President Biden removed Trump-era Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul on Friday morning for weakening and politicising Social Security payments.

According to the official, the president requested Saul's and Deputy Commissioner David Black's resignations. Black agreed to resign, but Saul refused, and his position was terminated as a result.

During his time at the White House, an official accused Saul of taking actions that "undermined and politicised Social Security disability benefits," "harmed relationships with federal employee unions," and were "contrary to the agency's mandate and the President's policy goal."

Saul's six-year term as head of the Social Security Administration was set to end in January 2025, but the White House argued that the president has the authority to replace him, citing recent Supreme Court rulings.

Kilolo Kijakazi, the deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy, has been named acting commissioner by the president, according to a White House spokesman. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

President Biden removed Trump-era Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul on Friday morning for weakening and politicising Social Security payments. According to the official, the president requested Saul's and Deputy Commissioner David Black's resignations.

President Biden removed Trump-era Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul on Friday morning for weakening and politicising Social Security payments. According to the official, the president requested Saul's and Deputy Commissioner David Black's resignations. Black agreed to resign, but Saul refused, and his position was terminated as a result. During his time at the White House, an official accused Saul of taking actions that "undermined and politicised Social Security disability benefits," "harmed relationships with federal employee unions," and were "contrary to the agency's mandate and the President's policy goal." Saul's six-year term as head of the Social Security Administration was set to end in January 2025, but the White House argued that the president has the authority to replace him, citing recent Supreme Court rulings. Kilolo Kijakazi, the deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy, has been named acting commissioner by the president, according to a White House spokesman. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden fires the Trump-era Social Security commissioner after he refuses to resign

Days after <a href="Matthew McConaughey outpolled the sitting governor of Texas by voters">Matthew McConaughey outpolled the sitting governor of Texas by voters</a>, former US President George W Bush stated that the McConaughey's job was anything but easy.&nbsp; 
 
While appearing on the show `Today with Hoda &amp; Jenna`, when asked about the possibility of the 51-year-old actor really considering a run for Texas governor, Bush said, "I read that, Matthew, yeah... I tell you this, it`s a tough business." 
 
The former first lady, Laura Bush also appeared with George on the morning telecast, which is co-hosted by their daughter Jenna Bush Hager.

The actor recently outpolled the incumbent governor Greg Abbott in a speculative poll published by the Dallas Morning News. While the actor has not officially made the plunge in politics yet, the result -where McConaughey is significantly ahead of Abbott.&nbsp; 
 
McConaughey had previously said that a gubernatorial run for office in his home Lone Star State is a true consideration.&nbsp; 
 
He told `The Balanced Voice` podcast in March that he was actively "looking into" the question of "What is leadership role?" 
 
The `Dallas Buyers Club` actor said, "What is my role, what is my category in my next chapter of life that I`m going into now?" 
 
Bush also maintained that he had "no idea" if McConaughey had a true shot at winning a political seat. He has previously served as Texas governor from 1995 until 2000. George resigned his post to continue serving as president from 2001 to 2009.&nbsp;

Days after Matthew McConaughey outpolled the sitting governor of Texas by voters, former US President George W Bush stated that the McConaughey's job was anything but easy.

Days after Matthew McConaughey outpolled the sitting governor of Texas by voters, former US President George W Bush stated that the McConaughey's job was anything but easy. While appearing on the show `Today with Hoda & Jenna`, when asked about the possibility of the 51-year-old actor really considering a run for Texas governor, Bush said, "I read that, Matthew, yeah... I tell you this, it`s a tough business." The former first lady, Laura Bush also appeared with George on the morning telecast, which is co-hosted by their daughter Jenna Bush Hager. The actor recently outpolled the incumbent governor Greg Abbott in a speculative poll published by the Dallas Morning News. While the actor has not officially made the plunge in politics yet, the result -where McConaughey is significantly ahead of Abbott. McConaughey had previously said that a gubernatorial run for office in his home Lone Star State is a true consideration. He told `The Balanced Voice` podcast in March that he was actively "looking into" the question of "What is leadership role?" The `Dallas Buyers Club` actor said, "What is my role, what is my category in my next chapter of life that I`m going into now?" Bush also maintained that he had "no idea" if McConaughey had a true shot at winning a political seat. He has previously served as Texas governor from 1995 until 2000. George resigned his post to continue serving as president from 2001 to 2009.

George W Bush reacts on Matthew McConaughey's potential run for Texas governor

Looks like Matthew McConaughey is contemplating an alternate profession. During a recent appearance on a podcast, the Oscar-winning star admitted that he is thinking of a career in politics.&nbsp; 
 
During the interview on the 'Balanced Voice' podcast, host Rania Mankarious said Texans would be "very happy" to have McConaughey as governor of the Lone Star State.&nbsp; 
 
The 51-year-old actor said, "It's a true consideration." 
 
This is not the first time that McConaughey has spoken about running for the office in his home state Texas. In November, he had hinted at joining politics, if there was a demand for it.&nbsp; 
 
The actor had appeared on a show and said, "I don't know. I mean, that wouldn't be up to me. It would be up to the people more than it would be me." 
 
"I would say this. Look, politics seems to be a broken business to me right now. And when politics redefine its purpose, I could be a hell of a lot more interested," the actor had further added.&nbsp; 
 
McConaughey did not specify as to which party he would like to be a part of but was keener in getting "behind personal values to rebind our social contracts with each other as Americans, as people again." 
 
During the podcast, McConaughey also reflected on the next steps he would like to take in his career. "And I'm looking into now, what is my leadership role?" McConaughey said. "Because I do think I have some things to teach and share." 
 
Apart from a thriving career in cinema, McConaughey is also a professor at the University of Texas Austin, where he teaches a class in the film department. 
&nbsp;

Looks like Matthew McConaughey is contemplating an alternate profession. During a recent appearance on a podcast, the Oscar-winning star admitted that he is thinking of a career in politics.

Looks like Matthew McConaughey is contemplating an alternate profession. During a recent appearance on a podcast, the Oscar-winning star admitted that he is thinking of a career in politics. During the interview on the 'Balanced Voice' podcast, host Rania Mankarious said Texans would be "very happy" to have McConaughey as governor of the Lone Star State. The 51-year-old actor said, "It's a true consideration." This is not the first time that McConaughey has spoken about running for the office in his home state Texas. In November, he had hinted at joining politics, if there was a demand for it. The actor had appeared on a show and said, "I don't know. I mean, that wouldn't be up to me. It would be up to the people more than it would be me." "I would say this. Look, politics seems to be a broken business to me right now. And when politics redefine its purpose, I could be a hell of a lot more interested," the actor had further added. McConaughey did not specify as to which party he would like to be a part of but was keener in getting "behind personal values to rebind our social contracts with each other as Americans, as people again." During the podcast, McConaughey also reflected on the next steps he would like to take in his career. "And I'm looking into now, what is my leadership role?" McConaughey said. "Because I do think I have some things to teach and share." Apart from a thriving career in cinema, McConaughey is also a professor at the University of Texas Austin, where he teaches a class in the film department.

Is Matthew McConaughey planning a career in politics?

Days after Trump's loyalists unleashed violence in the Capitol hill, calls for the impeachment of outgoing President Donald Trump is gaining momentum. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she is ready to start impeachment proceedings.

Calls for Trump's impeachment gain momentum

Barely 11 months after President Donald Trump was acquitted in a momentous Senate trial, the nation now confronts the possibility of yet another impeachment battle in the twilight of his presidency, a final showdown that will test the boundaries of politics, accountability and the Constitution.

No president has ever been impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors twice. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was weighing bringing a new article of impeachment to the House floor as early as Monday charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection” for encouraging the mob that ransacked the Capitol to disrupt the solemn process finishing his own election defeat.

If Pelosi proceeds, the House could approve the article in days, this time with the support of even some disaffected Republicans, sending it to the Senate for a new trial unlike any of the previous three in American history.

While it seemed unlikely that 17 Senate Republicans would join Democrats for the two-thirds majority necessary for conviction, the anger at Trump was so palpable that party leaders said privately it was not out of the question.

The fresh bid to remove Trump from office and strip him of his power without waiting until his term expires Jan. 20 capped a traumatic week that rattled Washington more than any since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as National Guard troops stood watch over the Capitol and downtown businesses remained boarded up.

Emotions were raw. The White House was in meltdown. The military was on edge. The Cabinet was in revolt. The Republican Party was in civil war. And an unrepentant president was in hiding, stripped of his social media bullhorn, ostracized by many allies and at odds even with his staff and loyal vice president.

The storming of the Capitol by Trump’s supporters that left five people dead, among them a police officer, transformed the politics of the city in ways that were still hard to measure. A new impeachment would be more than a do-over of the drive that failed last year because this time the offense was not a phone call to a foreign leader captured on the dry pages of a transcript but the siege of American democracy played out live on television for all to see.

“Insurrectionists incited by Mr. Trump attacked our nation’s Capitol to stop Congress from accepting the Electoral College results,” said Rep. Ted Lieu of California, who began drafting the article of impeachment with Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island while sheltering during the Capitol takeover and was later joined by Jamie Raskin of Maryland. “People died. We cannot just issue sternly worded press releases as a response. Unless Trump resigns, Congress must impeach to hold him accountable.”

Yet the timing of such an effort, with just 11 days until Trump is to leave office, scrambled the equation. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, indicated that under Senate rules a trial could not begin until Jan. 19, the day before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, meaning the process would not advance quickly enough to avert any feared dangerous moves in Trump’s last days in power.

That raised the prospect of conducting a trial after Trump vacates the White House, overshadowing the opening days of Biden’s administration at a time when he would like to turn the page and confront crises like the coronavirus pandemic, which has grown even deadlier while attention has focused on Washington’s political wars. A nationally televised trial could dominate discussion and would prevent other business in the Senate.

“If the House does send articles of impeachment over, they really get the Biden administration off to a bad start,” Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said in an interview Saturday. “Whether that’s the first 10 days or the first 20 days of the Biden administration, it’s certainly not how you’d want to start your presidency off.”

Some of Trump’s critics argued that it would be important to hold a trial even if he is already out of power in order to bar him from ever seeking office again, a penalty envisioned by the Constitution — and perhaps more important, to render a verdict condemning his actions for the sake of history.

“We’ve never had to consider even the possibility of impeaching a president twice, or in the final days of his presidency,” said Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional scholar at the University of North Carolina who testified in Trump’s first impeachment and favors another trial. “But we’ve never had a president before who’s encouraging sedition as Trump has done in his last few days in office.”

Yet even some of the president’s harshest critics worried that a last-minute impeachment and an overtime trial could help him rally supporters by presenting himself as a victim not a villain, allowing him to turn the focus from his own actions to those of his opponents.

“It historically will be important,” said Andrew Weissmann, who was a deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller and recently published a book, “Where Law Ends,” expressing frustration that the president was not held fully accountable for his actions during the Russia investigation. “But the danger is he is acquitted and the momentum of condemnation now is lost. Plus, until we change the mentality of his base, we have not gotten at the underlying issue.”

At the moment, a strong majority of Americans holds Trump responsible for the attack, with 63% saying he has a good amount or even a great deal of blame, according to a PBS Newshour-Marist poll. But when asked whether steps should be taken to remove him from office as a result, Americans retreated to their partisan corners, with 48% saying yes and 49% saying no.

A Reuters-Ipsos survey found that 57% of Americans want Trump to leave office right away. But most of them favored removal by Vice President Mike Pence and the Cabinet through the disability clause of the 25th Amendment, with just 14% calling for another impeachment.

Trump has few defenders among Republican officeholders for exhorting the crowd before it marched on the Capitol and even some in the conservative news media turned on him, most notably The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which called his actions “impeachable” and urged him to resign.

Sen. Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania, told Fox News on Saturday that “the president committed impeachable offenses,” joining at least three other Senate Republicans who have called on Trump to resign, expressed openness to impeachment or voted for conviction last year.

But in the face of impeachment threats, some Republicans began taking up the fight against his opponents again. They may not like Trump or believe it is politically viable to be seen as excusing his behavior but many are still energized by battling his enemies on the left.

On Sean Hannity’s Fox News program Friday night, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was accosted by Trump supporters at an airport for opposing the president’s efforts to overturn the election, was suddenly back to castigating Trump’s rivals and talking about Hunter Biden.

Graham focused on Trump’s video message Thursday calling for healing and reconciliation, a video the president privately expressed regret for making. “Instead of trying to match what President Trump has done, the radical Democrats are talking about another impeachment that will destroy the country even further,” Graham said.

Still, Trump might have a challenge finding lawyers to defend him in any trial. Jay Sekulow, who was a leader of the defense team in the impeachment trial last year, called the idea of a second impeachment a “gigantic mistake” by Democrats during a radio show, but has not participated in Trump’s legal efforts to overturn Biden’s election and did not respond to a message asking if he would represent the president again. Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel who teamed up with Sekulow, has been so upset about the Capitol attack that he has considered resigning.

One of the few members of his defense team who said he would stick with the president was Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School emeritus professor who had a secondary role last time. In an email Saturday, he said he would defend Trump on free expression grounds.

“Trump’s speech, whatever one may think of it on the merits, is clearly protected by the First Amendment,” he said. “To impeach him for a constitutionally protected speech would violate both the First Amendment and the constitutional criteria for impeachment and would do enduring damage to the Constitution.”

Barely 11 months after President Donald Trump was acquitted in a momentous Senate trial, the nation now confronts the possibility of yet another impeachment battle in the twilight of his presidency, a final showdown that will test the boundaries of politics, accountability and the Constitution.

Barely 11 months after President Donald Trump was acquitted in a momentous Senate trial, the nation now confronts the possibility of yet another impeachment battle in the twilight of his presidency, a final showdown that will test the boundaries of politics, accountability and the Constitution. No president has ever been impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors twice. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was weighing bringing a new article of impeachment to the House floor as early as Monday charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection” for encouraging the mob that ransacked the Capitol to disrupt the solemn process finishing his own election defeat. If Pelosi proceeds, the House could approve the article in days, this time with the support of even some disaffected Republicans, sending it to the Senate for a new trial unlike any of the previous three in American history. While it seemed unlikely that 17 Senate Republicans would join Democrats for the two-thirds majority necessary for conviction, the anger at Trump was so palpable that party leaders said privately it was not out of the question. The fresh bid to remove Trump from office and strip him of his power without waiting until his term expires Jan. 20 capped a traumatic week that rattled Washington more than any since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as National Guard troops stood watch over the Capitol and downtown businesses remained boarded up. Emotions were raw. The White House was in meltdown. The military was on edge. The Cabinet was in revolt. The Republican Party was in civil war. And an unrepentant president was in hiding, stripped of his social media bullhorn, ostracized by many allies and at odds even with his staff and loyal vice president. The storming of the Capitol by Trump’s supporters that left five people dead, among them a police officer, transformed the politics of the city in ways that were still hard to measure. A new impeachment would be more than a do-over of the drive that failed last year because this time the offense was not a phone call to a foreign leader captured on the dry pages of a transcript but the siege of American democracy played out live on television for all to see. “Insurrectionists incited by Mr. Trump attacked our nation’s Capitol to stop Congress from accepting the Electoral College results,” said Rep. Ted Lieu of California, who began drafting the article of impeachment with Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island while sheltering during the Capitol takeover and was later joined by Jamie Raskin of Maryland. “People died. We cannot just issue sternly worded press releases as a response. Unless Trump resigns, Congress must impeach to hold him accountable.” Yet the timing of such an effort, with just 11 days until Trump is to leave office, scrambled the equation. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, indicated that under Senate rules a trial could not begin until Jan. 19, the day before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, meaning the process would not advance quickly enough to avert any feared dangerous moves in Trump’s last days in power. That raised the prospect of conducting a trial after Trump vacates the White House, overshadowing the opening days of Biden’s administration at a time when he would like to turn the page and confront crises like the coronavirus pandemic, which has grown even deadlier while attention has focused on Washington’s political wars. A nationally televised trial could dominate discussion and would prevent other business in the Senate. “If the House does send articles of impeachment over, they really get the Biden administration off to a bad start,” Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said in an interview Saturday. “Whether that’s the first 10 days or the first 20 days of the Biden administration, it’s certainly not how you’d want to start your presidency off.” Some of Trump’s critics argued that it would be important to hold a trial even if he is already out of power in order to bar him from ever seeking office again, a penalty envisioned by the Constitution — and perhaps more important, to render a verdict condemning his actions for the sake of history. “We’ve never had to consider even the possibility of impeaching a president twice, or in the final days of his presidency,” said Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional scholar at the University of North Carolina who testified in Trump’s first impeachment and favors another trial. “But we’ve never had a president before who’s encouraging sedition as Trump has done in his last few days in office.” Yet even some of the president’s harshest critics worried that a last-minute impeachment and an overtime trial could help him rally supporters by presenting himself as a victim not a villain, allowing him to turn the focus from his own actions to those of his opponents. “It historically will be important,” said Andrew Weissmann, who was a deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller and recently published a book, “Where Law Ends,” expressing frustration that the president was not held fully accountable for his actions during the Russia investigation. “But the danger is he is acquitted and the momentum of condemnation now is lost. Plus, until we change the mentality of his base, we have not gotten at the underlying issue.” At the moment, a strong majority of Americans holds Trump responsible for the attack, with 63% saying he has a good amount or even a great deal of blame, according to a PBS Newshour-Marist poll. But when asked whether steps should be taken to remove him from office as a result, Americans retreated to their partisan corners, with 48% saying yes and 49% saying no. A Reuters-Ipsos survey found that 57% of Americans want Trump to leave office right away. But most of them favored removal by Vice President Mike Pence and the Cabinet through the disability clause of the 25th Amendment, with just 14% calling for another impeachment. Trump has few defenders among Republican officeholders for exhorting the crowd before it marched on the Capitol and even some in the conservative news media turned on him, most notably The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which called his actions “impeachable” and urged him to resign. Sen. Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania, told Fox News on Saturday that “the president committed impeachable offenses,” joining at least three other Senate Republicans who have called on Trump to resign, expressed openness to impeachment or voted for conviction last year. But in the face of impeachment threats, some Republicans began taking up the fight against his opponents again. They may not like Trump or believe it is politically viable to be seen as excusing his behavior but many are still energized by battling his enemies on the left. On Sean Hannity’s Fox News program Friday night, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was accosted by Trump supporters at an airport for opposing the president’s efforts to overturn the election, was suddenly back to castigating Trump’s rivals and talking about Hunter Biden. Graham focused on Trump’s video message Thursday calling for healing and reconciliation, a video the president privately expressed regret for making. “Instead of trying to match what President Trump has done, the radical Democrats are talking about another impeachment that will destroy the country even further,” Graham said. Still, Trump might have a challenge finding lawyers to defend him in any trial. Jay Sekulow, who was a leader of the defense team in the impeachment trial last year, called the idea of a second impeachment a “gigantic mistake” by Democrats during a radio show, but has not participated in Trump’s legal efforts to overturn Biden’s election and did not respond to a message asking if he would represent the president again. Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel who teamed up with Sekulow, has been so upset about the Capitol attack that he has considered resigning. One of the few members of his defense team who said he would stick with the president was Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School emeritus professor who had a secondary role last time. In an email Saturday, he said he would defend Trump on free expression grounds. “Trump’s speech, whatever one may think of it on the merits, is clearly protected by the First Amendment,” he said. “To impeach him for a constitutionally protected speech would violate both the First Amendment and the constitutional criteria for impeachment and would do enduring damage to the Constitution.”

For Trump and the nation, a final test of accountability

House Democrats are prepared to impeach President Donald Trump if he doesn’t immediately resign, as the president came under increasing pressure from members of both parties for encouraging a mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol.

House Democrats readying for unprecedented second impeachment

Watch this special episode of WION-VOA Co-Production over US Election 2020: A civil Vice Presidential debate..

US Election 2020: A civil Vice Presidential debate | WION-VOA Co-Production

In this aftermath of 1st round of Presidential debate of US Election 2020, Republican President Donald Trump odds of winning the White House for the second term have worsened.

US Election 2020: Bettors declare Biden winner of 1st round of Presidential debate

US Election 2020: Present President of United States of America Donald Trump refused to say whether if he would accept the result or not. But, his opposition candidate Joe Biden has claimed that Trump will step down if he loses.

US: Trump refused to say if he would accept the result, Biden claims Trump will step down

The US Presidential debate is just 2 days away. President Donald Trump and Former Vice-President Joe Biden are going to take a common floor. Maybe they can learn from some of the historic debate moments that shaped US politics.

Most memorable moments of US Presidential debates

A recent survey has revealed that there are several factors that makes US President Donald Trump closer to Indian-Americans than his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

US Election 2020: What are the choices that voters face in key states?

Trump frequently claims that mail-in ballots are vulnerable to mass fraud and are being encouraged by Democrats to rig the election.

US Election 2020: President Donald Trump won't commit to peaceful power transfer

As America starts voting in early polls, watch WION's special broadcast on US Election 2020

U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct | Trump and Biden head to swing states

President Donald Trump said that he will nominate a woman to the Supreme Court next week and she should be confirmed as soon as possible, even in the midst of election season.

Battle to appoint Ginsburg's replacement in US politics, Trump to unveil nominee this week

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Saturday that it was a matter of Ukraine's national security to stay out of US internal politics, particularly its election.

"#Ukraine did not and will not allow itself to interfere in the elections and thus harm our trusting and sincere partnership with the #USA," he wrote on Twitter late on Saturday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Never, under any circumstances it's acceptable to meddle in another country's sovereign elections. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ukraine?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ukraine</a> did not and will not allow itself to interfere in the elections and thus harm our trusting and sincere partnership with the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/USA?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#USA</a>
— Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) <a href="https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1292177872317304834?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2020</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>

Zelenskiy, 42, was a comic actor when he won a landslide election last year. But the first year of his presidency was overshadowed by Ukraine's unwitting involvement in events that led to the impeachment of Republican US President Donald Trump. Trump had unsuccessfully pressed Ukraine to launch an investigation into his Democratic rival in the 2020 presidential race, former Vice President Joe Biden.

"Never, under any circumstances, it`s acceptable to meddle in another country's sovereign elections," Zelenskiy wrote.

Zelenskiy appealed to Ukrainian politicians to avoid any actions that could be linked to US&nbsp;elections, nor allow themselves to try to solve any of their personal, political or business problems that way.

"Ukraine's reputation is worth much more than the reputation of any of our politicians," the president said.

Earlier this week, Zelenskiy told Reuters that he hoped U.S. support for Ukraine would remain strong regardless of who wins the American election.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Saturday that it was a matter of Ukraine's national security to stay out of US internal politics, particularly its election.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Saturday that it was a matter of Ukraine's national security to stay out of US internal politics, particularly its election. "#Ukraine did not and will not allow itself to interfere in the elections and thus harm our trusting and sincere partnership with the #USA," he wrote on Twitter late on Saturday. Never, under any circumstances it's acceptable to meddle in another country's sovereign elections. #Ukraine did not and will not allow itself to interfere in the elections and thus harm our trusting and sincere partnership with the #USA — Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 8, 2020 × Zelenskiy, 42, was a comic actor when he won a landslide election last year. But the first year of his presidency was overshadowed by Ukraine's unwitting involvement in events that led to the impeachment of Republican US President Donald Trump. Trump had unsuccessfully pressed Ukraine to launch an investigation into his Democratic rival in the 2020 presidential race, former Vice President Joe Biden. "Never, under any circumstances, it`s acceptable to meddle in another country's sovereign elections," Zelenskiy wrote. Zelenskiy appealed to Ukrainian politicians to avoid any actions that could be linked to US elections, nor allow themselves to try to solve any of their personal, political or business problems that way. "Ukraine's reputation is worth much more than the reputation of any of our politicians," the president said. Earlier this week, Zelenskiy told Reuters that he hoped U.S. support for Ukraine would remain strong regardless of who wins the American election.

Ukraine president says Kyiv staying out of US internal politics, elections

During his ''State of the Union'' address, United States President Donald Trump blasted the ''Sanctuary city of New York''. Trump was alluding to the rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman by an ''alien'', the US colloquial for illegal immigrants.&nbsp;

“New York City’s sanctuary policies continue to threaten the safety of all residents of the five boroughs as they repeatedly protect criminal aliens who show little regard for the laws of this nation”, Trump said.

Trump claimed that the city had failed the woman by not turning over the immigrant to agencies to pursue deportation.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-what-is-the-state-of-the-union-address-278582">EXPLAINED: What is the State of the Union address</a> 
 
“Tragically, there are many cities in America where radical politicians have chosen to provide sanctuary for these criminal illegal aliens. In sanctuary cities, local officials order police to release dangerous criminal aliens to prey upon the public, instead of handing them over to ICE to be safely removed,” Trump said in his speech.

“Just 29 days ago, a criminal alien freed by the sanctuary city of New York was charged with the brutal rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman. The killer had been previously arrested for assault, but under New York’s sanctuary policies, he was set free. If the city had honoured ICE’s detainer request, his victim would be alive today,” the president said.

<img alt="Trump" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e942e16c-f88d-435f-ace6-ba104e7dc1ec" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%281%29_74.jpg" />

The alien in question is Reeaz Khan, an immigrant from Guyana. The Post reported that they had put forward a detainer request with the New York Police Department against Khan, who was busted for attacking his dad with a ceramic mug, which gave his father injuries in the chest and the arm. 
 
The perpetrator was then charged with assault, harassment, criminal possession of a weapon, but was later released without bail.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/latest-update-news-our-borders-are-secure-our-values-are-renewed-%20Trump-in-State-of-the-Union-address">Our borders are secure, our values are renewed and pride restored: Trump in State of the Union address</a>

Almost a month and a half after this incident, Khan was found responsible for the murder of Maria Fuertes, 92, who was found in a near-death condition on a Richmond Hill pavement on January 6 at about 2 am. 
 
According to court papers, the victim remained deserted on the pavement for about two hours after being assaulted and strangled. She succumbed to her injuries at a hospital. Her injuries included a broken spine, rib fractures, etc.

Khan was identified as the attacker by his brother, who had informed the cops.&nbsp;

Trump blasted New York's law enforcement and said, “It was a deadly choice to release a man on an active ICE detainer back onto the streets after his first arrest included assault and weapon charges, and he now faces new charges, including murder,” Decker said.

In pictures:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/all-the-highlights-from-trumps-reality-tv-style-state-of-the-union-address-278726">Highlights from Trump's reality-TV style State of the Union address</a>

During his ''State of the Union'' address, United States President Donald Trump blasted the ''Sanctuary city of New York''. Trump was alluding to the rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman by an ''alien'', the US colloquial for illegal immigrants.

During his ''State of the Union'' address, United States President Donald Trump blasted the ''Sanctuary city of New York''. Trump was alluding to the rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman by an ''alien'', the US colloquial for illegal immigrants. “New York City’s sanctuary policies continue to threaten the safety of all residents of the five boroughs as they repeatedly protect criminal aliens who show little regard for the laws of this nation”, Trump said. Trump claimed that the city had failed the woman by not turning over the immigrant to agencies to pursue deportation. Also read: EXPLAINED: What is the State of the Union address “Tragically, there are many cities in America where radical politicians have chosen to provide sanctuary for these criminal illegal aliens. In sanctuary cities, local officials order police to release dangerous criminal aliens to prey upon the public, instead of handing them over to ICE to be safely removed,” Trump said in his speech. “Just 29 days ago, a criminal alien freed by the sanctuary city of New York was charged with the brutal rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman. The killer had been previously arrested for assault, but under New York’s sanctuary policies, he was set free. If the city had honoured ICE’s detainer request, his victim would be alive today,” the president said. The alien in question is Reeaz Khan, an immigrant from Guyana. The Post reported that they had put forward a detainer request with the New York Police Department against Khan, who was busted for attacking his dad with a ceramic mug, which gave his father injuries in the chest and the arm. The perpetrator was then charged with assault, harassment, criminal possession of a weapon, but was later released without bail. Also read: Our borders are secure, our values are renewed and pride restored: Trump in State of the Union address Almost a month and a half after this incident, Khan was found responsible for the murder of Maria Fuertes, 92, who was found in a near-death condition on a Richmond Hill pavement on January 6 at about 2 am. According to court papers, the victim remained deserted on the pavement for about two hours after being assaulted and strangled. She succumbed to her injuries at a hospital. Her injuries included a broken spine, rib fractures, etc. Khan was identified as the attacker by his brother, who had informed the cops. Trump blasted New York's law enforcement and said, “It was a deadly choice to release a man on an active ICE detainer back onto the streets after his first arrest included assault and weapon charges, and he now faces new charges, including murder,” Decker said. In pictures: Highlights from Trump's reality-TV style State of the Union address

Donald Trump blasts New York City for protecting 'alien' who killed a 92-year-old woman

US&nbsp;presidential candidate <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bloomberg-trump-to-air-dueling-super-bowl-ads-272836">Michael Bloomberg</a> told reporters he is ready to spend much of his vast fortune to oust Republican President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-warns-iran-against-massacre-as-protests-erupt-over-downing-of-ukrainian-airplane-273670">Donald Trump</a> from the White House in 2020, rejecting criticism from rivals for the Democratic nomination that the billionaire is trying to buy the US&nbsp;election.

Ranked by Forbes as the eighth-richest American, Bloomberg has flooded US&nbsp;airwaves and social media feeds with messages that he stands the best chance to beat Trump, spending more on campaign ads since he launched his campaign in November than his main Democratic rivals have over the last year.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Today, people all over the nation are showing their support for our campaign, and I couldn't be more honored, grateful and hopeful for our future. 
 
Together, we will defeat Donald Trump. 
 
Together, we will rebuild America. 
 
Together, we will <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GetItDone?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GetItDone</a>! <a href="https://t.co/jMmIcKExTv">pic.twitter.com/jMmIcKExTv</a>
— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1216082774249164800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2020</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>

"Number one priority is to get rid of Donald Trump. I'm spending all my money to get rid of Trump," Bloomberg told reporters aboard his campaign bus on Saturday, during a nearly 300-mile (483-km) drive across Texas, one of the 14 states that will vote on Super Tuesday on March 3.

"Do you want me to spend more or less? End of story."

US&nbsp;Senator <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/three-swing-district-democrats-back-joe-bidens-presidential-bid-272511">Elizabeth Warren</a>, one of the leading Democratic presidential contenders who has vowed to get money out of politics, blasted Bloomberg when he launched his campaign with a $37-million TV advertising blitz, accusing the former New York City mayor of trying to buy American democracy.

"These are just political things they say, hoping they catch on and they don't like me doing it, because it competes with them, not because it's bad policy," Bloomberg said.

After entering the race late and missing the first six Democratic debates, Bloomberg generally sits fifth in national public opinion polls behind <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-senate-leader-ready-to-pass-impeachment-trial-rules-without-democrats-272835">Joe Biden</a>, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/white-house-gives-lawmakers-formal-notice-of-iraq-strike-amid-complaints-from-democrats-272196">Bernie Sanders</a>, Warren and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democratic-candidate-warren-discloses-details-of-past-legal-work-showing-2-million-in-compensation-267187">Pete Buttigieg</a>.

But not just the two liberal standard-bearers of Warren and Sanders, all of the four are too liberal to beat Trump, Bloomberg said.

"One of the reasons I'm reasonably confident I could beat Trump is I would be acceptable to the moderate <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/texass-greg-abbott-becomes-first-to-refuse-refugees-order-given-by-president-donald-trump-273510">Republicans</a> you have to have," said Bloomberg, a former Republican who made his fortune selling financial information to Wall Street firms.

"Whether you like it or not, you can’t win the election unless you get moderate Republicans to cross the line. The others are much too liberal for them and they would certainly vote for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-of-representatives-curbs-trumps-war-power-amid-iran-tensions-273283">Donald Trump</a>."

After a late entry into the race, he is skipping the first four Democratic nomination contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all due to take place in February.

Instead, Bloomberg is waging a nationwide campaign to capture delegates in later contests such as Texas, which will be the second-largest prize among the 14 Super Tuesday states.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Thank you for spending part of your weekend with me, Austin! <a href="https://t.co/u8UidNtflR">https://t.co/u8UidNtflR</a>
— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1216113830176198657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2020</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>

At campaign events in San Antonio, Austin and Dallas in Texas on Saturday, Bloomberg said his bipartisan nature made it more likely he could deliver on his pledges to expand health insurance coverage, fight climate change and reduce gun violence.

While his speeches drew modest crowds of no more than a few hundred in Austin and fewer still in San Antonio, many who attended said they were independents or former Trump supporters who had learned about Bloomberg through his massive advertising campaign.

"He’s better than Trump," said Marcelo Montemayor, 75, who listened to Bloomberg speak at a taco restaurant in San Antonio.

Montemayor voted for Trump in 2016 but worries the president’s conservative appointees to federal courts could undermine <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-supreme-court-leaves-kentucky-abortion-restriction-in-place-267309">abortion rights</a>.

Bloomberg's television ads have dominated the airwaves both nationwide and in Texas.

Watch:&nbsp;Donald Trump Vs Michael Bloomberg: The battle of the millionaires

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-vs-michael-bloomberg-the-battle-of-the-millionaires-265992/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In the top four media markets in the Lone Star State, which include Houston and Dallas, Bloomberg has spent more than $15 million on television ads through mid-January, said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Houston's Rice University, who analyzed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/where-us-presidential-candidates-stand-on-breaking-up-big-tech-258654">Federal Communications Commission</a> records on ad buys.

That exceeds the combined spending nationwide by Democratic frontrunners in 2019, according to a Wesleyan Media Project analysis of Kantar/CMAG television ad data through mid-December.

And for this year's Super Bowl broadcast on February&nbsp;2 in Miami, Trump and Bloomberg both plan to air a 60-second television commercial, a prime example of their ability to devote vast resources to reach millions of viewers.

Trump campaign officials said the campaign paid $10 million for air time. Last year’s <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/former-commissioner-david-stern-dies-at-77-made-league-truly-global-brand-271536">National Football League</a> championship game drew nearly 100 million viewers.

"You can't get to 330 million people by shaking hands. Television is still the magic medium," Bloomberg said.

"If the Super Bowl wasn't a place to get to an awful lot of people they wouldn't be charging a lot, or nobody would be paying it. This is capitalism at work."

US presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg told reporters he is ready to spend much of his vast fortune to oust Republican President Donald Trump from the White House in 2020, rejecting criticism from rivals for the Democratic nomination that the billionaire is trying to buy the US election.

US presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg told reporters he is ready to spend much of his vast fortune to oust Republican President Donald Trump from the White House in 2020, rejecting criticism from rivals for the Democratic nomination that the billionaire is trying to buy the US election. Ranked by Forbes as the eighth-richest American, Bloomberg has flooded US airwaves and social media feeds with messages that he stands the best chance to beat Trump, spending more on campaign ads since he launched his campaign in November than his main Democratic rivals have over the last year. Today, people all over the nation are showing their support for our campaign, and I couldn't be more honored, grateful and hopeful for our future. Together, we will defeat Donald Trump. Together, we will rebuild America. Together, we will #GetItDone! pic.twitter.com/jMmIcKExTv — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) January 11, 2020 × "Number one priority is to get rid of Donald Trump. I'm spending all my money to get rid of Trump," Bloomberg told reporters aboard his campaign bus on Saturday, during a nearly 300-mile (483-km) drive across Texas, one of the 14 states that will vote on Super Tuesday on March 3. "Do you want me to spend more or less? End of story." US Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the leading Democratic presidential contenders who has vowed to get money out of politics, blasted Bloomberg when he launched his campaign with a $37-million TV advertising blitz, accusing the former New York City mayor of trying to buy American democracy. "These are just political things they say, hoping they catch on and they don't like me doing it, because it competes with them, not because it's bad policy," Bloomberg said. After entering the race late and missing the first six Democratic debates, Bloomberg generally sits fifth in national public opinion polls behind Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Warren and Pete Buttigieg. But not just the two liberal standard-bearers of Warren and Sanders, all of the four are too liberal to beat Trump, Bloomberg said. "One of the reasons I'm reasonably confident I could beat Trump is I would be acceptable to the moderate Republicans you have to have," said Bloomberg, a former Republican who made his fortune selling financial information to Wall Street firms. "Whether you like it or not, you can’t win the election unless you get moderate Republicans to cross the line. The others are much too liberal for them and they would certainly vote for Donald Trump." After a late entry into the race, he is skipping the first four Democratic nomination contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all due to take place in February. Instead, Bloomberg is waging a nationwide campaign to capture delegates in later contests such as Texas, which will be the second-largest prize among the 14 Super Tuesday states. Thank you for spending part of your weekend with me, Austin! https://t.co/u8UidNtflR — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) January 11, 2020 × At campaign events in San Antonio, Austin and Dallas in Texas on Saturday, Bloomberg said his bipartisan nature made it more likely he could deliver on his pledges to expand health insurance coverage, fight climate change and reduce gun violence. While his speeches drew modest crowds of no more than a few hundred in Austin and fewer still in San Antonio, many who attended said they were independents or former Trump supporters who had learned about Bloomberg through his massive advertising campaign. "He’s better than Trump," said Marcelo Montemayor, 75, who listened to Bloomberg speak at a taco restaurant in San Antonio. Montemayor voted for Trump in 2016 but worries the president’s conservative appointees to federal courts could undermine abortion rights. Bloomberg's television ads have dominated the airwaves both nationwide and in Texas. Watch: Donald Trump Vs Michael Bloomberg: The battle of the millionaires × In the top four media markets in the Lone Star State, which include Houston and Dallas, Bloomberg has spent more than $15 million on television ads through mid-January, said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Houston's Rice University, who analyzed Federal Communications Commission records on ad buys. That exceeds the combined spending nationwide by Democratic frontrunners in 2019, according to a Wesleyan Media Project analysis of Kantar/CMAG television ad data through mid-December. And for this year's Super Bowl broadcast on February 2 in Miami, Trump and Bloomberg both plan to air a 60-second television commercial, a prime example of their ability to devote vast resources to reach millions of viewers. Trump campaign officials said the campaign paid $10 million for air time. Last year’s National Football League championship game drew nearly 100 million viewers. "You can't get to 330 million people by shaking hands. Television is still the magic medium," Bloomberg said. "If the Super Bowl wasn't a place to get to an awful lot of people they wouldn't be charging a lot, or nobody would be paying it. This is capitalism at work."

Democrat Michael Bloomberg: 'I'm spending all my money to get rid of Trump'

Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on Sunday that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democrats-to-spend-weekend-drafting-impeachment-charges-against-donald-trump-266845">articles of impeachment</a> were being drafted and it was possible his panel could vote this week on charges against President Donald Trump.

Nadler told CNN's "State of the Union" that the panel had "a lot to consider" in determining which charges to file against the Republican president.

"There are possible drafts that various people are writing," he said. "But the fact is we're not going to make any decision as to how broad the articles should be, as to what they contain what the wording is - until after the hearing tomorrow."

Watch: What's next for Donald Trump?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-impeachment-saga-whats-next-for-donald-trump-266895/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The committee will hold a public hearing on Monday to consider evidence gathered in the inquiry that focuses on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-win-impeachment-fight-us-president-donald-trump-266504">Trump's request</a> that Ukraine investigate&nbsp;former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face the president in the 2020 US&nbsp;election.

Democratic lawmakers worked through the weekend digesting the information they received from the House Intelligence Committee and constitutional law scholars who testified before Congress on Wednesday.

Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on Sunday that articles of impeachment were being drafted and it was possible his panel could vote this week on charges against President Donald Trump.

Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on Sunday that articles of impeachment were being drafted and it was possible his panel could vote this week on charges against President Donald Trump. Nadler told CNN's "State of the Union" that the panel had "a lot to consider" in determining which charges to file against the Republican president. "There are possible drafts that various people are writing," he said. "But the fact is we're not going to make any decision as to how broad the articles should be, as to what they contain what the wording is - until after the hearing tomorrow." Watch: What's next for Donald Trump? The committee will hold a public hearing on Monday to consider evidence gathered in the inquiry that focuses on Trump's request that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face the president in the 2020 US election. Democratic lawmakers worked through the weekend digesting the information they received from the House Intelligence Committee and constitutional law scholars who testified before Congress on Wednesday.

Vote 'possible' on Trump articles of impeachment this week: Chairman Nadler

Thousands of US President Donald Trump's supporters lined up for hours outside an arena in New Hampshire on Thursday to see him campaign for re-election.

Trump supporters, protesters gather at rally

President Donald Trump on Thursday sought to reassure his supporters about the state of the U.S. economy despite the stock market volatility and told rallygoers in New Hampshire, a state that he hopes to capture in 2020, that their financial security depends on his reelection.

Trump: love me or hate me, you got to vote for me

Pedestrians walking through the New York congressional district represented by one of Donald Trump's most recent targets Monday (July 15) were not amused by his nativist rhetoric.

Trump's 'go back' rhetoric is hypocrisy to AOC district

Asian shares started the week on the backfoot as investors were unable to shake off worries about global growth, US politics and the Sino-US trade war, keeping the safe-haven dollar well bid near a six-week top against major currencies.

Chinese shares see-sawed on Monday after they resumed trading following a week-long Lunar New Year holiday. The blue-chip index was last up 0.4 per cent, Australian stocks were down 0.6 per cent while South Korea eased 0.2 per cent.

That left MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan off 0.1 per cent after it was toppled from a four-month top on Friday.

Trading volumes are expected to be light with Japan on public holiday.

Investors are now looking ahead to trade talks this week with a delegation of US&nbsp;officials travelling to China for the next round of negotiations.

"After we went home on Friday, Asian equities closed the week weaker... reflecting an increased level of apprehension on whether or not the US and China can find an agreement to de-escalate their trade tensions ahead of the March 1st deadline," said Rodrigo Catril, senior forex strategist at National Australia Bank.

"US-led trade uncertainty along with increasing concerns over the extent of the current global growth slowdown has seen an increase in demand for core global bonds," Catril said.

"Against a backdrop of uncertainty and despite a Fed that is comfortably on hold, the dollar continues to win the least ugly contest."

The US Federal Reserve has signalled patience on policy after it delivered four hikes in 2018, citing growing economic risks from a slowdown in global growth.

The dollar index held near a six-week high around 96.625 against a basket of currencies, after notching up its strongest weekly gain in six months as traders piled into the greenback in a safe-haven move.

The collapse in talks between US Democrat and Republican lawmakers over the weekend amid a clash over immigrant detention policy raised fears of another government shutdown.

That development was yet another worry for markets already under strain from a drumroll of gloomy news on the global economy. Last week, the European Commission sharply downgraded eurozone growth for this year and next and US&nbsp;President Donald Trump added to the anxiety with a declaration that he had no plans to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping before the March 1 deadline to achieve a trade deal.

"Growth is probably the big area of risk – the US is still on a healthy track but China stabilisation is more hope than reality at the moment while European momentum continues to soften," JPMorgan analysts said in a note.

"Investors have plenty to be nervous about, including the ongoing growth softness in Europe and the risk this drags the other major geographies down with it."

The rising pressure on growth means the near term fortunes of the equity markets will partly depend on earnings from major US companies. These include Coca-Cola Co, PepsiCo Inc, Walmart Inc, Home Depot Inc, Macy's Inc and Gap Inc for further clues about the health of the consumer sector.

Analysts now expect first-quarter earnings for S&amp;P 500 companies to decline 0.1 per cent from a year earlier, which would be the first such quarterly profit decline since 2016, according to IBES data from Refinitiv.

Elsewhere, the euro was barely changed at $1.1324 after five straight days of losses took it to more than 2 weeks lows. Sterling dithered at $1.2934.

The Australian dollar inched up from Friday's one-month lows although sentiment was still cautious after the country's central bank opened the door to a possible rate cut.

Oil prices slipped on concerns about slowing global demand amid a pick-up in US drilling activity.

US crude was 73 cents weaker at $51.99 per barrel while Brent fell 69 cents to $61.41.

Asian shares started the week on the backfoot as investors were unable to shake off worries about global growth, US politics and the Sino-US trade war, keeping the safe-haven dollar well bid near a six-week top against major currencies.

Asian shares started the week on the backfoot as investors were unable to shake off worries about global growth, US politics and the Sino-US trade war, keeping the safe-haven dollar well bid near a six-week top against major currencies. Chinese shares see-sawed on Monday after they resumed trading following a week-long Lunar New Year holiday. The blue-chip index was last up 0.4 per cent, Australian stocks were down 0.6 per cent while South Korea eased 0.2 per cent. That left MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan off 0.1 per cent after it was toppled from a four-month top on Friday. Trading volumes are expected to be light with Japan on public holiday. Investors are now looking ahead to trade talks this week with a delegation of US officials travelling to China for the next round of negotiations. "After we went home on Friday, Asian equities closed the week weaker... reflecting an increased level of apprehension on whether or not the US and China can find an agreement to de-escalate their trade tensions ahead of the March 1st deadline," said Rodrigo Catril, senior forex strategist at National Australia Bank. "US-led trade uncertainty along with increasing concerns over the extent of the current global growth slowdown has seen an increase in demand for core global bonds," Catril said. "Against a backdrop of uncertainty and despite a Fed that is comfortably on hold, the dollar continues to win the least ugly contest." The US Federal Reserve has signalled patience on policy after it delivered four hikes in 2018, citing growing economic risks from a slowdown in global growth. The dollar index held near a six-week high around 96.625 against a basket of currencies, after notching up its strongest weekly gain in six months as traders piled into the greenback in a safe-haven move. The collapse in talks between US Democrat and Republican lawmakers over the weekend amid a clash over immigrant detention policy raised fears of another government shutdown. That development was yet another worry for markets already under strain from a drumroll of gloomy news on the global economy. Last week, the European Commission sharply downgraded eurozone growth for this year and next and US President Donald Trump added to the anxiety with a declaration that he had no plans to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping before the March 1 deadline to achieve a trade deal. "Growth is probably the big area of risk – the US is still on a healthy track but China stabilisation is more hope than reality at the moment while European momentum continues to soften," JPMorgan analysts said in a note. "Investors have plenty to be nervous about, including the ongoing growth softness in Europe and the risk this drags the other major geographies down with it." The rising pressure on growth means the near term fortunes of the equity markets will partly depend on earnings from major US companies. These include Coca-Cola Co, PepsiCo Inc, Walmart Inc, Home Depot Inc, Macy's Inc and Gap Inc for further clues about the health of the consumer sector. Analysts now expect first-quarter earnings for S&P 500 companies to decline 0.1 per cent from a year earlier, which would be the first such quarterly profit decline since 2016, according to IBES data from Refinitiv. Elsewhere, the euro was barely changed at $1.1324 after five straight days of losses took it to more than 2 weeks lows. Sterling dithered at $1.2934. The Australian dollar inched up from Friday's one-month lows although sentiment was still cautious after the country's central bank opened the door to a possible rate cut. Oil prices slipped on concerns about slowing global demand amid a pick-up in US drilling activity. US crude was 73 cents weaker at $51.99 per barrel while Brent fell 69 cents to $61.41.

Asian shares slip, looming US-China trade talks in focus

Three weeks after a bizarre White House meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, rapper Kanye West said on Tuesday he was distancing himself from politics.

West, Trump's biggest celebrity supporter, also sought to distance himself from a new campaign that encourages black Americans to quit the Democratic Party.

"My eyes are now wide open and now realize I’ve been used to spread messages I don’t believe in. I am distancing myself from politics and completely focusing on being creative!!!" West tweeted, without mentioning Trump, who is a Republican, or any other names.

The singer and fashion designer, who has said he is bipolar, also said he "never wanted any association" with a campaign launched last weekend called Blexit that seeks to draw African-Americans away from their long-standing support for Democrats.

West, 41, was linked to the campaign after its leader, conservative activist Candace Owens, said he had designed the logo for the movement's hats and T-shirts.

"I introduced Candace to the person who made the logo and they didn’t want their name on it so she used mine," West tweeted on Tuesday. "I have nothing to do with it."

West posted his comments just a week before U.S. congressional elections on Nov. 6 and after months of erratic behaviour, including describing slavery as a choice.

On Oct. 11, he met Trump in the Oval Office and launched into a rambling 10-minute-long speech carried live on television in which he said Trump made him feel like a superhero, and referenced the existence of an alternate universe.&nbsp;

Three weeks after a bizarre White House meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, rapper Kanye West said on Tuesday he was distancing himself from politics. West, Trump's biggest celebrity supporter, also sought to distance himself from a new campaign that encourages black Americans to quit the Democratic Party.

Three weeks after a bizarre White House meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, rapper Kanye West said on Tuesday he was distancing himself from politics. West, Trump's biggest celebrity supporter, also sought to distance himself from a new campaign that encourages black Americans to quit the Democratic Party. "My eyes are now wide open and now realize I’ve been used to spread messages I don’t believe in. I am distancing myself from politics and completely focusing on being creative!!!" West tweeted, without mentioning Trump, who is a Republican, or any other names. The singer and fashion designer, who has said he is bipolar, also said he "never wanted any association" with a campaign launched last weekend called Blexit that seeks to draw African-Americans away from their long-standing support for Democrats. West, 41, was linked to the campaign after its leader, conservative activist Candace Owens, said he had designed the logo for the movement's hats and T-shirts. "I introduced Candace to the person who made the logo and they didn’t want their name on it so she used mine," West tweeted on Tuesday. "I have nothing to do with it." West posted his comments just a week before U.S. congressional elections on Nov. 6 and after months of erratic behaviour, including describing slavery as a choice. On Oct. 11, he met Trump in the Oval Office and launched into a rambling 10-minute-long speech carried live on television in which he said Trump made him feel like a superhero, and referenced the existence of an alternate universe.

Kanye West says he's been 'used', distances himself from politics

By:&nbspJill S. Greenlee*

Motherhood is taking center stage in the US&nbsppolitics.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the first United States senator to give birth while in office has been seen on Capitol Hill with her newborn nestled in her lap.

Two Democratic gubernatorial candidates, Maryland’s Krish Vignarajah and Wisconsin’s Kelda Roys, made waves with campaign ads that, in addition to touting their capabilities as leaders, also show them nursing their babies.

A Democratic congressional candidate in New York, Liuba Grechen Shirley, was just granted permission from the Federal Election Commission to use campaign funds to cover the cost of child care while she runs for office.

Plus, women are running for office in record numbers this year. Among their many experiences, roles and identities, many are emphasizing being a mom.

What does this acknowledgment of motherhood tell us about U.S. politics today? As I have discussed in my work as a scholar of gender and politics, women running for office have not traditionally made motherhood central to their candidacies.

Here’s why that appears to be changing.

Mothers of young children

In the past, women who ran for office typically did not have young children. Research shows that women who are professionally best positioned to run for office are less likely to have children than men, and that female officeholders are more likely than their male counterparts to not have children.

If female candidates did have children, they were often adult children – making their role as a motherless intensive and less central to their personal narrative at the time of their candidacy. Scholars have shown that women who hold office at various levels of government tend to do so when their children are older.

Enter Hillary Clinton, whose groundbreaking presidential candidacy made motherhood central to her political appeals and policy agenda. While Clinton fit the traditional mold of a woman by running when her child was an adult, she made motherhood a major theme in her campaign. She spoke about her own experience of raising a child. She elevated the voices of other mothers and drew attention to their concerns.

And she relied on her own daughter, Chelsea Clinton – who gave birth to her second child just weeks before the 2016 Democratic National Convention – as a key surrogate for her on the campaign trail. By focusing on motherhood in so many ways, it’s possible that her historic nomination may have empowered more women with young children to run for office.

Negotiating motherhood

Previously, female candidates with children had to deftly negotiate their role as a mother, rather than fully embrace it. While being a mother fulfills a strong societal expectation associated with womanhood, social psychologists have found that motherhood may be at odds with public perceptions of what strong, competent leadership looks like.

Moreover, women who highlight their children in campaigns may open themselves up to greater scrutiny. Voters may wonder, “Who is caring for your children while you are governing?”

These are the types of questions that Republicans Jane Swift and Sarah Palin faced during their political careers. These are questions that similarly situated male candidates do not receive.

Ironically, today, women without children may face the highest hurdle. There is some evidence that women running for office who do not have children are judged most harshly by would-be voters because childless female candidates violate traditional expectations of women.

Running as a woman

Scholarship, that focuses on the issues that female candidates highlight and the types of voters they reach out to, suggests that making motherhood front and center may be a smart strategy. Scholars have found that in some electoral contexts, female candidates who highlight their gender and target female voters can build a strategic advantage.

For example, as the only woman running in the Democratic primary for the Maryland gubernatorial seat, Krish Vignarajah may distinguish herself from her six male competitors when she highlights her role as a mother. Research suggests she might build an advantage if she talks more about issues that affect women and spends more energy courting women, primary voters, because these same approaches may be less effective for her male competitors.

Risks and rewards

The current focus on motherhood in U.S. politics is a mixed bag.

Running “as a mom” may open some female candidates up to the negative impact of gender stereotypes. On the other hand, some recent research suggests that gender stereotypes may no longer hinder women in the ways that they previously have. Other scholars argue that while gender stereotypes shape perceptions of female candidates, many voters ultimately cast their votes for the candidate of their preferred party, making gender and its stereotypes less consequential.

Candidates who highlight motherhood risk oversimplifying their own complex motivations. They may end up perpetuating the myth that women – perhaps because of motherhood – are best at legislating on issues related to family life, thereby keeping them tethered to the home and hearth.

Moreover, images of motherhood seen in electoral politics often reflect just one form of mothering. They do not embrace many other forms of motherhood and mothering across racial, ethnic and other identity groups.

On the other hand, when we ignore motherhood altogether, we do a disservice to all women. And, importantly, we may perpetuate the myth that women cannot or should not, to paraphrase Rep. Patricia Schroeder, “have a brain and a uterus, and use them both.”

*Jill S. Greenlee is an Associate Professor of Politics, Brandeis University

(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)

Two Democratic gubernatorial candidates, Maryland’s Krish Vignarajah and Wisconsin’s Kelda Roys, made waves with campaign ads that, in addition to touting their capabilities as leaders, also show them nursing their babies

By: Jill S. Greenlee* Motherhood is taking center stage in the US&nbsppolitics. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the first United States senator to give birth while in office has been seen on Capitol Hill with her newborn nestled in her lap. Two Democratic gubernatorial candidates, Maryland’s Krish Vignarajah and Wisconsin’s Kelda Roys, made waves with campaign ads that, in addition to touting their capabilities as leaders, also show them nursing their babies. A Democratic congressional candidate in New York, Liuba Grechen Shirley, was just granted permission from the Federal Election Commission to use campaign funds to cover the cost of child care while she runs for office. Plus, women are running for office in record numbers this year. Among their many experiences, roles and identities, many are emphasizing being a mom. What does this acknowledgment of motherhood tell us about U.S. politics today? As I have discussed in my work as a scholar of gender and politics, women running for office have not traditionally made motherhood central to their candidacies. Here’s why that appears to be changing. Mothers of young children In the past, women who ran for office typically did not have young children. Research shows that women who are professionally best positioned to run for office are less likely to have children than men, and that female officeholders are more likely than their male counterparts to not have children. If female candidates did have children, they were often adult children – making their role as a motherless intensive and less central to their personal narrative at the time of their candidacy. Scholars have shown that women who hold office at various levels of government tend to do so when their children are older. Enter Hillary Clinton, whose groundbreaking presidential candidacy made motherhood central to her political appeals and policy agenda. While Clinton fit the traditional mold of a woman by running when her child was an adult, she made motherhood a major theme in her campaign. She spoke about her own experience of raising a child. She elevated the voices of other mothers and drew attention to their concerns. And she relied on her own daughter, Chelsea Clinton – who gave birth to her second child just weeks before the 2016 Democratic National Convention – as a key surrogate for her on the campaign trail. By focusing on motherhood in so many ways, it’s possible that her historic nomination may have empowered more women with young children to run for office. Negotiating motherhood Previously, female candidates with children had to deftly negotiate their role as a mother, rather than fully embrace it. While being a mother fulfills a strong societal expectation associated with womanhood, social psychologists have found that motherhood may be at odds with public perceptions of what strong, competent leadership looks like. Moreover, women who highlight their children in campaigns may open themselves up to greater scrutiny. Voters may wonder, “Who is caring for your children while you are governing?” These are the types of questions that Republicans Jane Swift and Sarah Palin faced during their political careers. These are questions that similarly situated male candidates do not receive. Ironically, today, women without children may face the highest hurdle. There is some evidence that women running for office who do not have children are judged most harshly by would-be voters because childless female candidates violate traditional expectations of women. Running as a woman Scholarship, that focuses on the issues that female candidates highlight and the types of voters they reach out to, suggests that making motherhood front and center may be a smart strategy. Scholars have found that in some electoral contexts, female candidates who highlight their gender and target female voters can build a strategic advantage. For example, as the only woman running in the Democratic primary for the Maryland gubernatorial seat, Krish Vignarajah may distinguish herself from her six male competitors when she highlights her role as a mother. Research suggests she might build an advantage if she talks more about issues that affect women and spends more energy courting women, primary voters, because these same approaches may be less effective for her male competitors. Risks and rewards The current focus on motherhood in U.S. politics is a mixed bag. Running “as a mom” may open some female candidates up to the negative impact of gender stereotypes. On the other hand, some recent research suggests that gender stereotypes may no longer hinder women in the ways that they previously have. Other scholars argue that while gender stereotypes shape perceptions of female candidates, many voters ultimately cast their votes for the candidate of their preferred party, making gender and its stereotypes less consequential. Candidates who highlight motherhood risk oversimplifying their own complex motivations. They may end up perpetuating the myth that women – perhaps because of motherhood – are best at legislating on issues related to family life, thereby keeping them tethered to the home and hearth. Moreover, images of motherhood seen in electoral politics often reflect just one form of mothering. They do not embrace many other forms of motherhood and mothering across racial, ethnic and other identity groups. On the other hand, when we ignore motherhood altogether, we do a disservice to all women. And, importantly, we may perpetuate the myth that women cannot or should not, to paraphrase Rep. Patricia Schroeder, “have a brain and a uterus, and use them both.” *Jill S. Greenlee is an Associate Professor of Politics, Brandeis University (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)

Opinion: Women on the 2018 ballot are busting perceptions of motherhood and leadership

The State of the Union Address is an annual message presented by President of United States to a joint session of the United States Congress which starts after the president completes one year of his term and as it is broadcast live across the country, it is a platform for President to directly communicate to the people of America

The president address held in the house of representative before a joint session of the United States Congress, it usually takes&nbsp;place around evening.

The address&nbsp;includes an economic report of the nation, legislative agenda that needs Congress cooperation, national priorities and administrations&#39; accomplishments over the previous year.

The event&nbsp;is seen as one of the most important in the US political calendar, during the address president also use it as an opportunity to honour the achievements of ordinary Americans who are invited by the president to sit with the first lady.

The practice was started by Woodrow Wilson, the 28th US President before him&nbsp;Presidents would only submit a written report to the Congress for his agenda.

It started from communication between presidents and Congress only however after the emergence of broadcast media, the address now works as communication between the president and its people of the country.&nbsp;

The practice of the State of The Union address arises from a duty given to the president in in article II of section 3 of the United States Constitution, which says,

&quot;He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.&quot;

Presidents who are newly elected address Congress after holding the presidential office which isn&#39;t&nbsp;considered as the State of the Union address, it is only considered the state of the union address after president completes its one year of the term.

Before each State of the Union address, a formal invitation is sent to the president made by the speaker of the house.

The live audience of the address includes President with the first lady and his invited guests; every member of Congress and their guests which each can bring one; the speaker of the house and his guests, the cabinet, supreme court justices, member of diplomatic corps and joint chiefs.

Current United States president Donald Trump will give his state of the union speech on Tuesday, January 30 with the theme set on &quot;building a safe strong and proud America.&quot;

United States president Donald Trump will give his state of the union speech on Tuesday, January 30 with the theme set on 'building a safe strong and proud America'

The State of the Union Address is an annual message presented by President of United States to a joint session of the United States Congress which starts after the president completes one year of his term and as it is broadcast live across the country, it is a platform for President to directly communicate to the people of America The president address held in the house of representative before a joint session of the United States Congress, it usually takes place around evening. The address includes an economic report of the nation, legislative agenda that needs Congress cooperation, national priorities and administrations' accomplishments over the previous year. The event is seen as one of the most important in the US political calendar, during the address president also use it as an opportunity to honour the achievements of ordinary Americans who are invited by the president to sit with the first lady. The practice was started by Woodrow Wilson, the 28th US President before him Presidents would only submit a written report to the Congress for his agenda. It started from communication between presidents and Congress only however after the emergence of broadcast media, the address now works as communication between the president and its people of the country. The practice of the State of The Union address arises from a duty given to the president in in article II of section 3 of the United States Constitution, which says, "He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Presidents who are newly elected address Congress after holding the presidential office which isn't considered as the State of the Union address, it is only considered the state of the union address after president completes its one year of the term. Before each State of the Union address, a formal invitation is sent to the president made by the speaker of the house. The live audience of the address includes President with the first lady and his invited guests; every member of Congress and their guests which each can bring one; the speaker of the house and his guests, the cabinet, supreme court justices, member of diplomatic corps and joint chiefs. Current United States president Donald Trump will give his state of the union speech on Tuesday, January 30 with the theme set on "building a safe strong and proud America."

What is the State of the Union Address?

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump&#39;s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, already a White House senior adviser, will take on the additional task of overseeing an effort to overhaul the federal government, the White House said on Monday.

Kushner, who is married to Trump&#39;s daughter Ivanka Trump, will lead a White House Office of American Innovation to leverage business ideas and potentially privatise some government functions as the White House pushes to shrink government, cut federal employees and eliminate regulations.

&quot;This office will bring together the best ideas from government, the private sector, and other thought leaders to ensure that America is ready to solve today&#39;s most intractable problems,&quot; Trump said in a memorandum creating the office that includes about a dozen White House officials.

Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to &quot;drain the swamp,&quot; has enacted a hiring freeze for most civilian federal jobs and proposed massive cuts in US&nbsp;domestic agencies that could shrink the size of government by thousands of workers

The Republican president has also proposed sweeping cuts in government regulations and plans to sign an order on Tuesday rolling back some energy regulations.

&quot;We have a lot more coming,&quot; he said on Monday at a ceremony signing bills to repeal four regulations, vowing to eliminate every &quot;job-killing regulation that we can find&quot;.

A number of recent presidents including Bill Clinton, George W&nbsp;Bush and Barack Obama had mixed success with their own initiatives to reinvent or streamline government using suggestions from the private sector.

Kushner has been a regular presence at his father-in-law&#39;s side and was earlier cleared by the Justice Department to serve as a White House senior adviser even as Democrats raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

He has been given a wide range of domestic and foreign policy responsibilities, including working on a Middle East peace deal. He will continue to serve in the other roles even as he takes up the new duties, the White House said.

Last week, Ivanka Trump received her own office in the White House along with access to classified information and a government-issued phone. Aides had said earlier she would not take on a role in her father&#39;s White House, as did Trump himself.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I am not trying to get &quot;top level security clearance&quot; for my children. This was a typically false news story.
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798850338384023552">November 16, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Washington Post quoted aides as saying she would collaborate with Kushner&#39;s innovation office but would not have an official role.

&nbsp;

TAKING ON WASHINGTON

Among past efforts to overhaul the way Washington works, Clinton in 1993 called for &quot;reinventing government.&quot; His reforms led to a slower pace of federal hiring, reducing the federal workforce by 240,000 jobs and closing small offices. Congress did not agree to some of the more aggressive cuts.

Bush proposed government management reforms, but ended up focussing largely on restructuring national security agencies after the September&nbsp;11, 2001, attacks, folding many agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security.

Obama in 2012 proposed closing the Commerce Department and creating a new export agency, saving $3 billion over 10 years and cutting 1,000 plus jobs. His plans failed to get congressional approval.

(Reuters)

The billionaire scion of a wealthy real estate company, Kushner has no experience in politics. He will oversee dramatic cuts

US President Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, already a White House senior adviser, will take on the additional task of overseeing an effort to overhaul the federal government, the White House said on Monday. Kushner, who is married to Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump, will lead a White House Office of American Innovation to leverage business ideas and potentially privatise some government functions as the White House pushes to shrink government, cut federal employees and eliminate regulations. "This office will bring together the best ideas from government, the private sector, and other thought leaders to ensure that America is ready to solve today's most intractable problems," Trump said in a memorandum creating the office that includes about a dozen White House officials. Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to "drain the swamp," has enacted a hiring freeze for most civilian federal jobs and proposed massive cuts in US domestic agencies that could shrink the size of government by thousands of workers The Republican president has also proposed sweeping cuts in government regulations and plans to sign an order on Tuesday rolling back some energy regulations. "We have a lot more coming," he said on Monday at a ceremony signing bills to repeal four regulations, vowing to eliminate every "job-killing regulation that we can find". A number of recent presidents including Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama had mixed success with their own initiatives to reinvent or streamline government using suggestions from the private sector. Kushner has been a regular presence at his father-in-law's side and was earlier cleared by the Justice Department to serve as a White House senior adviser even as Democrats raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. He has been given a wide range of domestic and foreign policy responsibilities, including working on a Middle East peace deal. He will continue to serve in the other roles even as he takes up the new duties, the White House said. Last week, Ivanka Trump received her own office in the White House along with access to classified information and a government-issued phone. Aides had said earlier she would not take on a role in her father's White House, as did Trump himself. I am not trying to get "top level security clearance" for my children. This was a typically false news story. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 16, 2016 × The Washington Post quoted aides as saying she would collaborate with Kushner's innovation office but would not have an official role. TAKING ON WASHINGTON Among past efforts to overhaul the way Washington works, Clinton in 1993 called for "reinventing government." His reforms led to a slower pace of federal hiring, reducing the federal workforce by 240,000 jobs and closing small offices. Congress did not agree to some of the more aggressive cuts. Bush proposed government management reforms, but ended up focussing largely on restructuring national security agencies after the September 11, 2001, attacks, folding many agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security. Obama in 2012 proposed closing the Commerce Department and creating a new export agency, saving $3 billion over 10 years and cutting 1,000 plus jobs. His plans failed to get congressional approval. (Reuters)

Trump's son-in-law to oversee government revamp

With Manoj Kewalramani

In a matter of days, President-elect Donald Trump will take office as the 45th President of the United States. 
&nbsp; 
Immigration is at the top of the Trump administration&rsquo;s agenda. Post victory,<a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration"> Trump&rsquo;s vision</a> on immigration&nbsp;reads, &quot;Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first&quot;. 
&nbsp; 
Reports say that there are 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. Trump has scaled back his promise to deport them all, but says he still plans to deport between<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/donald-trumps-mass-deportations-would-cost-billions-and-take-years-to-process/"> two to three million</a>.

 
The Obama Era 
&nbsp; 
While many have&nbsp;seen&nbsp;this as a radical departure from the past,&nbsp;if one analyses the numbers&nbsp;it is clear that the Barack Obama administration has not really been soft when it comes to dealing with migrants. 
&nbsp; 
Data from the US Department of Homeland Security shows that a record high number of removals were carried out during the eight years of Obama&#39;s presidency. 
&nbsp;

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="226" id="datawrapper-chart-jwBBV" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jwBBV/2/" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="100%"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["jwBBV"]={},window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].embedDeltas={"100":304,"200":252,"300":252,"400":226,"500":226,"600":226,"700":226,"800":226,"900":226,"1000":226},window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-jwBBV"),window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("jwBBV"==b)window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});</script>

As per the numbers, more than 2.7 million immigrants were deported from the United States between 2009 and 2015. The maximum number of deportations during the Obama presidency took place in 2013. 
&nbsp;

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="340" id="datawrapper-chart-fDUSj" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/fDUSj/1/" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="100%"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["fDUSj"]={},window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].embedDeltas={"100":418,"200":392,"300":366,"400":340,"500":340,"600":340,"700":340,"800":340,"900":340,"1000":340},window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-fDUSj"),window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("fDUSj"==b)window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});</script>

However, the data also shows that there has been a sharp decline in deportations of criminals and non-criminals during the last few years of the Obama administration. 
&nbsp; 
The number of non-criminal deportations dropped by 22 per cent&nbsp;in 2015, while deportations post criminal convictions fell by 17 per cent. Most of these deportations were to countries in North America, followed by countries in South America and Asia. 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

What about South Asians? 
&nbsp; 
Focussing specifically on South Asia, under Obama, criminal and non-criminal deportations to six South Asian countries, excluding the Maldives, dropped drastically when compared to the Bush administration. 
&nbsp;

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="300" id="datawrapper-chart-9Wjcd" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/9Wjcd/1/" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="100%"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"]={},window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].embedDeltas={"100":404,"200":352,"300":326,"400":326,"500":300,"600":300,"700":300,"800":300,"900":300,"1000":300},window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-9Wjcd"),window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("9Wjcd"==b)window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});</script>

From 2009 to 2015, the US deported 7,496 people around South Asia. In contrast, during the Bush era, a total of 11,554 South Asians were deported. 
&nbsp; 
During the Bush era, the number of deportations spiked in 2005, hitting the highest level in 2006. On the other hand, the Obama administration recorded high number of deportations at the beginning of his term. 
&nbsp; 
That number has dropped significantly towards the end of his tenure. While the number of criminal deportations remained consistent, the number of non-criminal deportation halved.

 
How Obama differs from Trump? 
&nbsp; 
A report by the Pew<a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/16/u-s-immigrant-deportations-fall-to-lowest-level-since-2007/"> Research Center</a>&nbsp;says that the sharp decline in numbers could have been due to a change in the deportation <a href="http://(https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/dhs-releases-end-fiscal-year-2015-statistics">enforcement priorities</a>&nbsp;by the administration. This change has led to a shift, focusing &quot;exclusively on only those who have been convicted of a crime; those deemed a threat to public safety; and those who have recently crossed the border&quot;. 
&nbsp; 
Further, a report by the <a href="http://cis.org/Immigration-Enforcement-Deportations-Decline-2016">Center of Immigration Studies</a>&nbsp;claims that the immigrations office has eased enforcement, thereby putting less people on the path to deportation. 
&nbsp; 
Those are priorities that are likely to change under a Trump presidency. Reports suggest that Trump is expected to target not just those considered a security threat or threat to public safety, but also those who have either arrived in the US illegally or have overstayed their visas. 
&nbsp; 
Trump&rsquo;s statements about deporting anyone who has entered the US illegally hint at a possible re-look at Obama&rsquo;s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which was brought into force to protect young immigrants brought illegally into the United States as children. 
&nbsp; 
There are also concerns that the new president could tinker with the rules, such as redefining what constitutes a criminal act, in order to make it easier to deport people, while arguing that the administration was focussed on deporting those with criminal records. However, with the recent protests on the streets and by legislators, pushing through these changes is not likely to be an easy process. 
 
Watch: 
 
&nbsp;

<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kfnhyNc7aq8" width="770"></iframe></center>

(WION) 
&nbsp;

While many worry about Donald Trump, Obama removed more immigrants than any American president in US history

With Manoj Kewalramani In a matter of days, President-elect Donald Trump will take office as the 45th President of the United States. Immigration is at the top of the Trump administration’s agenda. Post victory, Trump’s vision on immigration reads, "Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first". Reports say that there are 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. Trump has scaled back his promise to deport them all, but says he still plans to deport between two to three million. The Obama Era While many have seen this as a radical departure from the past, if one analyses the numbers it is clear that the Barack Obama administration has not really been soft when it comes to dealing with migrants. Data from the US Department of Homeland Security shows that a record high number of removals were carried out during the eight years of Obama's presidency. As per the numbers, more than 2.7 million immigrants were deported from the United States between 2009 and 2015. The maximum number of deportations during the Obama presidency took place in 2013. However, the data also shows that there has been a sharp decline in deportations of criminals and non-criminals during the last few years of the Obama administration. The number of non-criminal deportations dropped by 22 per cent in 2015, while deportations post criminal convictions fell by 17 per cent. Most of these deportations were to countries in North America, followed by countries in South America and Asia. What about South Asians? Focussing specifically on South Asia, under Obama, criminal and non-criminal deportations to six South Asian countries, excluding the Maldives, dropped drastically when compared to the Bush administration. From 2009 to 2015, the US deported 7,496 people around South Asia. In contrast, during the Bush era, a total of 11,554 South Asians were deported. During the Bush era, the number of deportations spiked in 2005, hitting the highest level in 2006. On the other hand, the Obama administration recorded high number of deportations at the beginning of his term. That number has dropped significantly towards the end of his tenure. While the number of criminal deportations remained consistent, the number of non-criminal deportation halved. How Obama differs from Trump? A report by the Pew Research Center says that the sharp decline in numbers could have been due to a change in the deportation enforcement priorities by the administration. This change has led to a shift, focusing "exclusively on only those who have been convicted of a crime; those deemed a threat to public safety; and those who have recently crossed the border". Further, a report by the Center of Immigration Studies claims that the immigrations office has eased enforcement, thereby putting less people on the path to deportation. Those are priorities that are likely to change under a Trump presidency. Reports suggest that Trump is expected to target not just those considered a security threat or threat to public safety, but also those who have either arrived in the US illegally or have overstayed their visas. Trump’s statements about deporting anyone who has entered the US illegally hint at a possible re-look at Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which was brought into force to protect young immigrants brought illegally into the United States as children. There are also concerns that the new president could tinker with the rules, such as redefining what constitutes a criminal act, in order to make it easier to deport people, while arguing that the administration was focussed on deporting those with criminal records. However, with the recent protests on the streets and by legislators, pushing through these changes is not likely to be an easy process. Watch: (WION)

Trump and Obama: Surprisingly similar on deportation

The accusation that Donald Trump will not be&nbsp;a legitimate president, and that&nbsp;he must be impeached the instant he takes office, is obviously a major charge that&nbsp;must not be made lightly. Democracy is messy and accepting a politician you may find horrible is a sad but vital and&nbsp;inevitable part of it.&nbsp;But&nbsp;Donald Trump presents a&nbsp;different case.

Many now&nbsp;question&nbsp;Trump&#39;s legitimacy, including the venerated civil rights hero&nbsp;John Lewis, who Trump lambasted on Twitter after he, Lewis, called&nbsp;the President-elect &quot;illegitimate&quot;. Again, the accusation of illegitimacy is&nbsp;serious.&nbsp;It&nbsp;must not be used frivolously and must&nbsp;be understood:&nbsp;This is not a&nbsp;mere&nbsp;disagreement&nbsp;about policy.&nbsp;So, why are people saying Trump&nbsp;is illegitimate?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Rigged election

<ul>
	<li>American intelligence, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/us-intelligence-trump-dossier-leak">no less than 17 different agencies</a>, all agree that Vladimir Putin himself interfered in the US election to benefit Trump. This is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/the-argument-for-donald-t_b_14220416.html">illegal</a>. No foreign government is allowed to contribute even $1 to a US presidential candidate. Whether Putin&#39;s interference was the difference between a Trump or a Clinton victory--and Trump won three key swing states by less than 80,000 votes, so it very well&nbsp;could have been--is also irrelevant. The Huffington Post reported that Trump keeping rather than rejecting foreign &quot;influence&quot;&nbsp;could make him and the influencer subject to<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/the-argument-for-donald-t_b_14220416.html"> jail time</a>.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>America&#39;s director of national intelligence James Clapper characterised Russia&#39;s pro-Trump cyberattacks as a &quot;multifaceted campaign&quot;, and that &quot;Hacking was only a part of it...it also entailed classical propoganda, disinformation and fake news&quot;. It&#39;s not that Russia hacked the election tallying machines themselves and directly altered the results, it&#39;s that their efforts were essentially complex and sophisticated psy-ops meant to shred Clinton&#39;s campaign and manipulate American voters&nbsp;into voting for the Kremlin&#39;s&nbsp;candidate.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>What transpired is illegal. There is an ongoing investigation to determine what exactly did happen and what effect it had, but even Trump himself reversed his initial denials and admitted that it was probably Russia who hacked the Democrats. Trump railed for weeks that the election was rigged against him, but as soon as it became apparent that it was rigged to favour him, he said that, basically, America should just get over it.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>The 2016 US election was the first in decades to be without safeguards protecting the rights of those from minority communities&nbsp;to vote, as&nbsp;the &quot;Voting Rights Act&quot; was gutted in 2013. The&nbsp;<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/the-argument-for-donald-t_b_14220416.html">Huffington Post</a>&nbsp;reported that&nbsp;this made it impossible for&nbsp;1.1 million citizens, mostly&nbsp;non-white&nbsp;and&nbsp;poor, to&nbsp;vote.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>Trump won the electoral college votes of three key swing states by very narrow margins. The Huffington Post made it easy to compare the numbers Trump&nbsp;won by in these states to the number of citizens for whom&nbsp;gutting the Voting Rights Act deprived of their fundamental right to vote--known as a &quot;purge list&quot;.&nbsp;Trump won Michigan by 13,107 votes, it&#39;s purge list was 449,922. Trump won Arizona by 85,257, and its purge list was 270,824. Trump won North Carolina by 177,008, and its purge list was 589,393. &nbsp;</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>Despite Russian interference, Fake News, the FBI director inexplicably&nbsp;announcing a probe (that led nowhere) into Clinton&#39;s emails mere days&nbsp;days before the election,&nbsp;Trump asking followers to watch the polls for voter fraud (interpreted as a call to intimidate voters) &nbsp;and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, still almost 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

Decades of Russian connections, financing

<ul>
	<li>Trump&#39;s stunning and stubborn refusal to publicly disclose his tax returns (he is the first presidential candidate in 40 years to fail this basic test of transparency)&nbsp;is even more suspect when seen beside&nbsp;his pro-Russia policies and never-ending praise for Putin, even siding with him over American intelligence and the White House, and all his financial connections to Russian gangsters and the Kremlin (a distinction without a difference). Is Russian money behind<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-arms-deal-idUSKBN14Z0YE">&nbsp;Trump</a>&#39;s pledge to&nbsp;end&nbsp;sanctions against Russia, imposed on them for invading Crimea?&nbsp;</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>The full history of Russia and Trump is beyond the scope of this article. (Read about some of it <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/9/1618540/-Was-Donald-Trump-bailed-out-of-bankruptcy-by-Russia-crime-bosses">here</a>, <a href="http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/19/the-curious-world-of-donald-trumps-private-russian-connections/">here </a>and&nbsp;<a href="http://&lt;blockquote class=&quot;twitter-tweet&quot; data-lang=&quot;en&quot;&gt;&lt;p lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;Turns out, wasn&amp;#39;t Trump&amp;#39;s investments *in Russia* that shaped his pro-Putin views but rather Russia&amp;#39;s investments *in him* &lt;a href=&quot;https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior&quot;&gt;@sarahkendzior&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://t.co/wDO8r4nOXB&quot;&gt;pic.twitter.com/wDO8r4nOXB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&amp;mdash; Adam Khan (@Khanoisseur) &lt;a href=&quot;https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/819651528583614465&quot;&gt;January 12, 2017&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; &lt;script async src=&quot;//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js&quot; charset=&quot;utf-8&quot;&gt;&lt;/script&gt;">here</a>.) There isn&#39;t merely one story&nbsp;that alone does him in; Trump was rescued from bankruptcy by&nbsp;Russian oligarchs in the early 1990s, who seised on the opportunity that the collapse of the Soviet Union presented by personally taking for themselves&nbsp;what had been state-owned companies. What happened next is a long story shrouded, but not entirely, in secrecy.&nbsp;It&#39;s said that they bought Trump properties en masse in order to launder money, which enabled Trump to be, and&nbsp;appear like, a success, so long as he looked the other way. No Russian mover and shaker is allowed to operate in these high places without Vladimir Putin&#39;s approval, who some experts say is worth an obscene $200 billion. As Eric Trump said in 2008, &quot;We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia&quot;.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

So Trump&nbsp;likes Russia, so what?

<ul>
	<li>American intelligence presented to Obama, and also Trump, a report claiming that Russia has &quot;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/">compromised</a>&quot; Donald Trump. In other words, the claim is Russia&nbsp;has&nbsp;sufficient information over Trump&nbsp;for&nbsp;blackmail<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/four-sources-to-possible-claims-of-trump-russia-blackmail-bbcs-paul-wood-11219">.&nbsp;There is&nbsp;apparently</a>&nbsp;&quot;audio and video&quot; on &quot;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/four-sources-to-possible-claims-of-trump-russia-blackmail-bbcs-paul-wood-11219">more than one&nbsp;tape</a>&quot;.&nbsp;While the allegations in the intelligence report have not been verified, it is a&nbsp;fact that the report was brought through official intelligence channels to the&nbsp;White House. If they are true, the problem isn&#39;t that Donald Trump as president wants to side with Putin, it&#39;s that&nbsp;Putin would&nbsp;be the one in charge.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>Trump has&nbsp;stocked&nbsp;his cabinet with people who have very deep and concrete&nbsp;links to Vladimir&nbsp;Putin. Rex Tillerson and Paul Manafort are the high profile ones. Tillerson, as CEO of the oil giant ExxonMobil, was personally awarded the &quot;Order of Friendship&quot; from Vladimir Putin, and Manafort secretly received millions&nbsp;in cash to lobby for the&nbsp;pro-Putin leader of Ukraine, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/10/24/donald-trumps-former-campaign-chairman-paul-manafort-was-lobbying-vladimir-putin-through-a-company-he-owned/">Viktor Yanukovich.</a>&nbsp;Manafort and another Putin-linked Trump aide named Rick Gate resigned in the summer when this came to light, but Manafort quietly came&nbsp;back to&nbsp;advise&nbsp;Trump on cabinet picks. While working for Exxon, Tillerson opposed sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine at a time when the sanctions prevented his company from making billions of dollars on an oil discovery in Russia&#39;s north. Trump&#39;s pro-Kremlin stance&nbsp;is&nbsp;filtering down in major ways.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

General conflicts of interest

<ul>
	<li>Trump has a sprawling business empire that spans the globe, and the character of his business is&nbsp;uniquely susceptible to conflicts of interests. There was talk of using a &quot;blind trust&quot; to manage his business&nbsp;while he&#39;s president, but &quot;blindness&quot; is impossible, considering a major part of his&nbsp;business is&nbsp;a slew of skyscrapers in marquee destinations around the world with &quot;Trump&quot;&nbsp;written on them in giant golden letters. Foreign dignitaries are already careful to stay in his hotels and use his products, hoping to curry favour. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/fashion/ivanka-trump-bracelet-60-minutes-conflict-of-interest.html">Ivanka Trump</a> is very dubiously straddling the line between managing the private business and serving in&nbsp;public office.&nbsp; 
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li>The &quot;Emoluments clause&quot; in the American constitution may be the biggest threat Trump faces. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trumps-ethics-train-wreck/513446/">The&nbsp;clause forbids</a> &quot;Any person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]&quot; from accepting &quot;any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State&quot; (unless Congress explicitly consents). Some experts in US law believe that&nbsp;there are definitely&nbsp;grounds to impeach Trump on his first day&nbsp;in office. 
	&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
	<li>But this isn&#39;t the end of the story. If a Trump appointee decides not to prosecute <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/deutsche-bank-s-reworking-a-big-trump-loan-as-inauguration-nears">Deutsche Bank</a>, will it be because they think it represents&nbsp;the best course&nbsp;for America, or because Deutsche Bank decides in the future to forgive the $300 million Donald Trump owes it? This dynamic can play out countless times more, considering the vastness of Trump&#39;s business interests. While many&nbsp;ethics experts call on Trump to completely divest, saying basically the only way for his business to not interfere with his role as president is to&nbsp;not have&nbsp;a business, Trump steadfastly refuses. &nbsp; 
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li>When considering whether&nbsp;Trump can be counted on to separate his children running his business&nbsp;from&nbsp;the world leaders he is bound to meet as president, remember that before even assuming office&nbsp;they have already sat in on a meeting&nbsp;with US tech industry leaders and the Prime Minister of Japan. Also, the Trump transition team <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/donald-trump-children-security-clearance/">reportedly sought</a> White House security clearance for Trump&#39;s children and nephew, Jared Kushner. 
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Trump said that he will solve the conflict of interest problem not by selling his business, as he will keep a stake in it but will turn the management over to his&nbsp;two sons, joined by an executive. Trump&nbsp;claimed that he will not speak to these two sons&nbsp;about the business. He then joked that if profits are low&nbsp;he will&nbsp;tell them, &quot;You&#39;re fired!&quot;. This does not meet any serious definition of absolving himself&nbsp;of conflict of interest, especially when the stakes are this high.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

Is there enough evidence?

It&#39;s hard to get a smoking gun because Trump breaks normal transparency standards by failing to disclose key information, then celebrates himself for disclosing what he hasn&#39;t disclosed,&nbsp;then&nbsp;attacks and intimidates anybody who tries to bring this pattern&nbsp;to light.

Trump falsely said he cannot publicly&nbsp;release his tax return (he said he is under audit, the IRS said he is free to release it, then Eric Trump&nbsp;said that releasing it would subject his business interests to public scrutiny). He threatened to sue the New York Times for releasing a page that showed that despite professing to be a billionaire he likely <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0">paid no income tax for 18&nbsp;years</a>.

Trump falsely stated that&nbsp;he does not know<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-russia-felix-sater-227434"> Felix Sater,</a> a Russian-born man with proven links to Trump (<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-mafia-linked-figure-describes-association-with-trump/2016/05/17/cec6c2c6-16d3-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html?utm_term=.694d939ddd4e">here they are pictured together</a>) via Bayrock (a real estate firm with offices in Trump Tower)&nbsp;and Putin (Bayrock has seen a cash infusion from Putin-friendly&nbsp;Khazakstani and Russian businesses). Sater has&nbsp;pled guilty to stabbing a man in the neck with a broken margarita glass in a bar fight and to a&nbsp;racketeering scam worth $40 million, connected to four mob families.

Trump denied knowing Putin personally, yet <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-video-shows-trump-lying-admits-he-has-a-relationship-with-vladimir-putin-10313">has said on video </a>that he personally knows Putin. In short, Trump and his team&nbsp;do everything to obfuscate what is happening and&nbsp;attack those who threaten his&nbsp;so-called legitimacy.&nbsp;

There are still many unanswered questions, and it&#39;s an understatement to say Trump&nbsp;appears to be in no&nbsp;mood to answer them. Until both Democrat&nbsp;and&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;supporters&nbsp;get real and&nbsp;satisfying answers to everything that&nbsp;got Trump elected and&nbsp;to the nature of what is driving his decisions in office, Trump&#39;s legitimacy as presidency will always be hopelessly in doubt.&nbsp;

And if the real answers to these questions ever come&nbsp;to light, it seems they are unlikely to strengthen&nbsp;Trump&#39;s legitimacy.&nbsp;

(WION)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

An American politician labelled Trump 'illegitimate' and calls for impeachment have begun before he takes office. This is very, very serious

The accusation that Donald Trump will not be a legitimate president, and that he must be impeached the instant he takes office, is obviously a major charge that must not be made lightly. Democracy is messy and accepting a politician you may find horrible is a sad but vital and inevitable part of it. But Donald Trump presents a different case. Many now question Trump's legitimacy, including the venerated civil rights hero John Lewis, who Trump lambasted on Twitter after he, Lewis, called the President-elect "illegitimate". Again, the accusation of illegitimacy is serious. It must not be used frivolously and must be understood: This is not a mere disagreement about policy. So, why are people saying Trump is illegitimate? Rigged election American intelligence, no less than 17 different agencies, all agree that Vladimir Putin himself interfered in the US election to benefit Trump. This is illegal. No foreign government is allowed to contribute even $1 to a US presidential candidate. Whether Putin's interference was the difference between a Trump or a Clinton victory--and Trump won three key swing states by less than 80,000 votes, so it very well could have been--is also irrelevant. The Huffington Post reported that Trump keeping rather than rejecting foreign "influence" could make him and the influencer subject to jail time. America's director of national intelligence James Clapper characterised Russia's pro-Trump cyberattacks as a "multifaceted campaign", and that "Hacking was only a part of it...it also entailed classical propoganda, disinformation and fake news". It's not that Russia hacked the election tallying machines themselves and directly altered the results, it's that their efforts were essentially complex and sophisticated psy-ops meant to shred Clinton's campaign and manipulate American voters into voting for the Kremlin's candidate. What transpired is illegal. There is an ongoing investigation to determine what exactly did happen and what effect it had, but even Trump himself reversed his initial denials and admitted that it was probably Russia who hacked the Democrats. Trump railed for weeks that the election was rigged against him, but as soon as it became apparent that it was rigged to favour him, he said that, basically, America should just get over it. The 2016 US election was the first in decades to be without safeguards protecting the rights of those from minority communities to vote, as the "Voting Rights Act" was gutted in 2013. The Huffington Post reported that this made it impossible for 1.1 million citizens, mostly non-white and poor, to vote. Trump won the electoral college votes of three key swing states by very narrow margins. The Huffington Post made it easy to compare the numbers Trump won by in these states to the number of citizens for whom gutting the Voting Rights Act deprived of their fundamental right to vote--known as a "purge list". Trump won Michigan by 13,107 votes, it's purge list was 449,922. Trump won Arizona by 85,257, and its purge list was 270,824. Trump won North Carolina by 177,008, and its purge list was 589,393. Despite Russian interference, Fake News, the FBI director inexplicably announcing a probe (that led nowhere) into Clinton's emails mere days days before the election, Trump asking followers to watch the polls for voter fraud (interpreted as a call to intimidate voters) and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, still almost 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Decades of Russian connections, financing Trump's stunning and stubborn refusal to publicly disclose his tax returns (he is the first presidential candidate in 40 years to fail this basic test of transparency) is even more suspect when seen beside his pro-Russia policies and never-ending praise for Putin, even siding with him over American intelligence and the White House, and all his financial connections to Russian gangsters and the Kremlin (a distinction without a difference). Is Russian money behind Trump's pledge to end sanctions against Russia, imposed on them for invading Crimea? The full history of Russia and Trump is beyond the scope of this article. (Read about some of it here, here and here.) There isn't merely one story that alone does him in; Trump was rescued from bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs in the early 1990s, who seised on the opportunity that the collapse of the Soviet Union presented by personally taking for themselves what had been state-owned companies. What happened next is a long story shrouded, but not entirely, in secrecy. It's said that they bought Trump properties en masse in order to launder money, which enabled Trump to be, and appear like, a success, so long as he looked the other way. No Russian mover and shaker is allowed to operate in these high places without Vladimir Putin's approval, who some experts say is worth an obscene $200 billion. As Eric Trump said in 2008, "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia". So Trump likes Russia, so what? American intelligence presented to Obama, and also Trump, a report claiming that Russia has "compromised" Donald Trump. In other words, the claim is Russia has sufficient information over Trump for blackmail. There is apparently "audio and video" on "more than one tape". While the allegations in the intelligence report have not been verified, it is a fact that the report was brought through official intelligence channels to the White House. If they are true, the problem isn't that Donald Trump as president wants to side with Putin, it's that Putin would be the one in charge. Trump has stocked his cabinet with people who have very deep and concrete links to Vladimir Putin. Rex Tillerson and Paul Manafort are the high profile ones. Tillerson, as CEO of the oil giant ExxonMobil, was personally awarded the "Order of Friendship" from Vladimir Putin, and Manafort secretly received millions in cash to lobby for the pro-Putin leader of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich. Manafort and another Putin-linked Trump aide named Rick Gate resigned in the summer when this came to light, but Manafort quietly came back to advise Trump on cabinet picks. While working for Exxon, Tillerson opposed sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine at a time when the sanctions prevented his company from making billions of dollars on an oil discovery in Russia's north. Trump's pro-Kremlin stance is filtering down in major ways. General conflicts of interest Trump has a sprawling business empire that spans the globe, and the character of his business is uniquely susceptible to conflicts of interests. There was talk of using a "blind trust" to manage his business while he's president, but "blindness" is impossible, considering a major part of his business is a slew of skyscrapers in marquee destinations around the world with "Trump" written on them in giant golden letters. Foreign dignitaries are already careful to stay in his hotels and use his products, hoping to curry favour. Ivanka Trump is very dubiously straddling the line between managing the private business and serving in public office. The "Emoluments clause" in the American constitution may be the biggest threat Trump faces. The clause forbids "Any person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]" from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" (unless Congress explicitly consents). Some experts in US law believe that there are definitely grounds to impeach Trump on his first day in office. But this isn't the end of the story. If a Trump appointee decides not to prosecute Deutsche Bank, will it be because they think it represents the best course for America, or because Deutsche Bank decides in the future to forgive the $300 million Donald Trump owes it? This dynamic can play out countless times more, considering the vastness of Trump's business interests. While many ethics experts call on Trump to completely divest, saying basically the only way for his business to not interfere with his role as president is to not have a business, Trump steadfastly refuses. When considering whether Trump can be counted on to separate his children running his business from the world leaders he is bound to meet as president, remember that before even assuming office they have already sat in on a meeting with US tech industry leaders and the Prime Minister of Japan. Also, the Trump transition team reportedly sought White House security clearance for Trump's children and nephew, Jared Kushner. Trump said that he will solve the conflict of interest problem not by selling his business, as he will keep a stake in it but will turn the management over to his two sons, joined by an executive. Trump claimed that he will not speak to these two sons about the business. He then joked that if profits are low he will tell them, "You're fired!". This does not meet any serious definition of absolving himself of conflict of interest, especially when the stakes are this high. Is there enough evidence? It's hard to get a smoking gun because Trump breaks normal transparency standards by failing to disclose key information, then celebrates himself for disclosing what he hasn't disclosed, then attacks and intimidates anybody who tries to bring this pattern to light. Trump falsely said he cannot publicly release his tax return (he said he is under audit, the IRS said he is free to release it, then Eric Trump said that releasing it would subject his business interests to public scrutiny). He threatened to sue the New York Times for releasing a page that showed that despite professing to be a billionaire he likely paid no income tax for 18 years. Trump falsely stated that he does not know Felix Sater, a Russian-born man with proven links to Trump (here they are pictured together) via Bayrock (a real estate firm with offices in Trump Tower) and Putin (Bayrock has seen a cash infusion from Putin-friendly Khazakstani and Russian businesses). Sater has pled guilty to stabbing a man in the neck with a broken margarita glass in a bar fight and to a racketeering scam worth $40 million, connected to four mob families. Trump denied knowing Putin personally, yet has said on video that he personally knows Putin. In short, Trump and his team do everything to obfuscate what is happening and attack those who threaten his so-called legitimacy. There are still many unanswered questions, and it's an understatement to say Trump appears to be in no mood to answer them. Until both Democrat and Trump supporters get real and satisfying answers to everything that got Trump elected and to the nature of what is driving his decisions in office, Trump's legitimacy as presidency will always be hopelessly in doubt. And if the real answers to these questions ever come to light, it seems they are unlikely to strengthen Trump's legitimacy. (WION)

Will Trump's presidency be legitimate? Probably not: Opinion

us-politics

Us Politics, News on Us Politics, stories on Us Politics, articles on Us Politics, Us Politics stories at Wion, Us Politics news, Us Politics latest news

us politics