Nancy Pelosi’s giant step toward impeachment, which she resisted for so long, may well backfire against the Democrats.
But by any fair analysis, the transcript released yesterday of President Trump’s call with the Ukraine leader did not help his cause.
This is not a partisan observation, as I’ve repeatedly said and written that the media coverage of Trump is relentlessly negative and often unfair. And as I noted yesterday, the press has so badly overhyped so many Trump controversies, large and small, that there is a collective numbness to the latest cries of scandal.
But now that we have the transcript of the July call, it’s clear that the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reports were largely accurate. It was not, as the president said yesterday, a “nothing call.”
That doesn’t mean it rises to the level of an impeachable offense. It doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate questions about Joe Biden’s intervention in Ukraine while his son was making big bucks from a gas giant.
But if you flipped the script—if Barack Obama had asked Ukraine in 2011 to help investigate one of Mitt Romney’s sons—Republicans would have gone nuclear.
One thing we learned from the transcript is that Trump brought up a company with Ukrainian ties that is said to have been involved in the hacking of Democratic emails during the last campaign.
This came right after Volodymyr Zelensky was talking about military aide, saying “we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.”
“I would like you to do us a favor, though…I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”
Crowdstrike is the company supposedly tied to the 2016 hacking.
Zelensky is friendly throughout, promising cooperation, and was the first to bring up Rudy Giuliani.
Then Trump played the Biden card and referenced the former vice president pressuring Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who had what was apparently an inactive case against the Ukrainian gas giant that was paying Hunter Biden big bucks.
“I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair…Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great…
“There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.”
So in just one week, we have confirmation that Trump did ask Zelensky to investigate his political rival, which would obviously help the president’s reelection prospects.
But was there pressure? A quid pro quo? Trump did not specifically bring up military aid, but then, he didn’t have to. Zelensky was acutely aware that the White House—the president did it personally—had held up $391 million in appropriated payments to his country.
“All they’re talking about is nonsense,” Trump said at the U.N. yesterday, adding: “It’s all fake stuff the media makes up with the Democrats, their partners, they’re one and the same, they’re partners.”
And Zelensky, at a televised meeting, said he never felt pressured by Trump.
As the pundits parse the call, this is ultimately not a legal question. High crimes and misdemeanors is whatever a majority of the House says it is.
Pelosi may come to regret unleashing these forces, since polls show that impeachment remains unpopular with a majority of the country.
RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia’s crown prince said he bears responsibility for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year by Saudi operatives “because it happened under my watch,” according to a PBS documentary to be broadcast next week.
Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, September 18, 2019. Mandel Ngan/Pool via REUTERS
Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto ruler, has not spoken publicly about the killing inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The CIA and some Western governments have said he ordered it, but Saudi officials say he had no role.
The death sparked a global uproar, tarnishing the crown prince’s image and imperiling ambitious plans to diversify the economy of the world’s top oil exporter and open up cloistered Saudi society. He has not since visited the United States or Europe.
“It happened under my watch. I get all the responsibility, because it happened under my watch,” he told PBS’ Martin Smith, according to a preview of a documentary, “The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia,” set to air on Oct. 1, ahead of the one-year anniversary of Khashoggi’s death.
After initial denials, the official Saudi narrative blamed the murder on rogue operatives. The public prosecutor said the then-deputy intelligence chief ordered the repatriation of Khashoggi, a royal insider who became an outspoken critic, but the lead negotiator ordered him killed after discussions for his return failed.
Saud al-Qahtani, a former top royal adviser whom Reuters reported gave orders over Skype to the killers, briefed the hit team on Khashoggi’s activities before the operation, the prosecutor said.
Asked how the killing could happen without him knowing about it, Smith quotes Prince Mohammed as saying: “We have 20 million people. We have 3 million government employees.”
Smith asked whether the killers could have taken private government jets, to which the crown prince responded: “I have officials, ministers to follow things, and they’re responsible. They have the authority to do that.” Smith describes the December exchange, which apparently took place off camera, in the preview of the documentary.
A senior U.S. administration official told Reuters in June the Trump administration was pressing Riyadh for “tangible progress” toward holding to account those behind the killing ahead.
Eleven Saudi suspects have been put on trial in secretive proceedings but only a few hearings have been held. A U.N. report has called for Prince Mohammed and other senior Saudi officials to be investigated.
Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist, was last seen at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2, where he was to receive papers ahead of his wedding. His body was reportedly dismembered and removed from the building, and his remains have not been found.
Reporting by Stephen Kalin; Editing by Gerry Doyle
LONDON — Despite the best efforts of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the doors of the British Parliament were thrust open again Wednesday, inviting some of the most raucous scenes of this febrile Brexit crisis.
Johnson suspended Parliament earlier this month, but a crushing, historic decision by the Supreme Court overturned that Tuesday, with 11 justices ruling unanimously that he did it to silence his Brexit opponents.
The prime minister was forced to cut short a visit to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, flying back to London on a red-eye just before Parliament reopened.
Lawmakers who thought they would not be sitting again until Oct. 14 rushed back to the capital to retake their seats Wednesday morning.
Once in the chamber, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox branded Parliament a "disgrace" for blocking the government's Brexit plans, as well as the early general election that Johnson says he wants.
His baritone voice rasping above the heckles of all sides, Cox said lawmakers were "too cowardly" and added that "the time is coming when even these turkeys won't be able to prevent Christmas."
Boris Johnson walks off stage at the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.Johannes Eisele / AFP - Getty Images
However — aside from a humiliating symbolic blow for the prime minister — it's not entirely clear what impact the decision will have on Johnson, Brexit, or Britain's political turmoil.
"This extra parliamentary time is going to be filled, there's no doubt about that," Dominic Grieve, a former Conservative Party lawmaker effectively fired by Johnson over Brexit, told NBC News. "Holding the government to account and asking questions about what the government is doing is what Parliament is all about."
FT editorial on the Supreme Ciuet’s damning indictment of Boris Johnson’s abuse of power. A politician with a shred of self respect would resign. The courts have spoken; now the people should have their say in an election #Proroguedhttps://t.co/zZ4bWJVwxQ via @financialtimes
Johnson landed in London shortly before the parliamentary session started. If he makes a speech to the Commons it would be a landmark event following such an unprecedented court ruling against him.
In another political era, such a scathing judgement from the highest court in the land might have been expected to produce resignations and perhaps an implosion of the government itself.
The prime minister's usual opponents were joined in calls for Johnson's resignation by the Financial Times, a sober, even-handed newspaper that does not print such opinions lightly.
"Faced with such a damning judgment, any premier with a shred of respect for British democracy and the responsibilities of his office would resign," the paper said in an editorial.
The messages from those in Johnson's government, however, have not been ones of contrition.
Michael Gove, a senior member of Johnson's Cabinet, told Sky News that the government "respectfully disagreed" with the ruling.
The court supported the widely held belief among government opponents and independent experts that Johnson shut down the legislature purely to stop lawmakers scrutinizing his plans to leave the E.U.
Lawmakers, including many from Johnson's own Conservative Party, have said they will do everything they can to stop what official forecasts say could be a damaging "no deal Brexit."
They have already passed a major bit of legislation on this front. In the dwindling days before the suspension kicked in, they pushed through a bill that would force Johnson to request a Brexit extension if he doesn't get a deal by Halloween.
Another way to use the extra time might be for the opposition to try to force an enfeebled government into an early general election. But right now there is no guarantee the opposition would win. And defeat would hand the Brexit initiative right back to Johnson, giving him the power he currently lacks to finish his plans.
"Our priority is to prevent a no deal exit and when that has been achieved ... we will then be ready with a motion of no confidence," opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC, referring to the "vote of no confidence" that would be needed to depose the prime minister.
Nevertheless, there is plenty for lawmakers to do, according to Jack Simson Caird, a former constitutional law specialist in the House of Commons Library, which provides briefings to lawmakers.
"You need Parliament to keep its foot on the pedal and keep the pressure up at a time like this," said Caird, who is now a senior research fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, a research group in London. "The general point will be: Just ask the government what they are doing."
Alexander Smith
Alexander Smith is a London-based senior reporter for NBC News Digital.
Nazli Edross-Fakier met Harry and Meghan when they visited her sister's home in Bo-Kaap, Cape Town. Lauren Said-Moorhouse/CNN
As well as treating us to Archie’s first appearance here in Cape Town, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have opened up about parenting at other engagements on the royal tour.
On Tuesday, Meghan and Harry told wellwishers in Cape Town that their baby son has been enjoying his visit to the city.
Meghan “said Archie is the most calm, beautiful, easy baby,” Nazli Edross-Fakier, 61, told CNN, adding that the new mother had told her: “He travels well — he slept most of the time on her chest. And then Daddy said, 'He’s come alive, he’s shouting and screaming and carrying on.'”
Edross-Fakier met the royal couple when they visited her sister Shaamila Samoodien’s home in Cape Town's Bo-Kaap neighborhood on Tuesday afternoon.
During their visit, the family served the royals tea and koeksisters, a popular doughnut-like South African snack, flavored with cinnamon, aniseed and cardamom.
“They were like two normal people that came into our home." said Edross-Fakier. "There was nothing ostentatious or pretentious about them and I think they were just happy to be sitting down, taking a breather from all the people and the cameras.
Yahoo UK is committed to finding you the best products at the best prices. At times, Yahoo UK may receive a share from purchases made via links on this page.
Four-month-old Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor made his royal tour debut on Wednesday morning, joining proud parents Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for a visit to the Tutu Legacy Foundation in Cape Town.
The Sussexes met with human rights activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu and his daughter, Thandeka.
Archie was all smiles as he sat on his mother’s lap during the visit, clad in a pair of striped dungarees, which cost £12.99 from H&M’s conscious range.
Baby Archie attended his first royal engagement in South Africa with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in adorable striped dungarees. [Photo: Getty]
Meghan Markle holds Archie as they meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Cape Town, South Africa. [Photo: Getty]
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex with their son Archie [Photo: Getty]
The dungarees, made out of organic cotton, were worn over a plain white bodysuit and grey/blue £13 socks from Bonpoint. Two of Archie’s cousins - Prince George and Princess Charlotte - have also worn items from the French fashion house that specialises in childrenswear.
Meghan’s outfit was equally covetable: a blue, brushstroke patterned dress by Canadian brand, Club Monaco. The elegant Dramah Silk Dress, which was £368.52, has already sold out.
On Twitter, royal fans were were quick to comment on his outfit.
“Archie is so cute and love his dungarees!” said one user. Whilst another commented: “Archie has better fashion than me”.
Later today Meghan and Harry will embark on separate, solo visits.
Harry will head to Botswana whilst Meghan will attend a women entrepreneurs event at Woodstock Exchange, followed by a visit to women’s HIV charity, mothers2mothers.
Get Archie’s look
Dungarees and Bodysuit by H&M | £12.99 | Shop here
And the loss of permanently frozen lands threatens to unleash even more carbon, hastening the decline.
There is some guarded hope that the worst impacts can be avoided, with deep and immediate cuts to carbon emissions.
This is the third in a series of special reports that have been produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over the past 12 months.
However, this new study, looking at the impact of rising temperatures on our oceans and frozen regions, is perhaps the most worrying and depressing of the three.
So what have they found and how bad is it?
In a nutshell, the waters are getting warmer, the world's ice is melting rapidly, and these have implications for almost every living thing on the planet.
"The blue planet is in serious danger right now, suffering many insults from many different directions and it's our fault," said Dr Jean-Pierre Gattuso, a co-ordinating lead author of the report.
The scientists are "virtually certain" that the global ocean has now warmed without pause since 1970.
The waters have soaked up more than 90% of the extra heat generated by humans over the past decades, and the rate at which it has taken up this heat has doubled since 1993.
Where the seas were once rising mainly due to thermal expansion, the IPCC says this is now happening principally because of the melting of Greenland and Antarctica.
Interactive
Qaleraliq glacier, southern Greenland
2018
1993
Thanks to warming, the loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet in the years between 2007 and 2016 tripled compared to the 10 years previously.
Greenland saw a doubling of mass loss over the same period. The report expects this to continue throughout the 21st Century and beyond.
For glaciers in areas like the tropical Andes, Central Europe and North Asia, the projections are that they will lose 80% of their ice by 2100 under a high carbon emissions scenario. This will have huge consequences for millions of people.
What are the implications of all this melting ice?
All this extra water gushing down to the seas is driving up average ocean water levels around the world. That will continue over the decades to come.
This new report says that global average sea levels could increase by up to 1.1m by 2100, in the worst warming scenario. This is a rise of 10cm on previous IPCC projections because of the larger ice loss now happening in Antarctica.
"What surprised me the most is the fact that the highest projected sea level rise has been revised upwards and it is now 1.1 metres," said Dr Jean-Pierre Gattuso, from the CNRS, France's national science agency.
"This will have widespread consequences for low lying coasts where almost 700 million people live and it is worrying."
Analysis by David Shukman - Science Editor, Hull
On the east coast of England, most of the city of Hull lies below the level of a typical high tide. The sea here can be both a source of wealth and a threat to life.
So the conclusions of the IPCC report have real meaning. A storm surge on a winter's night six years ago found a weak link in a sea wall and flooded businesses and homes.
New defences were ordered and the construction teams are now at work along the shore. But the barriers cannot protect everyone. Computer simulations, developed by the University of Hull, show that if the level of the ocean is one metre higher than now the centre of the city ought to be fine but neighbouring areas will go under.
This highlights a painful question, faced in low-lying places the world over: which should be saved and which should be abandoned as the waters rise?
The report says clearly that some island states are likely to become uninhabitable beyond 2100.
The scientists also say that relocating people away from threatened communities is worth considering "if safe alternative localities are available".
What will these changes mean for you?
One of the key messages is the way that the warming of the oceans and cryosphere (the icy bits on land) is part of a chain of poor outcomes that will affect millions of people well into the future.
Under higher emissions scenarios, even wealthy megacities such as New York or Shanghai and large tropical agricultural deltas such as the Mekong will face high or very high risks from sea level rise.
The report says that a world with severely increased levels of warm water will in turn give rise to big increases in nasty and dangerous weather events, such as surges from tropical cyclones.
"Extreme sea level events that are historically rare (once per century in the recent past) are projected to occur frequently (at least once per year) at many locations by 2050," the study says, even if future emissions of carbon are cut significantly.
"What we are seeing now is enduring and unprecedented change," said Prof Debra Roberts, a co-chair of an IPCC working group II.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
"Even if you live in an inland part of the world, the changes in the climate system, drawn in by the very large changes in the ocean and cryosphere are going to impact the way you live your life and the opportunities for sustainable development."
The ways in which you may be affected are vast - flood damage could increase by two or three orders of magnitude. The acidification of the oceans thanks to increased CO2 is threatening corals, to such an extent that even at 1.5C of warming, some 90% will disappear.
Species of fish will move as ocean temperatures rise. Seafood safety could even be compromised because humans could be exposed to increased levels of mercury and persistent organic pollutants in marine plants and animals. These pollutants are released from the same fossil fuel burning that release the climate warming gas CO2.
Even our ability to generate electricity will be impaired as warming melts the glaciers, altering the availability of water for hydropower.
Permafrost not so permanent
Huge amounts of carbon are stored in the permanently frozen regions of the world such as in Siberia and Northern Canada.
These are likely to change dramatically, with around 70% of the near surface permafrost set to thaw if emissions continue to rise.
The big worry is that this could free up "tens to hundreds of billions of tonnes" of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere by 2100. This would be a significant limitation on our ability to limit global warming in the centuries to come.
So what happens in the long term?
That's a key question and much depends on what we do in the near term to limit emissions.
However, there are some warnings in the report that some changes may not be easily undone. Data from Antarctica suggests the onset of "irreversible ice sheet instability" which could see sea level rise by several metres within centuries.
"We give this sea level rise information to 2300, and the reason for that is that there is a lot of change locked in, to the ice sheets and the contribution that will have to sea level rise," said Dr Nerilie Abram from the Australian National University in Canberra, who's a contributing lead author on the report.
"So even in a scenario where we can reduce greenhouse gases, there are still future sea level rise that people will have to plan for."
There may also be significant and irreversible loses of cultural knowledge through the fact that the fish species that indigenous communities rely on may move to escape warming.
Does the report offer some guarded hope?
Definitely. The report makes a strong play of the fact that the future of our oceans is still in our hands.
The formula is well worn at this stage - deep, rapid cuts in carbon emissions in line with the IPCC report last year that required 45% reductions by 2030.
"If we reduce emissions sharply, consequences for people and their livelihoods will still be challenging, but potentially more manageable for those who are most vulnerable," said Hoesung Lee, chair of the IPCC.
Indeed, some of the scientists involved in the report believe that public pressure on politicians is a crucial part of increasing ambition.
"After the demonstrations of young people last week, I think they are the best chance for us,," said Dr Jean-Pierre Gattuso.
"They are dynamic, they are active I am hopeful they will continue their actions and they will make society change."
