Democratic lawmakers on Thursday sought documents on Trump administration firings of top officials at the Department of Homeland Security, saying they were concerned the dismissals were prompted by the 

officials’ refusal to break the law. 

Three U.S. House of Representatives committee chairmen sent a letter to DHS asking for documents related to actions by Republican President Donald Trump and top aide Stephen Miller to remove senior leaders at the agency. 

They expressed concern that the firings and forced resignations this month put U.S. national security at risk. 

“We are also concerned that the president may have removed DHS officials because they refused his demands to violate federal immigration law and judicial orders,” the lawmakers said in a statement. 

They said they were troubled by reports that Trump wants to put Miller, who has spearheaded many of his hard-line immigration policies, in charge of all immigration and border affairs. 

The lawmakers — Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York and Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi — cited reports that Miller called several DHS officials to exert pressure on them to follow on “extreme immigration policy decisions.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigned under pressure this month, followed by several other leaders at the sprawling department that includes the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies.
…

Democratic lawmakers on Thursday sought documents on Trump administration firings of top officials at the Department of Homeland Security, saying they were concerned the dismissals were prompted by the 

officials’ refusal to break the law. 

Three U.S. House of Representatives committee chairmen sent a letter to DHS asking for documents related to actions by Republican President Donald Trump and top aide Stephen Miller to remove senior leaders at the agency. 

They expressed concern that the firings and forced resignations this month put U.S. national security at risk. 

“We are also concerned that the president may have removed DHS officials because they refused his demands to violate federal immigration law and judicial orders,” the lawmakers said in a statement. 

They said they were troubled by reports that Trump wants to put Miller, who has spearheaded many of his hard-line immigration policies, in charge of all immigration and border affairs. 

The lawmakers — Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York and Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi — cited reports that Miller called several DHS officials to exert pressure on them to follow on “extreme immigration policy decisions.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigned under pressure this month, followed by several other leaders at the sprawling department that includes the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies.
…

President Donald Trump is flatly refusing to cooperate in numerous U.S. congressional probes of himself and his administration, taking a defiant stance that could trigger protracted court fights with House of Representatives Democrats.

In an unprecedented step, the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit to try to block one congressional subpoena; some Trump advisers have been told to ignore other subpoenas; and a request for Trump’s tax returns has not been fulfilled.

In most instances, Trump risks trouble with Congress over subpoenas, “contempt of Congress” citations and civil enforcement actions in court.

Trump’s stonewalling has hardened since the release last week of a redacted report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Trump viewed the report as an exoneration because the special counsel did not charge him with conspiring with Russia or with obstruction of justice. However, the report detailed the Trump campaign’s welcoming of help from the Russians and his later efforts to thwart Mueller’s inquiry.

Like other senior Democrats who are treating the Mueller report as a road map for further investigations by Congress, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings accused the Trump administration on Wednesday of a “massive, unprecedented, and growing pattern of obstruction.”

The following are ways Trump has defied Congress in recent days:

McGahn

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, was a key witness in the Mueller probe and House Democrats want to hear from him. But the White House plans to assert executive privilege to prevent McGahn and other current and former administration officials from testifying to Congress, the Washington Post has reported.

Unredacted Mueller report

Parts of the Mueller report were redacted, leaving some questions unanswered. Democrats have issued a subpoena in an attempt to obtain the full report without redactions and evidence Mueller relied on. Attorney General William Barr must decide by May 1 whether to comply.

Barr has said he has a legal obligation to keep secret information obtained from grand jury proceedings, and that other redactions were necessary to protect U.S. intelligence sources and avoid harm to ongoing law enforcement matters.

Tax returns

Unlike past presidents in recent decades, Trump has refused to make public his tax returns, raising questions about what is in them. Democrats are probing Trump’s past business dealings and possible conflicts of interest posed by his continued ownership of extensive business interests.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin failed to meet a congressional deadline on Tuesday for turning over Trump’s tax returns to the House tax committee, setting the stage for a possible court battle between Congress and the administration.

Mnuchin said he planned to make “a final decision” on whether to provide Trump’s tax records by May 6.

Legal experts said House Democrats could vote to hold Mnuchin or IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig in contempt of Congress if they ignore a subpoena, as a step toward suing in federal court to obtain the returns.

Mazars

Trump on Monday filed a lawsuit attempting to keep U.S. lawmakers from obtaining his financial records. The unprecedented suit seeks to block a subpoena issued by Cummings, whose panel is looking into Trump’s financial record.

The subpoena sought eight years of documents from Mazars USA, an accounting firm long used by Trump to prepare financial statements. Cummings issued the subpoena after Michael Cohen, formerly Trump’s personal lawyer, testified to Congress in February that Trump had misrepresented his net worth.

Security clearances

Cummings said on Tuesday that his panel will soon vote on whether to cite a former White House official with contempt for failing to appear for questioning on allegations that the Trump administration inappropriately granted security clearances to some of the president’s advisers.

The White House told the Oversight Committee that it had directed Carl Kline, who was White House personnel security chief for the first two years of Trump’s presidency, to ignore the committee’s subpoena to appear.

Census and citizenship

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) rebuffed the Oversight Committee’s request for an interview with John Gore, an official who was involved in the administration’s decision to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census.

The Justice Department said Gore, a lawyer in its Civil Rights Division, would not participate in a deposition set for Thursday if he could not have a department lawyer at his side. The committee had offered to let a lawyer sit in a different room.

A DOJ official said the committee had provided “no legitimate or constitutional basis for excluding a DOJ lawyer from assisting at the deposition.”

Impeachment

Trump on Wednesday vowed to fight any effort by congressional Democrats to launch impeachment proceedings against him, promising to go to the Supreme Court, even though it plays no role in the constitutional impeachment process.

Hotel documents

Congressional Democrats said in March that a U.S. government agency was responding too slowly to their requests for documents about the Trump administration’s abandonment of a plan to move the FBI.

Before he became president in January 2017, Trump supported moving the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to the suburbs of Washington, Democrats looking into the matter said.

They said that after Trump was elected and disqualified from bidding to acquire the site for commercial development, he switched his position. Democrats have subsequently raised questions about a possible Trump conflict of interest.

Immigration aide

The White House refused a request for Trump’s top immigration aide Stephen Miller to testify to Congress in a letter Wednesday to the House Oversight Committee.

Miller, a former Senate aide, has helped shape some of Trump’s most controversial immigration policies, from the first Muslim travel ban shortly after he took office in 2017 to the child separation policy for migrants who illegally crossed the U.S.- Mexico border, both of which were rejected by courts.
…

President Donald Trump is flatly refusing to cooperate in numerous U.S. congressional probes of himself and his administration, taking a defiant stance that could trigger protracted court fights with House of Representatives Democrats.

In an unprecedented step, the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit to try to block one congressional subpoena; some Trump advisers have been told to ignore other subpoenas; and a request for Trump’s tax returns has not been fulfilled.

In most instances, Trump risks trouble with Congress over subpoenas, “contempt of Congress” citations and civil enforcement actions in court.

Trump’s stonewalling has hardened since the release last week of a redacted report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Trump viewed the report as an exoneration because the special counsel did not charge him with conspiring with Russia or with obstruction of justice. However, the report detailed the Trump campaign’s welcoming of help from the Russians and his later efforts to thwart Mueller’s inquiry.

Like other senior Democrats who are treating the Mueller report as a road map for further investigations by Congress, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings accused the Trump administration on Wednesday of a “massive, unprecedented, and growing pattern of obstruction.”

The following are ways Trump has defied Congress in recent days:

McGahn

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, was a key witness in the Mueller probe and House Democrats want to hear from him. But the White House plans to assert executive privilege to prevent McGahn and other current and former administration officials from testifying to Congress, the Washington Post has reported.

Unredacted Mueller report

Parts of the Mueller report were redacted, leaving some questions unanswered. Democrats have issued a subpoena in an attempt to obtain the full report without redactions and evidence Mueller relied on. Attorney General William Barr must decide by May 1 whether to comply.

Barr has said he has a legal obligation to keep secret information obtained from grand jury proceedings, and that other redactions were necessary to protect U.S. intelligence sources and avoid harm to ongoing law enforcement matters.

Tax returns

Unlike past presidents in recent decades, Trump has refused to make public his tax returns, raising questions about what is in them. Democrats are probing Trump’s past business dealings and possible conflicts of interest posed by his continued ownership of extensive business interests.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin failed to meet a congressional deadline on Tuesday for turning over Trump’s tax returns to the House tax committee, setting the stage for a possible court battle between Congress and the administration.

Mnuchin said he planned to make “a final decision” on whether to provide Trump’s tax records by May 6.

Legal experts said House Democrats could vote to hold Mnuchin or IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig in contempt of Congress if they ignore a subpoena, as a step toward suing in federal court to obtain the returns.

Mazars

Trump on Monday filed a lawsuit attempting to keep U.S. lawmakers from obtaining his financial records. The unprecedented suit seeks to block a subpoena issued by Cummings, whose panel is looking into Trump’s financial record.

The subpoena sought eight years of documents from Mazars USA, an accounting firm long used by Trump to prepare financial statements. Cummings issued the subpoena after Michael Cohen, formerly Trump’s personal lawyer, testified to Congress in February that Trump had misrepresented his net worth.

Security clearances

Cummings said on Tuesday that his panel will soon vote on whether to cite a former White House official with contempt for failing to appear for questioning on allegations that the Trump administration inappropriately granted security clearances to some of the president’s advisers.

The White House told the Oversight Committee that it had directed Carl Kline, who was White House personnel security chief for the first two years of Trump’s presidency, to ignore the committee’s subpoena to appear.

Census and citizenship

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) rebuffed the Oversight Committee’s request for an interview with John Gore, an official who was involved in the administration’s decision to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census.

The Justice Department said Gore, a lawyer in its Civil Rights Division, would not participate in a deposition set for Thursday if he could not have a department lawyer at his side. The committee had offered to let a lawyer sit in a different room.

A DOJ official said the committee had provided “no legitimate or constitutional basis for excluding a DOJ lawyer from assisting at the deposition.”

Impeachment

Trump on Wednesday vowed to fight any effort by congressional Democrats to launch impeachment proceedings against him, promising to go to the Supreme Court, even though it plays no role in the constitutional impeachment process.

Hotel documents

Congressional Democrats said in March that a U.S. government agency was responding too slowly to their requests for documents about the Trump administration’s abandonment of a plan to move the FBI.

Before he became president in January 2017, Trump supported moving the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to the suburbs of Washington, Democrats looking into the matter said.

They said that after Trump was elected and disqualified from bidding to acquire the site for commercial development, he switched his position. Democrats have subsequently raised questions about a possible Trump conflict of interest.

Immigration aide

The White House refused a request for Trump’s top immigration aide Stephen Miller to testify to Congress in a letter Wednesday to the House Oversight Committee.

Miller, a former Senate aide, has helped shape some of Trump’s most controversial immigration policies, from the first Muslim travel ban shortly after he took office in 2017 to the child separation policy for migrants who illegally crossed the U.S.- Mexico border, both of which were rejected by courts.
…

Deutsche Bank has begun to provide documents on financing for some of President Donald Trump’s projects to New York State authorities, a source familiar with the matter told AFP on Wednesday.

In mid-March, New York Attorney General Letitia James subpoenaed the German bank, demanding records related to loans and lines of credit granted to the Trump Organization.

The money was intended to finance projects such as Trump hotels in Washington, D.C., Miami and Chicago, another source told AFP last month on the condition of anonymity. 

No comment on CNN report

It was unclear whether Deutsche Bank had provided all the documents requested.

“We remain committed to cooperating with authorized investigations,” a bank spokesman told AFP, while declining to comment on a CNN report that the company was handing over the documents. 

James’ office also declined to comment on the status of the documents regarding financing for the Trump Organization, the holding company that has been run by Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. since he entered the White House.

New York authorities also wanted records related to the Trump Organization’s failed attempt in 2014 to buy the Buffalo Bills football team, the source said on condition of anonymity. 

James demanded the information from Deutsche Bank after Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress, saying among other things that Trump wildly inflated his net worth in order to secure loans from Deutsche Bank.

Bank a source of funding

Deutsche Bank was one of the few major banks to continue to lend to Trump following the bankruptcies of his casinos and other businesses in the 1990s. The German bank in recent years has loaned Trump more than $300 million.

That put the bank at the center of investigations and congressional scrutiny.

When opposition Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in January, they sought information on interest rates granted to the Trump Organization, as well as details on a huge Russian money laundering case that earned Deutsche Bank a $630 million fine in January 2017.
…

Deutsche Bank has begun to provide documents on financing for some of President Donald Trump’s projects to New York State authorities, a source familiar with the matter told AFP on Wednesday.

In mid-March, New York Attorney General Letitia James subpoenaed the German bank, demanding records related to loans and lines of credit granted to the Trump Organization.

The money was intended to finance projects such as Trump hotels in Washington, D.C., Miami and Chicago, another source told AFP last month on the condition of anonymity. 

No comment on CNN report

It was unclear whether Deutsche Bank had provided all the documents requested.

“We remain committed to cooperating with authorized investigations,” a bank spokesman told AFP, while declining to comment on a CNN report that the company was handing over the documents. 

James’ office also declined to comment on the status of the documents regarding financing for the Trump Organization, the holding company that has been run by Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. since he entered the White House.

New York authorities also wanted records related to the Trump Organization’s failed attempt in 2014 to buy the Buffalo Bills football team, the source said on condition of anonymity. 

James demanded the information from Deutsche Bank after Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress, saying among other things that Trump wildly inflated his net worth in order to secure loans from Deutsche Bank.

Bank a source of funding

Deutsche Bank was one of the few major banks to continue to lend to Trump following the bankruptcies of his casinos and other businesses in the 1990s. The German bank in recent years has loaned Trump more than $300 million.

That put the bank at the center of investigations and congressional scrutiny.

When opposition Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in January, they sought information on interest rates granted to the Trump Organization, as well as details on a huge Russian money laundering case that earned Deutsche Bank a $630 million fine in January 2017.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump, in his latest bucking of constitutional norms, is threatening to proactively take his case to the Supreme Court if the House of Representatives considers impeaching him.

“If the partisan Dems ever try to impeach, I would first head to the Supreme Court,” Trump announced Wednesday on Twitter.

“Not only are there no ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ there are no Crimes by me at all,” the president stated in a pair of tweets in his latest comments about the special counsel’s report on the two-year investigation into whether there was collusion between Trump’s 2016 election campaign and Russia. 

Since the redacted report’s release, Democrats, who control the House, have been debating whether to commence impeachment proceedings against the president.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is urging caution, although some members of her party worry Democrats will pay a political price with liberal voters if they do not begin impeachment.

Roles of House, Senate, Supreme Court

Trump’s threat to approach the Supreme Court puzzles three constitutional scholars, contacted Wednesday by VOA, who do not see the high court intervening.

“Giving the Supreme Court a role in the impeachment process was considered but deliberately discarded by the framers [of the U.S. Constitution] in 1787,” Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe told VOA. “The only [Supreme Court] justice who has a role is the chief justice, who presides at the impeachment trial of the president.”

Robert Pushaw, a law professor at Pepperdine University, agrees.

“The Supreme Court has held — correctly, in my view — that impeachment is a political question committed by the Constitution to Congress, not a ‘justiciable’ legal issue for courts. Therefore, any such request by President Trump would almost certainly be rejected,” he said.

“The Constitution says that the House shall have the sole power of impeachment, and has authority to determine its own rules of proceeding. On its face, that appears to shut out the courts,” Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Thomas Jipping, a former chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told VOA. “That said, House members all have an obligation to ensure that such constitutional responsibilities are not hijacked for partisan political purposes.”

The Supreme Court also ruled in 1993 that courts would have no role in the impeachment process.

After any such proceeding in the House, under the law, the Senate, which is controlled by Trump’s Republican Party, would be responsible for determining whether to convict the president.

Only twice in American history has the Senate voted on whether to convict a president. Both Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 were acquitted on all charges.

‘Fighting all the subpoenas’

Trump, since launching his presidential campaign in 2015 as a political novice, has broken with convention, both in rhetoric and action — delighting his supporters and infuriating detractors.

“Whether currently indictable or not, it is clear that the president has, at a minimum, engaged in highly unethical and unscrupulous behavior which does not bring honor to the office he holds,” Pelosi said in a letter to her party colleagues Monday. 

Trump is clearly indicating his administration will defy requests from Democratic lawmakers for information and testimony.

“They want to know every deal I’ve ever done,” Trump told reporters Wednesday on the White House South Lawn, before he boarded the Marine One helicopter. “We’re fighting all the subpoenas.”

The president accused opposition party lawmakers of using their investigations as a strategy for next year’s presidential election.

The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena for former White House counsel Don McGahn, while the House Oversight Committee is moving to hold former White House personnel security director Carl Kline in contempt for failing to appear at a hearing.

Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings said in a statement Tuesday, “it appears that the President believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligation, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight.”

A second demand from House Democrats for Trump’s tax returns spanning a six-year period has been defied by the Treasury Department.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sent a letter Tuesday to the House Ways and Means Committee saying he would give a final response on May 6, noting that the request raises “serious constitutional questions” and his department is continuing to consult with the Justice Department.
…

The Democratic chairman of the House oversight committee accused the Trump administration of a “massive, unprecedented and growing pattern of 

obstruction” for ordering federal employees not to comply with congressional investigations. 

President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr “are now openly ordering federal employees to ignore congressional subpoenas and simply not show up — without any assertion of a valid legal privilege,” Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland said in a statement. 

The Justice Department on Wednesday rebuffed the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which had sought to interview an official involved in the Trump administration’s decision to put a citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. Census. 

The department said John Gore, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division, would not participate in a deposition scheduled for Thursday if he could not have a Justice Department lawyer at his side. The committee had offered to allow a lawyer to sit in a different room. 

Cummings said the subpoena issued to Gore was adopted on a bipartisan basis and that there was no privilege asserted by the White House or Justice Department that would preclude him from appearing. 

“This is a massive, unprecedented and growing pattern of obstruction,” Cummings said, warning the federal employees to “think very carefully about their own legal interests” in refusing to comply with the panel’s requests.
…

Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel described in the Mueller report as repeatedly standing up to President Donald Trump, could become a star witness again if congressional Democrats get their way in their investigation of whether Trump used his office to obstruct justice.

Since the April 18 release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and any ties to Republican Trump’s campaign, Democrats have seen McGahn as someone who could be as important as Mueller himself, according to a source familiar with the matter.

But the Democrats are likely to face Trump’s resistance. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the White House planned to oppose a subpoena by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee for McGahn to testify.

Mueller’s 448-page partially blacked out report portrayed McGahn as one of the few figures in Trump’s orbit to challenge him when he tried to shut down the investigation that has clouded his more than two years in the White House.

“Mr. McGahn has been touted as a man of integrity and he is a major witness in the Mueller report,” said Sheila Jackson Lee, a member of the judiciary committee.

The White House did not immediately comment on the Washington Post report, which said Trump will claim executive privilege, a legal doctrine allowing the president to withhold information about internal executive branch deliberations from other branches of government.

Trump said in a Tuesday interview with the Washington Post that White House lawyers had not “made a final, final decision” about whether they will cite executive privilege to prevent McGahn and other former and current officials from testifying.

“They testified for so many hours. They have all that information that’s been given,” Trump told the newspaper of the Mueller report and congressional Democrats.

McGahn’s attorney, William Burck, did not respond to requests for comment.

Democrats are particularly interested in hearing McGahn describe in his own words and in Congress an account in the Mueller report in which McGahn refused Trump’s instructions.

In June 2017 Trump called McGahn to say he should tell Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to remove the special counsel because he had conflicts of interest, the report said.

Trump also failed to get McGahn to dispute media reports that the president tried to fire Mueller, the report said.

“That, in itself, could be an obstruction of justice, as Mr. McGahn would be able to testify — that he was asked to do it and then asked not to tell anyone what he’d been asked to do,” Lee said.

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who has subpoenaed the U.S. Department of Justice to provide the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence, issued a subpoena on Monday for McGahn to provide the committee with documents by May 7 and testify on May 21.

But it was not clear that McGahn would comply, especially if the White House asserts executive privilege. Nor could Democrats predict how much the former White House counsel would be willing to discuss, even if he does testify.

On Tuesday evening, Nadler said, “The moment for the White House to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed.”

The House of Representatives has the sole power under the U.S. Constitution to impeach the president, and any effort would be led by the judiciary panel.

Mueller’s report concluded that there was not enough evidence to establish that Trump’s campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow. However, the report outlined multiple instances where Trump tried to thwart Mueller’s probe.

Mueller stopped short of concluding whether Trump could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, a criminal charge that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But such a high standard would not apply to Democrats if they decided to bring impeachment proceedings.

In the days following the Mueller report’s release, McGahn came under attack from Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani who called into question the veracity of his statements to Mueller’s team of prosecutors.

“I would ask which of the three versions is McGahn standing by. There are three versions he gives of that account,” Giuliani told CNN over the weekend. “I’m telling you, he’s confused.”

A prominent elections lawyer, McGahn served as Trump’s campaign counsel before being named White House counsel in November 2016.

He played a pivotal role in helping Trump reshape the federal judiciary in a conservative direction and roll back regulations on a range of industries.
…

Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel described in the Mueller report as repeatedly standing up to President Donald Trump, could become a star witness again if congressional Democrats get their way in their investigation of whether Trump used his office to obstruct justice.

Since the April 18 release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and any ties to Republican Trump’s campaign, Democrats have seen McGahn as someone who could be as important as Mueller himself, according to a source familiar with the matter.

But the Democrats are likely to face Trump’s resistance. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the White House planned to oppose a subpoena by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee for McGahn to testify.

Mueller’s 448-page partially blacked out report portrayed McGahn as one of the few figures in Trump’s orbit to challenge him when he tried to shut down the investigation that has clouded his more than two years in the White House.

“Mr. McGahn has been touted as a man of integrity and he is a major witness in the Mueller report,” said Sheila Jackson Lee, a member of the judiciary committee.

The White House did not immediately comment on the Washington Post report, which said Trump will claim executive privilege, a legal doctrine allowing the president to withhold information about internal executive branch deliberations from other branches of government.

Trump said in a Tuesday interview with the Washington Post that White House lawyers had not “made a final, final decision” about whether they will cite executive privilege to prevent McGahn and other former and current officials from testifying.

“They testified for so many hours. They have all that information that’s been given,” Trump told the newspaper of the Mueller report and congressional Democrats.

McGahn’s attorney, William Burck, did not respond to requests for comment.

Democrats are particularly interested in hearing McGahn describe in his own words and in Congress an account in the Mueller report in which McGahn refused Trump’s instructions.

In June 2017 Trump called McGahn to say he should tell Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to remove the special counsel because he had conflicts of interest, the report said.

Trump also failed to get McGahn to dispute media reports that the president tried to fire Mueller, the report said.

“That, in itself, could be an obstruction of justice, as Mr. McGahn would be able to testify — that he was asked to do it and then asked not to tell anyone what he’d been asked to do,” Lee said.

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who has subpoenaed the U.S. Department of Justice to provide the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence, issued a subpoena on Monday for McGahn to provide the committee with documents by May 7 and testify on May 21.

But it was not clear that McGahn would comply, especially if the White House asserts executive privilege. Nor could Democrats predict how much the former White House counsel would be willing to discuss, even if he does testify.

On Tuesday evening, Nadler said, “The moment for the White House to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed.”

The House of Representatives has the sole power under the U.S. Constitution to impeach the president, and any effort would be led by the judiciary panel.

Mueller’s report concluded that there was not enough evidence to establish that Trump’s campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow. However, the report outlined multiple instances where Trump tried to thwart Mueller’s probe.

Mueller stopped short of concluding whether Trump could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, a criminal charge that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But such a high standard would not apply to Democrats if they decided to bring impeachment proceedings.

In the days following the Mueller report’s release, McGahn came under attack from Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani who called into question the veracity of his statements to Mueller’s team of prosecutors.

“I would ask which of the three versions is McGahn standing by. There are three versions he gives of that account,” Giuliani told CNN over the weekend. “I’m telling you, he’s confused.”

A prominent elections lawyer, McGahn served as Trump’s campaign counsel before being named White House counsel in November 2016.

He played a pivotal role in helping Trump reshape the federal judiciary in a conservative direction and roll back regulations on a range of industries.
…

Voter turnout in Florida jumped to more than 52% in last year’s midterm elections from almost 45% in the 2014 midterm races, buoyed by increased ballot-casting by young voters and Hispanics, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.

But even though the swing state had high-profile races for a U.S. Senate seat and for control of the governor’s office — as well as a prominent youth voter-registration drive — turnout actually was actually slightly lower than the national average.

Nationwide, more than 53% of voting-age citizens cast ballots, the highest rate in four decades, according to the bureau’s Current Population Survey’s Voting and Registration Supplement. The lowest turnout was in 2014.

Turnout by voting-age citizens between ages 18 and 24 in Florida went from 17.6% in 2014 to almost 30% in the 2018 midterms, the biggest jump of any age group, although all age groups saw increases, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

After a gunman killed 17 people at their high school in February 2018, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and others led a statewide voter-registration drive among Florida’s youngest voters. Despite those efforts, Florida’s youth turnout lagged behind the national youth turnout average of 32.4%.

Hispanic turnout in Florida jumped from 36% in 2014 to more than 44% in 2018, going from 892,000 voters to almost 1.4 million voters in pure numbers in four years. Florida had an influx of Puerto Rican residents after Hurricane Maria devastated the island in September 2017, but the Census figures don’t break down how many of them voted in the 2018 midterm races.

In Florida, women voted in larger numbers than men, and seniors voted in a higher concentration than any other age group in the midterm elections last year.

The bureau’s figures showed that 54% of the female-citizen voting-age population cast ballots in 2018, compared to 51% of men. Both sexes had significant increases over 2014 when only 46% of eligible women and more than 43% of eligible men voted.

Almost two-thirds of eligible senior citizens in Florida voted in 2018, compared to 60% in 2014.

Non-Hispanic whites in Florida had the highest participation rate at 57% in 2018, followed by blacks with 47%. Asians had a rate of around 40%, a decrease from 43% in 2014.

In 2014, the participation rate for non-Hispanic whites was 47.5%, and it was 44% for blacks.

In November, Democrats flipped two U.S. congressional seats in South Florida, but Republican Rick Scott defeated Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson for a U.S. Senate seat.
…

Voter turnout in Florida jumped to more than 52% in last year’s midterm elections from almost 45% in the 2014 midterm races, buoyed by increased ballot-casting by young voters and Hispanics, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.

But even though the swing state had high-profile races for a U.S. Senate seat and for control of the governor’s office — as well as a prominent youth voter-registration drive — turnout actually was actually slightly lower than the national average.

Nationwide, more than 53% of voting-age citizens cast ballots, the highest rate in four decades, according to the bureau’s Current Population Survey’s Voting and Registration Supplement. The lowest turnout was in 2014.

Turnout by voting-age citizens between ages 18 and 24 in Florida went from 17.6% in 2014 to almost 30% in the 2018 midterms, the biggest jump of any age group, although all age groups saw increases, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

After a gunman killed 17 people at their high school in February 2018, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and others led a statewide voter-registration drive among Florida’s youngest voters. Despite those efforts, Florida’s youth turnout lagged behind the national youth turnout average of 32.4%.

Hispanic turnout in Florida jumped from 36% in 2014 to more than 44% in 2018, going from 892,000 voters to almost 1.4 million voters in pure numbers in four years. Florida had an influx of Puerto Rican residents after Hurricane Maria devastated the island in September 2017, but the Census figures don’t break down how many of them voted in the 2018 midterm races.

In Florida, women voted in larger numbers than men, and seniors voted in a higher concentration than any other age group in the midterm elections last year.

The bureau’s figures showed that 54% of the female-citizen voting-age population cast ballots in 2018, compared to 51% of men. Both sexes had significant increases over 2014 when only 46% of eligible women and more than 43% of eligible men voted.

Almost two-thirds of eligible senior citizens in Florida voted in 2018, compared to 60% in 2014.

Non-Hispanic whites in Florida had the highest participation rate at 57% in 2018, followed by blacks with 47%. Asians had a rate of around 40%, a decrease from 43% in 2014.

In 2014, the participation rate for non-Hispanic whites was 47.5%, and it was 44% for blacks.

In November, Democrats flipped two U.S. congressional seats in South Florida, but Republican Rick Scott defeated Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson for a U.S. Senate seat.
…

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden plans to announce he is seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination for the 2020 election on Thursday, NBC news reported.

Biden, who will join a crowded field seeking to win the White House back from Republican President Donald Trump, will then travel to Pittsburgh on Monday, followed by trips to all four early voting states in coming weeks, an NBC news reporter said on MSNBC, citing unnamed sources involved in the planning.
…

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden plans to announce he is seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination for the 2020 election on Thursday, NBC news reported.

Biden, who will join a crowded field seeking to win the White House back from Republican President Donald Trump, will then travel to Pittsburgh on Monday, followed by trips to all four early voting states in coming weeks, an NBC news reporter said on MSNBC, citing unnamed sources involved in the planning.
…

Ugandan musician-turned-politician Robert Kyagulanyi, better known by his stage name Bobi Wine, has called for peaceful demonstrations after police on Tuesday refused to allow him to leave his home.  

On a Facebook post Tuesday, Kyagulanyi wrote that his home in Wakiso district, near the capital of Kampala, “is under siege. [Police] have surrounded my fence and installed barricades on all roads leading to my home.”

Kyagulanyi said that he had been headed to police headquarters to give notice of a “planned peaceful demonstration against police brutality, injustice and misuse of authority” but that he and his laywers “were blocked from delivering the letter and were ordered to leave or face arrest.” In response, his post urged defiance: “We shall go ahead and demonstrate peacefully as guaranteed by the constitution. This is our country.”

His post did not specify a time or location for any demonstration.

Kyagulanyi’s movement curbed

On Tuesday, police were heavily deployed on roads around Kyagulanyi’s house and all vehicles leaving his compound were thoroughly checked. 

Police had detained Kyagulanyi on Monday at a beach resort near Kampala, where he addressed supporters and was to hold a concert. Police used teargas and water cannons to disperse his supporters and then took the opposition politician to his home. 

Kyagulanyi had told VOA earlier Tuesday that he was not informed of his house arrest. When he walked to his gate to go to police headquarters, he was stopped by the district police commander.    

This led to an exchange between Kyagulanyi’s lawyer, Benjamin Katana, and police officer Jaffer Magyezi.

“My orders are: Either you go back to your house or you will be under arrest,” the officer said.  

“Is he under arrest now?” Katana asked about his client. “Because for someone’s movement to be restricted, he must be under arrest or quarantined. So is he under quarantine or he’s under house arrest?”

The officer responded to the musician: “Yesterday, you incited violence, of which you know you were charged.”

Kyagulanyi told supporters Monday that he had written to police three months in advance for permission to hold Sunday’s concert. He said Ugandan police have blocked 124 of his concerts since October 2017, acting on orders of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, “because he does not like what I sing. He wanted me to be like some other artists to be singing his praises.”

A show of strength?

Political analyst Muwanga Kivumbi says putting Kyagulanyi under house arrest sends Museveni’s message to Uganda that he controls the state. 

“ ‘I have the guns, am in control of police and prisons and all these things.  I’ll use them to leverage my position,’” Kivumbi said, imagining the president’s thinking. “The people of Uganda are saying, ‘Wait, you made the law.’  Actually, we are being so fair to the president that we are only telling him, be obedient to the law you attested to.”

The U.S. Embassy issued a statement on social media Tuesday questioning why Uganda’s government “has recently blocked musical concerts and radio talk shows, disrupted peaceful demonstrations and rallies, and deployed heavy-handed security forces against peaceful citizens.”

The embassy noted that Uganda’s constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and expression.

Ugandan government spokesman Ofwono Opondo responded in a Facebook post that his government “respects rule of law and constitutionalism which guarantees freedom of assembly, expression and movement.” He said the government “expects all leaders to abide by these standards. …”

Alluding to Kyagulanyi, Opondo continued: “Save for one artiste [sic], all artistes in Uganda enjoy freedom of performance. …”

VOA English to Africa Service’s James Butty contributed to this report.
…

Ugandan musician-turned-politician Robert Kyagulanyi, better known by his stage name Bobi Wine, has called for peaceful demonstrations after police on Tuesday refused to allow him to leave his home.  

On a Facebook post Tuesday, Kyagulanyi wrote that his home in Wakiso district, near the capital of Kampala, “is under siege. [Police] have surrounded my fence and installed barricades on all roads leading to my home.”

Kyagulanyi said that he had been headed to police headquarters to give notice of a “planned peaceful demonstration against police brutality, injustice and misuse of authority” but that he and his laywers “were blocked from delivering the letter and were ordered to leave or face arrest.” In response, his post urged defiance: “We shall go ahead and demonstrate peacefully as guaranteed by the constitution. This is our country.”

His post did not specify a time or location for any demonstration.

Kyagulanyi’s movement curbed

On Tuesday, police were heavily deployed on roads around Kyagulanyi’s house and all vehicles leaving his compound were thoroughly checked. 

Police had detained Kyagulanyi on Monday at a beach resort near Kampala, where he addressed supporters and was to hold a concert. Police used teargas and water cannons to disperse his supporters and then took the opposition politician to his home. 

Kyagulanyi had told VOA earlier Tuesday that he was not informed of his house arrest. When he walked to his gate to go to police headquarters, he was stopped by the district police commander.    

This led to an exchange between Kyagulanyi’s lawyer, Benjamin Katana, and police officer Jaffer Magyezi.

“My orders are: Either you go back to your house or you will be under arrest,” the officer said.  

“Is he under arrest now?” Katana asked about his client. “Because for someone’s movement to be restricted, he must be under arrest or quarantined. So is he under quarantine or he’s under house arrest?”

The officer responded to the musician: “Yesterday, you incited violence, of which you know you were charged.”

Kyagulanyi told supporters Monday that he had written to police three months in advance for permission to hold Sunday’s concert. He said Ugandan police have blocked 124 of his concerts since October 2017, acting on orders of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, “because he does not like what I sing. He wanted me to be like some other artists to be singing his praises.”

A show of strength?

Political analyst Muwanga Kivumbi says putting Kyagulanyi under house arrest sends Museveni’s message to Uganda that he controls the state. 

“ ‘I have the guns, am in control of police and prisons and all these things.  I’ll use them to leverage my position,’” Kivumbi said, imagining the president’s thinking. “The people of Uganda are saying, ‘Wait, you made the law.’  Actually, we are being so fair to the president that we are only telling him, be obedient to the law you attested to.”

The U.S. Embassy issued a statement on social media Tuesday questioning why Uganda’s government “has recently blocked musical concerts and radio talk shows, disrupted peaceful demonstrations and rallies, and deployed heavy-handed security forces against peaceful citizens.”

The embassy noted that Uganda’s constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and expression.

Ugandan government spokesman Ofwono Opondo responded in a Facebook post that his government “respects rule of law and constitutionalism which guarantees freedom of assembly, expression and movement.” He said the government “expects all leaders to abide by these standards. …”

Alluding to Kyagulanyi, Opondo continued: “Save for one artiste [sic], all artistes in Uganda enjoy freedom of performance. …”

VOA English to Africa Service’s James Butty contributed to this report.
…

The conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Tuesday to Trump administration arguments calling for the addition of a citizenship question in the country’s 2020 census, despite objections from big states and cities that the query would inhibit immigrants from taking part in the once-a-decade population count.

The five-member bloc of conservative justices holds sway on the nine-person court and seemed dismissive during an 80-minute hearing of contentions that the citizenship question could lead to 6.5 million people — many of them Hispanic immigrants — refusing to take part in next April’s survey.

The court’s newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, suggested that Congress could change the law to block the citizenship question if it felt that the query would affect the accuracy of the census. Chief Justice John Roberts said that citizenship information is critical in enforcing the country’s voting rights law, the contention offered by the Trump administration as the reason to add the question to the census form for the first time since 1950.

Reaching as accurate a total as possible in the census is important in the United States because it determines how many lawmakers each of the 50 states has in the 435-member House of Representatives for the next 10 years and each state’s share of more than $675 billion in federal funding for an array of government programs.

Three lower federal courts have blocked Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the census, from adding the citizenship question, finding that millions of non-citizens, often Hispanics, might avoid the census-takers for fear of running afoul of immigration authorities. Trump critics contend the citizenship question is an attempt to try to diminish the number of Democratic lawmakers in the House, where Democrats took control in January.

The case against the citizenship question was brought by New York state and other jurisdictions where large numbers of immigrants live.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said after the hearing that the citizenship question “will undermine the count. We must get the census right.”

For the majority of the people filling out the once-a-decade census, the answer to such a question would be easy: They are Americans by birth or naturalized citizens after arriving from other countries.

But Trump, who has embraced a tough stance against illegal immigration and pushed for construction of a wall on the southern border with Mexico to thwart the surge of migrants, also wants to include the citizenship question in an attempt to count the number of undocumented migrants in the country.

The precise figure is not known, but demographers say it could total about 11 million of the 328 million people in the United States.

Despite Ross’s decision to add the question to the survey, Census Bureau experts concluded that excluding the citizenship question would produce a more accurate figure for the U.S. population because undocumented immigrants might be reluctant to admit they are not U.S. citizens and refuse to answer the questions.

The Census Bureau estimated that 6.5 million people would avoid answering the questions if the citizenship query were to be included.

The Trump administration says it has wide discretion in designing the questionnaire and notes that the citizenship question has been asked on smaller annual population surveys. It says the question is needed to aid in the enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Some of the largest states and cities and rights groups are arguing against inclusion of the question, fearing an undercount in the census would hurt their interests, either in by cutting their congressional representation in as many as six states through the 2020’s or in federal funding.

The Nielsen television ratings company said Monday it also opposes inclusion of the citizenship question, saying an undercount of the U.S. population would adversely affect the U.S. media industry and other businesses that depend on accurate readings of consumer sentiment. Nielsen said its measurements of business trends could be inaccurate for a decade with the question added to the census.

After Tuesday’s hearing, the Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by the end of June, giving the government enough time to print the census questionnaire before the April 2020 count.

 
…

The conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Tuesday to Trump administration arguments calling for the addition of a citizenship question in the country’s 2020 census, despite objections from big states and cities that the query would inhibit immigrants from taking part in the once-a-decade population count.

The five-member bloc of conservative justices holds sway on the nine-person court and seemed dismissive during an 80-minute hearing of contentions that the citizenship question could lead to 6.5 million people — many of them Hispanic immigrants — refusing to take part in next April’s survey.

The court’s newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, suggested that Congress could change the law to block the citizenship question if it felt that the query would affect the accuracy of the census. Chief Justice John Roberts said that citizenship information is critical in enforcing the country’s voting rights law, the contention offered by the Trump administration as the reason to add the question to the census form for the first time since 1950.

Reaching as accurate a total as possible in the census is important in the United States because it determines how many lawmakers each of the 50 states has in the 435-member House of Representatives for the next 10 years and each state’s share of more than $675 billion in federal funding for an array of government programs.

Three lower federal courts have blocked Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the census, from adding the citizenship question, finding that millions of non-citizens, often Hispanics, might avoid the census-takers for fear of running afoul of immigration authorities. Trump critics contend the citizenship question is an attempt to try to diminish the number of Democratic lawmakers in the House, where Democrats took control in January.

The case against the citizenship question was brought by New York state and other jurisdictions where large numbers of immigrants live.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said after the hearing that the citizenship question “will undermine the count. We must get the census right.”

For the majority of the people filling out the once-a-decade census, the answer to such a question would be easy: They are Americans by birth or naturalized citizens after arriving from other countries.

But Trump, who has embraced a tough stance against illegal immigration and pushed for construction of a wall on the southern border with Mexico to thwart the surge of migrants, also wants to include the citizenship question in an attempt to count the number of undocumented migrants in the country.

The precise figure is not known, but demographers say it could total about 11 million of the 328 million people in the United States.

Despite Ross’s decision to add the question to the survey, Census Bureau experts concluded that excluding the citizenship question would produce a more accurate figure for the U.S. population because undocumented immigrants might be reluctant to admit they are not U.S. citizens and refuse to answer the questions.

The Census Bureau estimated that 6.5 million people would avoid answering the questions if the citizenship query were to be included.

The Trump administration says it has wide discretion in designing the questionnaire and notes that the citizenship question has been asked on smaller annual population surveys. It says the question is needed to aid in the enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Some of the largest states and cities and rights groups are arguing against inclusion of the question, fearing an undercount in the census would hurt their interests, either in by cutting their congressional representation in as many as six states through the 2020’s or in federal funding.

The Nielsen television ratings company said Monday it also opposes inclusion of the citizenship question, saying an undercount of the U.S. population would adversely affect the U.S. media industry and other businesses that depend on accurate readings of consumer sentiment. Nielsen said its measurements of business trends could be inaccurate for a decade with the question added to the census.

After Tuesday’s hearing, the Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by the end of June, giving the government enough time to print the census questionnaire before the April 2020 count.

 
…

The largest Democratic field in the modern U.S. political era is lining up to seek the party’s 2020 presidential nomination – and it is expected to keep growing.

The diverse group vying to challenge President Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee, includes six U.S. senators. A record six women are running, as well as black, Hispanic and openly gay candidates who would make history if one of them becomes the party’s nominee.

Here are the Democrats who have launched campaigns or are expected to pursue a presidential bid, listed in order of their RealClearPolitics national polling average for those who register in opinion surveys.

JOE BIDEN

The leader in polls of Democratic presidential contenders is not even a candidate yet. But Biden, who served eight years as vice president under President Barack Obama and 36 years in the U.S. Senate, looks poised to join the 2020 race. At 76, he would be the second oldest candidate in the Democratic nominating contests, after Senator Bernie Sanders. Biden would be a key figure in the Democratic debate over whether a liberal political newcomer or a centrist veteran is needed to win back the White House. Liberal activists criticize his Senate record, including his authorship of the 1994 crime act that led to increased incarceration rates, and his ties to the financial industry, which is prominent in his home state of Delaware. Biden, who relishes his “Middle-Class Joe” nickname and touts his working-class roots, made unsuccessful bids for the nomination in 1988 and 2008. Biden, recently the subject of allegations of unwanted physical contact with women, in a video pledged to be “more mindful” of respecting “personal space,” an attempt to tamp down the controversy.

BERNIE SANDERS

The senator from Vermont lost the Democratic nomination in 2016 to Hillary Clinton but has jumped in for a second try. In the 2020 race, Sanders, 77, will have to fight to stand out in a packed field of progressives touting issues he brought into the Democratic Party mainstream four years ago. His proposals include free tuition at public colleges, a $15 minimum wage and universal healthcare. He benefits from strong name recognition and a robust network of small-dollar donors, helping him to raise $5.9 million during his first day in the contest. Sanders, whose father was a Jewish immigrant from Poland, has shown a more personal side in this campaign, highlighting his struggles while growing up in a working-class family. He also has tried to reach out to black and Hispanic leaders after having trouble winning over minority voters in 2016.

BETO O’ROURKE

The former three-term Texas congressman jumped into the race on March 14 – and has been jumping on to store countertops ever since to deliver his optimistic message to voters in early primary states. O’Rourke, 46, gained fame last year for his record fundraising and ability to draw crowds ahead of his unexpectedly narrow loss in the U.S. Senate race against Republican incumbent Ted Cruz. O’Rourke announced a $6.1 million fundraising haul for the first 24 hours of his campaign, besting his Democratic opponents. But with progressive policies and diversity at the forefront of the party’s nominating battle, O’Rourke will face a challenge as a wealthy white man who is more moderate on several key issues than many of his competitors.

KAMALA HARRIS

The first-term senator from California would make history as the first black woman to gain the nomination. Harris, 54, the daughter of immigrants from Jamaica and India, announced her candidacy on the holiday honoring slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. She has made a quick impact in a Democratic race that will be heavily influenced by women and minority voters. She raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours of her campaign and drew record ratings on a CNN televised town hall. She supports a middle-class tax credit, Medicare for All healthcare funding reform, the Green New Deal and the legalization of marijuana. Her track record as San Francisco’s district attorney and California’s attorney general has drawn scrutiny in a Democratic Party that has shifted in recent years on criminal justice issues.

PETE BUTTIGIEG

The 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is emerging from underdog status as he begins to build momentum with young voters. A Harvard University graduate and Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford, he speaks seven languages and served in Afghanistan with the U.S. Navy Reserve. He touts himself as representing a new generation of leadership needed to combat Trump. Buttigieg would be the first openly gay presidential nominee of a major American political party.

ELIZABETH WARREN

The 69-year-old senator from Massachusetts is a leader of the party’s liberals and a fierce Wall Street critic who was instrumental in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She has focused her presidential campaign on her populist economic message, promising to fight what she calls a rigged economic system that favors the wealthy. She also has proposed eliminating the Electoral College, vowed to break up Amazon, Google and Facebook if elected, and sworn off political fundraising events to collect cash for her bid. Warren apologized earlier this year to the Cherokee Nation for taking a DNA test to prove her claims to Native American ancestry, an assertion that has prompted Trump to mockingly refer to her as “Pocahontas.”

CORY BOOKER

Booker, 49, a senator from New Jersey and former mayor of Newark, gained national prominence in the fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Booker, who is black, has made U.S. race relations and racial disparities a focus of his campaign, noting the impact of discrimination on his family. He embraces progressive positions on Medicare coverage for every American, the Green New Deal and other key issues, and touts his style of positivity over attacks. Booker eats a vegan diet and recently confirmed rumors he is dating actress Rosario Dawson.

AMY KLOBUCHAR

The third-term senator from Minnesota was the first moderate in the Democratic field vying to challenge Trump. Klobuchar, 58, gained national attention in 2018 when she sparred with Brett Kavanaugh during Senate hearings for his Supreme Court nomination. On the campaign trail, the former prosecutor and corporate attorney supports an alternative to traditional Medicare healthcare funding and is taking a hard stance against rising prescription drug prices. Klobuchar’s campaign reported raising more than $1 million in its first 48 hours. Her campaign announcement came amid news reports that staff in her Senate office were asked to do menial tasks, making it difficult to hire high-level campaign strategists.

JULIAN CASTRO

The secretary of housing and urban development under President Barack Obama would be the first Hispanic to win a major U.S. party’s presidential nomination. Castro, 44, whose grandmother was immigrated to Texas from Mexico, has used his family’s personal story to criticize Trump’s border policies. Castro advocates for a universal pre-kindergarten program, supports Medicare for All and cites his experience to push for affordable housing. He announced his bid in his hometown of San Antonio, where he once served as mayor and a city councilman. His twin brother, Joaquin Castro, is a Democratic congressman from Texas.

ANDREW YANG

The entrepreneur and former tech executive is focusing his campaign on an ambitious universal income plan. Yang, 44, wants to guarantee all American citizens between the ages of 18 and 64 a $1,000 check every month. The son of immigrants from Taiwan, Yang also is pushing for Medicare for All and proposing a new form of capitalism that is “human-centered.” He lives in New York.

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

Gillibrand, known as a moderate when she served as a congresswoman from upstate New York, has refashioned herself into a staunch progressive, calling for strict gun laws and supporting the Green New Deal. The senator for New York, who is 52, has led efforts to address sexual assault in the military and on college campuses, and she pushed for Congress to improve its own handling of sexual misconduct allegations. On the campaign trail, she has made fiery denunciations of Trump. She released her tax returns for the years 2007 through 2018, offering the most comprehensive look to date at the finances of a 2020 White House candidate, and has called on her rivals to do the same.

JOHN HICKENLOOPER

The 67-year-old former Colorado governor has positioned himself as a centrist and an experienced officeholder with business experience. He is the only Democratic presidential candidate so far to oppose the Green New Deal plan to tackle climate change, saying it would give the government too much power in investment decisions. During his two terms in office, Colorado’s economy soared and the Western state expanded healthcare, passed a gun control law and legalized marijuana. The former geologist and brew pub owner is among the many candidates who have refused to take corporate money. He previously served as mayor of Denver.

JAY INSLEE

The Washington state governor has made fighting climate change the central issue of his campaign. As governor, Inslee, 68, has moved to put a moratorium on capital punishment and fully implement the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, and accompanying expansion of Medicaid health coverage for the poor. He has not settled on a position on Medicare for All but does support the Green New Deal backed by progressives. Inslee spent 15 years in Congress before being elected governor in 2012.

JOHN DELANEY

The former U.S. representative from Maryland became the first Democrat to enter the 2020 race, declaring his candidacy in July 2017. Delaney, 55, plans to focus on advancing only bipartisan bills during the first 100 days of his presidency if elected. He’s also pushing for a universal healthcare system, raising the federal minimum wage and passing gun safety legislation.

TULSI GABBARD

The Samoan-American congresswoman from Hawaii and Iraq war veteran is the first Hindu to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. After working for her father’s anti-gay advocacy group and drafting relevant legislation, she was forced to apologize for her past views on same-sex marriage. Gabbard, 37, has been against U.S. intervention in Syria and slammed Trump for standing by Saudi Arabia after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. She endorsed Bernie Sanders during his 2016 presidential campaign.

TIM RYAN

The moderate nine-term congressman from a working-class district in the battleground state of Ohio has touted his appeal to the blue-collar voters who fled to Trump in 2016. He says Trump has turned his back on those voters and failed to live up his promise to revitalize the manufacturing industry. Ryan, 45, pledges to create jobs in new technologies and to focus on public education and access to affordable healthcare. He first gained national attention when he unsuccessfully tried to unseat Nancy Pelosi as the House Democratic leader in 2016, arguing it was time for new leadership. A former college football player, he also has written books on meditation and healthy eating.

SETH MOULTON

An Iraq War veteran and member of Congress, Seth Moulton, 40, was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2014 when he defeated a fellow Democrat in the primary election. Moulton served in the Marines from 2001 to 2008. He became a vocal critic of the Iraq War in which he served, saying no more troops should be deployed to the country. He has advocated stricter gun laws, saying military-style weapons should not be owned by civilians. Moulton supports the legalization of marijuana and told Boston public radio station WGBH in 2016 that he had smoked pot while in college. After Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in 2018, Moulton helped organize opposition to Representative Nancy Pelosi’s bid to again become speaker.

MARIANNE WILLIAMSON

The 66-year-old New York Times best-selling author, motivational speaker and Texas native believes her spirituality-focused campaign can heal America. A 1992 interview on Oprah Winfrey’s show propelled Williamson to make a name for herself as a “spiritual guide” for Hollywood and a self-help expert. She is calling for $100 billion in reparations for slavery over 10 years, gun control, education reform and equal rights for lesbian and gay communities. In 2014, she made an unsuccessful bid for a House seat in California as an independent.

WAYNE MESSAM

Messam, 44, defeated a 16-year incumbent in 2015 to become the first black mayor of in the Miami suburb of Miramar. He was re-elected in March. The son of Jamaican immigrants, he played on Florida State University’s 1993 national championship football team, and then started a construction business with his wife. He has pledged to focus on reducing gun violence, mitigating climate change and reducing student loan debt and the cost of healthcare.
…

There are no policy positions on his website. He has virtually no paid presence in the states that matter most. And his campaign manager is a high school friend with no experience in presidential politics.

This is the upstart campaign of Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old Indiana mayor who has suddenly become one of the hottest names in the Democrats’ presidential primary season. Yet there is an increasing urgency, inside and outside the campaign, that his moment may pass if he doesn’t take swift action to build a national organization capable of harnessing the energy he’ll need to sustain his surge in the nine months or so before the first votes are cast.

“I get more inquiries on how to reach him or his campaign than anyone else,” New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said, adding that he’s aware of just one part-time Buttigieg staffer in the state to help coordinate the requests.

“This is what it’s like when you’re having your moment,” Buckley said. “Whether he can capitalize — that’s his challenge.”

Indeed, it’s far from certain that Buttigieg, a gay former military officer, will continue to stand out in a contest that features political heavyweights like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden, who is expected to launch his candidacy later this week. Aware of the daunting road ahead, Buttigieg’s team is plowing forward with an ambitious push to expand his operation, attract new campaign cash and pound the airwaves with virtually every media opportunity available.

In an interview, Buttigieg conceded that his supporters across the country have essentially had to “organize themselves” so far.

“We need to make sure we have the organizational strengths to sustain this wave of support that we’ve been getting for the last almost month and a half now,” he said. “It’s created some challenges to rise this far this fast, but I would put those in the category of a good problem to have.”

Growing staff

Federal filings suggest the campaign had little more than a dozen paid staffers at the end of last month. Buttigieg’s paid presence now exceeds 30, according to campaign manager Mike Schmuhl, who said it’ll be closer to 50 by the end of the month.

Most of the team is based in South Bend, Indiana, while a handful of staffers work from shared “We Work” office space in Chicago and a few others are based in Iowa and New Hampshire. Buttigieg plans to expand his presence in Iowa and New Hampshire and hire paid staff in South Carolina, Nevada and California in the coming weeks.

Still, don’t expect the Democratic mayor of South Bend to create a giant campaign apparatus in line with Warren, Sanders or even New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. Buttigieg has the money to build a large organization after raising more than $7 million last quarter, but the core of the near-term campaign strategy hinges on an aggressive fundraising schedule and a say-yes-to-almost-everything media strategy backed by strong debate performances.

Schmuhl said the campaign doesn’t have national political consultants on the payroll, and it’s unclear if it ever will.

“We want to build a campaign that’s a little disruptive, kind of entrepreneurial. Right now, it feels like a startup,” said Schmuhl, who first met Buttigieg in high school and later ran former Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly’s 2010 congressional campaign before reconnecting with Buttigieg.

There are clearly organizational challenges as the campaign ramps up, Schmuhl continued, but there is also “tremendous opportunity.”

“We’re in the game,” he said.

Opportunities, challenges

As was the case in former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s early campaign appearances, the lack of formal organization has allowed for a certain level of authenticity on the campaign trail as Buttigieg introduces himself to voters. It’s also created challenges.

He’s drawing big crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire, but there were few, if any, campaign staff on hand to take down information from enthusiastic supporters who want to be part of the campaign. While Buckley said he’s aware of only one part-time staffer in New Hampshire, a Buttigieg spokesman said the aide was full time.

And voters eager to learn more about the mayor’s policy positions have been left wanting. Buttigieg has called for ending the Electoral College and expanding the Supreme Court. But in sharp contrast to some of his higher-profile competitors, he has yet to hire a policy director or release any written policies.

New Hampshire Democrat Lauren O’Sullivan, a 35-year-old who attended a house party for Buttigieg over the weekend, said she was initially unsure about the Midwestern mayor after going on his website. She felt she “didn’t know where he stood on any positions.”

She was somewhat reassured after he talked about specific policies at the Saturday house party.

“It was good to see that there is some platform,” O’Sullivan said.

For now, Buttigieg’s team wants to get him in front of as many people as possible.

Raising money

That’ll include travel to meet voters in the early states on the presidential primary calendar, but after a week on the road in Iowa and New Hampshire, he’ll spend the coming days focused on raising as much money as possible.

This week he’ll launch a California fundraising swing featuring 11 stops across three days. 

A handful of key fundraisers for former President Barack Obama are also hosting a finance event for Buttigieg in Chicago on May 16. Hollywood has taken an early liking to the Indiana mayor. 

Actors including Ryan Reynolds have already written small checks. Others in the entertainment industry are expected to attend events on the California tour, though the campaign declined to name them.

It’s critically important for Buttigieg to focus on fundraising while he’s surging, said Democratic strategist Symone Sanders, who predicted that Buttigieg’s moment is unlikely to last.

“Three weeks ago it was Beto. Now it’s Mayor Pete. Three weeks from now it’ll be somebody else,” she said. “It’s important to have a viable campaign to capitalize on this moment.”

Buttigieg acknowledged his organizational challenges on the campaign trail in recent days.

“Every time I fool myself into thinking I’m a household name, I get a humbling reminder somewhere that not everybody is following the blow by blow,” he said at the New Hampshire house party. He asked voters to join his effort, which he said is now “racing to build an organization to catch up with ourselves.”

Afterward, as some in the crowd eagerly lined up for pictures with the young mayor, 65-year-old retired doctor Wayne Goldner stood in the kitchen and praised Buttigieg’s performance.

The mayor’s getting “very popular,” he said, and rightfully so.

“He’s going to get too big for house parties,” Goldner said. “I think in New Hampshire he’s big enough for the bigger venues already.”
…

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, wants to cancel billions of dollars in student loan debt and make college cheaper for students going forward.

Warren, in a post on the website Medium, proposed canceling $50,000 in student loan debt for anyone with annual household income under $100,000, which her campaign said would amount to 42 million Americans. It would also cancel some debt for those with household incomes between $100,000 and $250,000.

Warren, who has long advocated in Congress for providing debt relief to students, called student loan debt a “crisis.”

She said canceling debt for millions of people would help close the nation’s racial and wealth gap, and also proposed making all two-year and four-year public colleges free.

“The first step in addressing this crisis is to deal head-on with the outstanding debt that is weighing down millions of families and should never have been required in the first place,” Warren wrote.

Warren is competing in a crowded field of more than 20 Democrats vying for their party’s 2020 nomination and has sought to distinguish herself by offering numerous, expansive policy proposals.

Anticipating Republican criticism that her proposal would be too expensive, Warren said her debt cancellation plan and universal free college could be paid for through an “Ultra-Millionaire Tax,” which would impose a 2 percent annual tax on families with $50 million or more in wealth.

Education has been a topic on the campaign trail for some of Warren’s rivals as well.

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, released a plan last month that would use $315 billion in federal money over 10 years to give the average teacher a $13,500 raise, or about a 23 percent salary increase.
…

Justice Elena Kagan’s father was 3 years old when the census taker came to the family’s apartment on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn, New York, on April 10, 1930.

Robert Kagan was initially wrongly listed as an “alien,” though he was a native-born New Yorker. The entry about his citizenship status appears to have been crossed out on the census form.

Vast changes in America and technology have dramatically altered the way the census is conducted. But the accuracy of the once-a-decade population count is at the heart of the Supreme Court case over the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

The justices are hearing arguments in the case on Tuesday, with a decision due by late June that will allow for printing forms in time for the count in April 2020.

The fight over the census question is the latest over immigration-related issues between Democratic-led states and advocates for immigrants, on one side, and the administration, on the other. The Supreme Court last year upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on visitors to the U.S. from several mostly Muslim countries. The court also has temporarily blocked administration plans to make it harder for people to claim asylum and is considering an administration appeal that would allow Trump to end protections for immigrants who were brought to this country as children.

The citizenship question has not been asked on the census form sent to every American household since 1950, and the administration’s desire to add it is now rife with political implications and partisan division.

Federal judges in California , Maryland and New York have blocked the administration from going forward with a citizenship question after crediting the analysis of Census Bureau experts who found that a question would damage the overall accuracy of the census and cause millions of Hispanics and immigrants to go uncounted. That in turn would cost several states seats in the U.S. House and billions of dollars in federal dollars that are determined by census results.

The three judges have rejected the administration’s arguments that asking about citizenship won’t harm accuracy and that the information is needed to help enforce provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act.

The Census Bureau’s consistent view since the 1960 census has been that asking everyone about citizenship “would produce a less accurate population count,” five former agency directors who served in Democratic and Republic administrations wrote in a Supreme Court brief.

No population count is perfect, and census designers strive to create a questionnaire that is clear and easy to answer.

In older censuses, a government worker known as an enumerator would visit households and record information. In modern times, people fill in their own forms on paper or electronically.

But the potential for errant answers is ever-present, said Debbie Soren, the treasurer of the Illinois chapter of the Jewish Genealogical Society.

“Sometimes people didn’t always want to be forthcoming, including in their ages, for whatever reason. Sometimes there might be a language barrier. Or the person reporting the information might not be the best one to report it,” Soren said.

It seems likely that the census taker himself was responsible for the confusion in Robert Kagan’s citizenship status. Dozens of families who lived near the Kagans have similar crossed-out entries in the citizenship column.

While Kagan’s father was born in the United States, her grandfather, Irving Kagan, was a Russian immigrant who had submitted his paperwork to become an American citizen, the 1930 census shows. By 1940, Irving Kagan was a citizen. The old census forms, through 1940, can be searched on ancestry.com. The 1950 census will become public in 2022.

If past census reports leave a wide berth for error, they still hold a wealth of information, said Sharon DeBartolo Carmack of Salt Lake City, the author of “You Can Write Your Family History.”

Before 1960, the census often asked where people were born and, if abroad, whether they were U.S. citizens. “It’s wonderful to us as researchers, even though we don’t like the politics, don’t like the motivation,” Carmack said.

Kagan is among seven of the nine justices whose ancestors told census takers they were immigrants who had become American citizens. They came from England, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Russia, like so many others seeking a better life.

The fathers of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito were immigrants from Russia and Italy, respectively.

In the 1910 census, Patrick Kavanaugh, the great-grandfather of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was living in New Haven, Connecticut, an iron worker who had become a citizen after leaving Ireland in the 1870s.

By 1900, the English-born great-grandmother of Chief Justice John Roberts and the German-born great-grandfather of Justice Stephen Breyer also were U.S. citizens.

Two of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s great-great grandfathers, Alex Tiehen and Hugh O’Grady, lived in Nebraska, according to the 1900 census. Tiehen came from Germany in 1845 and O’Grady emigrated from Ireland two years later. By the turn of the last century, both reported they were U.S. citizens.

There are two justices with very different paths to American citizenship. Justice Clarence Thomas is the descendant of slaves and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Puerto Rican ancestors became American citizens under a 1917 federal law. Spain ceded the territory to the United States after the Spanish-American War.

The case is Department of Commerce v. New York, 18-966.
…

Two months before special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed in the spring of 2017, President Donald Trump picked up the phone and called the head of the largest U.S. intelligence agency. Trump told Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, that news stories alleging that Trump’s 2016 White House campaign had ties to Russia were false and the president asked whether Rogers could do anything to counter them.

Rogers and his deputy Richard Ledgett, who was present for the call, were taken aback.

Afterward, Ledgett wrote a memo about the conversation and Trump’s request. He and Rogers signed it and stashed it in a safe. Ledgett said it was the “most unusual thing he had experienced in 40 years of government service.”

Trump’s outreach to Rogers, who retired last year, and other top intelligence officials stands in sharp contrast to his public, combative stance toward his intelligence agencies. At the time of the call, Trump was just some 60 days into his presidency, but he already had managed to alienate large parts of the intelligence apparatus with comments denigrating the profession.

Since then, Trump only has dug in. He said at a news conference in Helsinki after his 2017 summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin that he gave weight to Putin’s denial that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, despite the firm conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that it had. “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia, Trump said. And earlier this year, Trump called national security assessments “naive,” tweeting “perhaps intelligence should go back to school.”

Yet in moments of concern as Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election got underway, Trump turned to his spy chiefs for help.

The phone call to Rogers on March 26, 2017, came only weeks after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had angered Trump by stepping aside from the investigation. James Comey, the FBI director who would be fired that May, had just told Congress that the FBI was not only investigating Russian meddling in the election, but also possible links or coordination between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

The call to Rogers and others like it were uncovered by Mueller as he investigated possible obstruction. In his 448-page report released Thursday, Mueller concluded that while Trump attempted to seize control of the Russia investigation and bring it to a halt, the president was ultimately thwarted by those around him.

The special counsel said the evidence did not establish that Trump asked or directed intelligence officials to “stop or interfere with the FBI’s Russia investigation.” The requests to those officials, Mueller said, “were not interpreted by the officials who received them as directives to improperly interfere with the investigation.”

During the call to Rogers, the president “expressed frustration with the Russia investigation, saying that it made relations with the Russians difficult,” according to the report.

Trump said news stories linking him with Russia were not true and he asked Rogers “if he could do anything to refute the stories.” Even though Rogers signed the memo about the conversation and put it in a safe, he told investigators he did not think Trump was giving him an order.

Trump made a number of similar requests of other top intelligence officials.

On March 22, 2017, Trump asked then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo and National Intelligence Director Dan Coats to stay behind after a meeting at the White House to ask if the men could “say publicly that no link existed between him and Russia,” the report said.

In two other instances, the president began meetings to discuss sensitive intelligence matters by stating he hoped a media statement could be issued saying there was no collusion with Russia.

After Trump repeatedly brought up the Russia investigation with his national intelligence director, “Coats said he finally told the President that Coats’s job was to provide intelligence and not get involved in investigations,” the report said.

Pompeo recalled that Trump regularly urged officials to get the word out that he had not done anything wrong related to Russia. But Pompeo, now secretary of state, said he had no recollection of being asked to stay behind after the March 22 meeting, according to the report.

Coats told Mueller’s investigators that Trump never asked him to speak with Comey about the FBI investigation. But other employees within Coats’ office had different recollections of how Coats described the meeting immediately after it occurred.

According to the report, senior staffer Michael Dempsey “said that Coats described the president’s comments as falling ‘somewhere between musing about hating the investigation’ and wanting Coats to ‘do something to stop it.’ Dempsey said Coats made it clear that he would not get involved with an ongoing FBI investigation.”
…

Two months before special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed in the spring of 2017, President Donald Trump picked up the phone and called the head of the largest U.S. intelligence agency. Trump told Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, that news stories alleging that Trump’s 2016 White House campaign had ties to Russia were false and the president asked whether Rogers could do anything to counter them.

Rogers and his deputy Richard Ledgett, who was present for the call, were taken aback.

Afterward, Ledgett wrote a memo about the conversation and Trump’s request. He and Rogers signed it and stashed it in a safe. Ledgett said it was the “most unusual thing he had experienced in 40 years of government service.”

Trump’s outreach to Rogers, who retired last year, and other top intelligence officials stands in sharp contrast to his public, combative stance toward his intelligence agencies. At the time of the call, Trump was just some 60 days into his presidency, but he already had managed to alienate large parts of the intelligence apparatus with comments denigrating the profession.

Since then, Trump only has dug in. He said at a news conference in Helsinki after his 2017 summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin that he gave weight to Putin’s denial that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, despite the firm conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that it had. “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia, Trump said. And earlier this year, Trump called national security assessments “naive,” tweeting “perhaps intelligence should go back to school.”

Yet in moments of concern as Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election got underway, Trump turned to his spy chiefs for help.

The phone call to Rogers on March 26, 2017, came only weeks after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had angered Trump by stepping aside from the investigation. James Comey, the FBI director who would be fired that May, had just told Congress that the FBI was not only investigating Russian meddling in the election, but also possible links or coordination between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

The call to Rogers and others like it were uncovered by Mueller as he investigated possible obstruction. In his 448-page report released Thursday, Mueller concluded that while Trump attempted to seize control of the Russia investigation and bring it to a halt, the president was ultimately thwarted by those around him.

The special counsel said the evidence did not establish that Trump asked or directed intelligence officials to “stop or interfere with the FBI’s Russia investigation.” The requests to those officials, Mueller said, “were not interpreted by the officials who received them as directives to improperly interfere with the investigation.”

During the call to Rogers, the president “expressed frustration with the Russia investigation, saying that it made relations with the Russians difficult,” according to the report.

Trump said news stories linking him with Russia were not true and he asked Rogers “if he could do anything to refute the stories.” Even though Rogers signed the memo about the conversation and put it in a safe, he told investigators he did not think Trump was giving him an order.

Trump made a number of similar requests of other top intelligence officials.

On March 22, 2017, Trump asked then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo and National Intelligence Director Dan Coats to stay behind after a meeting at the White House to ask if the men could “say publicly that no link existed between him and Russia,” the report said.

In two other instances, the president began meetings to discuss sensitive intelligence matters by stating he hoped a media statement could be issued saying there was no collusion with Russia.

After Trump repeatedly brought up the Russia investigation with his national intelligence director, “Coats said he finally told the President that Coats’s job was to provide intelligence and not get involved in investigations,” the report said.

Pompeo recalled that Trump regularly urged officials to get the word out that he had not done anything wrong related to Russia. But Pompeo, now secretary of state, said he had no recollection of being asked to stay behind after the March 22 meeting, according to the report.

Coats told Mueller’s investigators that Trump never asked him to speak with Comey about the FBI investigation. But other employees within Coats’ office had different recollections of how Coats described the meeting immediately after it occurred.

According to the report, senior staffer Michael Dempsey “said that Coats described the president’s comments as falling ‘somewhere between musing about hating the investigation’ and wanting Coats to ‘do something to stop it.’ Dempsey said Coats made it clear that he would not get involved with an ongoing FBI investigation.”
…