WATCH LIVE:

Senate Democrats, GOP respond to Bolton revelation as Trump impeachment trial continues
Washington Post

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gz0DTyTIRCk
Comments:
Denis Bailey
I can not tell a lie “George Washington “ I can not tell the truth “Donald trump “ I can not tell the difference “replublican senators “
Roberto
“It changes nothing”...lol...damn the gop is impervious to reason.
G Pach
The question of evidence? How about... "Whose dog ate it?
Dimitri Buchene
I don’t know why we need Bolton when Taylor and Sonland already implicated Trump in the Ukraine imbroglio!
Eternal Darkness
This isn’t about which party democrat or republican this is about the truth
Dennis Dietz
Hate when I go fishing and open up the can of worms and find there all rotte
Edward Lee
This is organized crime within the government , this government is now working like a gangland
Cadet Bonespurs
Bolton? Don’t know him. Never heard of him. I’m not a fan
Mikael Holmgren
What to expect from a president who lied at least 15000 times so far (only public lies counted). GOP are his enablers!
FIDELITY, NO to DECEIT & HATE
Lol. Watched it first on Fox news with no audio. What I heard was their anchor.
D Lo
Eventually the truth will come out;. The senators voting to deny witnesses would forever leave their legacy as an accomplice to a historical cover up.
ixchel smith
so, GOP, the facts change, but the "game remains the same?" uh, no. waaaahhhhhh when someone out-manipulates them, using their own strategies, they say no fair. Brilliant strategy by Dems--first stall and build fervor for witnesses. GOP counters by smugly and arrogantly denying them witnesses, "for now.".
Dems knew that Bolton would use this as an instant worldwide book tour. Dems knew that other folks like Vindman, Yukanivich and Parnas each would a very public tale tell regardless of being allowed in the Senate! Now, they have 85% of everyone wanting to know more! and for this to unfold, we'll need witnesses.
The blue jays japed the hawks, lol.
bob Bunni
Yup still no crime
ixchel smith
@bob Bunni is a bj a crime? coz that's what Clinton lied about and was impeached for! By Lindsey Graham btw
bob Bunni
Smith lying under oath is a crime
omegasend
well well well... John Bolton... got some balls. Got a book that can sink your former boss but who cares... live the American dream and make money on it.
I still prefer Lev Parnas as a on the ground witness... more juicy xD
MVE
Trump: Bolton? Who? That guy with that filthy moustache? Never liked him.
Ben Jones
The truth matter's rep or dem should matter to everyone
Tom Shehee
i hate our government!
SkywallGuttz
12:40 You're welcome.
Denis Bailey
I can not tell a lie “George Washington “
I can not tell the truth “Donald trump “
I can not tell the difference “replublican senators “

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html
Drafts of the book outline the potential testimony of the former national security adviser if he were called as a witness in the president’s impeachment trial.

Prince Andrew Offers ‘Zero Cooperation’ in Epstein Case, Prosecutor Says
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=20700&user_id=c5ed3af7cf6db33805e8b866043ab876®i_id=101483702
Prosecutors in Manhattan want to talk to the prince as part of their investigation into sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein’s associates.
Monday, January 27, 2020 11:54 AM EST
Prince Andrew Credit...Will Oliver/EPA, via Shutterstock
By Nicole Hong
Jan. 27, 2020


Federal prosecutors and the F.B.I. have sought to interview Prince Andrew of Britain about Jeffrey Epstein, but he has not responded to their requests, the United States attorney in Manhattan said on Monday.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Two months ago, Britain’s Prince Andrew issued a public statement saying he would be willing to help American law enforcement officials with their investigation into allegations of sex-trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein’s associates.

It seems the royal has not kept his promise.
On Monday, a top law enforcement official in New York said prosecutors and F.B.I. agents had sought to interview Prince Andrew, reaching out to his lawyers, but that the prince had not given any assistance.
“To date, Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation,” said the official, Geoffrey Berman, the United States attorney in Manhattan.
Mr. Berman revealed Prince Andrew’s lack of cooperation in response to a reporter’s question during a news conference on sex trafficking outside Mr. Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion.
Prince Andrew, following a disastrous television interview over his ties to Mr. Epstein, said in a statement late last year that he would cooperate with law enforcement agencies in their investigations into the disgraced financier and his associates.
“Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required,” his statement said.
Mr. Epstein hanged himself last summer at a jail in Manhattan, where he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. Prosecutors had accused him of sexually exploiting dozens of women and girls in New York and Florida.
Shortly after Mr. Epstein’s death, Mr. Berman said in a statement that the investigation into the sex-trafficking conspiracy was not finished and prosecutors were committed to standing up for the “brave young women” Mr. Epstein had abused. Attorney General William P. Barr has also vowed to bring charges against anyone who helped Mr. Epstein.

In recent months, federal prosecutors reached out to Prince Andrew as their investigation into Mr. Epstein’s former employees, girlfriends and associates continued, according to one person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an open investigation.

Prince Andrew, 59, suggested in his interview last year that he could not “shed light” on Mr. Epstein’s activities for investigators because the two had only spent a few days at a time together.
American prosecutors may be interested in speaking with the prince because of his friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite who was Mr. Epstein’s former girlfriend. She has been accused in lawsuits of acting as a top recruiter for Mr. Epstein, procuring girls and young women for him to sexually abuse.
Ms. Maxwell, who has previously denied any wrongdoing, is one of Mr. Epstein’s associates who has been under scrutiny by the government. She was one of four women named as possible co-conspirators and granted immunity from prosecution in a widely criticized plea bargain that Mr. Epstein struck with federal prosecutors in Florida more than a decade ago.
Mr. Epstein’s suicide brought renewed attention to his relationships with prominent figures in politics, academia and business — including Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, who is also known as the Duke of York. A representative for Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond to a request for comment. During the BBC interview, Prince Andrew said he would have to consult with his lawyers before testifying under oath about his ties to Mr. Epstein.

The prince has said he met Mr. Epstein in 1999. Several news organizations have reported that Prince Andrew and Mr. Epstein partied together in New York, Palm Beach and London, and vacationed together in Thailand and the Caribbean. They were once photographed taking a walk together in Central Park.

The friendship continued after Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 in Florida to charges of soliciting prostitution and served 13 months in a county jail under the plea deal. After Mr. Epstein’s release in 2010, Prince Andrew stayed at his Manhattan mansion and drew fire for continuing the relationship.

Mr. Epstein’s suicide brought renewed attention to his relationships with prominent figures in politics, academia and business — including Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, who is also known as the Duke of York. A representative for Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond to a request for comment. During the BBC interview, Prince Andrew said he would have to consult with his lawyers before testifying under oath about his ties to Mr. Epstein.
The prince has said he met Mr. Epstein in 1999. Several news organizations have reported that Prince Andrew and Mr. Epstein partied together in New York, Palm Beach and London, and vacationed together in Thailand and the Caribbean. They were once photographed taking a walk together in Central Park.
The friendship continued after Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 in Florida to charges of soliciting prostitution and served 13 months in a county jail under the plea deal. After Mr. Epstein’s release in 2010, Prince Andrew stayed at his Manhattan mansion and drew fire for continuing the relationship.
One of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, has said that Mr. Epstein trafficked her to Prince Andrew when she was 17 years old.

In 2011, a photograph was published that Ms. Giuffre said was taken in 2001. The snapshot showed Prince Andrew standing alongside her in a London apartment with his arm wrapped around her bare waist and with Ms. Maxwell standing in the background.

A second woman, Johanna Sjoberg, has said in legal filings that, also in 2001, Prince Andrew posed for a photograph with her and Ms. Giuffre as well. In that picture, court papers said, the prince is touching the breasts of both of them.
Prince Andrew has denied both allegations and has denied knowing Mr. Epstein was sexually abusing teenage girls. “At no stage during the limited time I spent with him did I see, witness or suspect any behavior of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction,” the prince said in his statement last year.
Prince Andrew gave the interview to the BBC a few months after Mr. Epstein’s death, causing an uproar in Britain. Facing mounting criticism, he announced he was withdrawing from his royal duties in November.
During the interview, he said he had “no recollection” of meeting Ms. Giuffre.
When asked whether he regretted continuing his friendship with Mr. Epstein after the financier was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution, the prince said: “Do I regret the fact that he has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? Yes.”
“Unbecoming?” the BBC interviewer replied. “He was a sex offender.”

Nicole Hong covers law enforcement and courts in New York. Before joining The New York Times, she spent seven years at The Wall Street Journal, where she was part of a team that won the 2019 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for stories about secret payoffs made on Donald Trump's behalf to two women. 

As members vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., stands on the dais, during a vote on the article II of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Watch LIVE: Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump day 7

ABC News Live Coverage- ABC News

Should Billionaires be Taxed out of Existence?
The Agenda with Steve Paikin

Trump impeached on charges of abuse of power, obstruction
By LISA MASCARO and MARY CLARE JALONICKDecember 19, 2019


https://apnews.com/0756fda2b5143891c5da1c6897001cee

RELATED TOPICS
AP Top News
Constitutions
International News
General News
Politics
Elections
Impeachments
Election 2020
Trump impeachment
Donald Trump

Trump impeached on charges of abuse of power, obstruction
By LISA MASCARO and MARY CLARE JALONICKDecember 19, 2019


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming only the third American chief executive to be formally charged under the Constitution’s ultimate remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The historic vote split along party lines Wednesday night, much the way it has divided the nation, over a charge that the 45th president abused the power of his office by enlisting a foreign government to investigate a political rival ahead of the 2020 election. The House then approved a second charge, that he obstructed Congress in its investigation.
The articles of impeachment, the political equivalent of an indictment, now go to the Senate for trial. If Trump is acquitted by the Republican-led chamber, as expected, he still would have to run for reelection carrying the enduring stain of impeachment on his purposely disruptive presidency.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw a bit of uncertainty into the process Wednesday night by declining to say when, or even whether, she would send the charges to the Senate. Trump tweeted Thursday that the Senate should just go ahead and the Democrats “would lose by default,” but the trial cannot begin until the articles are delivered.
“The president is impeached,” Pelosi declared after the vote. She called it “great day for the Constitution of the United States, a sad one for America that the president’s reckless activities necessitated us having to introduce articles of impeachment.”

Trump, who began Wednesday tweeting his anger at the proceedings, pumped his fist before an evening rally in Battle Creek, Michigan, boasting of “tremendous support” in the Republican Party and saying, “By the way it doesn’t feel like I’m being impeached.”
The votes for impeachment were 230-197-1 on the first charge, 229-198-1 on the second.

Democrats led Wednesday night’s voting, framed in what many said was their duty to protect the Constitution and uphold the nation’s system of checks and balances. Republicans stood by their party’s leader, who has frequently tested the bounds of civic norms. Trump called the whole affair a “witch hunt,” a “hoax” and a “sham,” and sometimes all three.

The trial is expected to begin in January in the Senate, where a vote of two-thirds is necessary for conviction. While Democrats had the majority in the House to impeach Trump, Republicans control the Senate and few if any are expected to diverge from plans to acquit the president ahead of early state election-year primary voting.
Pelosi, once reluctant to lead Democrats into a partisan impeachment, gaveled both votes closed, risking her majority and speakership to follow the effort to its House conclusion.
No Republicans voted for impeachment, and Democrats had only slight defections on their side. Voting was conducted manually with ballots, to mark the moment.

On the first article, abuse of power, two Democrats, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, who is considering switching parties to become a Republican, and Collin Peterson of Minnesota voted against impeaching Trump. On the second article, obstruction, those two and freshman Rep. Jared Golden of Maine voted against. Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is running for president, voted “present” on both.
What Pelosi called a sad and solemn moment for the country, coming in the first year after Democrats swept control of the House, unfolded in a caustic daylong session that showcased the nation’s divisions.
The House impeachment resolution laid out in stark terms the articles of impeachment against Trump stemming from his July phone call when he asked the Ukrainian president for a “favor” — to announce he was investigating Democrats including potential 2020 rival Joe Biden.
At the time, Zelenskiy, new to politics and government, was seeking a coveted White House visit to show backing from the U.S. as he confronted a hostile Russia at his border. He was also counting on $391 million in military aid already approved by Congress. The White House delayed the funds, but Trump eventually released the money once Congress intervened.

Narrow in scope but broad in its charges, the impeachment resolution said the president “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections,” and then obstructing Congress’ oversight like “no president” in U.S. history.
“President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office,” it said.

Republicans argued that Democrats were impeaching Trump because they can’t beat him in 2020.
Said Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah: “They want to take away my vote and throw it in the trash.”
But Democrats warned the country cannot wait for the next election to decide whether Trump should remain in office because he has shown a pattern of behavior, particularly toward Russia, and will try to corrupt U.S. elections again.
“The president and his men plot on,” said Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., of the Intelligence Committee that led the inquiry. “The danger persists. The risk is real.”

The outcome brings the Trump presidency to a milestone moment that has been building almost from the time the New York businessman-turned-reality-TV host unexpectedly won the White House in 2016 amid questions about Russian interference inDemocrats drew from history, the founders and their own experiences, as minorities, women and some immigrants to the U.S. spoke of seeking to honor their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Rep. Lou Correa of California spoke in Spanish asking God to unite the nation. “In America,” said Hakeem Jeffries of New York, “no one is above the law.”
Republicans aired Trump-style grievances about what Arizona Rep. Debbie Lesko called a “rigged” process.
“We face this horror because of this map,” said Rep. Clay Higgins of Alabama before a poster of red and blue states. “They call this Republican map flyover country, they call us deplorables, they fear our faith, they fear our strength, they fear our unity, they fear our vote, and they fear our president.”

The political fallout from the vote will reverberate across an already polarized country with divergent views of Trump’s July phone call when he asked Zelenskiy to investigate Democrats in the 2016 election, Biden and Biden’s son Hunter, who worked on the board of a gas company in Ukraine while his father was the vice president.
Trump has repeatedly implored Americans to read the transcript of the call he said was “perfect.” But the facts it revealed, and those in an anonymous whistleblower’s complaint that sparked the probe, are largely undisputed.
More than a dozen current and former White House officials and diplomats testified for hours in impeachment hearings. The open and closed sessions under oath revealed what one called the “irregular channel” of foreign policy run by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, which focused on investigating the Bidens and alternative theories of 2016 election interference.

The question for lawmakers was whether the revelations amounted to impeachable offenses.
Few lawmakers crossed party lines.
Van Drew, who is considering changing parties over his opposition to impeachment, sat with Republicans. Rep. Justin Amash, the Michigan conservative who left the Republican party and became an independent over impeachment, said: “I come to this floor, not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, but as an American.”
Beyond the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, this first impeachment of the 21st century is as much about what the president might do in the future as what he did in the past. The investigation of Richard Nixon ended when he resigned rather than face the House vote over Watergate.

Rank and file Democrats said they were willing to lose their jobs to protect the democracy from Trump. Some newly elected freshmen remained in the chamber for hours during the debate.
Top Republicans, including Rep. Devin Nunes on the Intelligence Committee, called the Ukraine probe little more than a poor sequel to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Mueller spent two years investigating the potential links between Moscow and the Trump campaign but testified in July that his team could not establish that Trump conspired or coordinated with Russia to throw the election. Mueller did say he could not exonerate Trump of trying to obstruct the investigation, but he left that for Congress to decide.
The next day, Trump called Ukraine. Not quite four months later, a week before Christmas, Trump was impeached.
___
Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman, Matthew Daly, Alan Fram and Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

Epstein Accuser Urges Prince Andrew to ‘Come Clean’ on Sex Allegations
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/europe/prince-andrew-epstein-accuser.html
By Palko Karasz -Published Aug. 28, 2019

LONDON — One of the women who has accused Jeffrey Epstein of sex crimes has issued a startlingly clear appeal to Prince Andrew of Britain to “come clean” about his relationship with the disgraced financier.
“He knows exactly what he’s done, and I hope he comes clean about it,” the woman, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, said on Tuesday. She spoke outside a New York courthouse after an emotional hearing in which many of Mr. Epstein’s accusers spoke publicly for the first time.

Prince Andrew, the 59-year-old second son of Queen Elizabeth II, has faced intensifying scrutiny for his ties to Mr. Epstein, who was arrested in New York in July on sex trafficking charges. Mr. Epstein killed himself in a Manhattan jail cell this month, but in the weeks since, a storm has been mounting in the British news media, and the prince has stood at the center.
Prince Andrew, a longtime friend of Mr. Epstein’s, has been accused of witnessing and taking part in sexual exploitation of young women and girls during their friendship. He has also been widely criticized for maintaining a relationship with Mr. Epstein after the financier left a Florida jail in 2010 after a sex crime conviction.

Ms. Giuffre said in legal filings in 2015 that Mr. Epstein lent her to Prince Andrew for sex on multiple occasions when she was 17. She has released a photograph from 2001 showing Prince Andrew standing next to her with his hand around her bare midriff.
A second woman, Johanna Sjoberg, said in recently unsealed legal filings in the same case that Prince Andrew posed in 2001 for another photograph touching her breast while touching Ms. Giuffre’s breast at the same time with a puppet of himself.
 
The prince has repeatedly denied those allegations.
On Saturday, Prince Andrew broke his long silence on the scandal, saying he spent only a “limited time” with Mr. Epstein and that he never saw nor suspected any behavior involving the sexual trafficking and exploitation of underage girls.
He also played down their relationship, saying he saw Mr. Epstein “infrequently” after the two men met in 1999, but added it had been “a mistake and an error to see him” after Mr. Epstein was released from jail.

A spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace said on Wednesday that the royal family would not comment further.
But lawyers for Mr. Epstein’s accusers have demanded that Prince Andrew disclose whatever he knows about the financier’s behavior.
In 2015, a court in the United States struck Ms. Giuffre’s allegations against Prince Andrew from a claim against Mr. Epstein, saying they were “immaterial and impertinent” because the prince was not a defendant in the case, The Guardian reported.
Brad Edwards, a lawyer for Ms. Giuffre, said there was a difference between “bland statements” and answering questions under oath, The Times of London reported.

“I have personally extended that invitation to Prince Andrew multiple times,” Mr. Edwards told the news outlet. “We are ready and we have a lot of questions for him.”

MUST WATCH: Jim Jordan SLAMS John Bolton Book Details

Impeachment Trial

Senate Impeachment trial of President Donald Trump day two
Watch LIVE - ABC News
8:59:15

According to John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, Attorney General William P. Barr was concerned about President Trump’s conversations with autocratic leaders in two countries.Credit...Tom Brenner/Reuters

What are the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump?
The two articles, which charge the president with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, were delivered to the Senate earlier in January
 Donald Trump in Washington DC, on 12 December 2019. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/20/what-are-trump-articles-of-impeachment
The impeachment of Donald Trump brings against him congressional charges that he abused his power as president and obstructed Congress in its investigation of his conduct in relation to Ukraine. The House voted in December to pass the articles of impeachment, or charges, and these articles were delivered to the Senate in January as the case for the prosecution, in preparation for the Senate’s trial of the president.
The full articles can be read here, and are summarized below.
Article 1: abuse of power
The constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole power of impeachment” and that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct of the office of president of the United States and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, Donald J Trump has abused the powers of the presidency, in that: Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election.
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation.
Article 2: obstruction of Congress
Donald J Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment.
As part of this impeachment inquiry, the committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various executive branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials. In response
, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed executive branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Bolton has written a book about his time in the White House that is expected to be released this year.Credit...Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The contents of the manuscript were described as a rough account of how Bolton would testify should he be called as a witness in the Senate trial. The prospect of new witnesses has been viewed as unlikely given most Republicans' reluctance to accept additional testimony.


Trump addressed the report in a series of tweets Sunday night.

"I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book," Trump said.


Hill Democrats said Sunday that the new report highlighted the urgency of a Senate request for Bolton's testimony — a move that would require several GOP votes.


"It's up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump's actions testify in the Senate trial," Schumer tweeted. Mulvaney is Trump's acting chief of staff.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tweeted that because of the report that Bolton had firsthand knowledge of Trump's decision that ran counter to the White House's account, the

"refusal of the Senate to call for him, other relevant witnesses, and documents is now even more indefensible."

Prince Andrew Denies Knowing of Sex Trafficking by Epstein
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/24/world/europe/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer
By David D. Kirkpatrick - Published Aug. 24, 2019

LONDON — Prince Andrew, facing intensifying scrutiny of his ties to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, broke a long silence on Saturday to say that he never saw or suspected any behavior involving the sexual trafficking and exploitation of underage girls during their long friendship.
The prince’s statement, which was issued in his own name instead of by Buckingham Palace, was by far the most comprehensive account he has offered of their friendship. Yet Prince Andrew offered no new explanation for continuing a relationship with Mr. Epstein after the financier emerged from a Florida jail in 2010 following a sex crime conviction.
The 59-year-old second son of Queen Elizabeth II has been under growing pressure since Mr. Epstein’s arrest last month in New York on sex trafficking charges. Lawyers for Mr. Epstein’s accusers have demanded that Prince Andrew disclose whatever he knows about the financier’s behavior, even more pointedly since Mr. Epstein’s suicide this month in a New York jail.
One of the accusers, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, said in legal filings in 2015 that when she was 17, Mr. Epstein lent her to Prince Andrew for sexual exploitation on multiple occasions. She has released a photograph from 2001 showing Prince Andrew standing in a London apartment with his hand around her bare midriff.

A second woman, Johanna Sjoberg, has said in recently unsealed legal filings in the same case that, also in 2001, that Prince Andrew posed for another photograph touching her breast while at the same time touching the breast of Ms. Giuffre with a puppet of himself.

The prince has repeatedly denied both allegations.

“I deplore the exploitation of any human being and would not condone, participate in, or encourage any such behavior,” he said on Saturday in his statement about Mr. Epstein. “At no stage during the limited time I spent with him did I see, witness or suspect any behavior of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction.“

Mr. Epstein had served an 18-month jail sentence before his 2010 release. He had pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution and had registered as a sex offender as part of a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida to resolve more severe charges.
Soon after his release on parole, the prince and Mr. Epstein were photographed walking together in Central Park in New York, and last week a video from the same year emerged that showed the prince peering out the front door of Mr. Epstein’s mansion in New York.

A representative of Buckingham Palace said in a separate emailed statement on Saturday that a single visit in 2010 had been the only one the prince had made to Mr. Epstein after his conviction and jail sentence. But around the same time, the prince helped arrange for Mr. Epstein to make a payment of 15,000 pounds, or about $18,400, to help pay down debts accumulated by the prince’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson.
When news of the payments emerged the next year, Ms. Ferguson publicly apologized for accepting money from Mr. Epstein and referred explicitly to the exploitation of underage girls.
“I abhor pedophilia,” she said in 2011.
Prince Andrew resigned the same year from his role as a trade envoy for the British Foreign Office, calling his 2010 meeting with Mr. Epstein “an error of judgment.”

In his statement on Saturday, Prince Andrew repeated that mea culpa.

Prince Andrew resigned the same year from his role as a trade envoy for the British Foreign Office, calling his 2010 meeting with Mr. Epstein “an error of judgment.”
In his statement on Saturday, Prince Andrew repeated that mea culpa.
“I have said previously that it was a mistake and an error to see him after his release in 2010,” Prince Andrew said, “and I can only reiterate my regret that I was mistaken to think that what I thought I knew of him was evidently not the real person, given what we now know.”

Johan Eliasch, a close friend of the prince who is the chairman of the Head sporting goods company and also a former special representative of the British prime minister, said: “Anybody who knows the Duke well knows that he is intensely loyal to his friends and sometimes that loyalty is not in his best interest, and that is what happened here.”
Several news organizations have reported that Prince Andrew began spending time with Mr. Epstein as early as 1999 — partying with him in New York, Palm Beach and London, vacationing together in Thailand and the Caribbean, and strolling with him through the woods of royal estates in Norfolk and Scotland.

Prince Andrew said for the first time that he had met Mr. Epstein in 1999 and no earlier.
“During the time I knew him, I saw him infrequently and probably no more than only once or twice a year,” Prince Andrew said.
“I have stayed in a number of his residences,” he acknowledged, but, “I am at a loss to be able to understand or explain Mr. Epstein’s lifestyle.”

Previous denials have done little to diminish the demands for more answers about Prince Andrew’s relationship with Mr. Epstein, in part because the Duke of York’s judgment has been questioned for years.
The prince was once regarded as a war hero for his missions as a helicopter pilot during Britain’s 1982 war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. But since leaving the Navy in 2001, he has more often been treated by the British media as an object of ridicule.

Among the many nicknames he has acquired are Randy Andy, for his parade of female companions as a young man; Airmiles Andy, for his lavish travel on the public dime; and His Buffoon Highness, bestowed by British diplomats complaining about his boorish behavior on official trips abroad.
During his years as a trade envoy, in 2007, he raised eyebrows by selling his English estate, Sunninghill Park, to a son-in-law of the strongman who ruled Kazakhstan. Having received the estate as a wedding gift from the queen, Prince Andrew had managed to secure a sale price — 15 million pounds, around $18 million at today’s exchange rates — that was £3 million above the asking price, without an auction. The estate’s mansion has since been demolished.

In a luncheon with Western businessmen and diplomats in Kyrgyzstan the next year, the prince “railed” at British anti-corruption investigators, the American ambassador wrote in a cable that was later disclosed by WikiLeaks. It was “idiocy,” the prince said, to jeopardize a British company’s defense contract with Saudi Arabia because of alleged kickbacks to a senior Saudi royal.

British diplomats complained about the prince’s demands for perks like room-temperature water and five-star accommodations, about his entourage of no fewer than six — including private secretaries, security officers and a personal valet — and most of all about his insistence on traveling with his personal six-foot-long ironing board even during his stays in luxury hotels.

Simon Wilson, a former senior diplomat in the British Embassy in Bahrain, later recalled in a newspaper column that he had asked the valet why the prince needed an ironing board.

“No one knows how to press His Royal Highness’s trousers like I do,” the valet responded, according to Mr. Wilson.

Prince Andrew “is this kind of excrescence of the royal family,” said Stig Abell, the editor of The Times Literary Supplement, a former managing editor of the tabloid Sun and a former director of Britain’s official Press Complaints Commission.

“He is known as a sort of useless, slightly shady, has-dodgy-business-connections royal, so the fact that he is found hanging out with Epstein — who is the epitome of the dodgy businessman — is not surprising,” Mr. Abell said.

WATCH: Trump wanted Biden probe solely for political gain, Schiff argues

Trump impeachment trial - PBS NewsHour

Exclusive: Trump speaks to Maria amid Senate impeachment trial
Fox News

Watch LIVE Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump day four

ABC News Live Coverage -ABC News
11:23:52

Trump Impeachment Trial: Day 2
Global News
Streamed live on Jan 22, 2020
U.S. President Donald Trump's senate impeachment trial enters its second day. The trial resumes on Wednesday, Jan. 22 with opening statements by the prosecution, which will be followed by statements by the defence and questions. You can watch full live coverage of the trial starting at 1pm ET/10am PT For more info, please go to https://globalnews.ca/tag/trump-impea... Subscribe to Global News Channel HERE: http://bit.ly/20fcXDc Like Global News on Facebook HERE: http://bit.ly/255GMJQ Follow Global News on Twitter HERE: http://bit.ly/1Toz8mt Follow Global News on Instagram HERE: https://bit.ly/2QZaZIB #DonaldTrump #TrumpImpeachment #Impeachment #USSenate #USpolitics #GlobalNews

Watch LIVE: Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump day six

ABC News Live Coverage - ABC News
8:18:15

Watch LIVE: Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump day five

ABC News Live Coverage - ABC News
4:09:24

Donald Trump and Borris Johnson

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., talks on the phone as the House of Representatives debates impeaching President Donald Trump on two charges, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Trump Impeachment Trial: Day 3
Global News

 Impeachment trial of President Donald Trump day 9 - ABC News Live Coverage
ABC News ; Watch LIVE:

WATCH: Rep. Doug Collins’ full questioning of committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
PBS NewsHour

Trump team begins defense in Senate impeachment trial | Day 5
Fox News

Trump Impeachment Trial: Day 1
Global News

Kelli Votel
The magic of YouTube is I woke up, located where I’d fallen asleep & kept on watching. In its Entirety
ThothHeart Maat
Can someone tell me when they actually talked about trial rules?
Dan
Surprise the comments are open. Global News and CBC getting ratioed LOL
John Doe
This trial is a joke. Couldn’t win the election, couldn’t tie him to the Russians, so they try to impeach him with no reason why. A JOKE.
Jack Richardson
KAG - Kremlin Asset Governs
Bloo Rhapsody
Wow the defense sure is actually awful.
Bloo Rhapsody
Wow the defense sure is actually awful.
Brandon Sikes
i wonder if this account reveives ad revenue for this, because they shouldn't
John Doe
Starts at 24:13
Jeff Link
Gotta love all of the setup for the Senate and the blow through process of the House.
Eddie Moreno
ALL WITNESSES, ALL EVIDENCE! This is a Trail! How Dare the GOP try to burn the Constitution and the rule of law. BOOOOOOOOOOO Traitors and heretics all of them.
Lisa S-F
Mitch is absurdly biased and not even attempting to hide it. Yuck
Real Economy
Too many overpaid cops.
강주효
1day white house 25 in next 1 day sign ok
Real Economy
Nice to see something live without the html5 problems.
Alicia Salerno
Yup
kevscranes
This whole saga is a total waste of money and time by people who have never done an honest days work in their self serving parasitic lives ...
middy vanhoose
o no here it comes more lies
Kelli Votel
I’m proud of those who fight tirelessly to defend our constitution and prevent dictatorship. Thank You, Patriots! God Bless America
ThothHeart Maat
When you want a subpoena you have to know what you're looking for and why you're looking for it.. this isn't the discovery phase.. you can't get a warrant saying I don't know what's in it but i want it... You're not allowed to do a fishing expedition during a trial.. soooo objection... To all your amendments.. the same goes for witnesses. You have to know what you're looking for. You can't just say oh hey let's ask them some questions and see what they say.. you have to formulate clear reasonings and establish standing and get it entered properly.. or not I guess because it's just the Senate and there's no such thing as rules or procedure here..
Adrienne Laroche
Wait now.... What do you mean a fishing expedition? The dems know who they want to have testify and what documents they want specifically. Where is the fishing?
ThothHeart Maat
@Adrienne Laroche they said they don't know what the witnesses could know or what's in the documents. That they think we should know the truth whatever it is. They said it on live TV. That means they are using this trial to do an investigation rather than prosecute a case.
Adrienne Laroche
@ThothHeart Maat They tried to get the documents during the investigation and Trump wouldn't turn them over. Ignoring subpoenas and advising his staff to do the same. They know what ones they want. They subpoena exact documents and witnesses and were refused. Of course they don't know what the witnesses would know, that's why they were subpoenaed during the investigation. Now they want the Senate to force them to turn over the documents and witnesses. It's the only way to know what's in them or what the witness may say.
ThothHeart Maat
@Adrienne Laroche well they didn't follow the correct process. That's why they were refused.
Adrienne Laroche
@ThothHeart Maat How's that? They did what they were supposed to do. Trump refused cause he's a man child with something to hide. What is it you think the House did wrong during the impeachment inquiry? I don't recall hearing or reading anything about that? Must be something Trump said.
ThothHeart Maat
@Adrienne Laroche the house has to vote on the subpoenas but they just created an impeachment committee and issued them. Not the right process. Invalid.
Laurie Jo
@ThothHeart Maat No way. Democrats did what they had to to get the witnesses. Trump and his staff did everything they could to block them...hence the obstruction part of this trial.
ThothHeart Maat
@Laurie Jo I guess we'll see. Or won't if they dont know how to admit evidence..
Real Economy
Ban high heels. Don't ruin the floors.

Maureen Davis
Cuz dirty sneakers don't ruin floors?

Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump from US Senate: day three
Watch LIVE - ABC News
10:28:49

In this screengrab taken from a Senate Television webcast, Legal Counsel for President Donald Trump Ken Starr speaks during impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol on January 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. Senate Television | Getty Images

Impeachment Trial

Senate Impeachment trial of President Donald Trump day one
Watch LIVE  -ABC News
11:55:0

Donald Trump Impeachment Trial Day 9

Trump  Impeachment Briefing
January 28, 2020
The New York Times
By Noah Weiland

Welcome back to the Impeachment Briefing. After the White House team wrapped up its opening arguments, we’re taking a closer look at the man presiding over the impeachment trial.

What happened today
· Taking less than 90 minutes, President Trump’s lawyers concluded their opening arguments this afternoon. Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, called on senators to “end the era of impeachment” by declaring Mr. Trump not guilty.
· Jay Sekulow, one of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers, cast doubt on John Bolton’s claim that Mr. Trump withheld security aid to Ukraine until officials there helped investigate Democrats. He referred to it as an “unsourced allegation” that was “inadmissible” in the trial, and he argued that even if Mr. Bolton’s allegations were true, the behavior he described was not impeachable.
· Mr. Cipollone capped the presentation by playing a highlight reel of Democrats arguing against a partisan impeachment during Bill Clinton’s presidency. “You were right,” Mr. Cipollone said, looking at Chuck Schumer, the top Senate Democrat. “All you need in this case are the Constitution and your common sense.”
· After Mr. Trump’s legal team finished, Republicans conferred on whether to allow witnesses, a move that 75 percent of Americans support, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. In a private meeting, Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, announced that Republicans don’t yet have the votes to block witnesses, which he said would keep the trial from going another few weeks.
 

Continue reading the main story
What comes next

Tomorrow and Thursday, House managers and White House lawyers will answer questions submitted in writing by senators, who won’t be able to speak during the sessions. The questions will be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, and will alternate between Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. McConnell said this afternoon that there will be eight hours of questions tomorrow and eight on Thursday. Citing a precedent from the Clinton trial, Chief Justice Roberts asked that the House managers and White House lawyers try to limit their response time to five minutes per question.


A vote to consider allowing new witnesses and evidence in the trial is expected to follow, as early as Friday.

Over to you, Chief Justice
During opening arguments, Chief Justice Roberts was almost invisible, announcing the opening and closing of the trial and not much more, irking observers who wanted him to referee. But tomorrow gives him a chance to have meaningful influence, when he delegates questions from senators.
There are two other significant ways Chief Justice Roberts could play a role this week.

The chief justice in an impeachment trial functions much in the way a vice president does when he or she presides over the Senate, meaning he can intervene in a tie, perhaps on the question of calling witnesses. During President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, Chief Justice Salmon Chase issued two tie-breaking votes on motions.
And there’s a more direct way Chief Justice Roberts could participate: calling witnesses himself. Two Georgetown law professors and a former Republican congressman this week made that case, arguing that Chief Justice Roberts could take advantage of a clause in the rules for impeachment trials that says presiding officers can issue orders unilaterally. But even if the chief justice were to subpoena Mr. Bolton, a Senate majority could still decline to hear what he has to say.

To get a better sense of the political winds the chief justice is facing, I talked to my colleague Adam Liptak, our Supreme Court reporter, who has written about Chief Justice Roberts’s impeachment predicaments.

Adam, what is John Roberts like as a person? You’ve covered him for a dozen years now. Can his personality help us think about how he’s approaching a key moment like this in this trial?

He’s extremely well prepared, mild, witty, controlled and a student of history. He’s an institutionalist, and an institutionalist in two senses: He was initially nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Had he been an associate justice, he might well have been simply a reliable conservative vote.

But since President George W. Bush changed his nomination to that of chief justice after Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s death, Chief Justice Roberts took on the additional responsibilities of being the custodian of the Supreme Court’s prestige and authority. And he’s deeply committed to that.
He’s an institutionalist in a second sense: He respects the separation of powers and the duties that the Constitution confers on each of the branches.
In the last few years he has voiced his concerns about partisanship, and how he doesn’t want it to spill over into the court. He recently referred to the judiciary as a source of “national unity.” How does he carry that idea into the Senate chamber tomorrow when he reads the questions?

Chief Justice Roberts is under no illusions that the other two branches, which he calls the political branches, will act anything but politically. He sees the role of his own branch as above politics. In taking on the hybrid role of presiding over a trial inside one of the political branches, he has to balance competing instincts. But he finds himself in an impossible situation. If he does very little, he will disappoint Democrats hoping for a more robust trial. If he takes a commanding role, he will be criticized for overstepping.
So far, the chief justice’s most newsworthy moment was when he scolded the two sides for not being civil. Did that surprise you?
I was a little surprised, but the even-handedness and mild tone of the remarks was characteristic of Chief Justice Roberts. It can’t be easy for him to sit and listen for hours on end. He may have felt the ordinary human impulse to play a role in the proceedings he’s nominally presiding over.
If one side says something obviously untrue, can he say so?
I don’t expect him to challenge even outlandish arguments or statements of fact. We’ve seen him urge the two sides to maintain a civil tone, but I don’t think he views his task as fundamentally judicial in the sense of what he does at the court.

What do you think his objectives are in the trial?

The institution the chief justice cares about is the Supreme Court. If he were credibly accused of partisanship at the impeachment trial, it would damage his reputation and the reputation of the court. My sense is that his main goal is to avoid sustaining that kind of damage. He probably does that best by following the example of his predecessor and former boss when he was a law clerk: Chief Justice Rehnquist, who presided over the Clinton trial with a very light touch
There was a dramatic escalation in the Senate’s milk-drinking escapades.
We’ve written about the trial rules limiting beverage consumption in the Senate chamber to just milk and water, and over the past week several senators have been spotted drinking regular milk at their desks. Today, Senator Mitt Romney, an important vote in the trial, took it to another level: He brought a bottle of chocolate milk.
I asked his communications director, Liz Johnson, for an explanation, and she told me it was merely Mr. Romney’s longtime love of chocolate milk at work — Ann Romney, his wife, once said that it was his food-and-drink-related vice, though he sticks to the low-fat variety.

The courtroom artist Art Lien has been sketching the trial for The New York Times. See all of Mr. Lien’s drawings here.

What else we’re reading
Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a House manager, and Jay Sekulow, the president’s personal lawyer.Erin Schaff/The New York Times
· Erin Schaff, one of The Times’s photographers in Washington, shot these beautiful black-and-white portraits of the legal teams that are arguing the impeachment case before the Senate.
· The Washington Post got to the bottom of a question we’ve heard from several readers: Who’s paying for the president’s lawyers? Turns out the Republican National Committee is footing a good portion of the bill, under a law that allows officeholders to dip into campaign funds to cover legal fees.
· John Kelly, who served as Mr. Trump’s chief of staff for a year and a half, said on Monday evening that he believed the accounts from John Bolton’s book and would like to see Mr. Bolton testify in the impeachment trial, according to a report in The Herald-Tribune of Sarasota, Fla. “I think some of the conversations seem to me to be very inappropriate, but I wasn’t there,” Mr. Kelly said. “But there are people that were there that ought to be heard from.”

The Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump - ABC News

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
McConnell acknowledges GOP doesn't yet have votes to block witnesses in Trump trial
Senators are expected to vote in the coming days about whether to call witnesses in the impeachment trial.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/gop-senators-meet-discuss-calling-witnesses-trump-trial-n1124691
Jan. 28, 2020
By Frank Thorp V, Kasie Hunt, Geoff Bennett and Adam Edelman


WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., acknowledged to Republican senators during a private meeting earlier Tuesday that he did not currently have the votes to avoid calling witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, a GOP aide familiar with his comments told NBC News.
Though the votes are not yet secured, Republicans appeared confident Tuesday evening that they would ultimately be successful in blocking witnesses. Senate Republican leadership exerted strong pressure on the party's members to vote against calling witnesses, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.
The sources said Republican Senate leaders "whipped the vote" — although there was no official vote count —against calling for witnesses at the private GOP Senate meeting Tuesday afternoon, which came after Trump's defense team wrapped up arguments. Whipping is when leaders firmly tell members how the party expects them to vote.

Several Republican senators wouldn’t divulge to NBC News the substance of what they discussed, telling reporters to "check with the whip" about any directives from leadership.
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told NBC News that he was "whipped against voting to call witnesses" but that there was not an official whip count.


Full coverage of President Donald Trump's impeachment trial

https://www.nbcnews.com/Trump-impeachment-inquiry

Sens. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and John Boozman, R-Ark., told NBC News, however, that they did not feel pressured. Boozman said everyone at the hour-long meeting was being “respectful.”
The meeting of the Senate Republican Conference was held for the purpose of "starting to check the conference on witnesses," a GOP leadership said. At a Senate Republican lunch ahead of the meeting, executive privilege was also expected to be discussed.


Conversations about where the Senate Republicans are on the witness question have been ongoing.

A debate and vote on whether to call witnesses could come later this week.
Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning Democrats would need four Republicans to join them in a vote for witness testimony in the Senate trial.
Top Senate Democrats have said repeatedly they want former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, senior adviser to Mulvaney, and Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget to testify.

However, calls for Bolton, in particular, to testify have intensified in recent days after The New York Times reported — according to a manuscript of Bolton's book, which it obtained and has not seen by NBC News — that Trump told Bolton in August that nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine would not be released until it provided all of the information it had in connection with the investigations of Democrats the president sought.

A pair of moderate Republican senators — Mitt Romney, of Utah, and Susan Collins, of Maine — said Monday that the report of major revelations in Bolton’s soon-to-be-released book strengthens the case for calling witnesses.

Download the NBC News app for full coverage of the Senate impeachment trial

https://www.nbcnews.com/Trump-impeachment-inquiry

Romney, Collins, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee are considered to be the most likely Republicans to vote for witnesses.
Murkowski said Monday: "I've said before I'm curious about what Ambassador Bolton might have to say. I'm still curious." Alexander said he won't decide until after both sides have answered questions from the Senate.
Sen. Lindsey Graham. R-S.C., a top Trump ally who's resisted calls for additional witnesses and documents, acknowledged Monday that Bolton may be "a relevant witness" and said he'd consider subpoenaing a manuscript of his book

Sen. Lisa Murkowski✔@lisamurkowski

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska tweeted:

(1/2) “I stated before that I was curious as to what John Bolton might have to say. From the outset, I’ve worked to ensure this trial would be fair and that members would have the opportunity to weigh in after its initial phase to determine if we need more information.”

​(2/2) I’ve also said there is an appropriate time for us to evaluate whether we need additional information —that time is almost here. I look forward to the White House wrapping up presentation of its case.
5:46 PM - Jan 27, 2020

GOP defends Trump as Bolton book adds pressure for witnesses
By ERIC TUCKER, ZEKE MILLER and LISA MASCARO

https://apnews.com/c869bf2e629788a9e301af477e1d7344

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators faced mounting pressure Monday to summon John Bolton to testify at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial even as Trump's lawyers mostly brushed past extraordinary...
https://apnews.com/

Full Coverage: Trump impeachment
GOP defends Trump as Bolton book adds pressure for witnesses
By ERIC TUCKER, ZEKE MILLER and LISA MASCARO

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators faced mounting pressure Monday to summon John Bolton to testify at President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial even as Trump’s lawyers mostly brushed past extraordinary new allegations from the former national security adviser and focused instead on corruption in Ukraine and historical arguments for acquittal.
Outside the Senate chamber, Republicans grappled with claims in a forthcoming book from Bolton that Trump had wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until it helped with investigations into Democratic rival Joe Biden. That assertion could undercut a key defense argument — that Trump never tied the suspension of security aid to political investigations.

The revelation clouded White House hopes for a swift end to the impeachment trial, fueling Democratic demands for witnesses and possibly pushing more Republican lawmakers to agree. It also distracted from hours of arguments from Trump’s lawyers, who declared anew that no witness has testified to direct knowledge that Trump’s delivery of aid was contingent on investigations into Democrats. Bolton appeared poised to say exactly that if called on by the Senate to appear.
“We deal with transcript evidence, we deal with publicly available information,” Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said. “We do not deal with speculation.”
Trump is charged with abusing his presidential power by asking Ukraine’s leader to help investigate Biden at the same time his administration was withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid. A second charge accuses Trump of obstructing Congress in its probe.

Republicans are to conclude their arguments Tuesday.
On Monday, Trump’s attorneys, including high-profile lawyers Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, launched a historical, legal and political attack on the entire impeachment process. They said there was no basis to remove Trump from office, defended his actions as appropriate and assailed Biden, who is campaigning for the Democratic nomination to oppose Trump in November..

Former Florida Attorney Ggeneral Pam Bondi devoted her presentation to Biden and his son, Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukraine gas company at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Kyiv. The legal team argued that Trump had legitimate reasons to be suspicious of the younger Biden’s business dealings and concerned about corruption in Ukraine and that, in any event, he ultimately released the aid without Ukraine committing to investigations the president wanted.

Democrats say Trump released the money only after a whistleblower submitted a complaint about the situation.
Trump has sought, without providing evidence, to implicate the Bidens in the kind of corruption that has long plagued Ukraine. Though anti-corruption advocates have raised concerns, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son.

Starr, whose independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton resulted in his impeachment — he was acquitted by the Senate — bemoaned what he said was an “age of impeachment.” Impeachment, he said, requires an actual crime and a “genuine national consensus” that the president must go. Neither exists here, Starr said.
“It’s filled with acrimony and it divides the country like nothing else,” Starr said of impeachment. “Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment understand that in a deep and personal way.”
Dershowitz, the final speaker of the evening, argued that impeachable offenses require criminal-like conduct, though that view is largely rejected by legal scholars. He said “nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.”

“Purely non-criminal conduct, including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, are outside the range of impeachable offenses,” Dershowitz said.

Elizabeth Warren, a presidential campaigner like Biden but also a Senate juror, told reporters she found Dershowitz’s arguments “nonsensical.”

Even as defense lawyers laid out their case as planned, it was clear Bolton’s book had scrambled the debate over whether to seek witnesses. Bolton writes that Trump told him he wanted to withhold security aid from Ukraine until it helped with investigations. Trump’s legal team has insisted otherwise, and Trump tweeted Monday that he never told Bolton such a thing.

“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” Trump said. “If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.”
Republican senators face a pivotal moment. Pressure is mounting for at least four to buck GOP leaders and form a bipartisan majority to force the issue. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority.
“John Bolton’s relevance to our decision has become increasingly clear,” GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah told reporters. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said she has always wanted “the opportunity for witnesses” and the report about Bolton’s book “strengthens the case.”

At a private GOP lunch, Romney made the case for calling Bolton, according to a person unauthorized to discuss the meeting and granted anonymity.
Other Republicans, including Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, said if Trump’s former national security adviser is called, they will demand reciprocity to hear from at least one of their witnesses. Some Republicans want to call the Bidens.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell didn’t know about Bolton’s book, his office said. But the GOP leader appeared unmoved by news of the Bolton book. His message at the lunch, said Indiana GOP Sen. Mike Braun, was, “Take a deep breath, and let’s take one step at a time.”
Once the president’s team wraps its arguments, senators have 16 hours for questions to both sides. By late in the week, they are expected to hold a vote on whether or not to hear from any witnesses.

While Democrats say Bolton’s revelations are reminiscent of the Watergate drip of new information, Republicans are counting on concerns subsiding by the time senators are asked to vote. They are being told that if there is agreement to summon Bolton, the White House will resist, claiming executive privilege.
That would launch a weeks-long court battle that could drag out the impeachment trial, a scenario some GOP senators would rather avoid.
Trump and his lawyers have argued repeatedly that Democrats are using impeachment to try to undo the results of the last presidential election and drive Trump from office.
Democrats, meanwhile, say Trump’s refusal to allow administration officials to testify only reinforces that the White House is hiding evidence. The White House has had Bolton’s manuscript for about a month, according to a letter from Bolton’s attorney.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said: “We’re all staring a White House cover-up in the face.”
Rep. Adam Schiff, who leads the House prosecution team, called Bolton’s account a test for the senators.

“I don’t know how you can explain that you wanted a search for the truth in this trial and say you don’t want to hear from a witness who had a direct conversation about the central allegation in the articles of impeachment,” Schiff said on CNN.
Bolton’s account was first reported by The New York Times and was confirmed to The Associated Press by a person familiar with the manuscript on the condition of anonymity. “The Room Where It Happened; A White House Memoir” is to be released March 17.
Joe Biden, campaigning in Iowa, said he sees no reason for testimony by him or his son.
“I have nothing to defend. This is all a game, even if they bring me up,” he told reporters. “What is there to defend? This is all -- the reason he’s being impeached is because he tried to get a government to smear me and they wouldn’t. Come on.”

Trump said people could look at transcripts of his call with Ukrainian President Zelinskiy to see there was no pressure for investigations to get the aid. In that call, Trump asked Zelinskiy to “do us a favor” with the investigations as he was withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to the U.S. ally at war with Russia.
Democrats argued their side of the impeachment case last week, warning that Trump will persist in abusing his power and endangering American democracy unless Congress intervenes to remove him before the 2020 election.
Eventual acquittal is likely in a Senate where a two-thirds majority vote would be needed for conviction
_____

Trump Impeachment Live

Fox News

Prince Andrew, right, in London in May. He said he never saw nor suspected any behavior involving the sexual trafficking and exploitation of underage girls during his friendship with Mr. Epstein.Credit...Pool photo by Yui Mok

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders face off at the Democratic debate in Des Moines. Photograph: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

FacebookTwitterPinterest

 Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally at Huntington Center in Toledo, Ohio. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
FacebookTwitterPinterest

Martin_Pengelly

Giuliani reacted positively to Raskin’s defense of him, saying in a tweet following her arguments that he “did not dig up dirt on Joe Biden.”
Rudy Giuliani✔@RudyGiuliani
Jane Raskin is doing a masterful job defending me in my role as defense counsel. As she pointed out, I did not dig up dirt on Joe Biden. The information RE his outrageous criminal conduct was handed to me, along with a video tape, 4 witnesses &...
9:12 PM - Jan 27, 2020

Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary Clinton at an event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in July 2016. Photograph-Justin Saglio-AFP via Getty Images

Minutes after the House impeached President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw the process into confusion by refusing to say when or whether she would send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. (Dec. 18)

The Establishment Doesn’t Fear Trump, And It Doesn’t Fear Bernie. It Fears You.
Published  January 29, 2020
By Caitlin Johnstone
 January 29, 2020

https://thefreedomarticles.com/establishment-fears-you-not-trump-not-bernie/?owa_medium=feed&owa_sid=

The Establishment fears you.
During the George W Bush administration it was popular in conspiracy circles to speculate that events might be orchestrated which would allow the Bush family to complete a coup against the US Constitution and hold on to power indefinitely. Such paranoia and suspicion of government power in the wake of the extraordinary post-9/11 advancements in Orwellian surveillance programs and unprecedented military expansionism were perfectly understandable, but predictions that the younger Bush would not cede power at the end of his second term proved incorrect. In today’s hysterical Trump-centric political environment we now see mainstream voices in mainstream outlets openly advancing the same conspiratorial speculations about the current administration, and those will prove incorrect as well.

What these paranoid presidential prognostications get wrong is not their extreme suspicion of government, but their assumption that America’s real power structures require a certain president to be in place in order to advance depraved totalitarian agendas. As anyone paying attention knows, intense suspicion of the US government is the only sane position that anyone can possibly have; the error is in assuming that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the same agendas carry forward from one presidential administration to the next.

“Schiff dwelling on the fact that Trump departed from the talking points prepared for him by national security officials so he could act “contrary to official US policy,” which is to “deter Russian adventurism.” Glad to know even the president is not permitted to change US policy”— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 23, 2020

In a sense, the conspiracy theories about a Bush coup were actually correct: the Bush administration didn’t truly end. All of its imperialist, power-serving agendas remained in place and were expanded under the apparent oversight of the following administration. The same thing happened after the Obama administration, and the same thing–whether in 2021 or 2025–will happen after the Trump administration. The disturbing fact of the matter is that if you ignore election dates and just look at the numbers and raw data of US government behavior over the years, you can’t really tell who is president or which political party is in power at any given point in time.

The mechanism which ensures the perpetuation of the same policies from administration to administration used to be referred to by analysts as the “deep state”, back before Trump and his supporters hijacked that term and began using it to essentially mean somethi
ng like “Democrats and anyone who doesn’t like Trump”. Originally the term deep state referred not to one political party, nor to some shadowy cabal of Illuminati or Satanists or reptilians, but to the simple and undeniable fact that unelected power structures exist and tend to influence America’s official elected government. It wasn’t a conspiracy theory, it was a concept used in political analysis to describe how US government agencies and plutocrats form loose alliances with each other and with official Washington to influence government policy and behavior.

Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a House manager, and Jay Sekulow, the president’s personal lawyer.Erin Schaff/The New York Times

 Trump Is Right: Fake News Is Real — But It's Not What You Think
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/07/23/donald-trump-fake-news-media-steve-almond

In this July 17, 2019, photo, President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally at Williams Arena in Greenville, N.C. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Two and a half years into the cruel and chaotic reign of Donald Trump, one piercing irony has emerged: History’s most dishonest president has a strange penchant for exposing dark truths.
The first and most central of these truths, of course, is that many white people in America are just fine with trampling the rights of immigrants and minorities.
But Trump also has a preternatural ability to popularize catch defensive phrases that precisely describe the true nature of his corruption. Remember, for example, late in the 2016 campaign, when all the polls suggested he was headed for a humiliating defeat? Trump began bleating about the “rigged system” stacked against him.

And as we all discovered election night, Trump was right: the system was rigged — flagrantly and on his behalf. Thanks, at least in part, to sustained voter suppression efforts, Trump won razor-thin margins in Wisconsin and Michigan.

History’s most dishonest president has a strange penchant for exposing dark truths.
And thanks to the Electoral College, Trump won the White House despite losing the popular vote by three million voters.

(In fact, the Electoral College’s bias toward whiter, sparsely populated states, means Trump could lose by five million votes in 2020, and still retain the presidency.)

Or consider his incessant pledge to “Drain the Swamp”?

This rallying cry, which Trump parroted only after it had been focus-group tested by the digital ghouls at Cambridge Analytica, helped him convince gullible voters that he would cleanse our national capital of vice.

In fact, Trump has bloated the swamp in ways barely imaginable, stocking his cabinet with greedy plutocrats and corporate lobbyists who are just as eager to profit from their “public service” as he is.

Of all the sleazy slogans this TV demagogue deploys, surely the most durable and resonant is his continual bleating about Fake News.


Here’s the crazy thing: I agree with Trump.

The modern media ecosystem is constantly focusing on “news” that has nothing to do with the actual lives of America’s citizens, in particular those who are vulnerable and struggling.
Instead, the media aims its lenses and microphones at the calculated diversions Trump confects daily to distract attention from the ineptitude and avarice of his regime.


As a creature of tabloid culture, Trump understood from the very beginning the deep truth of Fake News — that our Fourth Estate will always favor inflammation over information, that he can always seize attention by indulging in aggressive vulgarity, fear-mongering and racial incitement.


Reporters and pundits continue to publicize his tweets, to cover his rallies and press conferences, to aggrandize his feuds and virtually ignore his actions.
This week, for instance, you’ll hear barely anything about the rampant dysfunction at the Commerce Department, or the administration’s drilling free-for-all on public lands, or even the global implications of the heatwave that just fried the east coast.

The central question now is to what extent editors and reporters will recognize their role in this catastrophe before 2020.
No, instead, you’ll get another hundred stories about his achingly predictable attacks on four congresswomen of color, and his publicity stunt effort to help free an American rapper arrested in Sweden.
Trump ascended to the presidency thanks to the purveyors of Fake News, who covered his pep rallies as if they were presidential addresses, who made “Hillary’s email” a bigger story than Trump’s history of tax fraud or sexual misconduct, who faithfully smeared Clinton using emails stolen and disseminated by Russians.
Without Fake News (and that trusty Rigged System) to sustain his electoral Ponzi scheme, Trump would just another aging huckster prowling the D-list party circuit and trolling for porn stars, and the GOP would be a fringe party on the wrong side of history.

The central question now is to what extent editors and reporters will recognize their role in this catastrophe before 2020.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter.

2 legal experts on the latest developments in Trump's impeachment trial
PBS NewsHour
Published on Jan 29, 2020

Senators have now begun asking questions in President Trump’s impeachment trial. Georgetown Law School’s Victoria Nourse, who previously served as special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Jamil Jaffer, former chief counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and associate White House counsel, join Judy Woodruff to discuss questions of calling witnesses and Trump's motives. Stream your PBS favorites with the PBS app: https://to.pbs.org/2Jb8twG Find more from PBS NewsHour at https://www.pbs.org/newshour Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/2HfsCD6 Follow us: Facebook: http://www.pbs.org/newshour Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/newshour Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/newshour Snapchat: @pbsnews Subscribe: PBS NewsHour podcasts: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/podcasts Newsletters: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/subscribe
Category
News & Politics

Prince Andrew in June. “I deplore the exploitation of any human being and would not condone, participate in, or encourage any such behavior,” he said Saturday.Credit...Mark Cuthbert/UK Press, via Getty Images

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Calif., speaks as the House of Representatives debates the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019. (House Television via AP)

Quinnipiac University  Poll
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3654&te=1&nl=impeachment-briefing&emc=edit_ib_20200129&campaign_id=140&instance_id=15534&segment_id=20747&user_id=c5ed3af7cf6db33805e8b866043ab876®i_id=101483702_ib_20200129

January 28, 2020 -

75% Of Voters Say Allow Witnesses In Senate Impeachment Trial, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; 53% Say President Trump Not Telling Truth About Ukraine
On week two of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, registered voters say 75 - 20 percent that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the impeachment trial, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pea-ack) University national poll released today. Support for witness testimony includes 49 percent of Republicans, 95 percent of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents.
"There may be heated debate among lawmakers about whether witnesses should testify at the impeachment trial of President Trump, but it's a different story outside the Beltway. Three-quarters of American voters say witnesses should be allowed to testify, and that includes nearly half of Republican voters," said Quinnipiac University Poll Analyst Mary Snow.
On the question of whether President Trump should be removed from office, voters remain divided, as 48 percent say the Senate should not remove President Trump from office, while 47 percent say the Senate should. That compares to a January 13 poll, conducted prior to the start of the Senate impeachment trial, in which 48 percent said the president should not be removed from office, while 46 percent said he should.
Among voters who say President Trump should not be removed from office, 77 percent say the president did nothing wrong in his actions involving Ukraine, while 14 percent say he did something wrong.
The overwhelming majority of voters who have an opinion on whether the Senate should vote to remove President Trump or not, 89 percent, say they've already made up their minds, while 10 percent say they might change their minds.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UKRAINE

More than half of voters, 53 - 40 percent, say President Trump is not telling the truth about his actions involving Ukraine. There are sharp divides along party lines, with 89 percent of Republicans saying the president is telling the truth and 92 percent of Democrats saying he is not telling the truth. More independents, 56 percent, believe President Trump is not telling the truth, compared to the 33 percent who say he is telling the truth.
A majority of voters, 57 percent, say they would like President Trump to provide more details about his actions involving Ukraine, while 38 percent say they are satisfied with the explanation he has provided.
More than half of voters, 54 percent, believe President Trump abused his power regarding his actions involving Ukraine, while 42 percent say he did not.
A similar 52 percent think that President Trump obstructed Congress regarding its investigation of his actions involving Ukraine, while 42 percent think he did not.
Just over half of American voters, 52 percent, think the Trump administration's withholding of U.S. aid to Ukraine was not justified, while 34 percent say it was justified.
Voters continue to tune into news about impeachment, as 57 percent say they are paying a lot of attention. This compares to 59 percent who said they were paying a lot of attention in mid-December 2019, before the Senate trial began.
Despite the ongoing impeachment trial, President Trump matches his highest job approval rating since taking office, as 43 percent of voters approve of the job he's doing and 52 percent disapprove. Republicans approve 94 - 4 percent, while Democrats disapprove 95 - 3 percent and independents disapprove 53 - 38 percent.

SENATE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ON IMPEACHMENT PROCESS

Voters don't think senators on either side of the aisle are open minded about the impeachment process. Only 16 percent of voters say Senate Republicans are open minded about the impeachment process, while 76 percent say Senate Republicans have already made up their minds. Only 15 percent of voters say Senate Democrats are open minded about the impeachment process, while 79 percent say Senate Democrats have already made up their minds.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
With days to go before the Iowa caucuses, former Vice President Joe Biden holds a modest lead in the Democratic primary for president. Biden gets 26 percent of the vote among Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic, while Senator Bernie Sanders gets 21 percent and Senator Elizabeth Warren receives 15 percent. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg receives 8 percent, Senator Amy Klobuchar gets 7 percent, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg receives 6 percent, and businessman Andrew Yang gets 3 percent. No other candidate tops 2 percent.
In a January 13 poll, prior to the last debate, Biden had 25 percent of the vote, Sanders received 19 percent, Warren got 16 percent, Buttigieg had 8 percent, and Bloomberg got 6 percent.
"After months of leading national polls, Joe Biden's support is holding steady - but he no longer sits comfortably at the top of the Democratic presidential pack. Bernie Sanders' support breaks into the 20's for the first time, and Elizabeth Warren remains in third place. In their rearview mirror, small but steady moves are changing the line-up of candidates in single digits. There's not much daylight between Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg as they are within a 2 point spread of one another," Snow added.
There is plenty of room for movement in the Democratic primary race as 55 percent of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic say they might change their mind about their vote, while 43 percent say their mind is made up.
Motivation to vote in the primary is sky high as two thirds of these voters, 67 percent, say they are extremely motivated to vote in the primary, 18 percent say they are very motivated, and 12 percent say they are somewhat motivated. Only 3 percent say they are not so motivated or not motivated at all.
A little more than three quarters, 78 percent, say they are choosing a candidate with their head, while 13 percent say they are choosing a candidate with their heart.
Less than half of these voters, 46 percent, say the Democratic primary debates have influenced their decision in choosing a candidate, while 51 percent say the debates haven't influenced their vote.
Only 21 percent say the results of the Iowa caucuses will influence their decision about which Democratic presidential candidate to support, while 73 percent say those results will not influence their decision.
Although the candidates have stepped up their criticism of each other, Democrats and Democratic leaners don't appear concerned about the party ultimately unifying behind a candidate, as 79 percent say the Democratic party will unite behind whoever wins the 2020 Democratic primary, while 14 percent say it will not.
Looking at the candidates' strengths, Biden does best on electability and leadership, while Sanders wins on honesty and empathy, and Warren gets the top spot on intelligence. Taking a closer look:
· Best chance of winning against Donald Trump: Biden 44 percent, Sanders 19 percent, Bloomberg 9 percent
· Best leader: Biden 31 percent, Sanders 18 percent, Warren 17 percent
· Cares the most about people like you: Sanders 28 percent, Biden 20 percent, Warren 19 percent
· Most honest: Sanders 26 percent, Biden 17 percent, Warren 14 percent
· Most intelligent: Warren 26 percent, Buttigieg 14 percent, Biden 13 percent
· Best policy ideas: Sanders 22 percent, Warren 21 percent, Biden 18 percent

THE SUPER BOWL
Slightly more American adults will be rooting for the Kansas City Chiefs than for the San Francisco 49ers to win the Super Bowl, as 26 percent say they want the Chiefs to win, 21 percent want the 49ers to win, and 50 percent say they don't care who wins.
Most Americans, 56 percent, say they will be watching the Super Bowl, while 41 percent say they will not be watching the game.
From January 22 - 27, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,905 self-identified registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points and 2,170 adults with a margin of error of +/- 2.1 percentage points. The survey includes 827 Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic with a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts gold standard surveys using random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones. The Quinnipiac University Poll conducts nationwide surveys and polls in more than a dozen states on national and statewide elections, as well as public policy issues.
Visit poll.qu.edu or www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll
Email poll@qu.edu, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
1. How much attention have you been paying to the election campaign for president; a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
A lot                50%    54%    57%    42%    53%    47%    56%    45%
Some                 28     28     27     30     26     29     31     30
Only a little        15     12     10     21     15     15      9     17
None at all           7      6      5      7      6      7      4      8
DK/NA                 1      1      1      -      -      1      -      -
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hs

A lot                39%    45%    56%    59%    53%    49%    50%    48%    42%
Some                 30     32     25     26     29     31     30     21     23
Only a little        24     14     13     10     12     14     13     21     24
None at all           6      9      6      4      6      6      6     10      6
DK/NA                 1      -      1      1      -      -      -      -      5
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
A lot                55%    68%    53%    50%    57%    53%    60%    49%    64%    53%
Some                 27     21     31     28     24     29     28     20     28     30
Only a little        12      9     12     13     13     11      7     20      7      8
None at all           6      2      4      8      6      6      4     11      1      8
DK/NA                 1      -      -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
A lot                57%    48%    45%    47%    58%    66%    42%    62%    61%
Some                 27     25     35     28     24     22     31     23     27
Only a little        10     19     20     14      9      6     15     13      8
None at all           5      8      -     12      9      4     10      2      4
DK/NA                 1      -      -      -      -      1      3      -      -
TREND: How much attention have you been paying to the election campaign for president; a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?
                                     OnlyA   None
                     A lot   Some    Little  AtAll   DK/NA
Jan 28, 2020         50      28      15       7       1
Jan 13, 2020         51      28      14       8       -
Dec 16, 2019         54      25      14       7       -
Dec 10, 2019         51      29      15       6       -
Nov 26, 2019         49      29      15       7       1
Oct 24, 2019         51      27      14       7       -
Oct 14, 2019         54      25      11       9       -
Oct 08, 2019         53      24      15       8       -
Sep 25, 2019         48      25      17       8       1
Aug 28, 2019         47      30      16       6       1
See additional trend information at top of page
2. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) If the Democratic primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bloomberg, for whom would you vote?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Biden                26%    17%    19%    33%    26%    25%    21%    49%    21%    20%
Sanders              21     35     22     13     26     17     18     17     16     22
Warren               15     27     19      8     12     18     16      7     18     14
Klobuchar             7      3      8      8      6      7      9      2     13      3
Gabbard               1      -      1      2      2      1      2      -      2      1
Delaney               -      -      -      -      1      -      -      1      -      -
Buttigieg             6      5      5      7      7      5      9      -      9     11
Yang                  3      3      2      4      3      3      3      4      3      3
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      1      1      -      -      1
Steyer                2      1      2      3      1      2      3      1      2      5
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             8      3     11      9      7      8     10      7      9     11
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
DK/NA                11      5     10     14      9     13      9     12      8     10
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Biden                28%    17%     3%    25%    36%    36%    30%    24%    24%
Sanders              20     24     53     16     11      7     28     22     14
Warren               17      9     23     19     12      9     12     20     17
Klobuchar             6      8      -      5     10     10      4      7      8
Gabbard               1      3      1      4      1      -      -      2      2
Delaney               -      -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg             5      9      4      7      5      7      3      8      9
Yang                  3      3      4      5      2      -      4      2      4
Bennet                -      -      -      -      1      1      -      -      1
Steyer                1      5      1      3      3      1      2      2      1
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             7      9      2      8      4     14      5      4     13
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      1      -      -      -      -      1      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
DK/NA                11     11      7      7     14     15     13      9      8
                     ATTN TO PRES CAMPAIGN Q1    MOTIVATED TO VOTE Q9......
                                   Little/                     Smwht/NotSo/
                     A lot  Some   None          Extr   Very   NotAtAll
Biden                28%    22%    24%           26%    24%    26%
Sanders              17     29     23            20     28     18
Warren               17     15     10            17     15      9
Klobuchar             9      6      2             8      5      1
Gabbard               1      1      2             1      -      5
Delaney               -      -      1             -      -      -
Buttigieg             7      6      2             5      6      7
Yang                  2      3      4             3      4      1
Bennet                -      -      1             1      -      -
Steyer                1      3      3             2      -      3
Patrick               -      -      -             -      -      -
Bloomberg             9      6      7             7      8      8
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -             -      -      1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      -      -      -             -      -      -
DK/NA                 9      7     21            10     11     21
                     CHOOSE CANDIDATE W/ Q11
                     Head   Heart
Biden                27%    36%
Sanders              25     16
Warren               17     17
Klobuchar             8      6
Gabbard               2      -
Delaney               -      2
Buttigieg             7      6
Yang                  2      9
Bennet                -      -
Steyer                2      4
Patrick               -      -
Bloomberg             9      4
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      -      -
DK/NA                 -      -
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) If the Democratic primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bloomberg, for whom would you vote? (Trend information is available upon request back through Mar 2019)
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
                     Jan 28  Jan 13  Dec 16  Dec 10  Nov 26  Oct 24  Oct 14  Oct 08  Sep 25  
                     2020    2020    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    
Biden                26      25      30      29      24      21      27      26      25      
Sanders              21      19      16      17      13      15      11      16      16      
Warren               15      16      17      15      14      28      30      29      27      
Klobuchar             7       4       3       3       3       3       2       2       2      
Gabbard               1       1       1       2       1       1       -       -       1      
Delaney               -       -       -       1       -       -       -       -       -      
Buttigieg             6       8       9       9      16      10       8       4       7      
Yang                  3       5       3       4       2       1       2       3       2      
Bennet                -       1       -       1       2       -       1       1       1      
Steyer                2       1       1       1       -       1       2       -       -      
Patrick               -       1       -       -       -      na      na      na      na      
Bloomberg             8       6       7       5       3      na      na      na      na      
Booker               na       1       2       1       2       1       2       2       -      
Castro               na      na       1       1       2       1       1       1       2      
Williamson           na      na       -       1       -       -       -       -       -      
Bullock              na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -      
Harris               na      na      na      na       3       5       4       3       3      
Sestak               na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -      
Messam               na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -      
O'Rourke             na      na      na      na      na       1       2       1       2      
Ryan                 na      na      na      na      na       -       -       1       -      
de Blasio            na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      
Gillibrand           na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      
Gravel               na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      
Hickenlooper         na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      
Inslee               na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      
Moulton              na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      
Swalwell             na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      
SMONE ELSE            -       -       -       -       -       1       -       1       -      
WLDN'T VOTE           -       1       -       1       1       1       2       1       1      
DK/NA                11      11      10      11      11       9       8       8      13      
2a. (If candidate chosen q2) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS....................
                     CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q2.............................
                            CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2...................
                     Tot    Biden  Sanders Warren Bloomberg Klobuchar
Made up              43%    51%    56%     36%    26%       20%
Might change         55     49     43      62     69        80
DK/NA                 1      -      1       2      4         -
TREND: (If candidate chosen) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS
                     CANDIDATE CHOSEN.....
                     MadeUp  Change  DK/NA
Jan 28, 2020         43      55       1
Jan 13, 2020         35      63       1
Dec 16, 2019         38      61       1
Dec 10, 2019         39      59       2
Nov 26, 2019         33      64       3
Sep 25, 2019         34      63       
2b. (If candidate chosen q2) Who is your second choice?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS....................
                            CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2...................
                     Tot    Biden  Sanders Warren Bloomberg Klobuchar
Biden                15%     -     22%     20%    33%       22%
Sanders              11     13      -      35      4         9
Warren               17     17     44       -     13        17
Klobuchar             7     16      1       9      4         -
Gabbard               1      1      3       -      -         -
Delaney               -      1      1       -      -         -
Buttigieg            12      9     12      15     16        36
Yang                  4      2      6       9      -         3
Bennet                -      -      -       -      1         1
Steyer                2      2      3       1      4         1
Patrick               -      1      -       -      -         -
Bloomberg             5     13      1       3      -         8
No first choice      12      -      -       -      -         -
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      1       -      -         -
DK/NA                13     25      7       6     25         3
TREND: (If candidate chosen) Who is your second choice?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........
                     Jan 28  Jan 13  Dec 16  Dec 10  Nov 26
                     2020    2020    2019    2019    2019
Biden                15      13      13      13      12
Sanders              11      18      14      11      11
Warren               17      19      21      16      20
Klobuchar             7       3       5       5       4
Gabbard               1       1       1       -       1
Delaney               -       -       -       -       -
Buttigieg            12       7       9      11      10
Yang                  4       2       2       3       2
Bennet                -       -       -       -       -
Steyer                2       2       1       1       1
Patrick               -       1       -       1       -
Bloomberg             5       7       6       4       2
Booker               na       4       3       4       2
Castro               na      na       1       -       -
Williamson           na      na       -       1       -
Bullock              na      na      na      na       -
Harris               na      na      na      na       6
Sestak               na      na      na      na       -
No first choice      12      12      10      12      12
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -       1       -       1       -
DK/NA                13      11      14      16      16
       
3. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think - would be the best leader?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Biden                31%    22%    24%    37%    27%    33%    25%    52%    26%    24%
Sanders              18     29     20     11     23     15     16     15     14     18
Warren               17     28     22      8     13     19     19      7     20     17
Klobuchar             6      3      8      6      4      6      8      1     11      3
Gabbard               1      -      1      2      1      1      1      -      1      -
Delaney               -      -      -      -      1      -      -      1      -      -
Buttigieg             5      4      2      7      7      3      7      -      8      6
Yang                  2      1      1      3      3      2      2      4      2      3
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                1      1      -      2      1      1      2      1      1      3
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             9      4     12     10      9      9     11      8     10     12
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      1      -      -      -      1      -      -
DK/NA                11      7      9     12     11     11      9     10      7     14
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k
Biden                32%    26%    14%    26%    40%    39%    33%    27%    29%
Sanders              16     25     41     18     12      5     24     18     13
Warren               19      7     26     20     12     11     11     20     20
Klobuchar             5      6      1      5      9      6      3      7      7
Gabbard               1      2      1      2      1      1      -      1      1
Delaney               -      -      -      -      1      -      1      -      -
Buttigieg             4      7      4      5      7      4      2      7      7
Yang                  2      3      4      4      -      -      4      2      1
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                1      3      -      3      2      1      1      2      1
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             9     10      2     10      7     16      5      5     16
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      1      -      -      -      -      1      -
DK/NA                11     10      6      7      9     17     15      9      5
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think would be the best leader?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
                     Jan 28  Dec 16  Nov 26  Oct 24  Oct 14  Aug 06  Jul 29  Jul 02  Apr 30
                     2020    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019
Biden                31      32      26      28      32      33      36      26      44
Sanders              18      14      12      13       9      13      12      15      11
Warren               17      19      19      24      28      22      17      15      11
Klobuchar             6       3       3       3       2       1       1       1       1
Gabbard               1       1       -       -       -       1       -       1       -
Delaney               -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -
Buttigieg             5       6      12       8       7       5       5       4       7
Yang                  2       2       2       1       1       1       1       -       -
Bennet                -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -      na
Steyer                1       1       -       -       1       -       -      na      na
Patrick               -       -       -      na      na      na      na      na      na
Bloomberg             9       8       3      na      na      na      na      na      na
Booker               na       2       1       1       1       2       1       3       2
Castro               na       1       -       -       1       1       -       1       1
Williamson           na       -       -       -       -       -       1       -       -
Bullock              na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -      na
Harris               na      na       4       4       4       7       9      16       6
Sestak               na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -      na
Messam               na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -
O'Rourke             na      na      na       1       1       1       1       1       3
Ryan                 na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -
de Blasio            na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -      na
Gillibrand           na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       1
Gravel               na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -      na
Hickenlooper         na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -
Inslee               na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -
Moulton              na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -
Swalwell             na      na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -
SMONE ELSE            -       -       1       1       1       -       -       -       -
DK/NA                11      12      15      13      11      12      15      15      12
4. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think - has the best policy ideas?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Biden                18%    11%    14%    23%    13%    21%    15%    30%    14%    18%
Sanders              22     38     22     13     26     19     20     20     19     22
Warren               21     30     27     13     20     21     21     10     26     14
Klobuchar             6      3      7      7      6      6      8      3     10      4
Gabbard               -      -      -      1      1      -      -      -      1      -
Delaney               -      -      -      -      1      -      -      1      -      -
Buttigieg             6      5      7      6      5      6     10      -     11      8
Yang                  3      3      1      4      4      2      4      3      4      4
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                2      2      1      3      1      3      4      -      2      7
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             6      1      5      9      7      5      6      6      5      9
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
DK/NA                16      7     16     19     15     16     11     27      9     14
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Biden                20%    12%     3%    12%    24%    29%    22%    14%    15%
Sanders              21     26     50     23     13      6     25     25     17
Warren               22     16     26     22     22     15     15     23     26
Klobuchar             6      8      2      4      8      8      2      8      8
Gabbard               -      1      1      1      1      -      -      1      1
Delaney               -      -      -      -      1      -      1      -      -
Buttigieg             6      6      5      8      6      6      3      5     11
Yang                 2      5      5      1      3      1      3      3      4
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                2      4      1      3      2      3      2      2      2
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             6      7      -      3      6     10      4      3      9
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
DK/NA                16     15      7     22     14     20     22     16      7
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think has the best policy ideas?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
                     Jan 28  Dec 16  Nov 26  Oct 24  Oct 14  Aug 06  Jul 29  Jul 02  Apr 30
                     2020    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019        
Biden                18      23      15      15      16      17      21      11      23
Sanders              22      19      15      20      12      16      16      18      16
Warren               21      19      23      30      40      32      26      31      19
Klobuchar             6       3       4       3       2       1       1       1       1
Gabbard               -       1       -       -       -       1       1       1       -
Delaney               -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -
Buttigieg             6       8      14       9       6       5       5       3       9
Yang                  3       4       3       2       2       1       2       -       1
Bennet                -       -       1       -       -       -       -       -      na
Steyer                2       1       1       -       1       -       -      na      na
Patrick               -       -       -      na      na      na      na      na      na
Bloomberg             6       4       -      na      na      na      na      na      na
Booker               na       2       -       1       1       1       1       2       1
Castro               na       1       1       -       -       -       1       1       -
Williamson           na       -       -       -       -       -       1       -       -
Bullock              na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -      na
Harris               na      na       2       4       1       5       6       8       7
Sestak               na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -      na
Messam               na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -
O'Rourke             na      na      na       1       2       1       1       -       2
Ryan                 na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -
de Blasio            na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -      na
Gillibrand           na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       1
Gravel               na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -      na
Hickenlooper         na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -
Inslee               na      na      na      na      na       1       -       -       1
Moulton              na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -
Swalwell             na      na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -
SMONE ELSE            -       -       1       1       -       -       -       -       -
DK/NA                16      16      19      13      16      17      20      22      19
5. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think - has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Biden                44%    36%    42%    51%    41%    46%    42%    57%    47%    33%
Sanders              19     35     20     10     23     15     17     14     15     20
Warren                7     11     11      2      4      8      7      5      7      8
Klobuchar             2      1      3      2      2      2      2      -      2      2
Gabbard               -      -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -      -
Delaney               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg             2      1      2      3      3      1      3      -      3      2
Yang                  1      1      -      2      2      1      2      2      2      2
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                1      1      -      1      -      1      1      -      -      3
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             9      4      8     12      9      8     10     10      9     11
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -
DK/NA                16     10     16     16     14     16     16     11     14     2
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Biden                46%    40%    25%    45%    54%    51%    43%    40%    49%
Sanders              17     25     45     24      7      5     22     22     15
Warren                8      3     11      5      5      6      5     11      6
Klobuchar             1      3      -      1      4      2      1      2      2
Gabbard               -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -      -
Delaney               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg             2      3      3      2      2      1      1      4      1
Yang                  2      1      3      3      -      -      3      1      1
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                -      1      -      3      -      -      1      1      -
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             9      8      2      6      7     16      8      5     13
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      1      -      -      -      -      1      -
DK/NA                16     15     10     11     21     18     17     13     13
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
                     Jan 28  Dec 16  Nov 26  Oct 24  Oct 14  Aug 06  Jul 29  Jul 02  Apr 30
                     2020    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019
Biden                44      44      46      42      48      49      51      42      56
Sanders              19      15      10      14       7      12      10      13      12
Warren                7       9      10      20      21       9       8       9       3
Klobuchar             2       1       1       1       -       -       -       -       -
Gabbard               -       1       1       -       -       -       -       1       -
Delaney               -       -       -       -       -       -       1       -       -
Buttigieg             2       3       6       2       2       1       1       1       4
Yang                  1       1       1       -       -       1       -       -       -
Bennet                -       -       1       -       -       -       -       -      na
Steyer                1       -       -       1       1       -       -      na      na
Patrick               -       -       -      na      na      na      na      na      na
Bloomberg             9       7       3      na      na      na      na      na      na
Booker               na       -       -       1       1       1       1       1       3
Castro               na       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -
Williamson           na       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -
Bullock              na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -      na
Harris               na      na       1       3       1       6       8      14       2
Sestak               na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -      na
Messam               na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -
O'Rourke             na      na      na       -       1       2       -       -       3
Ryan                 na      na      na       -       -       1       -       -       -
de Blasio            na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -      na
Gillibrand           na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       1
Gravel               na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -      na
Hickenlooper         na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -
Inslee               na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -
Moulton              na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -
Swalwell             na      na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -
SMONE ELSE            -       -       -       1       -       1       -       -       1
DK/NA                16      19      20      15      16      17      20      17      15
6. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think - cares the most about people like you?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    N

Biden                20%    12%    11%    27%    16%    22%    14%    41%    14%    15%
Sanders              28     40     37     17     32     26     26     22     24     30
Warren               19     25     23     15     16     21     22     13     25     17
Klobuchar             4      3      6      4      3      5      5      2      8      2
Gabbard               -      -      1      1      1      -      -      -      1      -
Delaney               -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg             6      5      6      6      7      5      9      -      8     10
Yang                  3      3      1      4      4      1      3      2      3      5
Bennet                -      1      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                2      1      1      3      1      3      3      -      2      5
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             5      1      5      7      7      4      5      5      5      7
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      1      -      -      -      1      -      1
DK/NA                12      9      9     14     12     12     10     14     11      9
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Biden                20%    19%     2%    11%    28%    32%    22%    18%    16%
Sanders             28     29     64     29     15     13     29     35     25
Warren               21     13     19     23     22     15     16     18     24
Klobuchar             4      6      2      -      6      7      1      6      6
Gabbard               -      1      -      1      1      -      -      1      1
Delaney               -      -      -      -      1      -      1      -      -
Buttigieg             6      5      3      6      6      7      3      7      8
Yang                  2      4      5      5      1      -      3      2      3
Bennet                -      -      -      1      -      1      1      -      -
Steyer                2      3      -      3      5      2      3      1      2
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             5      6      -      5      5      7      4      1      9
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      1      -      1      -      1      1      -
DK/NA                12     13      4     16     10     16     17     11      6
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think cares the most about people like you?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..
                     Jan 28  Dec 16  Nov 26  Oct 24
                     2020    2019    2019    2019
Biden                20      20      19      14
Sanders              28      24      24      28
Warren               19      19      18      24
Klobuchar             4       3       5       3
Gabbard               -       1       -       -
Delaney               -       -       -       -
Buttigieg             6       6       8       7
Yang                  3       3       2       1
Bennet                -       -       1       -
Steyer                2       1       1       1
Patrick               -       -       -      na
Bloomberg             5       2       1      na
Booker               na       3       2       1
Castro               na       1       2       1
Williamson           na       -       -       -
Bullock              na      na       -       -
Harris               na      na       2       5
Sestak               na      na       -       -
Messam               na      na      na       -
O'Rourke             na      na      na       1
Ryan                 na      na      na       -
SMONE ELSE            -       -       1       -
DK/NA                12      17      15      12
7. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think - is the most honest?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Biden                17%    12%    13%    21%    13%    20%    14%    32%    13%    15%
Sanders              26     36     32     18     29     24     23     20     21     28
Warren               14     25     16      7     13     15     14     15     17     10
Klobuchar             5      4      7      6      6      5      8      1     10      5
Gabbard               1      -      1      2      2      1      1      1      1      -
Delaney               -      -      -      1      1      -      -      1      -      -
Buttigieg             6      5      5      8      7      6      8      4     10      6
Yang                  5      4      4      6      6      4      5      4      7      3
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                2      2      2      3      1      3      3      1      2      5
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             5      1      6      7      6      4      5      6      4      8
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
DK/NA                17      9     15     21     17     17     17     17     14     22
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Biden                18%    15%     2%    12%    20%    29%    19%    16%    14%
Sanders              26     26     55     27     18     10     28     28     24
Warren               15      8     19     17     13      8     11     18     16
Klobuchar             6      4      1      4      6     10      3      5      7
Gabbard               -      3      1      1      1      1      1      2      1
Delaney               1      -      -      -      2      -      1      -      -
Buttigieg             6      8      3      8      7      8      5      6      8
Yang                  5      6     10      4      5      2      4      5      7
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -      -
Steyer                2      4      -      4      3      3      2      2      3
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             5      5      -      3      7      8      4      2      8
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -
DK/NA                16     21      9     20     18     20     21     15     12
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think is the most honest?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..
                     Jan 28  Dec 16  Nov 26  Oct 24
                     2020    2019    2019    201
Biden                17      18      15      15
Sanders              26      28      25      28
Warren               14      10      14      15
Klobuchar             5       4       2       4
Gabbard               1       1       -       1
Delaney               -       -       -       -
Buttigieg             6       8      13      11
Yang                  5       4       3       2
Bennet                -       -       1       -
Steyer                2       1       -       1
Patrick               -       -       -      na
Bloomberg             5       3       -      na
Booker               na       3       2       2
Castro               na       1       1       1
Williamson           na       -       -       -
Bullock              na      na       -       -
Harris               na      na       2       2
Sestak               na      na       -       -
Messam               na      na      na       -
O'Rourke             na      na      na       2
Ryan                 na      na      na       -
SMONE ELSE            -       -       1       -
DK/NA                17      21      20      17
8. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think - is the most intelligent?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Biden                13%     9%     7%    16%     8%    16%     8%    28%     7%     9%
Sanders              12     22     12      7     14     11     10     12      7     15
Warren               26     38     32     18     25     27     30     19     36     21
Klobuchar             3      1      4      4      3      3      4      1      4      5
Gabbard               1      -      -      2      2      -      1      -      1      -
Delaney               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg            14     13     14     16     16     12     17      8     20     14
Yang                  5      5      5      6      6      5      5      4      5      4
Bennet                -      1      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                2      1      3      1      1      2      2      -      1      4
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             6      1      6      9      7      5      7      6      5      9
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -
DK/NA                17     10     17     21     17     17     16     20     15     19
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Biden                14%    10%     7%     8%    15%    17%    20%     9%     8%
Sanders              12     14     28     12      8      5     18     11      6
Warren               29     17     30     37     26     17     16     35     33
Klobuchar             3      4      1      1      4      6      2      2      4
Gabbard               1      1      1      1      1      1      1      1      1
Delaney               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg            14     14      9     11     17     18      8     17     19
Yang                  5      6     10      5      6      2      5      3      9
Bennet                -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -      -
Steyer                1      4      2      3      1      1      3      2      1
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg             5      9      -      5      9      9      6      4      7
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      1      -      -      -      -      1      -
DK/NA                17     20     12     17     13     23     21     16     12
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think is the most intelligent?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS
                     Jan 28  Dec 16  Nov 26
                     2020    2019    2019
Biden                13      11      11
Sanders              12      13       9
Warren               26      23      22
Klobuchar             3       2       2
Gabbard               1       1       -
Delaney               -       1       -
Buttigieg            14      15      22
Yang                  5       4       4
Bennet                -       -       -
Steyer                2       1       -
Patrick               -       1       -
Bloomberg             6       7       1
Booker               na       1       2
Castro               na       -       1
Williamson           na       -       -
Bullock              na      na       -
Harris               na      na       4
Sestak               na      na       -
SMONE ELSE            -       -       1
DK/NA                17      21      21
9. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) How motivated are you to vote in the Democratic primary in your state: extremely motivated, very motivated, somewhat motivated, not so motivated, or not motivated at all?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Extremely motivated  67%    76%    61%    67%    64%    68%    72%    64%    76%    65%
Very motivated       18     16     26     14     19     17     15     19     10     24
Somewhat motivated   12      5      9     14     12     12      8     16      9      6
Not so motivated      2      1      1      3      3      1      2      1      2      3
Not motivated at all  1      1      1      1      1      1      1      1      1      1
DK/NA                 1      1      1      1      1      1      1      -      2      -
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Extremely motivated  68%    61%    60%    61%    73%    73%    57%    69%    73%
Very motivated       18     18     27     15     14     16     22     19     14
Somewhat motivated   11     13     11     18      9      7     17      8      8
Not so motivated      2      4      -      5      3      1      2      2      3
Not motivated at all  1      1      1      -      2      1      1      1      1
DK/NA                 -      3      -      1      1      2      1      1      1
10. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Have the Democratic primary debates influenced your decision in choosing a candidate, or not?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Yes/Influenced       46%    56%    44%    42%    41%    49%    45%    38%    48%    39%
No                   51     44     53     56     57     47     52     59     50     56
DK/NA                 3      -      3      2      2      4      3      3      1      6
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Yes/Influenced       46%    44%    59%    48%    40%    37%    47%    46%    45%
No                   50     55     39     51     55     60     48     52     54
DK/NA                 4      1      2      -      5      3      5      2      1
11. (If candidate chosen q2) Would you say you are choosing a candidate with your head or your heart?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                     CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q2................................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Head                 78%    80%    78%    78%    83%    74%    84%    63%    84%    85%
Heart                13     12     11     14     13     13     10     21     10      9
DK/NA                 9      9     11      7      4     13      6     15      6      7
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Head                 76%    83%    82%    81%    74%    80%    71%    84%    81%
Heart                15      8     11     13     17     12     15     11     12
DK/NA                 9      9      7      6      9      8     13      4      
                     CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2...................
                     Biden  Sanders Warren Bloomberg Klobuchar
Head                 72%    82%     76%    81%       87%
Heart                17      9      13      6        11
DK/NA                11      9      11     13         2
12. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Do you think the results of the Iowa caucuses will influence your decision about which Democratic presidential candidate to support, or don't you think so?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Yes/Will influence   21%    23%    19%    21%    22%    20%    20%    16%    20%    20%
No                   73     70     74     75     76     71     76     74     76     74
DK/NA                 7      7      7      4      2      9      5     10      4      6
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Yes/Will influence   22%    14%    30%    23%    19%    14%    21%    19%    24%
No                   70     83     64     73     79     78     71     73     73
DK/NA                 8      3      6      4      2      8      7      8      4
13. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Do you think the Democratic party will unite behind whoever wins the 2020 primary, or not?
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
Yes                  79%    77%    81%    80%    76%    81%    80%    73%    83%    75%
No                   14     19     10     14     19     11     14     15     11     18
DK/NA                 7      4      9      6      5      8      6     12      5      7
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
Yes                  80%    76%    66%    80%    84%    86%    73%    84%    83%
No                   13     20     28     17     11      5     18     13     13
DK/NA                 8      3      6      3      6      9      9      3      4
                     CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2...................
                     Biden  Sanders Warren Bloomberg Klobuchar
Yes                  82%    71%     82%    81%       93%
No                   11     27       9      9         6
DK/NA                 6      2       8      9         2
14. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG   Wht
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No     Evang
Approve              43%    94%     3%    38%    49%    37%    44%    58%    75%
Disapprove           52      4     95     53     46     59     54     36     21
DK/NA                 5      2      3      8      6      4      3      5      4
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Approve              31%    44%    49%    41%    55%    47%    51%    12%    26%
Disapprove           61     51     48     55     39     50     45     82     62
DK/NA                 7      4      3      4      6      3      4      6     11
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?
                     App     Dis     DK/NA
Jan 28, 2020         43      52       5
Jan 13, 2020         43      52       5
Dec 16, 2019         43      52       5
Dec 10, 2019         41      55       4
Nov 26, 2019         40      54       6
Oct 23, 2019         38      58       5
Oct 14, 2019         41      54       5
Oct 08, 2019         40      54       6
Sep 30, 2019         41      53       6
Sep 25, 2019         40      55       5
See additional trend information at top of page
14a. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? COMBINED WITH: (If approve/disapprove q14) Do you strongly or somewhat approve/disapprove?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG   Wht
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No     Evang
Approve strongly     34%    83%     1%    24%    40%    29%    33%    51%    65%
Approve smwht         8     10      1     14      8      7     11      6      9
Disapprove smwht      6      2      4     11      7      5      4      6      4
Disapprove strongly  47      2     91     43     39     54     49     30     17
DK/NA                 5      3      3      8      6      4      3      6      5
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp

Approve strongly     24%    29%    42%    36%    45%    39%    42%     9%    19%
Approve smwht         7     15      7      5      9      8      9      3      7
Disapprove smwht     13      5      4      2      5      5      5      4     10
Disapprove strongly  48     46     43     52     34     45     40     78     52
DK/NA                 7      5      4      5      6      3      5      6     11
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? COMBINED WITH: (If approve/disapprove) Do you strongly or somewhat approve/disapprove?
                     APPROVE......   DISAPPROVE.....

                     Strngly Smwht   Smwht   Strngly DK/NA

Jan 28, 2020         34       8       6      47       5
Jan 13, 2020         34       9       6      46       6
Dec 16, 2019         34       9       5      46       6
Dec 10, 2019         31      10       5      49       4
Nov 26, 2019         32       7       4      50       6
Oct 23, 2019         28       9       4      53       5
Oct 14, 2019         31      10       5      48       5
Oct 08, 2019         29      11       6      47       7
Sep 30, 2019         35       6       4      48       7
Sep 25, 2019         29      11       7      48       5

See additional trend information at top of page
15. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Mitch McConnell is handling his job as Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No

Approve              33%    68%     6%    32%    38%    28%    35%    40%
Disapprove           50     16     81     49     47     53     54     42
DK/NA                17     16     12     19     14     19     11     18
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Approve              22%    25%    43%    38%    41%    35%    38%    17%    25%
Disapprove           51     54     48     51     46     50     48     65     50
DK/NA                27     21      9     11     13     16     14     17     25
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Mitch McConnell is handling his job as Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate?=
                     App     Dis     DK/NA
Jan 28, 2020         33      50      17
Jan 13, 2020         36      49      15
Oct 23, 2019         24      57      19
Sep 30, 2019         28      57      15
Apr 25, 2018         22      62      16
16. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Chuck Schumer is handling his job as Minority Leader of the U.S. Senate?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No

Approve              35%    11%    62%    31%    32%    37%    42%    23%
Disapprove           44     72     18     46     49     39     42     55
DK/NA                21     16     19     24     18     24     16     22
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp

Approve              24%    33%    37%    46%    30%    36%    33%    54%    32%
Disapprove           37     44     50     40     53     44     48     23     32
DK/NA                39     23     14     13     17     21     19     22     35
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Chuck Schumer is handling his job as Minority Leader of the U.S. Senate?
                     App     Dis     DK/NA
Jan 28, 2020         35      44      21
Jan 13, 2020         36      46      19
Apr 25, 2018         34      46      20
17. How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right; almost all of the time, most of the time, only some of the time, or hardly ever?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Almost all the time   3%     5%     2%     1%     3%     3%     1%     4%
Most of the time     14     15     16     11     14     13     16     14
Some of the time     51     50     55     51     50     53     56     47
Hardly ever          30     27     26     34     31     29     25     31
DK/NA                 2      4      1      2      2      3      2      3
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Almost all the time   3%     -      2%     5%     2%     3%     3%     4%     1%
Most of the time     14     10     14     18     15     15     15      7     16
Some of the time     53     52     53     48     51     52     51     55     56
Hardly ever          29     36     30     27     29     27     28     33     24
DK/NA                 1      2      1      3      2      3      2      -      3
TREND: How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right; almost all of the time, most of the time, only some of the time, or hardly ever?
                     Almost                  Hardly
                     All     Most    Some    Ever    DK/NA
Jan 28, 2020          3      14      51      30       2
Jan 24, 2018          2      12      54      30       1
Mar 22, 2017          1      16      56      26       2
Feb 07, 2017          4      19      47      29       2
Jan 10, 2017          2      16      52      27       3
Aug 31, 2015          2      13      51      34       1
Nov 26, 2014          2      12      50      34       1
Jul 02, 2014          2      12      49      37       1
Jan 21, 2014          2      13      50      33       2
Dec 10, 2013          1      11      46      41       1
See additional trend information at top of page
18. (Intro: As you may know, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Trump following their investigation into the president's actions involving Ukraine. The Senate is holding a trial to decide whether or not he should be removed from office.) Do you think the Senate should vote to remove President Trump from office, or don't you think so?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Yes/Vote to remove   47%     2%    92%    44%    39%    55%    49%    31%
No                   48     97      4     48     56     41     48     65
DK/NA                 5      -      4      8      5      4      3      4
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Yes/Vote to remove   52%    48%    43%    51%    34%    45%    40%    77%    58%
No                   43     47     54     44     61     52     57     15     34
DK/NA                 5      4      4      5      4      3      3      7      9
TREND: Do you think the Senate should vote to remove President Trump from office, or don't you think so?
                     Yes/
                     Vote    No      DK/NA
Jan 28, 2020         47      48       5
Jan 13, 2020         46      48       6
18a. (If response on removal q18) Is your mind made up about whether the Senate should vote to remove President Trump from office, or do you think you might change your mind?
                     HAVE RESPONSE ON REMOVAL Q18...............................
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Made up              89%    93%    92%    84%    87%    90%    88%    89%
Might change         10      5      8     15     11      9     10      9
DK/NA                 1      2      1      1      2      1      1      
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Made up              80%    90%    91%    92%    87%    90%    89%    95%    83%
Might change         19      9      9      6     10      9     10      4     16
DK/NA                 1      2      1      2      2      1      2      1      1
                     VOTE TO REMOVE Q18
                     Yes    No
Made up              91%    87%
Might change          8     12
DK/NA                 1      2
18b. (If no to removal q18) Would you say that President Trump did something wrong in his actions involving Ukraine, or would you say that he did nothing wrong in his actions involving Ukraine?
                     NO TO REMOVAL Q18.....................
                                          WHITE......
                                          COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Did something wrong  14%    14%    14%    15%    12%
Did nothing wrong    77     77     77     75     80
DK/NA                 9      8      9     10      9
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom
Did something wrong  22%    23%    11%     8%    13%    13%
Did nothing wrong    68     70     82     84     78     77
DK/NA                11      7      7      8      9     10
18c. Do you think the Senate should vote to remove President Trump from office, or don't you think so? COMBINED WITH: (If no to removal q18) Would you say that President Trump did something wrong in his actions involving Ukraine, or would you say that he did nothing wrong in his actions involving Ukraine?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No

Vote to remove       47%     2%    92%    44%    39%    55%    49%    31%
No to remove/
 Did something wrong  7      7      2     12      8      6      7      7
No to remove/
 Did nothing wrong   37     85      2     30     43     31     36     52
DK/NA                 9      5      4     15     10      8      8     10
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Vote to remove       52%    48%    43%    51%    34%    45%    40%    77%    58%
No to remove/
 Did something wrong  9     11      6      4      8      7      7      4      7
No to remove/
 Did nothing wrong   29     33     44     37     48     40     44     11     25
DK/NA                10      8      7      8     10      8      9      7     11
19. How much attention have you been paying to news about impeachment: a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    N
A lot                57%    63%    61%    48%    60%    54%    64%    56%
Some                 29     23     29     35     28     31     28     28
Only a little        11     11      7     14      9     13      7     13
None at all           2      2      2      2      2      2      1      3
DK/NA                 -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
A lot                43%    51%    64%    71%    62%    58%    60%    48%    49%
Some                 41     35     23     20     26     29     28     36     2
Only a little        14     12     10      7     10     10     10     13     16
None at all           2      3      3      2      2      3      2      2      3

DK/NA                 -      -      -      -      -      -      -      1      -
TREND: How much attention have you been paying to news about impeachment: a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?
                                     OnlyA   None
                     A lot   Some    Little  AtAll   DK/NA
Jan 28, 2020         57      29      11       2       -
Dec 16, 2019         59      26      12       3       -
Nov 26, 2019         59      27      10       4       -
Oct 08, 2019         61      25      10       3       1
20. Do you think witnesses should be allowed to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, or not?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Yes/Be allowed       75%    49%    95%    75%    70%    79%    73%    68%
No                   20     43      3     18     26     15     22     26
DK/NA                 5      8      2      7      5      6      5      6
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Yes/Be allowed       86%    81%    69%    67%    66%    75%    71%    89%    81%
No                   10     16     27     25     29     19     24      7     16
DK/NA                 4      3      4      7      5      6      6      4      4

21. Are you satisfied with the explanation President Trump has given about his actions involving Ukraine, or would you like to hear him provide more details?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Satisfied            38%    76%    10%    32%    40%    35%    41%    47%
Hear more details    57     21     85     61     55     59     55     47
DK/NA                 5      3      5      7      5      6      4      
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Satisfied            22%    38%    45%    39%    46%    42%    44%    17%    25%
Hear more details    72     58     52     53     49     53     51     77     72
DK/NA                 6      4      3      8      5      5      5      7      3
22. Do you think President Trump is telling the truth about his actions involving Ukraine, or not?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No

Yes/Telling truth    40%    89%     5%    33%    46%    35%    40%    56%

No                   53      7     92     56     47     59     54     38

DK/NA                 6      5      4     10      7      6      6      6

                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Yes/Telling truth    31%    39%    48%    38%    52%    44%    48%    12%    27%

No                   62     55     47     55     41     51     46     81     65

DK/NA                 7      6      4      7      7      5      6      7      8

23. Do you think the Trump administration's withholding of U.S. aid to Ukraine was justified or not justified?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No

Justified            34%    77%     2%    30%    41%    28%    35%    47%

Not justified        52      9     90     56     46     58     53     38

DK/NA                14     15      8     14     13     15     11     14

                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....

                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hs
Justified            26%    32%    42%    34%    47%    37%    41%    12%    23%
Not justified        59     55     48     53     40     51     46     75     63
DK/NA                15     13     10     13     13     13     13     13     14
24. Do you think Senate Republicans are open minded about the impeachment process, or have they already made up their minds?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Open minded          16%    29%     3%    17%    16%    16%    14%    22%
Minds made up        76     62     92     75     77     75     78     71
DK/NA                 8      9      6      9      7      9      7      7
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Open minded          18%    11%    20%    14%    17%    20%    18%     7%    16%
Minds made up        76     81     75     75     77     72     75     84     75
DK/NA                 6      8      6     10      6      8      7      9      9

25. Do you think Senate Democrats are open minded about the impeachment process, or have they already made up their minds?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Open minded          15%     3%    28%    13%    13%    17%    14%    11%
Minds made up        79     95     65     82     82     76     81     85
DK/NA                 6      2      7      5      4      7      6      4
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hs
Open minded          12%    15%    15%    16%    12%    13%    13%    30%    16%
Minds made up        83     82     79     75     84     81     83     62     77
DK/NA                 5      2      5      9      4      6      5      8      7
26. Do you think President Trump abused his power regarding his actions involving Ukraine, or not?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Yes/Abused power     54%     5%    94%    57%    46%    60%    54%    38%
No                   42     92      2     39     49     36     43     59
DK/NA                 4      3      3      4      5      4      3      4
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Yes/Abused power     63%    55%    49%    54%    40%    51%    46%    84%    70%
No                   34     38     48     42     56     46     51     13     24
DK/NA                 4      6      3      4      4      3      4      4      7
27. Do you think President Trump obstructed Congress regarding its investigation of his actions involving Ukraine, or not?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
Yes/Obstructed       52%     5%    92%    53%    45%    58%    53%    35%
No                   42     89      3     38     48     36     42     59
DK/NA                 7      5      5      9      7      6      5      6
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
Yes/Obstructed       58%    53%    47%    53%    38%    49%    44%    80%    69%
No                   35     39     48     42     56     46     51      8     25
DK/NA                 7      9      5      5      6      5      5     12      6
28. Do you think the impeachment charges against President Trump are more serious, less serious, or about as serious as the charges made against President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky matter?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
More serious         51%    12%    87%    47%    44%    57%    53%    36%
Less serious         29     61      3     25     33     24     30     39
About as serious     14     16      6     21     16     11     12     16
DK/NA                 7     10      4      7      6      8      5      8
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp

More serious         52%    57%    48%    51%    38%    51%    45%    77%    52%
Less serious         20     23     36     32     38     31     35      8     19
About as serious     22     16     12      7     18     11     14     10     21
DK/NA                 6      4      3     10      6      8      7      5      7

29. Do you think the impeachment charges against President Trump are more serious, less serious, or about as serious as the charges made against President Nixon in Watergate?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
More serious         24%     4%    46%    20%    20%    28%    25%    17%
Less serious         40     73     10     43     48     32     41     51
About as serious     27     11     39     29     23     30     27     22
DK/NA                 9     13      5      9      8     10      6     10
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp

More serious         14%    24%    25%    35%    18%    23%    21%    44%    25%
Less serious         40     35     44     39     55     39     46     11     32
About as serious     39     31     24     20     20     29     25     35     33
DK/NA                 7      9      7      7      7      9      8     10     10

30. (Adults) Which team do you want to win the Super Bowl: the Kansas City Chiefs, the San Francisco 49ers, or don't you care who wins the Super Bowl?
                     ADULTS...................................................
                                          AGE IN YRS..............    Watching
                     Tot    Men    Wom    18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Game q31

Chiefs               26%    31%    21%    20%    26%    34%    26%    38%
49ers                21     22     21     23     24     20     17     30
Don't care           50     45     55     54     48     43     54     30
DK/NA                 3      2      3      2      2      3      3      1
                     REGION...................
                     NEast  MWest  South  West
Chiefs               26%    32%    27%    18%
49ers                18     13     17     39
Don't care           52     54     53     39
DK/NA                 4      1      3      4

                     HAVE TEAM PREFERENCE Q30.................................
                                          AGE IN YRS..............    Watching
                     Tot    Men    Wom    18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Game q31
Chiefs               55%    59%    49%    46%    52%    63%    61%    56%
49ers                45     41     51     54     48     37     39     44
                     REGION...................
                     NEast  MWest  South  West
Chiefs               59%    71%    61%    32%
49ers                41     29     39     68

31. (Adults) Do you plan to watch the Super Bowl, or not?
                     ADULTS.......................................
                                          AGE IN YRS..............
                     Tot    Men    Wom    18-34  35-49  50-64  65+
Yes                  56%    65%    47%    50%    59%    63%    56%
No                   41     32     48     48     37     34     40
DK/NA                 4      3      5      3      4      3      4
                     REGION...................
                     NEast  MWest  South  West

Yes                  62%    53%    55%    54%
No                   34     45     41     41
DK/NA                 3      3      4      6
                     HAVE TEAM PREFERENCE Q30.....................
                                          AGE IN YRS..............
                     Tot    Men    Wom    18-34  35-49  50-64  65+
Yes                  81%    86%    75%    74%    79%    88%    84%
No                   15     12     19     21     19     10     13
DK/NA                 4      2      6      5      2      2      3
                     REGION...................
                     NEast  MWest  South  West
Yes                  88%    78%    85%    73%
No                    8     19     11     21
DK/NA                 3      3      3      6
TREND: (Adults) Do you plan to watch the Super Bowl, or not?
                     ADULTS...............
                     Yes     No      DK/NA
Jan 28, 2020         56      41       4
Feb 05, 2016         65      31       4

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday morning that the new reports erase even a “shred of logic left to not hear witnesses and review the documents.”
...But Trump’s defense sidesteps Bolton’s claims
The president’s lawyers hammered the evidence gathered during the House impeachment inquiry from numerous current and former administration officials.
They argued that nearly all of the testimony in those proceedings came from second- or third-hand sources who did not speak directly to Trump about his intentions toward Ukraine.

But they didn’t mention Bolton’s newly reported allegations, which loomed over the impeachment proceedings Monday.
“Not a single witness testified the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigation and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else,” Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow said.

It’s true that none of the witnesses in House proceedings testified that Trump himself explicitly tied the Ukraine aid to the political probes. But the White House had pressured some potential witnesses not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, and others — including Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — have refused to comply.

Rudy Giuliani gets a robust defense
Trump’s defense team offered a lengthy, rigorous defense of the president’s personal lawyer, whom they argue “is the House managers’ colorful distraction.”
“House managers would have you believe that Mr. Giuliani was at the center of this controversy,” Trump lawyer Jane Raskin told senators. “If Rudy Giuliani is everything they say he is, don’t you think they would have subpoenaed and pursued his testimony?”
House Democrats subpoenaed documents from Giuliani in September during their investigation. But a lawyer for Giuliani told the House in October that Giuliani would not comply with the impeachment inquiry, calling it “unconstitutional, baseless, and illegitimate.”
Raskin, referring to Giuliani as a “minor player,” said he wasn’t on a “political errand” while in talks with Ukraine on digging up potentially damaging information about Joe Biden. Rather, she said, he was being a good defense lawyer for the president.
“He was gathering evidence regarding Ukrainian election interference to defend his client against the false allegations being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller,” Raskin said.

Giuliani reacted positively to Raskin’s defense of him, saying in a tweet following her arguments that he “did not dig up dirt on Joe Biden.”

Rudy Giuliani✔@RudyGiuliani
Jane Raskin is doing a masterful job defending me in my role as defense counsel. As she pointed out, I did not dig up dirt on Joe Biden. The information RE his outrageous criminal conduct was handed to me, along with a video tape, 4 witnesses &...
9:12 PM - Jan 27, 2020

Exclusive: Trump speaks to Maria amid Senate impeachment trial
Fox News

Trump Brags About Concealing Impeachment Evidence: ‘We Have All the Material, They Don’t’
The president says impeachment is going well and that he has been watching from Davos

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-impeachment-evidence-we-have-all-the-material-they-dont-941140/
By  PETER WADE

President Trump said he’s happy with the way the impeachment trial is going thus far because his administration has not released “materials” that would hurt his cause.
“When we released that conversation all hell broke out with the Democrats,” Trump said. “Because they said, ‘Wait a minute, this is much different than [what Adam Schiff] told us.’ ”
The president continued, “So, we’re doing very well. I got to watch [the impeachment trial] enough. I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.”
Trump made the stark admission while attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
When asked about the impeachment trial, Trump initially spoke about what he usually refers to as the “perfect call” with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In that phone conversation, on July 25, 2019, Trump reportedly asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens eight times.
The Trump administration has exerted executive privilege while ignoring subpoenas for documents and have directed individuals not to respond to subpoena requests since the beginning of the impeachment process. For comparison, the Clinton administration turned over more than 90,000 pages of documents and material during its impeachment.
Usually, the Trump administration either refuses to explain their stonewalling or excuses their lack of cooperation away by bashing the investigation, calling it illegitimate or a witch hunt. But here, rather astonishingly, Trump seems to be flatly admitting to withholding evidence.

Trump’s Defense Team Discounts Bolton as Republicans Work to Hold Off Witnesses
The president’s legal team completed its impeachment defense and Republicans huddled to discuss whether to call new witnesses.


Click on the below link to listen to the video
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/us/politics/trumps-defense-team-discounts-bolton-as-republicans-work-to-hold-off-witnesses.html?te=1&nl=impeachment-briefing&emc=edit_ib_20200129&campaign_id=140&instance_id=15534&segment_id=20747&user_id=c5ed3af7cf6db33805e8b866043ab876&regi_id=10148370220200129

TRANSCRIPT
Impeachment Highlights: Trump’s Lawyers End Opening Arguments
President Trump’s lawyers finished their oral arguments, leaving senators the chance to ask questions of each side in the impeachment trial.
“The trial of the leader of the free world, and the duly elected president of the United States, it is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts. That’s politics, unfortunately. And Hamilton put impeachment in the hands of this body, the Senate, precisely and specifically to be above that fray. You cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegation.” “The American people are entitled to choose their president. Overturning the last election, and massively interfering with the upcoming one would cause serious and lasting damage to the people of the United States, and to our great country. The Senate cannot allow this to happen. It is time for this to end, here and now.”

The Donald Trump Impeachment Briefing - January 27, 2020- The New York Times
January 27, 2020
By Noah Weiland


Welcome back to the Impeachment Briefing. The possibility of testimony from John Bolton loomed over Day 2 of the White House legal team’s opening arguments.
What happened today


· Monday was memorable: A long list of conservative lawyers, including Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, took to the Senate floor to argue on behalf of President Trump, while the news of John Bolton’s book manuscript scrambled the calculations that Senate Republicans were making about hearing new witnesses.

· The presentation from the Trump team barely acknowledged the new political reality that the Bolton news delivered. “We deal with transcript evidence, we deal with publicly available information,” Jay Sekulow, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, said. “We do not deal with speculation, allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards at all.” Mr. Dershowitz said that what Mr. Bolton alleged wasn’t an impeachable offense.

· Mr. Trump lashed out at Mr. Bolton, his former national security adviser, denying he had admitted the quid pro quo, saying that Mr. Bolton had never complained to him about it, and suggesting that he was only trying to sell books. He also said that Mr. Bolton had not testified because House Democrats failed to ask him — which, as CNN’s Manu Raju pointed out, was not true.

Read our full story on the day, some key highlights and an analysis of the power Mr. Bolton’s book might have over the president. Here are video highlights from the day.
Continue reading the main story


The Trump team’s defensive line

In presentations that spanned more than eight hours, the White House lawyers spent little time defending Mr. Trump’s actions. Instead, several gave speeches arguing that Democrats were misinterpreting and wrongly applying the standards for impeachment. Here’s some of what they said.
Mr. Sekulow played a video of Speaker Nancy Pelosi handing out special pens at an impeachment article signing ceremony and said that Democrats were treating what should be a somber set of procedures with a kind of cheer.

Mr. Starr, the former independent counsel who relentlessly pursued Bill Clinton’s impeachment, cast himself as an impeachment skeptic. He urged the Senate to “restore our constitutional and historical traditions” when impeachment was rare. “Like war, impeachment is hell,” he said. “Or at least presidential impeachment is hell.”
Michael Purpura, the deputy White House counsel, said Democrats were wrong that Ukraine’s president had never received his White House meeting with Mr. Trump, pointing out that the two leaders met Sept. 25 on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly gathering in New York.

Jane Raskin, a lawyer who defended Mr. Trump in the Mueller investigation, argued that Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, was well intentioned in trying to investigate corruption in Ukraine, and that his outspoken public image was a sign of being a good lawyer. But, she said, Mr. Giuliani was merely a minor figure, “that shiny object meant to distract you.”

Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general, discussed what she believed were corrupt conflicts of interest in Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a Ukrainian energy company during his father’s time as vice president.

Eric Herschmann, a private lawyer, argued that it was in fact President Barack Obama who should have been impeached for the same abuse of power charges leveled against Mr. Trump.

Patrick Philbin, a deputy counsel to the president, argued that Democrats did not have the constitutional authority to start the impeachment inquiry and that their subpoenas were invalid. Ms. Pelosi, he said, had the House proceed on little more than a news conference.

Robert Ray, who succeeded Mr. Starr as the independent counsel investigating Mr. Clinton, said that House managers were drawing on “their own interpretations” about Mr. Trump’s motivations, and that impeachable conduct must be so serious that it subverted the nation’s system of government — a bar, he said, that Mr. Trump’s actions did not clear.
Mr. Dershowitz, a celebrity lawyer, said the founders meant for impeachment to be used for explicitly criminal acts such as treason or bribery, not what he called “vague” and “noncriminal” charges like abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.


Will there be witnesses?
When Republican senators returned to the Capitol this morning after just a day away, they were immediately met with questions about what Mr. Bolton’s claims would mean for the trial.
Categories of responses quickly formed: Senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins reiterated their interest in hearing from Mr. Bolton. Senators Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski, seen as possibly open to hearing from witnesses, said they would wait to decide until later this week. Ms. Murkowski said she was “curious” about what Mr. Bolton would say.

Mr. Trump’s most strident supporters in the Senate were quick to create a pretext of suspicion around the Bolton news. “I think there’s going to be something new coming out every day, very similar to what we saw in the Kavanaugh trial,” Senator John Barrasso said. “New information, old information told in a different way to inflame emotions.”

And several senators appeared to indicate that Mr. Bolton would be allowed to testify only if the Senate also called witnesses that Republicans wanted to hear from. “I promise you this: If we add to the record, we’re going to call Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and all these other people,” Senator Lindsey Graham said.

I checked in with my colleagues Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Nick Fandos, who were both in the Capitol today, about what it felt like as the Bolton news rippled through the Senate.

INSIDE THE MANSFIELD ROOM, ACROSS FROM THE SENATE CHAMBER

Nick, take me into this wood-paneled room where Senate Republicans had their daily lunch meeting today. What happened?
Mitch McConnell came in and addressed the group by saying: Everyone take a deep breath. We’re not going to be voting on this until Friday. We’ll have a chance to ask questions. Nobody needs to lock themselves into a position just now.

Different senators stood and spoke — Mitt Romney was the most forceful advocate in the room, unsurprisingly, for calling witnesses. He tried to make the case for why they ought to do that.

Pat Toomey, whose name hasn’t been thrown around as much — he’s a business-minded Republican from Pennsylvania who hasn’t been particularly outspoken — suggested that if the Senate were going to head down the witness path, he’d be open to a one-for-one deal: one witness who could shed light on the managers’ case, and one witness friendlier to the president’s case. That idea has picked up a little more interest among Republicans.

How much did the Bolton news change the witness discussion?
They were already ready to have this conversation. So today they were trying to figure out what had and hadn’t changed. It will be Thursday or Friday until this gets sorted out. Mr. McConnell has every reason to play for time. Maybe some of the shininess of the Bolton story wears off, and senators will remember what Mr. McConnell has said throughout, which is that witnesses will prolong the trial but won’t change the outcome.

IN THE HALLWAYS OF THE CAPITOL
Sheryl, you spent the morning in the hallways as senators were asked about Mr. Bolton. What did you see?
Reporters were even more eager than usual to chase down the four senators who have been most open to witnesses to see if the story had changed any minds. It’s unclear that it did. But the news certainly rattled people here. It’s shaken the trial more than anything else since the House voted to impeach Mr. Trump on Dec. 18.

Did you get the sense that senators who were against hearing witnesses were suddenly conflicted?

Something really interesting happened this morning: Three Senate Republicans — Lindsey Graham, James Lankford and Mike Lee — were scheduled to attend a Republican news conference but didn’t show. Mr. Graham’s absence was notable. He later talked to reporters and said, somewhat flippantly, that he didn’t know whom to trust anymore. His absence suggested to me that these revelations about Mr. Bolton really upended things for him.

How influential can this news be in a space of just a few days, before the Senate considers witnesses?

No matter how much new damning evidence comes out in real time, Republicans say the same thing, which is that the House didn’t collect this evidence; it’s a shoddy case; the Democrats haven’t proved it; it’s not our job to do their investigating for them. A number of them were dismissive of the new report. They tried to frame it as selective leaking. Some of them turned on Mr. Bolton, suggesting that he was trying to sell books, and that this was a last-minute maneuver.

Our new morning politics newsletter
With the Iowa caucuses just a week away, our colleagues on The Times’s politics desk are rolling out a new morning edition of the On Politics newsletter, full of campaign news, insights and analysis from reporters around the country. Sign up today and get an inside look at the 2020 campaign.

What else we’re following
· Tonight my colleagues reported a new revelation from Mr. Bolton’s book: He had concerns that Mr. Trump was effectively granting personal favors to autocrats in federal investigations, which Mr. Bolton said he had revealed privately to Attorney General William Barr last year.
· How many Republican votes are needed to subpoena Mr. Bolton? The rules for how a witness might be subpoenaed are murky, with gaps in the written procedures and only a few precedents.
· In our Opinion pages, two Georgetown law professors and a former Republican congressman argue that the rules of impeachment allow for the chief justice to issue his own subpoenas — a possible, if unlikely, loophole around the Senate vote on witnesses.
· Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a well-regarded political newsletter, tweeted today that the RealClearPolitics polling average of Mr. Trump’s approval rating appeared to be at its highest since the early days of his presidency.
· The three amigos, the deliverable and the SCIF: The Times put together a glossary of terms that keep popping up during the impeachment trial.
I’m eager to know what you think of the newsletter, and what else you’d like to see here. Email your thoughts to briefing@nytimes.com. Did a friend forward you the briefing? Sign up here.

https://www.nytimes.com/newsletters/impeachment-briefing?te=1&nl=impeachment-briefing&emc=edit_ib_20200128?campaign_id=140&instance_id=15502&segment_id=20712&user_id=eeeb41ac0b2b0fd3a56a87fed573283b&regi_id=10089257520200128
You can unsubscribe through the link at the bottom of this email, and it won’t affect your regular Morning Briefing subscription.

Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating Giuliani to determine whether he broke laws regulating foreign lobbying following the ouster of former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.


Pam Bondi argues the Bidens merit further investigation
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi took the floor Monday afternoon to argue one of the most controversial portions of Trump’s defense, and one that several Republican senators still do not consider credible: The claim that former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine were suspicious and worthy of further investigation.

For more than half an hour, Bondi laid out the discredited theory that in 2014, Joe Biden had pressed for the removal of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor, not because the prosecutor was corrupt, but because that prosecutor had run a corruption probe of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company who employed Hunter Biden as a board member.

But the timeline of this theory doesn’t line up -- the investigation into Burisma was closed before Hunter Biden joined the board. Nonetheless, last summer Trump asked Ukrainian president Zelenskiy to launch a new probe of the Bidens, a request at the heart of the current impeachment case against Trump.
Bondi argued Monday that Democrats “might say, without evidence, that everything we just have said has been debunked, that the evidence points entirely and equivocally in the other direction.”
Still, Bondi said, “all we’re saying is that there was a basis to talk about [the Bidens], to raise this issue” with Zelenskiy. “And that is enough.”

A spokesman for Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign dismissed Bondi’s argument. “Here on Planet Earth, the conspiracy theory that Bondi repeated has been conclusively refuted,” said rapid response director Andrew Bates.
Ken Starr, who led Clinton probe, decries “age of impeachment”
Ken Starr, the former head of the Independent Counsel’s Office which investigated then-President Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair in the 1990′s, returned to the Senate floor Monday to argue a point that few people ever expected to hear coming from Starr: Presidential impeachment has been weaponized, Starr told senators, likening the process to a “domestic war” that “divides the country like nothing else.”
“In this particular juncture in America’s history, the Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently,” Starr said. “Indeed, we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the age of impeachment. ... How did we get here?”
But Starr was an imperfect messenger for this particular line of reasoning. In the late 1990′s, Starr led the multi-pronged investigation of Clinton that resulted in the president’s eventual impeachment in late 1998. Back then, Starr produced a lengthy report that included a list of 11 possible grounds for impeaching Clinton, and he argued that “no one is above the law.”
Twenty years later, Starr had changed his tune.

Democrats to spotlight what they say is Trump's obstruction of Congress-Impeachment Trial Day 4- Democrats to spotlight what they say is Trump's obstruction of Congress
Impeachment Trial Day 4: Democrats to spotlight what they say is Trump's obstruction of Congress
CBS News
8:28:24

Impeachment Trial Day 4: Democrats to spotlight what they say is Trump's obstruction of Congress
CBS New

In this July 17, 2019, photo, President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally at Williams Arena in Greenville, N.C. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)

CBS News
Impeachment Trial Day 6: Bolton revelations fuel fresh calls for testimony as Trump mounts defense
CBS News

8:59:29

Jay Sekulo President Donald Trump's personal attorney-Impeachment trial: Trump defence wraps up amid Bolton bombshell

Adam Schiff fires back after Trump’s lawyer issues warning- CNN News
CNN

Comments
Denise Gray
75% of the people want the witnesses we need to know,we need to know

Lovely Mangos
This is crazy, and gets crazier by the hour.
Rocky Roads
Shouldn’t we care more about getting to the truth than how long it takes?
LadyBear55
bring on the witnessess
Vijay Luhan
So technically anyone with national security considerations can be privy to illegal activity and not be able to testify because of....national security?
Steven Redman
I notice "Sinksolow" has tiny hands as well.
Dan JV
This can continue until January 20th 2021 when it becomes moot and the Federal criminal proceedings begin.
God N' Country
I'm sure El Chapo and John Gotti would be wanted to have THIS kinda trial!!!!
BUYSELLTRADE
So many small brains in cnn's comment section. I fear for the future of this country.
Bryan Perez
Meanwhile on FOX-- "We are winning the case"... Smh..
Salome Laurent
Love how Schiff responded to “Sinksolow”
Lance Chinnian
Way to go, Adam!
Melissa Reed
Hasn’t Bolton already said he would like to speak? Doesn’t that mean a subpoena isn’t needed. The witness doesn’t need to be forced into court if they are willing to speak.
Robert Days
As Lyndswy Graham said "Just 3 witnesses, surely they wouldn't stop a mere 3 witnesses?" Of course that was in 1999 against Clinton.
digiboi wan
Show me the witnesses. Shooow meeee there witnessessssss!!!!!
funkyflights
Allow witnesses, then determine what you think, if they block them, they’re hiding stuff, period ....
Barbara Willis
Boom Justice Roberts can make the DECISION right NOW!!!
Gary Logan
The only thing that would be more over-the-top is if they had called crybaby Brett Kavanaugh to sit for this Senate trial. Holy Shiite.
S J
Cry baby!!???? Are you out of your mind!!!??? WOW......
Overkill
@S J Yes, crybaby. Or did you forget that whiny little bitch sobbing about beer and flatulence in front of the United States Senate?

Rafael Almeria
Not even in a movie have I ever seen such a snap back.
189 Hosp
So true..
chris kretzer
Really? Do you know how pathetic you have to be after you didn't get your spoiled way on an election to where you're claiming the Babbling b***** he said was a movie worthy snapback. You do realize that nobody but you self-made political victims buys this b***** right
RDT 205
@Uncommon Sense Maybe he doesn't want to offend your soybitch ass??
Marilyn Ines Rodriguez
Bolton doesn’t need the Senate, he can go on National TV and speak to the American people.
David Steel
A trail where the juriors are in lock set with with Defendant’s Lawyers, and deside if any witnesses will testify, and if any documents will be allowed. Yelp sounds fair to me.
Christina Gillie
WHO CARES HOW LONG IT TAKES?!
Victor Glassco
Where were the President's witnesses in the House? The House had 17 witnesses against the President.
Guitar Works
making witnesses available in a trial..."is that going to be the new norm?" WTF is this clown on?
Utha
What's stopping a Senator asking John Roberts his views on whether there should be witnesses?
Les Fogle
What is a trial without witnesses ? They love to insult people’s intelligence!
revjimbob
Sekulow looks like the crooked lawyer in any 80s comedy.
Stellar Cellar
A house divided cannot stand. The fracture of thought is so severe in our country we can't even cobble together a descent trial.
leyla hersi
It’s good we got time get the witnesses!!
Eric Fisher
Here is my question... If a person is under audit for taxes how can he receive the security clearance to know everything about the country?
Wilfredo Rodriguez
You cant have a fair trail with out witness well say god open they mind
Archangel Uriel
All of this was supposed to be prepared ahead of time it's not for the Senate to do.
Jacob Strom
@Archangel Uriel Wrong... this is how trials work...
chris kretzer
@Jacob Strom wrong jackass in a court trial any evidence that's not prepared doesn't get heard you know this you probably do know this but because you didn't get your spoiled Way 3 years ago you choose to ignore facts and law. Why not just come out and say at Trump's bad we don't care what you find on them true or not just get rid of them
Archangel Uriel
@Jacob Strom no that's how normal trials are held not impeachment trials. I love how they use ignorance to try to poison people's brains. It's brilliant. if you think an impeachment trial should go along the same lines as a municipal trial or federal trial then you're gravely mistaken. There are rules to this and protocols.
Archangel Uriel
@Jacob Strom it's called the separation of powers. Otherwise one branch of the government could take over the rest
john carioscia
You also can't have a fair hearing without "due process".
Archangel Uriel
@john carioscia it's really not a trial in the sense that so many people keep proposing.
john carioscia
@Archangel Uriel It's a political process, brought on by a partisan impeachment that will follow more impeachments every time the presidency & the House are held by opposite parties. Regardless of political affiliation , this was the dumbest thing, next to the Kavanaugh fiasco, that these self serving political hacks have ever done, & both parties will rue the day this happened.
Archangel Uriel
@john carioscia that's why I keep saying voters will be condemned in the end. Only about 50% of eligible voters vote. That means we're being run by a minority at all times.
Adi-LMNOP
either way, demtards lose
john carioscia
@Archangel Uriel Trump has come, & Trump will go, looking past him & recognizing the damage this partisan impeachment has done, imagine what's going to happen when future presidents try to nominate a judge to the SCOTUS, or when opposite parties control the House & presidency, impeachment is now a political tool that will be wielded against the opposition for any or no reason, this to me is what's way more important then who occupies the WH.
GaelicD
chris kretzer don’t be such an ass hole
john carioscia
@Adi-LMNOP Either way, we all lose.
Jacob Strom
@chris kretzer You almost came up with a complete sentence! Now get your pocket constitution out and learn how the impeachment process works...
Johnny Morris
@Archangel Uriel So ignore all evidence not included in the original articles, or prosecute Trump for failing to cooperate with The House which caused the delay in receiving witness testimony in the first place?
Archangel Uriel
@john carioscia I personally believe that America's done for. It's just a matter of watching it happen.
Archangel Uriel
@Johnny Morris let every man be called a liar.
Johnny Morris
@john carioscia It's better to use impeachment frivolously than to allow a Dictator King Trump to do whatever he wants because he thinks he's doing what's in the best interest of America. Besides they get acquitted if they're innocent anyway.
251omega
The house impeached without evidence, if you take an honest look back. A good "Rule of Thumb" is: Unless BOTH parties agree, Drop the whole idea of impeachment. It's a corruption of the process when only ONE party wants it.
Niki Clark
It's called "DISCOVERY"
SeafairZombies
And the Dems failed to make discovery before they brought the case to trial. Shame on them. But they cannot ask the court, or the defense, to make their case for them - so they have no case. DISMISSED!
Dick Tracy
@SeafairZombies Keep in mind you're arguing with Trump-wasted morons, but you're 100 percent correct.
he's on fire
The GOP lawyer is right about one thing....it is "voting season!" So all those seats for the GOP are gonna be #WeWantTheTruth
RDT 205
Democrats have already lost the house buddy, watch and see come november. They know they have fucked themselves.
Trumpty Dumpty your fall is coming!
JUSTICE takes as long as it takes! I am in no hurry to rush this. Bring forward ALL the witnesses and evidence.
Hilary Knowles
This guy needs to run for president at some point. He is incredibly smart and very patriotic.
verygoed
just listen to the ‘’question” of the “senator”. you would wonder what is his motive behind this so called “question”.
Timothy Isenhart
Adam Schiff looks like someone that would of been on "To Catch a Predator"
Jamie Chverchko
A-freakin-men!
Gail Kaplin
And I wish him great success in catching this predator.
Jamie Chverchko
@Gail Kaplin yeah Gail... you don't know how this works do you?
Timothy Isenhart
@Gail Kaplin Me too. I hope Adam Schiff gets caught. Because the only thing he catches is little boys.
Paulo Estriga
"The people have the right to vote" 'So let's end this impeachment and get back to our business of gerrymandering and voter suppression.'
Tony Colucci
Mr Peabody I want to go back in time to give Adam Schiff's father a condom.
Mathew Valente
Haven't you ever seen the friends episode where Ross gets Rachel pregnant? Condoms aren't 100%. Schiff would have defied the odds and broke through that mofo just to exist to make your "president" sweat today
Jean-François Chapdelaine
Yo Adam Schiff is my boy. Each times he takes the mic, somebody gets own or gets burn. I hope someday he'll give a Masterclass on oratory art or a podcast on great speeches. 10 out of 10 would buy
Edgaras Songaila
but he lied so many times, so many times he said there is evidence about colusion about everything, made up a call and started investigation on his fallse claims, realy good guy
Jean-François Chapdelaine
@Edgaras Songaila Well, a bunch of people who worked on Trump's campaign are in jail right now. Something was obviously smelly and some sketchy things did happen. I wouldn't say that he lied.
Mike O'Keefe
Wow your another stupid brainwashed American
RDT 205
@Jean-François Chapdelaine Are you that really that stupid??
kurt crowder
@RDT 205 I think he is that stupid.
Denise Gray
75% of the people want the witnesses we need to know,we need to know

8:28:24

Trump impeachment
Trump impeachment trial: Democrat says ‘country’s fate hanging’ on outcome
House manager says case against Trump ‘overwhelming’
Schiff says Trump’s comment about him intended as a threat

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/26/trump-impeachment-trial-showdown-senate-democrats
 Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine to investigate his domestic Democratic political rivals, especially 2020 election candidate and former Vice-President Joe Biden. 
One of the prosecutors in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial insisted on Sunday that “the country’s fate is hanging” on the outcome of the showdown now taking place in the US Senate, in which she declared the case against the president regarding his conduct with Ukraine to be “overwhelming”.
Zoe Lofgren, a California congresswoman and one of the senior Democrats presenting the evidence against the president for abuse of power and obstructing Congress, said senators trying the case needed to agree this week to hear additional witnesses and evidence in order to provide the “impartial justice” that America depends upon.
Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine to investigate his domestic Democratic political rivals, especially 2020 election candidate and former Vice-President Joe Biden, and has refused to allow his most senior aides to testify in the process, despite court challenges by the Democrats in the House, who initiated the impeachment process last September.
“It’s for the senators to find out all the information I think they would want,” Lofgren told CNN’s State of the Union politics program on Sunday morning.
“But here’s the thing, the chief justice of the United States [John Roberts] presiding over this trial, if he signs a subpoena for a witness to come, we’re going to get that witness … promptly. We’re not going to be in court for three or four years.
“We have a great hope that the senators will do the duty that they are obliged to do, that they’ll take the oath that they took seriously, that they will do impartial justice. That’s what our hope is and I think the country’s fate is hanging on it.”
Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader, has fiercely resisted calls for witnesses to appear at the Senate trial, including John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser who has called the meddling of Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine matters, seemingly at the president’s orders, as “a drug deal”.
Lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff said Republican senators were terrified of hearing fresh, direct testimony in the trial.
“I think they’re deathly afraid of what witnesses will have to say and so their whole strategy has been deprive the public of a fair trial,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
House Democrats accuse Trump of orchestrating a corrupt scheme in Ukraine to assist his re-election campaign. The president’s defence team decries the impeachment on principle and accuses Democrats, in turn, of using it as a tactic to “interfere” in the 2020 election.
Schiff added on Sunday: “What was so striking to me was that they basically acknowledge the scheme, they don’t really contest the president’s scheme. They just try to make the case that you don’t need a fair trial here, you can make this go away.”
Meanwhile, Lofgren defended comments by Schiff after he was blasted by Trump in a tweet on Sunday, where Schiff had quoted a CBS report claiming that Republicans’ heads could be “on a pike” if they went against the White House and voted for witnesses – a move that enraged moderate Republicans that Democrats had been hoping would support them in the push for more witnesses.
Lofgren said, “I can’t believe the president’s misbehavior would be ignored because of something like that.”
Schiff added that he considered Trump’s comment that Schiff has not “paid the price, yet, for what he has done to the country,” a threat. “I think it was intended to be,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press.
Trump also went on Twitter early on Sunday to repeat his complaint that: “The Impeachment Hoax is a massive election interference the likes of which has never been seen before.” The tweet castigated his accusers as “Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats”.
Trump’s legal team opened an aggressive defence of the president in the Senate on Saturday, laying out their case that he broke no laws, and insisting that the trial was merely an attempt to reverse the 2016 election.
“They’re asking you not only to turn over the results of the last election but they’re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that’s occurring in approximately nine months,” said White House counsel Pat Cipollone. “They’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history.”
Democrats say Trump abused his power to strong-arm Ukraine into conducting an investigation against Joe Biden, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in November’s election, and obstructed Congress by withholding testimony and documents from their inquiry.
Trump’s lawyers will resume their arguments on Monday.
Trump ally and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures program that he planned when the impeachment trial is over to investigate freshly the activities of Joe Biden in relation to his son Hunter Biden’s past employment on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

“We will do oversight of the Bidens to give the vice-president the scrutiny the president has had,” he said, despite theories of corruption relating to the Bidens and Ukraine having previously been debunked.
The US temporarily withheld $400m in military aid to Ukraine, while Trump was pressuring Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate his rivals. The aid was released in September, in a sequence of events that followed an intelligence community whistleblower formally complaining about Trump’s conduct involving the aid and interactions with Zelenskiy.

Lauren Egan reports for NBC News, based in Washington.

Joe Biden, center, then the vice president, with his son Hunter Biden and his sister, Valerie Biden Owens, during a ceremony to name a national road after his late son, Beau Biden, in Sojevo, Kosovo, in August 2016.Visar Kryeziu / AP file

Is Trump's legal defense resonating with Republican senators?
PBS NewsHour

Bolton Revelations Anger Republicans, Fueling Push for Impeachment Witnesses
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/john-bolton-impeachment-witness.html
The former national security adviser’s account threatened to derail Republican hopes of bringing President Trump’s impeachment trial to a quick close with his acquittal.

“I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton,” Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, told reporters on Monday.Credit...Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

By Michael D. Shear and Nicholas Fandos
Published Jan. 28, 2020
[Follow our live coverage and updates of the Trump impeachment trial.]
WASHINGTON — The White House and Senate Republican leaders struggled on Monday to salvage their plans for a quick acquittal of President Trump after a new account by his former national security adviser John R. Bolton corroborated a central piece of the impeachment case against him.

The newly disclosed revelations by Mr. Bolton, whose forthcoming book details how Mr. Trump conditioned military aid for Ukraine on the country’s willingness to furnish information on his political rivals, angered key Republicans and reinvigorated a bid to call witnesses. Such a move would prolong the trial and pose new dangers for the president.

Common Questions About Impeachment
· What is impeachment?
Impeachment is charging a holder of public office with misconduct.
· Why is the impeachment process happening now?
A whistle-blower complaint filed in August said that White House officials believed they had witnessed Mr. Trump abuse his power for political gain.
· Can you explain what President Trump is accused of doing?
President Trump is accused of breaking the law by pressuring the president of Ukraine to look into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a potential Democratic opponent in the 2020 election.
· What did the president say to the president of Ukraine?
Here is a reconstructed transcript of Mr. Trump’s call to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, released by The White House.

Romney’s rebellion
Art Lien for The New York Times

Trump impeachment managers conclude opening arguments in Senate trial – watch live
Guardian News

WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate
#trumpimpeachmenttrial
Washington Post
The House managers wrapped up their arguments against President Trump on Jan. 24. Trump’s team, including lawyers Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, now has 24 hours to present their case. After Trump’s lawyers conclude their presentation, senators will have an opportunity to submit questions to both sides in writing. Following that, debate will turn to whether to call witnesses and subpoena documents.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uyp7UvBPsjc

Republicans' 75% problem on impeachment witnesses-Schumer-
Don't underestimate the pressure GOP senators are under

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/impeachment-trial-witnesses/index.html
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
January 29, 2020



(CNN)Two days from a giant vote over whether witnesses will be allowed to be called in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Republicans are faced with a stark problem: The voting public really likes the idea.
Three-quarters of the public (75%) in a new Quinnipiac University poll, to be exact. And while that numbers includes almost unanimous support for witnesses among Democrats (95%), it also shows a large majority of independents in favor of witnesses (75%) and even a near-majority of Republicans (49%).
Those numbers aren't an outlier, either. A CNN poll released earlier this month showed 69% support for witnesses -- including, again, a plurality of Republicans (48%). A Monmouth University poll showed 75% for witnesses.
In short: Public opinion is firm in favor of witnesses. And that support is across the political spectrum -- an anomaly in our deeply polarized times. The reason is simple: Logic suggests that if witnesses have new or important information, most people think we should hear from them. Not allowing witnesses to bring forward that new information feels like a cover-up or at least makes people suspicious as to why anyone wouldn't want to have the fullest picture possible before deciding on whether or not to remove a President.
(Of course, Republican support for witnesses could well be not for the likes of former national security adviser John Bolton but for people like, say, Hunter Biden. Pollsters don't make clear which witnesses when asking whether people support witnesses.)
Which brings us to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's acknowledgment Tuesday night that the votes are simply not there yet to block the calling of witnesses. Now, McConnell is the consummate vote-counter and behind-the-scenes persuader. And the vote on witnesses isn't expected until Friday.
But as the numbers above make clear, McConnell just doesn't have all that much to work with here. Politicians, especially those up for reelection in the near term, are deeply reactive creatures, almost preternaturally aware of public sentiment. While the Senate -- because of the increasing alignment of presidential vote with Senate representation -- is somewhat insulated from the whims of the public, they are still politicians. And when 75% of the public say they want something, politicians tend to want to give it to them.
(Sidebar: The one notable exception to that rule is on gun control restrictions, where large majorities of the country support things like closing the gun show loophole or even reinstating the assault weapons ban. The Senate's rural bloc -- across the Plains and Midwest -- allows for legislation, no matter how popular, to be blocked. Read this on that.)
So if you are Sen. Susan Collins of Maine or Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado or Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona, you can't simply ignore the fact that lots and lots of people (including a near-majority of Republicans) want to hear from witnesses. There's no doubt that a vote against witnesses then would become an issue in your 2020 campaign -- and likely not one that works in your favor.
And/but, you also have to consider this: The President of the United States is going to be very, very pissed off if you break with him on the question of witnesses.
CNN's Chris Cillizza cuts through the political spin and tells you what you need to know. Sign up for The Point newsletter here.

What would happen if Trump exerted executive privilege over Bolton testimony?

Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine to investigate his domestic Democratic political rivals, especially 2020 election candidate and former Vice-President Joe Biden. Photograph: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Jeffrey Epstein’s Victims, Denied a Trial, Vent Their Fury: ‘He Is a Coward’
“The fact I will never have a chance to face my predator in court eats away at my soul,” one of Jeffrey Epstein’s accusers said at the first hearing after he committed suicide in jail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-hearing-victims.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer

Jeffrey Epstein Death: 2 Guards Slept Through Checks and Falsified Records
The guards did not check on him for three hours, officials said. The disclosures came as the guards and the warden at the jail were removed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-jail-officers.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer

President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Battle Creek, Mich., Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019. (AP Photo-Paul Sancya)

Jeffrey Epstein in 2005. “At no stage,” Prince Andrew said, “did I see, witness or suspect any behavior of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction.”Credit...Neil Rasmus/Patrick McMullan, via Getty Images

Mr Trump told reporters last week that he did not want Mr Bolton to testify, citing national security concerns.

Trump Impeachment Trial: Day 4
Global News

In this screengrab taken from a Senate Television webcast, Legal Counsel for President Donald Trump, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol on January 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. Senate Television | Getty Images

In this screenshot taken from a Senate Television webcast, Legal Counsel for President Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz speaks during impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol on January 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. - Senate Television | Getty Images

Trump impeachment: Calls grow for Bolton testimony
27 January 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51260220
Pressure has grown for former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify in US President Donald Trump's impeachment trial.
Calls for his testimony come amid claims that the adviser directly linked Mr Trump to a plan to freeze aid to Ukraine in exchange for a political favour.
The claims, reportedly made in a book manuscript, are central to the trial that has resumed on Monday.


Mr Trump denies the charges.
But the claims allegedly made by Mr Bolton could damage the president's defence.
The president is accused of withholding military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to start a corruption investigation into Mr Biden, and his son Hunter.
Mr Trump told reporters last week that he did not want Mr Bolton to testify, citing national security concerns.
However, some Republicans have now said Mr Bolton should be heard from.
The claims emerged as the impeachment trial resumes on the Senate floor.

What did Trump's lawyers say on Monday?
Speaking on the second day of Mr Trump's defence, attorney Kenneth Starr warned senators that impeachment could become "normalised" and used as a weapon against future administrations.
Mr Starr came to prominence in 1998, when he led an investigation into Democratic President Bill Clinton that laid the foundation for his impeachment.
"Like war, impeachment is hell," Mr Starr said on Monday. "It's filled with acrimony and divides the country like nothing else. Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment understand that in a deep and personal way."

What do the new reports allege?
On Sunday, the New York Times cited excerpts from an unpublished book by Mr Bolton, who was fired from the White House in early September.
They included claims that Mr Trump told Mr Bolton in August that he wanted to withhold $391m (£300 million) in security aid to Ukraine until officials there assisted with probes into Democrats, including Mr Biden.
Could John Bolton be an impeachment game-changer?rrH‎
Trump impeachment trial: All you need to know
Who's who in the Trump-Ukraine story?

If true, such a claim would undermine the main argument of Mr Trump's defence team that there was no "quid pro quo", offering aid in return for investigating Mr Biden.

"Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President's defence," tweeted Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, who serves as the senior House prosecutor in the impeachment trial.
"If the trial is to be fair, Senators must insist that Mr Bolton be called as a witness, and provide his notes and other documents."
Will it change anything?

Analysis - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News
While John Bolton has said he's happy to appear before the Senate, whether he can do so starts with a question of simple maths. Are there four Republicans out of the 53 in the Senate interested enough in what he has to say to bring him in to testify?

While he clearly could be a key witness - revealing the motivations behind the hold on US aid to Ukraine and the president's involvement - calling him as a witness would plunge the Senate trial into the unknown.

Republicans have already said that if Bolton appears, they'll also subpoena the Bidens, the whistleblower [who triggered the impeachment inquiry] and others. It could start a tit-for-tat that drags on for weeks, ending the prospect of a speedy conclusion to the proceedings.

What's more, there could be a legal battle over whether Mr Bolton, if called, could be allowed to actually speak. The president has already hinted at a legal battle to stop him.

The truth - at least Mr Bolton's version of it - will eventually come out. The quandary for the handful of Senate Republicans on the fence about witnesses is whether they want to hear it now or keep the lid on things until after the president's likely acquittal.

What has been the reaction to the latest revelations?

Interest for Mr Bolton to testify grew following the New York Times report. Republican Senator Mitt Romney said: "I think it's increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton."
Susan Collins, a centrist Republican from Maine, tweeted: "The reports from John Bolton's book strengthen the case for witnesses".

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Republicans' refusal to call Mr Bolton and others is "now even more indefensible".
Skip Twitter post by @SpeakerPelosi
Nancy Pelosi✔@SpeakerPelosi

Amb. Bolton reportedly heard directly from Trump that aid for Ukraine was tied to political investigations.
The refusal of the Senate to call for him, other relevant witnesses, and documents is now even more indefensible.
The choice is clear: our Constitution, or a cover-up. https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1221568821879885824 …

Maggie Haberman✔@maggieNYT
SCOOP: Bolton book draft, circulated to associates and sent to WH for review process, describes a convo w POTUS where he says he doesn't want to release withheld aid till Ukraine turned over material related to investigations @nytmike and me https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html
12:14 AM - Jan 27, 2020
End of Twitter post by @SpeakerPelosi

But Mr Trump denied the claim, writing on Twitter: "I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens.
"In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book." Mr Bolton served as National Security Adviser to Mr Trump from April 2018 to September 2019.
Mr Bolton's lawyers blamed the leak on the White House, which had received a copy to review for any disclosure of classified information.

The latest reports come after a video made public on Saturday showed Mr Trump ordering the removal of the US ambassador to Ukraine in 2018.
Mr Trump was impeached by the Democrat-led House of Representatives in December 2019, but a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to remove him from office. With Republicans holding a 53-47 majority in the Senate, removal is unlikely.

Mr Trump  is the third president in US history to face an impeachment trial.

Wikipedia Exposed Media - WEM www.wikipediaexposed.org

FREEDOM TO PROVIDE FACTS, INFORMATION, OPINION AND DEBATE WIKIPEDIA EXPOSED MEDIA - TRUTHFUL NEWS MEDIA, ENCOURAGE OPEN DEBATE

Donald Trump and ohn Bolton

75% Of Voters Say Allow Witnesses In Senate Impeachment Trial, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds(25S)

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
Trump impeachment defense team turns attention to Bidens, Burisma
During defense arguments Monday, Pam Bondi became the first member of the White House legal team to bring up the Bidens.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-impeachment-defense-team-turns-attention-bidens-burisma-n1124231
an. 27, 2020
By Adam Edelman

President Donald Trump's defense team in his impeachment trial turned its attention to Joe and Hunter Biden on Monday, painting the former vice president and his son as corrupt actors who were worthy of being investigated.
"When the House managers gave you their presentation, when they submitted their brief, they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma. They spoke to you for over 21 hours, and they referenced Biden or Burisma over 400 times. And when they gave these presentations, they said there was nothing to see, it was a sham," Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general who is among the lawyers on the president's impeachment team, told senators Monday.

Bondi was the first member of the White House defense team to bring up the Bidens, but she was not the last. Another member of the legal team, Eric Herschmann, also spoke at length about the Bidens and Burisma in a subsequent presentation.
Burisma is a Ukrainian gas company that Hunter Biden joined as a board member when his father was vice president.
"In their trial memorandum, the House managers describe this as baseless. Now, why did they say that? Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times?" Bondi said.
"The reason they needed to do that is because they're here saying that the president must be impeached and removed from office for raising a concern. And that's why we have to talk about this today," she said. "They say 'sham.' They say 'baseless.' They say this because if it's OK for someone to say, 'Hey, you know what? Maybe there's something here worth raising,' then their case crumbles."

At the heart of the House Democrats' impeachment case is the allegation that Trump abused the power of his office when he tried to condition millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's launching investigations of Burisma and a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
There has been no evidence of corruption on the part of the former vice president or his son.

In nearly 30 minutes of remarks Monday, Bondi delved into the minutiae of Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma, repeatedly saying Democrats must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no basis for Trump to have raised concerns about the Bidens.
She played several video clips, and she displayed a 2014 Washington Post story and read a quotation from it: "The appointment of the vice president's son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst."
Her line of defense was a turn away from arguments that Trump's legal team presented Saturday.

Full coverage of President Donald Trump's impeachment trial

https://www.nbcnews.com/Trump-impeachment-inquiry
One lawyer, Michael Purpura, said Saturday, "There couldn't possibly have been a quid pro quo" — a claim that seems to disregard Bondi's point that Burisma was worthy of investigation.

Bondi closed Monday by claiming, "The House managers might say, without evidence, that everything we just have said has been debunked, that the evidence points entirely and equivocally in the other direction. That is a distraction.
"All we're saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue. And that is enough," she said.

The Biden camp hit back in a caustically worded statement Monday.
"We didn't realize that Breitbart was expanding into Ted Talk knockoffs. Here on Planet Earth, the conspiracy theory that Bondi repeated has been conclusively refuted. The New York Times calls it 'debunked,' The Wall Street Journal calls it 'discredited,' the AP calls it 'incorrect,' and The Washington Post Fact Checker calls it 'a fountain of falsehoods,'" said Andrew Bates, the Biden campaign's rapid response director.
"The diplomat that Trump himself appointed to lead his Ukraine policy has blasted it as 'self serving' and 'not credible,'" Bates said. "Joe Biden was instrumental to a bipartisan and international anti-corruption victory. It's no surprise that such a thing is anathema to President Trump."
Biden himself, informed of Bondi's argument by the members of the news media after a campaign event in Marion, Iowa, said, "Are you kidding me?" before laughing and walking away.

Download the NBC News app for full coverage of the Senate impeachment trial
https://apps.nbcnews.com/mobile/

Herschmann, who presented immediately after Bondi, continued making Bondi's point, questioning how the House managers came to conclude that the desired investigation into the Bidens was a sham.
"The House managers say that the investigations had been debunked, they were sham investigations. So now we have the question: Were they, really?" he said.
"Was it, in fact, true that any investigation had been debunked? The House managers do not identify for you who supposedly conducted any investigations. Who supposedly did the debunking? Who discredited it? Where and when were any such investigations conducted? When were the results published?" he said.
"There's no question that any rational person would like to understand what happened," Herschmann said

What do HS2 and Donald Trump’s wall have in common?
The cycles of British and American politics have coincided again: Boris Johnson will be watching this year’s US presidential election for lessons for his own re-election attempt
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-boris-johnson-mexico-border-wall-hs2-2020-election-us-a9301606.html

Donald Trump on Impeachment, Greta, Iran and Boris Johnson in blistering Davos Q&A
The Sun
Published on Jan 22, 2020
Bullish Donald Trump remained as defiant as ever as he answered numerous questions ahead of his departure from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. No subject was off the table as the US President responded in typical fashion when quizzed on his impeachment trial in the Senate, Greta Thunberg, Iran, trade and Boris Johnson. From Brexit breaking news to HD movie trailers, The Sun newspaper brings you the latest news videos and explainers from the UK and around the world. Become a Sun Subscriber and hit the bell to be the first to know
Read The Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk Like The Sun on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thesun/ Follow The Sun on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheSun Subscribe to The Sun on Snapchat: https://www.snapchat.com/discover/The...
CategoryNews & Politics

Impeachment Of Donald Trump Trial: Trump defence wraps up amid Bolton bombshell
28 January 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51284334


Donald Trump's defence team concluded its oral arguments in the US Senate impeachment trial on Tuesday, setting the stage for two days of questioning.
The closing arguments came amid a bombshell report that former national security adviser John Bolton implicates President Trump in his new book.
Mr Bolton reportedly writes that Mr Trump directly withheld security aid to Ukraine for his own political benefit.
The report added weight to the Democratic Party's call for witnesses.
The president's Republican Party has tried to resist calls for witnesses to testify, largely out of concern over what Mr Bolton might say. Four Republicans would need to side with Democrats in a vote on whether new testimony will be heard.

US media outlets reported on Tuesday that Mitch McConnell, the most senior Republican, had told his senators during a closed-door meeting that following the Bolton reports the party did not have the votes to hold off witnesses.
But Mr McConnell and his leadership team were reportedly confident of pressuring enough Republican senators by the end of the week to win a vote.

Defence rests
The president's defence wrapped up its arguments early on Tuesday, having used around half of its allotted 24 hours over three days. Their approach was a contrast with that of the Democrats, who used all of their allotted time to present a detailed case against the president.
Jay Sekulow, the president's personal lawyer, said: "The bar for impeachment cannot be set this low. Danger, danger, danger. These articles must be rejected. The Constitution requires it. Justice demands it."
White House counsel Pat Cipollone concluded by calling on senators to "end of the era of impeachment for good".
President Trump was impeached on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He is accused of withholding $391m (£300m) in military aid, in an attempt to pressure Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce a corruption investigation into Mr Trump's Democratic political rival, Joe Biden.

Mr Trump denies the allegations against him, and Republicans have argued that no first-hand witnesses have so far connected the president to a scheme to withhold aid for political benefit.
The significance of the apparent revelations from Mr Bolton, first reported by the New York Times, is that they would undermine that argument. He reportedly says in his forthcoming book that he was instructed directly by the president to withhold the aid in order to pressure Ukraine.
Mr Trump told reporters last week that he did not want Mr Bolton to testify, citing national security issues.

What happens next?
The Senate trial now moves into a two-day period of questioning, during which each party will alternate questioning for up to 16 hours throughout Wednesday and Thursday. The senators will not ask questions themselves but submit them for Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding, to read.
A vote on whether or not to call witnesses in the trial is expected on Friday.
Could John Bolton be an impeachment game-changer?
What happened so far in Trump impeachment trial
Trump impeachment trial: All you need to know
Four Republicans would be required to vote with the Democrats to reach the necessary majority to call witnesses. Several more moderate senators appeared more prepared to do so in the wake of the Bolton book reports.
"I think it's increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton," said Senator Mitt Romney of Utah on Monday.
Maine's Susan Collins, a vulnerable Republican who is up for re-election this year, said the reports had prompted "a number of conversations among my colleagues".
Sen. Susan Collins✔@SenatorCollins
My statement on Bolton developments.
3:49 PM - Jan 27, 2020

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski said that Mr Bolton "probably has some things that would be helpful", but she did not confirm whether she would vote for witnesses.
On Monday, Republican Senator James Lankford proposed that lawmakers receive a copy of the manuscript of Mr Bolton's book "to see what they're actually saying". He was endorsed by staunch Trump ally, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
According to the latest non-partisan Quinnipiac University poll, 75% of voters believe witnesses should be allowed in the trial.
A two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to remove Mr Trump from office. With Republicans holding a 53-47 majority in the Senate, removal remains highly unlikely.

Donald Trump is the third president in US history to be impeached and go on trial in the Senate.

Senate Impeachment Trial Of President Trump - Monday, January 27, 2020 | NBC News (Live Stream)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., announces the passage of the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, against President Donald Trump by the House of Representatives at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019. (House Television via AP)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell arrives for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on Jan. 28, 2020.J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Donald Trump on Impeachment, Greta, Iran and Boris Johnson in blistering Davos Q&A
The Sun - Published on Jan 22, 2020
Bullish Donald Trump remained as defiant as ever as he answered numerous questions ahead of his departure from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. No subject was off the table as the US President responded in typical fashion when quizzed on his impeachment trial in the Senate, Greta Thunberg, Iran, trade and Boris Johnson. From Brexit breaking news to HD movie trailers, The Sun newspaper brings you the latest news videos and explainers from the UK and around the world. 

 Donald Trump in Washington DC, on 12 December 2019. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

Donald Trump Impeachment

Day six of trial against US President in Senate | LIVE
The Sun

It's the sixth day of Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. The White House legal counsel is will continue their evidence proving The President's innocence. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz is expected to make a presentation about the constitutional aspects of impeachment. Ken Starr, the independent counsel who prosecuted Bill Clinton, has joined Trump’s defense team and may make remarks today.
Earlier in the week, the US President blasted the hearing as a "hoax" in a blistering Q&A in Davos. Read more: From Brexit breaking news to HD movie trailers, The Sun newspaper brings you the latest news videos and explainers from the UK and around the world. Become a Sun Subscriber and hit the bell to be the first to know Read The Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk Like The Sun on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thesun/ Follow The Sun on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheSun Subscribe to The Sun on Snapchat: https://www.snapchat.com/discover/The...

U.S. Senate: Impeachment Trial (Day 6)
C-SPAN
Streamed live on Jan 25, 2020
The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues with opening arguments by the President’s defense team.
Comments:
Ronald Vuckovich


Comments
only one truth someone is in contempt of oath
xcfencer99
This is the first neutral comment I have found. Thank you.
Grace Rabey
Right! Once we figure out who it is, we will purge Congress
Brian Brett
"someone" you say... how about everyone who votes against witnesses and evidence is violating their oath and pledge of allegiance?
Lee Risinger
Schiff
Michael Thomas
@Brian Brett Nobody is voting against evidence. Number 1. There is LITERALLY no victim or defined criminal act. Number 2. There is ample information to conclude that an investigation in to the conduct of the Biden's is NECESSARY. The charge is that they are stealing your tax money. Number 3. The Republicans are asking for an exchange, where they get material fact witnesses and evidence, which are DEFINITELY relevant now (Though they already were), since Schiff and Co. happened to mention the Bidens, Burisma, the Crowdstrike and Ukraine servers in their explanation of what is to be discussed. Just watch them claim how these things are not needed or legitimate after THEY brought them up.
Juggled Lotus
Russia is the ghost everyone wants you chasing. They don't want you looking at what China's been doing. Russia doesn't have the manpower or the capabilities to accomplish the corruption that they're being accused of.
ManCave
https://youtu.be/CxHbY43bHls Now I love USA, I'm from Europe
Clever name here
Michael Thomas Number 1 the White House is blocking first hand witnesses from testifying, Number 2 assassinating a foreign military leader w/o getting clear permission from the govt. is a war crime. I'm not even going to bother w the rest of you list
mystic
@Clever name here O.o
Phil Bake
@Clever name here FACT --> You COULDN'T have watched the video.. EVERYTHING your dumb fucking ass said was DISPROVED!!
LCBY LCBY
@Clever name here Not a war crime
breezee6483
@Brian Brett that is not the senates job. This dies on procedure! But the bidens, Hillary and Obama were all players. LET THEM HANG FOR TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY! GEORGE SOROS SHOULD GET THE DEATH PENALTY FOR HIS CRIMES ALL THE WAY BACK TO WWII UP TILL TODAY! ROT IN HELL SOROS
breezee6483
@ManCave This liberals are stupid! So I trust you're judgement more
breezee6483
@Clever name here The President has every right to make that decision. it is his job. He has war powers for 90 days. He did it right. No 10 year invasions. In and out. After the 90 days he needs to go to Congress to declare war. He has been the only President to follow that. We want our troops home. Where do you get this BS?
Ginger Lee
right, and it's not President Trump
Michael Thomas
@Clever name here Testifying to what? Witnessing a yet undiscovered crime? The house could have called these people, but chose not to. They have zero evidence of no crime and had not established a constitutionally authorized committee to even have the authority to issue subpoenas. This is very much like an off duty cop who doesn't like you kicks in your door because he thinks there might be evidence of a crime you may have committed and he can't even define yet. As to the terrorist they killed...I think that about sums it up.
breezee6483
@Brian Brett The house had their chance to call witnesses. If we give into them, it will annihilate our future Presidents job and will allow this corruption to continue. We must support them. Schiff did not do his job because he new the house of cards would quickly fall and he would go to jail!
Ginger Lee
@breezee6483 The senate has not yet determined if they will allow witnesses to be called. I pray they do. Schiff, Nadler, Vindman, the ambassadors, the Ukraine prosecutor (who was blocked from coming to the U.S. by Yavonavich to tell the truth) and the Biden's will be called to testify. Then we see who walks out in handcuffs. Gonna be fun!
breezee6483
@Ginger Lee They can but they would be smarter to so it as an independent investigation. I think the Senate will be ready to vote when the defense is done. I don't think they will play into the political game that Schumer is trying to spin. Credibility in the house if they don't go after Biden separately this will go on and on and on. they want to take President Trump of the ballot in 2020 they cannot be allowed to do that. So I would vote for not giving in to witnesses and the left do not want the Biden's Under oath. Number one Russia, only interfered with the Clintons. Nobody ever thought Donald Trump would win, so they continued business as usual. They don't need to waste the taxpayers money for Witnesses their case is Rock Solid it's the truth. And they can take Hillary, biden all the way up to former President Obama and way into the deep state.But we need to get through this first and then go after them I think if they do call witnesses it can be turned over on appeal. For Constitutional reasons.Then we gain nothing. Doing it separately I pray everyday they will get to their dirty laundry, under oath and Impeachable offenses did not go through that much sooner or later will scrutinize the video of when I said what I said earlier Joe Biden bragging about his part in the Ukraine. about his quid pro quo and then they can be arrested and charged. But I think the president needs a break from all this baloney I know I as a trump supporter and I'm tired of this and they need to be held accountable. That's going to come from us call your senators
Brian Brett
@Michael Thomas Pointing out another's corruption does not excuse your own. Of all the corruption facing Ukraine, he was only worried about Burisma and Biden, and not an actual investigation but just the public announcement of one, according to testimony from Sondland and corroborated by others. Finger pointing isn't going to work at an impeachment trial. This is about Pres Chump committing a crime and lying about it and trying to cover it up. I'm surprised you can count though, troll.
Brian Brett
@breezee6483 Stay out of U.S. politics ynger Lee
@breezee6483 yes, the case is rock solid and that's why this impeachment trial is the best window of opportunity to widely expose Biden, Schiff, Kerry, other Dems involved in Ukraine deals, and the corrupt ambassador. More of the public will be watching the live feeds so we won't have to rely on the corrupt mainstream media to report the truth. Anyone in the know is acutely aware of the MSM hiding Democrat corruption and lying to
the public. That's been their playbook for 20 years. Also, Giuliani has produced more blockbuster proof from Ukraine that will no doubt be entered into evidence and even more corrupt Dems will be exposed and likely charged. I think he may be planning a RICO case. That's how vast this Burisma/Ukraine corruption is. Remember, this is an impeachment trial. No Dems will be on trial during this process. But, when all the evidence comes tumbling out as witnesses are called, there will have to be indictments. The public will demand it. PLUS, everything that is said, written or submitted as evidence during the impeachment trial is entered into the congressional record. The corrupt media can't change those facts. The only reason I would like to see this trial abbreviated is because of the toll it takes on the President, first family and the country. I have a lot of compassion for what he's been put through. Yet, he knew the minute he promised to drain the swamp, the swamp was going to fight back. I just don't think he knew going in just how widespread the deep state is and the lengths they would go to to keep from being exposed and stopped. Watch this vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCm9HkVaVYk
Brian Brett
@Michael Thomas What crime? How about holding aid from an ally in time of war for political gain and then lying about it, obstruction of justice by blocking witnesses and documents at a lawful impeachment trial, abuse of power, breaking the emollients clause, treason and breaking his Oath of Office for starters. Pointing out another's corruption (if there is any) does not excuse your own.
Michael Thomas
@Brian Brett the aid was withheld over concerns about corruption and other participating countries not paying their share. That is documented and was testified to by the Democrats star Witnesses during the house hearings. Again if you had watched the video you are commenting below you would know this
Michael Thomas
@Brian Brett the impeachment proceedings in the house were not at all lawful a committee was formed without a vote which is a part of the constitutionally spelled out Procedure for doing so so in effect the committee had no authority to subpoena because it had not been constitutionally authorized. Can a cop just search your car without a warrant? I guess Trump doesn't get constitutional rights because you don't like him
reezee6483
@Ginger Lee I do respect your thoughts and had I not read my Constitution since day one of the circus I would have agreed however this is no longer about an impeachment this is about Schumer wanting to take back the house and becoming the majority speaker. Can you imagine because I feel he's in on this whole thing. I think that this needs to be investigated in a much bigger environment. Get this off of the president so he can do what he does best friend that is work Under Fire. Man is an enigma! Once you can do that, he can demand an investigation. But if he starts rallying, Bloomberg will drop Millions to help take back the house and the Senate. If we stop this as soon as possible chances are less that he will be a viable candidate. These are the most important elections In Our Lifetime. we have to get this right. It can be the smallest of things just seems bokken conversation I had no constitutions so people can read them. They don't they rely on the mainstream media and politician. I think we can both agree that's the way wrong way to go. You and I both know if we can squash this impeachment quickly, if so he will win in a landslide bigger than the last one and will take back the house. with any luck Pelosi will lose her job too.
Brian Brett
​@Michael Thomas Again, arguing procedure but not the facts. You claim there is no evidence even though tRump is blocking evidence. Even still, there is plenty of evidence and Pres Chump continues to lie about it and cover it up. It wont work this time!
Whyte Foxx
Ronald Vuckovich https://youtu.be/ZR63x9c55MM
Paul Myres
Ronald Vuckovich ..... Understand Applied Dialectics and war in Antithesis and you will clearly observe the 3 year long act of Seditious Conspiracy by the Democrats.
Michael Thomas
@Brian Brett Evidence of what, Brian? He committed no crime and LITERALLY none has been defined
Michael Thomas
@Brian Brett As for facts, a lot of them seem to point to Biden stealing taxpayer money. Would that not be the first logical place to start? If that claim is not true, THEN there would be cause for concern over Trump's actions. All we have, so far, is a bunch of un-elected officials, who disagree with Trump's foreign policy (WHO CARES WHAT THEY THINK)
Michael Thomas
@Brian Brett You are going to be terribly disappointed, when all the information is out.
Brian Brett
@Michael Thomas Stay out of U.S. politics you TROLL!
Ginger Lee
​@breezee6483 you are correct; this is probably the most important election in our life time. It's imperative Trump get another 4 years to really dig into the deep state. Plus, we must never allow the power hungry Dems to regain control. They WILL take us into full blown communism if they can. They very nearly had us there in the previous administration and if Hillary had won, we'd already be there. We'd be in WW3 and half the country would be gone or in re-education camps. In any case, I believe we will get the House back and retain the senate upon this next election. Pelosi's crazy antics have sunk her. And now Chuckles is waving imaginary people out of his seat! Did you see the video? LOL
Brian Brett
@Michael Thomas Books will be printed about this Con Man Trump's corruption and collusion with Russia comrade and you will not be able to hide forever. You TROLL!
YouMade MeBlush
no way he can fit in a peach.
Jim Stout
It started in 2016...Heads will Roll
charles mcgowen
Jim Stout Hope you are right. Heads need to roll.
M Mahlke
Any federal elected official who lies while conducting federal business in either body of congress should be suspected of treason and dealt with appropriately.
c433z
The senate chaplain has one heck of a voice
Jesse Mychal Smith
Your refering to Joe Biden right?!
M Mahlke
@Jesse Mychal Smith I'm referring to anyone who would lie during any meeting of either house of congress. My comment was prompted by Purpura showing Schiff lying to the House about Trumps phone call with Zelensky
Scott PonyDog
@M Mahlke Go back over the Recording of Schiff and he does say In Sum and in not so many words this is in essence of the call so Trumps team saying he was exactly quoting from the Transcript of the call is totally false ,,, The second lie is Omission of the reality of the Memo they call a transcript,, it is not the full actual record of the call it is a Summary only,, the White House is still hiding the full and complete record,, you will hear half truths and full out lies as they attempt to justify the Criminal actions of trump,,
Roger Yazzie
@Scott PonyDog The senate coverup in play.
jannmutube
M Mahike, ---- > A criminal statute against purposeful lying should get most Republicans removed. And, I think it should carry a significant penalty.
Joeybabbs .BABBS
prime example Hillary and Schiff..
Joeybabbs .BABBS
@Jesse Mychal Smith ofcourse and Hillary for Destroying Classified drives with a Hammer and Schiff for Making up a Fake version of the Transcript and Reading it on Live TV.. What does that do for the Country as other Countries Watch around the world?? he is a National Security Threat.
Just Call Me MOP
Unfortunately the lawyer isn't compelled by law to the truth. Just in the first few minutes of this I can point out lie and I'm not done watching
Roger Yazzie
15000 lies would put you away for good.
Thomas Jackson
That's insanely un-American.
Jonathan Campbell
@Joeybabbs .BABBS You've been busy, Mr. Bot
Lynn Rolaf
@Scott PonyDog yeah until the criminal being accused of high crimes and misdemeanors, releases the actual transcript of the call, then this won't be a valid assessment.
Jenny Lynn
Amen
Dakoya
I agree, haha might as well kick everyone out
4Nanook
If that were done we would not have a government, not saying that would be a negative thing.
Togapower
@jannmutube ah yes it's only the republicans that lie, the democrats are so innocent!! My god, you're so fucking stupid that people like you make me wish we had IQ tests for voting
Democracy Now
I want a mental health professional at my job. They got a Chaplin...they can talk to, anytime.
Joe Howerton
Treason? Maybe look up the definition of it first.
Just Call Me MOP
@Joeybabbs .BABBS , I'm still trying to get someone to prove to me a lie f r om Schiff -

yet nobody has yet to produce a lie no matter who I have asked on here or facebook.
Just Call Me MOP
@Joeybabbs .BABBS , Schiff did not make up a fake version, he paraphrased his view of the transcript and never once did he pass it off as the actual words of the transcript - this does not constitute as a lie.
Just Call Me MOP
@Lynn Rolaf , do you realize that the so called transcript is not a word for word transcript as noted on the actual so called transcript which is actually just a "MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION". And Vindman testified that it was lacking pertinent information.
Juggled Lotus
Russia is the ghost everyone wants you chasing. They don't want you looking at what China's been doing. Russia doesn't have the manpower or the capabilities to accomplish the corruption that they're being accused of.
A G
then every president going back 200 yrs would fall under that guideline most recent as the last one as well if you like your insurance you can keep it" not to mention what they said they would do if elected ...
A G
have you ever met one that didnt? or seen or heard one that didnt?
Carolyn Foster
He wasn't lying, Schiff made that clear from the beginning. He was reading between the lines of the "transcript summary memo". The TRANSCRIPT has not been released, it's in a secret server. I want to see the REAL transcript not a memo summary. Drumpf is a con man, pathological liar, thinks he's a celebrity and is never working in our National Interest, only his self-interest. If the Senate members continue to drink Drumpfs cool-aid, this country will not be a Republic but a dictatorship and authoritarian country like Russia.
Thomas Jackson
@4Nanook Are you an anarchist? Or a troll bot?
c433z
The senate chaplain has one heck of a voice
Michael Diamantino
I’m calling my cousin vinny

TRUMP, IMPEACHMENT, AND THE SHORT-TERM THINKING OF THE G.O.P.
From its relinquishing of executive oversight in the Senate to its embrace of inflammatory nativism, the Party has been perilously shortsighted.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/03/trump-impeachment-and-the-short-term-thinking-of-the-gop


By Jelani Cobb -January 26, 2020
FEBRUARY 3, 2020 ISSUE
COMMENT
Illustration by João Fazenda


In the dazed aftermath of the 2016 election, as a vast portion of the country tried to come to terms with the fact that a fixture of the tabloids and of reality TV would be the next President of the United States, Stephen Bannon, one of Donald Trump’s senior advisers, sought to place the event in a historical context. Like Andrew Jackson, Bannon told The Hollywood Reporter, “We’re going to build an entirely new political movement.” Trump, embracing the comparison, hung a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office. Superficially, the kinship made sense: both Jackson and Trump were wealthy men whose elections signified a populist turn in American politics. Both were ridiculed as uncouth and déclassé, and both saw their colorful marital history dissected in the newspapers. A deeper comparison would also have highlighted the racism associated with their political careers: Jackson owned slaves and directed the removal of Native Americans from their lands; Trump campaigned on a platform of removing people from the nation itself.

President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate points to another, potentially far more consequential area of commonality between the two Presidents. In 1832, the Supreme Court handed down a decision, in Worcester v. Georgia, that effectively prohibited the states from usurping Native Americans’ sovereignty over their lands. That conflicted with Jackson’s plans, and he responded by saying, in effect, good luck with enforcing that. Jackson’s critics saw such willingness to dismiss the authority of a co-equal branch of the government as further evidence that he had no business being in the Oval Office.

The Trump Administration’s strategy for fighting impeachment entails dismissing the authority of the third co-equal branch of government. The White House has steadfastly ignored the House of Representatives’ subpoenas to produce documents and witnesses relating to Trump’s alleged attempt to strong-arm the Ukrainian government to assist with a ploy to sink Joe Biden’s Presidential candidacy. It is not unheard-of for an Administration to stall or only partly comply with subpoenas. (The Republican-led House notably held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, in 2012, for not fully complying with subpoenas related to the Department of Justice’s Fast and Furious firearms sting operation.) But Trump has refused to comply at all, and congressional Republicans, ignoring one of their most important duties—executive oversight—have abetted his position.

At the start of trial, in eleven roll-call votes, the Republican majority voted down measures to request relevant documents or to hear from new witnesses regarding the Ukraine scheme. Representative Hakeem Jeffries, one of the House impeachment managers, gave an impassioned speech stating the case for summoning Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, to testify. He also told Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s attorneys, who had questioned why the trial was even taking place, “We are here, sir, because President Trump pressured a foreign government to target an American citizen for political and personal gain.” He concluded by quoting a fellow-Brooklynite, the Notorious B.I.G.: “If you don’t know, now you know.” Biggie notwithstanding, the speech failed to move the Republican caucus.

Published in the print edition of the February 3, 2020, issue, with the headline “Imbalance of Power.”

Jelani Cobb is a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author of “The Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress.”
This Week’s Issue

Never miss a big New Yorker story again. Sign up for This Week’s Issue and get an e-mail every week with the stories you have to read.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee speaks with members on the floor during a vote on the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Bondi focuses on Burisma, Biden allegations in Trump impeachment trial

Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally in Milwaukee on Thursday. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty


Senator Lisa Murkowski

Interview
How to dump Trump: Rick Wilson on Running Against the Devil
@MartinPengelly

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/11/donald-trump-rick-wilson-running-against-the-devil

 
 Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally at Huntington Center in Toledo, Ohio. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
FacebookTwitterPinterest

 Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary Clinton at an event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in July 2016. Photograph: Justin Saglio/AFP via Getty Images

FacebookTwitterPinterest
 Barack Obama waves to the crowd during a rally for Wisconsin Democratic candidates in Milwaukee in October 2018. Photograph: Sara Stathas/Reuters

He was a Republican ad man but now he’s a bestselling author out to bring down a president. He says Democrats must listen
Democratic voters should read Rick Wilson’s new book, he says, and heed his advice about how to beat Donald Trump.
Why? “Unless your candidate is a generational superstar like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton” – and it’s not a push to say there is no such Democrat this year – “we know all the tricks to beating them and we’ve used them over and over again.”

By “we” he means the Republican party. Wilson is a top Republican strategist with 30 years’ experience. He has made myriad attack ads, notorious among them efforts in support of Rudy Giuliani in New York in 1998 and against Obama 10 years later.
But Wilson’s first book, a bestseller released in 2018, was called Everything Trump Touches Dies. The sequel, out next week, is Running Against the Devil. The GOP enjoyed success after success but it has fallen under the sway of Trump. Wilson wants no more.

“We control 38 state legislatures right now and there’s a reason for that: it’s because of guys like me,” he says, on the phone from Florida. “I helped to build some of the tools in the toolbox for how you go out and exploit the cultural divisions in the country, and the political divisions, to win for Republicans in blue and purple areas. On paper it looks hard but we worked hard and recognised that the way to win is sometimes to not tell people who you really are.”
Wilson’s new book is a guide to how he thinks Trump can be beaten. The chief way to do it, he says, is to make the election a referendum on the president. He thinks impeachment and the Iran crisis, which happened after he went to press, only help prove Trump isn’t fit for office.

He thinks Democrats are making a huge mistake in the campaign so far – by telling voters who they really are. The main candidates are veering too far left, he thinks, away from the disaffected Trump voters they will have to turn. Among progressives, the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren is praised for her detailed policy plans. But to Wilson, Democratic “policy is the enemy”, whether it concerns Medicare for All, gun control or women’s right to choose.
“Guys like me who still work on the Trump side of the fence can always turn it into something that is a millstone around their neck. It’s not even that hard. Elizabeth Warren produces a 600-page healthcare plan and my research geeks can’t find, I don’t know, 30 things in there that I can’t demagogue the hell out of? Because I can. Or the guys that are me now can.”

way from the coasts and the college towns, Wilson contends, America is still a conservative place. Accordingly, Running Against the Devil contains a lot of what its author calls “tough love”, telling harsh truths and demanding Democrats put party purity aside. After all, the general election against Trump is going to be dirty as hell.

“Democrats tend to believe the country is completely homogenous politically,” Wilson says. “No matter how meritorious their position may be on gun control, for example, or not, it just kills them in rural areas. It just destroys them.

“No matter how much they want to talk about choice and reproductive rights, when you go into Catholic communities it is still a burden on them and they don’t have this ability to say, ‘Maybe rural Michigan isn’t the same thing as San Jose, California.’”

Prodding a sore, Wilson insists Trump’s defeat in the popular vote in 2016 – by nearly 3 million votes to Hillary Clinton – didn’t matter. Nor will it matter if Trump wins in the electoral college again. Them’s the rules, they ain’t changing soon and if a state doesn’t help paint the college blue, no Democrat should visit it for anything other than dollars.

“You’ve got to run where the game is played and fight where the fight is, which is these 15 electoral college swing states, and those states are not as woke and liberal as other parts of the country.”

He means places like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump won, and Nevada and Colorado and his home state, Florida.

“This isn’t rocket science. How did we Republicans elect guys in Wisconsin and Vermont and other places in recent years? We did it because we weren’t running them as national Republican figures. We helped elect a Republican governor in Vermont, four times. And you’re thinking, ‘Wow, Vermont, super liberal, how did that happen?’ Well, our guy was out there saying the Bush administration was wrong on climate change.

“Try a Democrat in rural Pennsylvania, say, who comes out and says, ‘Yes, I want to seize all automatic weapons, I want to make third trimester abortions fully taxpayer funded. That may work, that may provoke hosannas in San Francisco or Los Angeles. But out there? Not as much. They’re like … ‘Wait, what?’”

From Buchanan to Bernie
Wilson is as blunt and funny as he is on the page or Twitter, relentlessly irreverent and breathtakingly brutal.
Take Bernie Sanders. Wilson doesn’t just say he thinks the democratic socialist from Vermont would be the opponent of Trump’s dreams, “the easiest person in the world to turn into the comic opera villain Republicans love to hate, the Castro sympathiser, the socialist, the Marxist, the guy who wants to put the aristos in the tumbril as they cart them off to the guillotine”.

He also hits Sanders for echoing Trump in harking back to an America that never was – “only with more unions” – and pillories him for his reaction to defeat in 2016. In Wilson’s view, Sanders damaged Clinton at the polls and then, after she “beat him fair and square, he took his ball and went home”, failing to support her in November. Wilson contrasts that starkly with Republican support for Trump.

The president has the “awesome” advantage of incumbency and money but also “a completely unified party apparatus. There’s no sniping in the background; there’s no Bernie out there after the nomination is done, like in the old days with George HW Bush and Pat Buchanan.”

It’s provocative to compare Sanders the socialist to the paleo-conservative proto-Trump who played spoiler in 92. But there’s always the happy distraction of listening to Wilson turn his guns on Trump.

Running Against the Devil is pugnacious and profane. Before a break so Wilson can take a call from a “tech billionaire” he’s sadly reluctant to name, he calls the president “a liar and a corrupt asshole and a scumbag”. He marvels at Trump’s graft, at the way a billionaire who claimed to be un-buyable turned out to be so cheap. He does seem to think Trump is the devil. But then, the devil gets the best lines and “plenty of smart, evil guys” are working on his re-election push.

Asked which Democrat is best suited for the fight, Wilson admits to being impressed by Warren’s willingness to work hard and how she champions the little guy. But he still goes for Joe Biden.

“I think it will be Biden because name ID is very powerful,” he says of the former senator and vice-president. “He is the one candidate who has shown the most ability to contrast with Trump in terms of a broader, bigger picture that isn’t just locked into what’s the hot flavor of Democratic messaging this year.

“He’s talking about that big American sense of unity and reconciliation and saying we’ve got to work with Republicans too.”

It’s true you don’t get much policy detail at a Biden rally, but you do see plenty of slightly hokey appeals to the better angels of America’s nature.
“There’s nothing in Joe Biden that scans as evil or dark or weird or out of touch,” Wilson says. “He can be a little goofy but that’s not bad, not the worst thing in the world right now.
“I think neither Warren nor Sanders and certainly not Pete Buttigieg have ever had a breakthrough with African American voters sufficient to eliminate Biden’s advantage. And also, Biden’s got the secret weapon.
“If Barack Obama is free to get out there and do the campaigning that only he can do in American political life, I think that would be a meaningful lift for the Democrats.”


‘You sometimes need hard men’
Wilson may not favor Obama ideologically but Obama beat his man twice and his respect for the 44th president is clear. Even more so, No 16.
Wilson is a co-founder of the Lincoln Project, a Super Pac named for the party’s greatest leader and meant to persuade loyalists away from a man many consider its worst. Steve Bannon, the Trump whisperer, has noted that if the project achieves even slight success in key electoral college states, it could prove fatal. Wilson, the proudly ruthless ad man, cheerfully admits turning the lethal amorality of his craft to a distinctly moral end.
“You sometimes need hard men and hard women to do tough things,” he says. In that sense, the name of his project is fitting. Lincoln saved the union and ended slavery with all the guile and will of the most ruthless, when necessary the most dirty politician.
“That’s where we’re at. We are people who unsentimentally love this country and who recognise that it is fabulously resilient and powerful as an idea and a nation but that it is also fragile, and can be taken away if we are not very careful.”

Given that, what would Wilson say to a Guardian reader who asked why she should listen to the guy who attacked Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor, or shamelessly but successfully linked Max Cleland, a popular senator who lost three limbs in Vietnam, to Osama bin Laden.
“You don’t have to like me. You don’t have to think I’m the guy you want to have over for a beer. But when it comes to being somebody who will tell you where to go, how to do it, even if you have to hold your nose to do it, I’ll tell you how to get there.”

He means it, his tone growing stern, the words rapped out.

And this time I am putting my ideological priors and my preferences aside, because I think that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the Republic. I’ll do anything I can to help ensure that he is not president for another four years.”

Virginia Roberts Giuffre in New York on Tuesday, when nearly two dozen women who have accused Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse appeared at a court hearing.Credit...Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times

WATCH: Pam Bondi argues Biden corruption concerns are legitimate | Trump impeachment trial
PBS NewsHour

Published on Jan 27, 2020
Pam Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida who is a member of the Trump impeachment legal team, outlined on Jan. 27 the concerns she said the president had about potential corruption on the part of the Bidens in Ukraine. Bondi pointed to numerous news reports raising questions about Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma. The move “looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst,” Bondi said, speaking on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial. While some ethics experts have said Hunter Biden’s seat on the Burisma board could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest, independent news reports have found no wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or former vice president Joe Biden. Democrats argue Trump used the idea of corruption as a cover for efforts to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival. Trump’s defense team is presenting their arguments as part of the Senate impeachment trial. The trial has entered a pivotal week as his defense team resumes its case and senators face a critical vote on whether to hear witnesses or proceed directly to a vote that is widely expected to end in his acquittal. The articles of impeachment charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House of Representatives impeached the president in December on those two counts.
For more on who’s who in the Trump impeachment inquiry, read: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics... Stream your PBS favorites with the PBS app: https://to.pbs.org/2Jb8twG Find more from PBS NewsHour at https://www.pbs.org/newshour Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/2HfsCD6 Follow us: Facebook: http://www.pbs.org/newshour Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/newshour Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/newshour Snapchat: @pbsnews

CategoryNews & Politics

John R. Bolton a former national security adviser's unpublished book manuscript appears to directly contradict President Trump’s impeachment defense 
The New York Times - Books - January 28, 2020- 
John R. Bolton spent 17 months as President Trump’s national security adviser.Doug Mills/The New York Times


Hi readers,
Here’s your weekly catch-up on everything you need to know going on in the book world.

The news:
In the draft of an unpublished book manuscript, a former national security adviser appears to directly contradict President Trump’s impeachment defense. John R. Bolton writes that the president wanted to freeze aid to Ukraine until officials there agreed to investigate the Bidens and other Democrats. Bolton also says that he worried the president was granting favors to China’s and Turkey’s autocratic leaders.

“American Dirt,” the new novel by Jeanine Cummins about a migrant mother and her son fleeing a cartel, has been a hit with booksellers and even named a pick for Oprah’s book club. But its detractors say the story is “trauma porn” and exploits Mexicans’ pain.

·The John Newbery Medal, considered among the top prizes in children’s literature, went to a graphic novel, Jerry Craft’s “New Kid,” for the first time. “The Undefeated,” illustrated by Kadir Nelson and written by Kwame Alexander, won the Randolph Caldecott Medal for the most distinguished American picture book for children.

“Interior Chinatown,” the fourth book by Charles Yu, out today, explores Asian-American stereotypes, something that has preoccupied the novelist and TV writer throughout his life and work. “Even as a kid, I was always obsessed with these questions,” he says. “Who am I? How did I get here? What am I doing in this place?”

Knopf named Reagan Arthur, formerly of Little, Brown, as its new publisher. She succeeds Sonny Mehta, the longtime executive who died last month, and becomes only the fourth publisher in the company’s history.

Marlon James and his editor, Jake Morrissey, are teaming up to host a podcast. On “Marlon and Jake Read Dead People,” they spar over Dickens and Trollope but also discuss Jackie Collins and “Nothing Lasts Forever,” the 1979 novel by Roderick Thorp on which the film “Die Hard” is based. The first two episodes are available now.

Fiction out today: “Run Me to Earth,” by Paul Yoon; “When We Were Vikings,” by Andrew David MacDonald.

Nonfiction out today: “Black Wave,” by Kim Ghattas; “Invisible Americans,” by Jeff Madrick; “Friendship,” by Lydia Denworth; “A Woman Like Her,” by Sanam Maher; “Early,” by Sarah DiGregorio; “Billion Dollar Brand Club,” by Lawrence Ingrassia; “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine,” by Rashid Khalidi; “Why We’re Polarized,” by Ezra Klein; “The Bomb,” by Fred Kaplan; “My War Criminal,” by Jessica Stern; “Mengele,” by David G. Marwell.

The critics:
Dwight Garner reviews “The Resisters,” the new dystopian novel by Gish Jen, which imagines a future surveillance state and its caste system. Into this landscape, Garner writes, “like a flower slipped into the barrel of a rifle, Jen inserts an almost old-fashioned baseball novel.”

Qandeel Baloch was called “Pakistan’s Kim Kardashian,” the country’s first social media star — a figure of intense fascination and outrage, adored and reviled for posting videos of herself online. At 26, she was murdered by one of her six brothers. “A Woman Like Her,” by Sanam Maher, tells her story, and Parul Sehgal calls the book an “exemplary work of investigative journalism.”

· And Jennifer Szalai writes about Kyle Chayka’s “The Longing for Less,” a dive into minimalism’s perennial appeal. She praises his examination, which touches on art, music, philosophy and more, saying that Chayka sees minimalism “as a shadow to material progress, a reaction to abundance, a manifestation of civilization’s discontents.”

That’s all for now. Please stay in touch and let me know what you think – whether it’s about this newsletter, our reviews, our podcast, our literary calendar, our Instagram or what you’re reading. We on the Books desk read all of it, and I’ll make every effort to write back. You can reach me at books@nytimes.com.
All my best,
Joumana Khatib
Books at The New York Times


Bolton Was Concerned That Trump Did Favors for Autocratic Leaders, Book Says
The former national security adviser shared his unease with the attorney general, who cited his own worries about the president’s conversations with the leaders of Turkey and China.

According to John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, Attorney General William P. Barr was concerned about President Trump’s conversations with autocratic leaders in two countries.Credit...Tom Brenner/Reuters

Mr. Bolton has written a book about his time in the White House that is expected to be released this year.Credit...Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/john-bolton-trump-book-barr.html?te=1&nl=books&emc=edit_bk_20200128&campaign_id=69&instance_id=15523&segment_id=20739&user_id=c5ed3af7cf6db33805e8b866043ab876®i_id=10148370220200128

By Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman
Published Jan. 27, 2020Updated Jan. 28, 2020

WASHINGTON — John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, privately told Attorney General William P. Barr last year that he had concerns that President Trump was effectively granting personal favors to the autocratic leaders of Turkey and China, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.

UPDATE
John Bolton’s book highlights Trump’s dealings with China and Turkey.


Mr. Barr responded by pointing to a pair of Justice Department investigations of companies in those countries and said he was worried that Mr. Trump had created the appearance that he had undue influence over what would typically be independent inquiries, according to the manuscript. Backing up his point, Mr. Barr mentioned conversations Mr. Trump had with the leaders, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and President Xi Jinping of China.
Mr. Bolton’s account underscores the fact that the unease about Mr. Trump’s seeming embrace of authoritarian leaders, long expressed by experts and his opponents, also existed among some of the senior cabinet officers entrusted by the president to carry out his foreign policy and national security agendas.
Mr. Bolton recounted his discussion with Mr. Barr in a draft of an unpublished book manuscript that he submitted nearly a month ago to the White House for review. People familiar with the manuscript described its contents on the condition of anonymity.

The book also contains an account of Mr. Trump telling Mr. Bolton in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations of political rivals, The New York Times reported on Sunday. The matter is at the heart of the articles of impeachment against the president.
Early Tuesday, the Justice Department’s spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, posted a statement on Twitter disputing aspects of Mr. Bolton’s account.
“There was no discussion of ‘personal favors’ or ‘undue influence’ on investigations, nor did Attorney General Barr state that the President’s conversations with foreign leaders was improper,” the statement said. “If this is truly what Mr. Bolton has written, then it seems he is attributing to Attorney General Barr his own current views — views with which Attorney General Barr does not agree.”

A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment on Mr. Barr’s conversations with Mr. Bolton. In a statement on Monday, Mr. Bolton, his publisher and his literary agency said they had not shared the manuscript with The Times.
“There was absolutely no coordination with The New York Times or anyone else regarding the appearance of information about his book, ‘The Room Where It Happened,’ at online booksellers,” Mr. Bolton, Simon & Schuster and Javelin said in a joint statement. “Any assertion to the contrary is unfounded speculation.”

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, responded that “The Times does not discuss its sources, but I should point out that no one has questioned the accuracy of our report.”
Mr. Bolton wrote in the manuscript that Mr. Barr singled out Mr. Trump’s conversations with Mr. Xi about the Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE, which agreed in 2017 to plead guilty and pay heavy fines for violating American sanctions on doing business with North Korea, Iran and other countries. A year later, Mr. Trump lifted the sanctions over objections from his own advisers and Republican lawmakers.

Mr. Barr also cited remarks Mr. Trump made to Mr. Erdogan in 2018 about the investigation of Halkbank, Turkey’s second-largest state-owned bank. The Justice Department was scrutinizing Halkbank on fraud and money-laundering charges for helping Iran evade sanctions imposed by the Treasury Department.

Mr. Erdogan had been making personal appeals to Mr. Trump to use his authority to halt any additional enforcement against the bank. In 2018, Mr. Erdogan told reporters in Turkey that Mr. Trump had promised to instruct cabinet members to follow through on the matter. The bank had hired a top Republican fund-raiser to lobby the administration on the issue.

For months, it looked as though the unusual lobbying effort might succeed; but in October, the Justice Department indicted the bank for aiding Iran. The charges were seen in part as an attempt by the administration to show that it was taking a tough line on Turkey amid an outcry over Mr. Trump’s endorsement of its incursions in Syria.

Mr. Bolton’s statements in the book align with other comments he has made since leaving the White House in September. In November, he said in a private speech that none of Mr. Trump’s advisers shared the president’s views on Turkey and that he believed Mr. Trump adopted a more permissive approach to the country because of his financial ties there, NBC News reported. Mr. Trump’s company has a property in Turkey.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly praised dictators throughout his presidency. Last year, he said, “Where’s my favorite dictator?” as he waited to meet with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Mr. Trump’s soft spot for authoritarians dates at least to his presidential campaign, when he praised Saddam Hussein for being “good” at killing terrorists and suggested that the world would be better off were Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the deposed Libyan dictator who was killed in a violent uprising in 2011, “in charge right now.” Mr. Trump then suggested the ouster of both men was ultimately worse for the Middle East because the Islamic State had filled the void.
Mr. Trump declared himself “a big fan” of Mr. Erdogan as they sat side by side in the Oval Office last fall after Mr. Trump cleared the way for Turkish forces to invade Syria, though he warned Mr. Erdogan behind the scenes against the offensive.

Of Mr. Xi, Mr. Trump has been similarly effusive. When the Chinese Communist Party eliminated term limits, allowing Mr. Xi to keep his tenure open-ended, Mr. Trump extolled the outcome.
Mr. Xi had personally asked Mr. Trump to intervene to save ZTE, which was on the brink of collapse because of tough American penalties for sanctions violations.

Lifting the sanctions on ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications giant that also serves as a geopolitical pawn for its government, most likely helped Mr. Trump negotiate with Mr. Xi in the trade war between the two countries. But Republican lawmakers and others objected to helping a Chinese company that broke the law and has been accused of posing a national security threat.
Mr. Bolton’s reputation for muscular foreign policy was always an odd fit with Mr. Trump, who often threatens excessive force but rarely reacts with it. Mr. Bolton was pleased when Mr. Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, including the United States, that the Obama administration had entered into. Other Trump advisers had urged him against it.

But Mr. Trump’s lack of action after Iranian aggression against the United States rankled Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Bolton’s book has already netted significant sales. Shortly after the disclosure of its contents on Sunday night, Amazon listed the book for purchase. By Monday evening, it was No. 17 on Amazon’s best-seller list.

Eric Lipton contributed reporting.
Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for coverage of President Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. @NYTMike
Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. Previously, she worked at Politico, The New York Post and The New York Daily News. @maggieNYT

WATCH: Democratic counsel’s questioning of committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
PBS NewsHour

Published on Dec 9, 2019
Barry Berke, the House Democratic counsel, questioned Republican counsel Stephen Castor and fellow Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman on Dec. 9. The questioning came on the second day of public hearings by the House Judiciary Committee as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Berke asked a question that both Castor and Goldman appeared to agree on. “Is it your experience, that when someone has done something wrongful and corrupt, and they’re dealing with somebody who’s not in the scheme, that they state their intentions to do something wrongful and corrupt?” Berke asked. Castor said no, in a general sense. In answering Berke’s question, Goldman said, “You almost never have a defendant ... who would ever explicitly say … 'I’m going to bribe you now. I’m going to ask you for a bribe. I’m going to extort you.' That’s not how things work.” The Judiciary and Intelligence committees have led the probe, hearing testimony from witnesses and legal experts about Trump’s conduct. House lawmakers are currently drafting the articles of impeachment, on which House lawmakers are anticipated to vote in the coming weeks. The impeachment case has revolved around a July 25 phone call in which Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. 

News Now Stream 01/29/20 (FNN)

Trump supporters at a rally in Battle Creek, Michigan said Wednesday's impeachment vote didn't change their minds. The largely Democratic crowd at a cafe in San Francisco said Democrats had to make a statement about the president's conduct. (Dec. 19)

Trump impeachment trial: Defense ignores Bolton bombshell about Ukraine aid for investigations

POLITICS
PUBLISHED TUE, JAN 28 2020
Christina Wilkie@CHRISTINAWILKIE
Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB
Yelena Dzhanova@YELENADZHANOVA


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/27/impeachment-trial-trump-lawyers-lay-out-defense-ignore-bolton-bombshell-about-ukraine-aid-for-investigations.html
In this screenshot taken from a Senate Television webcast, Legal Counsel for President Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz speaks during impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol on January 27, 2020 in Washington, DC.
Senate Television | Getty Images

KEY POINTS
On day 2 of Trump defense, attorneys ignore reports that National Security Advisor John Bolton says Trump directly tied Ukraine aid to investigations he wanted.
Key Republican senators say Bolton news shifts the tide in favor of calling him as a witness.
Trump lawyers target the Bidens, seeking to rationalize Trump’s policy towards Ukraine and Rudy Giuliani’s outsized role.


President Donald Trump’s lawyers laid out a multi-pronged defense in the Senate impeachment trial Monday, pushing back on House Democrats’ case for Trump’s conviction and removal from office.
The defense team sought to undermine the arguments presented last week by the House impeachment managers, while making the historical case for Trump’s acquittal and rationalizing his dealings with Ukraine.
They also presented expansive arguments defending Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and raising suspicions about the conduct of Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
But as of 8 p.m. on Monday evening, Trump’s lawyers had not addressed former national security advisor John Bolton’s reported claim that Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in order to secure investigation into his political opponents. Trump denied Bolton’s claim, reportedly made in a manuscript of his upcoming memoir.
The defense team has 24 cumulative hours to present its opening statements. The lawyers kicked off their arguments in an abbreviated session Saturday morning, accusing Democrats of pursuing Trump’s impeachment simply to remove him from the ballot in the 2020 presidential election.

The House voted last month to impeach Trump on articles of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, both related to his dealings with Ukraine. It remains unlikely that two thirds of the Senate will vote to remove Trump, as the Constitution requires.

Here are the day’s biggest moments from the Senate trial:
GOP senators say report on Bolton’s book boosts need for witnesses in trial...
The New York Times reported Sunday that Bolton’s claims in an upcoming book that Trump said he wanted a military aid package to Ukraine withheld until Kyiv agreed to announce investigations into his Democratic political opponents, including the Bidens.
Trump denied the reported allegations on Twitter early Monday morning. CNBC has not seen a copy of Bolton’s manuscript.
Democrats have held Bolton up as a key witness who must be heard in the trial. And the handful of Republicans seen as being moderate enough to side with the Democrats on witnesses appeared to be taking Bolton’s reported claims seriously.
Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah told reporters Monday morning that “I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton.”
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, released a statement saying the reports on Bolton’s book “strengthen the case for witnesses.”
They “have prompted a number of conversations with my colleagues,” Collins said.
Sen. Susan Collins✔@SenatorCollins
My statement on Bolton developments.

​3:49 PM - Jan 27, 2020

Fox News Live-Trump Impeachment Live- Fox News

Watch LIVE: Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump day 8 

ABC News Live Coverage
ABC News

WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate
#trumpimpeachmenttrial - Washington Post

The House managers wrapped up their arguments against President Trump on Jan. 24. Trump’s team, including lawyers Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, now has 24 hours to present their case. After Trump’s lawyers conclude their presentation, senators will have an opportunity to submit questions to both sides in writing. Following that, debate will turn to whether to call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Impeachment Trial Day 6- Bolton revelations fuel fresh calls for testimony as Trump mounts defense
#impeachmenttrial #impeachment #trial
Impeachment Trial Day 6: Bolton revelations fuel fresh calls for testimony as Trump mounts defense
CBS News
As President Trump's attorneys prepare to resume defense arguments in the Senate impeachment trial Monday afternoon, new revelations about the president's attempts to pressure Ukraine could throw a wrench in Republicans' plans to vote on acquittal as early as this week. Follow Live Updates:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PRXQE-YuepQ

Trumps  Impeachment  inquiry
Democrats demand Bolton testify after report his book says Trump tied Ukraine aid to Biden probe
The reported account in an unpublished manuscript by the former national security adviser counters the White House's defense of the president.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/democrats-demand-bolton-testimony-after-report-his-book-says-trump-n1123491
Jan. 27, 2020  By Lauren Egan

WASHINGTON — Democrats stepped up their calls Sunday night for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial after an explosive report alleged that in his unpublished book, he said Trump personally tied aid for Ukraine to an investigation of the Bidens — an account that conflicts with the president's.
"John Bolton has the evidence," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted.

According to the manuscript, as reported by The New York Times on Sunday night, Trump told Bolton that nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine would not be released until it offered assistance with investigations of Democratic targets, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
NBC News has not seen a copy of the manuscript or verified the report, which cited multiple sources familiar with Bolton's account.
The contents of the manuscript were described as a rough account of how Bolton would testify should he be called as a witness in the Senate trial. The prospect of new witnesses has been viewed as unlikely given most Republicans' reluctance to accept additional testimony.

Trump addressed the report in a series of tweets Sunday night. "I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book," Trump said.
Hill Democrats said Sunday that the new report highlighted the urgency of a Senate request for Bolton's testimony — a move that would require several GOP votes.
"It's up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump's actions testify in the Senate trial," Schumer tweeted. Mulvaney is Trump's acting chief of staff.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tweeted that because of the report that Bolton had firsthand knowledge of Trump's decision that ran counter to the White House's account, the "refusal of the Senate to call for him, other relevant witnesses, and documents is now even more indefensible."

Full coverage of President Donald Trump's impeachment trial

https://www.nbcnews.com/Trump-impeachment-inquiry
The House Democrats' impeachment managers said in a statement that there could be "no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President's defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump. Senators should insist that Mr. Bolton be called as a witness, and provide his notes and other relevant documents."

In a statement on Monday, NSC spokesman John Ullyot said, "Ambassador Bolton's manuscript was submitted to the NSC for pre-publication review and has been under initial review by the NSC. No White House personnel outside NSC have reviewed the manuscript."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. — one of the senators running for the Democratic presidential nomination whose campaigns have been affected by the need to serve as jurors in the impeachment trial — echoed the sentiment Sunday.

"I don't know how my Republican colleagues cannot call for witnesses," she said while campaigning in Iowa, adding: "We should all be calling for witnesses. We have to get to the truth."

iden, also campaigning in Iowa, told NBC on Sunday night that he did not have "any idea of what's in the book."

"But if it in fact contradicts Trump, it's not a surprise," he said.

The president's allies have said the aid delay was unconnected to Trump's requests that Ukrainian officials announce investigations that stood to undercut his domestic political opponents, including Biden.

In the unpublished book, Bolton is reported to allege that other administration officials, including Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr, were made aware of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani's unusual involvement in a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine well before it became a central element of the whistleblower complaint at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.
Charles Cooper, an attorney for Bolton, appeared to confirm the substance of the report Sunday, saying the manuscript was submitted to the National Security Council last month for a standard review for classified information.
It is "clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript," he said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last week, Trump expressed misgivings over the prospect of Bolton's testimony.
"The problem with John is that it's a national security problem," he told reporters at an impromptu news conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, adding that Bolton "knows some of my thoughts, what I think about leaders — what happens if he reveals what I think about a leader and it's not very positive?"

Lauren Egan, Alex Moe and Hallie Jackson reported from Washington. Maura Barrett reported from Des Moines, Iowa
Lauren Egan

 Murkowski of Alaska in the Capitol building on Tuesday

Impeachment: is Trump set to survive and win a second term?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/18/donald-trump-impeachment-democrats-republicans-senate-election
 Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally in Milwaukee on Thursday. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty

“I think there’s an element of genuine incomprehension. He thinks he’s the greatest president of all time” ... Bill Galston
 Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders face off at the Democratic debate in Des Moines. Photograph: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
But Galston, a former deputy assistant to Bill Clinton for domestic policy, recalled that the last impeachment had its own dichotomies. “As Clinton careened towards a Senate trial in late 1998, Democrats won a big victory in the midterm elections and Newt Gingrich, the speaker of the House, felt compelled to resign. Talk about a split screen. I’ve seen this movie before.
“But President Clinton was more disciplined. When he had ceremonies at the White House he never talked about the other side of the screen. President Trump is obliterating the line.”
‘Not paying attention’
In what would normally be a week of crisis, Trump was claiming other perceived victories. A caravan of about 2,000 Hondurans, reminiscent of those the president demonised in 2018, was on the move but looked unlikely to reach the US-Mexico border this time, in part because of new asylum agreements with Central American countries. The number of people crossing the border has fallen for seven months in a row.
Trump even seems to have got away with his biggest, most impulsive gamble in foreign policy, the assassination of Iran’s top general, Qassem Suleimani, as the threat of all war apparently receded. “Trump Wins His Standoff with Iran”, proclaimed a Washington Post headline above a column by Marc Thiessen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former chief speechwriter for George W Bush.
The president’s final boost of the week may have come at the Democratic debate in Iowa where, in the eyes of some critics, no one claimed the mantle of Trump-slayer.
“I came away feeling worried for the Democratic party,” political analyst Van Jones said on CNN, comparing it to “a big bowl of cold oatmeal” and warning: “There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out, and I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible.”
Trump has, in fact, failed to keep many promises: making Mexico pay for a border wall; growing the economy at 4% a year; repealing and replacing Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act; passing a $1tn infrastructure bill. Even his China trade deal has been condemned as a surrender. None of that has stopped his campaign ads portraying him as a man of action and touting a list of achievements in contrast to “do nothing” Democrats obsessed with the arcane business of impeachment.
Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution thinktank at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, said: “The trial does not feature Trump himself and could turn out to be intensely boring. A lot of viewers are not paying attention. It doesn’t affect their lives. That’s what I find when I travel.”
And the president, who has already raised millions of donor dollars off impeachment, will try to turn it to his political advantage. Whalen added: “Since he first started running for president, he realised he could get very far by making it an ‘us versus them’ mentality. In a swaggering way, he makes himself a victim. He’s not suffering but he just makes you believe he’s being persecuted.”
As Democrats marched the articles to the Senate, the president basked in policy success. Many think re-election is coming
It was, the White House tweeted on Friday, “an incredible week” for Donald Trump. On that, no one could disagree. But what kind of incredible depended on which end of Pennsylvania Avenue you were standing.
At the Capitol, the third impeachment trial of a US president got underway in hushed solemnity as senators contemplated the ultimate sanction, removing Trump from office. It was a day his most ardent critics had long awaited and some thought inevitable.
Yet the White House, less than two miles away, might have been in a different cosmos. The president held a boisterous ceremony to sign a trade agreement with China, “the biggest deal anybody has ever seen”, and celebrated as Congress passed another deal with Canada and Mexico. He toasted stock market records, low unemployment and a sustained fall in illegal crossings at the southern border.
It had the makings of an election year narrative of “promises made, promises kept” that Trump’s campaign hopes will resonate more than a Senate litigation of his dealings with Ukraine which, in any case, appears certain to lead to his acquittal.
“He seems determined to check as many boxes as he can,” said Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington. “If you look at the three pillars of the distinct outlook he brought with him to the White House – getting tough on immigrants, leaning hard against unbalanced trade relationships and an ‘America first’ foreign policy – you’d have to say over recent months he’s gone three for three.”
To be sure, there was plenty of bad news for Trump. Democrats from the House of Representatives marched funereally through the Capitol to transfer the articles of impeachment, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, to their Senate counterparts. The entrance of Chief Justice John Roberts injected sudden grandeur and gravity. Chuck Schumer, Democratic minority leader in the Senate, said: “When the chief justice walked in, you could feel the weight of the moment. I saw members on both sides of the aisle visibly gulp.”
Moreover, as senators prepare to weigh evidence that Trump improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate a political rival, a federal watchdog concluded that he broke the law when he froze military aid to the country last year. And Lev Parnas, a close associate of Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, tossed in another hand grenade with a TV interview that directly implicated the president in efforts to pressure Ukraine. “President Trump knew exactly what was going on,” Parnas told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
For most viewers of that network, and millions of liberals across America, it was yet another nail in the coffin of a man who has long been beyond redemption and whose re-election is unthinkable.
But not the first time, there was a profound disconnection with Trumpworld, a place where the sun is always shining. Here, in meetings, ceremonies and rallies, the president basks in constant affirmation from fervent supporters and sycophantic staff. Such is the bubble of self-congratulation, it is perhaps not surprising Trump is baffled by the contempt and derision he glimpses outside it. He frequently asks bemusedly how a president with his record could be impeached.
Galston said: “I think there’s an element of genuine incomprehension. He thinks he’s the greatest president of all time and his protestations of injured innocence I take seriously as a representation of his inner state.”
On Wednesday, as dozens of reporters craned their necks beneath the crystal chandeliers of the ornate East Room, Trump stood with with Chinese vice-premier Liu He for the signing of the US-China phase one trade agreement. Before they put pen to paper, the president spent the best part of an hour giving shout-outs to his favourite officials and members of Congress. Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, was a “much better golfer than people would understand”.
Amid the applause, adulation and levity, it was hard to believe the existential threat of impeachment was unfolding up the road. That was just one more laugh line. “Kevin McCarthy, as you know, left for the hoax,” Trump said of the Republican minority leader, prompting chuckles. Then he added darkly: “Well, we have to do that, otherwise it becomes a more serious hoax.”
On Thursday, the paradox continued. Senators passed Trump’s United States-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, or USMCA, with an 89-10 vote, then were sworn in as jurors for an impeachment trial certain to be far more divisive. Galston added: “To have the Senate vote with nearly 90 in favour of the trade deal and be split down the middle on impeachment on the same day is stunning.”

 Trump impeachment: how the day unfolded as House sends articles to Senate – video

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/18/donald-trump-impeachment-democrats-republicans-senate-election

Jeffrey Toobin on impeachment trial: Trump is winning here
CNN News 

Mitt Romney-Media caption Mitt Romney- 'Important to hear from John Bolton'

From left, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan D-Pa., Rep Abigail Spanberger D-Va., and Rep Elaine Luria. D-Va., walk at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019, as the House of Representatives debate impeaching President Donald Trump on two charges, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

"Republicans' 75% problem on impeachment witnesses..... "... Schumer....
Don't underestimate the pressure GOP senators are under