Read the full transcript of President Joe Biden’s exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thank you for doing this.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Thank you for doin’ it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s get right to it. Back in July, you said a Taliban takeover was highly unlikely. Was the intelligence wrong, or did you downplay it?
BIDEN: I think — there was no consensus. If you go back and look at the intelligence reports, they said that it’s more likely to be sometime by the end of the year. The idea that the tal — and then it goes further on, even as late as August. I think you’re gonna see — the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others speaking about this later today.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you didn’t put a timeline on it when you said it was highly unlikely. You just said flat out, “It’s highly unlikely the Taliban would take over.”
BIDEN: Yeah. Well, the question was whether or not it w– the idea that the Taliban would take over was premised on the notion that the — that somehow, the 300,000 troops we had trained and equipped was gonna just collapse, they were gonna give up. I don’t think anybody anticipated that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you know that Senator McConnell, others say this was not only predictable, it was predicted, including by him, based on intelligence briefings he was getting.
BIDEN: What — what did he say was predicted?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator McConnell said it was predictable that the Taliban was gonna take over.
BIDEN: Well, by the end of the year, I said that’s that was — that was a real possibility. But no one said it was gonna take over then when it was bein’ asked.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So when you look at what’s happened over the last week, was it a failure of intelligence, planning, execution or judgment?
BIDEN: Look, I don’t think it was a fa– look, it was a simple choice, George. When the– when the Taliban — let me back — put it another way. When you had the government of Afghanistan, the leader of that government get in a plane and taking off and going to another country, when you saw the significant collapse of the ta– of the– Afghan troops we had trained — up to 300,000 of them just leaving their equipment and taking off, that was — you know, I’m not– this — that — that’s what happened.
That’s simply what happened. So the question was in the beginning the– the threshold question was, do we commit to leave within the timeframe we’ve set? We extended it to September 1st. Or do we put significantly more troops in? I hear people say, “Well, you had 2,500 folks in there and nothin’ was happening. You know, there wasn’t any war.”
But guess what? The fact was that the reason it wasn’t happening is the last president negotiated a year earlier that he’d be out by May 1st and that– in return, there’d be no attack on American forces. That’s what was done. That’s why nothing was happening. But the idea if I had said — I had a simple choice. If I had said, “We’re gonna stay,” then we’d better prepare to put a whole hell of a lot more troops in —
STEPHANOPOULOS: But your top military advisors warned against withdrawing on this timeline. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops.
BIDEN: No, they didn’t. It was split. Tha– that wasn’t true. That wasn’t true.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They didn’t tell you that they wanted troops to stay?
BIDEN: No. Not at — not in terms of whether we were going to get out in a timeframe all troops. They didn’t argue against that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no one told — your military advisors did not tell you, “No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that”?
BIDEN: No. No one said that to me that I can recall. Look, George, the reason why it’s been stable for a year is because the last president said, “We’re leaving. And here’s the deal I wanna make with you, Taliban. We’re agreeing to leave if you agree not to attack us between now and the time we leave on May the 1st.”
I got into office, George. Less than two months after I elected to office, I was sworn in, all of a sudden, I have a May 1 deadline. I have a May 1 deadline. I got one of two choices. Do I say we’re staying? And do you think we would not have to put a hell of a lot more troops? B– you know, we had hundreds– we had tens of thousands of troops there before. Tens of thousands.
Do you think we woulda — that we would’ve just said, “No problem. Don’t worry about it, we’re not gonna attack anybody. We’re okay”? In the meantime, the Taliban was takin’ territory all throughout the country in the north and down in the south, in the Pasthtun area.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So would you have withdrawn troops like this even if President Trump had not made that deal with the Taliban?
BIDEN: I would’ve tried to figure out how to withdraw those troops, yes, because look, George. There is no good time to leave Afghanistan. Fifteen years ago would’ve been a problem, 15 years from now. The basic choice is am I gonna send your sons and your daughters to war in Afghanistan in perpetuity?
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s–
BIDEN: No one can name for me a time when this would end. And what– wha– wha– what– what constitutes defeat of the Taliban? What constitutes defeat? Would we have left then? Let’s say they surrender like before. OK. Do we leave then? Do you think anybody– the same people who think we should stay would’ve said, “No, good time to go”? We spent over $1 trillion, George, 20 years. There was no good time to leave.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if there’s no good time, if you know you’re gonna have to leave eventually, why not have th– everything in place to make sure Americans could get out, to make sure our Afghan allies get out, so we don’t have these chaotic scenes in Kabul?
BIDEN: Number one, as you know, the intelligence community did not say back in June or July that, in fact, this was gonna collapse like it did. Number one.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They thought the Taliban would take over, but not this quickly?
BIDEN: But not this quickly. Not even close. We had already issued several thousand passports to the– the SIVs, the people– the– the– the translators when I came into office before we had negotiated getting out at the end of s– August.
Secondly, we’re in a position where what we did was took precautions. That’s why I authorized that there be 6,000 American troops to flow in to accommodate this exit, number one. And number two, provided all that aircraft in the Gulf to get people out. We pre-positioned all that, anticipated that. Now, granted, it took two days to take control of the airport. We have control of the airport now.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Still a lotta pandemonium outside the airport.
BIDEN: Oh, there is. But, look, b– but no one’s being killed right now, God forgive me if I’m wrong about that, but no one’s being killed right now. People are– we got 1,000-somewhat, 1,200 out, yesterday, a couple thousand today. And it’s increasing. We’re gonna get those people out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But we’ve all seen the pictures. We’ve seen those hundreds of people packed into a C-17. You’ve seen Afghans falling–
BIDEN: That was four days ago, five days ago.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What did you think when you first saw those pictures?
BIDEN: What I thought was we ha– we have to gain control of this. We have to move this more quickly. We have to move in a way in which we can take control of that airport. And we did.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I– I think a lot of– a lot of Americans, and a l– even a lot of veterans who served in Afghanistan agree with you on the big, strategic picture. They believe we had to get out. But I wonder how you respond to an Army Special Forces officer, Javier McKay (PH). He did seven tours. He was shot twice. He agrees with you. He says, “We have to cut our losses in Afghanistan.” But he adds, “I just wish we could’ve left with honor.”
BIDEN: Look, that’s like askin’ my deceased son Beau, who spent six months in Kosovo and a year in Iraq as a Navy captain and then major– I mean, as an Army major. And, you know, I’m sure h– he had regrets comin’ out of Afganista– I mean, out of Iraq.
He had regrets to what’s– how– how it’s going. But the idea– what’s the alternative? The alternative is why are we staying in Afghanistan? Why are we there? Don’t you think that the one– you know who’s most disappointed in us getting out? Russia and China. They’d love us to continue to have to–
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don’t think this could’ve been handled, this exit could’ve been handled better in any way? No mistakes?
BIDEN: No. I– I don’t think it could’ve been handled in a way that there– we– we’re gonna go back in hindsight and look, but the idea that somehow there’s a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don’t know how that happens. I don’t know how that happened.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So for you, that was always priced into the decision?
BIDEN: Yes. Now, exactly what happened– is not priced in. But I knew that they’re gonna have an enormous, enorm– look, one of the things we didn’t know is what the Taliban would do in terms of trying to keep people from getting out, what they would do.What are they doing now? They’re cooperating, letting American citizens get out, American personnel get out, embassies get out, et cetera. But they’re having– we’re having some more difficulty in having those who helped us when we were in there–
STEPHANOPOULOS: And we don’t really know what’s happening outside of Kabul.
BIDEN: Pardon me?
STEPHANOPOULOS: We don’t really know what’s happening outside of Kabul.
BIDEN: Well– we do know generically and in some specificity what’s happening outside of Kabul. We don’t know it in great detail. But we do know. And guess what? The Taliban knows if they take on American citizens or American military, we will strike them back like hell won’t have it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: All troops are supposed to be out by August 31st. Even if Americans and our Afghan allies are still trying to get out, they’re gonna leave?
BIDEN: We’re gonna do everything in our power to get all Americans out and our allies out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that mean troops will stay beyond August 31st if necessary?
BIDEN: It depends on where we are and whether we can get– ramp these numbers up to 5,000 to 7,000 a day coming out. If that’s the case, we’ll be– they’ll all be out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ‘Cause we’ve got, like, 10,000 to 15,000 Americans in the country right now, right? And are you committed to making sure that the troops stay until every American who wants to be out–
BIDEN: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: — is out?
BIDEN: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about our Afghan allies? We have about 80,000 people–
BIDEN: Well, that’s not the s–
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that too high?
BIDEN: That’s too high.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How many–
BIDEN: The estimate we’re giving is somewhere between 50,000 and 65,000 folks total, counting their families.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the commitment hold for them as well?
BIDEN: The commitment holds to get everyone out that, in fact, we can get out and everyone that should come out. And that’s the objective. That’s what we’re doing now, that’s the path we’re on. And I think we’ll get there.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So Americans should understand that troops might have to be there beyond August 31st?
BIDEN: No. Americans should understand that we’re gonna try to get it done before August 31st.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if we don’t, the troops will stay–
BIDEN: If — if we don’t, we’ll determine at the time who’s left.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And?
BIDEN: And if you’re American force — if there’s American citizens left, we’re gonna stay to get them all out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You talked about our adversaries, China and Russia. You already see China telling Taiwan, “See? You can’t count on the Americans.” (LAUGH)
BIDEN: Sh– why wouldn’t China say that? Look, George, the idea that w– there’s a fundamental difference between– between Taiwan, South Korea, NATO. We are in a situation where they are in– entities we’ve made agreements with based on not a civil war they’re having on that island or in South Korea, but on an agreement where they have a unity government that, in fact, is trying to keep bad guys from doin’ bad things to them.
We have made– kept every commitment. We made a sacred commitment to Article Five that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond. Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with– Taiwan. It’s not even comparable to talk about that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, but those–
BIDEN: It’s not comparable to t–
STEPHANOPOULOS: –who say, “Look, America cannot be trusted now, America does not keep its promises–“
BIDEN: Who– who’s gonna say that? Look, before I made this decision, I met with all our allies, our NATO allies in Europe. They agreed. We should be getting out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Did they have a choice?
BIDEN: Sure, they had a choice. Look, the one thing I promise you in private, NATO allies are not quiet. You remember from your old days. They’re not gonna be quiet. And so– and by the way, you know, what we’re gonna be doing is we’re gonna be putting together a group of the G-7, the folks that we work with the most– to– I was on the phone with– with Angela Merkel today. I was on the phone with the British prime minister. I’m gonna be talking to Macron in France to make sure we have a coherent view of how we’re gonna deal from this point on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What happens now in Afghanistan? Do you believe the Taliban have changed?
BIDEN: No. I think– let me put it this way. I think they’re going through sort of an existential crisis about do they want to be recognized by the international community as being a legitimate government. I’m not sure they do. But look, they have–
STEPHANOPOULOS: They care about their beliefs more?
BIDEN: Well, they do. But they also care about whether they have food to eat, whether they have an income that they can provide for their f– that they can make any money and run an economy. They care about whether or not they can hold together the society that they in fact say they care so much about.
I’m not counting on any of that. I’m not cou– but that is part of what I think is going on right now in terms of I– I’m not sure I would’ve predicted, George, nor would you or anyone else, that when we decided to leave, that they’d provide safe passage for Americans to get out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Beyond Americans, what do we owe the Afghans who are left behind, particularly Afghan women who are facing the prospect of subjugation again?
BIDEN: As many as we can get out, we should. For example, I had a meeting today for a couple hours in the Situation Room just below here. There are Afghan women outside the gate. I told ’em, “Get ’em on the planes. Get them out. Get them out. Get their families out if you can.”
But here’s the deal, George. The idea that we’re able to deal with the rights of women around the world by military force is not rational. Not rational. Look what’s happened to the Uighurs in western China. Look what’s happening in other parts of the world.
Look what’s happenin’ in, you know, in– in the Congo. I mean, there are a lotta places where women are being subjugated. The way to deal with that is not with a military invasion. The way to deal with that is putting economic, diplomatic, and national pre– international pressure on them to change their behavior.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the threat to the United States? Most intelligence analysis has predicted that Al Qaeda would come back 18 to 24 months after a withdrawal of American troops. Is that analysis now being revised? Could it be sooner?
BIDEN: It could be. But George, look, here’s the deal. Al Qaeda, ISIS, they metastasize. There’s a significantly greater threat to the United States from Syria. There’s a significantly greater threat from East Africa. There’s significant greater threat to other places in the world than it is from the mountains of Afghanistan. And we have maintained the ability to have an over-the-horizon capability to take them out. We’re– we don’t have military in Syria to make sure that we’re gonna be protected–
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’re confident we’re gonna have that in Afghanistan?
BIDEN: Yeah. I’m confident we’re gonna have the overriding capability, yes. Look, George, it’s like asking me, you know, am I confident that people are gonna act even remotely rationally. Here’s the deal. The deal is the threat from Al Qaeda and their associate organizations is greater in other parts of the world to the United States than it is from Afghanistan.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And th– that tells you that you’re– it’s safe to leave?
BIDEN: No. That tells me that– my dad used to have an expression, George. If everything’s equally important to you, nothing’s important to you. We should be focusing on where the threat is the greatest. And the threat– the idea– we can continue to spend $1 trillion and have tens of thousands of American forces in Afghanistan when we have what’s going on around the world, in the Middle East and North Africa and west– I mean, excuse me– yeah, North Africa and Western Africa. The idea we can do that and ignore those– those looming problems, growing problems, is not– not rational.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Final question on this. You know, in a couple weeks, we’re all gonna commemorate the 20th anniversary of 9/11. The Taliban are gonna be ruling Afghanistan, just l– like they were when our country was attacked. How do you explain that to the American people?
BIDEN: Not true. It’s not true. They’re not gonna look just like they were we were attacked. There was a guy named Osama bin Laden that was still alive and well. They were organized in a big way, that they had significant help from arou– from other parts of the world.
We went there for two reasons, George. Two reasons. One, to get Bin Laden, and two, to wipe out as best we could, and we did, the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did it. Then what happened? Began to morph into the notion that, instead of having a counterterrorism capability to have small forces there in– or in the region to be able to take on Al Qaeda if it tried to reconstitute, we decided to engage in nation building. In nation building. That never made any sense to me.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It sounds like you think we shoulda gotten out a long time ago–
BIDEN: We should’ve.
STEPHANOPOULOS: –and– and accept the idea that it was gonna be messy no matter what.
BIDEN: Well, by the– what would be messy?
STEPHANOPOULOS: The exit–
BIDEN: If we had gotten out a long time ago– getting out would be messy no matter when it occurred. I ask you, you want me to stay, you want us to stay and send your kids back to Afghanistan? How about it? Are you g– if you had a son or daughter, would you send them in Afghanistan now? Or later?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Would be hard, but a lot of families have done it.
BIDEN: They’ve done it because, in fact, there was a circumstance that was different when we started. We were there for two reasons, George. And we accomplished both ten years ago. We got Osama bin Laden. As I said and got criticized for saying at the time, we’re gonna follow him to the gates of hell. Hell, we did–
STEPHANOPOULOS: How will history judge the United States’ experience in Afghanistan?
BIDEN: One that we overextended what we needed to do to deal with our national interest. That’s like my sayin’ they– they’re– they– they b– b– the border of Tajikistan– and– other– what– does it matter? Are we gonna go to war because of what’s goin’ on in Tajikistan? What do you think?
Tell me what– where in that isolated country that has never, never, never in all of history been united, all the way back to Alexander the Great, straight through the British Empire and the Russians, what is the idea? Are we gonna s– continue to lose thousands of Americans to injury and death to try to unite that country? What do you think? I think not.
I think the American people are with me. And when you unite that country, what do you have? They’re surrounded by Russia in the north or the Stans in the north. You have– to the west, they have Iran. To the south, they have Pakistan, who’s supporting them. And to the– and– actually, the east, they have Pakistan and China. Tell me. Tell me. Is that worth our national interest to continue to spend another $1 trillion and lose thousands more American lives? For what?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I know we’re outta time. I have two quick questions on COVID. I know you’re gonna make– be makin’ an announcement on booster shots today. Have you and the first lady gotten your booster shots yet?
BIDEN: We’re gonna get the booster shots. And– it’s somethin’ that I think– you know, because we g– w– we got our shots all the way back in I think December. So it’s– it’s– it’s past time. And so the idea (NOISE) that the recommendation– that’s my wife calling. (LAUGH) No. (LAUGH) But all kiddin’ aside, yes, we will get the booster shots.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And– and finally– are you comfortable with Americans getting a third shot when so many millions around the world haven’t had their first?
BIDEN: Absolutely because we’re providing more to the rest of the world than all the rest of the world combined. We got enough for everybody American, plus before this year is– before we get to the middle of next year, we’re gonna provide a half a billion shots to the rest of the world. We’re keepin’ our part of the bargain. We’re doin’ more than anybody.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thanks for your time.
President Trump sent his first tweet a little more than half an hour into the Democratic presidential primary debate on Wednesday, and made clear what he thought of the proceeding.
“BORING!” Trump tweeted at 9:35 p.m. as Democratic hopefuls — including Mayor Bill de Blasio, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rourke — debated immigration, wealth inequality and other topics in Miami.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Trump was contemplating live tweeting the debate tonight and the follow-up tomorrow, which will feature front-runner Joe Biden.
Trump stayed mostly quiet on Twitter during the first hour of the debate Wednesday, sending only the one-word message.
Joseph Maguire, acting director of national intelligence, spent more than three hours Thursday morning before the House Intelligence Committee, where lawmakers questioned him about the complaint, which revealed that Trump had pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son. A redacted version of the complaint was made public Thursday morning.
● Whistleblower claimed Trump abused his office and that White House officials tried to cover it up
5:50 p.m.: Schiff says he’s ‘deeply concerned’ about whistleblower’s safety
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said he is concerned about the safety of the whistleblower who raised the alarm about Trump’s call with Zelensky, citing “repugnant threats” made by the president earlier Thursday.
“I’m deeply concerned about it,” Schiff told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when asked about the whistleblower’s safety. “And obviously, we’re going to do everything we can … to protect the whistleblower’s identity. But given those real, repugnant threats coming from the president, I have a real concern about this.”
Hours earlier, in a meeting with U.S. diplomats in New York, Trump had likened the whistleblower to a spy and suggested that the person should be punished for his or her actions.
Schiff also dismissed criticism from Republicans who have seized on his opening statement at Thursday’s hearing, in which he offered what he has described as a “parody” of Trump’s call with Zelensky.
“Oh, I don’t think it’s making light of the situation,” Schiff said on CNN. “And I certainly wouldn’t want to suggest that there’s anything comical about this.”
He added that it was accurate to say, as he did in the hearing, that Trump was “speaking like an organized crime boss.”
5:30 p.m.: Former Ukraine prosecutor says Hunter Biden ‘did not violate anything’
A former top Ukrainian prosecutor, whose allegations were at the heart of the dirt-digging effort by Rudolph W. Giuliani, said Thursday he believed that Hunter Biden did not run afoul of any laws in Ukraine.
“From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” former Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko told The Washington Post in his first interview since the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint alleging pressure by Trump on Zelensky.
Lutsenko’s comments about Hunter Biden — which echo what he told Bloomberg News in May — were significant, because Trump and his personal attorney Giuliani have sought to stir up suspicions about both Hunter and Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in recent weeks.
— Michael Birnbaum, David L. Stern and Natalie Gryvnyak
4:30 p.m.: American Academy of Diplomacy says Trump’s statements about Yovanovich are cause for ‘great concern’
The American Academy of Diplomacy, a nonprofit that supports the work of U.S. diplomats, put out a strongly worded statement condemning the disparaging comments Trump made about Marie Yovanovitch, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, during his call with the Ukrainian president.
According to the rough transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky provided by the White House, Trump said, “The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.”
Then Trump added, “She’s going to go through some things.”
The nonprofit’s chairman, Thomas Pickering, and its president, Ronald Neumann, said Trump’s comments causes them “great concern.”
Pickering worked in the State Department and as an ambassador under every president from Richard M. Nixon to Bill Clinton, while Neumann served as ambassador to Afghanistan and Bahrain under President George W. Bush and Algeria under Clinton.
“The threatening tone of this statement is deeply troubling,” they said in a joint statement. “It suggests actions outside of and contrary to the procedures and standards of a professional service whose officers, like their military counterparts, take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Whatever views the Administration has of Ambassador Yovanovitch’s performance, we call on the Administration to make clear that retaliation for political reasons will not be tolerated.
Yovanovitch was called back from her post in Ukraine in May, a move that Democrats have called a “political hit job.”
4:10 p.m.: Pompeo declines to say whether State Department told Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declined to say Thursday whether the State Department directed Giuliani to contact Zelensky and his aides.
Giuliani said in a Fox News Channel interview earlier this week that he was “operating at the request of the State Department” when he reached out to Ukrainian officials about investigating Biden.
But in a news conference in New York, Pompeo dodged a question on Giuliani’s claim. He said he had yet to read the whistleblower’s complaint, telling reporters that he “read the first couple of paragraphs and then got busy today.” And he maintained that “to the best of my knowledge,” the behavior of State Department officials was “entirely appropriate.”
“We have tried to use this opportunity to create a better relationship between the United States and Ukraine, to build on the opportunities, to tighten our relationship, to help end corruption in Ukraine,” Pompeo said. “This was what President Zelensky ran on. We’re hopeful that we can help him execute and achieve that.”
4 p.m.: Clinton says Trump’s efforts to undercut Biden mirror his attacks against her in 2016
In an interview taped before Pelosi officially announced her support for an impeachment inquiry into Trump, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton described the latest developments regarding Trump’s alleged actions as “incredibly troubling.” She said Trump’s attempts to damage Biden’s 2020 chances are similar to his efforts to undercut her in 2016.
“The most outrageously false things were said about me,” Clinton said in an interview with CBS’s “Sunday Morning.” “And unfortunately, enough people believed them. So this is an effort to sow these falsehoods against Biden. And I don’t care if you’re for the [Democrats] or you’re a Republican, when the president of the United States — who has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution — uses his position to, in effect, extort a foreign government for his political purposes, I think that is very much what the founders worried about in high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Later in the interview, Clinton called Trump “a clear and present danger.”
The interview will air in its entirety on Sunday.
3:50 p.m.: Biden campaign says Trump’s actions extend from ‘fear’ that the former vice president will beat him in 2020
The Biden campaign responded to the latest revelations in Trump’s alleged efforts to seek incriminating information from Ukraine about the former vice president, claiming that Trump’s alleged actions are “all borne from his deep, fully substantiated fear that Joe Biden will beat him in November 2020.”
“An intelligence community whistleblower said, ‘I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election,’” Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager, said in a statement.
“An hour after the report was made public, the Acting Director of National Intelligence called this report ‘urgent and important’ and ‘totally unprecedented.’ And now we know that President Trump’s response to all of this was to privately issue a thinly veiled threat this morning to execute the national security professionals who followed their oath to uphold the Constitution by bringing this to light.”
Bedingfield added that Trump’s “abuse of power makes him one of the most divisive, unfit individuals to occupy the Oval Office in our nation’s history.”
3:30 p.m.: Trump compares whistleblower to a ‘spy’
In remarks at a meeting with staffers for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations on Thursday, Trump likened the whistleblower to a spy and suggested that the person should be punished for his or her actions.
He told staffers that “basically, that person never saw the report, never saw the call, he never saw the call — heard something and decided that he or she, or whoever the hell they saw — they’re almost a spy.”
“I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy,” Trump said, according to audio of his remarks posted by the Los Angeles Times and confirmed to The Washington Post by a person in the room. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”
At a separate event with campaign donors at New York City’s Cipriani restaurant on Thursday, Trump waved a copy of the rough transcript of his call with Zelensky and boasted that it was good news for the GOP because it had prompted a flood of donations.
“This is the greatest thing that has ever happened to the Republican Party,” Trump said, according to an attendee.
When the crowd chanted “four more years,” the president responded by joking that they shouldn’t stop there.
“If you really want their heads to explode, you should chant eight more years,” Trump said.
— Josh Dawsey
2:30 p.m.: Timeline: The alarming pattern of actions by Trump included in whistleblower allegations
Six weeks after it was submitted, a complaint from an intelligence community whistleblower has been declassified and released publicly. Part of the complaint centers on the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. The whistleblower complaint, filed more than a month earlier, accurately captures the content of that call, lending validity to the rest of the assertions in the complaint.
With that in mind, we’ve pulled out the significant dates mentioned in the whistleblower complaint to give a sense of how the effort by Trump and Giuliani to elicit an investigation in Ukraine unfolded.
1:30 p.m.: Number of House members supportive of impeachment inquiry stands at 220
The number of House members who support an impeachment inquiry into Trump has grown slightly to 220, according to a Washington Post tally.
The figure includes 219 Democrats and one independent member.
Of those, 27 have gone a step further and said they support impeaching the president.
The ranks of Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry swelled in the past week, culminating Tuesday when Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced a formal inquiry.
President Trump landed in Washington Thursday afternoon — and immediately lashed out at Democrats over their continued scrutiny of his phone call with Zelensky.
It was an “absolutely perfect phone call,” Trump told reporters shortly after getting off the plane.
He argued that Pelosi has been “hijacked by the radical left,” renewing his attacks on the speaker of the House after she announced her support for an impeachment inquiry.
1 p.m.: Schiff says Democrats are ‘determined to get to the bottom of this’
Schiff said his committee would work through an upcoming two-week recess as it continues to probe Trump’s interactions with Zelensky.
“We are determined to get to the bottom of this,” Schiff said, suggesting the committee would interview multiple witnesses, including the whistleblower.
The committee also wants to learn more about the roles of Attorney General William P. Barr and Giuliani among others, Schiff said.
Schiff spoke to reporters shortly after his panel adjourned after hearing from Maguire for more than three hours.
12:50 p.m.: Trump lashes out at Schiff after hearing wraps up
Trump took to Twitter shortly after the House Intelligence Committee hearing wrapped up, taking aim at its chairman and dismissing the whistleblower report as “second hand information.”
“Adam Schiff has zero credibility. Another fantasy to hurt the Republican Party!” Trump tweeted.
Adam Schiff has zero credibility. Another fantasy to hurt the Republican Party!
The tweet came as Schiff (D-Calif.) was fielding questions following the hearing from reporters, one of whom asked about Trump’s tweet.
“I’m always flattered when I’m attacked by someone of the president’s character,” Schiff responded.
In a separate tweet, Trump sought to play down the seriousness of the allegations of the whistleblower, who acknowledged no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s actions but said the complaint was informed by “more than half a dozen U.S. officials.”
“A whistleblower with second hand information? Another Fake News Story! See what was said on the very nice, no pressure, call. Another Witch Hunt!” Trump wrote.
A whistleblower with second hand information? Another Fake News Story! See what was said on the very nice, no pressure, call. Another Witch Hunt!
Later, Trump targeted Schiff again on Twitter, writing: “Liddle’ Adam Schiff, who has worked unsuccessfully for 3 years to hurt the Republican Party and President, has just said that the Whistleblower, even though he or she only had second hand information, “is credible.” How can that be with zero info and a known bias. Democrat Scam!”
12:40 p.m.: Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, voices support for impeachment inquiry
Phil Scott on Thursday became the nation’s first Republican governor to voice support for the House’s impeachment inquiry against Trump.
“I believe we need to figure out what exactly did happen, establish the facts, and let the facts drive us from there to where we go,” Scott, who has been a frequent Trump critic, said at a news conference in Vermont.
12:30 p.m.: Lewandowski denies having conversations with White House about leading impeachment team
Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, denied a CNN report that he has had discussions with the White House about potentially leading the president’s impeachment team.
“For the last five years, I have done my best to help this president in any capacity that he has asked me,” Lewandowski said in a phone interview with The Washington Post. “But I have had no conversation with anyone at the White House regarding this.”
Lewandowski signaled, however, that he is open to helping Trump fight back against impeachment in whatever way the president requests.
“If the president asks me to push back on the fake impeachment narrative, I will do that in any way I can,” Lewandowski said.
CNN reported earlier Thursday that Lewandowski, who is mulling a U.S. Senate bid, representing his home state of New Hampshire, has had recent conversations with White House officials about taking an administration position as the impeachment battle ramps up.
— Robert Costa
12:20 p.m.: Maguire hearing wraps up
The House Intelligence Committee hearing concluded Thursday afternoon after more than three hours of heated questioning of Maguire by lawmakers.
Maguire is expected to go behind closed doors later Thursday to address the Senate Intelligence Committee.
12:10 p.m.: Republicans plan another House vote on impeachment authorization
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he will force another House vote on authorizing an impeachment investigation, in a move designed to put pressure on Democrats on the issue.
“Every member owes it to their constituents — their constituents are the ones who lend their voice to the members for two years,” McCarthy said at his weekly news conference. “And they should be very clear on where they stand.”
On Thursday morning, the number of House members backing an impeachment inquiry had passed the halfway mark, with 218 House Democrats and one independent member supporting at least opening an inquiry into whether Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
But some Democrats are still holding out, including several in Republican-leaning districts.
— Mike DeBonis
12 p.m.: Senate panel debates withholding State Department funds
The Senate Appropriations Committee spent some time Thursday morning debating an amendment that would have withheld some State Department funds until $448 million in security assistance is released for Ukraine.
Ultimately, the committee didn’t vote on the amendment after its author — Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) — withdrew it. Murphy said he didn’t want to set a bad precedent and wanted to retain bipartisan agreement on the committee. He also said he trusted a commitment from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) to ensure funding for Ukraine. Graham chairs the Appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations.
“I accept Senator Graham’s commitment to continue to work on this,” Murphy said. “I would rather have us stay together united, Republicans and Democrats, speaking for the importance of continuing to fund aid to Ukraine, and I agree with him that even without this language, when we spend money, when we appropriate it, the president is legally obligated to spend it.”
Underlying the discussion was Trump’s decision to hold up security assistance for Ukraine until recently, as revelations emerged about his phone call with the president of Ukraine in which Trump suggested that Biden should be investigated by authorities in that country.
Graham insisted that Trump was withholding funds as a means to get other countries to pay more. Murphy raised questions about that explanation.
Several Democrats said that under the circumstances, there was a need for statutory language requiring money appropriated for Ukraine to be spent.
“The plot has thickened dramatically,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But the discussion ended without specific resolution.
“I just want to find a way to tell the Ukraine we’re with them and not screw up everything else,” Graham said.
— Erica Werner
11:45 a.m.: Trump’s other Ukraine problem: New concern about his business
Buried in the controversy over Trump’s phone call with Zelensky was an effort by the Ukrainian leader at currying favor with Trump through his business.
“Actually, last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park, and I stayed at the Trump Tower,” Zelensky told Trump, according to a rough transcript of the July 25 call released Wednesday.
Zelensky’s comments mark the first known example of the kind of interaction Democrats and government ethics experts had warned about when Trump took office: that foreign leaders would try to influence Trump by spending money at his properties and telling him about it.
Other Ukrainian officials have also patronized Trump properties. A top Zelensky aide met at Trump’s D.C. hotel in July with Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, a frequent patron of the hotel himself, according to the New York Times. A lobbyist who registered as an agent of Zelensky’s with the U.S. government hosted a $1,900 event at the D.C. hotel in April, according to a federal filing.
11:40 a.m.: Lawmakers urge Congress not to go on recess
The House is scheduled to leave town on Friday for a two-week recess. But several Democrats are arguing that lawmakers should remain in Washington amid the intensifying focus on Trump’s conduct and the whistleblower complaint.
“Trump clearly sees the Oval Office as his campaign office,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said in a tweet. “We cannot let the occupant make a mockery of our Constitution any longer. Congress must cancel the upcoming recess so we can finally impeach this president.”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) also said that “Congress must not leave for recess tomorrow.”
“If we are committed to holding Trump accountable and passing something on gun violence, we have to keep working here in DC,” he said in a tweet. “The stakes are too high.”
The liberal group Indivisible said in a statement earlier this week that Pelosi should cancel recess “and get to a vote on articles of impeachment as soon as humanly possible.”
11:15 a.m.: Pelosi accuses the White House of a “coverup”
Pointing to the whistleblower’s report during remarks to reporters late Thursday morning, Pelosi repeatedly accused the White House of having engaged in a “coverup.”
She was responding to claims by the whistleblower from the U.S. intelligence community that not only did Trump misuse his office for personal gain and endanger national security, but that unidentified White House officials had tried to hide that conduct.
According to the complaint, White House officials were so alarmed by Trump’s call with Zelensky that they sought to limit access to its written record.
“Their actions are a coverup,” Pelosi said at her weekly press briefing. “It’s not only happened that one time. My understanding is it may have happened before.”
Pelosi also said that there was no timeline on the impeachment inquiry announced earlier this week and that Trump would have an opportunity to present exculpatory information.
“There is no rush to judgment,” Pelosi said.
She said the episode involving Ukraine would take precedence in the impeachment inquiry.
“We are at a different level of lawlessness that is self-evident to the American people,” Pelosi said.
11 a.m.: Schumer says Senate will serve as ‘solemn jurors of our democracy’ if House impeaches Trump
In remarks as the Senate opened Thursday morning, Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called for lawmakers to place the best interests of the country, not their political parties, front and center as they weigh their next steps following the release of the whistleblower’s complaint.
“We have a responsibility to consider the facts that emerge squarely and with the best interest of our country — not our party — in our hearts,” Schumer said. “We have a responsibility not to rush to final judgment or overstate the case — not to let ourselves be ruled by passion, but by reason.”
He added that “if the House at the end of its inquiry sees fit to accuse the president of impeachable offenses, we in the Senate will act as jury.”
“And our role as the solemn jurors of democracy demands that we place fidelity to the country and fidelity to the Constitution above all else,” he said.
10:30 a.m.: Trump campaign says Democrats are the ones interfering in the 2020 election
A spokesman for Trump’s reelection campaign said Thursday morning that it wasn’t Trump who sought to interfere in the 2020 elections — but Democrats.
“All of this amounts to Democrats interfering in the 2020 election by attempting to block @realDonaldTrump from running for re-election,” Tim Murtaugh, the communications director for Trump’s campaign, wrote on Twitter. “They want to deny Americans the opportunity to vote to re-elect the President. They know they can’t beat him, so they have to try to impeach.”
All of this amounts to Democrats interfering in the 2020 election by attempting to block @realDonaldTrump from running for re-election.
They want to deny Americans the opportunity to vote to re-elect the President.
They know they can’t beat him, so they have to try to impeach.
10:15 a.m.: House Republicans highlight 20-year-old clips of Democrats opposing President Bill Clinton’s impeachment
As House Democrats sought to build a case for impeachment against Trump, House Republicans were using their Twitter account to share two-decade-old video clips of Democrats taking issue with the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
The House Republican conference account shared clips of more than a half-dozen lawmakers speaking out against Clinton’s impeachment in 1998, with some of them complaining about a partisan process seeking to undo the will of voters.
One video depicted Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), currently the chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, speaking on the House floor.
“I am greatly disappointed in the raw, unmasked, unbridled hatred and meanness that drives this impeachment coup d’etat. The unapologetic disregard for the voice of the people,” she said.
Others Democrats highlighted in the clips included Pelosi, now-House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), now-Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Tex.) and Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.).
9:45 a.m.: Democratic White House hopefuls start weighing in on whistleblower complaint
Democratic White House contenders have started weighing in on the whistleblower complaint, with one — former congressman Beto O’Rourke (Tex.) — calling on the House to cancel its upcoming two-week recess.
“The House should cancel its break and start impeachment proceedings now,” O’Rourke said in a tweet. “As the whistleblower made clear: Every day Trump is in office, our democracy is less safe. We can’t wait to act.”
Rep. Tim Ryan (Ohio) shared on Twitter that he had read the report.
“It’s as straightforward as can be,” Ryan said, alleging it detailed “third-rate, banana republic behavior.”
“I can’t believe my Republican colleagues are going to ignore this,” Ryan said in another tweet. “Would they if our President was an Democrat?”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) also weighed in, writing on Twitter: “Donald Trump solicited foreign interference in our elections from the Oval Office. He attempted to cover up his actions. And his appointees intervened, against the law, to attempt to suppress this whistleblower complaint.”
Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), meanwhile, highlighted a paragraph in the report and offered her assessment: “This is a coverup.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) later asserted in a statement that the whistleblower complaint was “only the tip of an iceberg of corrupt, illegal and immoral behavior by this president.”
“What the House must do is thoroughly investigate Trump’s cover-up of this call and his other attempts to use government resources to help his re-election campaign,” he said.
9:20 a.m.: White House dismisses whistleblower complaint as ‘third-hand accounts’
Shortly after the whistleblower complaint was made public, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham issued a statement.
“Nothing has changed with the release of this complaint, which is nothing more than a collection of third-hand accounts of events and cobbled-together press clippings — all of which shows nothing improper,” she said.
9:15 a.m.: Whistleblower claimed Trump abused his office and that White House officials tried to cover it up
The House Intelligence Committee has released the whistleblower complaint at the heart of the burgeoning controversy over Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president — an explosive document that claims not only that Trump misused his office for personal gain, but that unidentified White House officials tried to hide that fact.
“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election,” the whistleblower wrote in the complaint dated Aug. 12. “This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph W. Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General (William P.) Barr appears to be involved as well.”
8:45 a.m.: Trump lashes out at Democrats as whistleblower complaint is released
Minutes after a whistleblower complaint was made public, Trump lashed out at Democrats in a tweet written in all capital letters in which he accused them of trying to destroy the Republican Party “AND ALL THAT IT STANDS FOR.”
“STICK TOGETHER, PLAY THEIR GAME, AND FIGHT HARD REPUBLICANS. OUR COUNTRY IS AT STAKE!” he counseled members of his party.
The tweet was in response to a whistleblower from the U.S. intelligence community who alleged that Trump had improperly pressed Zelensky to investigate Biden and his son.
8:10 a.m.: Sarah Sanders argues impeachment drive helps Trump politically
Former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders argued Thursday that House Democrats have given Trump a political boost by launching a formal impeachment inquiry.
“I think that it’s one of the dumbest and most ridiculous political moves that we’ve seen in history, how they have forced impeachment over this issue,” Sanders said during an appearance on Fox News, where she is now a contributor.
“All this is doing is helping fuel his campaign,” Sanders said of the Democrats’ move. “They’re raising more money, they’re rallying his base, and they’re unifying the Republican Party in a way that only they can by attacking this president the way they do time and time again.”
7:30 a.m.: Trump unleashes spate of morning tweets
The president asserted Thursday that the stock market would crash if Democrats followed through with impeaching him, a warning sent in the midst of a morning spate of tweets and retweets about the inquiry announced this week by Pelosi.
In one tweet, Trump highlighted a Fox Business Network report with the headline: “Stocks hit session lows after Pelosi calls for impeachment inquiry.”
“If they actually did this the markets would crash,” Trump wrote in response. “Do you think it was luck that got us to the best Stock Market and Economy in our history. It wasn’t!”
Trump also highlighted a tweet by his daughter Ivanka, a White House adviser, in which she thanked him for his work and included a photo of her father pumping his fist.
“So cute! Her father is under siege, for no reason, since his first day in office!” Trump wrote.
In another, he wrote: “THE GREATEST SCAM IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN POLITICS!”
6:30 a.m.: Biden suggests a motive for Trump reaching out to Ukraine
Speaking at a fundraiser Wednesday night in Los Angeles, Biden said there was no proof of Trump’s allegation that he and his son Hunter Biden had conflicts of interest while he served as vice president.
“This is not about me, and it really isn’t because not a single publication said anything he has ever said about me or my son is true,” Biden said. “Everyone has gone and researched it and said it’s not true.”
Biden suggested that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate him and his son because “70-something polls show that I’ll kick his … toes.” The audience burst into laughter.
6:15 a.m.: Some House Democrats fret as Pelosi forges ahead with impeachment
As his fellow House Democrats moved en masse toward impeaching Trump after months of hesitation, Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey could only watch in bewilderment.
“I don’t get surprised often,” the freshman moderate said Wednesday, less than 24 hours after Pelosi dropped her own qualms and launched the House’s official impeachment inquiry targeting Trump. “But really, truly, I just was like, ‘Wow.’ It happened so quickly.”
As other Democrats proclaimed unity and resolve after Pelosi described the “dishonorable fact of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office,” pledging to move quickly toward impeachment articles, Van Drew stood with a group of Democrats who say they continue to have reservations and fear a rash impeachment could obliterate the rest of the party’s governing agenda, improve Trump’s chances of reelection and imperil their own.
6 a.m.: Biden edges closer to calling for impeachment on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’
Biden edged closer to calling for impeachment on Wednesday night, pointing to a rough transcript of a conversation between Trump and Ukraine’s president as evidence that Trump is likely to have committed “an impeachable offense.”
Biden, who had stopped short of calling for the president to be ousted earlier this week, adjusted his stance after the White House shared the details of a 30-minute phone call Trump made to Zelensky in July. According to the 2,000-word rough transcript, Trump repeatedly suggested that Zelensky investigate Biden, offering help from the Justice Department and raising the possibility of inviting the foreign leader to the White House.
“Based on the material that they acknowledged today, it seems to me it’s awful hard to avoid the conclusion that it is an impeachable offense and a violation of constitutional responsibility,” Biden said during an appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”
5 a.m.: 218 House Democrats support impeachment inquiry
As of Wednesday evening, there were now 217 House Democrats and Independent Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) who support launching an impeachment inquiry, giving 218 votes to impeach Trump — the threshold number of votes needed to pass anything in the House.
In the past two days, 78 Democrats said they wanted the House to go through with an impeachment process. Before the whistleblower complaint news broke last week, there were 95 members total who supported doing so.
“Today, for the world to see, we learned in his own words that the President of the United States used the full weight of the most sacred office in the land to coerce a foreign leader in a way that undermines our democracy and threatens our national security,” said Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), who came out for an impeachment inquiry Wednesday night.
But just because 218 lawmakers want the House to go through with the impeachment process, there’s no guarantee that they would vote to impeach Trump at the end of it. Of the 218, only 25 have said they’d vote to impeach the president right now.
However, Sporting are reportedly not interested in any deal including the maverick Italy international.
Mario made 45 appearances for Sporting last season, scoring seven goals and providing 12 assists, and was also part of Fernando Santos’ Euro 2016-winning side.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants are considering several options that would refuse the president’s $5 billion demand for a border wall and send thousands of furloughed federal employees back to work. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo
Democratic leaders think the president is playing a losing hand and will be under pressure to relent.
House Democrats — increasingly convinced they’re winning the shutdown fight with President Donald Trump — are plotting ways to reopen the government while denying the president even a penny more for his border wall when they take power Jan. 3.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her top lieutenants are considering several options that would refuse Trump the $5 billion he’s demanded for the wall and send hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal employees back to work, according to senior Democratic sources.
Story Continued Below
While the strategy is fluid, House Democrats hope to pass a funding bill shortly after members are sworn in. They believe that would put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to follow suit. And they’re confident that their political leverage will only increase the longer the shutdown lasts — a notion that some GOP leaders agree with privately.
Indeed, the specter of a lengthy shutdown could hurt Trump’s already damaged image more than it would Democrats — especially because he claimed ownership of the crisis two weeks ago. Democrats believe the shutdown battle — combined with the volatility in financial markets and special counsel Robert Mueller closing in on Trump — exacerbates the appearance of a cornered president acting out of his own political self-interest instead of the needs of the American public.
“We want … the government open and my hope is we can get it opened before Jan. 3,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the incoming Rules Committee chairman. “If not, one of the first things we’ll do will be to move to pass legislation to re-open the government. And the president can decide whether he wants to sign it or not.”
“I believe Democrats are going to move [to end the shutdown] on Jan. 3,” added Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat whose district includes thousands of federal employees. “It’s got to be the first item of business.”
On Thursday afternoon, when the House briefly went into a pro-forma session, McGovern tried to bring up a Senate-passed bill to re-open the government, the second attempt by House Democrats to do so in recent days. Republicans refused to recognize McGovern, stifling his effort — but not before he yelled to the empty chamber: “Mr. Speaker, 800,000 federal employees don’t know whether they will get paid! Mr. Speaker!”
With it increasingly unlikely that Republicans will do anything in the remainder of the 115th Congress to end the stalemate, House Democrats are considering a procedural tactic that would allow them to move quickly once they’re officially in the majority on Jan. 3.
They’re weighing including multiple funding options in a package of rules for the new Congress that they intend to approve that day, according to Democratic sources. That would give Trump and Senate Republicans several options to choose from.
The alternatives under discussion have all been floated to Trump already by Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). But one option they’re not considering, sources close to the Democratic leaders said, is offering the president more than the $1.3 billion they already put on the table to fund fencing at the southern border.
So far, Trump has refused the $1.3 billion as too little. But Democrats believe he’ll come under fire as stories of furloughed federal employees spread in January, and the chaos of a shutdown starts to affect everyday Americans.
“The American people know that this is a Trump shutdown,” McGovern said.
One option Democrats are considering is a short-term funding measure to open now-shuttered agencies until Feb. 8. A week ago, the Senate approved a continuing resolution with that timeline. Some House Democrats believe that if they quickly push the CR through their own chamber, McConnell — a former appropriator who despises shutdowns — will feel pressure to act.
A short-term bill would also allow newly empowered House Democratic appropriators to put their mark on the last remaining funding bills before they pass a larger package in February, two Democratic sources pointed out.
But with Trump still urging Hill Republicans to fight for his wall, McConnell is unlikely to take up a stop-gap funding bill. GOP leaders have made clear they will not act without the president’s public support for any funding bill to reopen the government.
Connolly also isn’t interested in a short-term funding solution. He wants an agreement that keeps the entire government funded through Sept. 30.
“I see a growing sentiment among Democrats to have a funding vehicle that carries us through the end of the fiscal year,” Connolly added. A “short-term CR gets us very little.”
Trump rejected a temporary fix just last week, instead blessing an attempt by House Republicans provide $5 billion for the wall, which led to the shutdown.
House Democrats are also considering a CR for the affected agencies that would last through the fiscal year. Such a proposal would mean no policy changes for the agencies that are currently closed; they would operate on the same budget they had in fiscal 2018.
A third option being considered includes passing full appropriations bills for all affected agencies except the Homeland Security Department, which is where Trump’s wall money would go. That department would operate under current levels through the rest of the fiscal year.
No matter what option they go with, House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other Democrats from Virginia and Maryland intend to add a provision to any funding bill guaranteeing back pay for any federal employees hit by the shutdown.
Rusia atacó Siria con misiles lanzados por primera vez desde un submarino que se hallaba en el mar Mediterráneo, anunció el ministro ruso de Defensa, Sergei Shoigu.
“Utilizamos misiles crucero Calibre desde el submarino ‘Rostov-on-Don’ en el mar Mediterráneo”, contra “dos bastiones terroristas” cerca de Raqa, capital de hecho del grupo yihadista Estado Islámico, informó Shoigu al presidente Vladimir Putin, según las agencias de noticias rusas. Las Fuerzas Aéreas rusas han ejecutado 300 misiones y han destruido más de 600 objetivos en Siria en los últimos tres días.
6:10 p.m El excandidato presidencial y gobernador de Miranda exige el cierre de mesas en donde no estén personas haciendo fila para votar. “Aquella mesa en donde no haya personas esperando para sufragar, esa mesa, ese centro hay que cerrarlo. Yo le hago un llamado a todos los que ya ejercieron su derecho al voto, a acompañar a nuestros testigos”, señala a través de una transmisión en Periscope.
5:57 p.m Rector del Consejo Nacional Electoral, Luis Emilio Rondón señala que “No había necesidad alguna de prórroga en cuanto al horario”, contradiciendo a sus colegas quienes 10 minutos antes han pedido la extensión del proceso.
5:51 p.m La ONG Foro Penal contabiliza diez personas detenidas por distintos delitos electorales.
5:47 p.m Rectora del CNE, Sandra Oblitas: “Se ha prorrogado el horario de votación hasta las 7:00 pm”
5:39 p.m Diario Digital Efecto Cocuyo señala que “Dos motorizados lanzaron tres bombas molotov en la escuela básica FVM, sector San Miguel en Maracaibo, estado Zulia. “De acuerdo con el coordinador del centro electoral, Sixto Flores, el evento fue controlado por efectivos del Plan República”.
5:30 p.m Rectora del CNE Sandra Oblitas señala que las mesas electorales estarán abiertas hasta tanto tengan electores en la fila.
5:17 p.m Expresidenta de Costa Rica Laura Chinchilla, señala que la autoridad venezolana le ha retirado la credencial como testigo electoral.
5:06 p.m El diario El Nacional reporta que un militar ha resultado herido en un centro electoral en el Estado Miranda tras enfrentarse a delincuentes. “En horas de la tarde de este domingo, un funcionario de la Guardia Nacional Bolivariana resultó herido cuando se encontraba cerca del centro de votación Escuela Estatal Madre Vieja, en la comunidad de San José de Barlovento, estado Miranda. La periodista Yasmin Velasco informó, a través de su cuenta de Twitter, que la víctima fue el sargento 2° Maikel Rigo, de 23 años de edad. Al parecer en el lugar ocurrió un enfrentamiento entre antisociales y el funcionario.
5:00 p.m El diario digital Contrapunto reporta que cinco personas han sido detenidas en el estado Yaracuy por romper material electoral. “Cinco personas detenidas en centros de votación de los municipios Veroes, Peña, Nirgua y San Felipe, por incurrir en delitos electorales, al romper la boleta electoral luego de sufragar”
4:30 p.m El presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, Diosdado Cabello rechaza declaraciones de expresidentes de Bolivia y Colombia. “Rechazamos las declaraciones de Quiroga y Pastrana. Es una falta de respeto. Las declaraciones de Quiroga están fuera de contexto”.
Ha pedido que ambos sean expulsados del país. “No serán estos payasos (…) estos ridículos expresidentes quienes nos darán lecciones de respeto y democracia”, ha comentado en rueda de prensa.
4:16 p.m Consejo Nacional Electoral suspende credenciales de observadores de expresidentes de Colombia Andrés Pastrana y de Bolivia Jorge Quiroga por “realizar declaraciones políticas del proceso electoral”, declara Tibisay Lucena, presidenta del CNE.
3:51 p.m Liberan al dirigente opositor Carlos Hermoso del partido Bandera Roja, interrogado durante varias horas por la policía política Sebin. Esta mañana fue detenido cuando se dirigía a votar.
Acaban de liberar a mi padre Carlos Hermoso. El interrogatorio fue por un “supuesto comentario desde alto gobierno”. pic.twitter.com/8qKxzaG8my
3:47 p.m Gonzalo Himiob, director de la ONG Foro Penal, denuncia que el abogado Edicson Cubillan, activista de esta organización Pro Derechos Humanos ha sido detenido.
#6D 2:50PM Confirmo detención del Abogado Edicson Cubillán miembro del equipo del Foro Penal Venezolano (@PorHumanidad ) en el Estado Aragua
3:29 p.m El diario El Nacional reporta que el abogado Defensor de Leopoldo López, Juan Carlos Gutiérrez, anunció que aunque la máquina de votación ya se encuentra en la cárcel de Ramo Verde, las autoridades le han dicho que no tienen autorización para que el líder opositor vote.
3:15 p.m El medio digital El Pitazo reporta un tiroteo en un centro de votación en la ciudad de Valera, Estado Trujillo que ha dejado un herido. “Un grupo de motorizados vestidos de rojo y con insignias de los partidos Psuv y UVP protagonizaron hace minutos una situación irregular al accionar armas de fuego al aire en las adyacencias del centro de votación Monseñor Lucas Castillo de la Urbanización Plata II. Esto fue rechazada por la gente, lo que suscitó un choque verbal. Tras el incidente, una persona recibió un cachazo que le causó una lesión en la cabeza”, señala el medio. Más detalles aquí.
2:22 p.m Excandidato presidencial y gobernador del Estado Miranda, Henrique Capriles ejerce su derecho al voto. “Estamos muy tranquilos, aunque es una lucha desigual. Siempre es una lucha desigual, pero yo soy de los que piensa que la voluntad del pueblo podrá más que estos intentos. No tenemos que agradecerle al gobierno estas elecciones porque eso está establecido en la constitución”, ha comentado.
2:21 p.m Transparencia Internacional, capítulo Venezuela reporta hasta el momento llevan contabilizadas 53 irregularidades en el proceso electoral. Reportan una persona muerta y cinco heridos durante las elecciones. Más detalles del reporte aquí.
2:07 p.m Medios reportan abucheo al gobernador del Estado Bolívar, Rangel Gómez a su llegada a escuela donde vota.
1:46 p.m Presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro ejerce su derecho al voto.“Llegó la hora que nadie se quede sin votar. ¡A votar!, ¡A votar!, ¡A votar!” ha comentado.
12:39 p.m El diario El Nacional denuncia que militares han obligado a uno de sus fotógrafos a borrar las imágenes que ha captado en un centro electoral.
Al fotógrafo de @ElNacionalWeb Manuel Sardá lo obligaron a borrar fotos en el centro que queda en Misión Vivienda La Vega III, en Montalban
12:11 p.m Jesús Torrealba, secretario general de la coalición opositora MUD, vuelve a repetir en rueda de prensa que el proceso va “bien. Muy bien”. Denuncia conducta “anticívica” del canal del Estado VTV por transmitir propaganda electoral en el día de hoy.
11:48 a.m Votantes abuchean al gobernador oficialista del fronterizo estado Táchira, José Gregorio Vielma Mora, a su llegada a ejercer el voto.
11:43 a.m Jesús Torrealba, secretario general de la coalición opositora MUD dice que el proceso va “Muy Bien. Véanme la cara. Véanme la sonrisa. Esto va muy bien”.
11:36 a.m Corresponsales del diario El País de España confirma un incidente violento durante la madrugada en un centro de votación en Caracas que ha dejado dos muertos. “Durante la madrugada del sábado murió un efectivo militar que custodiaba un centro de votación en Caucagüita, sector popular al este de Caracas. El hecho se atribuyó a un ataque del hampa común. Uno de los agresores también murió en el incidente”, señala el diario.
11:21 a.m Los incidentes en los comicios legislativos que se celebran hoy en Venezuela han incluido a electores que se han comido el comprobante del voto e individuos con uniformes de las Fuerzas Armadas tratando de ingresar a las mesas, dijo el ministro de Defensa, el general Vladimir Padrino López.
“Se comen las papeletas, algo totalmente prohibido” porque desvirtúa el escrutinio al no coincidir el número de votos fÍsicos con los registrados electrónicamente, declaró el también el jefe del plan de resguardo electoral militar y de la Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana (FANB) a los periodistas.
11:08 a.m El dirigente opositor del partido Bandera Roja, Carlos Hermoso ha sido detenido por la policía política venezolana, Sebín, reporta el diario El Nacional. “Cuando íbamos por la avenida Libertador (en Caracas) se nos atravesó una camioneta del Sebin debidamente identificada de donde se bajaron cuatro sujetos armados”, declaró su hijo del mismo nombre.
10:55 a.m – El 95% de las mesas de votación en Venezuela ya se encuentran abiertas y operativas, a poco más de cuatro horas de iniciada la jornada para elegir a los integrantes de la nueva Asamblea Nacional (órgano Legislativo), informó hoy el CNE. La rectora del CNE, Socorro Hernández, indicó en entrevista al canal privado Globovisión, que cerca de las 09:30 tiempo local (9:00 a.m) los 14 mil 515 centros electorales registraban un funcionamiento óptimo y sin contratiempos en la mayoría de sus mesas.
10:29 a.m El secretario general de la Mesa de la Unidad Democrática en el estado Carabobo, Rubén Pérez Silva, reporta tres heridos de armas blancas en el Centro de votación Ciudad Chávez. Una de los heridos es una mujer.
10:21 a.m La primera dama de Venezuela y candidata a diputada Cilia Flores, ejerció su derecho al voto indicando que el proceso es sencillo. “Todo se ha desarrollado sin mayores inconvenientes, están acudiendo todos los electores a votar en paz, todo es muy rápido”, comentó.
10:17 a.m Alejandro Hernández, periodista multimedia de El Nacional fue agredido a las afueras del liceo Fermín Toro ubicado en El Silencio, Caracas. El hecho se produjo cuando el Candidato a la Asamblea Nacional por el Circuito 2 de Caracas, Jorge Millán salia de ejercer su voto acompañado por Tomás Guanipa.
10:15 a.m El diario El Nacional reporta que un hombre llamado Adrián Márquez, de 20 años de edad, “murió al estallar una granada que pretendía lanzarle a un grupo de policías ubicados en un centro electoral. El hecho ocurrió en la parroquia 23 de enero, de Caracas”.
9:55 a.m : – La titular del Ministerio del Poder Popular para Relaciones Exteriores de Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, agradeció hoy la labor de los más de 130 observadores internacionales que participan en la jornada de elecciones legislativas. “Estamos en ejercicio de esta fiesta electoral, acompañados de distintas personalidades del mundo que han venido a acompañar el proceso”, dijo la canciller. Agradeció la “extraordinaria labor de la misión de acompañamiento de la UNASUR (Unión de Naciones Suramericanas)”.
9:53 a.m: La fiscal general de Venezuela, Luisa Ortega Díaz, confirmó hoy que el apresado y condenado dirigente opositor Leopoldo López fue autorizado a votar en las elecciones legislativas de este domingo y explicó que para ello solicitó al ente electoral que se le habilite una mesa de votación.
“Solicitamos que se le habilitara una mesa a López para ejercer” el derecho al voto, declaró la fiscal después de votar ella misma en un colegio de Caracas, aunque aclaró que será el Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE) el que decida si lo hará en la cárcel militar próxima a la capital, donde está recluido, o si lo traslada a algún colegio electoral de la zona.
Top government leaders told NPR that federal agencies are years behind where they could have been if Chinese cybertheft had been openly addressed earlier.
Bill Hinton Photography/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Bill Hinton Photography/Getty Images
Top government leaders told NPR that federal agencies are years behind where they could have been if Chinese cybertheft had been openly addressed earlier.
Bill Hinton Photography/Getty Images
Technology theft and other unfair business practices originating from China are costing the American economy more than $57 billion a year, White House officials believe, and they expect that figure to grow.
Yet an investigation by NPR and the PBS television show Frontline into why three successive administrations failed to stop cyberhacking from China found an unlikely obstacle for the government — the victims themselves.
About This Story
This story is part of a joint investigation with the PBS series Frontline, which includes an upcoming documentary, Trump’s Trade War, scheduled to air May 7, 2019, on PBS.
In dozens of interviews with U.S. government and business representatives, officials involved in commerce with China said hacking and theft were an open secret for almost two decades, allowed to quietly continue because U.S. companies had too much money at stake to make waves.
Wendy Cutler, who was a veteran negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, says it wasn’t just that U.S. businesses were hesitant to come forward in specific cases. She says businesses didn’t want the trade office to take “any strong action.”
“We are not as effective if we don’t have the U.S. business community supporting us,” she says. “Looking back on it, in retrospect, I think we probably should have been more active and more responsive. We kind of lost the big picture of what was really happening.”
None of the dozens of companies or organizations that NPR reached out to that have been victims of theft or corporate espionage originating from China would go on the record.
And for its part, the Chinese government officially denied to NPR and Frontline that it has been involved in such practices.
Wendy Cutler, a former diplomat and negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, delivers a 2015 speech at the Asia Society in Hong Kong. Cutler told NPR that U.S. businesses wouldn’t let the trade office take direct action on their behalf in Chinese cybertheft cases.
Bruce Yan/South China Morning Post via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Bruce Yan/South China Morning Post via Getty Images
Wendy Cutler, a former diplomat and negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, delivers a 2015 speech at the Asia Society in Hong Kong. Cutler told NPR that U.S. businesses wouldn’t let the trade office take direct action on their behalf in Chinese cybertheft cases.
Bruce Yan/South China Morning Post via Getty Images
But that’s not what former U.S. Attorney David Hickton found. When he took over in the Western District of Pennsylvania in 2010, he says, he was inundated with calls from companies saying they suspected China might be inside their computer systems.
“I literally received an avalanche of concern and complaints from companies and organizations who said, ‘We are losing our technology — drip, drip, drip,’ ” he says.
Hickton opened an investigation and quickly set his sights on a special unit of the Chinese military — a secretive group known as Unit 61398. Investigators were able to watch as the unit’s officers, sitting in an office building in Shanghai, broke into the computer systems of American companies at night, stopped for an hour break at China’s lunchtime and then continued in the Chinese afternoon.
“They were really using a large rake — think of a rake [like] you rake leaves in the fall,” he says. “They were taking everything … personal information, strategic plans, organizational charts. Then they just figured out later how they were going to use it.”
But when Hickton went to the companies, eager for them to become plaintiffs, he ran into a problem. None of the companies wanted any part of it. Hickton says they had too much money on the line in China.
“What we were tone-deaf to is [that] we seemed to think we could just walk in and wave the flag of the USA,” Hickton says, “and it just didn’t work.”
Even today, five years later, Hickton still won’t name most of the companies involved — and they have never come forward.
Eventually he was able to convince five largely local companies and the steelworkers union to come forward, mostly, he says, because he grew up in Pittsburgh and went to school with a lot of the managers.
David Hickton, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, speaks during a 2014 announcement of indictments against Chinese military hackers, with former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wong/Getty Images
David Hickton, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, speaks during a 2014 announcement of indictments against Chinese military hackers, with former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
“I knew these people,” Hickton says. “They trusted me. … We couldn’t ask them to be patriotic at the expense of engendering a shareholder case.”
But, he says, he could have included hundreds — or even thousands — more.
“We’ve made a terrible mistake by being so secretive about our cyberwork,” he says. “We have not fairly told the people we represent what the threats are.”
Government and business leaders interviewed by NPR and Frontline said individual companies were making millions of dollars in China over the past decade and a half and didn’t want to hurt short-term profits by coming forward. They demanded secrecy, even in the face of outright theft.
But now the impact of that secrecy is coming to light, they say. Companies are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in future losses from the theft, and U.S. officials say they are years behind trying to tackle the problem.
Michael Wessel, commissioner on the U.S. government’s U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, says it wasn’t supposed to be this way. U.S. officials had high hopes when China officially joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
“There was a honeymoon period in the first six or seven years, a desire to try [to] make things work,” Wessel says.
But, he says, starting around 2006, businesses began coming to him saying that China had stolen their designs or ideas or had pressured them into partnerships and taken their technology.
Just like with Hickton, Wessel says, they wouldn’t come forward publicly.
“The business community wanted the administration to come in hard without anyone’s fingerprints being on the reasoning behind it,” he says. “They wanted the profits, but they also didn’t want the possible retribution.”
Wessel says that was never going to work. While nothing in the original trade agreements specifically mentions cybertheft, the U.S. could have brought criminal cases forward, enacted sanctions or opened investigations under rules set up by the World Trade Organization — if a company would let it.
Court cases and documents from recent years offer a clue into what experts believe has really been going on. The Chinese government has been accused of stealing everything from vacuum cleaner designs to solar panel technology to the blueprints of Boeing’s C-17 aircraft.
Hackers from China, often with ties to the government, have been accused of breaking into gas companies, steel companies and chemical companies. Not long ago, Chinese government companies were indicted for stealing the secret chemical makeup of the color white from DuPont. China developed its J-20 fighter plane, a plane similar to Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor, shortly after a Chinese national was indicted for stealing technical data from Lockheed Martin, including the plans for the Raptor.
Chinese hacking made occasional headlines, but none really grabbed Americans’ attention. There was one exception.
In 2010, Google went public in announcing that it had been hacked by the Chinese government. Thirty-four other American companies that were also part of the hack stayed silent. Most have kept it a secret to this day.
A man places flowers outside Google’s Chinese headquarters in Beijing, on Jan. 15, 2010. The tech giant’s accusation that year that it had been hacked by China cast light on a problem few companies discuss: the pervasive threat from China-based cybertheft.
Vincent Thian/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Vincent Thian/AP
A man places flowers outside Google’s Chinese headquarters in Beijing, on Jan. 15, 2010. The tech giant’s accusation that year that it had been hacked by China cast light on a problem few companies discuss: the pervasive threat from China-based cybertheft.
Vincent Thian/AP
NPR tracked down 11 of the total 35 companies. All of them either did not respond to NPR’s request or declined to comment.
A former top Google official who was closely involved in managing the hack told NPR that Google was “infuriated” that no other company would come forward, leaving Google to challenge China alone.
“[We] wanted to out all of the companies by name,” said the official, who spoke on the condition their name not be used because they did not have permission from Google to speak about the incident. “One of the companies we called, said ‘Oh, yeah, we’ve been tracking this for months.’ It was unbelievable. The legal department talked us out of it.”
“We felt like we stood up and did the right thing,” the former official said. “It felt like Helm’s Deep, the battle from The Lord of the Rings in which you’re impossibly surrounded and severely outnumbered.”
James McGregor, a former chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, who was there at the time, says the companies kept even business organizations like his from speaking out.
“What they should have done is held a press conference and say, ‘We 35 businesses have been hacked,’ and you would have put it right back on China,” says McGregor. “Instead, they just all hid under a rock and pretended it didn’t happen.”
McGregor says their silence left little room for punishment, and worse, he says, it hid the extent of the problem.
Across the ocean, cybersleuth Dmitri Alperovitch was sitting at his desk at a security company in Atlanta when Google called looking for backup. He says when he took a look, he was stunned.
“I knew pretty much right away this is something very different,” says Alperovitch, who is co-founder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. “For the first time we were facing a nation-state and intelligence service that was breaking into companies — not governments, not militaries, but private sector organizations.”
But, he says, U.S. government officials were nowhere to be seen.
“They did not even publicly concur with the attributions that Google had made at the time,” he says.
Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, speaks during the Milken Institute Global Conference in California on May 1, 2017. Alperovitch said he was stunned after Google announced it was hacked by China.
Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, speaks during the Milken Institute Global Conference in California on May 1, 2017. Alperovitch said he was stunned after Google announced it was hacked by China.
Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Obama administration officials say they did not turn a blind eye to the Google hack or cybertheft from China.
The administration was struggling with other important priorities, such as North Korea, Iran, the economy and climate change, says Evan Medeiros, Obama’s top China specialist and then a staffer at the National Security Council.
“Direct confrontation with China does not usually result in lasting solutions,” Medeiros says, noting that President Obama secured an agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping to halt the attacks and put together a regional trade agreement — the Trans-Pacific Partnership — to add pressure.
But neither measure lasted.
“Hindsight is always 20/20,” he says. “I wish that we had spent more time … finding creative ways to punish them for creating a nonlevel playing field.”
Without those punishments, the attacks continued.
In the year after the Google hack, Alperovitch uncovered two more serious intrusions that, he says, involved thousands of American companies.
In the fall of 2011, he went to the White House to warn officials about what he had found. He sat down in the Situation Room with a half-dozen top administration leaders.
“The most surprising thing to me was the lack of surprise,” Alperovitch says. “I got the distinct impression that none of this was news. When I pressed them on why they were not taking stronger action against China, their response was, ‘We have a multifaceted relationship with China.’ ”
Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with U.S. President Barack Obama following a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25, 2015. During the visit, the two leaders announced an agreement to halt cyberattacks.
Pete Marovich/Bloomberg via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Pete Marovich/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with U.S. President Barack Obama following a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25, 2015. During the visit, the two leaders announced an agreement to halt cyberattacks.
Pete Marovich/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Alperovitch says White House officials told him that some of the same companies that were being victimized by China also wanted to continue doing business in China.
“They didn’t want to take any action that would jeopardize that billions of dollars of trade we were doing at the time,” he says.
Ask McGregor, the American business representative, how companies can complain about China’s behavior to the U.S. government while simultaneously preventing the government from taking strong action, and his answer is blunt.
“Companies were afraid of China,” he says. “American business companies’ incentives are to make money.”
McGregor today advises dozens of American companies in China, and he says they are confronting a new reality. China is no longer an up-and-comer — it’s a true competitor and quickly closing in on America’s high-tech sector. McGregor says company leaders are beginning to ask whether years of theft and hacking have given China an edge that the United States will no longer be able to stay in front of.
And U.S. government officials are asking whether federal agencies will be able to catch up on enforcement.
Top government leaders told NPR that federal agencies are years behind where they could have been if the theft had been openly addressed.
Even at the Defense Department, as late as 2014, cybertheft from China was not one of the Pentagon’s top priorities.
“Our intelligence agencies were looking at the Middle East, at the Russians,” says Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding, a China expert who worked for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council.
He says he had never given the issue of Chinese cybertheft much thought. But then, in the fall of 2014, he loaded a confidential briefing into his computer. It was case after case in which the Chinese government had stolen the product designs from almost a dozen high-tech American companies, in a couple of cases almost putting them out of business.
“It immediately changed my conception, my view of the world,” he says. “I realized I did not know how the world worked.”
U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping leave an event in Beijing on November 9, 2017. The Trump administration, and the Obama administration before that, have brought concerns regarding cybertheft to the Chinese directly.
Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images
U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping leave an event in Beijing on November 9, 2017. The Trump administration, and the Obama administration before that, have brought concerns regarding cybertheft to the Chinese directly.
Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images
Spalding says he made it his mission to get the word out to other government agencies. But even in 2015, he says, he was met mostly with a shrug.
He says he went to the departments of Commerce and the Treasury, as well as the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. State Department.
“The two responses we got were, ‘Oh my gosh, this is really, really bad.’ And the second one is, ‘That’s not my job,'” Spalding says. “That was almost the universal answer we got every time we went to a senior leader. Bad problem but not my problem.”
Spalding, who retired from the Air Force last year, says in the final years under Obama and now under President Trump, agencies are finally starting to take some action. The Justice Department is bringing criminal cases, the trade representative’s office is investigating China’s dealings and both administrations have brought concerns to the Chinese directly.
But, Spalding says, it may have come 10 years too late.
“We all missed it,” he says. “We have to understand the problem and get to work on it.”
Detail of a scarf print from the Beyond Buckskin Boutique. Photo courtesy of shop.beyondbuckskin.com. Download Full Image
Morris said by spearheading innovative partnerships and leveraging resources from ASU, tribes and community organizations, she hopes that Inno-NATIONS will create a “collision community,” causing a ripple effect of economic change in tribal communities.
Both events are free and take place at The Department in downtown Phoenix.
Inno-NATIONS will also launch a three-day pilot cohort with approximately 20 Native American businesses starting in June.
“Beyond Buckskin” features Jessica Metcalfe, a Turtle Mountain Chippewa, Dartmouth graduate and entrepreneur, who grew a small online store into a successful boutique on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation in North Dakota.
The store promotes and sells Native American-made couture, streetwear, jewelry, and accessories from more than 40 Native American and First Nations artist, employing tribe members from the Turtle Mountain community.
ASU Now spoke to Metcalfe to discuss her work.
Jessica Metcalfe
Question: We’ve seen Native American fashion emerge and evolve. How did you get into the business?
Answer: I was writing my master’s thesis in 2005 and my advisor at the time had told me about some research she had done, which looked at Native American fashion in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. She had wondered if I was interested in picking up where her research left off. I looked into it and found that there were these breadcrumbs, little bits here in there, that something had been going on in the past 60-70 years, but hadn’t been looked at as a collective movement.
Through my doctoral dissertation, what I discovered was that Native American fashion has gone through waves of acknowledgements by the broader public, but what we’re experiencing now is perhaps the biggest wave yet.
You have designers like Patricia Michaels out at New York’s Style Fashion Week and the Native Fashion Now traveling exhibit touring the country, so there’s really a lot of exciting things happening lately. It’s coming from a collective movement. Designers basically grouping together to share costs but also to put together more events to cause a bigger ruckus.
Q: How did you build your online store into a brick-and-mortar business?
A: I first launched a blog in 2009 as an outlet for my dissertation research, and wanted to share it with more people and to also get more stories and experiences. My readers kept asking where could they see and buy these clothes? At that time, there wasn’t an easy way to access functions like a Native American Pow Wow or market in order to do that.
I had established a rapport with designers through my research and writing. They saw what I was doing through the blog and then a question popped into my head. “How would you feel about creating a business together?” There were 11 initial designers who said they needed the space, and I worked with them to sell their goods online. We just now opened our design lab on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. We are creating a system where we can meet demand and maximize a need in Indian Country.
We employ Native Americans from ages 15 to 22. There aren’t a whole lot of opportunities for people that age on the reservation. They either work at the grocery store or the gas station. One of them is interested in film and photography and so they run our photo shoots. Another person is interested in business entrepreneurship, and they get to see how an idea goes from concept to execution.
Q: The subtext is that this isn’t just about fashion but, history, representation and cultural appropriation?
A: Our clothing is just more than just objects. It’s about how the material was gathered, what the colors represent, what stories are being told and how does that tie into our value system. One of the things I often discuss is the Native American headdress. Our leaders wear them as a symbol of their leadership and the dedication to their communities. These stories are a way to share our culture with non-Natives and protect our legacy for future generations.
Q: Why is it important for Native American businesses to branch out into other cultures?
A: Native American people desperately need to diversify their economic opportunities on and off the reservations. Up until recently, people haven’t thought of fashion or art as a viable career path.
A recent study conducted by First Peoples Fund that found a third of all Native American people are practicing or are potential artists. That is a huge resource we already have in Indian Country and we need to tap it and develop it, and push for Natives in various fields to look at themselves as entrepreneurs and launching businesses.
Now, Native American people have an opportunity to make a positive impact in their local communities by reaching people through their art and sharing our culture with the rest of the world.
Estados Unidos incluyó un nueva nueva casilla en su planilla de solicitud de visas en la que solicita detalles sobre los perfiles en redes sociales durante los últimos cinco años, así como información biográfica de los 15 años anteriores a la petición, confirmó una vocera del Departamento de Estado a Univision Noticias.
La Oficina de Administración y Presupuestos ya había aprobado la medida el pasado 23 de mayo y el Departamento de Estado comenzó a implementarla dos días después.
La medida es parte de un “exhaustivo” control de seguridad al que podría ser sometido cualquiera en cualquier parte del mundo, sin excepciones, explicó Lydia Barraza, vocera del Departamento de Estado. Y además de las redes sociales, si los funcionarios consulares lo consideran, se pedirán los números de pasaportes anteriores del solicitante y sus familiares, información sobre viajes y empleos previos, así como personas de contacto.
Quienes hayan estado en zonas bajo control de organizaciones terroristas tendrán que entregar, además, “detalles precisos” de su estancia en esos países, explica Barraza. “Permite evaluar si los solicitantes no reúnen las condiciones para obtener una visa en Estados Unidos”, dice, al precisar que ni la raza ni la religión serán consideradas en esas evaluaciones.
En total, calculan que se verá afectado 1% de los 13 millones de solicitantes de visas en el mundo.
En un comunicado de prensa del 4 de mayo, el Departamento de Estado había explicado que el no consignar alguno de los datos enumerados anteriormente no resultaría en una negación inmediata de la visa, siempre que el funcionario consular a cargo del caso considere que el solicitante tiene razones de peso para no presentarlos.
Barraza reiteró que no serán exigidas las contraseñas de cuentas de correo electrónico o de redes sociales de los aplicantes.
Los críticos de esta medida, sostienen que las nuevas preguntas podrían aumentar los retrasos en el proceso y desalentarían a estudiantes y científicos extranjeros que planeen visitar Estados Unidos, refiere la agencia Reuters.
El anuncio responde a un memorando del presidente Donald Trump emitido el 6 de marzo, en el que pedía la implementación de nuevos protocolos para evaluar con mayor rigurosidad a quienes parecieran no ser elegibles para una visa estadounidense.
Uno de los deportados, Antonio Martínez-Arreguín, muestra su “constancia de recepción de mexicanos repatriados” cerca de El Chaparral, antes de emprender la caminata de horas para intentar llegar a casa de un primo. La constancia le sirve, hasta que pueda tramitar sus documentos, para identificarse como ciudadano de México. No tiene dinero, teléfono ni documentos. Almudena Toral/Univision Digital
Iran warned world powers they will not be able to negotiate a better deal than the landmark 2015 nuclear agreement, as the United States vowed the Islamic Republic will never acquire an atomic weapon.
Tehran threatened on Monday to restart deactivated centrifuges and ramp up its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent purity as its next potential big moves away from the agreement that Washington abandoned last year.
The latest war of words came the same day that Iran began enriching uranium to 4.5 percent, breaking the limit set in the 2015 agreement sealed under former president Barack Obama.
#B_Team sold @realDonaldTrump on the folly that killing #JCPOA thru #EconomicTerrorism can get him a better deal. As it becomes increasingly clear that there won’t be a better deal, they’re bizarrely urging Iran’s full compliance. There’s a way out, but not with #B_Team in charge
US Vice President Mike Pence said the international accord simply delayed Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon by “roughly a decade”, and gave away billions in economic relief that Iran could then use to wage “terrorist” attacks.
The US “will never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon”, Pence told a pro-Israel Christian organisation on Monday.
“Iran must choose between caring for its people and continuing to fund its proxies who spread violence and terrorism throughout the region and breathe out murderous hatred against Israel,” he said.
Pence added US sanctions have succeeded in “cutting off” Iran’s ability to support armed groups in the Middle East, but he also alleged the Islamic Republic had increased its “malign activity and violence in the region” over the past several months.
Tensions in the region have risen in recent weeks after oil tankers were attacked near the Strait of Hormuz and Iran downed an unmanned US military surveillance drone.
The drone shootdown nearly led to a US military attack against Iran. It was called off at the last minute by US President Donald Trump.
The US has sent thousands of troops, an aircraft carrier, nuclear-capable B-52 bombers, and advanced fighter jets to the Middle East.
“Let me be clear,” Pence said. “Iran should not confuse American restraint with a lack of American resolve.”
A dying deal
Iran’s threats to restart their nuclear programme – made by Tehran’s nuclear agency spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi – would go far beyond the small steps Iran has taken in the past week to nudge stocks of fissile material just beyond limits in the pact.
That could raise serious questions about whether the nuclear deal, intended to block Iran from making a nuclear weapon, is still viable.
The two threats would reverse major achievements of the agreement, although Iran omitted important details about how far it might go to returning to the status quo before the pact.
Enriching uranium up to 20 percent purity would be a dramatic move, since that was the level Iran achieved before the 2015 deal, although back then it had a far larger stockpile.
It is considered an important intermediate stage on the path to obtaining the 90 percent pure fissile uranium needed for a bomb.
One of the main achievements of the deal was Iran’s agreement to dismantle its advanced IR-2M centrifuges, used to purify uranium. Iran had 1,000 of them installed at its large Natanz enrichment site before the deal. Under the deal, it is allowed to operate only up to two for testing.
Still, the threatened measures also appear intended to be sufficiently ambiguous to hold back from fully repudiating the deal.
Kamalvandi did not specify how much uranium Iran might purify to the higher level, nor how many centrifuges it would consider restarting.
Iran has said all the steps it is contemplating are reversible.
Emergency diplomacy
Trump on Monday spoke to French President Emmanuel Macron about Iran’s threat to ramp up enrichment of uranium.
“They discussed ongoing efforts to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and to end Iran’s destabilising behaviour in the Middle East,” a White House spokesman said in a statement.
Macron’s top diplomatic adviser will travel to Iran on Tuesday and Wednesday to try to de-escalate tensions between Tehran and the US, a presidential official said.
The French official said both Iran and the US had an interest in increasing the pressure at this stage, but both sides would want to start talks eventually.
“The important thing in a crisis situation such as this one is to find the middle points that take us from extreme tension to negotiation, that’s what we’re trying to do,” the official said.
India is home to 200 million Muslims. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they have faced mounting threats to their status in the majority-Hindu country. And on Wednesday, they were walloped by a new worrisome development: The upper house of India’s Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB).
The legislation turns religion into a means of deciding whom to treat as an illegal immigrant — and whom to fast-track for citizenship. The bill is being sent to President Ram Nath Kovind for his approval (he will almost certainly sign it), and then it will become law.
At first glance, the bill may seem like a laudable effort to protect persecuted minorities. It says Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians who came to India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan won’t be treated as illegal. They’ll have a clear path to citizenship.
But one major group has been left out: Muslims.
That’s no coincidence.
The CAB is closely linked with another contentious document: India’s National Register of Citizens (NRC). That citizenship list is part of the government’s effort to identify and weed out people it claims are illegal immigrants in the northeastern state of Assam. India says many Muslims whose families originally came from neighboring Bangladesh are not rightful citizens, even though they’ve lived in Assam for decades.
When the NRC was published in August, around 2 million people — many of them Muslims, some of them Hindus — found that their names were not on it. They were told they had a limited time in which to prove that they are, in fact, citizens. Otherwise, they can be rounded up into massive new detention camps and, ultimately, deported.
So far, this measure affects potentially 2 million people, not all 200 million Muslims in India. However, Modi’sruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has said it plans to extend the NRC process across the country.
Muslims have faced increasing discrimination and violence over the past few years under Modi’s BJP. But the one-two punch of the NRC followed by the CAB takes this to a new level. The country is beginning to look less like a seculardemocracy and more like a Hindu nationalist state.
If the Indian government proceeds with its plan, in a worst-case scenariowe could be looking at the biggest refugee crisis on the planet. The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom have all warned that this could soon turn into a humanitarian disaster of horrifying proportions.
The Citizenship Amendment Bill
The CAB is only the latest measure the Indian government has taken to marginalize its Muslim minority (more on this below). This measure is particularly blatant in its discrimination.
The CAB will grant citizenship to a host of religious minorities who fled three nearby countries where they may have faced persecution — Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan — before 2015. But Muslims will get no such protection.
The BJP is positioning the CAB as a means of offering expedited citizenship to persecuted minorities. “It seeks to address their current difficulties and meet their basic human rights,” said Raveesh Kumar, a spokesman for the country’s Ministry of External Affairs. “Such an initiative should be welcomed, not criticized by those who are genuinely committed to religious freedom.”
After the CAB passed on Wednesday, Modi tweeted: “A landmark day for India and our nation’s ethos of compassion and brotherhood! … This Bill will alleviate the suffering of many who faced persecution for years.”
In fact, this bill is likely to increase the suffering of many Muslims and is discriminatory on its face, as some of the BJP’s political opposition and several human rights advocates in India have noted.
Shashi Tharoor, whose Congress party opposes the CAB, dubbed it “fundamentally unconstitutional.”
Cedric Prakash, a Jesuit priest and human rights advocate, said in an emailed statement that by “assuring citizenship to all undocumented persons except those of the Muslim faith, the CAB risks … destroying the secular and democratic tenets of our revered Constitution.”
India’s Constitution guarantees everyone equality under the law. Religion is not a criterion for citizenship eligibility, a decision that goes all the way back to the 1940s, when India was founded as a secular state with special protections for minorities like Muslims.
Harsh Mander, a noted rights advocate of Sikh origins, wrote that the CAB represents “the gravest threat to India’s secular democratic Constitution since India became a republic.” He said that if the bill becomes law, he’ll declare himself a Muslim out of solidarity. Meanwhile, he’s also calling for Indians to fight the CAB with a nationwide civil disobedience movement.
Already, protests are underway. In Assam’s capital, authorities have shut down the internet and implemented a curfew. The New York Times reported:
The Indian Army was deployed in the northeastern states of Assam and Tripura as protests grew bigger and more violent. The police were already battling demonstrators over the past few days with water cannons and tear gas. More than 1,000 protesters gathered in the heart of Assam’s commercial capital, Guwahati, yelling: “Go Back Modi!” In other areas, angry men stomped on effigies of Mr. Modi. Crowds set fire to tires and blocked thoroughfares with trees.
As protests against the legislation erupted in different corners of the country, the debate centered on what kind of country India should be.
“The idea of India that emerged from the independence movement,” said a letter signed by more than 1,000 Indian intellectuals, “is that of a country that aspires to treat people of all faiths equally.” But this bill, the intellectuals said, is “a radical break with this history” and will “greatly strain the pluralistic fabric of the country.”
Meanwhile, international human rights organizations are up in arms. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom said India is taking a “dangerous turn in the wrong direction,” adding that the US should weigh sanctions against India if it enshrines the bill in law.
Activists from All Assam Students’ Union burn effigies of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others associated with the Citizenship Amendment Bill.Getty Images
However, Modi enjoys strong support from the Hindu majority, members of which seem to applaud himeven more loudly when he cracks down on Muslims. And the country has swung to the right since he first came to power in 2014. It’s noteworthy that the bill passed not only in the lower house of parliament, where the BJP enjoys a majority, but also in the upper house, where it does not.
Now, the CAB will almost certainly be signed into law. The only hope for those who oppose it is that it will be struck down in court on the grounds that it’s unconstitutional.
Muslims stripped of citizenship may end up in massive detention camps
Exacerbating Muslim Indians’ anxiety about the citizenship bill is the recent rhetoric around the NRC.
Those in Assam whose names do not appear on the NRC have been told the burden of proof is on them to prove that they are citizens. But many rural residents don’t have birth certificates or other papers, and even among those who do, many can’t read them; a quarter of the population in Assam state is illiterate.
Residents do get the chance to appeal to a Foreigners’ Tribunal and, if it rejects their claims to citizenship, to the High Court of Assam or even the Supreme Court. But if all that fails, they can be sent to one of 10 mass detention camps the government plans to build, complete with boundary walls and watchtowers.
The first camp, currently under construction, is the size of seven football fields. Even nursing mothers and children will be held there. “Children lodged in detention centers are to be provided educational facilities in nearby local schools,” an Indian official said.
If the detainees in the camps end up being expelled from India — and that is the government’s plan — this could constitute a wave of forced migration even greater than that triggered by Myanmar in 2017, when hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims were displaced.
And it’s not clear where the newly stateless people would go. Neighboring Bangladesh has already said it won’t take them. All this has induced such intense anxiety that some Muslims are committing suicide.
By undermining the status of Muslims, India is undermining its own democracy
India is known as the largest democracy in the world. But its current government is leading it away from democratic norms.
Modi champions a hardline brand of Hindu nationalism known as Hindutva, which aims to define Indian culture in terms of Hindu history and values and which promotes an exclusionary attitude toward Muslims. UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet recently expressed concerns over “increasing harassment and targeting of minorities — in particular, Muslims.”
Muslims comprise approximately 14 percent of the national population. and more than twice that in Assam state. In the 2019 Indian election, one of Modi’s central campaign promises was that he’d get the NRC in shape and deal with the Muslim migrants in Assam once and for all. Other BJP members have used dehumanizing language to describe the Muslims there.
“These infiltrators are eating away at our country like termites,” BJP president and home minister Amit Shah said at an April rally. “The NRC is our means of removing them.” Shah has openly said the goal is to deport those who are deemed illegal immigrants.
Last month, Shah said the government will conduct another count of citizens — this time nationwide. This could be used to clamp down on Muslims throughout India, potentially triggering a huge humanitarian disaster.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.
Boston police have identified the construction worker who was killed during a partial collapse of the Government Center parking garage in the Haymarket area of the city.
A spokesperson for the Boston Police Department said Sunday that the victim of Saturday’s deadly construction accident is 51-year-old Peter Monsini, of South Easton.
Boston Fire Commissioner Jack Dempsey said his department received a call at about 5:40 p.m. reporting a building collapse at 1 Congress St.
NewsCenter 5’s Emily Maher, who was in the North End reporting on a different story, said she saw multiple floors of the parking garage — part of which was being demolished — come crashing down between 5:35 p.m. and 5:40 p.m.
According to Dempsey, Monsini was doing demolition work inside the parking garage in a construction vehicle — which Dempsey described as a Bobcat-type vehicle that was equipped with a jackhammer — when the floor buckled underneath the vehicle.
Dempsey said that according to witnesses, the vehicle was approaching the edge of the building when the floor buckled and collapsed.
After the floor collapsed, Monsini was still inside construction vehicle as it went over the side of the parking garage and fell nine stories.
“It literally sounded like a ton of rubble fell. It just sounded like a huge crash,” witness Caroline Catano told NewsCenter 5’s David Bienick on Sunday. “I’m used to a lot of noise because they’re always doing the jackammering, but I knew something was amiss when I heard that particular sound.”
In a statement confirming the fatal accident at its One Congress Street job site, John Moriarty & Associates said the death happened at about 5:30 p.m. when a concrete slab on the ninth floor on the east side of the Haymarket Garage collapsed onto the eighth floor.
The subcontractors working demolition at the time were evacuated from the building and the site has been temporarily shut down.
A multitude of Boston police officers, firefighters and Emergency Medical Services personnel, along with Massachusetts State Police troopers, responded to the scene.
Firefighters found Monsini at the bottom of a pile of rubble and Boston EMS personnel pronounced him dead at the scene.
“This is a horrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the family and loved ones of the worker,” said Boston Mayor Michelle Wu.
“Our heartfelt thoughts and condolences go out to the loved ones of the worker who lost his life,” reads the statement from John Moriarty & Associates. “JMA remains committed to providing a safe and healthy workplace for all our employees and trade partners. We would like to thank the Boston Police Department and EMS for their swift response.”
Boston fire officials said Monsini’s body was removed from the site at 9:15 p.m. Saturday after members of the Boston Inspectional Services department deemed it safe to do so.
On Sunday, inspectors used a fire engine’s bucket latter and a drone to inspect the pile of rubble at the scene.
Boston EMS officials said a second person, a passerby who did not appear to be physically injured, was transported to an area hospital.
One man who witnessed the collapse told Maher that he could hear the sound of jackhammers just moments before he saw some parts of the parking garage collapse.
“The open half just collapsed. It couldn’t be on purpose. It had to be an accident,” that witness said.
A woman who heard the collapse said it sounded like continuous thunder.
A photo shared with NewsCenter 5 via Twitter showed what appeared to be the heavy construction equipment described by Dempsey trapped under concrete rubble.
Boston police warned that vehicular and pedestrian traffic would be impacted in the surrounding areas. The following street closures and detours will remain in effect until further notice:
Surface Road between New Chardon and Hanover streets. Traffic will be diverted from North Washington Street to New Chardon Street or to the Southeast Expressway.
Congress Street travelling west will be closed at Hanover to New Chardon streets.
Congress Street traveling east will be closed from New Chardon to Sudbury streets.
Sudbury Street between Congress and Surface streets will be closed, and all traffic on Sudbury Street will be diverted to Congress Street traveling east.
As a result of Saturday’s partial collapse at the Government Center parking garage, the MBTA will keep rail service in the Green and Orange lines suspended in the tunnels beneath the site. The transit authority announced weeks before Saturday’s collapse that shuttle buses would be replacing subway service on both the Green and Orange lines this weekend.
The MBTA said it will not resume rail service through the area until a team of structural engineers confirms that subway service can safely resume following an examination and assessment of the infrastructure above and below the service. The transit authority estimates the service impacts could last several days as a result.
Orange Line service will be suspended between North Station and Back Bay, while Green Line service will not operate between North Station and Government Center. Shuttle buses will be running between North Station and Government Center. Orange Line customers who wish to reach destinations between Downtown Crossing and Back Bay are encouraged to use nearby Green Line stations between Park and Copley stations.
The Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office will be involved in the investigation of the worker’s death, along with numerous local, state and federal agencies, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
“Our office is a stone’s throw away from the garage and our staff has watched through their office windows all the work being done these many months. To know that one of the workers on this project has tragically died weighs heavy on our hearts. Our deepest sympathies go out to his family and friends,” reads a statement from the DA’s Office.
Parking garage project history
The demolition of the Government Center parking garage has been going on for several years.
Demo work initially began in December 2016 as part of a project to construct a six-building, mix-used development called Bulfinch Crossing.
The Bulfinch Crossing project includes a 1 million-square-foot office tower, a hotel and what will be Boston’s tallest apartment tower at 45 stories.
The coronavirus pandemic has entered a “new and dangerous phase” as daily Covid-19 cases hit record highs, the World Health Organization warned Friday.
The number of new cases reported Thursday “were the most in a single day so far” at 150,000, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press conference from the agency’s Geneva headquarters.
Almost half of the total cases were reported from the Americas, Tedros said, with a large number coming from Southern Asia and the Middle East.
“Many people are understandably fed up with being at home. Countries are understandably eager to open up their societies and economies. But the virus is still spreading fast. It is still deadly and most people are still susceptible,” he said.
The coronavirus has sickened more than 8.5 million people worldwide and killed at least 454,359, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.
Tedros said world leaders and the public need to “exercise extreme vigilance” against the virus, urging them to “focus on the basics.”
“Continue maintaining your distance from others. Stay home if you feel sick. Keep covering your nose and mouth when you cough. Wear a mask when appropriate. Keep cleaning your hands,” he said.
La crisis en la autoridad cultural del conocimiento no es propiedad exclusiva de los medios: se aplica a otras instituciones clave de la vida moderna, como la medicina, la ciencia y la educación. Se ha expresado, por ejemplo, en los debates sobre el papel de las vacunas en el autismo, de la que se han hecho eco los medios de comunicación y que ha preocupado a muchos padres, a pesar de las reiteradas declaraciones contrarias de expertos en medicina. También vemos rastros de esta crisis en la ciencia. La controversia de la evolución versus el creacionismo sigue viva y afecta la enseñanza de la biología en muchas escuelas de Estados Unidos, a pesar de la falta de apoyo hacia el creacionismo de fuentes científicas de buena reputación. Instituciones sociales como los medios, la medicina, la ciencia y la educación tenían la capacidad de moderar de manera eficaz la noción propuesta por Robert Park de que “un hecho es solamente un hecho en algún universo del discurso”, y así crear un terreno común entre segmentos diversos de la población. Pero esta capacidad parece ser menos efectiva en estos días que en el pasado.
Dos aeronaves militares sobrevolaron la población colombiana, según testigos. Es la segunda vez, en menos de una semana, que sucede un hecho similar.
Autoridades de Colombia confirmaron la incursión por parte de los helicópteros, que cruzaron por encima de varias casas y hasta la estación de Policía.
“Tenemos una confirmación de las autoridades militares y además por el corregidor de Paraguachón que se acercó a mi oficina y me confirmó que el hecho es cierto”, dijo Eliécer Quintero, secretario del gobierno de Maicao, en La Guajira.
El funcionario aseguró que “le corresponde al Ejército Nacional cubrir toda el área fronteriza y defender la soberanía de nuestro país”.
En Paraguachón, pobladores señalan que esto hace parte de las provocaciones del Gobierno de Maduro, inmerso en una grave crisis interna y duramente cuestionado por la comunidad internacional.
El sábado pasado, también en la misma localidad, se denunció que miembros de la Guardia Nacional incursionaron, realizaron tiros al aire y lanzaron gases lacrimógenos. El hecho generó una nota de protesta por parte de la Casa de Nariño.
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"
