Ronan Farrow,
the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, said in an interview published
Saturday his relationship with Hillary Clinton cooled when word began to
spread he was looking into allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.
Farrow told the Financial Times in
2011 he was selected by Clinton, then the secretary of state, to
work as a special adviser on global youth issues. He said they worked
together for years but noticed a change in their relationship when word
got out he was looking into Weinstein - one of her top fundraisers.
Farrow
did not elaborate on how Clinton found out about his interest in
Weinstein or how exactly the relationship cooled. After-hours
emails from Fox News to representatives for Clinton and Farrow were not
immediately returned. The paper said a Clinton spokesman did not comment
for its article.
Farrow told the paper, “It’s remarkable how
quickly even people with a long relationship with you will turn if you
if you threaten the centers of power or sources of funding around them.
Ultimately, there are a lot of people out there who operate in that way.
They’re beholden to powerful interests, you become radioactive very
quickly.”
Farrow and The New York Times won Pulitzers in 2018 for
stories outlining sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein. The
producer, 67, has pleaded not guilty to charges he raped a woman in a
Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and performed a forcible sex act on a
different woman in 2006. He is free on $1 million bail and maintains
that any sexual activity was consensual.
Clinton, for her part, took days after the New York Times broke the Weinstein story to issue a statement. CNN reported that she said she was “shocked and appalled” by the revelations.
“The
behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their
courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this
kind of behavior,” the statement read.
The White House announced in a fiery letter Sunday night that President Trump
and his lawyers won't participate in the House Judiciary Committee’s
first impeachment hearing scheduled for Wednesday -- even accusing the
panel's Democratic chairman, Jerry Nadler, of "purposely" scheduling the
proceedings when Trump would be attending the NATO Leaders' Meeting in
London.
The five-page letter came as the Democratic majority on
the House Intelligence Committee was preparing to approve a report on
Tuesday that will outline possible charges of bribery or “high crimes
and misdemeanors,” the constitutional standard for impeachment. After
receiving the report, the Judiciary Committee would prepare actual
charges.
“This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all
past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental
fairness,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone, continuing the West
Wing’s attack on the procedural form of the impeachment proceedings.
Cipollone said Nadler provided only "vague" details about the hearing,
and that unnamed academics -- and not "fact witnesses" -- would
apparently be attending.
"As for the hearing scheduled for
December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing
while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear
whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the president a fair process
through additional hearings," Cipollone said. "More importantly, an
invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin
to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process.
Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to
participate in your Wednesday hearing."
He continued: "When the
Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton
impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses
two-and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on
a date suggested by the president's attorneys. Today, by contrast, you
have afforded the president no scheduling input, no meaningful
information and so little time to prepare that you have effectively
denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate. ... READ THE FULL WHITE HOUSE LETTER
Cipollone's
letter made clear that his response applied only to the Wednesday
hearing, at least for now. Cipollone demanded more information from
Democrats on how they intended to conduct further hearings before Trump
would decide whether to participate in those hearings, amid sagging national support for Democrats' probe.
Specifically,
Cipollone demanded to know whether Republicans would be able to
cross-examine and call their own fact witnesses, including House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
(AP)
House-passed rules provide the
president and his attorneys the right to cross-examine witnesses and
review evidence before the committee, but little ability to bring
forward witnesses of their own.
"If [Schiff] chooses not to
(testify), then I really question his veracity in what he’s putting in
his report,” said Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary
Committee. "It’s easy to hide behind a report," Collins added. "But
it’s going to be another thing to actually get up and have to answer
questions.”
Schiff has come under scrutiny from Republicans, in part because of his overtly partisan comments and his previous claim in
a televised interview that "we have not spoken directly with the
whistleblower." A Schiff spokesperson later narrowed that claim in
October, telling Fox News that Schiff himself "does not know the
identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the
whistleblower or their counsel" for any reason.
An
aide to Schiff insisted that when Schiff mentioned "we" had not spoken
to the whistleblower, he was referring to members of the full House
intelligence committee, rather than staff. NBC National Security
reporter Ken Dilanian flagged Schiff's explanation as "deceptive" late
Wednesday, and Schiff acknowledged he "should have been more clear"
concerning whistleblower contacts.
The panel of constitutional
scholars who will testify on Wednesday will weigh in on the question
of whether the president committed an impeachable offense by allegedly withholding of military aid to Ukraine until it investigated former Vice President Joe Biden.
During impeachment hearings last month, a career State Department official testified
that in January or February 2015, he "became aware that [Joe Biden's
son] Hunter Biden was on the board" of Ukrainian company Burisma
Holdings while his father Joe Biden was overseeing Ukraine policy as
vice president -- and that he raised concerns about potential conflicts
of interest at the time. Joe Biden has openly bragged about pressuring Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in critical U.S. aid., all while Burisma was under scrutiny.
Republicans
had urged President Trump not to attend the Democrats' hearings,
arguing that his presence would validate a process they have repeatedly
derided as partisan. In his letter, Cipollone repeatedly derided what
he called Democrats' "fundamentally unfair" process.
"Inviting the
Administration now to participate in an after-the-fact constitutional
law seminar -- with yet-to-be-named witnesses -- only demonstrates
further the countless procedural deficiencies that have infected this
inquiry from its inception and shows the lack of seriousness with which
you are undertaking these proceedings," Cipollone wrote.
Nadler had written the president
last week announcing a hearing for Dec. 4 at 10 a.m., and notified him
of the committee’s intentions to provide him with “certain privileges”
while they consider "whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the
full House.” Nadler also extended an invitation to the president,
asking whether “you and your counsel plan to attend the hearing or make a
request to question the witness panel.”
With polls showing
support for impeachment flagging, Democrats were aiming for a final
House vote by Christmas, which would set the stage for a likely Senate
trial in January. Surveys have shown that independents are souring on the idea of impeaching and removing Trump from office, including in critical battleground states like Wisconsin, even as House Democrats aggressively presented their focus-group-tested "bribery" case against the president over the past two weeks.
“I
do believe that all evidence certainly will be included in that report
so the Judiciary Committee can make the necessary decisions that they
need to,” said Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., a member of both the
Intelligence and Judiciary committees.
She said Democrats had not
yet finalized witnesses for the upcoming Judiciary hearings and were
waiting to hear back from Trump on his plans to present a defense.
“If he has not done anything wrong, we’re certainly anxious to hear his explanation of that,” Demings said.
The House Judiciary's impeachment hearings will follow last month's hearings by the House Intelligence Committee, which heard from 12 witnesses during five days of testimony.
Trump
has previously suggested that he might be willing to offer written
testimony under certain conditions, though aides suggested they did not
anticipate Democrats would ever agree to them.
“The
Democrats are holding the most ridiculous Impeachment hearings in
history. Read the Transcripts, NOTHING was done or said wrong!” Trump
tweeted Saturday.
Late Sunday, Trump tweeted a link to a Fox News opinion piece written by legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, and quoted the piece as saying the president had done "nothing impeachable." Fox News' Brooke Singman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Democrats are frantic. For decades, they have taken the black vote
for granted. Today, there are signs that empty promises and radical leftist
social policies are leaving black voters behind. Worse, polling shows
that President Trump is picking up support from black voters. Having
tarred the president as a racist and bigot, liberals cannot imagine that
even one African American could possibly choose to support him. They
are in denial, and it could cost them the 2020 election.
Democratic candidates
are promising the moon to win over black voters. Reparations, massive
support for historically black colleges, bail reform — everything is on
the table. But there are signs that the candidate racking up the most
consequential wins with minority voters is Trump.
Nothing — nothing — could be more threatening to Democratic prospects in 2020.
In
a recent interview with CNBC, BET founder and billionaire Robert
Johnson suggested that Trump’s reelection is “his to lose.” As a
prominent black businessman and faithful Democrat, Johnson’s views are
noteworthy. He cites the increase in black employment and the strong
economy as helping Trump, as well as the leftward lurch of Democrats. “I
do not see anybody in the Democratic primary race today that is enough
in the center where I believe most of the voters are, and particularly
where most African Americans are,” Johnson said.
Black
activists say Johnson’s wealth puts him out of touch with mainstream
black voters, and dismiss his concerns. But recent polling suggests
Johnson is on to something.
Two
polls, one by Emerson College and one from Rasmussen, put black support
for Trump at or above 34 percent. Those soundings so alarmed Trump
critics that a horrified CNN host described the two polls as “fake” and
sarcastically suggested that only Kanye West and other black Trump
surrogates had been surveyed.
The Emerson poll showed 34.5 percent
of black registered voters supported the president, up from 17.8
percent a month earlier. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus
8.3 points. Rasmussen showed the president with 34 percent approval
from blacks.
Most polls put the president’s approval among black
voters at about 10 percent. But it is worth noting that Trump won only 8
percent of black votes in 2016; as dismal as that showing was, it was
better than that of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. And, as
modest as 10 percent is, it’s better than his tally in 2016.
In
2016, Trump asked black voters, “What do you have to lose?” He hit a
nerve, and while only a small fraction of that cohort pulled the lever
for Trump, turnout among blacks receded to pre-Obama levels, which could
well have cost Hillary Clinton the win.
This year, he has ramped
up his outreach to African Americans, and it may be getting some
traction. In the 2018 midterms, Democrats carried 90 percent of the vote
in House contests, obviously a huge majority, but that was shy of the
93 percent that voted for Hillary in 2016. While Democrats are scoring
better with white suburban women, they appear to be slipping among
blacks.
Meanwhile, surveys conducted by Sienna College and the New
York Times of key swing states show black voter support for Trump ahead
of 2016 levels.
Why not? Trump signed the most consequential
criminal justice reform bill in decades and is presiding over an economy
that has delivered rising incomes and jobs to even the most vulnerable
Americans, like ex-felons. The poverty rate is at the lowest level since
2001 and fell last year by 0.9 percent among blacks. Black unemployment
is at record low levels and in recent years, gains in median household
income for blacks have exceeded those of whites in most metropolitan
areas.
In October, the Trump team launched Black Voices for Trump
in Atlanta, with the president vowing to “campaign for every last
African American vote in 2020.” In that inaugural address, the president
told several hundred African American supporters, “the Democratic Party
already left you a long time ago.” He added, “If you don’t want liberal
extremists to run your lives, then today we say welcome to the
Republican Party.”
Those remarks point to a real problem for the
left: black voters tend to be more conservative than other Democrats.
While Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Pete Buttigieg are busily
rounding up progressive primary voters, they are leaving many blacks
behind. Joe Biden is leading with that group. Some of his popularity no
doubt stems from having served as vice president to President Obama, but
it is also because Biden is a more moderate candidate than many of his
rivals.
In sparring with the four progressive women of color in
the House known as the “squad,” Trump may have offended liberal
editorial writers, but it is unlikely he lost much support from black
voters in Georgia. Research cited by the Times shows that over the past
few decades, “The African American electorate has been undergoing a
quiet, long-term transformation, moving from the left toward the center
on several social and cultural issues.”
Further, WSJ/NBC polling
shows “the percentage of white voters describing themselves as very
liberal or liberal is roughly twice as large as the percentage of black
voters who do so.”
Particularly
on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, blacks do not line up
with the far left. For example, while only 3 percent of white Democrats
say abortion should be illegal, fully one-third of black voters say it
should not be allowed. Some say that Buttigieg, who is married to a man,
will struggle to win black support. And though blacks still embrace
progressive economic messages from the likes of Warren, they also favor a
strong economy and job creation.
That’s what Trump is delivering.
Higher wages, opportunity zones, education reform, job training; how
can Democrats compete with that? Not with a radical agenda and more
empty promises.
President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Sunrise, Fla., Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
OAN Newsroom
The White House is saying it will not participate in the House
Judiciary Committee’s upcoming impeachment hearing. In a Sunday evening
statement, the administration said neither the president nor his legal
team can be fairly expected to participate in a hearing while the
witnesses have yet to be named.
#BREAKING on @OANN:
The White House responds to the House Judiciary Committee's request for
the President and/or his counsel to participate in this Wednesday's
hearings, saying they cannot be expected to participate without
affording the President a fair process. #OANNpic.twitter.com/L52ZH74Nan
Officials added it’s unclear whether the president will be given a
fair process through additional hearings. They requested more witnesses
to be allowed to testify and cross-examined.
“In order to assess our ability to participate in future proceedings,
please let us know…whether you intend to allow for fact witnesses to be
called…and whether you intend to allow members of the Judiciary
Committee and the President’s counsel the right to cross examine fact
witnesses,” the statement said.
This comes as the impeachment inquiry into President Trump is moving
into its next phase. Last week, House Judiciary Committee head Jerry
Nadler invited President Trump and his attorneys to participate in
Wednesday’s proceedings. Nadler sent the president a letter and
requested his reply by Sunday.
Politico reported if Nadler follows the model of former President
Bill Clinton’s impeachment, the second set of hearings would see
Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and others presenting their findings
to the Judiciary Committee. A third phase would allow the White House
and the president to present evidence and witnesses on their behalf. A
final phase would consider articles of impeachment before sending them
to the House floor.
Now that the president has declined to attend the hearing, it’s unclear if the third phase will happen.
The committee is expected to hear from a panel of experts, who will
discuss the Constitution and whether President Trump’s alleged actions
can be considered “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The committee has yet
to announce who will be on the panel.
Reports pointed out there are 41 members of the Judiciary Committee,
compared to 23 members of the Intelligence Committee, so viewers can
expect the hearings to be significantly longer.
KALAMAZOO,
Mich. (AP) — For more than 30 years and under five presidents,
Republican Rep. Fred Upton easily won reelection to his southwest
Michigan House seat by promoting “common-sense values” and bipartisan
accomplishments.
Republicans
and even many Democrats have appreciated his moderate views and the way
he hustled around the district on his days back home, meeting people at
schools and senior homes and doing weekly radio interviews.
But
then came the hyperpolarized politics of the Donald Trump era. Now no
one, including Upton, really knows what the future holds for him heading
into the 2020 election.
For officeholders who were proud of holding the middle ground
and working with the opposing party, big questions loom about whether
being a moderate is still a viable political position, or whether the impeachment storm
sweeping U.S. politics will force everyone to accept a new identity —
pro-Trump or anti-Trump — and await voters’ judgment on it.
What
happens to this ever-shrinking group of politicians — a dozen or so
left after a rash of retirements or midterm losses — could make a big
difference in which party emerges on top when the televised hearings
have ended and the votes are counted next November. Some of the seats
are in key swing states like Michigan, typically in suburban or
fast-growing areas like Upton’s. His largely white district stretches
from tourist destinations along Lake Michigan and across rural,
Republican communities to more diverse Kalamazoo, home to Western
Michigan University.
“There’s no joy in Mudville,” Upton said in a September statement about the inquiry.
Upton
walked a careful line in that statement and others since, calling
developments around Trump’s dealings with Ukraine disconcerting but
saying the proceedings are preventing progress on other issues. He
joined other Republicans last month in voting against holding
impeachment hearings.
Democrats
have made Upton one of their top targets for 2020 after he survived his
closest election in decades last year. He faces a state lawmaker from
Kalamazoo, the district’s Democratic base in its most populous county,
and activists from outside the state already are coming in to provide
reinforcements for local Democrats. Meanwhile, questions swirl about
whether Upton, 66, may just opt to retire.
His
office said he was unavailable for an Associated Press interview, but
he told a local TV station that he has never announced his intentions as
early as a year out from Election Day.
So
far this cycle, Upton has raised almost $1 million for his campaign
fund, roughly the same amount as at this same time two years ago. His
top opponent, Democratic state Rep. Jon Hoadley, has raised about
$525,000 — double the amount Upton’s 2018 opponent had raised at this
point in the last cycle.
Mark
Miller, a former chairman of the 6th Congressional District Democrats
who now serves as a local township clerk, believes Upton has been trying
carefully to avoid angering Trump supporters or the independent voters
and Democrats who helped give him double-digit victory margins over the
years.
“I don’t
know how long he can keep that high-wire act going,” Miller said,
particularly as polls show support for impeachment growing among
independents as well as Democrats.
“What
we’ve heard year after year from those voters is ‘Good old Fred. He’s a
good guy. He’s OK by me,’” Miller said, adding that a vote against
impeachment should peel off a number of those independents. “The
question is: Will it be enough?”
John
Gregory, an Air Force veteran who works in the aerospace industry, said
that for most of his career, Upton has been in touch with the district,
but that he’s seemed to shift toward the right. He said he knows others
— veterans and non-veterans — who are concerned about what they’re
hearing during impeachment proceedings and want Upton to “put his oath
of office above party politics.”
“He
was elected because I think a lot of people here feel he’s a good
moderate and represents the district, but there are a lot of questions
right now,” the 57-year-old said.
Republicans
argue Upton — described by Vice President Joe Biden last year as “one
of the finest guys” he’s worked with — has delivered for the district
and is a better fit for the area than Hoadley. The National Republican
Campaign Committee has called Hoadley an “open socialist” whose support
for the Green New Deal would hurt Michigan’s auto industry.
Trump
and Republicans hope that rather than hurt GOP candidates, the
impeachment effort will help rally the president’s base. They’re
targeting vulnerable Democrats with TV and digital ads and holding
protests outside their offices.
Democrats running in places like Upton’s district, meanwhile, are far more muted on the topic — at least for now.
If voters ask his views, Hoadley says, he tells them the inquiry is both appropriate and necessary.
But
the 36-year-old — who likes to mention he was 3 when Upton was first
elected to Congress — is more focused on introducing himself to voters
he says are “hungry for change.”
On
the campaign trail, Hoadley says he’s talking about climate change,
water quality and Upton’s role in the Trump administration’s attempt to
repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Obama-era health law.
Upton
helped write an amendment to the GOP’s repeal plan that expanded its
coverage for preexisting conditions. The measure, which drew some
bipartisan support, died in the Senate.
Upton said it was an example of how he’s stood up to Trump when he felt it necessary.
Marj
Halperin, a leader of the Chicago chapter of Indivisible, a progressive
organization, said Democrats’ efforts on the ground are focused on
issues other than impeachment.
Halperin
was among more than a dozen people who traveled to southwest Michigan
last Saturday to bolster the push in a key 2020 state. The group knocked
on more than 600 doors to identify voters, provide information about
Michigan’s new law allowing absentee voting for all registered voters,
and talk about Hoadley and Democratic statehouse candidates.
“We aren’t going to sit back and wait to see how an impeachment hearing works out,” Halperin said.
But
Upton likely won’t be able to avoid the impeachment spotlight for long.
Democrats are practically giddy about a photo of Upton with Trump that
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted last month.
In
it, McCarthy, Upton and Rep. Tom Emmer, chairman of the House
Republicans’ campaign arm, sit at a table with a beaming Trump in the
president’s Washington hotel, platters of shrimp cocktail before them.
McCarthy’s tweet read “Great night with the President. Republicans are
united!”
The photo, and the timing of it, is likely to be featured prominently in campaign ads next year.
Democrats
say it’s a reminder that Upton isn’t really the moderate he says he is.
It’s also another sign of the deep political divide, when sharing a
table with your party’s president could become an election liability.
“That picture really did say 1,000 words,” Hoadley said.
Members of the House Intelligence Committee on Monday will review a report on the panel’s investigation into whether President Trump
committed an impeachable act, specifically by allegedly withholding
military aid to Ukraine until the country investigated former Vice
President Joe Biden and his son, Fox News has confirmed.
Lawmakers
will then approve the report before sending it – along with minority
views – to the House Judiciary Committee, which will draft and consider
articles of impeachment in the weeks ahead.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.,
right, shown with committee staffer Daniel Noble at left, speaks at the
conclusion of public impeachment hearings last month. (Associated Press)
Intelligence panel Chairman Adam Schiff,
D-Calif., sent a letter to his colleagues last week that report would
be coming “soon” from his committee but did not provide a specific time
frame.
He has also said the report would summarize the panel’s
two-month investigation into President Trump and Ukraine and list the
likely articles of impeachment.
The House has moved swiftly to investigate the president since Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the formalization of an impeachment inquiry in September.
This
week's first impeachment hearing is scheduled for Wednesday and will
feature a panel of constitutional experts who will offer what
constitutes an impeachable offense.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
(AP)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.,
right, shown with committee staffer Daniel Noble at left, speaks at the
conclusion of public impeachment hearings last month. (Associated Press)
