Several coronavirus vaccine trials will soon be finished and some of the frontrunners might be deemed safe and effective for emergency use.
Health officials from the World Health Organization and Dr. Anthony Fauci warn that the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines won’t be enough to reduce the transmission of the illness anytime soon.
Fauci says that precautionary measures including face masks, social distancing, and frequent handwashing will need to continue even after vaccines arrive.
The FDA will host a significant coronavirus vaccine meeting in just a few weeks, at which point we might find out more details about the progress of experimental drugs that have reached the final phase of testing. Vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca/Oxford, Pfizer/BioNTech, and Moderna have Phase 3 trials underway and some of them expect to have conclusions in the coming months — one has been paused the US trial after an unexpected side effect in one person, although the UK trial has already been restarted. Vaccine candidates from Johnson & Johnson and Novavax are also moving forward with promising results, with the latter having just reached Phase 3. That’s only five potential COVID-19 vaccines out of dozens of candidates that have been announced so far. China and Russia have their own vaccines in Phase 3 trials, and both countries have already started administering emergency immunizations.
Vaccination remains a sensitive topic, as more polls show that Americans are increasingly reluctant to get one. Some people worry about the safety of these drugs that have moved forward at such an unusual speed, especially in light of the highly politicized nature of vaccine conversations ahead of the November election. A large percentage of the world’s population will have to be vaccinated to reduce the transmission rate of COVID-19. The logistics of manufacturing and deploying vaccines combined with vaccine resistance would lead to something that might seem counterintuitive. The arrival of vaccines will not mark an end for the need to wear face masks and take other precautionary measures that can prevent infection. It’s quite the contrary, as Dr. Anthony Fauci and World Health Organization officials recently explained.
Fauci said on Thursday that no coronavirus vaccine will be 100% effective, and it won’t be taken by 100% of the population. This will allow the virus to continue to spread. An effective vaccine would therefore not mean people can stop wearing face masks and taking other public health measures, like social distancing and washing hands regularly.
“It is not going to eliminate the need to be prudent and careful with our public health measures,” Fauci said during a Facebook Live conversation with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, per Associated Press. “I think if we can get 75 to 80% of the population vaccinated, I think that would be a really good accomplishment,” Fauci said of vaccines, noting that he’s practical about the matter.
The doctor also addressed a recent CDC controversy regarding aerosol transmission. “There’s good enough data to say that aerosol transmission does occur,” Fauci told Murphy. The virus lingers in the air “for a period of time,” instead of falling to the ground, which is what happens with larger saliva droplets.
WHO officials echoed those remarks on Friday when addressing the imminent milestone of the COVID-19 pandemic. The illness will have killed its one-millionth victim by Monday, according to covid trackers. WHO said that figure might double in if countries do not work uniformly to reduce the spread. It’s not just vaccines that will prevent the spread of the illness, but also public health measures that can reduce the transmission.
“It’s certainly unimaginable, but it’s not impossible, because if we look at losing 1 million people in nine months and then we just look at the realities of getting vaccines out there in the next nine months, it’s a big task for everyone involved,” executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies program, Dr. Mike Ryan, said during a news conference in Geneva. “The real question is: Are we prepared, collectively, to do what it takes to avoid that number?”
Like Fauci, Ryan said that vaccines have to be combined with everything else that can prevent the infection, including face masks.
“The time for action is now on every single aspect of this strategic approach,” Ryan said. “Not just test and trace, not just clinical care, not just social distancing, not just hygiene, not just masks, not just vaccines. Do it all. And unless we do it all, [2 million deaths] are not only imaginable but unfortunately and sadly very likely.”
WHO’s technical lead on the pandemic, Maria Van Kerkhove, warned that the number of cases in Europe is rising and that the flu season hasn’t even started. “We’re at the end of September, not even toward the end of September, and we haven’t even started our flu season yet,” she said. “What we are worried about is the possibility that these trends are going in the wrong direction.”
Dr. Bruce Aylward, a senior advisor to the WHO director-general, made a point that the endgame shouldn’t be vaccines. “Whether another million people die of Covid-19 is not a function of whether or not we have a vaccine. It’s a function of whether or not we put the tools, approaches, and knowledge we have today to work to save lives and prevent transmission,” Aylward said. “If we start thinking about it as a function of the vaccine, people will unnecessarily and unacceptably die as we wait for a vaccine. We should not be waiting.”
The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.
Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.
He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.
As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing, his finances are under stress, beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed. Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million.
The tax returns that Mr. Trump has long fought to keep private tell a story fundamentally different from the one he has sold to the American public. His reports to the I.R.S. portray a businessman who takes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year yet racks up chronic losses that he aggressively employs to avoid paying taxes. Now, with his financial challenges mounting, the records show that he depends more and more on making money from businesses that put him in potential and often direct conflict of interest with his job as president.
The New York Times has obtained tax-return data extending over more than two decades for Mr. Trump and the hundreds of companies that make up his business organization, including detailed information from his first two years in office. It does not include his personal returns for 2018 or 2019. This article offers an overview of The Times’s findings; additional articles will be published in the coming weeks.
The returns are some of the most sought-after, and speculated-about, records in recent memory. In Mr. Trump’s nearly four years in office — and across his endlessly hyped decades in the public eye — journalists, prosecutors, opposition politicians and conspiracists have, with limited success, sought to excavate the enigmas of his finances. By their very nature, the filings will leave many questions unanswered, many questioners unfulfilled. They comprise information that Mr. Trump has disclosed to the I.R.S., not the findings of an independent financial examination. They report that Mr. Trump owns hundreds of millions of dollars in valuable assets, but they do not reveal his true wealth. Nor do they reveal any previously unreported connections to Russia.
In response to a letter summarizing The Times’s findings, Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, said that “most, if not all, of the facts appear to be inaccurate” and requested the documents on which they were based. After The Times declined to provide the records, in order to protect its sources, Mr. Garten took direct issue only with the amount of taxes Mr. Trump had paid.
“Over the past decade, President Trump has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government, including paying millions in personal taxes since announcing his candidacy in 2015,” Mr. Garten said in a statement.
With the term “personal taxes,” however, Mr. Garten appears to be conflating income taxes with other federal taxes Mr. Trump has paid — Social Security, Medicare and taxes for his household employees. Mr. Garten also asserted that some of what the president owed was “paid with tax credits,” a misleading characterization of credits, which reduce a business owner’s income-tax bill as a reward for various activities, like historic preservation.
The tax data examined by The Times provides a road map of revelations, from write-offs for the cost of a criminal defense lawyer and a mansion used as a family retreat to a full accounting of the millions of dollars the president received from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
Together with related financial documents and legal filings, the records offer the most detailed look yet inside the president’s business empire. They reveal the hollowness, but also the wizardry, behind the self-made-billionaire image — honed through his star turn on “The Apprentice” — that helped propel him to the White House and that still undergirds the loyalty of many in his base.
Ultimately, Mr. Trump has been more successful playing a business mogul than being one in real life.
“The Apprentice,” along with the licensing and endorsement deals that flowed from his expanding celebrity, brought Mr. Trump a total of $427.4 million, The Times’s analysis of the records found. He invested much of that in a collection of businesses, mostly golf courses, that in the years since have steadily devoured cash — much as the money he secretly received from his father financed a spree of quixotic overspending that led to his collapse in the early 1990s.
Indeed, his financial condition when he announced his run for president in 2015 lends some credence to the notion that his long-shot campaign was at least in part a gambit to reanimate the marketability of his name.
As the legal and political battles over access to his tax returns have intensified, Mr. Trump has often wondered aloud why anyone would even want to see them. “There’s nothing to learn from them,” he told The Associated Press in 2016. There is far more useful information, he has said, in the annual financial disclosures required of him as president — which he has pointed to as evidence of his mastery of a flourishing, and immensely profitable, business universe.
In fact, those public filings offer a distorted picture of his financial state, since they simply report revenue, not profit. In 2018, for example, Mr. Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses.
Tax records do not have the specificity to evaluate the legitimacy of every business expense Mr. Trump claims to reduce his taxable income — for instance, without any explanation in his returns, the general and administrative expenses at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey increased fivefold from 2016 to 2017. And he has previously bragged that his ability to get by without paying taxes “makes me smart,” as he said in 2016. But the returns, by his own account, undercut his claims of financial acumen, showing that he is simply pouring more money into many businesses than he is taking out.
The picture that perhaps emerges most starkly from the mountain of figures and tax schedules prepared by Mr. Trump’s accountants is of a businessman-president in a tightening financial vise.
Most of Mr. Trump’s core enterprises — from his constellation of golf courses to his conservative-magnet hotel in Washington — report losing millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars year after year.
His revenue from “The Apprentice” and from licensing deals is drying up, and several years ago he sold nearly all the stocks that now might have helped him plug holes in his struggling properties.
The tax audit looms.
And within the next four years, more than $300 million in loans — obligations for which he is personally responsible — will come due.
Against that backdrop, the records go much further toward revealing the actual and potential conflicts of interest created by Mr. Trump’s refusal to divest himself of his business interests while in the White House. His properties have become bazaars for collecting money directly from lobbyists, foreign officials and others seeking face time, access or favor; the records for the first time put precise dollar figures on those transactions.
At the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., a flood of new members starting in 2015 allowed him to pocket an additional $5 million a year from the business. In 2017, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association paid at least $397,602 to the Washington hotel, where the group held at least one event during its four-day World Summit in Defense of Persecuted Christians.
The Times was also able to take the fullest measure to date of the president’s income from overseas, where he holds ultimate sway over American diplomacy. When he took office, Mr. Trump said he would pursue no new foreign deals as president. Even so, in his first two years in the White House, his revenue from abroad totaled $73 million. And while much of that money was from his golf properties in Scotland and Ireland, some came from licensing deals in countries with authoritarian-leaning leaders or thorny geopolitics — for example, $3 million from the Philippines, $2.3 million from India and $1 million from Turkey.
He reported paying taxes, in turn, on a number of his overseas ventures. In 2017, the president’s $750 contribution to the operations of the U.S. government was dwarfed by the $15,598 he or his companies paid in Panama, the $145,400 in India and the $156,824 in the Philippines.
Mr. Trump’s U.S. payment, after factoring in his losses, was roughly equivalent, in dollars not adjusted for inflation, to another presidential tax bill revealed nearly a half-century before. In 1973, The Providence Journal reported that, after a charitable deduction for donating his presidential papers, Richard M. Nixon had paid $792.81 in 1970 on income of about $200,000.
The leak of Mr. Nixon’s small tax payment caused a precedent-setting uproar: Henceforth, presidents, and presidential candidates, would make their tax returns available for the American people to see.
A Map of the Empire
The contents of thousands of personal and business tax records fill in financial details that have been withheld for years.
“I would love to do that,” Mr. Trump said in 2014 when asked whether he would release his taxes if he ran for president. He’s been backpedaling ever since.
When he ran, he said he might make his taxes public if Hillary Clinton did the same with the deleted emails from her private server — an echo of his taunt, while stoking the birther fiction, that he might release the returns if President Barack Obama released his birth certificate. He once boasted that his tax returns were “very big” and “beautiful.” But making them public? “It’s very complicated.” He often claims that he cannot do so while under audit — an argument refuted by his own I.R.S. commissioner. When prosecutors and congressional investigators issued subpoenas for his returns, he wielded not just his private lawyers but also the power of his Justice Department to stalemate them all the way to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Trump’s elaborate dance and defiance have only stoked suspicion about what secrets might lie hidden in his taxes. Is there a financial clue to his deference to Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin? Did he write off as a business expense the hush-money payment to the pornographic film star Stormy Daniels in the days before the 2016 election? Did a covert source of money feed his frenzy of acquisition that began in the mid-2000s?
The Times examined and analyzed the data from thousands of individual and business tax returns for 2000 through 2017, along with additional tax information from other years. The trove included years of employee compensation information and records of cash payments between the president and his businesses, as well as information about ongoing federal audits of his taxes. This article also draws upon dozens of interviews and previously unreported material from other sources, both public and confidential.
All of the information The Times obtained was provided by sources with legal access to it. While most of the tax data has not previously been made public, The Times was able to verify portions of it by comparing it with publicly available information and confidential records previously obtained by The Times.
To delve into the records is to see up close the complex structure of the president’s business interests — and the depth of his entanglements. What is popularly known as the Trump Organization is in fact a collection of more than 500 entities, virtually all of them wholly owned by Mr. Trump, many carrying his name. For example, 105 of them are a variation of the name Trump Marks, which he uses for licensing deals.
Fragments of Mr. Trump’s tax returns have leaked out before.
Transcripts of his main federal tax form, the 1040, from 1985 to 1994, were obtained by The Times in 2019. They showed that, in many years, Mr. Trump lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer. Three pages of his 1995 returns, mailed anonymously to The Times during the 2016 campaign, showed that Mr. Trump had declared losses of $915.7 million, giving him a tax deduction that could have allowed him to avoid federal income taxes for almost two decades. Five months later, the journalist David Cay Johnston obtained two pages of Mr. Trump’s returns from 2005; that year, his fortunes had rebounded to the point that he was paying taxes.
The vast new trove of information analyzed by The Times completes the recurring pattern of ascent and decline that has defined the president’s career. Even so, it has its limits.
Tax returns do not, for example, record net worth — in Mr. Trump’s case, a topic of much posturing and almost as much debate. The documents chart a great churn of money, but while returns report debts, they often do not identify lenders.
The data contains no new revelations about the $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford, the actress who performs as Stormy Daniels — a focus of the Manhattan district attorney’s subpoena for Mr. Trump’s tax returns and other financial information. Mr. Trump has acknowledged reimbursing his former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, who made the payoff, but the materials obtained by The Times did not include any itemized payments to Mr. Cohen. The amount, however, could have been improperly included in legal fees written off as a business expense, which are not required to be itemized on tax returns.
No subject has provoked more intense speculation about Mr. Trump’s finances than his connection to Russia. While the tax records revealed no previously unknown financial connection — and, for the most part, lack the specificity required to do so — they did shed new light on the money behind the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, a subject of enduring intrigue because of subsequent investigations into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
The records show that the pageant was the most profitable Miss Universe during Mr. Trump’s time as co-owner, and that it generated a personal payday of $2.3 million — made possible, at least in part, by the Agalarov family, who would later help set up the infamous 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials seeking “dirt” on Mrs. Clinton and a Russian lawyer connected to the Kremlin.
In August, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that looked extensively into the circumstances of the Moscow pageant, and revealed that as recently as February, investigators subpoenaed the Russian singer Emin Agalarov, who was involved in planning it. Mr. Agalarov’s father, Aras, a billionaire who boasts of close ties to Mr. Putin, was Mr. Trump’s partner in the event.
The committee interviewed a top Miss Universe executive, Paula Shugart, who said the Agalarovs offered to underwrite the event; their family business, Crocus Group, paid a $6 million licensing fee and another $6 million in expenses. But while the pageant proved to be a financial loss for the Agalarovs — they recouped only $2 million — Ms. Shugart told investigators that it was “one of the most lucrative deals” the Miss Universe organization ever made, according to the report.
That is borne out by the tax records. They show that in 2013, the pageant reported $31.6 million in gross receipts — the highest since at least the 1990s — allowing Mr. Trump and his co-owner, NBC, to split profits of $4.7 million. By comparison, Mr. Trump and NBC shared losses of $2 million from the pageant the year before the Moscow event, and $3.8 million from the one the year after.
Loser, Winner
Losses reported by businesses Mr. Trump owns and runs helped wipe out tax bills on hundreds of millions of dollars in celebrity income.
While Mr. Trump crisscrossed the country in 2015 describing himself as uniquely qualified to be president because he was “really rich” and had “built a great company,” his accountants back in New York were busy putting the finishing touches on his 2014 tax return.
After tabulating all the profits and losses from Mr. Trump’s various endeavors on Form 1040, the accountants came to Line 56, where they had to enter the total income tax the candidate was required to pay. They needed space for only a single figure.
Zero.
For Mr. Trump, that bottom line must have looked familiar. It was the fourth year in a row that he had not paid a penny of federal income taxes.
Mr. Trump’s avoidance of income taxes is one of the most striking discoveries in his tax returns, especially given the vast wash of income itemized elsewhere in those filings.
Mr. Trump’s net income from his fame — his 50 percent share of “The Apprentice,” together with the riches showered upon him by the scores of suitors paying to use his name — totaled $427.4 million through 2018. A further $176.5 million in profit came to him through his investment in two highly successful office buildings.
So how did he escape nearly all taxes on that fortune? Even the effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans could have caused him to pay more than $100 million.
The answer rests in a third category of Mr. Trump’s endeavors: businesses that he owns and runs himself. The collective and persistent losses he reported from them largely absolved him from paying federal income taxes on the $600 million from “The Apprentice,” branding deals and investments.
That equation is a key element of the alchemy of Mr. Trump’s finances: using the proceeds of his celebrity to purchase and prop up risky businesses, then wielding their losses to avoid taxes.
Throughout his career, Mr. Trump’s business losses have often accumulated in sums larger than could be used to reduce taxes on other income in a single year. But the tax code offers a workaround: With some restrictions, business owners can carry forward leftover losses to reduce taxes in future years.
That provision has been the background music to Mr. Trump’s life. As The Times’s previous reporting on his 1995 return showed, the nearly $1 billion in losses from his early-1990s collapse generated a tax deduction that he could use for up to 18 years going forward.
The newer tax returns show that Mr. Trump burned through the last of the tax-reducing power of that $1 billion in 2005, just as a torrent of entertainment riches began coming his way following the debut of “The Apprentice” the year before.
For 2005 through 2007, cash from licensing deals and endorsements filled Mr. Trump’s bank accounts with $120 million in pure profit. With no prior-year losses left to reduce his taxable income, he paid substantial federal income taxes for the first time in his life: a total of $70.1 million.
As his celebrity income swelled, Mr. Trump went on a buying spree unlike any he had had since the 1980s, when eager banks and his father’s wealth allowed him to buy or build the casinos, airplanes, yacht and old hotel that would soon lay him low.
When “The Apprentice” premiered, Mr. Trump had opened only two golf courses and was renovating two more. By the end of 2015, he had 15 courses and was transforming the Old Post Office building in Washington into a Trump International Hotel. But rather than making him wealthier, the tax records reveal as never before, each new acquisition only fed the downward draft on his bottom line.
Consider the results at his largest golf resort, Trump National Doral, near Miami. Mr. Trump bought the resort for $150 million in 2012; through 2018, his losses have totaled $162.3 million. He has pumped $213 million of fresh cash into Doral, tax records show, and has a $125 million mortgage balance coming due in three years.
His three courses in Europe — two in Scotland and one in Ireland — have reported a combined $63.6 million in losses.
Over all, since 2000, Mr. Trump has reported losses of $315.6 million at the golf courses that are his prized possessions.
For all of its Trumpworld allure, his Washington hotel, opened in 2016, has not fared much better. Its tax records show losses through 2018 of $55.5 million.
And Trump Corporation, a real estate services company, has reported losing $134 million since 2000. Mr. Trump personally bankrolled the losses year after year, marking his cash infusions as a loan with an ever-increasing balance, his tax records show. In 2016, he gave up on getting paid back and turned the loan into a cash contribution.
Mr. Trump has often posited that his losses are more accounting magic than actual money out the door.
Last year, after The Times published details of his tax returns from the 1980s and 1990s, he attributed the red ink to depreciation, which he said in a tweet would show “losses in almost all cases” and that “much was non monetary.”
“I love depreciation,” Mr. Trump said during a presidential debate in 2016.
Depreciation, though, is not a magic wand — it involves real money spent or borrowed to buy buildings or other assets that are expected to last years. Those costs must be spread out as expenses and deducted over the useful life of the asset. Even so, the rules do hold particular advantages for real estate developers like Mr. Trump, who are allowed to use their real estate losses to reduce their taxable income from other activities.
What the tax records for Mr. Trump’s businesses show, however, is that he has lost chunks of his fortune even before depreciation is figured in. The three European golf courses, the Washington hotel, Doral and Trump Corporation reported losing a total of $150.3 million from 2010 through 2018, without including depreciation as an expense.
To see what a successful business looks like, depreciation or not, look no further than one in Mr. Trump’s portfolio that he does not manage.
After plans for a Trump-branded mini-city on the Far West Side of Manhattan stalled in the 1990s, Mr. Trump’s stake was sold by his partner to Vornado Realty Trust. Mr. Trump objected to the sale in court, saying he had not been consulted, but he ended up with a 30 percent share of two valuable office buildings owned and operated by Vornado.
His share of the profits through the end of 2018 totaled $176.5 million, with depreciation factored in. He has never had to invest more money in the partnership, tax records show.
Among businesses he runs, Mr. Trump’s first success remains his best. The retail and commercial spaces at Trump Tower, completed in 1983, have reliably delivered more than $20 million a year in profits, a total of $336.3 million since 2000 that has done much to help keep him afloat.
Mr. Trump has an established track record of stiffing his lenders. But the tax returns reveal that he has failed to pay back far more money than previously known: a total of $287 million since 2010.
The I.R.S. considers forgiven debt to be income, but Mr. Trump was able to avoid taxes on much of that money by reducing his ability to declare future business losses. For the rest, he took advantage of a provision of the Great Recession bailout that allowed income from canceled debt to be completely deferred for five years, then spread out evenly over the next five. He declared the first $28.2 million in 2014.
Once again, his business losses mostly absolved his tax responsibilities. He paid no federal income taxes for 2014.
Mr. Trump was periodically required to pay a parallel income tax called the alternative minimum tax, created as a tripwire to prevent wealthy people from using huge deductions, including business losses, to entirely wipe out their tax liabilities.
Mr. Trump paid alternative minimum tax in seven years between 2000 and 2017 — a total of $24.3 million, excluding refunds he received after filing. For 2015, he paid $641,931, his first payment of any federal income tax since 2010.
As he settled into the Oval Office, his tax bills soon returned to form. His potential taxable income in 2016 and 2017 included $24.8 million in profits from sources related to his celebrity status and $56.4 million for the loans he did not repay. The dreaded alternative minimum tax would let his business losses erase only some of his liability.
Each time, he requested an extension to file his 1040; and each time, he made the required payment to the I.R.S. for income taxes he might owe — $1 million for 2016 and $4.2 million for 2017. But virtually all of that liability was washed away when he eventually filed, and most of the payments were rolled forward to cover potential taxes in future years.
To cancel out the tax bills, Mr. Trump made use of $9.7 million in business investment credits, at least some of which related to his renovation of the Old Post Office hotel, which qualified for a historic-preservation tax break. Although he had more than enough credits to owe no taxes at all, his accountants appear to have carved out an allowance for a small tax liability for both 2016 and 2017.
When they got to line 56, the one for income taxes due, the amount was the same each year: $750.
The $72.9 Million Maneuver
“The Apprentice” created what was probably the biggest income tax bite of Mr. Trump’s life. During the Great Recession bailout, he asked for the money back.
Testifying before Congress in February 2019, the president’s estranged personal lawyer, Mr. Cohen, recalled Mr. Trump’s showing him a huge check from the U.S. Treasury some years earlier and musing “that he could not believe how stupid the government was for giving someone like him that much money back.”
In fact, confidential records show that starting in 2010 he claimed, and received, an income tax refund totaling $72.9 million — all the federal income tax he had paid for 2005 through 2008, plus interest.
The legitimacy of that refund is at the center of the audit battle that he has long been waging, out of public view, with the I.R.S.
The records that The Times reviewed square with the way Mr. Trump has repeatedly cited, without explanation, an ongoing audit as grounds for refusing to release his tax returns. He alluded to it as recently as July on Fox News, when he told Sean Hannity, “They treat me horribly, the I.R.S., horribly.”
And while the records do not lay out all the details of the audit, they match his lawyers’ statement during the 2016 campaign that audits of his returns for 2009 and subsequent years remained open, and involved “transactions or activities that were also reported on returns for 2008 and earlier.”
Mr. Trump harvested that refund bonanza by declaring huge business losses — a total of $1.4 billion from his core businesses for 2008 and 2009 — that tax laws had prevented him from using in prior years.
But to turn that long arc of failure into a giant refund check, he relied on some deft accounting footwork and an unwitting gift from an unlikely source — Mr. Obama.
Business losses can work like a tax-avoidance coupon: A dollar lost on one business reduces a dollar of taxable income from elsewhere. The types and amounts of income that can be used in a given year vary, depending on an owner’s tax status. But some losses can be saved for later use, or even used to request a refund on taxes paid in a prior year.
Until 2009, those coupons could be used to wipe away taxes going back only two years. But that November, the window was more than doubled by a little-noticed provision in a bill Mr. Obama signed as part of the Great Recession recovery effort. Now business owners could request full refunds of taxes paid in the prior four years, and 50 percent of those from the year before that.
Mr. Trump had paid no income taxes in 2008. But the change meant that when he filed his taxes for 2009, he could seek a refund of not just the $13.3 million he had paid in 2007, but also the combined $56.9 million paid in 2005 and 2006, when “The Apprentice” created what was likely the biggest income tax bite of his life.
The records reviewed by The Times indicate that Mr. Trump filed for the first of several tranches of his refund several weeks later, in January 2010. That set off what tax professionals refer to as a “quickie refund,” a check processed in 90 days on a tentative basis, pending an audit by the I.R.S.
His total federal income tax refund would eventually grow to $70.1 million, plus $2,733,184 in interest. He also received $21.2 million in state and local refunds, which often piggyback on federal filings.
Whether Mr. Trump gets to keep the cash, though, remains far from a sure thing.
Refunds require the approval of I.R.S. auditors and an opinion of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan panel better known for reviewing the impact of tax legislation. Tax law requires the committee to weigh in on all refunds larger than $2 million to individuals.
Records show that the results of an audit of Mr. Trump’s refund were sent to the joint committee in the spring of 2011. An agreement was reached in late 2014, the documents indicate, but the audit resumed and grew to include Mr. Trump’s returns for 2010 through 2013. In the spring of 2016, with Mr. Trump closing in on the Republican nomination, the case was sent back to the committee. It has remained there, unresolved, with the statute of limitations repeatedly pushed forward.
Precisely why the case has stalled is not clear. But experts say it suggests that the gap between the sides remains wide. If negotiations were to deadlock, the case would move to federal court, where it could become a matter of public record.
The dispute may center on a single claim that jumps off the page of Mr. Trump’s 2009 tax return: a declaration of more than $700 million in business losses that he had not been allowed to use in prior years. Unleashing that giant tax-avoidance coupon enabled him to receive some or all of his refund.
The material obtained by The Times does not identify the business or businesses that generated those losses. But the losses were a kind that can be claimed only when partners give up their interest in a business. And in 2009, Mr. Trump parted ways with a giant money loser: his long-failing Atlantic City casinos.
After Mr. Trump’s bondholders rebuffed his offer to buy them out, and with a third round of bankruptcy only a week away, Mr. Trump announced in February 2009 that he was quitting the board of directors.
“If I’m not going to run it, I don’t want to be involved in it,” he told The Associated Press. “I’m one of the largest developers in the world. I have a lot of cash and plenty of places I can go.”
The same day, he notified the Securities and Exchange Commission that he had “determined that his partnership interests are worthless and lack potential to regain value” and was “hereby abandoning” his stake.
The language was crucial. Mr. Trump was using the precise wording of I.R.S. rules governing the most beneficial, and perhaps aggressive, method for business owners to avoid taxes when separating from a business.
A partner who walks away from a business with nothing — what tax laws refer to as abandonment — can suddenly declare all the losses on the business that could not be used in prior years. But there are a few catches, including this: Abandonment is essentially an all-or-nothing proposition. If the I.R.S. learns that the owner received anything of value, the allowable losses are reduced to just $3,000 a year.
And Mr. Trump does appear to have received something. When the casino bankruptcy concluded, he got 5 percent of the stock in the new company. The materials reviewed by The Times do not make clear whether Mr. Trump’s refund application reflected his public declaration of abandonment. If it did, that 5 percent could place his entire refund in question.
If the auditors ultimately disallow Mr. Trump’s $72.9 million federal refund, he will be forced to return that money with interest, and possibly penalties, a total that could exceed $100 million. He could also be ordered to return the state and local refunds based on the same claims.
In response to a question about the audit, Mr. Garten, the Trump Organization lawyer, said facts cited by The Times were incorrect, without citing specifics. He did, however, write that it was “illogical” to say Mr. Trump had not paid taxes for those three years just because the money was later refunded.
“While you claim that President Trump paid no taxes in 10 of the 15 previous years,” Mr. Garten said, “you also assert that President Trump claimed a massive refund for tens of millions for taxes he did pay. These two claims are entirely inconsistent and, in any event, not supported by the facts.”
House Democrats who have been in hot pursuit of Mr. Trump’s tax returns most likely have no idea that at least some of the records are sitting in a congressional office building. George Yin, a former chief of staff for the joint committee, said that any identifying information about taxpayers under review was tightly held among a handful of staff lawyers and was rarely shared with politicians assigned to the committee.
It is possible that the case has been paused because Mr. Trump is president, which would raise the personal stakes of re-election. If the recent Fox interview is any indication, Mr. Trump seems increasingly agitated about the matter.
“It’s a disgrace what’s happened,” he told Mr. Hannity. “We had a deal done. In fact, it was — I guess it was signed even. And once I ran, or once I won, or somewhere back a long time ago, everything was like, ‘Well, let’s start all over again.’ It’s a disgrace.”
The 20 Percent Solution
Helping to reduce Mr. Trump’s tax bills are unidentified consultants’ fees, some of which can be matched to payments received by Ivanka Trump.
Examining the Trump Organization’s tax records, a curious pattern emerges: Between 2010 and 2018, Mr. Trump wrote off some $26 million in unexplained “consulting fees” as a business expense across nearly all of his projects.
In most cases the fees were roughly one-fifth of his income: In Azerbaijan, Mr. Trump collected $5 million on a hotel deal and reported $1.1 million in consulting fees, while in Dubai it was $3 million with a $630,000 fee, and so on.
Mysterious big payments in business deals can raise red flags, particularly in places where bribes or kickbacks to middlemen are routine. But there is no evidence that Mr. Trump, who mostly licenses his name to other people’s projects and is not involved in securing government approvals, has engaged in such practices.
Rather, there appears to be a closer-to-home explanation for at least some of the fees: Mr. Trump reduced his taxable income by treating a family member as a consultant, and then deducting the fee as a cost of doing business.
The “consultants” are not identified in the tax records. But evidence of this arrangement was gleaned by comparing the confidential tax records to the financial disclosures Ivanka Trump filed when she joined the White House staff in 2017. Ms. Trump reported receiving payments from a consulting company she co-owned, totaling $747,622, that exactly matched consulting fees claimed as tax deductions by the Trump Organization for hotel projects in Vancouver and Hawaii.
Ms. Trump had been an executive officer of the Trump companies that received profits from and paid the consulting fees for both projects — meaning she appears to have been treated as a consultant on the same hotel deals that she helped manage as part of her job at her father’s business.
When asked about the arrangement, the Trump Organization lawyer, Mr. Garten, did not comment.
Employers can deduct consulting fees as a business expense and also avoid the withholding taxes that apply to wages. To claim the deduction, the consulting arrangement must be an “ordinary and necessary” part of running the business, with fees that are reasonable and market-based, according to the I.R.S. The recipient of the fees is still required to pay income tax.
The I.R.S. has pursued civil penalties against some business owners who devised schemes to avoid taxes by paying exorbitant fees to related parties who were not in fact independent contractors. A 2011 tax court case centered on the I.R.S.’s denial of almost $3 million in deductions for consulting fees the partners in an Illinois accounting firm paid themselves via corporations they created. The court concluded that the partners had structured the fees to “distribute profits, not to compensate for services.”
There is no indication that the I.R.S. has questioned Mr. Trump’s practice of deducting millions of dollars in consulting fees. If the payments to his daughter were compensation for work, it is not clear why Mr. Trump would do it in this form, other than to reduce his own tax liability. Another, more legally perilous possibility is that the fees were a way to transfer assets to his children without incurring a gift tax.
A Times investigation in 2018 found that Mr. Trump’s late father, Fred Trump, employed a number of legally dubious schemes decades ago to evade gift taxes on millions of dollars he transferred to his children. It is not possible to discern from this newer collection of tax records whether intra-family financial maneuverings were a motivating factor.
However, the fact that some of the consulting fees are identical to those reported by Mr. Trump’s daughter raises the question of whether this was a mechanism the president used to compensate his adult children involved with his business. Indeed, in some instances where large fees were claimed, people with direct knowledge of the projects were not aware of any outside consultants who would have been paid.
On the failed hotel deal in Azerbaijan, which was plagued by suspicions of corruption, a Trump Organization lawyer told The New Yorker the company was blameless because it was merely a licenser and had no substantive role, adding, “We did not pay any money to anyone.” Yet, the tax records for three Trump L.L.C.s involved in that project show deductions for consulting fees totaling $1.1 million that were paid to someone.
In Turkey, a person directly involved in developing two Trump towers in Istanbul expressed bafflement when asked about consultants on the project, telling The Times there was never any consultant or other third party in Turkey paid by the Trump Organization. But tax records show regular deductions for consulting fees over seven years totaling $2 million.
Ms. Trump disclosed in her public filing that the fees she received were paid through TTT Consulting L.L.C., which she said provided “consulting, licensing and management services for real estate projects.” Incorporated in Delaware in December 2005, the firm is one of several Trump-related entities with some variation of TTT or TTTT in the name that appear to refer to members of the Trump family.
Like her brothers Donald Jr. and Eric, Ms. Trump was a longtime employee of the Trump Organization and an executive officer for more than 200 Trump companies that licensed or managed hotel and resort properties. The tax records show that the three siblings had each drawn a salary from their father’s company — roughly $480,000 a year, jumping to about $2 million after Mr. Trump became president — though Ms. Trump no longer receives a salary. What’s more, Mr. Trump has said the children were intimately involved in negotiating and managing his projects. When asked in a 2011 lawsuit deposition whom he relied on to handle important details of his licensing deals, he named only Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric.
On Ms. Trump’s now-defunct website, which explains her role at the Trump Organization, she was not identified as a consultant. Rather, she has been described as a senior executive who “actively participates in all aspects of both Trump and Trump branded projects, including deal evaluation, predevelopment planning, financing, design, construction, sales and marketing, and ensuring that Trump’s world-renowned physical and operational standards are met.
“She is involved in all decisions — large and small.”
The Art of the Write-Off
Hair stylists, table linens, property taxes on a family estate — all have been deducted as business expenses.
Private jets, country clubs and mansions have all had a role in the selling of Donald Trump.
“I play to people’s fantasies,” he wrote in “Trump: The Art of the Deal.” “People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.”
If the singular Trump product is Trump in an exaggerated form — the man, the lifestyle, the acquisitiveness — then everything that feeds the image, including the cost of his businesses, can be written off on his taxes. Mr. Trump may be reporting business losses to the government, but he can still live a life of wealth and write it off.
Take, for example, Mar-a-Lago, now the president’s permanent residence as well as a private club and stage set on which Trump luxury plays out. As a business, it is also the source of millions of dollars in expenses deducted from taxable income, among them $109,433 for linens and silver and $197,829 for landscaping in 2017. Also deducted as a business expense was the $210,000 paid to a Florida photographer over the years for shooting numerous events at the club, including a 2016 New Year’s Eve party hosted by Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump has written off as business expenses costs — including fuel and meals — associated with his aircraft, used to shuttle him among his various homes and properties. Likewise the cost of haircuts, including the more than $70,000 paid to style his hair during “The Apprentice.” Together, nine Trump entities have written off at least $95,464 paid to a favorite hair and makeup artist of Ivanka Trump.
In allowing business expenses to be deducted, the I.R.S. requires that they be “ordinary and necessary,” a loosely defined standard often interpreted generously by business owners.
Perhaps Mr. Trump’s most generous interpretation of the business expense write-off is his treatment of the Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, N.Y.
Seven Springs is a throwback to another era. The main house, built in 1919 by Eugene I. Meyer Jr., the onetime head of the Federal Reserve who bought The Washington Post in 1933, sits on more than 200 acres of lush, almost untouched land just an hour’s drive north of New York City.
“The mansion is 50,000 square feet, has three pools, carriage houses, and is surrounded by nature preserves,” according to The Trump Organization website.
Mr. Trump had big plans when he bought the property in 1996 — a golf course, a clubhouse and 15 private homes. But residents of surrounding towns thwarted his ambitions, arguing that development would draw too much traffic and risk polluting the drinking water.
Mr. Trump instead found a way to reap tax benefits from the estate. He took advantage of what is known as a conservation easement. In 2015, he signed a deal with a land conservancy, agreeing not to develop most of the property. In exchange, he claimed a $21.1 million charitable tax deduction.
The tax records reveal another way Seven Springs has generated substantial tax savings. In 2014, Mr. Trump classified the estate as an investment property, as distinct from a personal residence. Since then, he has written off $2.2 million in property taxes as a business expense — even as his 2017 tax law allowed individuals to write off only $10,000 in property taxes a year.
Courts have held that to treat residences as businesses for tax purposes, owners must show that they have “an actual and honest objective of making a profit,” typically by making substantial efforts to rent the property and eventually generating income.
Whether or not Seven Springs fits those criteria, the Trumps have described the property somewhat differently.
In 2014, Eric Trump told Forbes that “this is really our compound.” Growing up, he and his brother Donald Jr. spent many summers there, riding all-terrain vehicles and fishing on a nearby lake. At one point, the brothers took up residence in a carriage house on the property. “It was home base for us for a long, long time,” Eric told Forbes.
And the Trump Organization website still describes Seven Springs as a “retreat for the Trump family.”
Mr. Garten, the Trump Organization lawyer, did not respond to a question about the Seven Springs write-off.
The Seven Springs conservation-easement deduction is one of four that Mr. Trump has claimed over the years. While his use of these deductions is widely known, his tax records show that they represent the lion’s share of his charitable giving — about $119.3 million of roughly $130 million in personal and corporate charitable contributions reported to the I.R.S.
Two of those deductions — at Seven Springs and at the Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles — are the focus of an investigation by the New York attorney general, who is examining whether the appraisals on the land, and therefore the tax deductions, were inflated.
Another common deductible expense for all businesses is legal fees. The I.R.S. requires that these fees be “directly related to operating your business,” and businesses cannot deduct “legal fees paid to defend charges that arise from participation in a political campaign.”
Yet the tax records show that the Trump Corporation wrote off as business expenses fees paid to a criminal defense lawyer, Alan S. Futerfas, who was hired to represent Donald Trump Jr. during the Russia inquiry. Investigators were examining Donald Jr.’s role in the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians who had promised damaging information on Mrs. Clinton. When he testified before Congress in 2017, Mr. Futerfas was by his side.
Mr. Futerfas was also hired to defend the president’s embattled charitable foundation, which would be shut down in 2018 after New York regulators said it had engaged in “a shocking pattern of illegality.”
The Trump Corporation paid Mr. Futerfas at least $1.9 million in 2017 and 2018, tax records show. Also written off was at least $259,684 paid to Williams & Jensen, another law firm brought in during the same period to represent Donald Trump Jr.
A President and a Businessman
Deals in countries led by strongmen, tenants who have business before the federal government, and hotels and clubs that draw those seeking access or favor.
In May, the chairman of a trade group representing Turkish business interests wrote to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross urging support for increased trade between the United States and Turkey. The ultimate goal was nothing less than “reorienting the U.S. supply chain away from China.”
The letter was among three sent to cabinet secretaries by Mehmet Ali Yalcindag, chairman of the Turkey-U.S. Business Council, who noted that he had copied each one to Mr. Trump.
The president needed no introduction to Mr. Yalcindag: The Turkish businessman helped negotiate a licensing deal in 2008 for his family’s company to develop two Trump towers in Istanbul. The tax records show the deal has earned Mr. Trump at least $13 million — far more than previously known — including more than $1 million since he entered the White House, even as his onetime associate now lobbies on behalf of Turkish interests.
Mr. Yalcindag said he had “remained friendly” with Mr. Trump since their work together years ago, but that all communications between his trade group and the administration “go through formal channels and are properly disclosed.”
The ethical quandaries created by Mr. Trump’s decision to keep his business while in the White House have been documented. But the full financial measure of his extraordinary confluence of interests — a president with a wealth of business entanglements at home and in myriad geopolitical hot spots — has remained elusive.
The tax records for Mr. Trump and his hundreds of companies show precisely how much money he has received over the years, and how heavily he has come to rely on leveraging his brand in ways that pose potential or direct conflicts of interest while he is president. The records also provide the first reliable window onto his finances before 2014, the earliest year covered by his required annual disclosures, showing that his total profits from some projects outside the United States were larger than indicated by those limited public filings.
Based on the financial disclosures, which report much of his income in broad ranges, Mr. Trump’s earnings from the Istanbul towers could have been as low as $3.2 million. In the Philippines, where he licensed his name to a Manila tower nearly a decade ago, the low end of the range was $4.1 million — less than half of the $9.3 million he actually made. In Azerbaijan, he collected more than $5 million for the failed hotel project, about twice what appeared on his public filings.
It did not take long for conflicts to emerge when Mr. Trump ran for president and won. The Philippines’ strongman leader, Rodrigo Duterte, chose as a special trade envoy to Washington the businessman behind the Trump tower in Manila. In Argentina, a key person who had been involved in a Uruguayan licensing deal that earned Mr. Trump $2.3 million was appointed to a cabinet post.
The president’s conflicts have been most evident with Turkey, where the business community and the authoritarian government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have not hesitated to leverage various Trump enterprises to their advantage. When Turkish-American relations were at a low point, a Turkish business group canceled a conference at Mr. Trump’s Washington hotel; six months later, when the two countries were on better terms, the rescheduled event was attended by Turkish government officials. Turkish Airlines also chose the Trump National Golf Club in suburban Virginia to host an event.
More broadly, the tax records suggest other ways in which Mr. Trump’s presidency has propped up his sagging bottom line. Monthly credit card receipts, reported to the I.R.S. by third-party card processing firms, reflect the way certain of his resorts, golf courses and hotels became favored stamping grounds, if not venues for influence-trading, beginning in 2015 and continuing into his time in the White House.
The credit card data does not reflect total revenue, and is useful mainly for showing short-term ups and downs of consumer interest in a business. While two of Mr. Trump’s marquee draws — the Washington hotel in the Old Post Office and the Doral golf resort — are loaded with debt and continue to lose money, both have seen credit card transactions rise markedly with his political ascent.
At the hotel, the monthly receipts grew from $3.7 million in December 2016 shortly after it opened, to $5.4 million in January 2017 and $6 million by May 2018. At Doral, after Mr. Trump declared his candidacy in June 2015, credit card revenue more than doubled, to $13 million, for the three months through August, compared with the same period the year before.
One Trump enterprise that has been regularly profitable, and is a persistent source of concern about ethical conflicts and national security lapses, is the Mar-a-Lago club. Profits there rose sharply after Mr. Trump declared his candidacy, as courtiers eagerly joining up brought a tenfold rise in cash from initiation fees — from $664,000 in 2014 to just under $6 million in 2016, even before Mr. Trump doubled the cost of initiation in January 2017. The membership rush allowed the president to take $26 million out of the business from 2015 through 2018, nearly triple the rate at which he had paid himself in the prior two years.
Some of the largest payments from business groups for events or conferences at Mar-a-Lago and other Trump properties have come since Mr. Trump became president, the tax records show.
At Doral, Mr. Trump collected a total of at least $7 million in 2015 and 2016 from Bank of America, and at least $1.2 million in 2017 and 2018 from a trade association representing food retailers and wholesalers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce paid Doral at least $406,599 in 2018.
Beyond one-time payments for events or memberships, large corporations also pay rent for space in the few commercial buildings Mr. Trump actually owns. Walgreens, the pharmacy giant that resolved an antitrust matter before federal regulators in 2017, pays $3.4 million a year for a lease at 40 Wall Street, a Trump-owned office building in Manhattan.
Another renter at 40 Wall, for $2.5 million a year, is Atane Engineers, which changed its name in 2018 after a corruption scandal that culminated in two former top executives’ pleading guilty to paying bribes for city infrastructure contracts. Despite the criminal case — which landed the company on New York State’s list of “non-responsible entities” that require a waiver to obtain state contracts — the newly christened Atane registered as an eligible federal contractor with no restrictions listed in its file.
Rental income over all at 40 Wall has risen markedly, from $30.5 million in 2014 to $43.2 million in 2018. The tax records show that the cost of existing leases there has risen. and at least four law firms appear to have moved in since Mr. Trump ran for president.
In addition to buildings he owns outright, there is the president’s stake in the Vornado partnerships that control two valuable office towers — 1290 Sixth Avenue in Manhattan and 555 California Street in San Francisco. Vornado’s chief executive, Steven Roth, is a close Trump ally recently named to the White House economic recovery council. Last year, the president appointed Mr. Roth’s wife, Daryl Roth, to the Kennedy Center board of trustees.
Vornado tenants include a roster of blue-chip firms paying multimillion-dollar leases, many of whom regularly do business with, lobby or are regulated by the federal government. Among the dozens of leases paid in 2018 to Mr. Trump’s Vornado partnerships, according to his tax records, were $5.8 million from Goldman Sachs; $3.1 million from Microsoft; $32.7 million from Neuberger Berman, an investment management company; and $8.8 million from the law firm Kirkland & Ellis.
The Gathering Storm
Threats are converging: mounting business losses, the looming I.R.S. audit and personally guaranteed debts coming due.
When Mr. Trump glided down a gilded Trump Tower escalator to kick off his presidential campaign in June 2015, his finances needed a jolt.
His core businesses were reporting mounting losses — more than $100 million over the previous two years. The river of celebrity-driven income that had long buoyed them was running dry.
If Mr. Trump hoped his unlikely candidacy might, at least, revitalize his brand, his barrage of derogatory remarks about immigrants quickly cost him two of his biggest and easiest sources of cash — licensing deals with clothing and mattress manufacturers that had netted him more than $30 million. NBC, his partner in Miss Universe — source of nearly $20 million in profits — announced that it would no longer broadcast the pageant; he sold it soon after.
Now his tax records make clear that he is facing a battery of threats to his business and his own financial well-being.
Over the past decade, he appears to have filled the cash-flow gaps with a series of one-shots that may not be available again.
In 2012, he took out a $100 million mortgage on the commercial space in Trump Tower. He took nearly the entire amount as a payout, his tax records show. His company has paid more than $15 million in interest on the loan, but nothing on the principal. The full $100 million comes due in 2022.
In 2013, he withdrew $95.8 million from his Vornado partnership account.
And in January 2014, he sold $98 million in stocks and bonds, his biggest single month of sales in at least the last two decades. He sold $54 million more in stocks and bonds in 2015, and $68.2 million in 2016. His financial disclosure released in July showed that he had as little as $873,000 in securities left to sell.
Mr. Trump’s businesses reported cash on hand of $34.7 million in 2018, down 40 percent from five years earlier.
What’s more, the tax records show that Mr. Trump has once again done what he says he regrets, looking back on his early 1990s meltdown: personally guaranteed hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, a decision that led his lenders to threaten to force him into personal bankruptcy.
This time around, he is personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $421 million, with most of it coming due within four years. Should he win re-election, his lenders could be placed in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.
There is, however, a tax benefit for Mr. Trump. While business owners can use losses to avoid taxes, they can do so only up to the amount invested in the business. But by taking personal responsibility for that $421 million in debt, Mr. Trump would be able to declare that amount in losses in future years.
The balances on those loans had not been paid down by the end of 2018. And the businesses carrying the bulk of the debt — the Doral golf resort ($125 million) and the Washington hotel ($160 million) — are struggling, which could make it difficult to find a lender willing to refinance it.
The unresolved audit of his $72.9 million tax refund hangs over his head.
The broader economy promises little relief. Across the country, brick-and-mortar stores are in decline, and they have been very important to Trump Tower, which has in turn been very important to Mr. Trump. Nike, which rented the space for its flagship store in a building attached to Trump Tower and had paid $195.1 million in rent since the 1990s, left in 2018.
The president’s most recent financial disclosure reported modest gains in 2019. But that was before the pandemic hit. His already struggling properties were shut down for several months earlier this year. The Doral resort asked Deutsche Bank to allow a delay on its loan payments. Analysts have predicted that the hotel business will not fully recover until late 2023.
Mr. Trump still has assets to sell. But doing so could take its own toll, both financial and to Mr. Trump’s desire to always be seen as a winner. The Trump family said last year that it was considering selling the Washington hotel, but not because it was losing money.
In Mr. Trump’s telling, any difficulty in his finances has been caused by the sacrifices made for his current job.
“They say, ‘Trump is getting rich off our nation,’” he said at a rally in Minneapolis last October. “I lose billions being president, and I don’t care. It’s nice to be rich, I guess, but I lose billions.”
David Kirkpatrick, Kitty Bennett and Jesse Drucker contributed reporting. Illustrations by Justin Metz.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham laid out a swift timeline on Sunday for confirming President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, telling Fox News his committee will approve Barrett by October 22. That could tee up her nomination for a full Senate vote before the end of the month.
Graham told Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo that the confirmation process would begin October 12. A day of introduction would be followed by two days of questioning, and a review of the committee’s recommendation would begin October 15, he said.
“We’ll report her nomination out of the committee on October 22,” Graham said. “Then it will be up to [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell as to what to do with the nomination.”
If Graham is able to stay on that schedule, McConnell will have the option to hold Barrett’s confirmation vote before Election Day — or during the lame-duck session after the elections.
As Vox’s Andrew Prokop has explained, this would be an expedited process, but it would be fully within the rules:
In recent decades, the Supreme Court confirmation process — from nomination to the final vote — has lasted two to three months. Typically, this time is taken up by vetting of the nominee’s history, writings, and career, and then hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee (which can last several days), before Senate leaders attempt to line up sufficient support for a floor vote.
But there’s no reason other than decorum that all this has to take so much time. If Republican senators are unconcerned about the appearances of an unseemly rush to a vote, they can certainly hold a quicker vote should they so desire.
The speed of the process Graham outlined has rankled Democrats and defenders of deliberative propriety in the Senate because it implies the outcome of the committee process is preordained — and has led to Democratic concern that Barrett will not be vetted properly in the rush to confirm her.
The proximity of the vote to Election Day is also unusual. No Supreme Court nominee has been confirmed after July during a presidential election year before. Democratic lawmakers have criticized McConnell for choosing to hold a confirmation so close to an election, particularly after he blocked former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in March 2016, arguing that a president should not nominate a new justice within several hundred days of a presidential election.
Democrats have limited tools at their disposal for stopping the confirmation process
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said Sunday on ABC’s This Week that Democrats have some procedural weapons with which they can slow down the process, but that their arsenal isn’t powerful enough to derail the nomination process altogether.
“We can slow it down perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most, but we can’t stop the outcome,” the senator said.
Durbin added he did not see the procedural protest ideas presented by a former Senate aide in the New York Times as strong enough to significantly postpone the nomination date.
One of the ideas presented in the op-ed is that Democrats could boycott hearings. But as Prokop has pointed out, “Democrats have tried similar tactics with Graham’s committee in the past, and he has simply ignored the rules when they are inconvenient.”
It’s unclear whether McConnell will pursue a full confirmation vote before Election Day, or after it, during the lame-duck session.
Some pundits have argued that holding the vote before Election Day could energize Democratic voters. Graham noted during his Fox interview that Ginsburg’s death has resulted in a fundraising bonanza for Democrats — including his rival in South Carolina, Jaime Harrison. The windfall has been so great that Graham even twice asked viewers to donate money to his reelection campaign.
“Their base is going nuts, they’ve raised $300 million, ActBlue has, since the passing of Justice Ginsburg,” he said. “I’m being outraised two to one. Every Republican running in the Senate is being hit hard with all of this money.”
The fear for Republicans is that an enraged Democratic base could deliver key races — including South Carolina’s Senate race — for Democrats come Election Day.
But there are downsides to waiting until after Election Day as well. If Democrats win back control of the Senate, then Republicans confirming a Supreme Court nominee during a lame-duck session would be perceived as flagrantly dismissing of the will of the electorate. That could increase the likelihood of aggressive reprisals by Democratic lawmakers, in the form of moves like abolishing the filibuster or expanding the Supreme Court. (Of course, a Democratic-controlled Senate could pursue those policies regardless of whether McConnell moves before or after Election Day.)
Ultimately for the GOP, the upshot of Graham’s schedule — and top Democrats’ signals that they don’t think they can stop the confirmation — is that the Republicans have many options as they contemplate how to best complete a move that could reshape the Supreme Court for a generation.
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes. It’s essential that all Americans are able to access clear, concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives, and the lives of their families and communities. That is our mission at Vox. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election: Contribute today from as little as $3.
(CNN)Almost half the US is reporting increased numbers of new Covid-19 cases as health experts warn of a potential coronavirus surge in the fall and winter.
Cases are rising in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington state, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
CNN’s Melissa Alonso, Nicole Chavez, Jay Croft, Shelby Lin Erdman, Andrea Kane, Lauren Mascarenhas, Christina Maxouris and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.
The Chinese messaging service WeChat, which was granted an injunction last weekend, may have as many as 19 million users in the United States, according to the ruling last weekend by Magistrate Judge Laurel Keebler. Keebler said the plaintiffs in that case, the WeChat Users Alliance, had raised important First Amendment issues in challenging the ban, which they said would hurt older Chinese residents who do not speak English well and depend on the app to read news and maintain contact with relatives in China.
Cameron said Wednesday the investigation of Taylor’s death March 13 ruled out “friendly fire” from officer Brett Hankison as the source of the shot that went through Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly’s thigh, prompting him and officer Myles Cosgrove to return fire, killing Taylor.
The KSP report says that “due to limited markings of comparative value,” the 9mm bullet that hit and exited Mattingly was neither “identified nor eliminated as having been fired” from Walker’s gun.
Wednesday night on CNN, Steven Romines, one of Walker’s attorneys, said he obtained a Louisville Metro Police Department record showing Hankison had been issued a 9mm weapon as well.
Romines declined to share the record from Hankison’s personnel file with The Louisville Courier Journal, and LMPD spokeswoman Jessie Halladay said she could release it only in response to an open records request.
The Courier Journal, part of the USA TODAY Network, filed one, but the department hasn’t responded.
Walker said he fired a single warning shot from his Glock handgun at Taylor’s apartment because he thought intruders were breaking in. Police said they had identified themselves. They were attempting to serve a “no-knock” search warrant shortly before 1 a.m. March 13 at Taylor’s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
Cameron said last week that Mattingly fired six shots, Cosgrove 16 and Hankison 10, and Taylor was hit six times.
He said FBI ballistic examiners concluded Cosgrove fired the shot that killed Taylor, but KSP couldn’t determine whether Cosgrove or Mattingly fired that bullet.
When they sifted through the wreckage of the 2016 election, and reckoned with their losses in the Midwest, Democrats were surprised by what they found in Georgia. The state had not voted for a Democratic president since 1992, and it delivered 16 electoral votes for Donald Trump, continuing the pattern.
But something had happened in the suburbs. In defeat, Hillary Clinton had won more raw votes out of Georgia than any Democratic nominee in history, and she had carried the GOP’s longtime stronghold — the fast-growing counties just outside of Atlanta. Nearly half of the state’s votes came from the Atlanta metro region, and the modern GOP has never struggled so much there.
Even in triumph, Republicans began to worry. Once-conservative Cobb County elected a new GOP chair on the promise to “Make Cobb Red Again.” A 2017 special election for a House seat in the county went down to the wire. One year later, Democrats flipped that seat and nearly won another in Atlanta’s suburbs, as Democratic nominee Stacey Abrams lost the closest race for governor in 24 years.
“Democrats, let’s do better,” Abrams wrote in a 2019 memo to party leaders. “Any decision less than full investment in Georgia would amount to strategic malpractice.”
Have Democrats put everything they could into the state since then? Arguably not — but that’s changing. Joe Biden’s cash-flush campaign has bought ads in the state, and Abrams’s group Fair Fight Georgia has registered hundreds of thousands of voters and pumped up requests for absentee ballots. The Trump campaign has not taken the state for granted, with the president dropping into Atlanta last week to roll out his “platinum plan” for Black Americans.
Georgia’s shift from 2012 to 2016
Clinton was the first Democrat since Carter to win Cobb and Gwinnett counties, suburban GOP strongholds.
GOP won
by 250K
Dem. won by
500K votes
250K
TIE
Atlanta
Atlanta Suburbs
2016
margin
2012
Black Belt
South Georgia
Piedmont
North Georgia
Statewide 2016 margin
Democrats added to those gains in 2018, but Republicans held the state again with landslide support from north and south of Atlanta.
How Georgia shifted from 2012 to 2016
Clinton was the first Democrat since Carter to win Cobb and Gwinnett counties, suburban GOP strongholds.
GOP won
by 250K
Dem. won by
500K votes
250K
TIE
Atlanta
Atlanta Suburbs
2016
margin
2012
Black Belt
South Georgia
Piedmont
North Georgia
Statewide 2016 margin
Democrats added to those gains in 2018, but Republicans held the state again with landslide support from north and south of Atlanta.
How Georgia shifted from 2012 to 2016
Clinton was the first Democrat since Carter to win Cobb and Gwinnett counties, suburban Republican strongholds.
Dem. won by
500K votes
GOP won
by 250K
250K
TIE
Atlanta
Atlanta Suburbs
2016
margin
2012
Black Belt
South Georgia
Piedmont
North Georgia
Statewide 2016 margin
Democrats added to those gains in 2018, but Republicans held the state again with landslide support from north and south of Atlanta.
Like the rest of the Deep South, Georgia was dominated by conservative Democrats for more than a century, from the end of Reconstruction to the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Democrats held both houses of Georgia’s legislature until 2002 — then, in a single election, lost both, kicking off a decade of decline. Conservative Democrats below the “Gnat Line,” shorthand for where the state’s Piedmont region ends and its hotter plains begin, bolted the party and never came back.
The math only changed as the electorate got larger and more diverse. In 2004, when Democrats made no effort in the state, 70 percent of all voters were White, according to exit polls. In 2016, the White share of the electorate fell to 60 percent and Democrats won the state’s suburban Cobb and Gwinnett counties, for the first time since Jimmy Carter won the presidency. They added to those gains in 2018, but Republicans held out with landslide support from White voters north and south of Atlanta.
Want more like this? It’s in The Trailer.
David Weigel delivers campaign news and insight into your inbox.
Republicans are slightly more nervous about those suburbs, but in a war of attrition, they have more votes to spare. We’ve split Georgia into six political “states,” starting with Atlanta, where Republicans were struggling before Trump’s presidency and have lost ground since. The Atlanta suburbs, six counties with interstate access to the city, have become the state’s most competitive region. North Georgia, the Piedmont and South Georgia are solidly Republican, and the party may have some more votes to turn out there. The Black Belt, with fewer votes than these other regions, always backs Democrats — but a turnout difference of just 20,000 or 30,000 votes, with rural Black voters being enthusiastic to cast ballots and confident those ballots will count, could swing a close statewide election.
This is the eighth in a series breaking down the key swing states of 2020, showing how electoral trends played out over the past few years and where the shift in votes really mattered. See all 50 states here.
Atlanta
The “capital of the south” welcomes tens of thousands of new residents every year, and they have only made Atlanta bluer. In 2016, Clinton won more votes in the three core counties of metro Atlanta than any Democrat in history. Donald Trump won fewer votes here than any Republican nominee in 20 years. Months later, he alienated Atlanta’s Black voters further by insulting Rep. John Lewis (D), insisting that the Civil Rights icon’s district was in “horrible shape” and “infested” with crime.
Lewis died this year, and Atlanta continues to get bluer. DeKalb County is one of the few majority-Black places in the country where turnout in 2016 was markedly higher than 2012, and in 2018, Abrams turned out 10,000 more voters than Clinton had — an unheard-of surge from a presidential year to a midterm. Republicans still run strong in the north end of Fulton County, around cities like Roswell — just not as strong as they once did, as those cities have grown more diverse and less conservative.
2016 vote totals
Counties included: Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton
Atlanta Burbs
The exurbs of Atlanta were built by segregation and “White flight.” The city’s geographic expansion halted in the 1960s, when such places as Sandy Springs rejected annexation; nearby Marietta became a bulwark of White conservative politics, starting Newt Gingrich on his journey to becoming House speaker.
But a steady stream of immigrants and escapees from other states has turned the region blue, with Cobb County backing Clinton by two points, then supporting Abrams by nine points. A region that gave Mitt Romney a 60,000-vote victory in 2012 gave Clinton a 48,000-vote margin, then went more solidly for Abrams and Democratic candidates, with the party picking up 11 seats in the state legislature largely through gains in these suburbs.
The reddest part of Georgia has also been making the most news lately — conservative activist and conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene won the Republican nomination to represent the 14th Congressional District, and the party threw up its hands. Every county in the region backed Trump in 2016, with the GOP nominee carrying all but three precincts, in the cities of Dalton and Rome. And Trump added more than 50,000 votes to Romney’s 2012 total, finding White voters without college degrees who had been sitting out elections.
Democrats added some votes, too, because there was not much room to fall. In the past few decades, only Zell Miller, who’d been born in Towns County, was able to win votes here for Democrats. The GOP now clears 80 percent of the vote in most of northwestern and northeastern Georgia, and Gov. Brian Kemp’s 2018 win came after he did what looked unlikely — he made it even redder.
Georgia, as with much of the Deep South, was built on the backs of enslaved Black people, and the legacy of the cotton trade stretches across the middle of the state. Fifteen counties in the region have majority-Black populations and have voted reliably for Democrats even as Whiter counties have shifted toward the GOP. They’re essential to Biden’s chances in the state, but no nominee has maximized turnout here since Barack Obama’s two campaigns.
From 2012 to 2016, the falloff was worth around 25,000 votes. The region’s biggest cities, Augusta, Columbus and Macon, got bluer, while Democratic margins everywhere else slightly declined. Four small counties also flipped from narrowly blue to narrowly red — Dooly, Peach, Quitman, Twiggs — as Black turnout declined, and they stayed red in 2018, even as Democratic turnout grew in urban areas. But like the Black Belt in other parts of the South, the region is slowly losing population, capping the number of new votes either party can win.
Outside of Atlanta, central Georgia is mostly rural and overwhelmingly Republican, with a few dots of blue. The University of Georgia helped make Athens one of the most liberal parts of the state, if not as liberal (or as vote-rich) as similar college towns in the Midwest and Northeast, and the places closest to Atlanta moved marginally toward the Democrats.
The rest of the region is overwhelmingly White and solidly Republican, with the party gaining strength here in every election since 2010. (Obama’s 2008 bid made a few inroads here, but only in that election.) Across these 30 counties, Trump ran roughly 17,000 votes ahead of Romney; Clinton ran roughly 7,000 votes ahead of Obama. Winning here by a smaller margin, over a candidate who has not inherited all of Clinton’s problems with White working-class voters, could hurt the GOP.
There are two very different political climates south of the Gnat Line; most voters live in the one that’s shifting right. Outside of Savannah and its suburbs in Bryan County, every single part of the region voted by a bigger margin for Trump than for Romney; tiny Brantley County gave Trump a 78-point margin, one of his biggest in the entire state. Across all six of our “states,” this is the only one where Clinton ran behind Obama, with Trump expanding the GOP’s margin from nearly 140,000 votes to more than 170,000 votes.
Those trends didn’t change in 2018, and strong turnout here helped Republicans cross 50 percent of the statewide vote, even though the population of southwestern Georgia has been shrinking. Like the Piedmont, this is a deep red region with a few dashes of blue in small cities; Democrats won the city of Valdosta, for example, while nearby Moody Air Force Base is a Republican stronghold. A good night for Republicans will involve landslide margins out of Georgia’s southern counties; an upset by Democrats will require enough gains elsewhere to make that irrelevant.
All eyes throughout the country have been on the high court following Ginsburg’s death Sept. 18 at age 87. She had been on the court for more than two decades.
Many argue that the seat should not be filled until after the election in an effort to give the American people as much of a say as possible in a decision that could affect the makeup of the court for a generation. Despite the debate, Trump forged ahead and announced Barrett as his selection on Saturday.
Celebrities are joining many Democrats in objecting to the timing of the nomination, and also frame the battle as one over health care in the time of COVID-19. Several took to social media to issue a rebuke against Barrett’s views on abortion as well as the threat of largely conservative court amid legal fights for the Affordable Care Act.
Bette Midler, Billy Eichner and Debra Messing spoke out against Trump’s Supreme Court selection Amy Coney Barrett. (AP/Getty Images)
“You can’t be pro-life and pro Amy Coney Barrett. #BlockBarrett,” wrote actress Peri Gilpin following Trump’s announcement.
“Look at this. FIGHT BACK!!!” wrote comedian Billy Eichner over a video of Barrett previously suggesting waiting to fill a Supreme Court seat.
“THIS IS A LAST DITCH POWER GRAB,” Debra Messing wrote. “At GRAVE risk:
Universal Healthcare
Preexisting Conditions PROTECTIONS
Women’s Bodily Autonomy
Voting Rights
Response to the Climate Crisis
#Trump said he is pushing this through so she can vote him in w/ contested election results.”
“I don’t want to condone this process, but I do want to see everyone on the judiciary committee give their time to @KamalaHarris so she can filet Amy Coney Barret,” wrote ‘West Wing” star Bradley Whitford.
“120 million people could be kicked off healthcare insurance during a pandemic,” Alyssa Milano shared. “Barrett has a track record of disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the ACA. She critiqued Chief Roberts’ opinion upholding the law in 2012. “Just saying. #NoSCOTUSVote #COVIDー19.”
“Trump APPOINTS FEMALE NEOCON JUDGE WHO PLEDGES BEHIND THE SCENES, 2 KILL ACA & PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS DURING A PANDEMIC,& ROE WADE 2 GO.
SICK CHILDREN WILL SUFFER BECAUSE MEDICINES TOO EXPENSIVE .NO💰4 DIALYSIS,HEART CANCER, KIDNEY DISEASES, IF PPL DONT GET TREATMENT THEY DIE,” Cher wrote.
“Disgraceful. If anyone in your life were as two-faced, callous, dishonest & selfish as this, you’d never want to associate with them. Vote them out. And then pack the courts,” wrote “Westworld” star Jeffrey Wright.
“The wildest thing about this Barrett nomination is we’re so caught up in her conservativeness that we forget TRUMP DOESN’T EVEN HIMSELF BELIEVE THIS S—. he is not a religious man. A family man. Nothing. It’s a lie that got so out of hand he’s gotta roll with just to stay a D—,” Chrissy Teigen added.
Meanwhile, Bette Midler wrote: “Do you think they tried very hard to get Donald to read anything about #AmyConeyBarrett, or did they just say, “We found a lady Mike Pence” during a commercial break on OANN?”
The poll found Biden leading Trump by 10 percentage points among likely voters in Wisconsin, with 54 percent supporting the former vice president and 44 percent backing the president.
In Michigan, the Democratic nominee is ahead of Trump by 8 percentage points among likely voters, with 52 percent backing Biden and 44 percent supporting the president.
The likely voter numbers in Michigan fell within the margin of error, but the Wisconsin results were outside of the margin of error.
Among registered voters, Biden held a 9 percentage point lead in Michigan, outside of the margin of error, and an 8 percentage point lead in Wisconsin, within the margin of error.
The poll attributed Biden’s lead among likely voters in Michigan to his majority support among Black voters, women, independents, white voters with college degrees and seniors. Trump, on the other hand, outdoes Biden among men, white voters without college degrees and white evangelical Christians.
Trump and Biden are in a tight race for support among all white voters and white Catholics.
In the Michigan poll, Trump led Biden among likely voters who were asked which candidate would better manage the economy, with 49 percent backing Trump and 42 percent backing Biden.
But in Wisconsin, the candidates are tied on the economy with 46 percent support.
In both states, Biden holds an advantage of at least 17 percentage points among likely voters who think he’d better handle the coronavirus and race relations.
The NBC News-Marist poll in Wisconsin surveyed 1,131 adults. It included 951 registered voters and 727 likely voters and was taken between Sept. 20 and Sept. 24. The likely voter sample had a margin of error of 4.6 percentage points, and the registered voter sample had a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points.
The poll in Michigan surveyed 1,161 adults, including 1,082 registered voters and 799 likely voters, between Sept. 19 and Sept. 23. The margin of error for the likely voter sample was 4.3 percentage points. The margin of error for the registered voter sample was 3.7 percentage points.
“We’ve been transferring the office of the presidency from one person to the next since 1796,” Cotton (R-Ark.) said Sunday to CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.“ “I’m confident it’s going to happen again in 2025 after President Trump finishes his second term.”
“What the president was saying is that he is not going to concede in advance, especially when you have so many states changing the rules at the very last minute for mail-in balloting,” Cotton continued. “The premise of the question you just played me is the president’s going to lose. I don’t think the president is going to lose. I think the president is going to win.”
Several states have safely used mail-in voting for years, and voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the United States. Several states also already accommodate absentee ballots arriving shortly after Election Day. But Trump has called mail-in voting a “scam,” arguing that he wants to know the results of the election on Election Day.
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows defended Trump on Sunday, rebuffing CBS’ Margaret Brennan over the notion that Trump’s comments sowed doubt in the election.
“I don’t know that he is publicly undermining confidence as much as he is stating the facts,” Meadows said on “Face the Nation.“ “We’ve got states that are actually doing things you would qualify as a scam when you start to look at allowing mail-in ballots to come in seven, nine days after Nov. 3, and changing judges that actually are not legislators. I think that is a real problem. You can call it what you will, but what you can call it is unusual and unique.”
A number of states before 2020 allowed ballots to arrive late if they were postmarked by Election Day.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) condemned the president’s comments as dangerous and called out his Republican colleagues for failing to speak out about them.
The centrist Democrat told Tapper that members of the Senate should be “absolutely horrified at even the thought” of Trump going against the will of the people.
“What the president is saying is that there could be basically upheaval on election night or the morning after the election when we usually have had a gratification of knowing who was going to be that winner. That might not happen because of Covid-19,” Manchin said. “Once he sows the seeds of distrust, then we’ve got a problem.”
Trump’s former national security adviser H.R. McMaster expressed dismay Sunday at the president’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer, saying any alternative would be against the wishes of the Founding Fathers.
Pentagon officials worry that Trump could deploy the military to quell post-election unrest, The New York Times reported last week. McMaster stressed Sunday it would be irresponsible to even suggest a military role in the transition.
“It shouldn’t even be a topic for discussion. Our founders were very concerned about this,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It’s a gift to our adversaries who want to shake our confidence in who we are.”
Cameron said Wednesday the investigation of Taylor’s death March 13 ruled out “friendly fire” from officer Brett Hankison as the source of the shot that went through Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly’s thigh, prompting him and officer Myles Cosgrove to return fire, killing Taylor.
The KSP report says that “due to limited markings of comparative value,” the 9mm bullet that hit and exited Mattingly was neither “identified nor eliminated as having been fired” from Walker’s gun.
Wednesday night on CNN, Steven Romines, one of Walker’s attorneys, said he obtained a Louisville Metro Police Department record showing Hankison had been issued a 9mm weapon as well.
Romines declined to share the record from Hankison’s personnel file with The Louisville Courier Journal, and LMPD spokeswoman Jessie Halladay said she could release it only in response to an open records request.
The Courier Journal, part of the USA TODAY Network, filed one, but the department hasn’t responded.
Walker said he fired a single warning shot from his Glock handgun at Taylor’s apartment because he thought intruders were breaking in. Police said they had identified themselves. They were attempting to serve a “no-knock” search warrant shortly before 1 a.m. March 13 at Taylor’s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
Cameron said last week that Mattingly fired six shots, Cosgrove 16 and Hankison 10, and Taylor was hit six times.
He said FBI ballistic examiners concluded Cosgrove fired the shot that killed Taylor, but KSP couldn’t determine whether Cosgrove or Mattingly fired that bullet.
Servicemen and members of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation gather after the Armenian government declared martial law and military mobilization amidst growing conflict with Azerbaijan.
Servicemen and members of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation gather after the Armenian government declared martial law and military mobilization amidst growing conflict with Azerbaijan.
Fighting broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh on Sunday, causing casualties on both sides and prompting the Armenian government to declare martial law and mobilize its military.
The conflict is the latest eruption of violence in a decades-long dispute over the region, which lies within the borders of Azerbaijan but is controlled by ethnic Armenian forces. Both countries have reported military and civilian deaths as of Sunday afternoon.
Armenian officials said Azerbaijani forces launched a “missile and aerial attack” in the region on Sunday morning, targeting peaceful settlements and shelling civilian infrastructures, while Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said its armed forces were responding to Armenian shelling.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said in a tweet that the aggression seemed to be pre-planned, and “constitutes large-scale provocation against regional peace & security.”
Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, countered that “the first fire, including artillery fire, was opened by Armenia, and the first victims were Azerbaijani servicemen.”
Officials in both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh declared martial law and dispatched armed forces as tensions rose on Sunday morning.
The human rights ombudsman of Nagorno-Karabakh said that a woman and child were killed and two civilians were wounded in the Martuni region as a result of Azerbaijani shelling. The region’s deputy defense minister later said that 16 Armenian forces were killed and more than 100 were wounded.
Aliyev, Azerbaijan’s president, said enemy fire had killed and wounded both servicemen and civilians, and that “shedding of their blood will not go unpunished.”
“Armenia is an occupying state, and an end to this occupation must and will be put,” Aliyev added.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose nation shares a border with Armenia, reinforced his country’s support for longtime ally Azerbaijan in a series of tweets, in which he calledArmenia “the biggest threat to peace and tranquility in the region.”
“The Turkish Nation stands by its Azerbaijani brothers with all its means, as always,” he wrote.
In response, Armenian prime minister Pashinyan issued a statement calling on the international community to “use all of its influence to halt any possible interference by Turkey,” which he said would have devastating consequences for the region.
The renewed conflict threatens the stability of the southern Caucasus, which is crisscrossed by numerous oil and gas pipelines.
Reactions from the international community poured in on Sunday, with foreign leaders calling on the long-time adversaries to de-escalate the conflict and restart dialogue.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Minsk Group, co-chaired by the United States, Russia and France, has been working to permanently settle the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia since 1994. Its leaders issued a joint statement expressing concern about the reports of military actions and condemning the use of force and “senseless loss of life.”
“The Co-Chairs call on the sides to take all necessary measures to stabilize the situation on the ground and reiterate that there is no alternative to a peaceful negotiated solution of the conflict,” they added.
Separately, officials in Russia and France urged the countries to cease fire and begin negotiations immediately.
Charles Michel, president of the European Council, also called for a halt to military action and a return to negotiations “without preconditions.”
Similar hopes were expressed at the Vatican, where Pope Francis urged leaders to find a solution “not through the use of force and arms, but through the means of dialogue and negotiation.”
Azerbaijan and Armenia have clashed periodically in the wake of the 1994 ceasefire that left Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenian control. Notably, a wave of violence in 2016 killed at least 30 troops on both sides. And more recently, fighting along the border killed at least 16 people in July.
Joe Biden has been aggressively preparing for the first presidential debate next week with mock sessions that feature a senior adviser playing the role of Donald Trump as the president forgoes formal preparation.
Though Biden’s team believes the significance of the debate may be exaggerated, the Democratic nominee has been consistently preparing to take on the president.
Biden’s campaign has been holding mock debate sessions featuring Bob Bauer, a senior Biden adviser and former White House general counsel, playing the role of Trump, according to a person with direct knowledge of the preparations who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy.
Bauer has not actually donned a Trump costume in line with Trump stand-ins from previous years, but he is representing his style and expected strategy.
‘I’m sure the president will throw everything he can at (Biden). My guess is that they’re preparing for that – bombarding him with insults and weird digressions,’ said Jay Carney, a former aide to Biden and President Barack Obama.
Scroll down for video
Joe Biden has been aggressively preparing for the first presidential debate next week with mock sessions that feature a senior adviser playing the role of Donald Trump as the president forgoes formal preparation
Biden’s campaign has been holding mock debate sessions featuring Bob Bauer (pictured), a senior Biden adviser and former White House general counsel, playing the role of Trump, according to a person with direct knowledge of the preparations
‘I think it’s an important moment — I think it’s really important for President Trump, because the direction of this election has been pretty stable for a long time now, and he needs to shake it up as any candidate would who’s behind,’ Carney added. ‘The question is, can that work?’
Trump and Biden are scheduled to meet on the debate stage for the first time Tuesday night at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.
The 90-minute event moderated by Fox News host Chris Wallace is the first of three scheduled presidential debates.
Vice President Mike Pence and California Sen Kamala Harris, Biden’s running mate, will also debate in October.
For some, the debates represent the most important moments in the 2020 campaign’s closing days, a rare opportunity for millions of voters to compare the candidates’ policies and personalities side-by-side on prime-time television.
Trump has been trailing Biden in the polls for the entire year, a reality that gives the president an urgent incentive to change the direction of the contest on national television if he can.
Others, including those close to Biden’s campaign, do not expect the debates to fundamentally change the race no matter what happens, given voters’ daily struggles with the pandemic and the economy.
They also point to high-profile debates in past elections thought to be game-changing moments at the time but that ultimately had little lasting effect.
Those with knowledge of Biden’s preparations suggest he will not take the fight to Trump if he can avoid it. But on Saturday, at least, he was on the attack when he discussed his strategy on MSNBC.
‘I’m prepared to go out and make my case as to why I think he’s failed and why I think the answers I have to proceed will help the American people, the American economy and make us safer internationally,’ Biden said, arguing that Trump won’t persuade voters with broadsides because ‘the people know the president is a liar’.
He also compared Trump to Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, saying: ‘He’s sort of like Goebbels. You say the lie long enough, keep repeating, repeating, repeating, it becomes common knowledge.’
Biden said he doesn’t expect Trump to articulate a detailed vision for a second term.
‘He doesn’t know how to debate the facts, because he’s not that smart,’ Biden continued.
‘He doesn’t know that many facts. He doesn’t know much about foreign policy. He doesn’t know much about domestic policy. He doesn’t know much about the detail.’
Trump has not been doing any formal preparation, according to aides and allies who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Trump, instead, has maintained that the best preparation is doing his day job — particularly his frequent and often contentious interactions with reporters
While Biden has said he will try to be a fact checker of sorts on stage, the Democrat is being advised to avoid direct confrontations and instead redirect the conversation to more familiar campaign themes of unity and issues that matter most to voters: the economy, health care and the pandemic.
‘Arguing over facts, litigating whether what he’s saying is accurate, that is not winning to Biden,’ said Jen Psaki, a former Obama aide who is close to Biden’s team.
‘This is an opportunity to speak directly to the American people. His objective should be to speak directly to them, but not be pulled in by Trump. That is hard.’
Trump has not been doing any formal preparation, according to aides and allies who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
No set has been constructed and aides refused to say whether anyone is playing Biden.
Trump, instead, has maintained that the best preparation is doing his day job — particularly his frequent and often contentious interactions with reporters.
White House aides also scheduled an ABC town hall earlier this month to expose Trump to real voter questions for the first time in months in preparation for the second debate.
Privately some aides and allies are worried that Trump’s lack of formal preparation will lead him to fall into the same hubris trap as other incumbents in their first general election debate.
Obama, for example, famously struggled in his first matchup against Mitt Romney in 2012.
But other Trump backers are confident that the president is ready to handle any tough questions or pushback from Biden.
‘The debates matter,’ said Lara Trump, a senior adviser to the campaign and the president’s daughter-in-law. ‘Donald Trump certainly did a great job on the debates (in 2016) and I think this will be no different.’
Lara Trump also seemed to simultaneously raise and lower expectations for Biden.
‘Joe Biden spent a lot of time in his basement to study up. He’s been in this game for 47 years. I assume he’ll do okay,’ she said. ‘Quite frankly, the bar has been lowered so much for Joe Biden that if he stays awake for the whole thing it’s like maybe he won.’
The mixed messages were in line with those of Trump’s allies who spent much of the year raising questions about Biden’s physical and mental strength, while in recent days trying to cast him as a strong and experienced debater facing a relative neophyte in Trump.
A former reality show star, the president is keenly aware of the power and pitfalls of live television.
Aides say he is acutely mindful of the power of ‘moments’ to define how a debate is perceived and that he intends to make his share of them happen.
It remains to be seen how aggressively Trump attacks Biden. He has warned apocalyptically about the consequences of a Biden victory and is never one to shy away from a fight.
He is also an avowed ‘counterpuncher’ and will surely respond to any attacks by Biden in kind.
Terry McAuliffe, the former Virginia governor and onetime national Democratic chairman, said Biden must fashion a succinct, debate-stage version of his message since the spring: draw a straight line from Trump’s personal deficiencies to his handling of the pandemic, its economic fallout, the national reckoning on race and then explain why a Biden presidency would be different.
‘Trump’s just looking for a Hail Mary here,’ McAuliffe said. ‘He knows he’s in trouble.’
“We know that the votes are not there [to block the nominee], but you do what you can to call attention to it,” said Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent who could be pulled off the campaign trail as a result. “The issue is that this is a power grab.”
“We can’t do business as usual in a situation that’s so extraordinary where the Republicans are breaking their word to rush a nominee so they can kill the Affordable Care Act,” added Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). “We can’t just say, oh, yeah, that’s normal. Sorry.”
The goal, senators and aides say, is to highlight what Democrats see as hypocrisy and a blatant abuse of power on the part of McConnell (R-Ky.), who blocked President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016 but is pressing forward with the goal of confirming President Donald Trump’s pick, Amy Coney Barrett, before Election Day. McConnell only needs a simple majority after Republicans eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017. And if Democrats can prevent Barrett from being seated on the court before Nov. 10, she likely wouldn’t be able to rule on the Trump administration’s effort to invalidate Obamacare.
Democratic senators were quick to justify the retaliation effort, which is only getting started with less than 40 days until the Nov. 3 election.
“Process is everything,” said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). “So if you’re going to use the process to try to steal an election, then we’re going to use the process to try to do everything for that not to happen.”
Some Democrats have already said they will refuse to meet with Barrett, just as many Republicans snubbed Obama’s 2016 pick,MerrickGarland.But the party still plans to abide by some norms; Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have decided to attend the confirmation hearings, despite calls from the left for a boycott.
Indeed, McConnell has told his members that they should be prepared for such tactics from Democrats, which could complicate campaign schedules for vulnerable GOP incumbents.
Here’s what Senate Democrats have in their toolkit:
The “two-hour rule”
Schumer’s opening salvo last Tuesday was to invoke the rarely used “two-hour rule,” which can be used to halt all committee business after the Senate has been in session for more than two hours.
The move caught senators and aides by surprise, and it caused the cancellation of several important committee hearings — most notably, a closed Senate Intelligence Committee briefing with William Evanina, the nation’s top counterintelligence official, on the subject of election security.
Republicans quickly derided the move as a “temper tantrum” on Schumer’s part. When Intelligence Committee Chairman Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) asked for consent that his panel hold its scheduled session with Evanina, Schumer objected.
“Because the Senate Republicans have no respect for the institution, we won’t have business as usual here in the Senate,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.
While the move made no difference for Republicans’ timeline to confirm a new Supreme Court justice, it was one of several ways Democrats could disrupt the chamber’s activity.
Perhaps most importantly, when the Judiciary Committee holds its series of confirmation hearings for Barrett in October, the sessions will almost certainly last more than two hours. Democrats could then invoke the two-hour rule to halt the hearing for the rest of the day.
Slowing down legislative business
The Senate can finish up its work on a bill or a nomination quickly with the agreement of all 100 senators. But that rarely happens, and McConnell and Schumer often spend their days haggling over floor time to reach a consent agreement.
On Thursday, Democrats refused to give consent for the Senate to quickly pass a government funding bill, requiring McConnell to file cloture and set up a final vote possibly for as late as Wednesday, just hours before the Sept. 30 deadline. The move also prevents senators up for reelection from campaigning while they tend to Senate business next week.
“Right now I think they’re just trying to throw a wrench into anything we do,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters. “Obviously it’s retribution for the decision on the court and they just want to be difficult. I don’t know why. It doesn’t make sense to me either to bring everybody back next week when we could finish this today.”
Object to recess
When the Senate concludes its business for the day, it requires the consent of all 100 senators. Any one lawmaker can object to recessing.
Democrats could force the chamber to remain in session even when Republicans want to close up shop for the day or for a couple of weeks in October to allow vulnerable incumbents to head home and campaign for reelection in the final stretch before November. Still, even if the Senate doesn’t formally recess, individual senators could still leave Washington.
Deny a quorum
In order to conduct business, the Senate requires a quorum, or a majority of senators to be present. Any one senator can move to require a quorum call. If just a few Republicans are absent for any reason, Democrats could boycott the quorum call, effectively preventing the Senate from doing business.
Points of order and motions to adjourn
Any senator can raise what is dubbed a “point of order” to ask the presiding officer a procedural question. If the senator disagrees with the presiding officer’s ruling, he or she can appeal it and trigger a roll-call vote, requiring senators to spend time voting on the objection. Democrats could theoretically do several of these in a row, which could stall proceedings for hours, even days.
They can also force a series of votes on motions to adjourn or to recess, further occupying valuable floor time and delaying the Senate’s business.
Get the House on board
There are a number of actions the Democrat-controlled House could take in order to force the Senate to take up unrelated business.
One of these is a War Powers Resolution, which, if passed by the House, can be put to the Senate floor even by Democrats, who are in the minority.
Some Democrats floated the highly unlikely possibility of impeaching the president or Attorney General William Barr, which would force the Senate to take up a trial. But the idea quickly fizzled — and Republicans could simply vote to dismiss the trial altogether.
Delay a final committee vote
After the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, any senator can move to delay the final committee vote by a week. That committee vote formally advances the nomination to the Senate floor.
Under the current timeline, even if the committee vote is pushed back by a week, the nomination could reach the Senate floor the week before the election. But the Senate could also vote for the nominee in the lame duck session.
But how far are Democrats willing to go?
Individual senators have been known to cause a procedural fracas here and there on the Senate floor — but if Schumer develops a cohesive strategy and has the support of the entire Senate Democratic Caucus, it could quickly become one of the most disruptive series of delay tactics in recent memory.
Even Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who voted to confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and is consideredthe most conservative Senate Democrat, is on board with Schumer’s initial effort. He was quick to justify Schumer’s use of the two-hour rule, which halted committee business last Tuesday.
“Hell, we don’t do anything around here anyway, we’ve got plenty of time to do meetings,” Manchin said. “They can reschedule.”
Moderate Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana said he doesn’t plan to “second-guess” Schumer, in part because he views the alternative as the destruction of the Senate.
“I don’t know that the Senate will ever be what it once was. Mike Mansfield would be shaking his head today,” Tester said in an interview, referring to the longest-serving Senate majority leader. “There’s no sense of fair play, it’s all about power, it’s all about retention of power, it’s all about screwing people over.”
Other Democrats said the disrupt-and-obstruct strategy could prove useful as the party seeks to further highlight the Senate’s inaction on pandemic relief, which has stalled for weeks after negotiations broke down.
“We’re in the middle of a recession and a pandemic, and apparently he’s going to move heaven and earth to ram through a partisan nominee for the court, but there’s no time for us to resolve that?” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a Judiciary Committee member, said in an interview.
At the same time, some Democrats are warning that there should be some limits to the dilatory efforts, in particular when it comes to interfering with Senate activity that remains bipartisan, such as the Intelligence Committee briefing that was scrapped last week.
Electoral college map: Who actually votes, and who do they vote for? Explore how shifts in turnout and voting patterns for key demographic groups could affect the presidential race.
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"