A busy week in Washington ended Friday night with a major decision in the Senate impeachment trial against President Donald Trump that takes the nation one major step closer to a conclusion.
Democrats allege Trump pursued a pressure campaign to get Ukraine to open investigations that would benefit him politically. He was also accused of withholding aid and a White House meeting from the ally nation in exchange for the investigations.
On Dec. 18, after a two-month inquiry in the Democratic-led House, the House approved two articles of impeachment against Trump – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Get caught up on where things stand and on what’s ahead.
What happened Friday night?
After several hours of deliberations on Friday, the Senate voted to reject introducing additional witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump.
Democrats wanted testimony from four officials, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, but fell short.
Trump’s defense team argued it wasn’t the Senate’s job to finish the investigation begun by the House.
The vote against witnesses went 51-49, largely along party lines.
What happens next?
The Senate will hold a final vote on whether to acquit or convict and remove Trump from office on Wednesday.
The final vote will occur at 4 p.m. EST and will cap a months-long saga over Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
The Wednesday vote will be on whether to convict or acquit Trump on those charges. It’s expected Trump will be acquitted because a conviction requires 67 votes in the 100-member Senate. That would mean all Democrats and at least 20 Republican senators would need to vote for conviction.
The Senate will hold closing arguments on Monday. There will be a total of four hours of arguments, equally divided among the parties. Senators can explain their votes in speeches Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Trump has State of the Union speech Tuesday
Trump has consistently and vehemently denied any wrongdoing during the House impeachment inquiry and Senate trial, calling the whole thing a “hoax” every chance he has gotten while accusing the Democrats of trying to divide the nation.
But White House officials say he will seek to strike an upbeat tone when he delivers his State of the Union speech next week.
Previewing the address on Friday, Trump administration officials said the working title of the annual address is the “Great American Comeback” and the tone will be one of “relentless optimism.”
In general, Trump will focus on five general areas: The economy and trade, working families, health care, immigration and national security. One specific part of the speech will deal with the “school choice” issue, aides said.
Will he mention impeachment? Aides wouldn’t say, adding that it depends in part on whether the trial is over by speech time on Tuesday night.
Media captionThe BBC’s online health editor on what we know about the virus
Countries around the world have closed their borders to arrivals from China, as officials work to control the rapid spread of the coronavirus.
The US and Australia said they would deny entry to all foreign visitors who had recently been in China, where the virus first emerged in December.
Earlier, countries including Russia, Japan, Pakistan and Italy announced similar travel restrictions.
But global health officials have advised against such measures.
“Travel restrictions can cause more harm than good by hindering info-sharing, medical supply chains and harming economies,” the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday.
The WHO recommends introducing screening at official border crossings. It has warned that closing borders could accelerate the spread of the virus, with travellers entering countries unofficially.
China has criticised the wave of travel restrictions, accusing foreign governments of ignoring official advice.
“Just as the WHO recommended against travel restrictions, the US rushed in the opposite direction,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said. “[It is] certainly not a gesture of goodwill.”
What is the latest?
The death toll from the new virus, which is officially called 2019-nCov, now stands at 259.
All the deaths occurred within China and the majority were in Hubei province, where the virus originated.
Almost 12,000 cases have been confirmed and a small proportion of those – around 100 – occurred outside China. The UK, US, Russia and Germany have all confirmed cases in recent days.
The number of coronavirus cases worldwide has overtaken that of the similar Sars epidemic, which spread to more than two dozen countries in 2003.
But the mortality rate of the new virus is much lower than that of Sars, which has led officials to believe it is not as deadly.
Estimates by the University of Hong Kong suggest the total number of cases could be far higher than official figures suggest. More than 75,000 people may have been infected in the city of Wuhan, which is at the epicentre of the outbreak, experts say.
How are countries outside China responding?
A string of travel restrictions have been announced in recent days.
The US, which declared a rare public health emergency, banned entry from all foreign nationals who had visited China in the past two weeks.
US citizens and residents returning from Hubei province, where the outbreak started, will be quarantined for 14 days. Those returning from other parts of China will be allowed to monitor their own condition for a similar period.
Another confirmed case in the US on Friday – in California – brought the number there to seven. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said 191 people were under observation.
Australia, which announced a similar ban, said any of its own citizens arriving from China would be quarantined for two weeks.
Media captionInside the US laboratory developing a coronavirus vaccine
There have also been a number of evacuations from China as foreign governments work to bring their citizens back.
More than 300 Indians arrived in Delhi on Saturday after they were evacuated from Wuhan. Thailand is also set to evacuate its nationals from the city in the coming days.
The UK, South Korea, Singapore and New Zealand are all expected to quarantine evacuees for two weeks to monitor them for symptoms and avoid contagion.
In other recent developments:
China asked the European Union to facilitate the sending of medical supplies from member countries
Vietnam Airlines suspended all flights to China, Hong Kong and Taiwan
Other airlines, including Qantas, Air New Zealand, Air Canada and British Airways, cancelled or scaled back flights
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un offered his condolences in a letter to China’s president
Hotel chains, including Hyatt, Radisson and Hilton, extended their cancellation policies for guests travelling to China
Apple said it would temporarily close its stores in China
The UK announced it would pull dozens of Foreign Office staff out of the mainland
Russia said two Chinese citizens had been placed in isolation after they tested positive for the virus
Germany, Italy, and Sweden confirmed further cases in Europe
Singapore closed its borders to all travellers from China
An entire country in isolation
Image copyright AFP
Analysis by Stephen McDonell, China correspondent
The coronavirus outbreak is all but grinding this economic juggernaut to a halt.
Tianjin, an industrial port city of 15 million people, is the latest metropolis to announce that all non-essential business should stop. Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing are lifeless when compared to their normal selves.
There is a feeling that the entire country is being placed in isolation, with international airlines halting mainland China connections and other countries declaring that Chinese passport holders will be denied entry for the time being.
Yet, in some respects, these governments are following China’s lead after it locked down the entire province of Hubei, where the virus emergency started.
Most people seem to welcome the decisive action from the government, given the circumstances. But officials in Wuhan are being slammed for their slow response in the early stages. Some even worked to prevent the news getting out.
And as if to illustrate how quickly this virus can spread, a doctor who was one of a group of whistleblowers who tried to sound the alarm in December says he now has the virus himself.
Li Wenliang was initially hauled over the coals by local police for “spreading rumours” and “disrupting social order” after he posted a message on his alumni chat group that said his hospital had isolated patients who had contracted Sars.
It turned out to be the new virus, but China’s Supreme Court has criticised Wuhan police for reprimanding him and the other whistleblowers.
Mrs. Clinton lost Iowa in 2008 to Mr. Obama but won the caucuses narrowly over Mr. Sanders in 2016. “I’ll be happy to see the primaries start rolling around because that’s a much easier way for people to participate and for the outcomes to be much clearer,” she said.
Some of her most notable remarks in the podcast interview were about the aftermath of the 2016 primary. At one point, Ms. Tisch Sussman asked Mrs. Clinton of Mr. Sanders, “What do you think that he can do — whether he’s the nominee or not the nominee — to help get to that point of unifying people against Trump?”
“Well, he can do it, for one,” Mrs. Clinton said with a big laugh. “That’s not our experience from 2016.”
She said that she had “very honest, very open” conversations with Mr. Obama in 2008 and that she fully embraced his bid for the White House.
“So fast forward. I mean, you had, unfortunately, a very different outcome in the 2016 primary, where I won by four million votes. I won overwhelmingly in delegates,” Mrs. Clinton said. “There was no question about who was going to be the nominee. But unfortunately, you know, his campaign and his principal supporters were just very difficult and really, constantly not just attacking me, but my supporters.”
“We get to the convention,” she continued. “They’re booing Michelle Obama, John Lewis. It was very distressing and such a contrast between what we did to unite in ’08.”
Reaction and analysis from Fox News contributors Ari Fleischer and Mollie Hemingway.
Democrats knew they never had the legislative clout to get President Trump removed from office, but did know they could try to influence Americans’ opinions about him, Mollie Hemingway said Friday.
“Nobody ever thought this impeachment would ever lead to the removal of the president,” Hemingway, a senior editor for The Federalist, said on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.” “It was always about affecting voters’ thoughts about the president.”
“It was always about affecting voters’ thoughts about the president.”
— Mollie Hemingway
Statements made by some Democrats during this week’s Senate impeachment trial showed they didn’t trust voters to choose the president they wanted, Hemingway added.
Hemingway responded that supporters of progressive candidate Bernie Sanders — the independent U.S. senator from Vermont who has been rising in the polls — would likely say yes. She called that phenomenon the “follow-up” of the idea that the Democratic Party leadership doesn’t trust the electorate.
“There seems to be a lot of concern in the Democratic Party about the rise of Bernie Sanders and there are some drastic measures that people are trying to take to prevent his rise and a high degree of meddling there,” she said.
“There seems to be a lot of concern in the Democratic Party about the rise of Bernie Sanders and there are some drastic measures that people are trying to take to prevent his rise.”
— Mollie Hemingway
Democratic Party leaders have been criticized for making a tweak to the February debate criteria that may pave the way for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to make the cut.
Sanders campaign adviser Jeff Weaver expressed the sentiment in a statement Friday:
“To now change the rules in the middle of the game to accommodate Mike Bloomberg, who is trying to buy his way into the Democratic nomination, is wrong,” Weaver said. “That’s the definition of a rigged system.”
Ingraham added that liberal filmmaker Michael Moore — a Sanders supporter — “went absolutely ballistic” in Iowa at the news that Bloomberg might be included.
Moore deployed an expletive in slamming the Democratic National Committee for “not allow[ing]” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., or former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro on debate stages but potentially allowing the billionaire media mogul Bloomberg.
Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts said Friday it would be “inappropriate” for him to break any 50-50 tie votes during the Trump impeachment trial.
His brief explanation resolved any lingering questions about the issue and appeared to set a precedent against tie-breaking votes for future impeachment proceedings.
The prospect of a possible tie on the vote to call Senate witnesses produced speculation that Roberts might break a 50-50 tie. Some commentators even urged him to do so. Senate rules are silent on the issue, and the strongest evidence that he had such a power was the fact that the chief justice did so twice during the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868.
Asked Friday night in a parliamentary inquiry from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., whether Roberts was aware of those votes by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, Roberts said he was.
“One concerned a motion to adjourn, the other concerned a motion to close deliberations. I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties,” he said.
But Roberts went further to say that a chief justice should not do so, whether or not any such authority existed.
“If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion, the normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”
As it turned out, the vote on calling witnesses was 51 to 49.
“The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,” Pelosi said in a statement.
“With this latest callous decision, the President has doubled down on his cruelty and further undermined our global leadership, our Constitution and our proud heritage as a nation of immigrants,” she added.
The statement comes after the Trump administration announced it would restrict the ability of immigrants from Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania to get certain immigration visas. The new policy does not amount to a blanket travel ban.
Friday’s proclamation will suspend immigrant visas for nationals of Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Eritrea, Nigeria. The restriction only applies to those seeking to live in the U.S. permanently rather than temporary residence. It will also restrict diversity visas for nationals of Sudan and Tanzania.
“Because we have higher confidence that these six countries will be able to make improvements in their system in a reasonable period of time, we did not feel it would be proportionate to impose restrictions on all immigrant and non-immigration visas,” a DHS official said, citing national security concerns as the reason for the restrictions.
Trump implemented the first version of the travel ban just over three years ago against several Muslim-majority nations. A revised version of that ban was later upheld by the Supreme Court, and travel from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen is still restricted.
The administration separately curtailed travel from North Korea and Venezuela.
The first iteration of the ban sparked chaos at national airports and protests across the country, with protesters calling the policy racist.
“President Trump’s security and travel proclamations have immeasurably improved our national security, substantially raised the global standard for information-sharing, and dramatically strengthened the integrity of the United States’ immigration system,” she said. “The orders have been a tremendous and vital success.”
Pelosi said Democrats would oppose the new policy in court and introduce the NO BAN Act to “prohibit religious discrimination in our immigration system and limit the President’s ability to impose such biased and bigoted restrictions.”
“In the Congress and in the Courts, House Democrats will continue to oppose the Administration’s dangerous anti-immigrant agenda,” she said. “We will never allow hatred or bigotry to define our nation or destroy our values.”
The proclamation signed by the president will go into effect Feb. 22.
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"
