This segment of WION brings to you top stories of the morning from across the globe. Watch this video to get updated with the latest information.

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - November 1st, 2019

On the day Britain was supposed to have left the European Union, voters instead faced the start of an election campaign, with opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn pledging to overthrow a "rigged system" he said was run by billionaires and tax dodgers.

After failing to deliver Brexit by the October&nbsp;31 deadline, Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the December&nbsp;12 election to break what he cast as a political paralysis that had thwarted Britain's departure and undermined confidence in the economy.

Opinion polls suggest the election is Johnson's to lose. His Conservative Party is leading Labour by 15 to 17 percentage points, according to IpsosMORI and YouGov. Yet the overshadowing issue of Brexit, which has divided both major parties and their voters, could confound conventional calculations.

While Brexit frames the election, with Labour pledging to hold a second referendum on it, it is being fought by two of the most unconventional British politicians of recent years who offer starkly different visions for the world's fifth-largest economy.

In his first major speech of the campaign, Corbyn said the election was a once-in-a-generation chance to overthrow what he cast as a corrupt elite which profited by exploiting workers, lying to the public and polluting the environment.

"Together, we can pull down a corrupt system and build a fairer country that cares for all," said Corbyn, a 70-year-old veteran socialist campaigner.

"Even if the rivers freeze over, we're going out to bring about real change for the many, not the few," Corbyn said.

Corbyn named prominent billionaires such as landowner Hugh Grosvenor, Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley, Ineos CEO Jim Ratcliffe, hedge fund manager Crispin Odey and US&nbsp;media tycoon Rupert Murdoch as representatives of Britain's "rigged system".

He proposed nationalisation of rail, mail and water services and higher taxes on the bankers who have made London the pre-eminent international financial capital.

Ashley, one of the businessmen targeted by Corbyn, hit back, saying the Labour leader was "not only a liar but clueless."

Health not Brexit?

The first December election in Britain since 1923 will be one of the hardest to forecast in years. Brexit has variously fatigued, enthused and enraged voters while eroding loyalties to the two major parties.

IpsosMORI said the Conservatives were on 41% with Labour on 24%. But that still leaves a third of the electorate up for grabs - and voter poaching could decide the final result.

The Liberal Democrats want to win over the opponents of Brexit while the Brexit Party is courting supporters of the divorce. The Brexit Party is expected to set out some of its strategy on Friday.

A five-year flurry of two historic referendums - on Scottish independence in 2014 and Brexit in 2016 - and two national elections in 2015 and 2017 have delivered often unexpected results that ushered in political crises.

Johnson will be aware that the Conservatives under his predecessor, Theresa May, were polling at about 50%, double that of Labour, ahead of the last election in 2017 but then went on to lost their majority in parliament, eventually winning under 2% more of the vote share than Labour.

Johnson, who has failed to deliver on his "do or die" promise that Britain would leave the EU on Oct. 31, is pitching the election as a chance to get Brexit done, and he will accuse Corbyn of threatening the United Kingdom's future.

He says Labour's plan to hold another referendum on Britain's membership of the bloc, and the possibility of Labour agreeing to another referendum on Scottish independence, risk ripping the United Kingdom apart.

"Today should have been the day that Brexit was delivered and we finally left the EU," Johnson said in pre-prepared remarks provided by his office.&nbsp;

Corbyn repeated his claim that Johnson intended to sell off Britain's National Health Service (NHS) to American companies as part of a post-Brexit trade deal with US&nbsp;President Donald Trump.

Johnson has denied any such intention. His party was on Thursday campaigning under the slogan: "Back Boris for more NHS funding."

Johnson, who has been described by the US&nbsp;president as Britain's Trump, will visit a school, hospital and police unit to argue that Britain needs to deliver Brexit so it can move on and focus on investing in public services. 
&nbsp;

On the day Britain was supposed to have left the European Union, voters instead faced the start of an election campaign, with opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn pledging to overthrow a "rigged system" he said was run by billionaires and tax dodgers.

On the day Britain was supposed to have left the European Union, voters instead faced the start of an election campaign, with opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn pledging to overthrow a "rigged system" he said was run by billionaires and tax dodgers. After failing to deliver Brexit by the October 31 deadline, Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the December 12 election to break what he cast as a political paralysis that had thwarted Britain's departure and undermined confidence in the economy. Opinion polls suggest the election is Johnson's to lose. His Conservative Party is leading Labour by 15 to 17 percentage points, according to IpsosMORI and YouGov. Yet the overshadowing issue of Brexit, which has divided both major parties and their voters, could confound conventional calculations. While Brexit frames the election, with Labour pledging to hold a second referendum on it, it is being fought by two of the most unconventional British politicians of recent years who offer starkly different visions for the world's fifth-largest economy. In his first major speech of the campaign, Corbyn said the election was a once-in-a-generation chance to overthrow what he cast as a corrupt elite which profited by exploiting workers, lying to the public and polluting the environment. "Together, we can pull down a corrupt system and build a fairer country that cares for all," said Corbyn, a 70-year-old veteran socialist campaigner. "Even if the rivers freeze over, we're going out to bring about real change for the many, not the few," Corbyn said. Corbyn named prominent billionaires such as landowner Hugh Grosvenor, Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley, Ineos CEO Jim Ratcliffe, hedge fund manager Crispin Odey and US media tycoon Rupert Murdoch as representatives of Britain's "rigged system". He proposed nationalisation of rail, mail and water services and higher taxes on the bankers who have made London the pre-eminent international financial capital. Ashley, one of the businessmen targeted by Corbyn, hit back, saying the Labour leader was "not only a liar but clueless." Health not Brexit? The first December election in Britain since 1923 will be one of the hardest to forecast in years. Brexit has variously fatigued, enthused and enraged voters while eroding loyalties to the two major parties. IpsosMORI said the Conservatives were on 41% with Labour on 24%. But that still leaves a third of the electorate up for grabs - and voter poaching could decide the final result. The Liberal Democrats want to win over the opponents of Brexit while the Brexit Party is courting supporters of the divorce. The Brexit Party is expected to set out some of its strategy on Friday. A five-year flurry of two historic referendums - on Scottish independence in 2014 and Brexit in 2016 - and two national elections in 2015 and 2017 have delivered often unexpected results that ushered in political crises. Johnson will be aware that the Conservatives under his predecessor, Theresa May, were polling at about 50%, double that of Labour, ahead of the last election in 2017 but then went on to lost their majority in parliament, eventually winning under 2% more of the vote share than Labour. Johnson, who has failed to deliver on his "do or die" promise that Britain would leave the EU on Oct. 31, is pitching the election as a chance to get Brexit done, and he will accuse Corbyn of threatening the United Kingdom's future. He says Labour's plan to hold another referendum on Britain's membership of the bloc, and the possibility of Labour agreeing to another referendum on Scottish independence, risk ripping the United Kingdom apart. "Today should have been the day that Brexit was delivered and we finally left the EU," Johnson said in pre-prepared remarks provided by his office. Corbyn repeated his claim that Johnson intended to sell off Britain's National Health Service (NHS) to American companies as part of a post-Brexit trade deal with US President Donald Trump. Johnson has denied any such intention. His party was on Thursday campaigning under the slogan: "Back Boris for more NHS funding." Johnson, who has been described by the US president as Britain's Trump, will visit a school, hospital and police unit to argue that Britain needs to deliver Brexit so it can move on and focus on investing in public services.

British election campaign kicks off on no-Brexit day

US President Donald Trump on Friday has said that the US &nbsp;knows who is the new leader of the terrorist group ISIS after the terror group named <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/islamic-state-names-al-quraishi-as-baghdadi-successor-threatens-united-states-report-259118">Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi </a>as the successor to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-releases-baghdadi-raid-video-warns-of-likely-retribution-attack-258906">Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi</a>.&nbsp;

"ISIS has a new leader. We know exactly who he is!" Trump tweeted. US officials did not give any more details.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
ISIS has a new leader. We know exactly who he is!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1190261874371244032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Yesterday, ISIS announced on the messaging service Telegram that Abu Ibrahim al-Hashemi al-Qurashi is the group's new leader and "caliph".The terror group also acknowledged the death of former 'caliph' Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a US special forces raid last weekend.

Watch - Trump: Other countries need to take up fight against Islamic State militants

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-other-countries-need-to-take-up-fight-against-islamic-state-militants-244719/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

However, little is known about Hashimi, whose name was seldom mentioned as a possible successor the multiple times that Baghdadi was falsely reported killed in recent years.

Baghdadi, who led IS since 2014 and was the world's most wanted man, died in a US special forces raid in Syria's northwestern province of Idlib on Sunday.

Islamic State also confirmed the killing in another raid the following day of the group's previous spokesman, Abu Hassan al-Muhajir.

The statement said the jihadist group's legislative and consultative body convened after the 48-year-old Iraqi-born jihadist chief's death and "agreed" on a replacement.

(With inputs from AFP)

US President Donald Trump on Friday has said that the US knows who is the new leader of the terrorist group ISIS after the terror group named Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi as the successor to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

US President Donald Trump on Friday has said that the US knows who is the new leader of the terrorist group ISIS after the terror group named Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi as the successor to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. "ISIS has a new leader. We know exactly who he is!" Trump tweeted. US officials did not give any more details. ISIS has a new leader. We know exactly who he is! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 1, 2019 × Yesterday, ISIS announced on the messaging service Telegram that Abu Ibrahim al-Hashemi al-Qurashi is the group's new leader and "caliph".The terror group also acknowledged the death of former 'caliph' Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a US special forces raid last weekend. Watch - Trump: Other countries need to take up fight against Islamic State militants However, little is known about Hashimi, whose name was seldom mentioned as a possible successor the multiple times that Baghdadi was falsely reported killed in recent years. Baghdadi, who led IS since 2014 and was the world's most wanted man, died in a US special forces raid in Syria's northwestern province of Idlib on Sunday. Islamic State also confirmed the killing in another raid the following day of the group's previous spokesman, Abu Hassan al-Muhajir. The statement said the jihadist group's legislative and consultative body convened after the 48-year-old Iraqi-born jihadist chief's death and "agreed" on a replacement. (With inputs from AFP)

ISIS has a new leader, we know exactly who he is: Donald Trump

House to formalise Trump impeachment investigation. Watch video to know more.

House to formalise Trump impeachment investigation

The United States said on Thursday it had imposed sanctions on the Iranian construction sector and trade in four materials used in its military or nuclear programs, even as it waived sanctions to let foreign firms continue non-proliferation work in Iran.

The United States said on Thursday it had imposed sanctions on the Iranian construction sector and trade in four materials used in its military or nuclear programs, even as it waived sanctions to let foreign firms continue non-proliferation work in Iran. The decisions announced by the US State Department reflect an effort to increase pressure on Iran by putting wider swaths of its economy under sanctions, while leaving a door open to diplomacy by allowing work to proceed at Iranian nuclear facilities that makes it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. President Donald Trump's administration last year pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal in which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions that crippled its economy. The administration has since restored and tightened US sanctions to try to force Iran to negotiate a broader deal that would also limit its ballistic missile program and regional activities. The State Department said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had determined Iran's construction sector was controlled directly or indirectly by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which Washington regards as a foreign terrorist organization. As a result, the sale of raw and semi-finished metals, graphite, coal, and software for integrating industrial purposes will be sanctionable if the materials are to be used in Iran's construction sector, the department said in a fact sheet. In a second determination, Pompeo identified four "strategic materials" as being used in connection with nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs, making trade in them subject to sanctions. The fact sheet identified the materials as: "stainless steel 304L tubes; MN40 manganese brazing foil; MN70 manganese brazing foil; and stainless steel CrNi60WTi ESR + VAR (chromium, nickel, 60 percent tungsten, titanium, electro-slag remelting, vacuum arc remelting)." In a separate statement, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said the determinations gave Washington the ability "to prevent Iran from acquiring strategic materials for the IRGC, its construction sector, and its proliferation programs." Waiver renewal Reuters reported on Wednesday that the United States planned to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue work at Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. The Trump administration would let the work go forward by issuing waivers to sanctions that bar non-U.S. firms from dealing with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). A source familiar with the matter said on Thursday that the State Department had indeed renewed the waivers for 90 days. The work to continue includes redesigning Iran's heavy water Arak research reactor to render it unable to make bomb-grade plutonium under normal operation and modification of centrifuges at Iran's Fordow fuel enrichment plant, the source said. The waivers also cover support for Iran's existing nuclear reactor at Bushehr, the provision of enriched uranium for the Tehran Research Reactor and the transfer of spent and scrap nuclear fuel out of Iran, the source added. Chinese state-owned China National Nuclear Corp has done non-proliferation work at Arak, and Russia's Rosatom has done it at Fordow as well as provided uranium fuel to Iran. Responding to Reuters' story that the waivers were to be renewed, a China National Nuclear Corp spokesman said by email that it was "starting to cooperate with the Iranian side under guidance from Beijing on seeking a positive solution to the Iran nuclear problem." It did not give further details. When Trump abandoned the 2015 nuclear deal last year, he began a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to force Iran to return to the negotiating table. Iran has demanded the United States first resume complying with the 2015 deal. France has sought to bring the two into talks but has so far failed, suggesting neither is willing to abandon core elements of policy - the U.S. belief that pressure will bring Iran to its knees, and Iran's refusal to capitulate to U.S. duress.

United States imposes new Iran sanctions, but waives others

A deeply divided US House of Representatives took a major step on Thursday in the effort to impeach President Donald Trump when lawmakers approved rules for the next, more public, stage in the Democratic-led inquiry into Trump's attempt to have Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival.

A deeply divided US House of Representatives took a major step on Thursday in the effort to impeach President Donald Trump when lawmakers approved rules for the next, more public, stage in the Democratic-led inquiry into Trump's attempt to have Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival. In the first formal test of support for the impeachment investigation, the Democratic-controlled House voted almost entirely along party lines - 232 to 196 - to move the probe forward in Congress. The vote allows for public impeachment hearings in Congress, which are expected in the coming weeks and portends a bitter battle ahead as the United States heads into a presidential election year. Democrats who accuse Trump of abusing his office and jeopardizing national security for personal political gain were almost unanimous in approving Thursday's measure, but they did not pick up a single Republican vote. "It's a sad day. No one comes to Congress to impeach a president," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said before the vote. Televised public hearings featuring US officials testifying in Congress about alleged wrongdoing by Trump could crowd out other issues like the economy and immigration as voters turn their minds to the November 2020 election. That might damage Trump, but some of his supporters say the impeachment drive could actually boost his re-election chances by showing him at loggerheads with Washington-based political foes. Republicans accused Democrats of using impeachment to overturn the results of his 2016 election victory. Trump told a UK radio station the Democrats knew they were losing next year's vote and so were trying to take him down. "The Democrats are desperate, they're desperate. They have nothing," Trump told LBC Radio in an interview. White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham denounced the process as "unfair, unconstitutional and fundamentally un-American." A number of opinion polls ahead of next year's election show several leading Democratic presidential candidates leading Trump. The probe focuses on a July 25 telephone call in which the U.S. president asked his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymr Zelenskiy, to investigate Trump's Democratic political rival Joe Biden, a former U.S. vice president, and his son Hunter, who had served as a director for Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Biden is a leading candidate in the Democratic presidential nomination race to face Trump in 2020. He and his son deny any wrongdoing. Trump has also denied wrongdoing. Republicans have largely stuck by him, blasting the impeachment push as a partisan exercise that has given them little input. Thursday's vote showed that Democrats have enough backing in the House to later bring formal charges, known as articles of impeachment, if they feel they have enough evidence. Republic pushback "It should not be Nancy Pelosi and a small group of people that she selects that get to determine who is going to be our president," said Kevin McCarthy, the top House Republican. Just two Democrats - Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey - broke with their party and voted against the measure. Both represent districts where Trump won in 2016. Other Democrats from Trump-leaning districts, such as Jared Golden of Maine, voted yes. Representative Justin Amash, who left the Republican Party this year and is now an independent, voted for the measure. If the House eventually votes to impeach Trump, that would set up a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate. Trump would not be removed from office unless the Senate votes to convict him by a two-thirds margin, something that looks unlikely as congressional Republicans have been reluctant to move against the president. The US Constitution gives the House broad authority to set ground rules for an impeachment inquiry and Democrats say they are following House rules on investigations. The investigation is probing whether Trump misused the power of his office and, if so, whether that amounted to "high crimes and misdemeanours" that merit impeachment and removal from office under the Constitution. Democratic leaders in Congress declined to say when public hearings would start, but they are expected to begin in the next few weeks. The inquiry has so far taken place behind closed doors in front of House committee members. Current and former Trump administration officials have testified that the White House went outside normal diplomatic channels to pressure Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. The top US diplomat in Ukraine, William Taylor, said Trump held back nearly $400 million in security aid in an attempt to get Zelenskiy to publicly declare that he would carry out the investigations that the U.S. president sought - a "quid pro quo" confirmed by Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. Lawmakers leading the inquiry on Thursday heard closed-door testimony from Tim Morrison, the top Russia specialist on Trump's National Security Council. Morrison resigned from his position on Wednesday. Morrison backed up the testimony of other witnesses who said the White House attempted to pressure Ukraine, according to a congressional source. He said he learned of the effort from one of those involved, a Trump donor named Gordon Sondland who serves as the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Morrison did not criticize Trump directly, however, and said that he did not think anything illegal was discussed on the July 25 call, the congressional source said. Republican US Representative Mark Meadows said Morrison's testimony had been "very damaging" to the case for impeachment. "If any witness would suggest that the impeachment resolution that was passed earlier today should come to a screeching halt, it was this witness," Meadows told reporters, without elaborating on Morrison's deposition. Committee members have asked a prominent player, former national security adviser John Bolton, to appear next week. Others have testified that Bolton was alarmed by a White House effort to pressure Zelenskiy. Bolton's lawyer has said he is not willing to testify unless a subpoena is issued.

Trump impeachment effort passes first test in divided US Congress

"READ THE TRANSCRIPT!" United States&nbsp;President Donald Trump exhorts regularly on Twitter, referring to a telephone call with Ukraine's president that led to an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-impeachment-effort-passes-first-test-in-divided-us-congress-259134">impeachment enquiry</a>. Now he is threatening to do just that, on live television.

Trump told the Washington Examiner he would not cooperate with congressional impeachment proceedings and might read out loud a transcript of a July 25 call in which Trump asks President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a domestic political rival.

"This is over a phone call that is a good call," Trump told the Examiner in an interview. "At some point, I’m going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. When you read it, it's a straight call."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
READ THE TRANSCRIPT!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1189897137984876545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Trump's reference to the fireside chat recalled the informal evening radio addresses President Franklin D Roosevelt used to reassure Americans facing hardships during the Great Depression,&nbsp;a far cry from a US&nbsp;president defending himself against impeachment.

The Trump administration in September released a detailed summary of the 30-minute call,&nbsp;not a precise transcript,&nbsp;based on notes taken by aides, as Democrats in the House of Representatives began looking into Trump's call following a whistleblower complaint.

The House, which is controlled by Democrats, approved rules on Thursday for the next, more public, stage in the enquiry into the Republican president's attempt to have Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival.

The enquiry centres on whether Trump solicited foreign interference and aid in a US&nbsp;election, which federal law prohibits. Democrats are also investigating whether Trump withheld $391 million in American aid to vulnerable Ukraine, who faced a military threat from Russian-backed separatists, as leverage to get Zelenskiy to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.&nbsp;

Biden is a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face Trump in the November 2020 presidential election. Hunter Biden sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing on their part.

Current and former Trump administration officials have testified behind closed doors that the White House went outside normal diplomatic channels to pressure Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens.

Trump has insisted he did nothing wrong. He said his administration would continue to not honour document requests and subpoenas.

He told the Examiner he would fight back with a defence of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-house-formalises-trump-impeachment-process-in-landmark-vote-259117">Ukraine call</a> and use his well-honed art of the slogan, offering T-shirts emblazoned with "Read the transcript."

"READ THE TRANSCRIPT!" United States President Donald Trump exhorts regularly on Twitter, referring to a telephone call with Ukraine's president that led to an impeachment enquiry.

"READ THE TRANSCRIPT!" United States President Donald Trump exhorts regularly on Twitter, referring to a telephone call with Ukraine's president that led to an impeachment enquiry. Now he is threatening to do just that, on live television. Trump told the Washington Examiner he would not cooperate with congressional impeachment proceedings and might read out loud a transcript of a July 25 call in which Trump asks President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a domestic political rival. "This is over a phone call that is a good call," Trump told the Examiner in an interview. "At some point, I’m going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. When you read it, it's a straight call." READ THE TRANSCRIPT! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 31, 2019 × Trump's reference to the fireside chat recalled the informal evening radio addresses President Franklin D Roosevelt used to reassure Americans facing hardships during the Great Depression, a far cry from a US president defending himself against impeachment. The Trump administration in September released a detailed summary of the 30-minute call, not a precise transcript, based on notes taken by aides, as Democrats in the House of Representatives began looking into Trump's call following a whistleblower complaint. The House, which is controlled by Democrats, approved rules on Thursday for the next, more public, stage in the enquiry into the Republican president's attempt to have Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival. The enquiry centres on whether Trump solicited foreign interference and aid in a US election, which federal law prohibits. Democrats are also investigating whether Trump withheld $391 million in American aid to vulnerable Ukraine, who faced a military threat from Russian-backed separatists, as leverage to get Zelenskiy to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Biden is a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face Trump in the November 2020 presidential election. Hunter Biden sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing on their part. Current and former Trump administration officials have testified behind closed doors that the White House went outside normal diplomatic channels to pressure Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. Trump has insisted he did nothing wrong. He said his administration would continue to not honour document requests and subpoenas. He told the Examiner he would fight back with a defence of the Ukraine call and use his well-honed art of the slogan, offering T-shirts emblazoned with "Read the transcript."

Trump may read summary of Ukraine call in 'fireside chat'

The United States plans to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue&nbsp;work&nbsp;at&nbsp;Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;to develop a nuclear weapon, two&nbsp;sources&nbsp;familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

The Trump administration, which last year pulled out of the 2015&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;nuclear deal and re-imposed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-iran-tensions-ratchet-up-further-despite-un-efforts-252293">sanctions on&nbsp;Iran</a>, will let the&nbsp;work&nbsp;go forward by issuing&nbsp;waivers&nbsp;to sanctions that bar&nbsp;non-US&nbsp;firms from dealing with the Atomic Energy Organization of&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;(AEOI), said the&nbsp;sources&nbsp;on condition of anonymity.

While the&nbsp;waivers'&nbsp;renewal would allow&nbsp;non-proliferation&nbsp;work&nbsp;to continue at the Arak heavy water research reactor and the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, which AEOI oversees, it may also signal that Washington is leaving the door open to diplomacy.

Under the 2015 deal between&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;and six world powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - Tehran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions that had crippled its economy.

When&nbsp;US&nbsp;President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the deal in May 2018, he <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-new-us-sanctions-target-iranians-access-to-food-medicine-250961">re-imposed&nbsp;US&nbsp;sanctions</a> in a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to force&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;to return to the negotiating table.

Trump wants a broader deal that would also limit&nbsp;Iran's missile program as well as its regional activities;&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;has demanded the United States first resume complying with the 2015 deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

France, in particular, has sought to bring the two into a wider dialogue but has so far failed, suggesting neither is yet willing to abandon core elements of policy: the&nbsp;US&nbsp;belief that pressure will bring&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;to its knees, and&nbsp;Iran's refusal to capitulate to&nbsp;US&nbsp;duress.

Under the 2015 deal, the Arak reactor was to be redesigned to render it unable to make bomb-grade plutonium under normal operation, while the Fordow plant was to stop enriching uranium and be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology center.

Chinese state-owned China National Nuclear Corp has done&nbsp;non-proliferation&nbsp;work&nbsp;at Arak, and Russia's Rosatom has done it at Fordow. Rosatom has also provided uranium fuel for&nbsp;Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant.

The&nbsp;US&nbsp;State Department had no immediate comment. Rosatom did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A China National Nuclear Corp spokesman told Reuters on Thursday by email that it was "starting to cooperate with the&nbsp;Iranian side under guidance from Beijing on seeking a positive solution to the&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;nuclear problem". It did not provide further details.

The United States plans to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue work at Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, two sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

The United States plans to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue work at Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, two sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday. The Trump administration, which last year pulled out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions on Iran, will let the work go forward by issuing waivers to sanctions that bar non-US firms from dealing with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said the sources on condition of anonymity. While the waivers' renewal would allow non-proliferation work to continue at the Arak heavy water research reactor and the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, which AEOI oversees, it may also signal that Washington is leaving the door open to diplomacy. Under the 2015 deal between Iran and six world powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - Tehran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions that had crippled its economy. When US President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the deal in May 2018, he re-imposed US sanctions in a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to force Iran to return to the negotiating table. Trump wants a broader deal that would also limit Iran's missile program as well as its regional activities; Iran has demanded the United States first resume complying with the 2015 deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. France, in particular, has sought to bring the two into a wider dialogue but has so far failed, suggesting neither is yet willing to abandon core elements of policy: the US belief that pressure will bring Iran to its knees, and Iran's refusal to capitulate to US duress. Under the 2015 deal, the Arak reactor was to be redesigned to render it unable to make bomb-grade plutonium under normal operation, while the Fordow plant was to stop enriching uranium and be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology center. Chinese state-owned China National Nuclear Corp has done non-proliferation work at Arak, and Russia's Rosatom has done it at Fordow. Rosatom has also provided uranium fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant. The US State Department had no immediate comment. Rosatom did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A China National Nuclear Corp spokesman told Reuters on Thursday by email that it was "starting to cooperate with the Iranian side under guidance from Beijing on seeking a positive solution to the Iran nuclear problem". It did not provide further details.

US to renew waivers allowing non-proliferation work with Iran: Report

Top US and Chinese trade negotiators will talk again on Friday, China said, as uncertainty swirls over the cancellation of the APEC summit where leaders of the two countries had been expected to meet.

US President Donald Trump said Monday that he expected a "phase one" trade deal with Beijing to be signed on the sidelines of the November summit in Chile, after an 18-month trade impasse between the two economic giants.

But Chile's President Sebastian Pinera announced Wednesday that his country could no longer host the event, due to violent unrest in the city.

"Negotiating teams on the Chinese and US sides have continued to maintain close communication, and negotiations are currently making smooth progress," the Chinese commerce ministry said in a statement Thursday.

"The two sides will continue to push forward negotiations and other work according to the original plan," the ministry said, adding that leaders from both sides will hold another call Friday, a week after senior officials last spoke over the phone.

The White House said later on Wednesday that Trump still hopes to sign a trade deal with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in coming weeks.&nbsp;

China and the US have exchanged blows for over a year, with tariffs now impacting hundreds of billions of dollars in two-way trade.

Now with the 2020 presidential election approaching, and Trump under pressure from the impeachment inquiry in Congress, US trade officials have focused on getting a partial deal in the books.

China's Commerce Ministry said on October 26 that both sides had agreed to "properly address each other's core concerns."

Top US and Chinese trade negotiators will talk again on Friday, China said, as uncertainty swirls over the cancellation of the APEC summit where leaders of the two countries had been expected to meet.

Top US and Chinese trade negotiators will talk again on Friday, China said, as uncertainty swirls over the cancellation of the APEC summit where leaders of the two countries had been expected to meet. US President Donald Trump said Monday that he expected a "phase one" trade deal with Beijing to be signed on the sidelines of the November summit in Chile, after an 18-month trade impasse between the two economic giants. But Chile's President Sebastian Pinera announced Wednesday that his country could no longer host the event, due to violent unrest in the city. "Negotiating teams on the Chinese and US sides have continued to maintain close communication, and negotiations are currently making smooth progress," the Chinese commerce ministry said in a statement Thursday. "The two sides will continue to push forward negotiations and other work according to the original plan," the ministry said, adding that leaders from both sides will hold another call Friday, a week after senior officials last spoke over the phone. The White House said later on Wednesday that Trump still hopes to sign a trade deal with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in coming weeks. China and the US have exchanged blows for over a year, with tariffs now impacting hundreds of billions of dollars in two-way trade. Now with the 2020 presidential election approaching, and Trump under pressure from the impeachment inquiry in Congress, US trade officials have focused on getting a partial deal in the books. China's Commerce Ministry said on October 26 that both sides had agreed to "properly address each other's core concerns."

US, China top trade negotiators to talk again on Friday

Congress formally opened a new, public phase of its corruption <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/house-to-formalise-donald-trump-impeachment-investigation-259008">investigation into Donald Trump</a> on Thursday as US lawmakers voted for the first time to advance the impeachment process targeting the US president.

"Today the House takes the next step forward as we establish the procedures for open hearings... so that the public can see the facts for themselves," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

"What is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy."

The top Democrat and Trump's chief nemesis in Congress addressed fellow lawmakers shortly before her chamber took a Halloween morning vote along party lines,&nbsp;232 to 196,&nbsp;to pass a resolution that lays out rules for the next stages of the impeachment process.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/white-house-adviser-tells-lawmakers-trump-ukraine-call-raised-national-security-concerns-258751">Trump has repeatedly branded the process as illegitimate</a> and politically motivated and, true to form, his reaction was swift.

"The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History!" he boomed on Twitter.

He called on Republicans to rally behind him even as he faced the embarrassing likelihood of becoming the third president in history to be impeached and placed on trial for removal in the Senate, over an alleged extortion scheme to obtain Ukraine's help to get him reelected in 2020.

The embattled president retweeted a rallying cry from Fox News host Laura Ingraham that called on Republicans to "stand together and defend the leader of their party against these smears."

"This farce should never be allowed to roll into a winter show trial," read the tweet -- suggesting Trump would want the Republican leadership in the Senate to shut the process down.

Watch: Trump donors charged in campaign impeachment probe

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-impeachment-probe-trump-donors-charged-in-campaign-impeachment-probe-255094/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Holding Trump 'accountable'

Trump is accused of withholding military aid to compel Ukraine to mount an embarrassing corruption probe against his Democratic election rival Joe Biden, effectively using <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democrats-to-vote-on-thursday-on-how-to-make-trump-impeachment-probe-public-258587">US foreign policy</a> in an illegal shakedown for his personal political benefit.

Trump and loyal Republicans dismiss the case as a "sham," but congressional investigators have heard a steady flow of corroborating evidence from government officials testifying behind closed doors on Capitol Hill.

The landmark resolution did not have unanimous Democratic approval. Two Democrats joined all Republicans in opposing the measure, although former Republican Justin Amash, now an independent, supported it.

The inquiry now moves into the public eye -- giving Americans the chance to hear on live television the evidence against Trump.

The House Intelligence Committee, which has led the inquiry so far, will host open hearings, presenting witnesses and documentary evidence and allowing Republicans to challenge the case against Trump.

The minority can also suggest subpoenas but majority Democrats have final say, a rule that has angered Republicans.

"Trying to put a ribbon on a sham process doesn't make it any less of a sham," House Republican Jim Jordan fumed.

Democrats argue that the vote neutralizes a key Republican talking point that the inquiry has no validity because the full House did not sign on.&nbsp;

Neither the House rules nor the US Constitution require such a vote to start an impeachment inquiry.

If the case against Trump is deemed strong enough, the House Judiciary Committee will draw up formal charges against the president -- articles of impeachment -- to be voted on by the full House.

That process could be completed by year end. The Democrat-controlled House is expected to approve impeachment, which would then see Trump go on trial for removal in the Senate, where Republicans have a majority.

Democrats dismissed the charges that the process is partisan.

"There is serious evidence that President Trump may have violated the Constitution," said Jim McGovern, Chairman of the House Rules Committee which drew up the resolution.

"If we don't hold this president accountable, we could be ceding our ability to hold any president accountable."

Witnesses back allegations

Nearly a dozen witnesses so far have confirmed in House depositions the accusations that, in a concerted effort with top aides and his personal lawyer, Trump pressured Ukraine to help his reelection effort in 2020 by producing dirt on Biden, the former vice president.

The allegations focus on a July 25 phone call in which <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-lawmakers-hear-from-corroborating-witness-in-trump-impeachment-probe-258323">Trump pressed Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky</a> to open investigations into Biden and Biden's son, who worked with a Ukraine energy firm.

Tim Morrison, the White House National Security Council's top Russia expert, arrived on Capitol Hill Thursday to be deposed.

According to other witnesses, Morrison, who resigned late Wednesday, has personal knowledge of the White House effort to freeze military aid to Ukraine to pressure Zelensky to launch the political investigations.

Investigators also have called on Trump's former national security advisor John Bolton to testify, along with two White House national security lawyers.

Bolton, other witnesses have said, disagreed strongly with Trump's tactics toward Ukraine and the involvement of his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine policy.

Congress formally opened a new, public phase of its corruption investigation into Donald Trump on Thursday as US lawmakers voted for the first time to advance the impeachment process targeting the US president.

Congress formally opened a new, public phase of its corruption investigation into Donald Trump on Thursday as US lawmakers voted for the first time to advance the impeachment process targeting the US president. "Today the House takes the next step forward as we establish the procedures for open hearings... so that the public can see the facts for themselves," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "What is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy." The top Democrat and Trump's chief nemesis in Congress addressed fellow lawmakers shortly before her chamber took a Halloween morning vote along party lines, 232 to 196, to pass a resolution that lays out rules for the next stages of the impeachment process. Trump has repeatedly branded the process as illegitimate and politically motivated and, true to form, his reaction was swift. "The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History!" he boomed on Twitter. He called on Republicans to rally behind him even as he faced the embarrassing likelihood of becoming the third president in history to be impeached and placed on trial for removal in the Senate, over an alleged extortion scheme to obtain Ukraine's help to get him reelected in 2020. The embattled president retweeted a rallying cry from Fox News host Laura Ingraham that called on Republicans to "stand together and defend the leader of their party against these smears." "This farce should never be allowed to roll into a winter show trial," read the tweet -- suggesting Trump would want the Republican leadership in the Senate to shut the process down. Watch: Trump donors charged in campaign impeachment probe Holding Trump 'accountable' Trump is accused of withholding military aid to compel Ukraine to mount an embarrassing corruption probe against his Democratic election rival Joe Biden, effectively using US foreign policy in an illegal shakedown for his personal political benefit. Trump and loyal Republicans dismiss the case as a "sham," but congressional investigators have heard a steady flow of corroborating evidence from government officials testifying behind closed doors on Capitol Hill. The landmark resolution did not have unanimous Democratic approval. Two Democrats joined all Republicans in opposing the measure, although former Republican Justin Amash, now an independent, supported it. The inquiry now moves into the public eye -- giving Americans the chance to hear on live television the evidence against Trump. The House Intelligence Committee, which has led the inquiry so far, will host open hearings, presenting witnesses and documentary evidence and allowing Republicans to challenge the case against Trump. The minority can also suggest subpoenas but majority Democrats have final say, a rule that has angered Republicans. "Trying to put a ribbon on a sham process doesn't make it any less of a sham," House Republican Jim Jordan fumed. Democrats argue that the vote neutralizes a key Republican talking point that the inquiry has no validity because the full House did not sign on. Neither the House rules nor the US Constitution require such a vote to start an impeachment inquiry. If the case against Trump is deemed strong enough, the House Judiciary Committee will draw up formal charges against the president -- articles of impeachment -- to be voted on by the full House. That process could be completed by year end. The Democrat-controlled House is expected to approve impeachment, which would then see Trump go on trial for removal in the Senate, where Republicans have a majority. Democrats dismissed the charges that the process is partisan. "There is serious evidence that President Trump may have violated the Constitution," said Jim McGovern, Chairman of the House Rules Committee which drew up the resolution. "If we don't hold this president accountable, we could be ceding our ability to hold any president accountable." Witnesses back allegations Nearly a dozen witnesses so far have confirmed in House depositions the accusations that, in a concerted effort with top aides and his personal lawyer, Trump pressured Ukraine to help his reelection effort in 2020 by producing dirt on Biden, the former vice president. The allegations focus on a July 25 phone call in which Trump pressed Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into Biden and Biden's son, who worked with a Ukraine energy firm. Tim Morrison, the White House National Security Council's top Russia expert, arrived on Capitol Hill Thursday to be deposed. According to other witnesses, Morrison, who resigned late Wednesday, has personal knowledge of the White House effort to freeze military aid to Ukraine to pressure Zelensky to launch the political investigations. Investigators also have called on Trump's former national security advisor John Bolton to testify, along with two White House national security lawyers. Bolton, other witnesses have said, disagreed strongly with Trump's tactics toward Ukraine and the involvement of his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine policy.

United States House formalises Trump impeachment process in landmark vote

President Donald Trump said Thursday that an alternative location for his signing of a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinese-officials-say-they-have-doubts-if-trade-deal-possible-with-trump-report-259031">United States-China trade deal</a> with President Xi Jinping will be "announced soon," following cancellation of an APEC summit in Chile.

The partial trade deal, known as phase one, had been due for signing on the sidelines of the regional APEC summit which Chile cancelled on Wednesday due to violent unrest in the capital Santiago.

"China and the USA are working on selecting a new site for signing," Trump tweeted. "The new location will be announced soon. President Xi and President Trump will do signing!"

Beijing also remains positive about <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-top-trade-negotiators-to-talk-again-on-friday-258968">phase one deal</a>, which would signal a big de-escalation in the two economic giants' so far 18-month trade war.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
China and the USA are working on selecting a new site for signing of Phase One of Trade Agreement, about 60% of total deal, after APEC in Chile was canceled do to unrelated circumstances. The new location will be announced soon. President Xi and President Trump will do signing!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1189895935721197570?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Negotiating teams on the Chinese and US sides have continued to maintain close communication, and negotiations are currently making smooth progress," the Chinese commerce ministry said in a statement Thursday.

"The two sides will continue to push forward negotiations and other work according to the original plan," the ministry said, adding that leaders from both sides will hold another call Friday, a week after senior officials last spoke over the phone.

President Donald Trump said Thursday that an alternative location for his signing of a United States-China trade deal with President Xi Jinping will be "announced soon," following cancellation of an APEC summit in Chile.

President Donald Trump said Thursday that an alternative location for his signing of a United States-China trade deal with President Xi Jinping will be "announced soon," following cancellation of an APEC summit in Chile. The partial trade deal, known as phase one, had been due for signing on the sidelines of the regional APEC summit which Chile cancelled on Wednesday due to violent unrest in the capital Santiago. "China and the USA are working on selecting a new site for signing," Trump tweeted. "The new location will be announced soon. President Xi and President Trump will do signing!" Beijing also remains positive about phase one deal, which would signal a big de-escalation in the two economic giants' so far 18-month trade war. China and the USA are working on selecting a new site for signing of Phase One of Trade Agreement, about 60% of total deal, after APEC in Chile was canceled do to unrelated circumstances. The new location will be announced soon. President Xi and President Trump will do signing! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 31, 2019 × "Negotiating teams on the Chinese and US sides have continued to maintain close communication, and negotiations are currently making smooth progress," the Chinese commerce ministry said in a statement Thursday. "The two sides will continue to push forward negotiations and other work according to the original plan," the ministry said, adding that leaders from both sides will hold another call Friday, a week after senior officials last spoke over the phone.

Trump: New location for United States-China trade deal signing to be 'announced soon'

Democrats laid out a formal roadmap for President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/more-witnesses-to-testify-as-united-states-house-prepares-impeachment-rules-258862">Donald Trump's impeachment</a> Thursday as they accumulated more evidence to support charges that he improperly pushed Ukraine to boost his own 2020 electoral prospects.

One day after a decorated army officer told Congressional investigators he witnessed Trump and a senior diplomat pressure Ukraine, three other State Department officials on Wednesday offered more evidence in testimony that supported the allegations against the US leader.

And the inquiry testimony set dates for three more witnesses, including Trump's estranged former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who would have had first-hand knowledge of the president's alleged effort to leverage military aid to Ukraine in exchange for President Volodymyr Zelensky investigating his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Even before those interviews take place, Democrats proposed rules to formalize the investigation and set its next phase -- which would have open evidentiary hearings that Trump or his lawyers could take part in -- ahead of drawing up articles of impeachment.

On Wednesday, the House Rules Committee agreed by a party-line vote to put the resolution up for approval before the full House of Representatives on Thursday.

"I didn't run (for office) to impeach the president," House Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern said after the vote.

"These are very, very serious matters, and we need a process in place so people know how we're going to proceed. I think this is a good transparent process."

Earlier in the day, McGovern said, "There is serious evidence that the president may have violated the constitution."

Trump: Probe is a 'witch hunt'

Trump blasted the investigation as a "witch hunt" and again claimed there was no "quid pro quo" in his dealings with Zelensky.

But Democrats said the evidence was only getting stronger that he did push Ukraine to open investigations into Biden, whose son had ties to a powerful Ukraine energy company.

The impeachment rules will formalize a process Republicans have alleged has no official grounds, but the Democrats a comfortable majority in the House is likely to ensure its passage.

"The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a President who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election," the leaders of the impeachment inquiry said late Tuesday.

"Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the President's misconduct."

Aid hold 'directed by Trump'

On Wednesday, State Department diplomat Christopher Anderson, a former aide to the US special representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker, told the inquiry Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani injected himself into Ukrainian policy discussions to demand Kiev open investigations that could aid Trump.

Another former Volker aide, Catherine Croft, said in prepared testimony that Trump's chief of staff Mick Mulvaney ordered military aid to Ukraine frozen days before a July 25 phone call in which Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Biden.

"The only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the president," Croft said.

And in separate testimony, John Sullivan, nominated to be US ambassador to Russia, told a Congressional hearing that Giuliani was part of an effort designed to smear then-ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who had reportedly resisted White House efforts to pressure Kiev to investigate Biden.

"Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent, I don't think that would be in accord with our values," Sullivan told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Bolton testimony planned

The inquiry was to hear Thursday from Tim Morrison, the White House National Security Council's top Russia expert. Other witnesses have said Morrison had personal knowledge of the efforts to use military aid to pressure Ukraine -- the quid pro quo that Trump denies.

Morrison unexpectedly stepped down late Wednesday, with no indications how that might impact his testimony.

"Mr. Morrison has decided to pursue other opportunities -- and has been considering doing so for some time," a senior administration official said.

Two other White House officials, National Security Council lead attorney John Eisenberg and one of his deputies, Michael Ellis, are to testify on November 4.

They would be followed by Bolton on November 7, if he agrees to testify. His testimony could be explosive, given his strained relationship with Trump in September when he left the White House, as the Ukraine allegations first surfaced.

Bolton, other witnesses have said, disagreed strongly with Trump's tactics and the involvement of Giuliani in Ukraine policy.

Democrats laid out a formal roadmap for President Donald Trump's impeachment Thursday as they accumulated more evidence to support charges that he improperly pushed Ukraine to boost his own 2020 electoral prospects.

Democrats laid out a formal roadmap for President Donald Trump's impeachment Thursday as they accumulated more evidence to support charges that he improperly pushed Ukraine to boost his own 2020 electoral prospects. One day after a decorated army officer told Congressional investigators he witnessed Trump and a senior diplomat pressure Ukraine, three other State Department officials on Wednesday offered more evidence in testimony that supported the allegations against the US leader. And the inquiry testimony set dates for three more witnesses, including Trump's estranged former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who would have had first-hand knowledge of the president's alleged effort to leverage military aid to Ukraine in exchange for President Volodymyr Zelensky investigating his Democratic rival Joe Biden. Even before those interviews take place, Democrats proposed rules to formalize the investigation and set its next phase -- which would have open evidentiary hearings that Trump or his lawyers could take part in -- ahead of drawing up articles of impeachment. On Wednesday, the House Rules Committee agreed by a party-line vote to put the resolution up for approval before the full House of Representatives on Thursday. "I didn't run (for office) to impeach the president," House Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern said after the vote. "These are very, very serious matters, and we need a process in place so people know how we're going to proceed. I think this is a good transparent process." Earlier in the day, McGovern said, "There is serious evidence that the president may have violated the constitution." Trump: Probe is a 'witch hunt' Trump blasted the investigation as a "witch hunt" and again claimed there was no "quid pro quo" in his dealings with Zelensky. But Democrats said the evidence was only getting stronger that he did push Ukraine to open investigations into Biden, whose son had ties to a powerful Ukraine energy company. The impeachment rules will formalize a process Republicans have alleged has no official grounds, but the Democrats a comfortable majority in the House is likely to ensure its passage. "The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a President who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election," the leaders of the impeachment inquiry said late Tuesday. "Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the President's misconduct." Aid hold 'directed by Trump' On Wednesday, State Department diplomat Christopher Anderson, a former aide to the US special representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker, told the inquiry Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani injected himself into Ukrainian policy discussions to demand Kiev open investigations that could aid Trump. Another former Volker aide, Catherine Croft, said in prepared testimony that Trump's chief of staff Mick Mulvaney ordered military aid to Ukraine frozen days before a July 25 phone call in which Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Biden. "The only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the president," Croft said. And in separate testimony, John Sullivan, nominated to be US ambassador to Russia, told a Congressional hearing that Giuliani was part of an effort designed to smear then-ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who had reportedly resisted White House efforts to pressure Kiev to investigate Biden. "Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent, I don't think that would be in accord with our values," Sullivan told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Bolton testimony planned The inquiry was to hear Thursday from Tim Morrison, the White House National Security Council's top Russia expert. Other witnesses have said Morrison had personal knowledge of the efforts to use military aid to pressure Ukraine -- the quid pro quo that Trump denies. Morrison unexpectedly stepped down late Wednesday, with no indications how that might impact his testimony. "Mr. Morrison has decided to pursue other opportunities -- and has been considering doing so for some time," a senior administration official said. Two other White House officials, National Security Council lead attorney John Eisenberg and one of his deputies, Michael Ellis, are to testify on November 4. They would be followed by Bolton on November 7, if he agrees to testify. His testimony could be explosive, given his strained relationship with Trump in September when he left the White House, as the Ukraine allegations first surfaced. Bolton, other witnesses have said, disagreed strongly with Trump's tactics and the involvement of Giuliani in Ukraine policy.

House to formalise Donald Trump impeachment investigation

By John A Tures

After former Islamic State Group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a US military action, speculation began on whether or not President Donald Trump would get a boost in public opinion surveys as a result.

My political science research with my students shows that presidents do enjoy a short-term poll boost after foreign policy raids and capital city captures.

However, that’s often followed by a long-term decline.

A closer look at the polls 
 
Supporters of the diversionary theory of war, known in the media as the “Wag the Dog” effect, contend that presidents can boost their approval ratings in the polls by fighting a war abroad.

In other words, they benefit from a burst of patriotism during the conflict.

But international relations scholars Bradley Lian and John R. Oneal tested this theory by looking at conflicts from 1950 through 1984 and found scant empirical support for this hypothesis.

My students and I considered 12 cases to determine whether presidents benefit at the polls from conducting raids involving the capture of a leader, seizure of a capital city or an attempt to rescue hostages, and how long that support can be expected to last.

The events we looked at included the surrender of Manuel Noriega in January of 1990; the apprehension of Saddam Hussein in 2003; and the killing of Moammar Gaddafi in 2011.

We looked at polls conducted by the Gallup Polling Presidential Job Approval Center, calculating an average of three presidential approval polls taken before the foreign policy event, and the mean of the first three polls issued after the case.

We also analysed polls taken by the end of the year, or six months later if the raid took place near the end of the year, to see how presidents fared long after the event.

Our results show that in 75 per cent of cases, the US President received a boost in the polls shortly after a foreign policy raid or capital capture.

But the jump is short lived. In 83 per cent of cases, presidential approval declined over the next several months. In seven cases, it fell by more than five percentage points from the initial poll boost.

For example, President Donald Trump insisted that al-Baghdadi’s death was a bigger deal than the raid that killed Osama Bin-Laden. That May 2011 event was widely credited with sealing President Barack Obama’s reelection the following year.

That credit may have been misplaced. Our evidence shows that Obama’s approval ratings had declined to 45 per cent by December of 2011. Thus, if history is any guide, I expect that Trump may have higher approval ratings in the coming days but shouldn’t count on better polls over the next several months.

(John A Tures is Professor of Political Science, LaGrange College)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-killing-al-baghdadi-give-trump-a-boost-in-the-polls-probably-but-it-wont-last-125987"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

By John A Tures After former Islamic State Group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a US military action, speculation began on whether or not President Donald Trump would get a boost in public opinion surveys as a result.

By John A Tures After former Islamic State Group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a US military action, speculation began on whether or not President Donald Trump would get a boost in public opinion surveys as a result. My political science research with my students shows that presidents do enjoy a short-term poll boost after foreign policy raids and capital city captures. However, that’s often followed by a long-term decline. A closer look at the polls Supporters of the diversionary theory of war, known in the media as the “Wag the Dog” effect, contend that presidents can boost their approval ratings in the polls by fighting a war abroad. In other words, they benefit from a burst of patriotism during the conflict. But international relations scholars Bradley Lian and John R. Oneal tested this theory by looking at conflicts from 1950 through 1984 and found scant empirical support for this hypothesis. My students and I considered 12 cases to determine whether presidents benefit at the polls from conducting raids involving the capture of a leader, seizure of a capital city or an attempt to rescue hostages, and how long that support can be expected to last. The events we looked at included the surrender of Manuel Noriega in January of 1990; the apprehension of Saddam Hussein in 2003; and the killing of Moammar Gaddafi in 2011. We looked at polls conducted by the Gallup Polling Presidential Job Approval Center, calculating an average of three presidential approval polls taken before the foreign policy event, and the mean of the first three polls issued after the case. We also analysed polls taken by the end of the year, or six months later if the raid took place near the end of the year, to see how presidents fared long after the event. Our results show that in 75 per cent of cases, the US President received a boost in the polls shortly after a foreign policy raid or capital capture. But the jump is short lived. In 83 per cent of cases, presidential approval declined over the next several months. In seven cases, it fell by more than five percentage points from the initial poll boost. For example, President Donald Trump insisted that al-Baghdadi’s death was a bigger deal than the raid that killed Osama Bin-Laden. That May 2011 event was widely credited with sealing President Barack Obama’s reelection the following year. That credit may have been misplaced. Our evidence shows that Obama’s approval ratings had declined to 45 per cent by December of 2011. Thus, if history is any guide, I expect that Trump may have higher approval ratings in the coming days but shouldn’t count on better polls over the next several months. (John A Tures is Professor of Political Science, LaGrange College) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Will killing Al-Baghdadi give Donald Trump a boost in the polls?

Global collaboration is the key to conducting counter-terrorism in the Middle East following the reported death of the leader of the Islamic State (IS) group, while finding a coordinated international approach to combating terrorism which avoids the errors made in previous policy decisions of Western countries is crucial to addressing the issue, according to a China Media Group (CMG) commentary published on Tuesday.

Collaboration is the key to counter-terrorism work in the Middle East

Two United States&nbsp;State Department officials <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democrats-to-vote-on-thursday-on-how-to-make-trump-impeachment-probe-public-258587">will testify</a> before House of Representatives investigators in the impeachment enquiry against President Donald Trump on Wednesday while lawmakers prepare to weigh rules formalising the impeachment process ahead.

Ukraine specialists Catherine Croft and Christopher Anderson are set to appear before House committees a day after a senior White House official said Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate Democrat rivals raised national security concerns.

Later today, the House Rules Committee is scheduled to take up a resolution proposed by House Democrats laying out the procedures as they move forward with the impeachment of the Republican president.

The two career diplomats are expected to lay out how State Department officials' efforts to express support for Ukraine were stymied by the White House, The Washington Post reported, citing the pair's prepared remarks.

Their closed-door deposition will follow ten&nbsp;hours of testimony on Tuesday by the White House official, Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who raised the alarm about Trump's request - during a July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,&nbsp;for Kiev to investigate Trump's political rival, former Democratic US&nbsp;Vice President Joe Biden.

The call is at the heart of the congressional enquiry into whether Trump misused the power of his office for personal political gain and, if so, whether that rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanours" that merit impeachment and removal from office under the Constitution.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

During the conversation, outlined in a memo released by the White House, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who had served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company.

He also sought an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 US&nbsp;election. Zelenskiy agreed to Trump's requests, according to the memo.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-lawmakers-hear-from-corroborating-witness-in-trump-impeachment-probe-258323">Trump made the request</a> after withholding nearly $400 million in security aid approved by Congress to help Ukraine fight Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Watch: Trump donors charged in Campaign Impeachment Probe

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-impeachment-probe-trump-donors-charged-in-campaign-impeachment-probe-255094/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Vindman, who as a Ukraine specialist listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy call, told lawmakers on Tuesday the readout of the conversation released by the White House left out information he had sought to include, the New York Times reported.

The rough transcript left out an assertion by Trump that there were recordings of Biden discussing corruption in Ukraine and Zelensky's explicit mention of Burisma, the Times said, citing three people familiar with his testimony.

More witnesses are expected later this week, including Timothy Morrison, the National Security Council Senior Director for Europe and Russia, on Thursday and Robert Blair, a senior adviser to acting White House chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, on Friday.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/judge-validates-impeachment-enquiry-against-donald-trump-orders-mueller-document-release-258208">The House is expected to vote this week</a> on the formal process of moving forward with the impeachment inquiry after Republicans criticized the process as unfair to Trump.

Trump has urged his allies to directly tackle the allegations against him.

"This Impeachment nonsense is just a continuation of the Witch Hunt Hoax," he tweeted Wednesday morning, urging Republicans to "go with Substance and close it out!"

Two United States State Department officials will testify before House of Representatives investigators in the impeachment enquiry against President Donald Trump on Wednesday while lawmakers prepare to weigh rules formalising the impeachment process ahead.

Two United States State Department officials will testify before House of Representatives investigators in the impeachment enquiry against President Donald Trump on Wednesday while lawmakers prepare to weigh rules formalising the impeachment process ahead. Ukraine specialists Catherine Croft and Christopher Anderson are set to appear before House committees a day after a senior White House official said Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate Democrat rivals raised national security concerns. Later today, the House Rules Committee is scheduled to take up a resolution proposed by House Democrats laying out the procedures as they move forward with the impeachment of the Republican president. The two career diplomats are expected to lay out how State Department officials' efforts to express support for Ukraine were stymied by the White House, The Washington Post reported, citing the pair's prepared remarks. Their closed-door deposition will follow ten hours of testimony on Tuesday by the White House official, Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who raised the alarm about Trump's request - during a July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for Kiev to investigate Trump's political rival, former Democratic US Vice President Joe Biden. The call is at the heart of the congressional enquiry into whether Trump misused the power of his office for personal political gain and, if so, whether that rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanours" that merit impeachment and removal from office under the Constitution. Trump has denied any wrongdoing. During the conversation, outlined in a memo released by the White House, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who had served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company. He also sought an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 US election. Zelenskiy agreed to Trump's requests, according to the memo. Trump made the request after withholding nearly $400 million in security aid approved by Congress to help Ukraine fight Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Watch: Trump donors charged in Campaign Impeachment Probe Vindman, who as a Ukraine specialist listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy call, told lawmakers on Tuesday the readout of the conversation released by the White House left out information he had sought to include, the New York Times reported. The rough transcript left out an assertion by Trump that there were recordings of Biden discussing corruption in Ukraine and Zelensky's explicit mention of Burisma, the Times said, citing three people familiar with his testimony. More witnesses are expected later this week, including Timothy Morrison, the National Security Council Senior Director for Europe and Russia, on Thursday and Robert Blair, a senior adviser to acting White House chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, on Friday. The House is expected to vote this week on the formal process of moving forward with the impeachment inquiry after Republicans criticized the process as unfair to Trump. Trump has urged his allies to directly tackle the allegations against him. "This Impeachment nonsense is just a continuation of the Witch Hunt Hoax," he tweeted Wednesday morning, urging Republicans to "go with Substance and close it out!"

More witnesses to testify as United States House prepares impeachment rules

Saudi Arabia wants to forge strong ties with India. This is a relationship rooted in the realm of political and economic realities.&nbsp;

Truth be told, strong ties will benefit both sides. India needs oil. What about the Saudis? Why has Riyadh prioritised Delhi?

What is the strategic significance? On WION Edit, we will explore these questions. First, let's tell you what India has been up to. Diversifying sources of energy.

PM Narendra Modi's government is credited for boosting India's ability to do this through multiple engagements. After US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, India needed to secure its energy interests.&nbsp;

And Saudi Arabia was quick to fill the gaps. Right now, India imports 83 per cent of its oil needs and Saudi Arabia is the second-biggest supplier

So technically, access to Indian markets is a huge economic benefit for a country like Saudi Arabia - whose economy is fueled by oil. But that's not the only draw for Riyadh.

It is looking at the long term and India's growing clout. Here are some points to note:

Going forward, Saudi Arabia wants to rely less on its oil reserves. In March 2018, the Kingdom announced the largest renewables project ever, a solar push worth over 200 billion dollars.

That project failed to take off and was eventually. But Saudi Arabia has not given up its goal to move away from oil dependence. Recently, Riyadh tripled its renewable energy target. The focus is wind and solar energy, projects have been tendered.

So why does Saudi Arabia want to move away from oil? Because depending on oil is dangerous.

First, fluctuating prices hurt the Saudi economy. A drop in oil prices puts them under fiscal pressure. Two, as the world transitions towards clean and renewable energy, countries like Saudi Arabia will be hit hard.

So what can the Kingdom do? Shift to renewable energy. Insulate the economy from oil price shocks and as a buffer, establish ties with countries that import oil-- i.e. India.

Yes, countries will aggressively push for climate action in the coming years. But that doesn't imply a total ban on fossil fuel. At least for the next few decades.

And countries like India and China will have more energy needs as their economies expand. So Saudi Arabia will find no better importers than India and China during this transition period. Besides, India will be perfectly placed to help Saudi Arabia through the clean energy transition.

The solar market in India is robust and ever-growing, the synergies are also in India's favour.

Besides, Saudi investments in India are strategic. The return from Indian markets is one of the best in the world. And the economy is pegged to grow further in the coming decades.

This is the grand plan, Saudi investments in India are strategic and a win-win proposition for both. This relationship is no more about remittances or immediate gains. India is one of the biggest games in town and Saudi Arabia only knows it too well. 
 
(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world) 
&nbsp;

Saudi Arabia wants to forge strong ties with India. This is a relationship rooted in the realm of political and economic realities. Truth be told, strong ties will benefit both sides.

Saudi Arabia wants to forge strong ties with India. This is a relationship rooted in the realm of political and economic realities. Truth be told, strong ties will benefit both sides. India needs oil. What about the Saudis? Why has Riyadh prioritised Delhi? What is the strategic significance? On WION Edit, we will explore these questions. First, let's tell you what India has been up to. Diversifying sources of energy. PM Narendra Modi's government is credited for boosting India's ability to do this through multiple engagements. After US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, India needed to secure its energy interests. And Saudi Arabia was quick to fill the gaps. Right now, India imports 83 per cent of its oil needs and Saudi Arabia is the second-biggest supplier So technically, access to Indian markets is a huge economic benefit for a country like Saudi Arabia - whose economy is fueled by oil. But that's not the only draw for Riyadh. It is looking at the long term and India's growing clout. Here are some points to note: Going forward, Saudi Arabia wants to rely less on its oil reserves. In March 2018, the Kingdom announced the largest renewables project ever, a solar push worth over 200 billion dollars. That project failed to take off and was eventually. But Saudi Arabia has not given up its goal to move away from oil dependence. Recently, Riyadh tripled its renewable energy target. The focus is wind and solar energy, projects have been tendered. So why does Saudi Arabia want to move away from oil? Because depending on oil is dangerous. First, fluctuating prices hurt the Saudi economy. A drop in oil prices puts them under fiscal pressure. Two, as the world transitions towards clean and renewable energy, countries like Saudi Arabia will be hit hard. So what can the Kingdom do? Shift to renewable energy. Insulate the economy from oil price shocks and as a buffer, establish ties with countries that import oil-- i.e. India. Yes, countries will aggressively push for climate action in the coming years. But that doesn't imply a total ban on fossil fuel. At least for the next few decades. And countries like India and China will have more energy needs as their economies expand. So Saudi Arabia will find no better importers than India and China during this transition period. Besides, India will be perfectly placed to help Saudi Arabia through the clean energy transition. The solar market in India is robust and ever-growing, the synergies are also in India's favour. Besides, Saudi investments in India are strategic. The return from Indian markets is one of the best in the world. And the economy is pegged to grow further in the coming decades. This is the grand plan, Saudi investments in India are strategic and a win-win proposition for both. This relationship is no more about remittances or immediate gains. India is one of the biggest games in town and Saudi Arabia only knows it too well. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

Strong ties will benefit both India and Saudi Arabia

A senior White House official testified on Tuesday he was so alarmed by hearing US&nbsp;President Donald Trump ask Ukraine's president to investigate a political rival, Democrat Joe Biden, that he reported the matter to a White House lawyer.

Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman became the first current White House staff member to testify in the Democratic-led House of Representatives inquiry into whether to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-begins-trump-impeachment-inquiry-over-call-to-ukraine-leader-251866">impeach the Republican</a> president.

The Ukraine specialist gave a closed-door deposition for more than 10 hours as Democrats unveiled legislation calling for public hearings and a public report in the impeachment inquiry to blunt Republican criticism the probe has been conducted with too much secrecy.

While the Democrats met Republican demands for a full House vote on impeachment inquiry procedures, holding <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democrats-to-vote-on-thursday-on-how-to-make-trump-impeachment-probe-public-258587">public hearings</a> and releasing transcripts taken in secret, senior Republicans rejected the legislation before it was even introduced.

Appearing on Capitol Hill in his military dress uniform, Vindman, a Ukraine-born US&nbsp;citizen and decorated Iraq war combat veteran, became the first person to testify who listened in on the July 25 call at the heart of the Ukraine scandal.

The inquiry has focused on Trump's request of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky&nbsp;on the call that he investigate Biden, a former vice president, and his son Hunter Biden, who had served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company.

Trump also asked Zelenskiy to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 US&nbsp;election.

Trump made his request after withholding $391 million in security aid approved by Congress to help Ukraine fight Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Zelensky&nbsp;agreed to Trump's requests. The aid was later provided.

"I was concerned by the call," Vindman said in his prepared opening statement to the three House committees conducting the inquiry. "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a US&nbsp;citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the US&nbsp;government's support of Ukraine."

"I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine US&nbsp;national security," Vindman added.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing in his dealings with Ukraine and has called the impeachment probe politically motivated.

Vindman's testimony was some of the most damaging to date for Trump, who faces the possibility of impeachment as he prepares to run for re-election. Biden is a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to face him.

Federal law prohibits candidates from accepting foreign help in an election.

Vindman, appearing after receiving a subpoena from lawmakers despite the Trump administration policy of not cooperating with the impeachment inquiry, recounted listening in on the call in the White House Situation Room with colleagues from the National Security Council and Vice President Mike Pence's office.

After the call, Vindman said he reported his concerns to the National Security Council's lead counsel.

Vindman said earlier in July he had also reported concerns about previous pressure by the administration on Ukraine to carry out politically motivated investigations to the lawyer.

Vindman called into question the truthfulness of earlier testimony by another administration official, US&nbsp;Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.

At a July 10 meeting in Washington, Vindman said Sondland, a former Trump donor, told visiting Ukrainian officials they needed to "deliver specific investigations in order to secure a meeting with the president." At that point, Vindman said, then-national security adviser John Bolton cut the meeting short.

According to Vindman's opening statement, Sondland told other US&nbsp;officials in a debriefing after the meeting that it was important that the Ukrainian investigations center on the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma.

"I stated to Ambassador&nbsp;Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security," Vindman said.

Sondland gave a different account of the July 10 events in his own testimony, saying that "if Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill or others harboured any misgivings about the propriety of what we were doing, they never shared those misgivings with me, then or later."

Before his testimony, some Trump allies, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham, sought to attack Vindman's integrity and questioned his loyalty to the United States.

Biden, however, described Vindman as a hero, calling attacks on the Army officer's character and loyalty "despicable."

"He's a hell of a patriot," Biden told MSNBC.

After Vindman's testimony, the Democratic Intelligence Committee chairman, Representative Adam Schiff, said he was "appalled" by the critical comments. "He deserves better than that scandalous attack," Schiff told reporters.

Seeking to blunt Republican criticism that the inquiry does not give Trump due process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laid out legislation that could be voted on this week setting up a two-stage process for the inquiry.

In the first, the House Intelligence Committee would continue its probe, including via public hearings, with the right to make public transcripts of depositions taken in private.

The intelligence panel would then send a public report on its findings to the House Judiciary Committee, which would conduct its own proceedings and report on "such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper."

A lawyer for Trump would be allowed to participate in proceedings in the Judiciary Committee, which eventually could vote on formal charges against the Republican president. House passage of articles of impeachment would trigger a trial in the Republican-led Senate on whether to remove Trump from office.

At a news conference before the measure was unveiled, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy said the entire process remained a "sham."

Referring to closed meetings and depositions held by the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs panels over the past few weeks, McCarthy said: "You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Due process starts at the beginning."

The White House adopted a similar stance.

"The resolution put forward by Speaker Pelosi confirms that House Democrats’ impeachment has been an illegitimate sham from the start as it lacked any proper authorization by a House vote," White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said.

Impeachment is much different from a judicial process, however, and is not governed by the same rules. The US&nbsp;Constitution gives the House broad authority to set ground rules for an impeachment inquiry and Democrats say they are following House rules on investigations.

A senior White House official testified on Tuesday he was so alarmed by hearing US President Donald Trump ask Ukraine's president to investigate a political rival, Democrat Joe Biden, that he reported the matter to a White House lawyer.

A senior White House official testified on Tuesday he was so alarmed by hearing US President Donald Trump ask Ukraine's president to investigate a political rival, Democrat Joe Biden, that he reported the matter to a White House lawyer. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman became the first current White House staff member to testify in the Democratic-led House of Representatives inquiry into whether to impeach the Republican president. The Ukraine specialist gave a closed-door deposition for more than 10 hours as Democrats unveiled legislation calling for public hearings and a public report in the impeachment inquiry to blunt Republican criticism the probe has been conducted with too much secrecy. While the Democrats met Republican demands for a full House vote on impeachment inquiry procedures, holding public hearings and releasing transcripts taken in secret, senior Republicans rejected the legislation before it was even introduced. Appearing on Capitol Hill in his military dress uniform, Vindman, a Ukraine-born US citizen and decorated Iraq war combat veteran, became the first person to testify who listened in on the July 25 call at the heart of the Ukraine scandal. The inquiry has focused on Trump's request of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on the call that he investigate Biden, a former vice president, and his son Hunter Biden, who had served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company. Trump also asked Zelenskiy to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 US election. Trump made his request after withholding $391 million in security aid approved by Congress to help Ukraine fight Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Zelensky agreed to Trump's requests. The aid was later provided. "I was concerned by the call," Vindman said in his prepared opening statement to the three House committees conducting the inquiry. "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a US citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the US government's support of Ukraine." "I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine US national security," Vindman added. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in his dealings with Ukraine and has called the impeachment probe politically motivated. Vindman's testimony was some of the most damaging to date for Trump, who faces the possibility of impeachment as he prepares to run for re-election. Biden is a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to face him. Federal law prohibits candidates from accepting foreign help in an election. Vindman, appearing after receiving a subpoena from lawmakers despite the Trump administration policy of not cooperating with the impeachment inquiry, recounted listening in on the call in the White House Situation Room with colleagues from the National Security Council and Vice President Mike Pence's office. After the call, Vindman said he reported his concerns to the National Security Council's lead counsel. Vindman said earlier in July he had also reported concerns about previous pressure by the administration on Ukraine to carry out politically motivated investigations to the lawyer. Vindman called into question the truthfulness of earlier testimony by another administration official, US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. At a July 10 meeting in Washington, Vindman said Sondland, a former Trump donor, told visiting Ukrainian officials they needed to "deliver specific investigations in order to secure a meeting with the president." At that point, Vindman said, then-national security adviser John Bolton cut the meeting short. According to Vindman's opening statement, Sondland told other US officials in a debriefing after the meeting that it was important that the Ukrainian investigations center on the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma. "I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security," Vindman said. Sondland gave a different account of the July 10 events in his own testimony, saying that "if Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill or others harboured any misgivings about the propriety of what we were doing, they never shared those misgivings with me, then or later." Before his testimony, some Trump allies, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham, sought to attack Vindman's integrity and questioned his loyalty to the United States. Biden, however, described Vindman as a hero, calling attacks on the Army officer's character and loyalty "despicable." "He's a hell of a patriot," Biden told MSNBC. After Vindman's testimony, the Democratic Intelligence Committee chairman, Representative Adam Schiff, said he was "appalled" by the critical comments. "He deserves better than that scandalous attack," Schiff told reporters. Seeking to blunt Republican criticism that the inquiry does not give Trump due process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laid out legislation that could be voted on this week setting up a two-stage process for the inquiry. In the first, the House Intelligence Committee would continue its probe, including via public hearings, with the right to make public transcripts of depositions taken in private. The intelligence panel would then send a public report on its findings to the House Judiciary Committee, which would conduct its own proceedings and report on "such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper." A lawyer for Trump would be allowed to participate in proceedings in the Judiciary Committee, which eventually could vote on formal charges against the Republican president. House passage of articles of impeachment would trigger a trial in the Republican-led Senate on whether to remove Trump from office. At a news conference before the measure was unveiled, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy said the entire process remained a "sham." Referring to closed meetings and depositions held by the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs panels over the past few weeks, McCarthy said: "You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Due process starts at the beginning." The White House adopted a similar stance. "The resolution put forward by Speaker Pelosi confirms that House Democrats’ impeachment has been an illegitimate sham from the start as it lacked any proper authorization by a House vote," White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said. Impeachment is much different from a judicial process, however, and is not governed by the same rules. The US Constitution gives the House broad authority to set ground rules for an impeachment inquiry and Democrats say they are following House rules on investigations.

White House official Vindman raises US national security concern over Trump's call to Zelensky

By James Johnson

The US government, long a proponent of advancing technology for military purposes, sees artificial intelligence as key to the next generation of fighting tools.

Several recent investments and Pentagon initiatives show that military leaders are concerned about keeping up with – and ahead of – China and Russia, two countries that have made big gains in developing artificial-intelligence systems. AI-powered weapons include target recognition systems, weapons guided by AI, and cyberattack and cyberdefense software that runs without human intervention.

The US defence community is coming to understand that AI will significantly transform, if not completely reinvent, the world’s military power balance. The concern is more than the military. As Chinese and Russian technologies become more sophisticated, they threaten US domination of technological innovation and development, as well as global economic power and influence.

Military leaders see the threat to US technological leadership coming from two main sources: A&nbsp;rising and ambitious China and a mischievous and declining Russia. Taken together, these forces challenge global stability.

The nature of the threat

A 2018 Pentagon report noted that technological developments could change the types of threats facing the US, which might include space-based weapons, long-range ballistic missiles and cyberweapons.

A February 2019 analysis warned that China’s investments in its military’s AI systems – in particular, those supporting robotics, autonomy, precision munitions and cyber warfare – threaten to overtake the United States. Chinese government agencies are working closely with the country’s civilian businesses to keep on top of fast-changing technological developments.

In addition, some Chinese and Russian projects have developed military AI systems specifically aimed at what they perceive as US technological weaknesses. For instance, swarms of armed AI-enhanced drones might locate and attack the secure computer systems countries rely on to control and launch their nuclear weapons.

Pentagon’s response

So far the Pentagon’s actions have been largely bureaucratic, rather than concrete. It has released a Defense Department-wide strategy document that articulates broad principles for the development and use of AI in future warfare. The military has established a Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, which is tasked with accelerating the delivery and adoption of AI.

But projects with names like “the Third Offset,” “Project Maven” and the “AI Next Campaign” have minimal funding. Leaders have released few details about what they will actually do.

Working with Silicon Valley

The Pentagon has also established the Defense Innovation Unit, with permission to circumvent the cumbersome military purchasing process, to coordinate with Silicon Valley and bring new technologies into military use relatively quickly.

That unit has sparked discussions about the potential for the Chinese military to acquire and use US-designed technologies, which led to the US&nbsp;bans on doing business with many Chinese technology firms.

Many experts consider it possible for China to surpass the US&nbsp;in the development and use of AI. However, China trails the US in several ways. The United States has the world’s largest intelligence budget; the most popular hardware, software and technology companies; and the most advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, both offensive and defensive. I and other experts expect these advantages to preserve US&nbsp;technological leadership for now, at least – but perhaps not forever.

(James Johnson is Postdoctoral Fellow in Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-us-losing-the-artificial-intelligence-arms-race-124969">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By James Johnson The US government, long a proponent of advancing technology for military purposes, sees artificial intelligence as key to the next generation of fighting tools.

By James Johnson The US government, long a proponent of advancing technology for military purposes, sees artificial intelligence as key to the next generation of fighting tools. Several recent investments and Pentagon initiatives show that military leaders are concerned about keeping up with – and ahead of – China and Russia, two countries that have made big gains in developing artificial-intelligence systems. AI-powered weapons include target recognition systems, weapons guided by AI, and cyberattack and cyberdefense software that runs without human intervention. The US defence community is coming to understand that AI will significantly transform, if not completely reinvent, the world’s military power balance. The concern is more than the military. As Chinese and Russian technologies become more sophisticated, they threaten US domination of technological innovation and development, as well as global economic power and influence. Military leaders see the threat to US technological leadership coming from two main sources: A rising and ambitious China and a mischievous and declining Russia. Taken together, these forces challenge global stability. The nature of the threat A 2018 Pentagon report noted that technological developments could change the types of threats facing the US, which might include space-based weapons, long-range ballistic missiles and cyberweapons. A February 2019 analysis warned that China’s investments in its military’s AI systems – in particular, those supporting robotics, autonomy, precision munitions and cyber warfare – threaten to overtake the United States. Chinese government agencies are working closely with the country’s civilian businesses to keep on top of fast-changing technological developments. In addition, some Chinese and Russian projects have developed military AI systems specifically aimed at what they perceive as US technological weaknesses. For instance, swarms of armed AI-enhanced drones might locate and attack the secure computer systems countries rely on to control and launch their nuclear weapons. Pentagon’s response So far the Pentagon’s actions have been largely bureaucratic, rather than concrete. It has released a Defense Department-wide strategy document that articulates broad principles for the development and use of AI in future warfare. The military has established a Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, which is tasked with accelerating the delivery and adoption of AI. But projects with names like “the Third Offset,” “Project Maven” and the “AI Next Campaign” have minimal funding. Leaders have released few details about what they will actually do. Working with Silicon Valley The Pentagon has also established the Defense Innovation Unit, with permission to circumvent the cumbersome military purchasing process, to coordinate with Silicon Valley and bring new technologies into military use relatively quickly. That unit has sparked discussions about the potential for the Chinese military to acquire and use US-designed technologies, which led to the US bans on doing business with many Chinese technology firms. Many experts consider it possible for China to surpass the US in the development and use of AI. However, China trails the US in several ways. The United States has the world’s largest intelligence budget; the most popular hardware, software and technology companies; and the most advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, both offensive and defensive. I and other experts expect these advantages to preserve US technological leadership for now, at least – but perhaps not forever. (James Johnson is Postdoctoral Fellow in Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Is the US losing the artificial intelligence arms race?

By Natasha Lindstaedt

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State (IS), is dead. After US special forces raided his safe house in Idlib province in north-west Syria, Baghdadi reportedly fled and detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children. Over the past several years, there have been constant reports of his death but up until now, none of these reports have been verified.

The death of Osama bin Laden in 2011 did not lead to the end of Al-Qaeda, but what does al-Baghdadi’s death mean for IS?

Al-Baghdadi was most likely born in the Iraqi city of Samarra in 1971. Though he was a poor student with bad eyesight, he rose to command al-Qaeda’s Iraqi division. He was captured by US forces in a raid in 2004 in Falluja, Iraq, but was not considered to be particularly important at the time. Few would predict that Al-Baghdadi would rise to such a position of power. He was not noted for being particularly charismatic or memorable.

By 2010, al-Baghdadi took control of the group that would be eventually called the Islamic State, a group whose predecessor was Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI had been led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until he was killed in 2006. Under the helm of al-Zarqawi, AQI had become one of the region’s most brutal and effective insurgent groups, controlling the flow of resources and foreign fighters into Iraq. By 2007, the group had almost faded away, but by 2009 it was gaining support in Sunni tribal areas now known as the Islamic State in Iraq.

Split with Al-Qaeda

By the time al-Baghdadi took over, a rift had grown between the wider al-Qaeda group and IS, which had been simmering since al-Zarqawi led AQI. To al-Qaeda, Baghdadi was excessively violent and counter-productive to al-Qaeda’s objectives. Extravagant brutality such as beheading Muslims would alienate most Muslims. Al-Qaeda was also alarmed at IS’s predatory strategy of taking territory and resources from other rebel groups.

Al-Baghdadi, for his part, had no interest in subsuming IS under the wider leadership of al-Qaeda. He sent delegates (who were mostly of Syrian descent) into Syria after the Syrian war began in March 2011, a decision which al-Qaeda rejected. After repeated attempts by al-Qaeda to convince al-Baghdadi to move out of Syria, it officially cut its ties with him in February 2014.

Al-Baghdadi believed that al-Qaeda was ineffective, and had failed to set up an actual state.

Declaration of the caliphate

In June 2014, al-Baghdadi made his first public appearance delivering a sermon from a mosque in the recently captured city of Mosul, where he claimed to come from the same tribe as the prophet Muhammad. He also brazenly declared himself to be the caliph – or the political and religious leader of the Muslim community. Though this declaration was universally rejected by Islamic authorities, his plan of setting up a caliphate attracted thousands of foreign fighters to his cause.

At the height of al-Baghdadi’s power, IS had set up organisational structures across multiple countries and created a de facto state, the size of Belgium with 8m people living under its control. He established a brutal justice system, legalised slavery, collected taxes and provided a handful of public services.

While Bin Laden was more concerned with overthrowing modern Arab dictators, eliminating Israel and knocking over Western symbols of power, al-Baghdadi focused more on reviving the glory of the past. His dramatic vision for IS attracted those that wanted to be considered to be part of a line of warriors that extended back to the Prophet Muhammad.

Fall from power

By 2017, IS’s fortunes started to turn. It had inspired or helped to plan a series of terrorist attacks in Belgium, the US, France and Turkey that drew increasing resolve from the West to step up efforts to eliminate the group. Iraq’s forces also became more effective against IS, eventually retaking Mosul in 2017.

By March of 2019, IS surrendered its final territorial stronghold in Baghouz, Syria after extensive fighting with the mostly Kurdish, Syrian Democratic Forces. IS no longer had territory that it could lay claim to, and without territory, it could not claim to be a valid caliphate.

In an attempt to strengthen his standing, al-Baghdadi appeared in a video in April to demonstrate that the group could still exist, even if it lacked territory. He tried to energise his fighters to redouble their efforts. This would be only the second time that he would appear to the public.

His decision not to appear in person was about ensuring his own safety. Airstrikes had already caused a series of injuries. To avoid being caught, he never used mobile phones and frequently changed safe houses.

This makes his presence in Idlib province in Syria where he died somewhat surprising. The province is controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an Islamist militia fiercely opposed to IS. The region is also currently under siege by Russian and Syrian forces.

What’s next for IS?

As I’ve argued in my own research, for most terrorist groups which are hierarchically organised, the death of a leader signals its demise. In fact most terrorist groups fall apart within a year of forming once the group has been decapitated. Terrorist groups that are larger and more cellular in structure, such as Al-Qaeda, have been able to weather the deaths of leaders, helping to explain the group’s longevity.

IS will likely name a successor to lead the group, and al-Baghdadi tried to prepare his followers that he would not live forever. But it could now start to operate in a way similar to Al-Qaeda with a cell-like structure, where it may attempt to plan terrorist attacks to signal its continued relevance to its followers. It needs to attract new numbers as it has seen its membership dwindle since its territory has disappeared.

The US decision to pull out of Syria has compromised the Kurds, who were managing detention centres holding captured IS fighters. The Turkish advance into Kurdish held territory in north-eastern Syria has led to the escape of several hundreds of IS fighters. The US, however, already claims it has gathered further intelligence from al-Baghdadi’s compound that will continue to weaken IS.

Studies of terrorist groups that have managed succession raise concerns that when one leader dies, the leadership that follows can be less disciplined, more violent and determined to exact revenge. Given Baghdadi’s penchant for brutality, it’s hard to imagine how that’s possible.

(Natasha Lindstaedt is Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/al-baghdadis-death-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-leader-of-islamic-state-125947">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Natasha Lindstaedt Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State (IS), is dead. After US special forces raided his safe house in Idlib province in north-west Syria, Baghdadi reportedly fled and detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children.

By Natasha Lindstaedt Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State (IS), is dead. After US special forces raided his safe house in Idlib province in north-west Syria, Baghdadi reportedly fled and detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children. Over the past several years, there have been constant reports of his death but up until now, none of these reports have been verified. The death of Osama bin Laden in 2011 did not lead to the end of Al-Qaeda, but what does al-Baghdadi’s death mean for IS? Al-Baghdadi was most likely born in the Iraqi city of Samarra in 1971. Though he was a poor student with bad eyesight, he rose to command al-Qaeda’s Iraqi division. He was captured by US forces in a raid in 2004 in Falluja, Iraq, but was not considered to be particularly important at the time. Few would predict that Al-Baghdadi would rise to such a position of power. He was not noted for being particularly charismatic or memorable. By 2010, al-Baghdadi took control of the group that would be eventually called the Islamic State, a group whose predecessor was Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI had been led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until he was killed in 2006. Under the helm of al-Zarqawi, AQI had become one of the region’s most brutal and effective insurgent groups, controlling the flow of resources and foreign fighters into Iraq. By 2007, the group had almost faded away, but by 2009 it was gaining support in Sunni tribal areas now known as the Islamic State in Iraq. Split with Al-Qaeda By the time al-Baghdadi took over, a rift had grown between the wider al-Qaeda group and IS, which had been simmering since al-Zarqawi led AQI. To al-Qaeda, Baghdadi was excessively violent and counter-productive to al-Qaeda’s objectives. Extravagant brutality such as beheading Muslims would alienate most Muslims. Al-Qaeda was also alarmed at IS’s predatory strategy of taking territory and resources from other rebel groups. Al-Baghdadi, for his part, had no interest in subsuming IS under the wider leadership of al-Qaeda. He sent delegates (who were mostly of Syrian descent) into Syria after the Syrian war began in March 2011, a decision which al-Qaeda rejected. After repeated attempts by al-Qaeda to convince al-Baghdadi to move out of Syria, it officially cut its ties with him in February 2014. Al-Baghdadi believed that al-Qaeda was ineffective, and had failed to set up an actual state. Declaration of the caliphate In June 2014, al-Baghdadi made his first public appearance delivering a sermon from a mosque in the recently captured city of Mosul, where he claimed to come from the same tribe as the prophet Muhammad. He also brazenly declared himself to be the caliph – or the political and religious leader of the Muslim community. Though this declaration was universally rejected by Islamic authorities, his plan of setting up a caliphate attracted thousands of foreign fighters to his cause. At the height of al-Baghdadi’s power, IS had set up organisational structures across multiple countries and created a de facto state, the size of Belgium with 8m people living under its control. He established a brutal justice system, legalised slavery, collected taxes and provided a handful of public services. While Bin Laden was more concerned with overthrowing modern Arab dictators, eliminating Israel and knocking over Western symbols of power, al-Baghdadi focused more on reviving the glory of the past. His dramatic vision for IS attracted those that wanted to be considered to be part of a line of warriors that extended back to the Prophet Muhammad. Fall from power By 2017, IS’s fortunes started to turn. It had inspired or helped to plan a series of terrorist attacks in Belgium, the US, France and Turkey that drew increasing resolve from the West to step up efforts to eliminate the group. Iraq’s forces also became more effective against IS, eventually retaking Mosul in 2017. By March of 2019, IS surrendered its final territorial stronghold in Baghouz, Syria after extensive fighting with the mostly Kurdish, Syrian Democratic Forces. IS no longer had territory that it could lay claim to, and without territory, it could not claim to be a valid caliphate. In an attempt to strengthen his standing, al-Baghdadi appeared in a video in April to demonstrate that the group could still exist, even if it lacked territory. He tried to energise his fighters to redouble their efforts. This would be only the second time that he would appear to the public. His decision not to appear in person was about ensuring his own safety. Airstrikes had already caused a series of injuries. To avoid being caught, he never used mobile phones and frequently changed safe houses. This makes his presence in Idlib province in Syria where he died somewhat surprising. The province is controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an Islamist militia fiercely opposed to IS. The region is also currently under siege by Russian and Syrian forces. What’s next for IS? As I’ve argued in my own research, for most terrorist groups which are hierarchically organised, the death of a leader signals its demise. In fact most terrorist groups fall apart within a year of forming once the group has been decapitated. Terrorist groups that are larger and more cellular in structure, such as Al-Qaeda, have been able to weather the deaths of leaders, helping to explain the group’s longevity. IS will likely name a successor to lead the group, and al-Baghdadi tried to prepare his followers that he would not live forever. But it could now start to operate in a way similar to Al-Qaeda with a cell-like structure, where it may attempt to plan terrorist attacks to signal its continued relevance to its followers. It needs to attract new numbers as it has seen its membership dwindle since its territory has disappeared. The US decision to pull out of Syria has compromised the Kurds, who were managing detention centres holding captured IS fighters. The Turkish advance into Kurdish held territory in north-eastern Syria has led to the escape of several hundreds of IS fighters. The US, however, already claims it has gathered further intelligence from al-Baghdadi’s compound that will continue to weaken IS. Studies of terrorist groups that have managed succession raise concerns that when one leader dies, the leadership that follows can be less disciplined, more violent and determined to exact revenge. Given Baghdadi’s penchant for brutality, it’s hard to imagine how that’s possible. (Natasha Lindstaedt is Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Al-Baghdadi’s death: The rise and fall of the leader of Islamic State

Elimination of 2 terrorists: Watch the difference in approaches of Trump and Obama. Watch video to know more.

Elimination of 2 terrorists: Watch the difference in approaches of Trump and Obama

Trump shares image of hero dog injured in Baghdadi raid. Watch video to know more.

Trump shares image of hero dog injured in Baghdadi raid

Democrats in Congress, answering Republican complaints that their <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-lawmakers-hear-from-corroborating-witness-in-trump-impeachment-probe-258323">impeachment investigation</a> of US&nbsp;President Donald Trump is being conducted in secret, plan a vote on Thursday on how to make their inquiry public, a significant new stage in the probe.

Trump and his fellow Republicans have for weeks branded the work of committees probing Trump's overtures to Ukraine as illegitimate, arguing the full Democratic-led House of Representatives had failed to authorise their investigations in a public vote.

Meeting behind closed doors, the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees have been looking into the possibility that Trump violated federal law by seeking foreign help for his November 2020 re-election efforts.

House Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern said on Monday: "I will be introducing a resolution to ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said in a statement the legislation would establish a format for open hearings.The US&nbsp;Constitution gives the House broad authority to set ground rules for an impeachment inquiry and Democrats say they are following House rules on investigations.

Several administration officials, including a former deputy national security adviser on Monday, have failed to testify to House committees engaged in the probe.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to her fellow House Democrats the House will vote this week - on Thursday, according to a senior Democratic aide - on a resolution that spells out how future public hearings will be held.

Pelosi promised to provide legal protections for Trump.

A source familiar with the probe said the public hearings will be held by the Intelligence Committee and that the transcripts from closed depositions with witnesses will be made public. A senior House Democratic aide said the hearings could begin within the next month.

The measure will set the stage for House investigating committees to forward evidence they have collected to the House Judiciary Committee, which would then decide whether to advance articles of impeachment against Trump.

Even if the House impeaches Trump, he would face a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate, which for the moment seems unlikely to convict the president and force his ouster.

Impeachment requires a simple majority in the 435-member House but conviction demands the support of a two-thirds majority in the 100-member Senate.

Charles Kupperman, a former deputy to ousted national security adviser John Bolton, failed to appear earlier on Monday before the three House panels conducting the Ukraine phase of the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry, lawmakers said.

Other panels are probing separate issues, including Trump's finances and abuses of White House security clearances.

Kupperman put off testifying while asking a court to rule on whether he should comply with a congressional subpoena or honour the Trump administration's order not to testify, his lawyers said last week.

Democrats in turn said they would not let further legal manoeuvrings delay their work.

At least nine others have testified despite being instructed by the White House not to do so, Schiff said.

Kupperman was expected to provide testimony about Trump's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-lawmakers-hear-from-corroborating-witness-in-trump-impeachment-probe-258323">dealings with Ukraine</a> brought to Congress' attention by a report from a whistleblower about a July 25 telephone call between the US&nbsp;president and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Trump's request to Zelenskiy that he investigate former US&nbsp;Vice President Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son Hunter Biden, who had served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, is the focus of the inquiry being conducted by the three panels.

Trump made his request after withholding $391 million in security aid approved by the US&nbsp;Congress to help fight Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

A separate White House official, Alexander Vindman, a lieutenant colonel who sits on the National Security Council and who listened in on the call, is expected to tell lawmakers in a closed-door hearing on Tuesday that the conversation alarmed him so much that he raised concerns with an NSC lawyer.

But Trump again dismissed the inquiry in comments to reporters.

"I had a great conversation with the Ukrainian president. I had another with him also, I think before that, which was the same thing, it was nothing. They tried to take that conversation and make it into a big scandal," Trump said on Monday.

Schiff noted that a federal judge had validated the legality of the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry in a decision about releasing information regarding a separate investigation, into Russian election interference in 2016, to Congress and that all witnesses need to come forward when called.

The Trump administration appealed that ruling on Monday.

Democrats in Congress, answering Republican complaints that their impeachment investigation of US President Donald Trump is being conducted in secret, plan a vote on Thursday on how to make their inquiry public, a significant new stage in the probe.

Democrats in Congress, answering Republican complaints that their impeachment investigation of US President Donald Trump is being conducted in secret, plan a vote on Thursday on how to make their inquiry public, a significant new stage in the probe. Trump and his fellow Republicans have for weeks branded the work of committees probing Trump's overtures to Ukraine as illegitimate, arguing the full Democratic-led House of Representatives had failed to authorise their investigations in a public vote. Meeting behind closed doors, the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees have been looking into the possibility that Trump violated federal law by seeking foreign help for his November 2020 re-election efforts. House Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern said on Monday: "I will be introducing a resolution to ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward." House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said in a statement the legislation would establish a format for open hearings.The US Constitution gives the House broad authority to set ground rules for an impeachment inquiry and Democrats say they are following House rules on investigations. Several administration officials, including a former deputy national security adviser on Monday, have failed to testify to House committees engaged in the probe. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to her fellow House Democrats the House will vote this week - on Thursday, according to a senior Democratic aide - on a resolution that spells out how future public hearings will be held. Pelosi promised to provide legal protections for Trump. A source familiar with the probe said the public hearings will be held by the Intelligence Committee and that the transcripts from closed depositions with witnesses will be made public. A senior House Democratic aide said the hearings could begin within the next month. The measure will set the stage for House investigating committees to forward evidence they have collected to the House Judiciary Committee, which would then decide whether to advance articles of impeachment against Trump. Even if the House impeaches Trump, he would face a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate, which for the moment seems unlikely to convict the president and force his ouster. Impeachment requires a simple majority in the 435-member House but conviction demands the support of a two-thirds majority in the 100-member Senate. Charles Kupperman, a former deputy to ousted national security adviser John Bolton, failed to appear earlier on Monday before the three House panels conducting the Ukraine phase of the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry, lawmakers said. Other panels are probing separate issues, including Trump's finances and abuses of White House security clearances. Kupperman put off testifying while asking a court to rule on whether he should comply with a congressional subpoena or honour the Trump administration's order not to testify, his lawyers said last week. Democrats in turn said they would not let further legal manoeuvrings delay their work. At least nine others have testified despite being instructed by the White House not to do so, Schiff said. Kupperman was expected to provide testimony about Trump's dealings with Ukraine brought to Congress' attention by a report from a whistleblower about a July 25 telephone call between the US president and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Trump's request to Zelenskiy that he investigate former US Vice President Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son Hunter Biden, who had served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, is the focus of the inquiry being conducted by the three panels. Trump made his request after withholding $391 million in security aid approved by the US Congress to help fight Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. A separate White House official, Alexander Vindman, a lieutenant colonel who sits on the National Security Council and who listened in on the call, is expected to tell lawmakers in a closed-door hearing on Tuesday that the conversation alarmed him so much that he raised concerns with an NSC lawyer. But Trump again dismissed the inquiry in comments to reporters. "I had a great conversation with the Ukrainian president. I had another with him also, I think before that, which was the same thing, it was nothing. They tried to take that conversation and make it into a big scandal," Trump said on Monday. Schiff noted that a federal judge had validated the legality of the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry in a decision about releasing information regarding a separate investigation, into Russian election interference in 2016, to Congress and that all witnesses need to come forward when called. The Trump administration appealed that ruling on Monday.

Democrats set to vote on on how to make Trump impeachment probe public

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 29th, 2019

A Step-By-Step Account Of The U.S. Operation That Killed Terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Gravitas: US kills Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Here's how it unfolded

By Vahid Niayesh

Did President Donald Trump’s travel ban – in place now for more than 22 months – become, in practice, a Muslim ban?

The third version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban went into full effect on December 8, 2017.

The list of countries whose citizens are banned from entering the United States include Muslim-majority countries Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia, as well as North Korea and Venezuela.

Now that time has passed, policymakers, political scientists like myself and all Americans can start to understand the ban’s effects.

Was it actually a Muslim ban, as it was called at the time it was introduced? Or was that just an anti-Trump label? What percentage of people from those banned countries did pass the “enhanced vetting” and get an actual visa to enter the United States?

I looked through the government’s data to find answers.

Sharp decline

The US Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs regularly provides data on the number of visas issued for all countries.

Based on the data the agency provides for the fiscal year, the number of immigrant visas issued for the country of Iran decreased by 78 per cent between 2017 and 2018.

However, the fiscal year data for the year 2018 included the last three months of 2017, when the travel ban wasn’t still implemented. I broke the data down by months to understand how travel ban changed the number of visas issued from calendar year to calendar year. This offered a more accurate picture of the travel ban.

This analysis shows that only 537 immigrant visas were issued in 2018 for the 12 months after the travel ban went into effect for individuals born in Iran. Compare that to 6,643 visas issued in the previous year. That is a 92 per cent decrease in number of visas issued.

Other Muslim countries in the ban were similarly affected.

For instance, Somalia experienced 86 per cent decrease in number of immigrant visas issued during the 12 months after the travel ban went into effect. Yemen’s visas reduced by 83 per cent.

Libya and Syria had the smallest change among the Muslim countries in the ban, decreasing by 80 per cent and 77 per cent respectively.

Muslim vs non-Muslim countries

Many critics of the new travel rules argued that they were effectively a “Muslim ban.”

The Trump administration countered that there are Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that are not included in the travel ban, and there are non-Muslim countries like Venezuela and North Korea that are included.

However, US Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs data shows that there was a significant decrease in the number of immigrant visas issued to Muslim countries affected by the travel ban. Meanwhile, the number of immigrant visas issued per month to the non-Muslim countries in the ban virtually remained unchanged.

In fact, there was a 40 per cent increase in the number of visas issued to North Koreans per calendar-year data, relative to the prior year, when the travel ban was blocked by federal courts.

Country of chargeability

There are some questions that government data cannot answer.

For example, rather than providing data on where each visa recipient lives, the U.S. Department of State by report if the Visa Office only offers information on the country of chargeability, which basically means where the applicant was born.

There were five fiancé visas issued to Iranians in calendar year 2018, compared to 358 fiancé visas issued in 2017. But even that low number does not tell us whether these five visas were given to Iranians that actually lived inside Iran. These visas may have been given to Iranians who had been living in Canada or Europe for many years but were born in Iran.

The actual impact of the Trump travel ban, in other words, could be even bigger than what the data shows.

Visas and waivers

Waivers are another important issue that is hard to study.

The vast majority people from the seven restricted countries who applied for a visa after the implementation of the ban were rejected outright.

However, US officials may grant a waiver to someone if there is evidence that the applicant is facing so much undue hardship that they need to be united with their loved ones in the US.

This could happen, for example, if a family member in the United States is dying and a person from a restricted nation wants to see them one last time, like the Yemeni mother who got a chance to see her baby boy just two days before he died.

In the first six months after the full implementation of the ban, such waivers were only given to around 2 per cent of individuals from banned countries. This gradually increased to 6 per cent after one year.

Being considered for a waiver is not the same as getting a visa. A person who is being considered for a waiver still cannot enter the US. They must wait under “administrative processing” status until they are cleared for a visa. It could take several years before applicants find out the results of their application. During this period, they cannot enter the U.S.

One recent lawsuit against the travel ban claims that some of their 14 clients have been under consideration for a waiver for 18 months at least, with no visa being granted to any of them yet.

What’s next

The first congressional hearing on the travel ban, held on September 24, established a need to reassess the impacts of the policy.

From what I see, looking at 18 months of government-provided data, the current travel ban is in effect a Muslim ban. I think that policymakers should take a deeper look into travel ban statistics and hold the Trump administration accountable for its visa policy for the restricted countries.

(Vahid Niayesh is Lecturer in Political Science, California State University, Long Beach)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-travel-ban-really-looks-like-almost-two-years-in-123564"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Vahid Niayesh Did President Donald Trump’s travel ban – in place now for more than 22 months – become, in practice, a Muslim ban? The third version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban went into full effect on December 8, 2017.

By Vahid Niayesh Did President Donald Trump’s travel ban – in place now for more than 22 months – become, in practice, a Muslim ban? The third version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban went into full effect on December 8, 2017. The list of countries whose citizens are banned from entering the United States include Muslim-majority countries Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia, as well as North Korea and Venezuela. Now that time has passed, policymakers, political scientists like myself and all Americans can start to understand the ban’s effects. Was it actually a Muslim ban, as it was called at the time it was introduced? Or was that just an anti-Trump label? What percentage of people from those banned countries did pass the “enhanced vetting” and get an actual visa to enter the United States? I looked through the government’s data to find answers. Sharp decline The US Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs regularly provides data on the number of visas issued for all countries. Based on the data the agency provides for the fiscal year, the number of immigrant visas issued for the country of Iran decreased by 78 per cent between 2017 and 2018. However, the fiscal year data for the year 2018 included the last three months of 2017, when the travel ban wasn’t still implemented. I broke the data down by months to understand how travel ban changed the number of visas issued from calendar year to calendar year. This offered a more accurate picture of the travel ban. This analysis shows that only 537 immigrant visas were issued in 2018 for the 12 months after the travel ban went into effect for individuals born in Iran. Compare that to 6,643 visas issued in the previous year. That is a 92 per cent decrease in number of visas issued. Other Muslim countries in the ban were similarly affected. For instance, Somalia experienced 86 per cent decrease in number of immigrant visas issued during the 12 months after the travel ban went into effect. Yemen’s visas reduced by 83 per cent. Libya and Syria had the smallest change among the Muslim countries in the ban, decreasing by 80 per cent and 77 per cent respectively. Muslim vs non-Muslim countries Many critics of the new travel rules argued that they were effectively a “Muslim ban.” The Trump administration countered that there are Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that are not included in the travel ban, and there are non-Muslim countries like Venezuela and North Korea that are included. However, US Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs data shows that there was a significant decrease in the number of immigrant visas issued to Muslim countries affected by the travel ban. Meanwhile, the number of immigrant visas issued per month to the non-Muslim countries in the ban virtually remained unchanged. In fact, there was a 40 per cent increase in the number of visas issued to North Koreans per calendar-year data, relative to the prior year, when the travel ban was blocked by federal courts. Country of chargeability There are some questions that government data cannot answer. For example, rather than providing data on where each visa recipient lives, the U.S. Department of State by report if the Visa Office only offers information on the country of chargeability, which basically means where the applicant was born. There were five fiancé visas issued to Iranians in calendar year 2018, compared to 358 fiancé visas issued in 2017. But even that low number does not tell us whether these five visas were given to Iranians that actually lived inside Iran. These visas may have been given to Iranians who had been living in Canada or Europe for many years but were born in Iran. The actual impact of the Trump travel ban, in other words, could be even bigger than what the data shows. Visas and waivers Waivers are another important issue that is hard to study. The vast majority people from the seven restricted countries who applied for a visa after the implementation of the ban were rejected outright. However, US officials may grant a waiver to someone if there is evidence that the applicant is facing so much undue hardship that they need to be united with their loved ones in the US. This could happen, for example, if a family member in the United States is dying and a person from a restricted nation wants to see them one last time, like the Yemeni mother who got a chance to see her baby boy just two days before he died. In the first six months after the full implementation of the ban, such waivers were only given to around 2 per cent of individuals from banned countries. This gradually increased to 6 per cent after one year. Being considered for a waiver is not the same as getting a visa. A person who is being considered for a waiver still cannot enter the US. They must wait under “administrative processing” status until they are cleared for a visa. It could take several years before applicants find out the results of their application. During this period, they cannot enter the U.S. One recent lawsuit against the travel ban claims that some of their 14 clients have been under consideration for a waiver for 18 months at least, with no visa being granted to any of them yet. What’s next The first congressional hearing on the travel ban, held on September 24, established a need to reassess the impacts of the policy. From what I see, looking at 18 months of government-provided data, the current travel ban is in effect a Muslim ban. I think that policymakers should take a deeper look into travel ban statistics and hold the Trump administration accountable for its visa policy for the restricted countries. (Vahid Niayesh is Lecturer in Political Science, California State University, Long Beach) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

What Donald Trump’s travel ban really looks like, almost two years in

U.S. President Donald Trump shares a picture of a heroic dog who played the major role in the killing of ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Watch this video to find out more.

U.S. President shares picture of heroic dog played major role in Baghdadi's killing

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, America's big tech companies are being challenged on many fronts from across the political spectrum, from antitrust concerns to their policies on political ads and ensuring election security.

Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have argued in favour of either breaking up or tightening regulation of firms such as Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Amazon.com Inc.

Republican President Donald Trump's administration has also stepped up its scrutiny, announcing a wide-ranging investigation in July into whether major digital tech companies engaged in anti-competitive practices.

Trump's Democratic challengers also criticise online platforms for allowing politicians to make false claims in advertising ahead of the election next November.

Social media platforms are under particular scrutiny after US&nbsp;intelligence agencies said Russia used them to wage an influence operation to interfere with the 2016 election - a claim Moscow has denied.

Here are some of the candidates' positions on Big Tech.

President Trump

Trump, whose social media use and digital advertising campaign helped propel him to the White House in 2016, in September attacked the "immense power" of social media giants in his address to the United Nations.

Trump has stopped short of calling for tech giants to be broken up, as Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have, but said "obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly," when asked about major tech companies in a June interview with CNBC.

Trump and other Republicans have also criticized social media companies, without evidence, for alleged political bias.

The president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. wrote an opinion piece for The Hill political website in September entitled "Free speech suppression online builds case to break up Big Tech."

Silicon Valley firms have also been at odds with the Trump administration over policies such as its repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules and the impact of the U.S.-China trade war on their supply chains.

Joe Biden

Biden, who was vice president in the Silicon Valley-friendly Obama administration, has taken a more moderate stance than his progressive rivals on the issue of big tech company break-ups.

In a May interview with the Associated Press, he said that splitting up companies such as Facebook was "something we should take a really hard look at" but that it was "premature" to make a final judgment.

The campaign told Reuters that, as president, Biden would aggressively use "all the tools available - including utilizing antitrust measures" to ensure corporations act responsibly.

He did not speak up during a discussion of the issue at the most recent Democratic debate in October.

Biden has criticized e-commerce giant Amazon's $0 federal tax bill in 2018.

"I have nothing against Amazon, but no company pulling in billions of dollars of profits should pay a lower tax rate than firefighters and teachers. We need to reward work, not just wealth," he said in a tweet in June.

His campaign also clashed with Facebook, Twitter and Google over their political ad policies after they refused to take down a Trump ad that the Biden team said contained false claims about his son Hunter's dealings with Ukraine.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren is leading the charge to break up big tech companies on the grounds they hold outsized influence and stifle competition.

She has called for legislation to restrict large tech platforms - which she would designate as "platform utilities" -from owning and participating in a marketplace at the same time.

Under this law, Apple would not be allowed to both run the App Store and sell its own apps on it, for example.

She also said she would nominate regulators to unwind anti-competitive mergers such as Facebook's deals for WhatsApp and Instagram, and Amazon's deal for Whole Foods.

Warren in October challenged Facebook's policy of exempting politicians' ads from fact-checking by running ads containing the false claim that CEO Mark Zuckerberg was endorsing Trump's re-election bid.

The senator from Massachusetts has also said that she would reject campaign donations over $200 from executives of big tech firms.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders, a US senator from Vermont who frequently criticizes corporate influence, has also called for the break-up of big tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon.

His administration would "absolutely" try to split apart the companies, Sanders said at a Washington Post event in July.

He has said that he will have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review all mergers that have taken place during the Trump administration. His broad plan to reshape corporate America would also mandate all large companies to be owned partly by their workers.

Asked how he differentiates himself from Warren on major issues, Sanders told ABC in October: "Elizabeth considers herself - if I got the quote correctly - to be a capitalist to her bones. I don't."

Sanders has been vocal in his attacks on Amazon over issues such as its tax contributions and working conditions at its warehouses. In 2018, he introduced a 'Stop BEZOS Act' in the Senate, in a reference to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, which would make large corporations either pay their workers more or pay the government for public benefits that their workers receive.

Pete Buttigieg

In general, Pete Buttigieg, who became Facebook's 287th user shortly after it was launched in 2004 at Harvard University, where he was a student, has been more reluctant to slam the tech giants than some other candidates.

The mayor from South Bend, Indiana, said that the break-up of big tech companies is a "remedy that should be on the table," but also said it was not a politician's place to designate which companies should be broken up.

He has said that the FTC should be empowered to prevent and sometimes reverse mergers, but argued that large tech companies should be scrutinized for their actions rather than their size. He says concerns over monopolies and concerns over data security or privacy should not be conflated.

He is in favour of having legislation to protect individual data rights at a national level, including the right to be forgotten - which would give citizens the power to demand that online platforms delete data about them, as is the case in Europe.

Kamala Harris

Senator Harris of California, the home of Silicon Valley, has said that Facebook has not been sufficiently regulated. She has not called outright for the break-up of big tech firms but said it should be "seriously" considered.

During the campaign, Harris touted her experience protecting consumers' online privacy while she was state attorney general.

In Congress, Harris, along with fellow candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar, introduced the bipartisan ENOUGH Act in 2017 to protect against online exploitation of private images. Harris recently called on Twitter to suspend Trump's Twitter account, saying his tweets threaten violence. In response, the company said that Trump's tweets did not violate its policies.

Amy Klobuchar

The Minnesota senator has made oversight of big technology companies one of her major issues in Congress and argued for data privacy laws and net neutrality safeguards as priorities at her campaign launch in February. Klobuchar has called for tighter regulation of tech giants and suggested that companies who profit from users' data could be taxed.

She has not endorsed Warren's plan for their break-up, saying that she would first want investigations. Her plan for her first 100 days in office includes an "aggressive retrospective review of mergers," which she said she would pay for with an extra merger fee on "megamergers."

She is also one of the authors of the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which would require social media platforms to disclose the purchaser of a political ad, as is required for television and print ads.

Andrew Yang

Yang, the former CEO of a start-up, has benefited from a surge of grassroots supporters on social media who style themselves as the #yanggang.

Although the technology entrepreneur said "we would be well served" if big tech companies were to break themselves up, he is more focused on dealing with the impact of automation on American jobs and on regulating artificial intelligence. Yang has also emphasized the negative effects of tech on mental health and said he would create a Department of Attention Economy, ideally led by tech ethics advocate Tristan Harris, to look at how to responsibly design and use apps and devices.

He has also called for people to receive a share of the economic value generated from their data.

Cory Booker

New Jersey Senator Booker said that Warren's call to break up the tech giants was "more like a Donald Trump thing to say" and has instead argued that stronger antitrust laws need to be enforced.

When questioned at the October Democratic debate on the issue, Booker advocated reforms to stop tech companies being used "to undermine our democracy" around elections.

He talked broadly about antitrust, "from pharma to farms," but did not single out tech companies.

A Stanford University graduate who co-founded his own social media start-up WayWire, Booker has historically received donations from major Silicon Valley names such as Zuckerberg. The Facebook CEO also donated $100 million to Newark schools when Booker was mayor of the New Jersey city.

Beto O' Rourke

O'Rourke, a former US representative from Texas, wants to see Big Tech regulated rather than broken up. He has said he does not think it is the role of a president to designate which companies should be dismantled.

O'Rourke's campaign told Reuters he would stand up for small business by preventing online platform owners from promoting their own content and products over that of competitors. He also plans to create a new digital markets regulator to create and enforce rules on issues such as privacy and data mobility.

O’Rourke, who as a teenager was part of an influential hacking group, has also said he thinks social media companies should be treated as publishers.

He wants to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally provides immunity to online platforms for content posted by users, to make social media companies more accountable for the amplification of hate speech and domestic terrorism on their platforms.

His campaign recently urged Facebook, Twitter and Google to do more to combat online disinformation, after the campaign encountered the spread of a false claim about a gunman in a mass shooting.

Julian Castro

Castro, who was secretary of housing and urban development in the Obama administration, has said it is worth considering proposals to break up the big tech companies and said during the recent Democratic debate that the US&nbsp;needs to take a stronger stance in cracking down on monopolistic trade practices.

In the October debate, the former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, also singled out Amazon by name for helping to "put small businesses out of business" and for "shortchanging a lot of its workers."

Tulsi Gabbard

Gabbard, a US representative from Hawaii, has called for the break-up of big tech companies and praised Warren's plan.

In July, she filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google accusing the company of discrimination when it temporarily suspended her ad account after the first Democratic debate. Google said the account had been automatically flagged for unusual activity, without specifying exactly what the issue was.

Gabbard said that Google's actions reflected "how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values."

Tom Steyer

California billionaire Steyer has said he is running for president to remove the influence of corporate money from politics.

In the October debate, he said that monopolies either have to be dismantled or regulated, but that to win against Trump, Democrats would have to "show the American people that we don't just know how to tax and have programs to break up companies."

Instead, he said, Democrats must harness the innovation and competition of the private sector.

Steyer's campaign has been noted for its massive ad spending which helped push him to the debate stage, including more than $6 million in Facebook ads, according to Democratic digital firm Bully Pulpit Interactive.

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, America's big tech companies are being challenged on many fronts from across the political spectrum, from antitrust concerns to their policies on political ads and ensuring election security.

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, America's big tech companies are being challenged on many fronts from across the political spectrum, from antitrust concerns to their policies on political ads and ensuring election security. Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have argued in favour of either breaking up or tightening regulation of firms such as Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Amazon.com Inc. Republican President Donald Trump's administration has also stepped up its scrutiny, announcing a wide-ranging investigation in July into whether major digital tech companies engaged in anti-competitive practices. Trump's Democratic challengers also criticise online platforms for allowing politicians to make false claims in advertising ahead of the election next November. Social media platforms are under particular scrutiny after US intelligence agencies said Russia used them to wage an influence operation to interfere with the 2016 election - a claim Moscow has denied. Here are some of the candidates' positions on Big Tech. President Trump Trump, whose social media use and digital advertising campaign helped propel him to the White House in 2016, in September attacked the "immense power" of social media giants in his address to the United Nations. Trump has stopped short of calling for tech giants to be broken up, as Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have, but said "obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly," when asked about major tech companies in a June interview with CNBC. Trump and other Republicans have also criticized social media companies, without evidence, for alleged political bias. The president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. wrote an opinion piece for The Hill political website in September entitled "Free speech suppression online builds case to break up Big Tech." Silicon Valley firms have also been at odds with the Trump administration over policies such as its repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules and the impact of the U.S.-China trade war on their supply chains. Joe Biden Biden, who was vice president in the Silicon Valley-friendly Obama administration, has taken a more moderate stance than his progressive rivals on the issue of big tech company break-ups. In a May interview with the Associated Press, he said that splitting up companies such as Facebook was "something we should take a really hard look at" but that it was "premature" to make a final judgment. The campaign told Reuters that, as president, Biden would aggressively use "all the tools available - including utilizing antitrust measures" to ensure corporations act responsibly. He did not speak up during a discussion of the issue at the most recent Democratic debate in October. Biden has criticized e-commerce giant Amazon's $0 federal tax bill in 2018. "I have nothing against Amazon, but no company pulling in billions of dollars of profits should pay a lower tax rate than firefighters and teachers. We need to reward work, not just wealth," he said in a tweet in June. His campaign also clashed with Facebook, Twitter and Google over their political ad policies after they refused to take down a Trump ad that the Biden team said contained false claims about his son Hunter's dealings with Ukraine. Elizabeth Warren Warren is leading the charge to break up big tech companies on the grounds they hold outsized influence and stifle competition. She has called for legislation to restrict large tech platforms - which she would designate as "platform utilities" -from owning and participating in a marketplace at the same time. Under this law, Apple would not be allowed to both run the App Store and sell its own apps on it, for example. She also said she would nominate regulators to unwind anti-competitive mergers such as Facebook's deals for WhatsApp and Instagram, and Amazon's deal for Whole Foods. Warren in October challenged Facebook's policy of exempting politicians' ads from fact-checking by running ads containing the false claim that CEO Mark Zuckerberg was endorsing Trump's re-election bid. The senator from Massachusetts has also said that she would reject campaign donations over $200 from executives of big tech firms. Bernie Sanders Sanders, a US senator from Vermont who frequently criticizes corporate influence, has also called for the break-up of big tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon. His administration would "absolutely" try to split apart the companies, Sanders said at a Washington Post event in July. He has said that he will have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review all mergers that have taken place during the Trump administration. His broad plan to reshape corporate America would also mandate all large companies to be owned partly by their workers. Asked how he differentiates himself from Warren on major issues, Sanders told ABC in October: "Elizabeth considers herself - if I got the quote correctly - to be a capitalist to her bones. I don't." Sanders has been vocal in his attacks on Amazon over issues such as its tax contributions and working conditions at its warehouses. In 2018, he introduced a 'Stop BEZOS Act' in the Senate, in a reference to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, which would make large corporations either pay their workers more or pay the government for public benefits that their workers receive. Pete Buttigieg In general, Pete Buttigieg, who became Facebook's 287th user shortly after it was launched in 2004 at Harvard University, where he was a student, has been more reluctant to slam the tech giants than some other candidates. The mayor from South Bend, Indiana, said that the break-up of big tech companies is a "remedy that should be on the table," but also said it was not a politician's place to designate which companies should be broken up. He has said that the FTC should be empowered to prevent and sometimes reverse mergers, but argued that large tech companies should be scrutinized for their actions rather than their size. He says concerns over monopolies and concerns over data security or privacy should not be conflated. He is in favour of having legislation to protect individual data rights at a national level, including the right to be forgotten - which would give citizens the power to demand that online platforms delete data about them, as is the case in Europe. Kamala Harris Senator Harris of California, the home of Silicon Valley, has said that Facebook has not been sufficiently regulated. She has not called outright for the break-up of big tech firms but said it should be "seriously" considered. During the campaign, Harris touted her experience protecting consumers' online privacy while she was state attorney general. In Congress, Harris, along with fellow candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar, introduced the bipartisan ENOUGH Act in 2017 to protect against online exploitation of private images. Harris recently called on Twitter to suspend Trump's Twitter account, saying his tweets threaten violence. In response, the company said that Trump's tweets did not violate its policies. Amy Klobuchar The Minnesota senator has made oversight of big technology companies one of her major issues in Congress and argued for data privacy laws and net neutrality safeguards as priorities at her campaign launch in February. Klobuchar has called for tighter regulation of tech giants and suggested that companies who profit from users' data could be taxed. She has not endorsed Warren's plan for their break-up, saying that she would first want investigations. Her plan for her first 100 days in office includes an "aggressive retrospective review of mergers," which she said she would pay for with an extra merger fee on "megamergers." She is also one of the authors of the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which would require social media platforms to disclose the purchaser of a political ad, as is required for television and print ads. Andrew Yang Yang, the former CEO of a start-up, has benefited from a surge of grassroots supporters on social media who style themselves as the #yanggang. Although the technology entrepreneur said "we would be well served" if big tech companies were to break themselves up, he is more focused on dealing with the impact of automation on American jobs and on regulating artificial intelligence. Yang has also emphasized the negative effects of tech on mental health and said he would create a Department of Attention Economy, ideally led by tech ethics advocate Tristan Harris, to look at how to responsibly design and use apps and devices. He has also called for people to receive a share of the economic value generated from their data. Cory Booker New Jersey Senator Booker said that Warren's call to break up the tech giants was "more like a Donald Trump thing to say" and has instead argued that stronger antitrust laws need to be enforced. When questioned at the October Democratic debate on the issue, Booker advocated reforms to stop tech companies being used "to undermine our democracy" around elections. He talked broadly about antitrust, "from pharma to farms," but did not single out tech companies. A Stanford University graduate who co-founded his own social media start-up WayWire, Booker has historically received donations from major Silicon Valley names such as Zuckerberg. The Facebook CEO also donated $100 million to Newark schools when Booker was mayor of the New Jersey city. Beto O' Rourke O'Rourke, a former US representative from Texas, wants to see Big Tech regulated rather than broken up. He has said he does not think it is the role of a president to designate which companies should be dismantled. O'Rourke's campaign told Reuters he would stand up for small business by preventing online platform owners from promoting their own content and products over that of competitors. He also plans to create a new digital markets regulator to create and enforce rules on issues such as privacy and data mobility. O’Rourke, who as a teenager was part of an influential hacking group, has also said he thinks social media companies should be treated as publishers. He wants to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally provides immunity to online platforms for content posted by users, to make social media companies more accountable for the amplification of hate speech and domestic terrorism on their platforms. His campaign recently urged Facebook, Twitter and Google to do more to combat online disinformation, after the campaign encountered the spread of a false claim about a gunman in a mass shooting. Julian Castro Castro, who was secretary of housing and urban development in the Obama administration, has said it is worth considering proposals to break up the big tech companies and said during the recent Democratic debate that the US needs to take a stronger stance in cracking down on monopolistic trade practices. In the October debate, the former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, also singled out Amazon by name for helping to "put small businesses out of business" and for "shortchanging a lot of its workers." Tulsi Gabbard Gabbard, a US representative from Hawaii, has called for the break-up of big tech companies and praised Warren's plan. In July, she filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google accusing the company of discrimination when it temporarily suspended her ad account after the first Democratic debate. Google said the account had been automatically flagged for unusual activity, without specifying exactly what the issue was. Gabbard said that Google's actions reflected "how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values." Tom Steyer California billionaire Steyer has said he is running for president to remove the influence of corporate money from politics. In the October debate, he said that monopolies either have to be dismantled or regulated, but that to win against Trump, Democrats would have to "show the American people that we don't just know how to tax and have programs to break up companies." Instead, he said, Democrats must harness the innovation and competition of the private sector. Steyer's campaign has been noted for its massive ad spending which helped push him to the debate stage, including more than $6 million in Facebook ads, according to Democratic digital firm Bully Pulpit Interactive.

Where US presidential candidates stand on breaking up Big Tech

Trump Tells The World That He Wants Syrian Oil For The U.S. The death of terrorist al-Baghdadi is a big blow for the ISIS. But the U.S. engagement in the region is not only about eliminating terrorism but also to secure its own interests.

Gravitas: U.S. Spills The Beans: Trump Wants To 'seize' Syrian Oil

Comparing The Response Of Former U.S. President Obama & The Current President Trump After The Killings Of Terrorists Osama Bin Laden & al-Baghdadi

Gravitas: 1 Country, 2 Presidents, 2 Terrorists, How They Reacted?

World leaders put out their reactions on eventual death of ISIS chief Baghdadi. Government of Iraq reacted by tweeting on this, 'U.S. killed its own creature'.

World leaders put out their reactions on eventual death of ISIS chief Baghdadi

US&nbsp;Representative Katie Hill, who is under investigation by the House ethics committee over an alleged relationship with a congressional staffer, said on Sunday that she was resigning from Congress.

Hill, a 32-year-old California Democrat who was elected to the House of Representatives in November 2018, posted her resignation letter to Twitter, saying she believed it best for her constituents, community and the country.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It is with a broken heart that today I announce my resignation from Congress. This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do, but I believe it is the best thing for my constituents, my community, and our country. 
 
See my official statement below. <a href="https://t.co/RO8B0znc6C">https://t.co/RO8B0znc6C</a>
— Katie Hill (@KatieHill4CA) <a href="https://twitter.com/KatieHill4CA/status/1188592008274669569?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Hill has admitted to an "inappropriate" relationship with a campaign staffer when she was running for Congress but denied she had a sexual relationship with a staffer in her office, according to media reports.

The ethics committee said on Wednesday it was "aware of public allegations... (that Hill) may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on her congressional staff," and said it was investigating.

Hill, who is going through a divorce, apologized in her resignation letter for "mistakes made along the way" but also lamented a "smear campaign".

Hill blamed her husband and said she was pursuing legal options after media outlets published intimate photos that purported to be of the lawmaker.

"Having private photos of personal moments weaponised against me has been an appalling invasion of my privacy," said Hill. "It's also illegal."

Hill serves on the House Armed Services and Oversight and Reform Committees, where she is also vice-chair.

She defeated incumbent Republican Steve Knight in a district north of Los Angeles, helping the Democrats win control of the House. Her district is seen by election analysts at the Cook Political Report as one of the most competitive in the country.

Although Hill’s departure could help Republicans win back her seat in November 2020, they still face an uphill climb in their effort to regain control of the House.

US Representative Katie Hill, who is under investigation by the House ethics committee over an alleged relationship with a congressional staffer, said on Sunday that she was resigning from Congress.

US Representative Katie Hill, who is under investigation by the House ethics committee over an alleged relationship with a congressional staffer, said on Sunday that she was resigning from Congress. Hill, a 32-year-old California Democrat who was elected to the House of Representatives in November 2018, posted her resignation letter to Twitter, saying she believed it best for her constituents, community and the country. It is with a broken heart that today I announce my resignation from Congress. This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do, but I believe it is the best thing for my constituents, my community, and our country. See my official statement below. https://t.co/RO8B0znc6C — Katie Hill (@KatieHill4CA) October 27, 2019 × Hill has admitted to an "inappropriate" relationship with a campaign staffer when she was running for Congress but denied she had a sexual relationship with a staffer in her office, according to media reports. The ethics committee said on Wednesday it was "aware of public allegations... (that Hill) may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on her congressional staff," and said it was investigating. Hill, who is going through a divorce, apologized in her resignation letter for "mistakes made along the way" but also lamented a "smear campaign". Hill blamed her husband and said she was pursuing legal options after media outlets published intimate photos that purported to be of the lawmaker. "Having private photos of personal moments weaponised against me has been an appalling invasion of my privacy," said Hill. "It's also illegal." Hill serves on the House Armed Services and Oversight and Reform Committees, where she is also vice-chair. She defeated incumbent Republican Steve Knight in a district north of Los Angeles, helping the Democrats win control of the House. Her district is seen by election analysts at the Cook Political Report as one of the most competitive in the country. Although Hill’s departure could help Republicans win back her seat in November 2020, they still face an uphill climb in their effort to regain control of the House.

US Representative Katie Hill, facing ethics probe, resigns from Congress

donald-trump

Donald Trump, News on Donald Trump, stories on Donald Trump, articles on Donald Trump, Donald Trump stories at Wion, Donald Trump news, Donald Trump latest news

donald trump