Donald Trump‘s former adviser Hope Hicks appeared before the House Judiciary Committee as Democrats hoped to question her on the obstruction of justice counts recorded in the Mueller report, despite the White House invoking executive privilege in a bid to block her testimony and stonewall the investigation.
The president has tweeted angrily about the hearing taking place behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, writing: “Why aren’t the Dems looking at the 33,000 Emails that Hillary and her lawyer deleted and acid washed AFTER GETTING A SUBPOENA FROM CONGRESS? That is real Obstruction that the Dems want no part of because their hearings are RIGGED and a disgrace to our Country!”
Last night, Mr Trump kicked off his 2020 re-election campaign in Orlando, Florida, tearing into his enemies in Washington and pledging to combat “criminal aliens” in a wild address at the 20,000-capacity Amway Center packed with his most ardent supporters.
Less than an hour into Ms Hicks’ interview on Wednesday, frustrated Democrats taking breaks from the meeting said she and her lawyer were following White House orders to stay quiet about her time working for Mr Trump.
She was answering some questions about her time on the campaign, however, the lawmakers said.
“She’s objecting to stuff that’s already in the public record,” said California Democrat Karen Bass. “It’s pretty ridiculous.”
Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, called her answers “a farce.” Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, tweeted about the interview and wrote that Ms Hicks refused to answer even innocuous questions such as whether she had previously testified before Congress.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler declined to comment on the substance of the interview so far, saying “all I’ll say is Ms Hicks is answering questions put to her and the interview continues.”
Republicans had a different perspective, saying she was cooperative and that the interview was a waste of time. The top Republican on the panel, Doug Collins, said they were “simply talking about things that are already out there in public or getting the same answers over and over.”
It was so far unclear whether Democrats would take Ms Hicks or the administration to court to challenge the claim of immunity. In a letter Tuesday to Mr Nadler, White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote that Mr Trump had directed Ms Hicks not to answer questions “relating to the time of her service as a senior adviser to the president.”
Additional reporting by AP. Please allow a moment for our liveblog to load
“This election is a verdict on whether we want to live in a country where the people will lose an election, refuse to concede and spend the next two years trying to shred our Constitution and rip your country apart,” he said, gloating over the outcome of the Mueller report and ignoring his own flagrant disregard for the institutions of governance.
"A vote for any Democrat in 2020 is a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American dream," he said.
On policy, the president promised to cure cancer and AIDs and to “lay the foundations” for a US-led Mars landing, taking credit for historic lows in unemployment and a renewable energy boom (despite backing fossil fuel extraction) while rounding on his enemies in the press as the packed Amway Center chanted “CNN sucks!”










The president was asked about the case on Tuesday, in light of Ava DuVernay’s four-part Netflix series recounting their story, When They See Us.
Authorities vacated their convictions in 2002, after convicted murderer and serial rapist Matias Reyes confessed to the attack and said he had committed it alone. DNA evidence backed up his confession.
"I declare that President Trump will overcome every strategy from hell and every strategy from the enemy."
Callamard's 101-page report after a months-long probe commissioned by the UN High Commission for Human Rights concluded that Khashoggi "has been the victim of a deliberate, premeditated execution, an extrajudicial killing for which the state Saudi Arabia is responsible under international human rights law." It includes new details about the final days and moments of Khashoggi's life, but does not reveal the still-unknown whereabouts of his body.
The final Trump administration replacement rule, expected as soon as this week, instead would give individual states wide discretion to decide whether to require limited efficiency upgrades at individual coal-fired power plants.
Joseph Goffman, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official under Barack Obama, said he feared that the Trump administration was trying to set a legal precedent that the Clean Air Act gives the federal government "next to no authority to do anything" about climate-changing emissions from the country's power grid. The Obama rule, adopted in 2015, sought to reshape the country's power system by encouraging utilities to rely less on dirtier-burning coal-fired power plants and more on electricity from natural gas, solar, wind and other lower or no-carbon sources.
Burning of fossil fuels for electricity, transportation and heat is the main human source of heat-trapping carbon emissions.
Supporters of the revised rule say the Obama-era plan overstepped the EPA's authority.
"This action is re-calibrating EPA so it aligns with being the agency to protect public health and the environment in a way that respects the limits of the law," said Mandy Gunasekara, a former senior official at the EPA who helped write the replacement rule. She now runs a nonprofit, Energy45, that supports President Trump's energy initiatives.
"The Clean Power Plan was designed largely to put coal out of business," Gunasekara said. Trump's overhaul is meant to let states "figure out what is best for their mission in terms of meeting modern environmental standards" and providing affordable energy, she said.
Democrats and environmentalists say the Trump administration has repeatedly sought to use the power of government to protect the sagging US coal industry from competition against cheaper, cleaner-burning natural gas and solar and wind power while ignoring scientific warnings about climate change.
His pledge to roll back regulation for the coal industry helped cement support from owners and workers in the coal industry, and others. Despite his promise, market forces have frustrated Trump's efforts. Competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable fuel has continued a years-long trend driving US coal plant closings to near-record levels last year, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
The final rule is expected to closely follow the draft released in August.
By encouraging utilities to consider spending money to upgrade aging coal plants, environmental groups argue, the Trump rule could prompt the companies to run existing coal plants harder and longer rather than retiring them.
"It's a rule to increase emissions because it's a rule to extend the life of coal plants," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director of the Clean Air Task Force. "You invest in updating an old coal plant, it makes it more economic" to run it more to pay off that investment.
Trump has repeatedly claimed just the opposite, saying earlier this month in Ireland: "We have the cleanest air in the world, in the United States, and it's gotten better since I'm president."
Along with an initiative requiring tougher mileage standards for cars and light trucks, the Clean Power Plan was one of Obama's two legacy efforts to slow climate change. The Trump administration also is proposing to roll back the Obama-era mileage standards, with a final rule expected shortly. Environmental groups promise court challenges to both rollbacks.
Trump has rejected scientific warnings on climate change, including a report this year from scientists at more than a dozen federal agencies noting that global warming from fossil fuels "presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life."
EPA's own regulatory analysis last year estimated that Trump's replacement ACE rule would kill an extra 300 to 1,500 people each year by 2030, owing to additional air pollution from the power grid.
"I think you might want to listen. There’s nothing wrong with listening," he continued. "It’s not an interference. They have information. I think I’d take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI."







