After nearly four decades ferrying US presidents around the world, the iconic aircraft made what officials called its final journey. Its retirement has fuelled speculation that a controversial Qatari-donated Boeing 747 could soon become the new presidential jet. 

'Farewell and thank you': Air Force One to be replaced by Qatari jet soon? Look at the aircraft that carried seven US presidents

What if you find out that all the presidents in the history of America have been one or the other way related? Yes, that's right. All the US presidents to date, except &nbsp;Martin Van Buren, have the same ancestors and are cousins or distantly related. The majority of the American presidents' ancestors were from Britain. It was primarily due to the origins as a group of former English colonies.&nbsp;Let's understand this in detail - taking some of the presidents on the list. George WashingtonThe great-grandfather of George Washington &nbsp;was from Hertfordshire, England. He travelled and settled in the Colony of Virginia in 1657. A majority - or even all of the ancestors of George Washington - were originally from England.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-iran-nuclear-talks-still-in-limbo-tehran-says-point-of-maturity-not-reached-with-washington-yet-1755702976855">US-Iran nuclear talks still in limbo? Tehran says 'point of maturity' not reached with Washington yet</a>&nbsp;Abraham LincolnProbably one of America's most famous presidents, Abraham Lincoln, was of English descent. His ancestor, Samuel Lincoln, emigrated from Norfolk to Massachusetts in 1638.&nbsp;Franklin D RooseveltFranklin D Roosevelt was born in New York and was distantly related to the 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt. His parents were sixth cousins. His wife, Eleanor, was his fifth cousin.&nbsp;John F Kennedy F Kennedy had Irish roots, and it is widely known. All of his great-grandparents were Irish immigrants who made new lives in Massachusetts, and he was America's first Irish-Catholic president.&nbsp;Barack Obama America’s first black president, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii. His family roots were spread from Kenya to Ireland. His DNA makeup also includes English, Scots-Irish, Welsh, German, and Swiss ancestral lines.&nbsp;Joe BidenApart from a well-known Irish family connection, Joe Biden has a mix of ancestors. His mother was English and his father was French. Donald Trump Donald Trump's paternal grandparents were German immigrants. His mother was born in Scotland.

A theory around the ancestors of all the US presidents claims that all the presidents in the history of America are related in one way or the other. 

What if you find out that all the presidents in the history of America have been one or the other way related? Yes, that's right. All the US presidents to date, except Martin Van Buren, have the same ancestors and are cousins or distantly related. The majority of the American presidents' ancestors were from Britain. It was primarily due to the origins as a group of former English colonies. Let's understand this in detail - taking some of the presidents on the list. George Washington The great-grandfather of George Washington was from Hertfordshire, England. He travelled and settled in the Colony of Virginia in 1657. A majority - or even all of the ancestors of George Washington - were originally from England. Also read: US-Iran nuclear talks still in limbo? Tehran says 'point of maturity' not reached with Washington yet Abraham Lincoln Probably one of America's most famous presidents, Abraham Lincoln, was of English descent. His ancestor, Samuel Lincoln, emigrated from Norfolk to Massachusetts in 1638. Franklin D Roosevelt Franklin D Roosevelt was born in New York and was distantly related to the 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt. His parents were sixth cousins. His wife, Eleanor, was his fifth cousin. John F Kennedy F Kennedy had Irish roots, and it is widely known. All of his great-grandparents were Irish immigrants who made new lives in Massachusetts, and he was America's first Irish-Catholic president. Barack Obama America’s first black president, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii. His family roots were spread from Kenya to Ireland. His DNA makeup also includes English, Scots-Irish, Welsh, German, and Swiss ancestral lines. Joe Biden Apart from a well-known Irish family connection, Joe Biden has a mix of ancestors. His mother was English and his father was French. Donald Trump Donald Trump's paternal grandparents were German immigrants. His mother was born in Scotland.

A theory around the ancestors of all the US presidents claims that all the presidents in the history of America are related in one way or the other.

Do you know all US presidents are relatives? The theory of their ancestor will shock you

This year, on Friday, the U.S. celebrates 249 years of independence, and the entire country has begun preparing for the day and deciding how to spend it.

Did you know these US presidents died on the fourth of July?

The United States has had 46 presidents to date, with 45 men serving in the position. As per Article Two of the United States Constitution, a person must be at least 35 years old to be eligible to take office.&nbsp;

The youngest person to have served as the US president is Theodore Roosevelt. He took office at the age of 42 in 1901 after William McKinley was assassinated. He served as the 26th president of the United States, from 1901 to 1909. He is ranked as one of the greatest American presidents.

Roosevelt's personal life was quite tragic. His first wife died two days after giving birth to their daughter of kidney failure in February&nbsp;1884. On the same day, Roosevelt's mother Martha also passed away from typhoid fever. He remarried on December 2, 1886.

Earlier, he was the 33rd governor of New York for two years, taking office in 1898. He later assumed the role of vice president under President McKinley for six months in 1901.&nbsp;

Roosevelt was behind initiating the construction of the Panama Canal. He appointed John Findley Wallace as chief engineer of the Panama Canal Project. However, he resigned because of several logistical issues.

Roosevelt became the first American to win a Nobel Prize when he was awarded the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Russo-Japanese War.

He was the leader of the progressive movement and championed his "Square Deal" domestic policies. It aimed at fairness for all citizens, breaking bad trusts, regulating railroads, and pure food and drugs. He also worked for the conservation of national parks, monuments and forests.&nbsp;

Roosevelt was elected to a full term in 1904 and wanted William Howard Taft to succeed him in 1908. However, it didn't work out and he grew frustrated with his way of working. He tried to win the 1912 Republican presidential nomination but failed.&nbsp;

He then went on to establish the new Progressive Party and ran in the presidential election in 1912. However, Democratic Woodrow Wilson won this time.

Roosevelt went on a four-month expedition to the Amazon basin. Here he caught a tropical disease and nearly died. His health started to decline and he died in 1919.&nbsp;

The United States has had 46 presidents to date, with 45 men serving in the position. As per Article Two of the United States Constitution, a person must be at least 35 years old to be eligible to take office.

The United States has had 46 presidents to date, with 45 men serving in the position. As per Article Two of the United States Constitution, a person must be at least 35 years old to be eligible to take office. The youngest person to have served as the US president is Theodore Roosevelt. He took office at the age of 42 in 1901 after William McKinley was assassinated. He served as the 26th president of the United States, from 1901 to 1909. He is ranked as one of the greatest American presidents. Roosevelt's personal life was quite tragic. His first wife died two days after giving birth to their daughter of kidney failure in February 1884. On the same day, Roosevelt's mother Martha also passed away from typhoid fever. He remarried on December 2, 1886. Earlier, he was the 33rd governor of New York for two years, taking office in 1898. He later assumed the role of vice president under President McKinley for six months in 1901. Roosevelt was behind initiating the construction of the Panama Canal. He appointed John Findley Wallace as chief engineer of the Panama Canal Project. However, he resigned because of several logistical issues. Roosevelt became the first American to win a Nobel Prize when he was awarded the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Russo-Japanese War. He was the leader of the progressive movement and championed his "Square Deal" domestic policies. It aimed at fairness for all citizens, breaking bad trusts, regulating railroads, and pure food and drugs. He also worked for the conservation of national parks, monuments and forests. Roosevelt was elected to a full term in 1904 and wanted William Howard Taft to succeed him in 1908. However, it didn't work out and he grew frustrated with his way of working. He tried to win the 1912 Republican presidential nomination but failed. He then went on to establish the new Progressive Party and ran in the presidential election in 1912. However, Democratic Woodrow Wilson won this time. Roosevelt went on a four-month expedition to the Amazon basin. Here he caught a tropical disease and nearly died. His health started to decline and he died in 1919.

The youngest US president was also the first American to win a Nobel Prize

Former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has suggested that the country should honour President Joe Biden by installing his face on Mount Rushmore, a national monument in South Dakota, featuring four US ex-presidents viz. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.&nbsp;

Pelosi made the suggestion during an interview where she was quizzed about claims that she led the coup that forced Biden to drop out of the presidential race.&nbsp;

"He was in a good place to make whatever decision – the top of his game. Such a consequential president of the United States, a Mount Rushmore kind of president of the United States,"&nbsp;Pelosi told CBS News.

Asked if she was serious about Biden being installed at the iconic monument, Pelosi replied,&nbsp;"Well, you got Teddy Roosevelt up there, and he's wonderful.&nbsp;I don't say take him down. But you can add Biden."

Pelosi denied leading any charge to oust Biden, adding that the president was at the "top of his game" when he called it quits.&nbsp;

"No, I wasn’t the leader of any pressure [campaign]. Let me say things that I didn’t do,&nbsp;I didn’t call one person. I did not call one person. I could always say to him, ‘I never called anybody.'"

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-elections-president-biden-endorses-kamala-harris-to-be-democrat-nominee-743118">Watch |&nbsp;US Elections: President Biden endorses Kamala Harris to be Democrat nominee</a>

<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/us-elections-president-biden-endorses-kamala-harris-to-be-democrat-nominee-743118/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

<h2>Biden quits prez race</h2>

In the days leading up to Biden quitting the presidential race, multiple media reports claimed that it was Pelosi and Barack Obama that allegedly engineered the fall.&nbsp;

Pelosi reportedly held a private conversation with Biden where she told him that he could not bear Donald Trump, come the November elections.&nbsp;

Notably, this phone call marked the second conversation between the California lawmaker and Biden since the president’s disastrous debate on June 27.

Meanwhile, Obama was of the view that there was no path to victory for the&nbsp;81-year-old who should "seriously consider the viability of his candidacy".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-endorsing-harris-immediately-was-a-big-fk-you-to-obama-report-744738">Also read |&nbsp;Biden endorsing Harris immediately was a 'big f**k you' to Obama: Report</a>

After Biden contracted COVID-19 and retired to his Delaware home, he made the shocking announcement of dropping his re-election bid. Within minutes of the announcement, he endorsed Kamala Harris as the Democrat nominee - a choice that was not approved by Pelosi and Obama.

Since President Biden had provided the endorsement, both Democrat heavyweights had to come around the fact and eventually provide their support to Harris' candidature as well.&nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has suggested that the country should honour President Joe Biden by installing his face on Mount Rushmore, a national monument in South Dakota, featuring four US ex-presidents viz.

Former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has suggested that the country should honour President Joe Biden by installing his face on Mount Rushmore, a national monument in South Dakota, featuring four US ex-presidents viz. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Pelosi made the suggestion during an interview where she was quizzed about claims that she led the coup that forced Biden to drop out of the presidential race. "He was in a good place to make whatever decision – the top of his game. Such a consequential president of the United States, a Mount Rushmore kind of president of the United States," Pelosi told CBS News. Asked if she was serious about Biden being installed at the iconic monument, Pelosi replied, "Well, you got Teddy Roosevelt up there, and he's wonderful. I don't say take him down. But you can add Biden." Pelosi denied leading any charge to oust Biden, adding that the president was at the "top of his game" when he called it quits. "No, I wasn’t the leader of any pressure [campaign]. Let me say things that I didn’t do, I didn’t call one person. I did not call one person. I could always say to him, ‘I never called anybody.'" Watch | US Elections: President Biden endorses Kamala Harris to be Democrat nominee × Biden quits prez race In the days leading up to Biden quitting the presidential race, multiple media reports claimed that it was Pelosi and Barack Obama that allegedly engineered the fall. Pelosi reportedly held a private conversation with Biden where she told him that he could not bear Donald Trump, come the November elections. Notably, this phone call marked the second conversation between the California lawmaker and Biden since the president’s disastrous debate on June 27. Meanwhile, Obama was of the view that there was no path to victory for the 81-year-old who should "seriously consider the viability of his candidacy". Also read | Biden endorsing Harris immediately was a 'big f**k you' to Obama: Report After Biden contracted COVID-19 and retired to his Delaware home, he made the shocking announcement of dropping his re-election bid. Within minutes of the announcement, he endorsed Kamala Harris as the Democrat nominee - a choice that was not approved by Pelosi and Obama. Since President Biden had provided the endorsement, both Democrat heavyweights had to come around the fact and eventually provide their support to Harris' candidature as well. (With inputs from agencies)

Pelosi wants US to add Biden to Mount Rushmore amid claims she sabotaged president's reelection bid

The hair samples of three US presidents, including John F Kennedy, will go into deep space by the end of 2023. According to the Houston Chronicle, hair samples from presidents John F Kennedy, Dwight D Eisenhower and George Washington will head into deep space in a Vulcan rocket of the United Launch Alliance before the month ends.

The hair samples of three US presidents, including John F Kennedy, will go into deep space by the end of 2023. According to the Houston Chronicle, hair samples from presidents John F Kennedy, Dwight D Eisenhower and George Washington will head into deep space in a Vulcan rocket of the United Launch Alliance before the month ends. Celestis, a company specialising in sending cremated remains and DNA samples to outer space, will organise the mission. Colby Youngblood, the president of Celestis, told the Chronicle, "It is absolutely feasible, from a scientific point, that future researchers can find this flight capsule and study what's in it." In a statement released in 2023, Celestis said that sending DNA samples of late presidents to space could help people learn more about US history in the future. "Off-world DNA storage allows the human genome to be preserved for thousands of years in space without degradation," the company stated. "This means it is possible it could be discovered later, like a cosmic time capsule. It could allow future generations to learn more about the US forefathers millennia into the future," the statement read further. ALSO READ | Beware! Wildfires can convert a harmless element into the toxic 'Erin Brockovich' chemical The DNA samples of the three US presidents will be on the Enterprise Flight of Celestis, named in honour of the TV series Star Trek. "We feel it's an honourable tribute to those three presidents to put them on this first historic mission," said Youngblood. The flight will also carry the ashes of the series creator Gene Roddenberry, his wife Majel Barrett Roddenberry and a DNA sample of their son. Charles M Chafer, the co-founder and CEO of Celestis, said in a statement in 2022, "We're very pleased to be fulfilling, with this mission, a promise I made to Majel Barrett Roddenberry in 1997 that one day we would fly her and husband Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry together on a deep space memorial spaceflight." The official website of Celestis said the mission will "launch over 150 flight capsules containing cremated remains (ashes), DNA samples, and messages of greetings from clients worldwide on an endless journey in interplanetary space." The flight, earlier scheduled to leave on the morning of December 24, might get delayed, according to the post on X by the CEO of United Launch Alliance. Previously, Celestis has sent DNA and cremated remains into space. The company markets itself as helping families "commemorate the lives of their departed loved one" through memorial spaceflights starting at nearly $3,000. (With inputs from agencies)

Hair samples of three US presidents are being sent into space. Here's why

'Alien' UFOs are on the minds of U.S. senior officials. Many have also given their views on UFOs, including Former US Presidents. Does U.S. actually believe in 'aliens'? Molly Gambhir tells you more.

US former Presidents comment on 'alien' UFOs

So far, President Joe Biden has made only a passing comment on the crises that have engulfed Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and he seems to be hoping to avoid getting pulled in any further.

But as a longtime friend of the New York governor, Biden is one of the very few people in the nation with the potential to prevent a protracted standoff between an increasingly isolated Cuomo and the rest of the Democratic Party. That has strained Biden’s efforts to stay firmly on the sidelines as the governor faces a fusillade of calls to resign.

Cuomo is confronting a spiraling set of allegations and investigations involving sexual harassment, a toxic workplace, the manipulation of the number of deaths at New York nursing homes and perceived loyalty tests from the governor’s vaccine czar.

Biden and Cuomo have not spoken, people close to both men said. Asked on Sunday night whether Cuomo should resign, Biden said only, “I think the investigation is underway, and we should see what it brings us.”

The governor and his allies have urged people to wait for the results of the investigations to buy time, in the hope of stabilizing Cuomo’s support. And Biden appears inclined to give him that time — at least for now.

But a prolonged period of intraparty sparring over Cuomo’s future could be problematic for Biden. It threatens to distract from his early initiatives, including mass vaccination efforts and his party’s imperative to sell the public on the nearly $2 trillion stimulus package Biden signed into law last week.

The New York Times and Washington Post reported over the weekend that Larry Schwartz, the governor’s vaccine czar and a longtime lieutenant, had tried to assess the loyalty of county executives to Cuomo during phone calls about vaccine distribution — drawing particular attention at the White House on Monday.

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said that the reports were “concerning” and that Schwartz’s calls were “inappropriate reported behavior.”

The calls prompted one executive to file a preliminary complaint with the state attorney general office’s public integrity bureau. Schwartz denied that he discussed vaccines in a political context.

Psaki insisted there were “checks” in the system to prevent the vaccine from being distributed based on favoritism.

On Tuesday, the White House will hold its weekly call on the coronavirus with the National Governors Association, which Cuomo typically leads as chair of the group. Psaki said she expected Cuomo would join the call, adding, “We’ll leave that up to him.”

Both of New York’s senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, called on Cuomo to resign Friday, along with most of the state’s Democratic congressional delegation. One factor in the timing for members of Congress who made their announcements in quick succession was the desire not to overshadow Biden’s signing of the pandemic relief package, according to people involved in the discussions.

Cuomo was surprised by the statement from Gillibrand and Schumer; he had believed earlier that day that they would not join the calls against him, according to someone familiar with his thinking.

Still, the governor has flatly refused to contemplate resignation while questioning the motives of the women who have accused him of sexual harassment, invoking “cancel culture,” a favorite Republican talking point, as he dug in Friday.

“There’s a job to do, and New Yorkers elected the governor to do it,” Richard Azzopardi, a senior adviser to Cuomo, said Monday. “He remains focused on vaccine distribution and a state budget that’s due in two weeks, and we’re thankful for the help that the White House has provided on both those fronts.”

A senior administration official said Biden’s desire to stay away is driven partly by his personal relationship with Cuomo and partly by pragmatism.

Should he eventually become drawn into the issue, Biden’s options range from encouraging Cuomo to resign to asking him not to run for office again in 2022, as the governor has indicated he still plans to do.

“Biden has a long friendship with Cuomo, and I think he and [Nancy] Pelosi and others are clearly hoping the situation will resolve itself through this investigative process, and they’re giving him that much leash, but how tenable that will be over time is very questionable,” said David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama.

Already, a majority of state legislators — and more than 40% of Democratic lawmakers in Albany — have called for Cuomo’s resignation. The state Assembly has launched an impeachment inquiry, and beyond Biden, the politician with the most control over Cuomo’s fate is the Assembly speaker, Carl E. Heastie, who will determine if and when to proceed.

Impeaching and removing a governor is a serious undertaking, and Cuomo can hope that it is too big a leap even for those who signed a letter urging his resignation.

“Calling the Legislature’s bluff on an impeachment vote, he recognizes casting a vote for impeachment is a heavy vote for many to make,” said Bakari Sellers, a former member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, who voted to impeach then-Gov. Mark Sanford in 2009. (Sanford was eventually censured.)

“The state is about to be flush with COVID cash,” Sellers said. “Better days ahead for constituents. Hang on until you become everyone’s favorite bank.”

Biden and Cuomo have been relatively close politically in recent years. In 2015, when Biden was considering a belated run for president, they met in New York; though Cuomo was formally backing Hillary Clinton at the time, he did not discourage Biden from a White House run.

In 2018, when Cuomo faced a primary challenge of his own from Cynthia Nixon, the actress and activist, Biden offered a full-throated endorsement of Cuomo at the New York Democratic Party convention.

Biden’s fondness for Cuomo does not necessarily extend to the staff level. The governor’s sharp-elbowed political operation has jabbed at many people in his path over the years.

Biden tapped Cuomo for a prime-time speech on the first night of the Democratic convention last year at the height of the governor’s popularity. The prerecorded address, which did not mention Biden by name until near the end, was thrust on convention organizers with little opportunity for revision, according to people involved in the process; they said the Cuomo team was among the most difficult to work with in planning the entire four-day event.

Cuomo’s political operation also submitted a production bill that far exceeded other similar convention videos; convention officials declined to pay the full amount.

So far, President Joe Biden has made only a passing comment on the crises that have engulfed Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and he seems to be hoping to avoid getting pulled in any further.

So far, President Joe Biden has made only a passing comment on the crises that have engulfed Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and he seems to be hoping to avoid getting pulled in any further. But as a longtime friend of the New York governor, Biden is one of the very few people in the nation with the potential to prevent a protracted standoff between an increasingly isolated Cuomo and the rest of the Democratic Party. That has strained Biden’s efforts to stay firmly on the sidelines as the governor faces a fusillade of calls to resign. Cuomo is confronting a spiraling set of allegations and investigations involving sexual harassment, a toxic workplace, the manipulation of the number of deaths at New York nursing homes and perceived loyalty tests from the governor’s vaccine czar. Biden and Cuomo have not spoken, people close to both men said. Asked on Sunday night whether Cuomo should resign, Biden said only, “I think the investigation is underway, and we should see what it brings us.” The governor and his allies have urged people to wait for the results of the investigations to buy time, in the hope of stabilizing Cuomo’s support. And Biden appears inclined to give him that time — at least for now. But a prolonged period of intraparty sparring over Cuomo’s future could be problematic for Biden. It threatens to distract from his early initiatives, including mass vaccination efforts and his party’s imperative to sell the public on the nearly $2 trillion stimulus package Biden signed into law last week. The New York Times and Washington Post reported over the weekend that Larry Schwartz, the governor’s vaccine czar and a longtime lieutenant, had tried to assess the loyalty of county executives to Cuomo during phone calls about vaccine distribution — drawing particular attention at the White House on Monday. Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said that the reports were “concerning” and that Schwartz’s calls were “inappropriate reported behavior.” The calls prompted one executive to file a preliminary complaint with the state attorney general office’s public integrity bureau. Schwartz denied that he discussed vaccines in a political context. Psaki insisted there were “checks” in the system to prevent the vaccine from being distributed based on favoritism. On Tuesday, the White House will hold its weekly call on the coronavirus with the National Governors Association, which Cuomo typically leads as chair of the group. Psaki said she expected Cuomo would join the call, adding, “We’ll leave that up to him.” Both of New York’s senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, called on Cuomo to resign Friday, along with most of the state’s Democratic congressional delegation. One factor in the timing for members of Congress who made their announcements in quick succession was the desire not to overshadow Biden’s signing of the pandemic relief package, according to people involved in the discussions. Cuomo was surprised by the statement from Gillibrand and Schumer; he had believed earlier that day that they would not join the calls against him, according to someone familiar with his thinking. Still, the governor has flatly refused to contemplate resignation while questioning the motives of the women who have accused him of sexual harassment, invoking “cancel culture,” a favorite Republican talking point, as he dug in Friday. “There’s a job to do, and New Yorkers elected the governor to do it,” Richard Azzopardi, a senior adviser to Cuomo, said Monday. “He remains focused on vaccine distribution and a state budget that’s due in two weeks, and we’re thankful for the help that the White House has provided on both those fronts.” A senior administration official said Biden’s desire to stay away is driven partly by his personal relationship with Cuomo and partly by pragmatism. Should he eventually become drawn into the issue, Biden’s options range from encouraging Cuomo to resign to asking him not to run for office again in 2022, as the governor has indicated he still plans to do. “Biden has a long friendship with Cuomo, and I think he and [Nancy] Pelosi and others are clearly hoping the situation will resolve itself through this investigative process, and they’re giving him that much leash, but how tenable that will be over time is very questionable,” said David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama. Already, a majority of state legislators — and more than 40% of Democratic lawmakers in Albany — have called for Cuomo’s resignation. The state Assembly has launched an impeachment inquiry, and beyond Biden, the politician with the most control over Cuomo’s fate is the Assembly speaker, Carl E. Heastie, who will determine if and when to proceed. Impeaching and removing a governor is a serious undertaking, and Cuomo can hope that it is too big a leap even for those who signed a letter urging his resignation. “Calling the Legislature’s bluff on an impeachment vote, he recognizes casting a vote for impeachment is a heavy vote for many to make,” said Bakari Sellers, a former member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, who voted to impeach then-Gov. Mark Sanford in 2009. (Sanford was eventually censured.) “The state is about to be flush with COVID cash,” Sellers said. “Better days ahead for constituents. Hang on until you become everyone’s favorite bank.” Biden and Cuomo have been relatively close politically in recent years. In 2015, when Biden was considering a belated run for president, they met in New York; though Cuomo was formally backing Hillary Clinton at the time, he did not discourage Biden from a White House run. In 2018, when Cuomo faced a primary challenge of his own from Cynthia Nixon, the actress and activist, Biden offered a full-throated endorsement of Cuomo at the New York Democratic Party convention. Biden’s fondness for Cuomo does not necessarily extend to the staff level. The governor’s sharp-elbowed political operation has jabbed at many people in his path over the years. Biden tapped Cuomo for a prime-time speech on the first night of the Democratic convention last year at the height of the governor’s popularity. The prerecorded address, which did not mention Biden by name until near the end, was thrust on convention organizers with little opportunity for revision, according to people involved in the process; they said the Cuomo team was among the most difficult to work with in planning the entire four-day event. Cuomo’s political operation also submitted a production bill that far exceeded other similar convention videos; convention officials declined to pay the full amount.

Can Biden stay on the sidelines of the Andrew Cuomo saga?

The January 20 inauguration, wherein Joe Biden would be sworn in as the 46th President of the United States. Apart from marking the transition of Presidential powers the swearing-in also signifies the beginning of a new era. Here some of the many first in the U.S. inaugural history.

A look at all the U.S. Presidents so far | Transition of Presidential powers

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

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

By:&nbsp;Charles Hermann*

The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a May 8 announcement by President Donald Trump. The decision reverses a hard-won agreement that President Barack Obama negotiated with European allies, Russia, Iran and other nations in 2015.

This is hardly Trump’s first foreign policy turnaround.

The president plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, something no sitting U.S. president has ever done. He also scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership, relocated the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and decreed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

All of these decisions have triggered vehement criticism.

But is Trump really such an outlier? As a scholar of American foreign policy, I know that many American presidents have reoriented international relations.

Some of those policies succeeded. Many faced opposition. Ultimately, though, my research shows that what matters more to U.S. national security is how those presidents responded when their foreign policy shifts failed.

From Truman to Bush

History has sometimes redeemed foreign policy shifts that seemed radical at first blush.

In 1947, President Harry Truman, a Democrat who stumbled into the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died in office, asked Congress to authorise major military and economic assistance to Greece, Turkey and other countries where Communism was making inroads.

In the end, the “Truman Doctrine” – which held the U.S. should provide political, military and economic assistance to all nations under threat from authoritarianism – became a cornerstone of U.S. policy. Republicans in Congress, who wanted to enact steep federal budget cuts, opposed Truman’s request. Critics on the left said the U.S. should not assist non-democracies.

Three decades later, President Jimmy Carter paid a steep political price for agreeing to return the Panama Canal – at the time owned and operated by the U.S. – to Panama. Polls showed that a majority of respondents opposed the agreement.

The Senate approved the Panama Treaties by one vote. Several lawmakers who supported Carter subsequently lost their seats. In 1980, California governor Ronald Reagan – who criticised Carter’s return of the canal – handily defeated him for the presidency. Today, it seems logical that the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.

Another major shift in foreign policy occurred in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. President George H.W. Bush had to decide whether the U.S. should support the reunification of Communist East Germany with democratic West Germany.

European allies, vividly remembering that Germany had caused two global wars earlier that century, objected strenuously to reunification. So did Russian President Mikael Gorbachev. U.S. newspapers editorialised caution.

President Bush prevailed. A single, democratic Germany entered NATO. It is now the leader of democratic Europe.

Carter’s risk-taking

Presidents who upend foreign policy do so for different reasons.

Truman was responding to an international crisis. Carter saw himself as an outsider elected to transform America’s global role. Bush wanted to end the Cold War. Some presidential changes are designed to boost approval with core supporters.

Trump’s own policy shifts are probably driven by a variety of such factors.

Whatever his motivation, in my experience the most critical question now is: What happens if a Trump policy goes badly?

History confirms that the wrong reaction can be dangerous.

Take the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, when some 50 U.S. diplomats were detained at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage.

After diplomatic negotiations failed to obtain their release, President Carter’s advisors presented him with several options, including levying sanctions, blockading Iran or attempting a rescue mission estimated to risk significant casualties.

Carter’s chose the rescue attempt, illustrating a well-researched insight into human decision-making: When people experience loss, they will take substantial risks in an attempt to recover.

The Iran hostage rescue mission was aborted almost immediately after several helicopters failed to reach the refueling point. Two other aircraft collided, killing eight men and badly burning four others.

Bush’s escalation

George W. Bush’s behavior during the Iraq War demonstrates another kind of potentially dangerous behavior, called escalation of commitment.

When people find that their initial idea is not working well, they must either double down or change course. Regardless of how bad the news, many opt to increase their commitment.

By 2006, the U.S. faced losing the war initiated against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. Fifty-seven percent of voters that year disapproved of Bush’s performance. Roughly the same percentage favored withdrawing from Iraq.

Many of Bush’s top military advisors urged him to reduce military involvement in Iraq and turn most combat over to Iraqi forces. Instead, in 2006, he changed his field commander and “surged” U.S. combat troops. The surge achieved some success, but the war continued.

What will Trump do?

I have identified two forces that help presidents avoid these dangerous decision-making behaviors.

The first is strong, independent-minded advisers. During the Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet offensive missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced an agonising decision. Should he do air strikes, an invasion or a blockade?

More than a dozen Kennedy advisers vigorously debated the strengths and weaknesses of each possible response. Their willingness to criticise, question and speak out may have saved the U.S. from nuclear war.

Trump, on the other hand, famously demands loyalty of his advisers. Those who question his decisions risk losing their position.

Presidents can also avert crises by flexibly responding to changing facts on the ground.

For example, in 1983, President Reagan ordered U.S. Marines to return to an international peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which had descended into civil war. Reagan thought neutral troops could restore order.

Instead, the Marines became targets. More than 200 died when their barracks were bombed on October 23, 1983. So Reagan recalculated, pulling out U.S. troops.

In Trump’s Iran decision, I perceive an unwillingness to re-evaluate policy choices when outside evidence contradicts his original cost-benefit analysis.

When Trump first threatened to scrap the multinational agreement, he assumed the other signatories would agree to re-impose sanctions on Iran, as the U.S. will.

But European countries strongly oppose that idea. They even said they would refuse to renew their sanctions. Still, Trump’s analysis did not change.

Presidential history strongly warns of danger for this White House. Inevitably, some of this president’s policies will fail. Attempts to save them could take the U.S. down a deadly path.

*Charles Hermann, Senior Professor, and Brent Scowcroft Chair Emeritus, Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University

(This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/presidents-often-reverse-us-foreign-policy-how-trump-handles-setbacks-is-what-matters-most-now-95580">original article</a>.)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Many presidents have radically changed US foreign policy. Truman created his own doctrine. Carter gave up the Panama Canal. But a presidential historian sees danger in Trump's decision-making style

By: Charles Hermann* The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a May 8 announcement by President Donald Trump. The decision reverses a hard-won agreement that President Barack Obama negotiated with European allies, Russia, Iran and other nations in 2015. This is hardly Trump’s first foreign policy turnaround. The president plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, something no sitting U.S. president has ever done. He also scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership, relocated the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and decreed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. All of these decisions have triggered vehement criticism. But is Trump really such an outlier? As a scholar of American foreign policy, I know that many American presidents have reoriented international relations. Some of those policies succeeded. Many faced opposition. Ultimately, though, my research shows that what matters more to U.S. national security is how those presidents responded when their foreign policy shifts failed. From Truman to Bush History has sometimes redeemed foreign policy shifts that seemed radical at first blush. In 1947, President Harry Truman, a Democrat who stumbled into the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died in office, asked Congress to authorise major military and economic assistance to Greece, Turkey and other countries where Communism was making inroads. In the end, the “Truman Doctrine” – which held the U.S. should provide political, military and economic assistance to all nations under threat from authoritarianism – became a cornerstone of U.S. policy. Republicans in Congress, who wanted to enact steep federal budget cuts, opposed Truman’s request. Critics on the left said the U.S. should not assist non-democracies. Three decades later, President Jimmy Carter paid a steep political price for agreeing to return the Panama Canal – at the time owned and operated by the U.S. – to Panama. Polls showed that a majority of respondents opposed the agreement. The Senate approved the Panama Treaties by one vote. Several lawmakers who supported Carter subsequently lost their seats. In 1980, California governor Ronald Reagan – who criticised Carter’s return of the canal – handily defeated him for the presidency. Today, it seems logical that the Panama Canal belongs to Panama. Another major shift in foreign policy occurred in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. President George H.W. Bush had to decide whether the U.S. should support the reunification of Communist East Germany with democratic West Germany. European allies, vividly remembering that Germany had caused two global wars earlier that century, objected strenuously to reunification. So did Russian President Mikael Gorbachev. U.S. newspapers editorialised caution. President Bush prevailed. A single, democratic Germany entered NATO. It is now the leader of democratic Europe. Carter’s risk-taking Presidents who upend foreign policy do so for different reasons. Truman was responding to an international crisis. Carter saw himself as an outsider elected to transform America’s global role. Bush wanted to end the Cold War. Some presidential changes are designed to boost approval with core supporters. Trump’s own policy shifts are probably driven by a variety of such factors. Whatever his motivation, in my experience the most critical question now is: What happens if a Trump policy goes badly? History confirms that the wrong reaction can be dangerous. Take the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, when some 50 U.S. diplomats were detained at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage. After diplomatic negotiations failed to obtain their release, President Carter’s advisors presented him with several options, including levying sanctions, blockading Iran or attempting a rescue mission estimated to risk significant casualties. Carter’s chose the rescue attempt, illustrating a well-researched insight into human decision-making: When people experience loss, they will take substantial risks in an attempt to recover. The Iran hostage rescue mission was aborted almost immediately after several helicopters failed to reach the refueling point. Two other aircraft collided, killing eight men and badly burning four others. Bush’s escalation George W. Bush’s behavior during the Iraq War demonstrates another kind of potentially dangerous behavior, called escalation of commitment. When people find that their initial idea is not working well, they must either double down or change course. Regardless of how bad the news, many opt to increase their commitment. By 2006, the U.S. faced losing the war initiated against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. Fifty-seven percent of voters that year disapproved of Bush’s performance. Roughly the same percentage favored withdrawing from Iraq. Many of Bush’s top military advisors urged him to reduce military involvement in Iraq and turn most combat over to Iraqi forces. Instead, in 2006, he changed his field commander and “surged” U.S. combat troops. The surge achieved some success, but the war continued. What will Trump do? I have identified two forces that help presidents avoid these dangerous decision-making behaviors. The first is strong, independent-minded advisers. During the Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet offensive missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced an agonising decision. Should he do air strikes, an invasion or a blockade? More than a dozen Kennedy advisers vigorously debated the strengths and weaknesses of each possible response. Their willingness to criticise, question and speak out may have saved the U.S. from nuclear war. Trump, on the other hand, famously demands loyalty of his advisers. Those who question his decisions risk losing their position. Presidents can also avert crises by flexibly responding to changing facts on the ground. For example, in 1983, President Reagan ordered U.S. Marines to return to an international peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which had descended into civil war. Reagan thought neutral troops could restore order. Instead, the Marines became targets. More than 200 died when their barracks were bombed on October 23, 1983. So Reagan recalculated, pulling out U.S. troops. In Trump’s Iran decision, I perceive an unwillingness to re-evaluate policy choices when outside evidence contradicts his original cost-benefit analysis. When Trump first threatened to scrap the multinational agreement, he assumed the other signatories would agree to re-impose sanctions on Iran, as the U.S. will. But European countries strongly oppose that idea. They even said they would refuse to renew their sanctions. Still, Trump’s analysis did not change. Presidential history strongly warns of danger for this White House. Inevitably, some of this president’s policies will fail. Attempts to save them could take the U.S. down a deadly path. *Charles Hermann, Senior Professor, and Brent Scowcroft Chair Emeritus, Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M 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: After Iran deal turnaround, how Trump handles setbacks is what matters now

Thank God for the Americans! Strange words to be uttering at this time, and yet within the space of three years their mighty image-making machine, Hollywood, has produced two masterpieces sheeting home to us all the indispensability of a free press.

In an age of so-called &ldquo;fake news&rdquo; and &ldquo;alternative facts&rdquo;, these stand as a signal reminder of what true news looks like, and how it can &ndash; must &ndash; be produced in the teeth of opposition from vested interests and government power.

The first of these was Spotlight, the story of how The Boston Globe ripped the lid off a decades-long cover-up by the Boston Catholic diocese of child sexual abuse by its priests. It won the Oscar for best picture in 2016.

The second, recently released in Australia, is The Post. It is the story of how The Washington Post came to publish the Pentagon Papers, the highly classified secret documents that showed successive US presidents from Truman to Nixon lying to the people about American policy in Indo-China and the disastrous course of the Vietnam War.

<figure><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nrXlY6gzTTM?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440"></iframe></figure>

&nbsp;

It is also the story of how Katharine Graham, widow of the Post&rsquo;s publisher, Phil Graham, was forced to grow into the role of a publisher prepared to run the story in the face of serious legal threats, possible financial ruin and loss of old friendships with rich and powerful people.

It was not a role that came easily to Kay Graham (played by Meryl Streep). In her Pulitzer Prize-winning memoirs, published in 1997, she wrote frankly of how unprepared she was for the role forced upon her by her husband&rsquo;s suicide.

She was the daughter of a wealthy New York businessman who had bought the Post at a bankruptcy auction in 1933. When she married the brilliant but later seriously ill Phil Graham, her father devolved the role of publisher upon him, not her. Her job was to bring up the children and add lustre to the family&rsquo;s social position. The film conveys this background economically and convincingly.

It is equally convincing in its depiction of power: newspaper power, legal power and government power. Richard Nixon is in the White House. In an early scene, H.R. Haldeman, Nixon&rsquo;s chief of staff and notorious bully, rings Graham to try to have a particular Post reporter banned from covering the wedding of one of Nixon&rsquo;s daughters because the president didn&rsquo;t like her portrayal of the daughter in an earlier article.

Graham, still finding her feet, looks for ways to accommodate this. She asks the editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks), if perhaps another reporter could be assigned. But all this is swamped when, on the morning the Post runs a front-page picture of the wedding, it has the pants scooped off it by The New York Times, which has splashed the initial tranche of the Pentagon Papers.

In the flurry to catch up, a Post reporter, Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk), who was to have a distinguished career on the paper and later at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, tracks down the Times&rsquo; source, Daniel Ellsberg.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202527/original/file-20180118-80165-8kheml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202527/original/file-20180118-80165-8kheml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" /></a>

<figcaption>Editors at The Washington Post contemplate what to do with the explosive Pentagon Papers. IMDB</figcaption>
</figure>

&nbsp;

In circumstances of confidentiality and anonymity, Ellsberg hands him more than 4,000 additional pages from the Pentagon Papers. This confronts Bagdikian, Bradlee, Graham and The Washington Post Company itself with a series of acute ethical, legal and financial dilemmas.

The White House has obtained a court order restraining The New York Times from publishing any more of the papers. The Post&rsquo;s lawyers advise that if the source for both newspapers is the same, the Post would be in contempt of court should it publish the new material.

At this stage it seems that no one at the Post except Bagdikian knows Ellsberg&rsquo;s identity, and it is a cardinal principle of journalism that the identity of a confidential source must be protected in all circumstances. One of the lawyers pressures Bagdikian to reveal his source. He refuses to name names but concedes that it is &ldquo;very likely&rdquo; to be the same as the Times&rsquo;.

Graham and Bradlee then face the prospect of being imprisoned for contempt. To make matters worse, the company has just been floated on the stock exchange, and the jailing of the publisher and editor might provide grounds on which the bankers behind the float could withdraw. The company&rsquo;s future and that of the newspaper and all the staff are on the line.

For Graham there is a personal complication. She is a close friend of Robert McNamara who, as defence secretary, had commissioned the writing of the Pentagon Papers for historical purposes. This friendship now threatens to compromise her. She goes to McNamara and tells him she has a difficult decision to make concerning the papers. She does not tell him what it is because at that stage she does not know herself.

The money men and board members advising Graham urge her not to publish because of the possible impact on the float. Bradlee urges the opposite, saying if the Post caves in to government pressure over this, it will betray its role of holding governments to account.

When Graham makes the decision to &ldquo;go&rdquo;, she quietly confronts the condescension of her board &ndash; all male grandees &ndash; by reminding them that it is her company. Her metamorphosis into a courageous publisher is complete.

And now the power of the press is arrestingly depicted. It is 1971. Linotype machines clatter away setting the body type; banner headlines are set by hand in a Ludlow stick. In the press room, the towering press units are webbed up waiting for the word. Finally Bradlee rings through. The huge presses begin to roll and in a half-darkened newsroom Bagdikian can hear their hammering rhythm.

In the White House next morning an enraged Nixon orders that the Post is to be banned from the premises. It will avail him little. The film closes with shadowy figures moving about the Democratic Party campaign headquarters in a hotel called Watergate, hinting at the scandal that would ultimately lead to Nixon&rsquo;s resignation.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90379/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />For people interested in the workings of democracy, in the ethical dilemmas of journalism, in a dramatic historical event that reinvigorated the ideal of a free press, or in drawing parallels with recent events surrounding the Trump White House, this is a film not to be missed.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-post-hollywood-reminds-us-what-true-news-should-look-like-90379" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Post is the story of how The Washington Post came to publish the Pentagon Papers, the highly classified secret documents that showed successive US presidents from Truman to Nixon lying to the people about American policy in Indo-China and the disastrous course of the Vietnam War.

Thank God for the Americans! Strange words to be uttering at this time, and yet within the space of three years their mighty image-making machine, Hollywood, has produced two masterpieces sheeting home to us all the indispensability of a free press. In an age of so-called “fake news” and “alternative facts”, these stand as a signal reminder of what true news looks like, and how it can – must – be produced in the teeth of opposition from vested interests and government power. The first of these was Spotlight, the story of how The Boston Globe ripped the lid off a decades-long cover-up by the Boston Catholic diocese of child sexual abuse by its priests. It won the Oscar for best picture in 2016. The second, recently released in Australia, is The Post. It is the story of how The Washington Post came to publish the Pentagon Papers, the highly classified secret documents that showed successive US presidents from Truman to Nixon lying to the people about American policy in Indo-China and the disastrous course of the Vietnam War. It is also the story of how Katharine Graham, widow of the Post’s publisher, Phil Graham, was forced to grow into the role of a publisher prepared to run the story in the face of serious legal threats, possible financial ruin and loss of old friendships with rich and powerful people. It was not a role that came easily to Kay Graham (played by Meryl Streep). In her Pulitzer Prize-winning memoirs, published in 1997, she wrote frankly of how unprepared she was for the role forced upon her by her husband’s suicide. She was the daughter of a wealthy New York businessman who had bought the Post at a bankruptcy auction in 1933. When she married the brilliant but later seriously ill Phil Graham, her father devolved the role of publisher upon him, not her. Her job was to bring up the children and add lustre to the family’s social position. The film conveys this background economically and convincingly. It is equally convincing in its depiction of power: newspaper power, legal power and government power. Richard Nixon is in the White House. In an early scene, H.R. Haldeman, Nixon’s chief of staff and notorious bully, rings Graham to try to have a particular Post reporter banned from covering the wedding of one of Nixon’s daughters because the president didn’t like her portrayal of the daughter in an earlier article. Graham, still finding her feet, looks for ways to accommodate this. She asks the editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks), if perhaps another reporter could be assigned. But all this is swamped when, on the morning the Post runs a front-page picture of the wedding, it has the pants scooped off it by The New York Times, which has splashed the initial tranche of the Pentagon Papers. In the flurry to catch up, a Post reporter, Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk), who was to have a distinguished career on the paper and later at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, tracks down the Times’ source, Daniel Ellsberg. Editors at The Washington Post contemplate what to do with the explosive Pentagon Papers. IMDB In circumstances of confidentiality and anonymity, Ellsberg hands him more than 4,000 additional pages from the Pentagon Papers. This confronts Bagdikian, Bradlee, Graham and The Washington Post Company itself with a series of acute ethical, legal and financial dilemmas. The White House has obtained a court order restraining The New York Times from publishing any more of the papers. The Post’s lawyers advise that if the source for both newspapers is the same, the Post would be in contempt of court should it publish the new material. At this stage it seems that no one at the Post except Bagdikian knows Ellsberg’s identity, and it is a cardinal principle of journalism that the identity of a confidential source must be protected in all circumstances. One of the lawyers pressures Bagdikian to reveal his source. He refuses to name names but concedes that it is “very likely” to be the same as the Times’. Graham and Bradlee then face the prospect of being imprisoned for contempt. To make matters worse, the company has just been floated on the stock exchange, and the jailing of the publisher and editor might provide grounds on which the bankers behind the float could withdraw. The company’s future and that of the newspaper and all the staff are on the line. For Graham there is a personal complication. She is a close friend of Robert McNamara who, as defence secretary, had commissioned the writing of the Pentagon Papers for historical purposes. This friendship now threatens to compromise her. She goes to McNamara and tells him she has a difficult decision to make concerning the papers. She does not tell him what it is because at that stage she does not know herself. The money men and board members advising Graham urge her not to publish because of the possible impact on the float. Bradlee urges the opposite, saying if the Post caves in to government pressure over this, it will betray its role of holding governments to account. When Graham makes the decision to “go”, she quietly confronts the condescension of her board – all male grandees – by reminding them that it is her company. Her metamorphosis into a courageous publisher is complete. And now the power of the press is arrestingly depicted. It is 1971. Linotype machines clatter away setting the body type; banner headlines are set by hand in a Ludlow stick. In the press room, the towering press units are webbed up waiting for the word. Finally Bradlee rings through. The huge presses begin to roll and in a half-darkened newsroom Bagdikian can hear their hammering rhythm. In the White House next morning an enraged Nixon orders that the Post is to be banned from the premises. It will avail him little. The film closes with shadowy figures moving about the Democratic Party campaign headquarters in a hotel called Watergate, hinting at the scandal that would ultimately lead to Nixon’s resignation. For people interested in the workings of democracy, in the ethical dilemmas of journalism, in a dramatic historical event that reinvigorated the ideal of a free press, or in drawing parallels with recent events surrounding the Trump White House, this is a film not to be missed. 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: In The Post, Hollywood reminds us what true news should look like

All five of America&#39;s living former presidents took the stage Saturday at a benefit concert in Texas to raise money for victims of the hurricane-ravaged southern United States and Caribbean.

Former presidents Barack Obama, George W&nbsp;Bush, Bill Clinton, George HW&nbsp;Bush and Jimmy Carter appeared together onstage at Texas A&amp;M, praising Americans for their willingness to help fellow citizens and urging them to do more.

The effort by the three Democrats and two Republicans has raised over $31 million from 80,000 donors for the victims of hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, George H.W. Bush&#39;s office said.

&quot;All of us on this stage here tonight could not be prouder of the response of Americans. When they see their neighbors and they see their friends, they see strangers in need, Americans step up,&quot; Obama said.

&quot;Let&#39;s all work together and make America still a greater volunteer nation,&quot; said Carter, making an apparent play on President Donald Trump&#39;s &quot;Make America Great Again&quot; campaign slogan.

The Georgia native said that Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit he&#39;s worked with for 36 years, would build 6,000 homes in hard-hit areas. It&#39;s raised $20 million of the $100 million sought, he said.

And &quot;I too am here to urge you to give to this fine fund, and I want to thank all the volunteers,&quot; the younger Bush said.

&quot;There&#39;s still work to do,&quot; Clinton said. &quot;It can be a new beginning if we just do what we ought to do and prove that the heart of America, without race or religion or political party, is greater than our problems.&quot;

&#39;We need each other&#39;&nbsp;

Former first ladies Barbara and Laura Bush both attended the event, as did vice president Dick Cheney, ex-secretary of state James A.Baker, Senator Ted Cruz, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Lady Gaga gave a surprise performance at the concert, announcing that she would make a $1 million donation and that a &quot;mental health and emotional trauma surviving program&quot; would be set up for hurricane survivors.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/000_tm2e9-20171022075448.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Lady Gaga gave a surprise performance at the concert. (AFP)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

&quot;Pain is such an equalizer. And in a time of catastrophe, we all put our differences aside and we come together, &#39;cause we need each other, or we can&#39;t survive,&quot; she said.

Lee Greenwood opened the concert and served as master of ceremonies for the event, titled &quot;Deep From the Heart: The One America Appeal,&quot; which also featured artists including The Gatlin Brothers, Yolanda Adams, Robert Earl Keen and Sam Moore.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/000_tm2i7-20171022075845.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Singer Lee Greenwood performs during the Hurricane Relief concert in College Station, Texas. (AFP)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Trump did not attend the concert, but praised the effort in a video message released earlier, terming it a &quot;wonderful&quot; and &quot;vital effort.&quot;

&quot;As we begin to rebuild, some of America&#39;s finest public servants are spearheading the One America Appeal,&quot; said Trump, whose administration&#39;s response to the heavy storm damage in Puerto Rico has drawn fire.

&quot;Melania and I want to express our deep gratitude for your tremendous assistance,&quot; he said.

Ticket-sale receipts were to benefit organisations in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.

Former presidents Barack Obama, George W?Bush, Bill Clinton, George HW?Bush and Jimmy Carter appeared together onstage at Texas A&M , praising Americans for their willingness to help fellow citizens

All five of America's living former presidents took the stage Saturday at a benefit concert in Texas to raise money for victims of the hurricane-ravaged southern United States and Caribbean. Former presidents Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter appeared together onstage at Texas A&M, praising Americans for their willingness to help fellow citizens and urging them to do more. The effort by the three Democrats and two Republicans has raised over $31 million from 80,000 donors for the victims of hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, George H.W. Bush's office said. "All of us on this stage here tonight could not be prouder of the response of Americans. When they see their neighbors and they see their friends, they see strangers in need, Americans step up," Obama said. "Let's all work together and make America still a greater volunteer nation," said Carter, making an apparent play on President Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan. The Georgia native said that Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit he's worked with for 36 years, would build 6,000 homes in hard-hit areas. It's raised $20 million of the $100 million sought, he said. And "I too am here to urge you to give to this fine fund, and I want to thank all the volunteers," the younger Bush said. "There's still work to do," Clinton said. "It can be a new beginning if we just do what we ought to do and prove that the heart of America, without race or religion or political party, is greater than our problems." 'We need each other' Former first ladies Barbara and Laura Bush both attended the event, as did vice president Dick Cheney, ex-secretary of state James A.Baker, Senator Ted Cruz, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Lady Gaga gave a surprise performance at the concert, announcing that she would make a $1 million donation and that a "mental health and emotional trauma surviving program" would be set up for hurricane survivors. Lady Gaga gave a surprise performance at the concert. (AFP) × "Pain is such an equalizer. And in a time of catastrophe, we all put our differences aside and we come together, 'cause we need each other, or we can't survive," she said. Lee Greenwood opened the concert and served as master of ceremonies for the event, titled "Deep From the Heart: The One America Appeal," which also featured artists including The Gatlin Brothers, Yolanda Adams, Robert Earl Keen and Sam Moore. Singer Lee Greenwood performs during the Hurricane Relief concert in College Station, Texas. (AFP) × Trump did not attend the concert, but praised the effort in a video message released earlier, terming it a "wonderful" and "vital effort." "As we begin to rebuild, some of America's finest public servants are spearheading the One America Appeal," said Trump, whose administration's response to the heavy storm damage in Puerto Rico has drawn fire. "Melania and I want to express our deep gratitude for your tremendous assistance," he said. Ticket-sale receipts were to benefit organisations in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.

Five former US presidents share the stage at hurricane benefit concert

us-presidents

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

us presidents