyn is accused of not having properly condemned the attacks and of allowing this to fester within the party’s ranks. This has damaged “his moral stance as a good man,” Kogan told me. “The accusation of allowing anti-Semitism to take place and not be dealt with, and that’s affected him in his claims to be a different sort of politician.”
The problem isn’t going away, either. The Jewish Chronicle used its front page in early November to call on voters to reject Corbyn. “If this man is chosen as our next prime minister, the message will be stark: that our dismay that he could ever be elevated to a prominent role in British politics, and our fears of where that will lead, are irrelevant,” the newspaper wrote.
The UK’s chief rabbi has also questioned Corbyn’s fitness to be prime minister, weeks into the campaign.
And another former Labour MP, Ian Austin, who left the party over allegations of anti-Semitism earlier this year, said he refused to vote for Corbyn because of his “extremism.” He encouraged voters to select Johnson instead.
Speaking of the current prime minister, contrasting the two further highlights Corbyn’s unpopularity. Johnson is undoubtedly an energetic campaigner, but he’s also a divisive figure who has a lot of baggage. The fact that Corbyn can’t capitalize on Johnson’s weaknesses shows just how broadly he’s disliked.
“I have no doubt that if (as we say here) he was to be run over by a London bus and replaced by the most capable of Labour’s leaders, Keir Starmer, Labour’s ratings would dramatically rise,” Shaw told me, adding that the Conservatives “are prayingfor Corbyn’s good health.”
A July survey found that the public trusts Johnson — a guy who once got fired for lying — more than Corbyn. Just 21 percent of people have a positive opinion of Corbyn; 61 percent have a negative opinion, according to YouGov. In an August YouGov poll, 48 to 35 percent of voters said Corbyn becoming prime minister would be a worse outcome than a no-deal Brexit.
If you’re thinking, “Sure, but Corbyn didn’t do so bad in 2017!” you’re not wrong — but he’s pretty much been trending downward ever since. His approval has steadily decreased, in some instances hitting truly dismal numbers. His approval rating has ticked up slightly in recent weeks to an average of just 22 percent, according to Howard Clarke, a polling expert at the University of Texas at Dallas. But 22 percent going into a general election is horrendously bad.
As Clarke told me via email, recent polls showed Johnson’s approval rating at around 49 percent — not great, but a heck of a lot better than 22 percent.
“That’s what makes this election such a complicated choice for a lot of people,” Amanda Sloat, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, told me. “You have voters that are opposed to Brexit, but are very concerned about what a Corbyn government would mean for the country’s social and economic policies.”
Is Labour doomed?
“It’s not looking like a good shot,” Kogan told me about Labour’s chances in the next election.
Johnson and the Conservatives have a strong lead in the polls. Corbyn remains unpopular. Labour’s Brexit policy is still wishy washy. But with less than a month go before Britain votes, it’s probably too soon to call it. Johnson’s lead could evaporate — and Corbyn could do better than expected once again.
Even so, it’s unlikely Labour will win a majority in the 650-seat House of Commons. There have been swings in the polls for Conservatives, with some showing a dramatic lead and others showing a smaller margin of victory, but they’re still ahead in most. Most experts I talked to think Conservatives will win —maybe not with an overwhelming majority, but likely just enough to get Johnson’s Brexit deal through.
Even if that doesn’t happen, an outright Labour majority is still looking difficult to achieve. Instead, the more likely scenario is a hung Parliament, where no one party wins the majority. In this case, it’s possible Labour will do well enough to form some sort of alliance with the Scottish National Party (likely for the price of another Scottish independence referendum), or to at least get the votes of some other pro-Remain parties. Basically, enough anti-Brexit voters will potentially hold their noses for Corbyn to at least try to foil Brexit.
However, experts I talked to agreed that if Labour is defeated outright, Corbyn will almost certainly lose his position as leader. Labour should clean up in these elections. Conservatives have been in charge for 10 years and even they’re promising more spending on things like the National Health Service, in an acknowledgment that the general public is fed up with the Conservatives’ past austerity policies.
Boris Johnson himself is a strange figure in British politics — he’s not all that well-liked nor deeply trusted within the Conservative Party, unable to completely shake the reputation that he’s just out for himself.
If Labour can’t capitalize on this, particularly in this “once-in-a-generation” election, it will be a strong indictment of its leader. But Corbyn’s influence won’t necessarily fade even when he’s gone. He may fail in this election, but the leftward shift he set in motion within Labour could very well outlast him.
MILWAUKEE – Linda Ager was out to lunch with a friend Monday when she received a phone call from her husband, Brett Hart, a special education teacher at Waukesha South High School in Wisconsin.
“He didn’t say much,” Ager told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, part of the USA TODAY Network. “He just said there had been an incident at school and that there were rumors that he had been hurt, and that he was OK.”
A city police officer inside the high school had shot a 17-year-old student who pulled a gun in a classroom and refused to drop it, according to police.
The student was taken into custody and was the only person injured in the incident, police said.
Ager said the incident took place in her husband’s classroom.
“There was an altercation between students, and he stepped in between the students,” Ager said.
Hart restrained the student who had a gun, while other students left the room, Ager said.
That’s when a student notified a school resource officer, she said.
Ager said her husband continued to restrain the armed student until the officer arrived.
“I think that my husband would have done whatever it took to keep that student from harming other people,” Ager said.
The school resource officer secured the classroom while getting other students to safety, Waukesha Police Chief Russell Jack said at a news conference Monday.
Other Waukesha police officers and Waukesha County sheriff’s deputies came to the scene and began “dialogue with the suspect in an attempt to de-escalate the situation,” Jack said.
“The suspect would not remove his hands from his pockets and continued to ignore officers’ commands,” Jack said. “The suspect removed his handgun from his waistband and pointed it at the officers. An officer was forced to discharge his firearm, striking the suspect.”
Officers provided lifesaving medical attention to the student, Jack said, as “remaining students were evacuated from the classroom and the school was put on lockdown.”
Hart did not immediately respond to an interview request. Ager said her husband has been instructed by investigators not to talk about the incident at this time.
Hart has been a special education teacher in the school district for more than 22 years, and is the rights and responsibilities director for the Education Association of Waukesha, according to his LinkedIn profile.
“We are grateful to the Waukehsa South Community,” Waukesha police Capt. Dan Baumann said during in a news conference Tuesday. “It is exactly why we train. It is exactly why we continue to do what we do in training and preparation for unfortunate events like this…But to that teacher, thank you. The entire community, the parents, the kids, the students, the staff, everybody involved handled themselves as professional as they were able to yesterday.”
Ager and Hart have been married for 29 years and have five children. Ager described her husband as calm, level-headed and able to keep his composure during emergencies.
“He’s the kind of person you want to have in a situation like that,” she said.
Contributing: Christopher Kuhagen and Bill Glauber, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Want to understand the impeachment inquiry 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.
Mr. Biden’s support, however, has proved durable, and he has shown himself a challenging politician to attack. The other most frontal assault on him came from Julián Castro, the former federal housing secretary, who also dropped in the polls after their debate-stage confrontation.
In recent months, Ms. Harris had struggled financially as her online fund-raising slowed and her large donors increasingly turned away from her campaign.
And in the days leading up to her withdrawal from the race, Ms. Harris grew increasingly desperate in her search for campaign funds. She surprised one donor who had hosted an event for her but is not a major Democratic bundler by telephoning him to see if he could reach out to his associates who had yet to give in hopes of finding her additional checks for the maximum allowable amount.
On Tuesday, she had a fund-raiser scheduled with some of her top bundlers in New York City that was canceled only hours before the event was set to occur. And on Wednesday, she had been scheduled to attend an event on the other side of the country, in Los Angeles, where Sean Parker, the billionaire tech entrepreneur, was set to host her at his home.
In the third quarter of the year, she spent more than $1.41 for every dollar she raised, burning through millions of her treasury. She stopped buying ads, both online and on television, implemented layoffs, slashed staff in New Hampshire and retrenched to Iowa, where she spent the Thanksgiving holiday with her family.
But it was not enough, as her campaign determined that she did not have the financial resources needed to compete, even as a new allied super PAC began reserving ads on Tuesday. The group quickly began canceling its reservations.
“As the campaign has gone on, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete,” Ms. Harris wrote to supporters.
President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron aired their differences on the sidelines of a NATO leaders’ summit in London.
Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron aired their differences on the sidelines of a NATO leaders’ summit in London.
Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
Sitting next to each other with cameras rolling on Tuesday, President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron made their differences known on trade, Turkey, Russia, ISIS and the appropriate role for NATO.
Early on in the extended exchange between the leaders of two of the most significant powers in the NATO alliance, Trump expressed confidence that their personal connection could overcome policy disagreements.
“That’s usually the case with the two of us,” Trump said. “We get it worked out.”
But earlier in the day, when Macron was not sitting by his side, Trump had sharp words for the French president. Trump took umbrage with Macron’s recent assessment that the NATO alliance is experiencing “brain death.”
“That is a very, very, very nasty statement,” Trump said of Macron, who in an Economist interview last month questioned NATO’s strength “in light of the commitment of the United States.”
Trump repeatedly called NATO “obsolete” during his presidential campaign. The alliance was formed after World War II to create a bulwark against Soviet aggression. As president, Trump has badgered other countries in the 70-year-old alliance to boost their defense spending while complaining that the United States is carrying everyone else’s weight.
“Nobody needs NATO more than France,” Trump said during a lengthy question-and-answer session with reporters at the start of a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. “And, frankly, the one that benefits, really the least, is the United States. We benefit the least. We’re helping Europe. … And that’s why I think that when France makes a statement like they made about NATO, it’s a very dangerous statement for them to make.”
It was a shift in perspective for Trump, who has gone from constantly criticizing NATO and failing to explicitly endorse Article 5 — the mutual defense agreement — to now saying “NATO serves a great purpose” and taking credit for what he called improvements.
“NATO, which was really heading in the wrong direction three years ago, was heading down, if you look at a graph. It was to a point where I don’t think they could have gotten on much longer,” Trump said. “Now it’s actually very strong and getting stronger.”
Trump attributes this to countries stepping up and bulking up their defense budgets, “I think really at my behest.”
While meeting with Trump, Macron did not pull his punches. “But when you speak about NATO, it’s not just about money. We have to be respectful,” Macron said in one of several moments of pointed contrast.
Trump and Macron have had a generally good relationship, even as they disagree strongly on climate policy and the Iran nuclear agreement, among other things. Another item putting that relationship to the test is trade.
On the eve of the NATO gathering, the Trump administration proposed 100% tariffs on nearly $2.5 billion in French goods, cheese and wine. The tariffs would serve as retaliation for the French Digital Services Tax, which the U.S. trade representative says discriminates against U.S. tech giants Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google.
“Emmanuel had an idea: Let’s tax those companies. Well, they’re American companies,” Trump said. “I’m not going to let people take advantage of American companies. Because if anyone’s going to take advantage of the American companies, it’s going to be us. It’s not going to be France.”
“There has been an officer-involved shooting at Oshkosh West High School,” Oshkosh police said in a statement. “A student was armed with a weapon and confronted a school resource officer. The student and officer were both injured and transported to local hospitals.”
Officials did not say how badly they were injured.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said the shootings reflect the need to invest in helping troubled students – and limiting their access to guns. He pledged to work with the school districts on preventing future acts of violence.
A dispatcher reported gunshots at Oshkosh West at 9:13 a.m. local time Tuesday. Senior Dakota Meisel told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in a Facebook message the lockdown was announced at the beginning of the school’s second period.
“I heard people yelling and running, and I heard a bang but not sure what the bang was,” he said.
Meisel said a teacher came into the classroom and told the students to get away from the windows and get into lockdown mode just before the lockdown was announced. Meisel said the students were scared.
“We all got into the part of the room, closed all the doors, turned off the lights, and sat in the back of the classroom, quiet,” he said. “We contacted parents and siblings, and waited until told what to do.”
No one else was injured, police said. The lockdown was lifted and the school evacuated, with students reunited with their parents at a nearby middle school. The state Department of Criminal Investigations was conducting the investigation.
The suspect was the only person injured in the incident and was taken into custody, police said.
Kaul said problems must be identified so students can get the mental health or social work assistance they need before turning to violence.
Kaul supports a pair of bills blocked by the Republican Legislature to institute universal gun background checks and give judges the power to take firearms from people determined to be a risk.
Bacon reported from McLean, Va. Contributing: Christopher Kuhagen, Bill Glauber, Annysa Johnson, Jordyn Noennig and Lainey Seyler; The Associated Press
The eight-day bus tour was launched on Nov. 30 and includes stops in Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Mason City, Elkader, Decorah, and Oelwein.
“He paid some fancy millennial consultant $30 million to come up with that slogan,” Steyn said. “They did focus groups on other ones … They also want for the, no horsefeathers tour. I think that tested quite well with Muslim millennials. And they tried the no-flap doodle tour. I think that actually worked well with some feminist lesbians.
“And then the final one… the no cockamamie, fiddle-faddle, for the birds, bunkum, dagnabit tour, which polled really strongly with undocumented transgenders,” he added.
Steyn continued to mock Biden for referencing his leg hair on the campaign trail after he said children used to play with his legs and jump in his lap.
More from Media
“I have waited all my life for a hairy-legged candidate and this is — this is a critical lane and the Democratic primary,” he said. “We talk about the moderate lane, the socialist lane, the even more socialist lane, but the hairy leg lane has been wide open since Beto [O’Rourke] Instagrammed himself shaving his legs back in August.
“And then using an arugula exfoliate to moisturize them. [Biden] cunningly saw that there was an opening.”
The tour’s name is likely derived from Biden’s 2012 vice presidential debate against former GOP Rep. Paul Ryan when he told the Wisconsin Republican that his critique of the Obama administration’s foreign policy was, “a bunch of malarkey.”
Steyn said if Biden were not committing daily gaffes and talking “gibberish,” more people would be discussing the Ukraine corruption allegations against him and his son.
A Los Angeles hiker made a gruesome discovery on a trail when they stumbled upon a decapitated head, officials said.
The hiker was walking their dog around 9 a.m. Monday in Griffith Park and came across the head, news station KCAL reported.
The victim appeared to be a man in his 40s or 50s, and was possibly living in a nearby homeless encampment, news station WRC-TV reported.
Police later discovered the rest of his body and believe he died from natural causes, the report said.
Authorities suspect his body was dismembered by animals, then swept down a hill in a rainstorm.
“The evidence suggests that the person had passed away and animals may have gotten to it, possibly a homeless individual staying up in the area,” Los Angeles police Lt. Ryan Rabbet told WRC-TV.
Turning to his host country, the president half-injected himself into Dec. 12 British elections — continuing his habit of weighing in on British politics, even though many of the country’s leaders wish he would steer clear. He said he was planning to meet with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but when asked why he was staying out of the British elections, he said, “I don’t want to complicate it.”
PARIS (Reuters) – France and the European Union said on Tuesday they are ready to retaliate if U.S. President Donald Trump acts on a threat to impose duties of up to 100% on imports of champagne, handbags and other French products worth $2.4 billion.
The threat of punitive tariffs came after a U.S. government investigation found France’s new digital services tax would harm U.S. technology companies, and will intensify a festering trade dispute between Europe and the United States.
“They’re starting to tax other people’s products so therefore, we go and tax them,” Trump said in London on Tuesday ahead of a NATO alliance summit.
He had earlier said he would not allow France to take advantage of American companies and that the European Union treated the United States very unfairly on trade.
French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire branded the latest U.S. tariff threat unacceptable and said the French tax did not discriminate against American companies.
“In case of new American sanctions, the European Union would be ready to retaliate,” Le Maire told Radio Classique.
He later told a news conference: “We are not targeting any country.”
The tariff spat marks a new low in testy relations — from an early bone-crunching handshake to the U.S. president appearing to flick dandruff off the younger man’s shoulder — between Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron.
The two leaders, who will meet later at the summit, have been at odds over the American’s unilateralist approach to trade, climate change and Iran.
The European Commission said the 28-nation EU would act as one and that the best place to settle disputes was at the World Trade Organization.
The United States has already imposed 25% duties on French wine and cheese as part of its WTO-sanctioned response to illegal EU aircraft subsidies, a move exporters warned would penalize U.S. consumers while severely hurting French producers.
INTERNATIONAL SOLUTION
France’s 3% levy applies to revenue from digital services earned by companies with more than 25 million euros ($27.86 million) of revenues from France and 750 million euros ($830 million) worldwide.
An investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative’s office found the French tax was “inconsistent with prevailing principles of international tax policy”.
It said the tax was “unusually burdensome” for U.S. companies including Alphabet Inc’s Google (GOOGL.O), Facebook Inc (FB.O), Apple Inc (AAPL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O).
France is not alone in targeting big digital companies; a growing number of other countries are preparing their own taxes.
Governments, including Washington, are frustrated that big digital companies can book earnings in low-tax countries like Ireland regardless of where the end client is.
Le Maire repeated a promise to drop the French digital tax as soon as an agreement is found at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to overhaul decades-old international tax rules.
“We are ready to adopt the OECD solution on digital tax. If the U.S. do the same, then it’s the end of the issue,” Le Maire told journalists.
While Washington originally sought a wide scope for a new international tax system, officials say it has got cold feet in recent months after coming under pressure from traditional companies which realized they would be affected too.
FRENCH LUXURY STOCKS FALL
Shares in French luxury companies fell in response to the tariff threat against French champagne, handbags, cheeses and other products.
Hermes (HRMS.PA) was around 1.9% lower, while LVMH (LVMH.PA) and Kering (PRTP.PA) fell 1.3% and 1.2% respectively.
French products will not face tariffs immediately as the U.S. Trade Representative still intends to gather public comments and hold a public hearing in January.
Based on past experience of Section 301 tariffs, primarily applied to Chinese goods, France would face punitive tariffs in two or three months.
Slideshow (2 Images)
Any retaliatory action from France would have to be taken at an EU-wide level because the bloc is a customs union which applies duties at its border.
Le Maire said the dispute had already been raised with EU partners and that France could “count on European solidarity”. He will meet new EU Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan on Wednesday to discuss the matter.
Reporting by Sudip Kar-Gupta, Leigh Thomas and Benoit Van Overstraeten in Paris; Additional reporting by Philip Blenkinsop in Brussels and Andy Bruce in London; Writing by Richard Lough; Editing by Catherine Evans
Defense spending among NATO allies, or the lack thereof (a persistent bugbear of Trump, and of his predecessor Barack Obama) is also likely to feature prominently in this week’s summit.
Although NATO members have increased their defense spending dramatically over the last five years, according to NATO defense spend data, many members are still not hitting a target set in 2014 when members agreed to spend a minimum of 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.
NATO estimates for 2019, released in June, show that only the U.S., U.K., Greece, Estonia, Romania, Poland and Latvia have met or surpassed that target. The highest defense spending based on GDP was made by the U.S., at 3.4% of its GDP, while the lowest was by Luxembourg, which spent only 0.55%.
It’s the first visit Trump has made to the country since his state visit in June when he and the first lady were welcomed with full pomp and pageantry — and widespread protests.
Protests and crowds in London are expected to be large in the capital. The last time the president was in London, tens of thousands of demonstrators closed many major roadways and a 20-foot “Trump baby” blimp flew over the crowds.
On Tuesday, ahead of the formal start of the NATO “Leaders Summit” on Tuesday evening, a demonstration under the banner of “No to Trump – No to NATO” will be held in the capital.
The second batch of documents includes 295 pages of heavily redacted witness memoranda and notes from FBI interviews, CNN reported. The Justice Department is expected to release a new tranche of memos at the beginning of each month for the next eight years.
A summary of Cohen’s interview sheds new light on efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow amid the 2016 campaign and how much Trump knew about the negotiations.
“Cohen told Trump he spoke with a woman from the Kremlin who had asked specific and great questions about Trump Tower Moscow, and that he wished Trump Organization had assistants that were that good and competent,” an FBI summary said, according to BuzzFeed News.
Sekulow said it was “not necessary to elaborate or include those details because the transaction did not take place.” Per a summary of the interview, Sekulow also said that “Cohen should not contradict Trump and that it was time to move on.”
Cohen in 2018 pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Rosenstein also told FBI interviewers that he was “angry, ashamed, horrified and embarrassed” over the handling of Comey’s ouster in May 2017. He said that by May 9 he had come to the realization that White House officials’ narrative regarding Comey’s firing was “inconsistent with my experience and personal knowledge.”
He claimed that he refused to attend a press conference on Comey’s dismissal. He also said he emphasized to a Justice Department official that the department could not “participate in putting out a false story.”
Hicks told investigators that Trump was “angry, surprised, and frustrated” after Rosenstein appointed Mueller as a special counsel after Comey’s dismissal.
The Justice Department in April released a 448-page report detailing Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference. The investigation did not establish that there was a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 election.
But the report noted that the former special counsel was unable to “conclusively determine” whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.
That theory has gained increased attention amid the House impeachment inquiry into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Trump appeared to reference it during a July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Former administration officials have dismissed the allegations. Tom Bossert, who served in the administration between 2017 and 2018, said in September that he once told Trump the claim is a “completely debunked” conspiracy theory.
Written and designed by The Washington Post and illustrated by artist Jan Feindt, “The Mueller Report Illustrated: The Obstruction Investigation” brings to life the findings of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in an engaging and illuminating presentation.
When it was released on April 18, Mueller’s report laid out two major conclusions: that Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election had been “sweeping and systematic,” and that the evidence did not establish that Trump or his campaign had conspired with the Kremlin. The special counsel left one significant question unanswered: whether the president broke the law by trying to block the probe.
Along with his findings, Mueller provided the public with an extraordinary historical record: a fly-on-the-wall account of life in the White House, told through the eyes of the men and women who served the president and described what they saw to federal investigators. The book and six-part digital series is drawn directly from episodes detailed in the Mueller report in which prosecutors found evidence of possible obstruction of justice, as well as congressional testimony and Washington Post reporting.
LONDON – President Donald Trump lashed out at France’s President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday ahead of scheduled direct talks between the two leaders on the sidelines of NATO meetings talking place in Britain’s capital.
Quarrels over defense spending, fights about trade and climate policy, rifts over Turkey’s actions in Syria, and Iran – Trump is in London for a gathering connected to the military alliance’s 70th anniversary. The official program starts Wednesday.
But ahead of that, Trump said Tuesday recent comments from Macron that NATO is experiencing “brain death” were “very insulting” to the alliance’s other 28 members. “Nobody needs NATO more than France,” he said.
“It’s a very dangerous statement for them to make.”
Trump’s NATO visit now risks being overshadowed by his meeting with Macron.
“Macron is seizing (the) moment, seeking to be disruptive in his own way, and so we will see how that works,” said Heather Conley, a foreign affairs expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
Among Macron’s disruptions: continuing to argue for the relevance of the Iran nuclear deal that Trump has withdrawn from; announcing at the end of August that Europe needed to seek a greater accommodation with Russia and China; and his “brain death comments,” made in an interview in The Economist, and a reference, in part, to NATO member Turkey’s incursion into Kurdish-held Syria to root out fighters it considers terrorists, but who had also been successfully assisting U.S.-led forces battle the Islamic State group. Macron has long argued that Trump’s exit from the international climate accord was a mistake. France’s president’s wants the military alliance, founded in 1949 to act as a bulwark against the then Soviet Union, to pivot more toward fighting global terrorism.
For his part, Trump has repeatedly called the alliance “obsolete” and publicly attacked NATO members for failing to meet defense spending commitments, a scenario that has slowly started to be rectified as more NATO allies meet mandated 2%-of-GDP spending levels. At last year’s NATO summit, Trump arrived late and called Germany “delinquent” and a “captive” of Russia.
In a further ratcheting up of tensions, as Trump arrived in London on Tuesday night the White House said it was considering imposing tariffs on up to $2.4 billion worth of French goods in response to that country’s new digital services tax targeting U.S. technology companies such as Amazon, Facebook and Google.
The tariffs would affect French cheese, wines and handbags.
“(Macron) wants a real strategy discussion” about NATO, said Thomas Gomart, director of IFRI, a Paris-based international relations think tank.
Trump has called the NATO meetings in London “one of the most important journeys that we make as president” and he kicked off a series of meetings Tuesday by holding closed-door talks with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
In wide-ranging remarks to the press, including about Macron’s comments on NATO being “brain dead,” Trump said “NATO serves a great purpose.”
He also criticized France for the digital services tax, saying that “if anyone was going to tax American companies it will be me.”
Trump also addressed the prospect of signing a trade deal with China, saying he “likes the idea of waiting until after the (2020) election” for that agreement.
He described recent violent protests in Iran, in which rights group said more than 200 people were killed, as a “terrible thing.” He confirmed that he will be meeting with Prime Minister Boris Johnson but said he had “no thoughts” about Britain’s impending general election on Dec. 12. The British press has speculated that a meeting with Trump, mired as he is in the impeachment inquiry, may not be a good look for Johnson before the vote. “I don’t want to complicate it,” Trump said of Britain’s election. Later, Trump will participate in a reception with Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace to celebrate the military alliance.
On North Korea, where Trump is trying to get Kim Jong-un to abandon his nuclear weapons program, Trump said that “if you would’ve listened to President Obama, we’ll be in World War 3 right now.” However, talks with North Korea have stalled.
Gulnur Aybet, a senior adviser to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said that her government’s decision to invade northeastern Syria “was not a NATO issue.”
While he won’t be in Washington for Wednesday’s impeachment hearing in which the House Judiciary Committee will unveil witnesses, the inquiry has followed Trump to London. That’s largely by his own design.
“Just landed in the United Kingdom, heading to London for NATO meetings tomorrow. Prior to landing I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?” the U.S. president tweeted after arriving at Stansted Airport on the outskirts of London.
Sitting next to Stoltenberg on Tuesday, Trump said: “I did nothing wrong. You don’t censure somebody when they did nothing wrong.”
The conclusion that the F.B.I. had enough evidence when it opened the Russia investigation will be part of the long-anticipated report that wraps up Mr. Horowitz’s nearly two-year inquiry into aspects of the case, including its origins and whether the F.B.I. abused its surveillance powers when it sought a wiretap of a former Trump campaign adviser.
While Mr. Horowitz is expected to sharply criticize the F.B.I.’s top leaders, he is not expected to find that any of the bureau’s officials acted out of political bias against Mr. Trump when they decided to investigate links between his associates and Russia. Ultimately, Mr. Horowitz concluded that the F.B.I. violated no rules when it began its delicate inquiry, work that not only thrust the bureau into a politically treacherous position, but has also overshadowed much of Mr. Trump’s presidency.
Mr. Horowitz’s “excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves,” Ms. Kupec said in her statement.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, eventually took over the Russia inquiry and affirmed that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election. But he found insufficient evidence to charge any Trump associates with conspiring with the Russian operation and declined to say whether Mr. Trump obstructed the investigation itself.
Mr. Barr, who has for decades expressed a maximalist view of executive authority, has long questioned whether aspects of the inquiry were legitimate. His skepticism began even before he was attorney general, when he wrote a 19-page memo to Justice Department leaders arguing that Mr. Trump was within his authority to fire James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, which Mr. Mueller was investigating as potential obstruction of justice. During a hearing, Mr. Barr told Congress that he believed that “spying” had occurred on the Trump campaign, and that he wanted to determine whether that surveillance was lawfully predicated.
As Mr. Horowitz worked on his review, senior Justice Department officials have also discussed putting in place procedures and guidelines that would force the bureau to get Justice Department approval before opening an investigation on someone like the president, one person who has been briefed on those conversations said.
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"