Former Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy explains on ‘Hannity.’
Former congressman Trey Gowdy said on “Hannity” Thursday that there is no way President Trump will be convicted by the Senate and removed from office following his impeachment trial and claimed that Democrats’ real objective is to “neuter” the president in a potential second term.
“There is no mathematical way he’s ever going to be convicted and they know that,” Gowdy said. “So their goal cannot be to remove Donald Trump from office. It is to neuter his second term.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Republican senators Thursday that he expects House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to transmit the articles of impeachment against to the upper chamber as soon as Friday, meaning a trial could begin early next week.
Pelosi is facing rising pressure to transmit the articles of impeachment, with members of her own party signaling that they are losing patience with her delay.
Gowdy believes the Democrats’ strategy is to target vulnerable Republican senators with their impeachment vote during the election.
“If Trump wins and he doesn’t have the Senate, then he’s not going to get any judicial vacancies filled. He’s not going to replace a Supreme Court justice if he or she retires. He’s not going to get the foreign policy he wants. He’s not going to get the cabinet he wants,” Gowdy said. “So I never thought this was about removing Donald Trump because they’re not going to do it.”
Gowdy also stated his belief that the Senate Republican leadership has not been deterred by Pelosi holding the impeachment articles and does not feel compelled to call witnesses.
“The good news is the senators that I talk to on a regular basis under the leadership of Mitch McConnell are not falling for Nancy Pelosi’s trick,” Gowdy said. “She can send them and they’ll do what they want, but they are not moved by this three-week pause that she’s engaged in.”
Fox News’ Mike Emmanuel and Alex Pappas contributed to this report.
The United States used the 2001 authorization in dozens of instances to send forces to nations including Libya, Turkey, Georgia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya, the Philippines and Cuba.
Video verified by The New York Times appears to show an Iranian missile hitting a plane above Parand, near Tehran’s airport, the area where a Ukrainian airliner stopped transmitting its signal before it crashed on Wednesday.
A small explosion occurred when a missile hit the plane, but the plane did not explode, the video showed. The jet continued flying for several minutes and turned back toward the airport, The Times has determined. The plane flew toward the airport ablaze before it exploded and crashed quickly, other videos verified by The Times showed.
Visual and sonic clues in the footage matched flight path information and satellite imagery of the area near where the plane crashed. The satellite images were taken on Thursday and provided to The Times by Maxar Technologies, a space technology company. This helped to verify the video’s authenticity.
Americans by more than 2-1 said the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds, amid broad concerns about the potential consequences ahead.
A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called President Donald Trump’s behavior with Iran “reckless.”
Americans were divided on the wisdom of the drone strike at the Baghdad airport last week that killed Soleimani and others: 42% supported it, 33% opposed it; 25% said they didn’t know what to think. Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats; independents were almost evenly split.
But there was overwhelming agreement – in each case by more than 6-1 – that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war (62%).
By 52%-8%, those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons.
The online survey of 1,005 adults, taken Tuesday and Wednesday, has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The Iranian rocket attack on U.S. bases in Iraq took place near the end of the time the poll was in the field. The survey was completed before Trump addressed the nation Wednesday from the White House.
Among the few favorable findings for Trump in the poll was this: A 53% majority agreed that killing Soleimani “shows Iran that the U.S. won’t be pushed around.”
Soleimani, 62, who was seen as one of the Iran’s most powerful figures, led the country’s Quds Force, which is part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and was designated as a terrorist organization last year by the Trump administration. The United States blames Soleimani for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. service members in Iraq and thousands of others in the region.
That said, Americans by 55%-24% said they believe the attack that took his life has made the United States less safe, rejecting a fundamental argument the Trump administration has made. Just 1 in 10 said it had made the U.S. “much more safe;” three times as many said it had made the nation “much less safe.”
Nearly a third of Republicans, who typically support the president, said it had made the nation less safe.
Some saw a domestic political motive behind the attack. By 47%-39%, those surveyed said Trump ordered the killing of Soleimani in an attempt to divert the focus from his impeachment. There was little support for the idea of delaying the Senate impeachment trial until the crisis with Iran was resolved; that was opposed by 55%-26%.
The Trump administration has faced protests from congressional Democrats that the attack was undertaken without consultation with congressional leaders, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday announced the Democratic-controlled House would vote Thursday to require Trump to wind down military action against Iran within 30 days unless Congress approved. The measure is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate.
That said, the survey found a receptive landscape for Congress to act. A double-digit majority, 53%-33%, endorsed congressional action that would limit Trump’s ability to order military strikes or declare war without legislative approval. Supporters included 78% of Democrats, 26% of Republicans and 54% of independents.
Americans are paying attention. Nine of 10 were at least slightly aware of the drone strike; two-thirds were very or somewhat familiar with it.
“The conflict with Iran is front and center in most Americans’ minds,” said Clifford Young, president of U.S. Ipsos Public Affairs. “However Ipsos’s survey for USA TODAY finds that the public is divided on the Soleimani killing. The data suggests that support for the administration’s actions come down to if people view Soleimani as a terrorist figure, which is fair game, or a government official, which is off limits.”
Nearly two-thirds, 64%, approved of the United States killing leaders of terrorist organizations. That dropped to 50% support for the killing of foreign military officers with ties to terror groups, and to 27% support for the killing of military officers of opposing governments. Just 18% supported killing elected officials of opposing governments.
Those surveyed overwhelming opposed U.S. airstrikes on Iranian targets that included cultural and world heritage sites, a threat Trump made and then walked back. One situation did prompt strong support for U.S. airstrikes: If Iran were to kill a major U.S. officer in the Middle East, those surveyed by 55%-21% would support airstrikes on Iranian military targets.
“Well, I have my suspicions. I don’t want to say that, because other people have those suspicions also. … Somebody could’ve made a mistake on the other side,” Trump said about the Ukrainian plane. “Some people say it was mechanical. Personally, I don’t think that’s even a question,” Trump told reporters.
But what might these new livelihoods and income streams entail? And will the family have any say?
Last June, the Sussexes submitted a trademark application for the Sussex Royal foundation on more than 100 items, including hoodies, socks, textbooks and bookmarks. Rather than just selling Sussex swag, the more likely road to (greater) riches for the former soldier and actress could hinge on book deals, speaking engagements and select brand endorsements.
“Given Meghan’s background, social network, and the world she comes from, it wouldn’t surprise me if they moved in a more familiar direction of celebrity should they get approval from the Queen,” said Kenya Hunt, the fashion director of the British magazine Grazia. “Fashion would also be a natural arena for Meghan, given her industry relationships on both sides of the Atlantic. This news has been very dramatic — people are shocked — but whatever happens with the palace, there will still be a group of fans who admire her style.”
Whatever the Sussexes choose to do, Mr. Haigh of Brand Finance said he did not expect it to hurt the long term clout of the rest of the royal family.
“The royal family generates at least £2 billion of annual incremental revenue to the British market, from promoting endorsements and royal warrants to bolstering soft power; Kate and William were driving that long before Meghan arrived on the scene,” he said. “The growth thanks to the next generation may be less than was hoped for after this, but I doubt the cash flow will actually decline. ‘The firm’ remains too strong an institution.”
A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called Trump’s behavior with Iran “reckless.”
Americans were divided on the wisdom of the drone strike at the Baghdad airport last week that killed Soleimani and others: 42% supported it, 33% opposed it; 25% said they didn’t know what to think. Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats; independents were almost evenly split.
But there was overwhelming agreement – in each case by more than 6-1 – that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war with each other (62%).
By 52%-8%, those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons.
The online survey of 1,005 adults, taken Tuesday and Wednesday, has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The Iranian rocket attack on U.S. bases in Iraq took place near the end of the time the poll was in the field. The survey was completed before President Trump addressed the nation from the White House Wednesday.
Among the few favorable findings for Trump in the poll was this: A 53% majority agreed that killing Soleimani “shows Iran that the U.S. won’t be pushed around.”
Soleimani, a 62-year-old Iranian general who was seen as one of the country’s most powerful figures, led Iran’s Quds Force, which is part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and was designated as a terrorist organization in 2019 by the Trump administration. The United States blames Soleimani for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. service member deaths in Iraq and thousands of others in the region.
That said, Americans by 55%-24% believe the attack that took his life has made the United States less safe, rejecting a fundamental argument the Trump administration has made. Just one in 10 said it had made the U.S. “much more safe;” three times as many said it had made the nation “much less safe.”
Nearly a third of Republicans, who typically support the president, said it had made the nation less safe.
Some saw a domestic political motive behind the attack. By 47%-39%, those surveyed said Trump ordered the killing of Soleimani in an attempt to divert the focus from his impeachment. There was little support for the idea of delaying the Senate impeachment trial until the crisis with Iran was resolved; that was opposed by 55%-26%.
The Trump administration has faced protests from congressional Democrats that the attack was undertaken without consultation with congressional leaders, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday announced the Democratic-controlled House would vote Thursday to require Trump to wind down military action against Iran within 30 days unless Congress approved. The measure is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate.
That said, the survey found a receptive landscape for Congress to act. A double-digit majority, 53%-33%, endorsed congressional action that would limit Trump’s ability to order military strikes or declare war without legislative approval. Supporters included 78% of Democrats, 26% of Republicans and 54% of independents.
Americans are paying attention. Nine of 10 were at least slightly aware of the drone strike; two-thirds were very or somewhat familiar with it.
“The conflict with Iran is front and center in most Americans’ minds,” said Clifford Young, president of U.S. Ipsos Public Affairs. “However Ipsos’s survey for USA TODAY finds that the public is divided on the Soleimani killing. The data suggests that support for the administration’s actions come down to if people view Soleimani as a terrorist figure, which is fair game, or a government official, which is off limits.”
Nearly two-thirds, 64%, approved of the United States killing leaders of terrorist organizations. That dropped to 50% support for the killing of foreign military officers with ties to terror groups, and to 27% support for the killing of military officers of opposing governments. Just 18% supported killing elected officials of opposing governments.
Those surveyed overwhelming opposed U.S. air strikes on Iranian targets that included cultural and world heritage sites, a threat Trump made and then walked back. One situation did prompt strong support for U.S. air strikes: If Iran were to kill a major U.S. officer in the Middle East, those surveyed by 55%-21% would support air strikes on Iranian military targets.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi saw it differently: “This means more polluters will be right there next to the water supply of our children. That’s a public health issue,” she said.
The changes, which would affect the regulations that guide implementation of the law but not the law itself, are expected to appear in the federal register on Friday. There will be a 60-day window for public comment and two public hearings before a final regulation is issued, most likely in the fall.
Legal scholars and environmental groups, which are almost certain to sue to block the changes, said the proposals threatened to undermine the safety of communities by letting agencies ignore how rising sea levels might affect a given project as well as the consequences of higher emissions on the atmosphere.
Richard L. Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University, said he did not believe the changes would hold up in court. The Environmental Policy Act requires that all the environmental consequences of a project be taken into account, he said, and that core requirement cannot be changed by fiat.
“A regulation can’t change the requirements of a statute as interpreted by the courts,” Mr. Revesz said. In fact, he argued, it is more likely that federal agencies will be sued for inadequate reviews, “thereby leading to far longer delays than if they had done a proper analysis in the first place.”
Ms. Neumayr stressed that the changes did not prevent or exclude consideration of the impact of greenhouse gases; consideration would no longer be required.
Representative Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, called the changes a giveaway to the fossil fuel industries.
Facebook says it will continue to allow political ads to be targeted to only small groups of its users. Here, Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is seen visiting Congress for a hearing last October.
Erin Scott/Reuters
hide caption
toggle caption
Erin Scott/Reuters
Facebook says it will continue to allow political ads to be targeted to only small groups of its users. Here, Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is seen visiting Congress for a hearing last October.
Erin Scott/Reuters
Facebook will continue to allow political ads to target its users, sticking to its position despite sharp criticisms and concerns about the social media platform’s potential impact on the upcoming presidential election. Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub is sharply criticizing the policy, saying Facebook’s “weak plan suggests the company has no idea how seriously it is hurting democracy.”
The tech giant’s policy falls short of measures recently taken by both Google, which says it will limit the ability of political ads to target an audience, and Twitter, which banned political ads entirely.
Taking aim at the new policy in a series of tweets Thursday morning, Weintraub, a Democrat, said, “I am not willing to bet the 2020 elections on the proposition that Facebook has solved its problems with a solution whose chief feature appears to be that it doesn’t seriously impact the company’s profit margins.”
Facebook also says it’s not changing how it handles the content of ads. While the company says its community standards bar hate speech and harmful content, the policy announced Thursday does not address calls from those who want the company to fact-check ads before it publishes them.
Facebook’s director of product management, Rob Leathern, wrote, “people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all, and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public.”
Facebook says it shouldn’t be in the business of fact-checking, that the U.S. needs new laws to govern political speech on social media – and to a degree, the American Civil Liberties Union agrees.
“This will not be a popular view. But on the whole, we think that Facebook got this right,” says Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, of the social media company’s new policy.
Describing the gray area that political ads often occupy, Wizner added, “I don’t think Facebook is capable of doing effective fact-checking, and I don’t think as a society we should want Facebook to be the entity that’s making those kinds of distinctions.”
Part of the issue, he says is the massive scale of political ads – not only at the federal, state and local levels in the U.S., but also in every country in which Facebook operates. Wizner predicts that if Facebook took up fact-checking in earnest, it would be inundated with demands from candidates and political campaigns that want the other side’s ads taken down, rather than responding to them in public.
Despite backing part of Facebook’s revised policy, Wizner agrees with critics who say the company should change how it handles targeted political advertising.
“There is something different about online microtargeted advertisements and the kind of political advertisements that we’ve mainly seen in the past, on radio and television,” he says. With targeted ad campaigns, he adds, “it’s possible for candidates to send one advertisement to me and a different one to my neighbor across the street. And so that makes it easier for lies to go uncorrected.”
Among the changes Wizner would like to see: more information from Facebook about which users have been targeted with political ads, so misleading information can be rebutted.
“If a candidate is going to run an ad that goes only to men in one neighborhood, or only to women in another, then we should know who the target audience was,” he says. “So that if the ad contains falsehoods, we know how to better target our responses and corrections. And Facebook should consider raising the minimum number of targeted audience members for ads — so that we’re dealing with a more common political conversation, and not a different one for each household.”
The FEC’s Weintraub has urged tech companies to take an aggressive stand against microtargeting potential voters with ads. In an opinion piece for The Washington Post last November, Weintraub wrote, “Microtargeting by foreign and domestic actors in 2016 proved to be a potent weapon for spreading disinformation and sowing discord.”
Facebook promises its approach will bring “unprecedented transparency and control for political ads.” But its solution doesn’t satisfy critics who say Facebook’s users still won’t be able to opt out completely and block all political or social issue ads. Experts also note that the tools Facebook is giving to its users can be complicated to use and can be easily overlooked as just another “terms of service” bulletin.
“More transparency and user control over advertising is an undeniably good thing, but this policy still doesn’t go far enough,” says Nina Jankowicz who studies technology and politics as the Disinformation Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.
Jankowicz says that while Facebook is giving people more control of the political ads they see, many users could have trouble navigating its tools.
“How many people understand the way microtargeting works, let alone Facebook’s Custom Audience feature, which allows advertisers to target on an even more precise level?” she asks.
Jankowicz says Facebook should offer the controls in an easy-to-use design, and do more to educate its more than 2 billion users about what the changes mean. And she believes people who are on Facebook should also regularly review how their profiles handle politics.
“Like democratic discourse, this should be a feature that users are constantly interacting with and adjusting based on their own inclinations and personal experiences on the site,” she says. “Based on Facebook’s track record with features like these, I’m not sure that’s going to happen.”
As Facebook’s Leathern discussed the company’s ad policy, he also acknowledged those who are unhappy with its practices.
“We recognize this is an issue that has provoked much public discussion — including much criticism of Facebook’s position,” Leathern wrote. “We are not deaf to that and will continue to work with regulators and policy makers in our ongoing efforts to help protect elections.”
Media captionRoyal correspondent Jonny Dymond: “It is very clear the palace is very upset about what has happened”
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.
In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.
The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.
Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.
In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”
They said they plan to balance their time between the UK and North America while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.
“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.”
‘Major rift’
BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the fact palace officials said they were “disappointed” is “pretty strong”.
“I think it indicates a real strength of feeling in the palace tonight – maybe not so much about what has been done but about how it has been done – and the lack of consultation I think will sting.
“This is clearly a major rift between Harry and Meghan on one part, and the rest of the Royal Family on the other.”
Image copyright Getty Images
A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the duke and duchess on their decision to step back were “at an early stage”, adding: “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
Over Christmas, the couple took a six-week break from royal duties to spend some time in Canada with their son, Archie, who was born in May.
After returning to the UK on Tuesday, Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, visited Canada’s High Commission in London to thank the country for hosting them and said the warmth and hospitality they received was “unbelievable”.
Image copyright PA Media
Image caption
The couple, together with their son Archie, recently spent time in Canada
During the visit, Meghan said it was an “incredible time” to enjoy the “beauty of Canada”.
“To see Archie go ‘ah’ when you walk by, and just see how stunning it is – so it meant a lot to us.”
Former actress Meghan lived and worked in Toronto during her time starring in the popular US drama Suits, and she has several Canadian friends.
Close up, it was painfully clear that there were great chunks of the job they simply could not stand.
Both of them appeared to come alive with the crowds. But Harry hated the cameras and was visibly bored by the ceremonial.
And though Meghan was often the consummate professional, at times her impatience with the everyday slog of the role sometimes broke through.
She said she didn’t want to become a voiceless figurehead; but when she raised her voice, she found criticism waiting for her.
They both made their feelings known in the 2019 interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby.
But beyond the detail, what was so shocking was how unhappy they both seemed. The sun-drenched wedding of the year before seemed like a dream; here were two people visibly struggling with their lives and positions.
There are far more questions than answers; what will their new role be? Where will they live, and who will pay for it? What relationship will they have with the rest of the Royal Family?
And there’s the institutional question. What does this mean for the Royal Family?
It comes just a few months after Prince Andrew stepped back from his duties. Some might see this as the slimmed-down monarchy that the 21st century needs.
But Harry and Meghan reached people that other royals didn’t.
They were part of the reinvention and refreshing of the institution. This was not the way anyone would have planned its future.
Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter suggested the decision showed Prince Harry’s “heart ruling his head”.
He told the BBC the “massive press onslaught” when their son Archie was born may have played a part in the decision.
And he compared the move to Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936 in order to marry twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson.
“That is the only other precedent, but there’s been nothing like this in modern times,” Mr Arbiter said.
Image copyright PA
Image caption
Meghan and Prince Harry married in May 2018
Asked how being a “part-time” member of the Royal Family might work, Mr Arbiter said he did not know.
“If they’re going to be based in the UK, it means they are going to be doing a lot of flying [with] a big carbon footprint,” he said, adding that this may “raise eyebrows”.
He also questioned how the couple would become financially independent.
“I mean, Harry is not a poor man, but to settle yourself in two different continents, to raise a family, to continue to do your work – how’s the work going to be funded?
“How is their security going to be funded?
“Because they’re still going to have to have security – who’s going to have to pay for this? Where’s the security coming from? Is the Metropolitan Police going to be providing it and if so whether there’s going to be any contribution in covering the security cost?”
Mr Arbiter also suggested questions would be raised over why £2.4m of taxpayer’s money was spent on renovating the couple’s home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, if they will now be living elsewhere for some of the year.
Image copyright Reuters
Image caption
Harry and Meghan met senior Canadian diplomats in London earlier this week
BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the couple have “considerable savings”, including Harry’s inheritance from Princess Diana’s estate and the money Meghan earned as an actress.
But, asked about whether they might get jobs, he added: “There is a problem for members of the Royal Family – relatively senior ones, even if they say they’re no longer senior – getting jobs, because they are seen to monetise their brand and you run into a whole host of questions about conflict of interest”.
He added that we are now in “wait and see mode” as to whether this new model of being a royal can work – “or if this is really a staging post for them to leave the Royal Family”.
The Prince of Wales pays for the public duties of Harry, Meghan, William and Kate and some of their private costs, out of his Duchy of Cornwall income, which was £21.6m last year.
Accounts from Clarence House show this funding – in the year Meghan officially joined the Royal Family – stood at just over £5m, up 1.8% on 2017-18.
Royal author Penny Junor said she “can’t quite see how it’s going to work”, adding: “I don’t think it’s been properly thought through.”
“I think it’s extraordinary but also I think it’s rather sad,” she said. “They may not feel they are particularly loved but actually they are very much loved.”
Media caption“Not many people have asked if I’m OK,” says Meghan
In an ITV documentary last year, Meghan admitted motherhood was a “struggle” due to intense interest from newspapers.
Prince Harry also responded to reports of a rift between him and his brother William, the Duke of Cambridge, by saying they were on “different paths”.
In October, the duchess began legal action against the Mail on Sunday over a claim that it unlawfully published one of her private letters.
And the duke also began legal action against the owners of the Sun, the defunct News of the World, and the Daily Mirror, in relation to alleged phone-hacking.
Media captionPrince Harry on his brother, William: “We are certainly on different paths at the moment”
Prince Harry also released a statement, saying: “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
The duke and duchess moved out of Kensington Palace, where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge live, in 2018 to set up their family home in Windsor.
Then last summer, they split from the charity they shared with Prince William and Kate to set up their own charitable projects.
The couple’s announcement on Wednesday comes two months after the Duke of York withdrew from public life after a BBC interview about his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in August.
The system is deployed on a tracked vehicle with a crew of four, who can autonomously identify targets and fire the missiles, according to the reference book “Russia’s Arms.” The book, published by Russia’s state weapons exporter, says the system is “designed to destroy,” airplanes, helicopters, drones and missiles at low altitudes.
At Boryspil International Airport near Kyiv, where Flight 752 had been due to land, grieving flight attendants tended to candles set on the floor in front of a makeshift memorial to the nine crew members who had lost their lives. Black-framed portraits of the victims, their names printed on folded sheets of printer paper, rested on a table in front of a pile of flowers several feet high.
A flight attendant named Tatyana, who declined to give her last name because she was not authorized to speak to the news media, said she had visited the memorial on Wednesday evening to pay her respects. She said she had flown the Tehran route before, adding that she always understood that the flight came with additional risks because of the political volatility surrounding Iran.
“Of course there were concerns, risks to those flights,” she said. “We took this responsibility upon ourselves when we joined the airline — to be ready for anything to happen.”
House Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., said Thursday that “it is time” for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to transmit the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate.
Smith’s call comes as several Democratic senators this week have pushed for Pelosi to send the articles to the Senate so the trial can begin.
“I understand what the speaker is trying to do, basically trying to use the leverage of that to work with Democratic and Republican senators to try to get a reasonable trial, a trial that would actually show evidence, bring out witnesses,” Smith told CNN. “But at the end of the day, just like we control it in the House, [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell controls it in the Senate.”
“I think it was perfectly advisable for the speaker to try to leverage that to get a better deal,” he continued. “At this point, it doesn’t look like that is going to happen. And yes, I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is.”
Democratic senators such as Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have made similar comments in recent days.
“I don’t quite know what the strategy is, but it doesn’t — if you’re going to do it, do it, if you’re not going to do it, don’t,” Feinstein told NBC News. “And obviously they’re going to do it, so I don’t understand the delay.”
“It is important that [McConnell] immediately publish this resolution, so that, as I have said before, we can see the arena in which we will be participating, appoint managers and transmit the articles to the Senate,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to colleagues Tuesday.
No trial can begin until the articles are sent.
McConnell, R-Ky., has said he wants the Senate to conform to the procedure from former President Bill Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial, which amounted to a two-step process: an initial agreement to hear the case and a later vote to decide whether to call witnesses.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has pushed for a single resolution that would set parameters for presenting the case and calling witnesses. Schumer wants the Senate to call four witnesses to testify about Trump’s Ukraine conduct, including former national security adviser John Bolton, who announced this week he would testify if subpoenaed, and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
McConnell, who in December vowed “total coordination” with the White House on the impeachment trial proceedings, said Tuesday he has the votes to set his desired process.
Last month, the House approved the two articles of impeachment against Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
“PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Trump tweeted Thursday morning, repeating a refrain he and top Republicans have been using since Democrats won the House majority late last year.
Image caption
Nancy Pelosi (centre) has demanded Republicans “immediately” publish their proposed trial rules
The US Congress’ most powerful Democrat is losing support among Senate allies as she holds up President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has delayed sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate in a tussle over rules with Republicans.
Senator Dianne Feinstein called on Mrs Pelosi, her fellow California Democrat and ex-neighbour, to “send it over”.
The Senate’s Republican leader vowed there would be “no haggling”.
Mitch McConnell said he can muster the majority of 51 votes needed among his fellow Republicans in the Senate to codify the proceedings without Democratic support.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption
Senator Dianne Feinstein is a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee
Senate Democrats said prolonging the standoff would be pointless.
“The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes,” Senator Feinstein said on Wednesday, Bloomberg News reported.
“So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over.”
The political trial of Mr Trump cannot begin until the Democratic-controlled House sends its articles of impeachment, the charges against the president, to the Senate.
Senator Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, told Politico: “I respect the fact that [Pelosi] is concerned about the fact about whether or not there will be a fair trial, but I do think it is time to get on with it.”
Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, said: “I don’t know what leverage we have. It looks like the cake is already baked.”
Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, also said he believed it was time to start the Senate trial.
Mr Trump was impeached by the House in December on allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The Republican president is accused of withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden.
Democratic leaders have argued that witnesses and new documents should be allowed in the Senate trial.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will not haggle with Democrats over the rules
They have also criticised Mr McConnell for saying he would work in “total co-ordination” with the White House during the proceedings.
Mrs Pelosi said in a letter to fellow Democrats on Tuesday that she would not send the articles of impeachment across the Congress building until Republicans “immediately” publish their proposed rules so “we can see the arena in which we will be participating”.
Mr McConnell said the rules would be “essentially the same” as those for the 1998 impeachment trial of Democratic President Bill Clinton, which also began without an agreement on witnesses.
Speaking on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Mr McConnell said: “There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure. We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment.”
He accused Mrs Pelosi of wanting to keep Mr Trump “in limbo”.
Mrs Pelosi’s counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and House Democrats have stood by her.
Mr Trump is the third president in US history to be impeached.
The Senate is unlikely to come up with the 67 votes needed to remove him from office given that his fellow Republicans control the chamber by 53 votes to 47.
“The trajectory of the collision indicated that the plane was initially moving toward the west, but after encountering a problem, it turned to the right and was approaching the airport again at the time of the crash,” Ali Abedzadeh, the head of the Civil Aviation Organization, said in the report.
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"
