Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan said Thursday he did not authorize and was not even aware of a White House directive to have the U.S. Navy warship USS John S. McCain “out of sight” when President Donald Trump visited Japan.

“I would never dishonor the memory of a great American patriot like Senator (John) McCain,” Shanahan told reporters traveling with him aboard a U.S. military aircraft en route to Singapore. “I’d never disrespect the young men and women who crew that ship.”

During a visit to Indonesia earlier, Shanahan told reporters “What I read this morning was the first I heard about it.” He said he is asking his chief of staff to look into the matter.

An email seen by VOA shows discussions about the USS John S. McCain between the White House Military Office and an officer with the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet ahead of Trump’s trip.

“USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” reads the email’s third bullet-pointed request.

“Please confirm #3 will be satisfied,” the email emphasized.

​Trump says he was not informed

Trump tweeted Thursday that he was not informed about the controversy surrounding the USS John S. McCain during his visit to Japan.

​

Shanahan’s spokesman, Army Lt. Col Joe Buccino, said the acting secretary of defense also “was not aware of the directive to move the USS John S. McCain, nor was he aware of the concern precipitating the directive.”

“In terms of ship movements, the only ships I’ve moved is the USS Abraham Lincoln,” Shanahan added during a press event at the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Indonesia. He was referring to his early deployment to the Middle East of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, which was sent to deter potential threats from Iran.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the directive to hide the USS John S McCain from Trump.

Long feud continues

Trump frequently feuded with longtime Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who died last year.

The USS McCain was originally named for the senator’s father and grandfather, both Navy admirals, and now honors all three men.

Meghan McCain, Sen. McCain’s daughter, called Trump a “child” who is “deeply threatened by the greatness” of her father. “Nine months since he passed, Trump won’t let him RIP. So I have to stand up for him,” she tweeted.

Media outlets report that a tarp was used to obscure the ship’s name ahead of Trump’s stop. When senior Navy officials figured out what was happening, they directed Navy personnel to remove the tarp, which was not present Saturday before Trump’s visit.

“The name of the USS John S. McCain was not obscured during the POTUS visit to Yokosuka on Memorial Day. The Navy is proud of that ship, its crew, its namesake and its heritage,” Navy Chief Information Officer Rear Adm. Charlie Brown tweeted Thursday.

Asked whether he would open an investigation, Shanahan said he needed to find out more about the incident first.
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller Wednesday declined to clear President Donald Trump of obstructing justice, though the president responded by declaring himself innocent and the “case is closed.” In his first public comments on the Russia probe, Mueller said because of a long-standing Department of Justice policy, the president cannot be charged with a federal crime while in office, and he indicated it is up to Congress to take further action. White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has more.
…

Louisiana lawmakers on Wednesday passed a strict new abortion ban that would prohibit the procedure before some women even know they are pregnant, joining a half-dozen conservative states with similar measures. 

In a 79-23 vote, the Louisiana House gave final passage to a bill barring abortion once there’s a detectable fetal heartbeat, as early as the sixth week of pregnancy. Gov. John Bel Edwards, the Deep South’s only Democratic governor, supports the ban and intends to sign it into law despite opposition from national party leaders who say such laws are attacks on women.  

“I know there are many who feel just as strongly as I do on abortion and disagree with me — and I respect their opinions,” Edwards said in a statement after the ban’s passage. “As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.” 

Lawmakers in conservative states across the nation are striking at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally. Abortion opponents are pushing new restrictions on the procedure in hopes that a case will make its way to the high court, where two new conservative justices appointed by President Donald Trump could help overturn Roe. 

Heartbeat bills

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have enacted similar so-called heartbeat bills, while Missouri lawmakers approved an eight-week ban on abortion. Alabama went even further, outlawing virtually all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. None of the bans has taken effect, and all are expected to face legal challenges.

Louisiana’s prohibition would take hold only if neighboring Mississippi’s law is upheld by a federal appeals court. A federal judge temporarily blocked that Mississippi law Friday.

Abortion rights activists said Louisiana’s bill would effectively eliminate abortion as an option before many women realize they are pregnant, calling the proposal unconstitutional.

The legislation includes an exception from the abortion ban to prevent the pregnant woman’s death or “a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” — or if the pregnancy is deemed “medically futile.” 

But it does not include an exception for a pregnancy caused by rape or incest. 

A doctor who violates the prohibition under the bill could face a prison sentence of up to two years, along with the revocation of his or her medical license. 

Although similar abortion bans have drawn sharp criticism from Democrats nationwide, Louisiana’s proposal won wide bipartisan support and was sponsored by a Democrat from the northwest corner of the state, Sen. John Milkovich.

Up for re-election

Support from Edwards, running for re-election this fall against two Republicans, is expected to help shore up his position with some voters in his conservative home state, even if it puts him at odds with national Democratic Party leaders and donors.

The ban is one of several bills that Louisiana lawmakers are advancing to add new restrictions on abortion, including a proposal to ask voters to rewrite the state constitution to ensure it offers no protections for the procedure. Another bill would limit where medication-induced abortions can be performed to the state’s three licensed abortion clinics.
…

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s first public statement on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view — that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General — as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself — no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

 
…

President Donald Trump warned Wednesday the “consequences will be devastating” if Alabama Republican Roy Moore, whose 2017 U.S. Senate campaign was battered by allegations of long-ago sexual harassment of teenagers, seeks the seat again in 2020.

Moore lost in the once-reliably red state in a 2017 special election amid the sexual misconduct allegations, which he denied. He told The Associated Press earlier this month he is considering another campaign next year.

Trump, who backed Moore in 2017 despite the allegations, tweeted “I have NOTHING against Roy Moore,” but warned that “Roy Moore cannot win.” He adds that if Democrat Doug Jones retains the seat in 2020 “many of the incredible gains that we have made during my Presidency may be lost.”

Trump’s comments come as national Republicans have tried to keep Moore out of the race.

Moore’s nomination could have national repercussions, allowing Democrats to accuse the GOP of ignoring the #MeToo movement and coddling a man accused of sexual misconduct. Moore says he expects to announce a decision in mid-June.

Republicans control the U.S. Senate 53-47 and view defeating Jones as a top priority. Jones, 65, is considered the most endangered Democratic incumbent facing re-election in 2020, a year when several GOP senators are vulnerable and control of the chamber will be at stake.

Jones defeated Moore in 2017 by 22,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast in a special election to fill the seat previously held by Jeff Sessions, who became Trump’s attorney general.
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller reiterated Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice was not an option his office could consider under Justice Department guidelines, as he announced the closure of his office after concluding in late March a 22-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by Trump. 

Explaining his decision not to recommend formal charges against Trump despite uncovering nearly a dozen instances of possible obstruction of justice, Mueller cited a long-standing Justice Department legal opinion that says a sitting president can’t be indicted. 

“The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy,” Mueller said in his first public remarks since his appointment as special counsel more than two years ago. “Charging the president with a crime, therefore, was not an option we could consider.”  

WATCH: Mueller on indicting a sitting president

The special counsel added that his decision not to charge Trump was informed in part by the Justice Department’s view that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” an apparent reference to the impeachment process by Congress. 

“And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness,” Mueller said.  “It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.” 

However, Mueller said that while his investigators had found “insufficient evidence” to charge Trump with a “broader conspiracy” during the election, he repeated what he wrote in his final report about the investigation that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.” ​

WATCH: Mueller on returning to private life

Mueller concluded in the 448-page confidential report to Attorney General William Barr that he found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and Moscow.  As to whether Trump criminally obstructed the investigation, the special counsel wrote that while he could not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, he could not exonerate the president either. 

That left it to the attorney general, who, in a controversial decision made in consultation with senior Justice Department officials, determined that Trump could not be charged with obstruction based on the evidence uncovered by Mueller. Barr said he made the determination irrespective of the Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president, even though the policy had played a prominent role in Mueller’s decision not to bring charges.  

Barr’s decision outraged Democrats, who have accused the attorney general of misrepresenting Mueller’s conclusions and had been pressing for the special counsel to testify before Congress. While not ruling out a congressional appearance, Mueller said, to the disappointment of many Democrats, that he would not go beyond the report if he were to testify.  

“The report is my testimony,” he said.  “I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.”  

Mueller was appointed special counsel for the Russia investigation after Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. He told reporters that he was resigning from the Justice Department to return to private life.

Before his appointment, Mueller, a former FBI director, served as a partner at the WilmerHale law firm in Washington.   

In his statement, Mueller sought to play down reported friction with the attorney general over the manner in which the report was released to Congress and the public.  

Barr initially sent a four-page summary of the report’s principal conclusions to Congress, followed by a redacted version of the full report last month. The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee later voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to release the full report along with the underlying evidence used to prepare it.  

Mueller said that while he asked the attorney general to release “certain portions of the report” to Congress early on, he did “not question the attorney general’s good faith” in deciding to make the entire report public at a later date.  

In a statement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said, “Mr. Mueller explicitly said that he has nothing to add beyond the report, and therefore, does not plan to testify before Congress.” 

“The report was clear — there was no collusion, no conspiracy — and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction. Special counsel Mueller also stated that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith in his handling of the report,” Sanders said. “After two years, the special counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same.”  

In a tweet after Mueller’s statement, Trump wrote: “Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in a our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you. ” 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., responded to Mueller’s remarks, saying, “It falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoings of President Trump — and we will do so.” 

In his remarks Wednesday, Mueller emphasized that “there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election” by Russia. He called it a “concerted attack on our political system.” 

“That allegation deserves the attention of every American,” he said. 
…

The next U.S. presidential election is not until November 2020, but Republican President Donald Trump and the leading Democrat trying to oust him, former Vice President Joe Biden, are launching rhetorical slingshots at each other with gusto.

Trump, in Japan for a four-day state visit, played golf with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, watched a sumo wrestling match and met Emperor Naruhito, but his mind strayed little from his re-election effort in throwing jabs at Biden, leading in U.S. political surveys over two dozen other Democratic presidential contenders.

For decades, U.S. presidents have generally refrained from political attacks on their opponents back home while they were overseas on diplomatic missions, and in turn, their political foes have not attacked them while they were on foreign soil.

But from Tokyo, Trump assailed “Sleepy Joe Biden” for his role as a senator in the 1994 passage of legislation that stiffened penalties for crimes that had the effect of sending more African-American defendants to prison for lengthy terms. 

“That was a dark period in American History, but has Sleepy Joe apologized? No!” Trump said on Twitter. 

He also tweeted:

Trump said he “also smiled” when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “called Swampman Joe Biden a low IQ individual, & worse,” suggesting that “Perhaps that’s sending me a signal?” that Kim preferred him in the White House, not Biden. At one point, Trump misspelled the former vice president’s name as “Bidan.”

Asked at a news conference about Kim’s assessment of Biden’s intelligence, Trump responded, “Well, Kim Jong Un made a statement that Joe Biden is a low IQ individual. He probably is, based on his record. I think I agree with him on that,” an attack that some lawmakers in the U.S. said was uncalled for on a fellow American, especially coming on the Memorial Day holiday honoring the country’s war dead. 

Biden’s campaign waited to respond until minutes after Trump landed back in Washington on Tuesday afternoon. 

“The president’s comments are beneath the dignity of the office,” a Biden spokeswoman said. “To be on foreign soil, on Memorial Day, and to side repeatedly with a murderous dictator against a fellow American and former vice president speaks for itself. And it’s part of a pattern embracing autocrats at the expense of our institutions — whether taking [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s word at face value in Helsinki or exchanging ‘love letters’ with Kim Jong Un.”

A Biden campaign official said the delayed timing of the statement was intentional, with the former vice president wanting to respect “the sacred purpose of Memorial Day, remembering those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.”
…

Real estate mogul Franklin Haney contributed $1 million to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee and all he’s got to show for the money is the glare of a federal investigation.

The contribution from Haney, a prolific political donor, came as he was seeking regulatory approval and financial support from the government for his long-shot bid to acquire the mothballed Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant in northeastern Alabama. More than two years later, he still hasn’t closed the deal.

His tale is a familiar one in Washington, where lobbyists and wealthy donors use their checkbooks to try to sway politicians. It’s a world Haney is accustomed to operating in and one that Trump came into office pledging to upend. Yet Trump has left in place many of the familiar ways to wield influence.

Haney’s hefty donation to Trump’s inaugural committee is being scrutinized by federal prosecutors in New York who are investigating the committee’s finances. Their probe is focused in part on whether donors received benefits after making contributions.

Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, has given prosecutors information regarding Haney, his son and business associate, Frank Haney Jr., and the nuclear plant project, according to a person familiar with what Cohen told the authorities. The person was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

Haney had briefly hired Cohen to help obtain money for the Bellefonte project from potential investors, including the Middle Eastern country of Qatar. Cohen is now serving a three-year prison sentence for tax evasion, lying to Congress and campaign finance violations.

Haney and his attorney did not respond to interview requests.

Prosecutors also are examining whether foreigners unlawfully contributed to the committee. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan issued a subpoena last year seeking a wide range of financial records from the committee, including any “communications regarding or relating to the possibility of donations by foreign nationals.”

The inaugural committee has denied wrongdoing and said its funds were fully accounted for.

Haney, 79, has previously faced accusations that his political gift giving is aimed at cultivating influence.

An investigation by House Republicans in the late 1990s alleged that Haney’s money and his political pull with senior Clinton administration officials helped him to get the Federal Communications Commission to move into an office building that he had a major stake in. Haney denied any wrongdoing and the Justice Department declined to pursue the matter.

But he was charged in 1999 with funneling about $100,000 in illegal contributions to President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and other politicians, then acquitted. A federal prosecutor described Haney as a sophisticated fundraiser who hoped to impress potential business clients with his access to elected officials, like Clinton and Gore.

Haney’s family-owned real estate business donated thousands of dollars in 2013 and 2015 to political action committees that supported Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who later recommended that the nuclear plant Haney wanted to buy be put up for sale. Haney also contributed to a nonprofit created to promote Bentley’s agenda.

The Republican governor resigned in 2017 as he faced impeachment proceedings after an alleged affair with an aide.

In addition to the investigation into Haney’s contribution to the Trump inaugural committee, Haney is in an unrelated legal battle with the nuclear plant’s owner, the Tennessee Valley Authority. Another Haney company, Nuclear Development LLC, has filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the TVA, the nation’s largest public utility, of illegally blocking the plant’s sale to him at the last minute.

The utility has argued it couldn’t complete the transaction because Haney failed to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval for transfer of the construction permits.

A tentative Bellefonte sale in November 2016 involved two partially constructed nuclear reactors and the supporting cooling towers, several other buildings and more than 1,000 acres of land on the Tennessee River. Haney put down $22 million and had until November 2018 to complete the $111-million sale.

On Nov. 29, the day before the sale was to be closed, the TVA scrapped the deal, declaring that Haney’s company had not yet secured regulatory approval as required by the Atomic Energy Act. Haney filed a breach of contract lawsuit.

In early April, about five months after Nuclear Development submitted its application for transfer of the construction permits, the regulatory commission’s staff told the company it needed to submit more technical details before it could proceed.

Edwin Lyman, a nuclear power expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the response reflected skepticism about whether Haney’s company “is serious about or capable of actually undertaking this project or just wants to put the license in its pocket for purposes unknown.”

But Lyman added the five-member nuclear regulatory board is dominated by Trump appointees and may not want to be seen by Congress and the Trump administration as throwing up roadblocks to a nuclear power expansion.

Haney’s Nuclear Development company also has applied to the U.S. Energy Department for financing assistance on the project. The department said it considers the loan application process to be “business sensitive” and declined to comment.

Stephen Smith, executive director of the nonprofit Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said Haney faces too many technical and financial hurdles to overcome.

For example, Bellefonte’s never-completed nuclear reactors are decades old and are of a unique design that has never received an operating license in the U.S. before. He compared Bellefonte to a Ford Pinto, a 1970s-era vehicle with serious engineering flaws. Smith said it’s “extraordinarily unlikely” Bellefonte will be allowed to operate.
…

In Iowa, one of the whitest states in the nation, more than 100 black Democrats who expect to attend the 2020 caucuses crammed into a tiny community center in the capital city to position themselves as a force in the most wide-open presidential campaign in a generation.

“There is hope! There is hope, I tell you, the same hope that Barack Obama brought us,” Jamie Woods, former chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Black Caucus, implored the cheering group last month. 

In the state where Obama’s 2008 candidacy cleared its first important hurdle, black Democrats are energized as seldom seen, in part motivated by overwhelming dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump. That enthusiasm could make a difference in a state that holds a presidential caucus, which, unlike an open primary, attracts only the most motivated voters. That means a candidate who can rally more black voters in the caucuses can gain an outsized advantage, even though African Americans make up only 2% of Iowa’s population.

Iowa’s caucus, coming next February as the first event in the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating contest, is an early test of how voters are going to respond to nearly two dozen candidates and could be a harbinger of the primary a few weeks later in South Carolina, where African Americans comprise most of the Democratic primary electorate.

“They’re realizing that their voice needs to be heard,” said Deidre DeJear, the first African American to win a primary for statewide office in Iowa and now state chairwoman for Sen. Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign. “And they are using the platform they have whether they’re elected or whether just a regular voter.”

Stacey Walker, the first black county board chairman in Iowa’s second-most-populous metro area, said she hasn’t seen this kind of energy among black operatives, activists and officeholders in Iowa in years.

“Not since the Obama coalition have we seen so many persons of color actively engaged and inspired by our politics,” Walker said. “It hasn’t always been this way, and certainly not in Iowa.”

Giving an early indication of the energy within this small but influential segment of the caucus electorate, more than 200 black Democrats braved a driving ice storm in February to attend the Iowa Democratic Black Caucus winter fundraiser at a north Des Moines union hall. 

Candidates are looking to harness that energy. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a 2020 presidential candidate and former mayor of Newark, has convened city leaders, including Quentin Hart, the first black mayor of Iowa’s most densely African American city, Waterloo. Booker met Saturday with Shane McCampbell, the first black mayor of Burlington, along the Mississippi River in southeast Iowa.

Harris met privately with state Rep. Phyllis Thede, who is African American, before the four-term lawmaker moderated a campaign event for the California Democrat in eastern Iowa earlier this year.

In 2008, when Obama became the first African American to win the Iowa caucuses, 4% of caucus participants were black, double the percentage of the state’s overall black population. Obama received 76% of the black vote on caucus night. 

Non-black candidates are working to attract influential black supporters, who can help make the difference in a close race, especially given the crowded field. 

Amy Klobuchar, for instance, last month hired Woods, the former Iowa Black Democratic Caucus chairwoman, as her caucus campaign’s Iowa political director, giving the Minnesota senator a key ally in the competition for black votes. 

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang hired Al Womble, a black Des Moines-area businessman known for his behind-the-scenes organizing, as his Iowa campaign chairman.

Multiple black candidates in the race and the outreach by others in the crowded field create a different scenario than in 2008, when Obama was the only black candidate.

What’s more, most of the candidates put ending racial disparity in income and criminal justice atop their agendas.

“Even though we’re talking about racial disparity and white supremacy, and all this is bad, that this isn’t who we are. No one single candidate is leading the charge,” said Guy Nave, a Democrat from Decorah who is black and plans to attend the caucus. 

Iowa Democrats are predicting turnout in the 2020 caucuses will beat the record 237,000 set in 2008, as Trump’s approval in Iowa has struggled to top 50 percent. Meanwhile, candidates themselves are working to attract first-time caucus participants to eke out any advantage in a field that now numbers 23. 

That means even a narrow edge of support from African Americans, in combination with a coalition of other voters, could make the difference for the winner in Iowa next February, said former Iowa Democratic Party executive director Norm Sterzenbach.

“If you can find a candidate that has a stronghold in a particular demographic and is able to turn them out, that could turn into something extraordinary on caucus night,” said Sterzenbach, who is advising former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign.
…

President Donald Trump and U.S. lawmakers are away from Washington, but questions about possible impeachment of the president continue to swirl as the White House thwarts multiple investigations led by House Democrats after the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. While the House could impeach, Trump is virtually assured of remaining in office as there is almost zero chance the Republican-led Senate would convict him.

Democrats are using their House majority to investigate Trump and his administration on everything from the treatment of migrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border to the president’s foreign business dealings and tax returns. Democrats also want the Justice Department to release the full, unredacted Mueller report. The White House is blocking them at almost every turn, causing tempers to boil over.

“The Trump administration has taken obstruction of Congress to new heights,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler, Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

His words were echoed by Judiciary Committee member Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, also a Democrat.

“We have to surmise that this is an absolute lawless behavior by this administration,” she said.

The House is taking steps to hold key administration officials in contempt of Congress, but the body has a more potent – and explosive – option: formally leveling charges against Trump, or impeachment.

“What we need to do is at least be on that track and at least be in the process of impeachment,” said. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat.

Republicans see Democrats as desperately clinging to a narrative of presidential wrongdoing after special counsel Mueller found no collusion between Trump’s inner circle and Russia.

“The Democrats have no plans, no purpose, and no viable legislative agenda beyond attacking this administration,” said Rep. Doug Collins, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee.

And powerful Democratic leaders, among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are wary of launching impeachment proceedings, at least for now.

“Impeachment is a very divisive place to go in our country. And we can get the facts to the American people, through our investigation. It may take us to a place where it is unavoidable, in terms of impeachment.”

Meanwhile, President Trump, sticking to his guns, called on Democrats to “get these phony investigations over with.”

Last week, Trump halted consultations with Democrats on a major initiative to modernize U.S. infrastructure until congressional probes are complete.

“You (Democrats) can go down the investigation track and you can go down the investment track – or the track of let’s get things done for the American people,” Trump said.

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached, most recently Bill Clinton. The impeachment vote sullied Clinton’s record but did not lead to his removal from office. The same likely would be true for Trump. Democrats vying for the 2020 presidential nomination all want to oust Trump, but at the ballot box.

“It seems like every day or two, there is another affront to the rule of law … The best thing I can do to get us a new president is to win the nomination and defeat the president who’s there,” said Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a Democratic presidential candidate, one of more than twenty running to unseat Trump, speaking on ABC’s ‘This Week’ program.

Polls do not show the American people clamoring for Trump’s impeachment. Bill Clinton’s approval numbers actually rose after House Republicans launched impeachment proceedings against him in 1998.

 
…