The Repulsive Worldview of #OyVeyDonaldTrump and #SiegHeilSteveBannon, perfectly captured in one poll. The full Quinnipiac University Poll is attached

Bannon predicts there will be an ideological 'fight every day'

A new CNN poll out this morning tests one of the fundamental tenets of the Trump and Bannon worldview in a very illuminating way. It finds that large majorities reject the basic idea that undocumented immigrants who have been in this country for a long time — and have not committed serious crimes — should nonetheless be subject to removal.

It’s the latest sign of a larger trend that goes like this: Little by little, the narrative that President Trump and his top adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, have been telling about what is happening in this country is getting translated into concrete policy specifics. And Americans are recoiling from the results.

The CNN poll tries to pin down public sentiment about Trump’s expanded deportation efforts. It finds that 58 percent of Americans worry that those efforts “will go too far and result in deportation of people who haven’t committed serious crimes,” while only 40 percent worry that those efforts “won’t go far enough and dangerous criminals will remain.”

The poll also finds that a whopping 90 percent favor allowing those who have been working here “for a number of years,” know English, and are willing to pay back taxes to stay and eventually apply for citizenship. Only nine percent want them deported. And 60 percent say the government should prioritize legalizing those working here illegally over deporting them.

Trump has vastly expanded the pool of undocumented immigrants who are now targets for deportation, enshrining in policy the idea that even longtime residents and low-level offenders are nothing more than lawbreakers who should be subject to enforcement. In the Trump/Bannon narrative, these people remain threats — cultural, demographic, economic, and physical. But these CNN findings suggest the public broadly rejects this general notion, and sees assimilation as a more appropriate outcome.

This mirrors a recent Quinnipiac poll finding that support for allowing undocumented immigrants to remain is at a new high of 63 percent, even as a plurality thinks Trump’s deportation policies are “too aggressive.” Meanwhile, sizable majorities disapprove of Trump’s planned border wall and ban on refugees and migrants from Muslim-majority countries.

Bannon flatly rejects the very existence of such public sentiments. In the wake of the initial outcry over Trump’s travel ban, Bannon insisted that the “overwhelming majority of Americans” support his “populist nation-state policies,” meaning that a large majority is rooting for Trumpism to succeed. But this is just false, as much of the polling on his immigration policies confirms.

Now this notion will be subjected to another test. The American electorate and political world are now digesting Trump’s budget — which is the most ambitious blueprint yet for realizing the Trump/Bannon “America First” vision, as well as Bannon’s vow to destroy “the administrative state.” That phrase would appear to be shorthand for national regulations and international commitments created by allegedly unaccountable bureaucrats who are supposedly disenfranchising U.S. workers and weakening American sovereignty.

Thus, the Trump budget would boost spending to fund Trump’s border wall and increased deportations. It would deeply cut into the State Department budget in ways that weaken America’s constructive international engagement, to pay for a massive military buildup. It would slash away at the Environmental Protection Agency budget, weakening environmental protections and scrapping funding for international climate change programs and for Obama policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which are essential to meeting our commitments as part of the Paris climate accord. It would cut deeply into funding for scientific and medical research with a recklessness that has alarmed scientists.

And so, we are now seeing what the Trump/Bannon “America First” vision, backed up by the dismantling of the “administrative state,” might really look like in concrete terms. The public reaction to this will be illuminating, too.

One change that House leaders are considering is adding a work requirement for able-bodied adults who receive Medicaid. The change may appease some conservatives without alienating moderates that leadership needs to hold on to.

Conservatives think the GOP bill still spends too much to help poor people, so maybe adding in an onerous provision like this one will make up for that deficiency.

Under the ACA, premium tax credits make up for geographical differences. … In contrast, under the Ryan bill, the geographical price disparities would be shouldered by enrollees, so that same 60-year-old living in Caribou would pay hundreds more per month in premiums compared to a Portland resident. … “Older people living in rural America would be really left behind,” Collins said.

If two more GOP senators oppose the bill, it goes down. Of course, House GOP leaders are going to change it. But those changes will be to appease conservatives, not lawmakers like Collins.

* REPUBLICANS REJECT TRUMP’S BUDGET: The Post talks to a number of congressional Republicans and finds no love for Trump’s deep spending cuts:

It is not uncommon for Congress to disagree with some priorities in a White House budget. But the blueprint risks putting GOP lawmakers on a collision course with Trump over demands for spending cuts they cannot deliver. Even those fiscal conservatives who do want to cut spending don’t necessarily think slashing major domestic programs is the answer.

It’s almost as if railing about Out Of Control Big Government in the abstract is a whole lot easier than cutting programs that people actually rely upon.

* TRUMP’S BUDGET WOULD HURT HIS VOTERS: The New York Times reports that Trump’s massive budget cuts would downsize aspects of government that help many of his voters:

The approach is a risky gamble for Mr. Trump, whose victory in November came in part by assembling a coalition that included low-income workers who rely on many of the programs that he now proposes to slash. For now, the president and his advisers appear willing to take that risk by casting the administration as better caretakers of taxpayers’ money.

That might work. Or maybe Trump can simply say that any reporting on how his budget will hurt his voters is Fake News.

* TRUMP’S BUDGET WOULD HURT HIS VOTERS, PART II: The Post’s Jeff Guo reports that the budget would eliminate government agencies that spend money on projects to help “rural regions stuck in generational cycles of poverty”:

More than 37 million people would be affected in the 698 counties where the agencies work — in Appalachia, the Mississippi basin, and rural northern New England — places where the poverty rate is 33 percent higher than the national average. By proposing to zero out these programs, the president’s budget would eliminate a key effort to help to some of the nation’s poorest regions.

But Trump is going to bring manufacturing and coal jobs roaring back, so it’ll all be just fine.

* GOP FANTASY POLICIES, UNMASKED: Paul Krugman explains how Trump’s budget and the GOP health-care plan will reveal the truth about GOP policy to voters:

What will happen if anti-big-government politicians find themselves in a position to put their agenda into practice? Voters will quickly get a lesson in what slashing spending really means — and they won’t be happy. That’s basically the wall Obamacare repeal has just smashed into. And the same thing will happen if this Trump whatever-it-is turns into an actual budget.

As Krugman notes, people hate spending on generic bureaucracy, but they will not support deep cuts to federal programs that protect the environment and feed the hungry.

* TRUMP AND MERKEL SET TO DISCUSS CLIMATE: Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are set to meet today, and look what’s on the agenda:

Merkel … is likely to press Trump for assurances of support for a strong European Union and a commitment to fight climate change. … A U.S. official said the Trump administration’s position on U.S. participation in the Paris agreement to curb climate change would likely come up in the Merkel meeting and be further clarified in the weeks and months ahead.

Administration officials have battled internally over the Paris climate accord. Bannon is against it and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is for it, so clarifying its position will be valuable.

March 8, 2017 - U.S. Voters Say Sessions Lied And Should Resign, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Support For Immigrant 'path To Citizenship' At New High
PDF format
Additional Trend Information
Sample and Methodology detail

American voters say 52 - 40 percent that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions lied under oath during his confirmation hearings and say 51 - 42 percent that he should resign, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Voters disapprove 54 - 32 percent of the way President Donald Trump is handling U.S. policy towards Russia, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

American voters support 66 - 30 percent an "independent commission investigating potential links between some of Donald Trump's campaign advisors and the Russian government." The only listed party, gender, age or racial group opposed is Republicans, opposed 64 - 30 percent.

A total of 61 percent are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about President Trump's relationship with Russia. A total of 62 percent of voters say alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election is a "very important" or "somewhat important" issue.

Healthcare should be President Trump's top priority, 36 percent of voters say, while 30 percent list infrastructure; 16 percent list taxes and 15 percent list immigration.

American voters say 51 - 45 percent that Trump should not support efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Trump and Republicans in Congress should repeal parts of the ACA, 49 percent of voters say, while 27 percent say there should be no repeal and 21 percent say repeal all of the ACA.

"The gavel comes down hard on Attorney General Jeff Sessions," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"He lied and he should quit because of it, say Americans, who are clearly very concerned about the Russian affair and all the administration personnel involved with it."

It is "very important" that health insurance be affordable for all Americans, 84 percent of voters say, while 12 percent say it is "somewhat important."

A total of 44 percent of voters are "very confident" or "somewhat confident" that Republicans in Congress will replace Obamacare with something as good or better, while 54 percent are "not so confident" or "not confident at all."

Immigration

Illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in the U.S. and eventually become citizens, 63 percent of American voters say, the highest level of support for this option since Quinnipiac University began asking the question in 2012.

Another 11 percent say illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay, but not become citizens, and 23 percent say they should not be allowed to stay.

Only illegal immigrants who have committed a serious crime should be deported, 55 percent of voters say, while 21 percent say deport illegal immigrants who have committed any crime. All illegal immigrants should be deported, 19 percent say, while 3 percent say no immigrants should be deported.

There are wide gender, racial and party divisions as American voters oppose 51 - 42 percent suspending immigration from "terror prone" regions. Men are divided 48 - 47 percent, as women oppose the suspension 55 - 36 percent. White voters are divided 47 - 47 percent, with non-white voters opposed 61 - 29 percent. Republicans back the suspension 80 - 14 percent, with Democrats opposed 79 - 13 percent and independent voters opposed 53 - 41 percent.

American voters support 90 - 8 percent increased federal spending for infrastructure, but oppose 51 - 45 percent a $54 billion increase in defense spending.

Transgender Students

Public schools should allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, 48 percent of voters say, with 45 percent opposed. There is a wide gender gap, as women support the idea 55 - 37 percent, with men opposed 54 - 39 percent.

From March 2 - 6, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,283 voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percentage points. Live interviewers call landlines and cell phones.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and the nation as a public service and for research.

Visit poll.qu.edu or www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll

Call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.

5. Is your opinion of Jeff Sessions favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 23% 51% 3% 22% 31% 16% 26% 30% Unfavorable 43 8 72 43 38 47 51 28 Hvn't hrd enough 33 40 24 33 30 35 22 41 REFUSED 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Favorable 11% 21% 29% 33% 39% 19% 28% 11% Unfavorable 45 43 45 37 33 45 39 51 Hvn't hrd enough 44 36 25 28 27 36 32 35 REFUSED - - 1 2 1 1 1 2
28. As you may know, President Trump has mentioned several issues that are priorities for him as president. Which of the following issues should President Trump focus on first: healthcare, taxes, infrastructure, or immigration?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Healthcare 36% 38% 37% 35% 31% 41% 31% 38% Taxes 16 18 12 16 16 15 16 15 Infrastructure 30 11 42 33 33 27 38 24 Immigration 15 31 5 14 18 13 11 21 DK/NA 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Healthcare 44% 26% 35% 42% 27% 41% 34% 41% Taxes 11 22 14 15 17 14 16 16 Infrastructure 30 33 33 23 32 30 31 26 Immigration 14 17 14 17 21 12 16 13 DK/NA 2 2 4 3 2 4 3 3
33. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling - the nation's policy toward Russia?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Approve 32% 72% 4% 29% 41% 25% 27% 49% Disapprove 54 11 87 56 48 60 59 35 DK/NA 14 17 9 15 11 16 14 16 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Approve 23% 34% 36% 35% 48% 29% 38% 18% Disapprove 62 52 53 49 40 53 47 71 DK/NA 14 13 11 16 12 18 15 11
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling - the nation's policy toward Russia?
App Dis DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 32 54 14 Feb 22, 2017 31 57 13
34. As president, do you think Donald Trump should - lower taxes on the wealthy, or not?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes/Should 21% 41% 8% 18% 26% 16% 21% 26% No 74 51 91 76 70 78 74 69 DK/NA 5 8 2 5 4 6 5 5 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes/Should 11% 22% 23% 25% 30% 17% 23% 13% No 83 73 74 69 65 77 71 83 DK/NA 6 5 3 7 5 6 5 4
TREND: As president, do you think Donald Trump should - lower taxes on the wealthy, or not?
Yes No DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 21 74 5 Feb 23, 2017 18 76 6 Nov 23, 2016 29 67 4
35. As president, do you think Donald Trump should - lower taxes on businesses and corporations, or not?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes/Should 45% 74% 22% 45% 53% 39% 44% 51% No 49 20 72 49 43 54 50 42 DK/NA 6 6 7 6 5 8 6 7 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes/Should 33% 48% 46% 51% 56% 40% 47% 39% No 61 46 48 40 39 52 46 56 DK/NA 6 5 6 9 5 8 6 5
TREND: As president, do you think Donald Trump should - lower taxes on businesses and corporations, or not?
Yes No DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 45 49 6 Feb 23, 2017 43 50 6
36. As president, do you think Donald Trump should - remove regulations on businesses and corporations, or not?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes/Should 36% 67% 12% 33% 48% 25% 37% 44% No 53 22 77 57 45 60 54 46 DK/NA 11 11 11 10 7 15 9 10 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes/Should 25% 36% 40% 41% 55% 27% 41% 24% No 65 52 51 45 40 59 50 62 DK/NA 9 12 9 14 5 14 10 14
TREND: As president, do you think Donald Trump should remove regulations on businesses and corporations, or not?
Yes No DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 36 53 11 Feb 23, 2017 34 54 12 Feb 08, 2017 39 49 12 Jan 12, 2017 39 51 10 Nov 23, 2016 38 48 14
37. As president, do you think Donald Trump should - remove specific regulations intended to combat climate change, or not?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes/Should 29% 60% 10% 26% 36% 23% 27% 39% No 62 27 84 66 58 66 67 51 DK/NA 9 13 7 8 6 11 6 10 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes/Should 22% 32% 29% 33% 41% 26% 33% 18% No 73 61 62 52 54 63 59 73 DK/NA 5 7 9 14 6 11 8 9
TREND: As president, do you think Donald Trump should remove specific regulations intended to combat climate change, or not?
Yes No DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 29 62 9 Feb 23, 2017 27 63 10 Feb 08, 2017 29 61 10 Jan 12, 2017 32 59 9 Nov 23, 2016 31 59 9
38. As president, do you think Donald Trump should - support efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, or not?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes/Should 45% 87% 13% 45% 52% 39% 42% 63% No 51 10 83 51 45 56 56 33 DK/NA 4 3 4 4 3 5 2 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes/Should 40% 46% 45% 51% 61% 45% 52% 29% No 60 53 50 43 37 51 44 66 DK/NA 1 1 5 7 2 4 3 5
TREND: As president, do you think Donald Trump should - support efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, or not?
Yes No DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 45 51 4 Feb 23, 2017 43 54 3 Feb 08, 2017 46 50 4 Jan 12, 2017 48 47 5
39. Which comes closest to your view about illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States? A) They should be allowed to stay in the United States and to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship. B) They should be allowed to remain in the United States, but not be allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship. C) They should be required to leave the U.S.
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No A) Stay/Citizenship 63% 36% 84% 64% 54% 71% 64% 52% B) Stay/Not citizen 11 15 8 10 13 9 12 9 C) Not stay 23 43 7 22 29 17 20 34 DK/NA 4 6 1 4 4 4 4 5 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht A) Stay/Citizenship 77% 59% 62% 58% 49% 66% 58% 75% B) Stay/Not citizen 8 11 11 13 12 9 10 12 C) Not stay 14 28 22 23 35 20 27 12 DK/NA 1 3 5 5 4 4 4 2
TREND: Which comes closest to your view about illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States? A) They should be allowed to stay in the United States and to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship. B) They should be allowed to remain in the United States, but not be allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship. C) They should be required to leave the U.S.
Stay/ Sty/Not Not Citizen Citizen Stay DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 63 11 23 4 Jan 12, 2017 59 9 25 6 Nov 23, 2016 60 12 25 4 Link to full trend on website
40. In your opinion, has the Trump administration been too aggressive in deporting immigrants who are here illegally, not aggressive enough, or has the Trump administration been acting appropriately when it comes to deporting immigrants who are here illegally?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Too aggressive 49% 6% 81% 52% 41% 56% 51% 31% Not aggressive enough 9 18 2 8 12 6 8 13 Acting appropriately 38 71 12 36 44 32 37 52 DK/NA 5 4 5 3 3 6 5 5 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Too aggressive 58% 50% 47% 41% 32% 48% 41% 69% Not aggr. enough 4 14 7 11 14 6 10 6 Acting appropriately 34 31 42 42 50 39 45 21 DK/NA 4 5 4 6 3 6 5 4
41. Thinking about people who have immigrated to the U.S. illegally, who do you think should be deported: should no illegal immigrants be deported, only illegal immigrants that have committed a serious crime, only illegal immigrants that have committed any crime, or should all illegal immigrants be deported?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No No immigrants 3% - 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% Only serious crime 55 31 77 52 51 58 56 41 Only any crime 21 30 11 24 23 20 24 25 All immigrants 19 34 7 18 21 16 15 30 DK/NA 2 4 1 2 2 3 2 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht No immigrants 5% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% Only serious crime 64 48 53 54 44 53 49 69 Only any crime 18 19 25 22 27 23 25 13 All immigrants 11 27 18 19 26 19 22 11 DK/NA 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 4
TREND: Thinking about people who have immigrated to the U.S. illegally, who do you think should be deported: should no illegal immigrants be deported, only illegal immigrants that have committed a serious crime, only illegal immigrants that have committed any crime, or should all illegal immigrants be deported?
Serious Any None Crime Crime All DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 3 55 21 19 2 Feb 23, 2017 3 53 22 19 3
42. How accepting do you think the U.S. is of transgender people today; very accepting, somewhat accepting, not so accepting, or not accepting at all?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Very accepting 12% 20% 8% 10% 12% 12% 11% 11% Somewhat accepting 51 52 51 50 48 52 52 52 Not so accepting 25 16 31 25 26 24 30 21 Not accepting at all 8 5 8 11 9 7 4 8 DK/NA 4 7 3 4 5 4 3 7 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Very accepting 11% 14% 11% 10% 12% 10% 11% 15% Somewhat accepting 48 53 50 52 51 53 52 46 Not so accepting 27 24 27 22 25 27 26 25 Not accepting at all 11 7 7 8 7 5 6 13 DK/NA 3 2 4 9 5 5 5 2
43. Do you think more acceptance of transgender people would be a good thing for the country, a bad thing for the country, or do you think that it would not make much difference either way?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Good thing 41% 13% 62% 41% 35% 46% 51% 30% Bad thing 14 31 4 14 15 14 11 20 Not much difference 42 53 33 42 47 37 35 47 DK/NA 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Good thing 50% 48% 39% 28% 33% 47% 41% 41% Bad thing 6 15 15 18 17 14 15 13 Not much difference 41 37 44 49 48 35 41 44 DK/NA 3 1 2 4 3 4 3 3
44. Do you think President Trump and the Republicans in Congress should repeal all of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, should repeal parts of the healthcare law but keep other parts, or should not repeal any of the Affordable Care Act?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Repeal all 21% 50% 3% 16% 24% 18% 19% 31% Repeal parts 49 42 45 58 49 49 51 50 Should not repeal 27 3 51 24 25 29 29 16 DK/NA 3 5 1 2 2 3 1 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Repeal all 18% 23% 21% 22% 29% 22% 25% 13% Repeal parts 48 50 50 48 50 50 50 45 Should not repeal 31 27 26 25 19 25 22 38 DK/NA 3 1 2 4 2 3 2 4
TREND: Do you think President Trump and the Republicans in Congress should repeal all of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, should repeal parts of the healthcare law but keep other parts, or should not repeal any of the Affordable Care Act? (*President-elect)
Repeal Repeal Not All Parts Repeal DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 21 49 27 3 Jan 27, 2017 16 51 30 3 Jan 12, 2017* 18 47 31 4
45. If Congress decides to repeal Obamacare, do you think that Congress should repeal Obamacare as soon as possible even if they have not decided on a plan to replace it, or should they wait to repeal Obamacare until they have a plan to replace it?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Repeal now 10% 21% 2% 9% 13% 8% 9% 14% Wait to repeal 87 77 93 89 84 89 88 84 DK/NA 3 2 5 3 3 3 3 2 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Repeal now 9% 10% 13% 8% 14% 10% 12% 7% Wait to repeal 89 86 84 89 85 87 86 89 DK/NA 2 4 3 2 1 3 2 4
TREND: If Congress decides to repeal Obamacare, do you think that Congress should repeal Obamacare as soon as possible even if they have not decided on a plan to replace it, or should they wait to repeal Obamacare until they have a plan to replace it?
Now Wait DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 10 87 3 Jan 27, 2017 13 84 2
46. How important is it to you that health insurance be affordable for all Americans; very important, somewhat important, not so important, or not important at all?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Very important 84% 68% 98% 86% 79% 89% 82% 79% Somewhat important 12 26 1 10 15 10 14 17 Not so important 2 3 - 2 3 1 2 2 Not important at all 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 1 DK/NA 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Very important 88% 82% 83% 83% 75% 87% 81% 91% Somewhat important 8 14 13 13 19 12 15 6 Not so important 3 2 2 1 4 1 2 2 Not important at all - 2 1 1 2 - 1 1 DK/NA - - 2 2 1 1 1 1
TREND: How important is it to you that health insurance be affordable for all Americans: very important, somewhat important, not so important, or not important at all?
Very Smwht NotSo NotImp Imp Imp Imp Atall DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 84 12 2 1 1 Jan 27, 2017 84 12 2 1 -
47. If your U.S. Senator or Congressperson votes to repeal Obamacare, will that make you more likely to vote for their reelection, less likely to vote for their reelection, or won't it matter much either way?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No More likely 28% 62% 6% 23% 32% 24% 25% 39% Less likely 42 5 74 41 36 48 50 28 Won't matter 27 30 17 33 29 25 23 30 DK/NA 3 3 2 4 3 3 2 2 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht More likely 20% 30% 29% 30% 36% 29% 33% 16% Less likely 49 44 41 38 33 44 39 51 Won't matter 28 24 25 28 29 24 27 27 DK/NA 3 2 5 4 2 2 2 5
TREND: If your U.S. Senator or Congressperson votes to repeal Obamacare, will that make you more likely to vote for their reelection, less likely to vote for their reelection, or won't it matter much either way?
More Less Won't Likely Likely Matter DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 28 42 27 3 Jan 27, 2017 24 43 29 4
48. How confident are you that the Republicans in Congress will replace Obamacare with a health care law that is as good or better than Obamacare; very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident, or not confident at all?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Very confident 21% 54% 3% 17% 24% 19% 18% 33% Somewhat confident 23 36 9 26 24 22 21 32 Not so confident 20 5 30 22 18 23 23 15 Not confident at all 34 3 57 35 32 36 38 19 DK/NA 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Very confident 16% 20% 22% 25% 28% 23% 25% 11% Somewhat confident 20 17 25 28 28 25 26 15 Not so confident 21 27 20 15 17 21 19 23 Not confident at all 41 36 33 29 27 30 28 49 DK/NA 1 - 1 3 1 1 1 1
TREND: How confident are you that the Republicans in Congress will replace Obamacare with a health care law that is as good or better than Obamacare: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident, or not confident at all?
Very Smwht Not so Not Confdt Confdt Confdt Confdt DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 21 23 20 34 1 Feb 23, 2017 21 25 18 34 2
49. How concerned are you about climate change; very concerned, somewhat concerned, not so concerned, or not concerned at all?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Very concerned 46% 6% 73% 49% 41% 50% 49% 35% Somewhat concerned 25 32 19 26 25 25 23 25 Not so concerned 14 30 4 11 14 14 14 18 Not concerned at all 15 30 2 13 20 10 13 21 DK/NA 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Very concerned 53% 44% 46% 41% 36% 48% 42% 55% Somewhat concerned 20 28 25 25 23 25 24 26 Not so concerned 17 11 12 16 18 14 16 9 Not concerned at all 9 16 16 18 23 12 17 9 DK/NA - 1 1 1 - 1 1 -
TREND: How concerned are you about climate change; very concerned, somewhat concerned, not so concerned, or not concerned at all?
Very Smwht NotSo Not Concern Concern Concern Concern DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 46 25 14 15 1 Feb 08, 2017 44 28 12 14 - Jan 27, 2017 44 30 14 12 - Jan 12, 2017 45 29 14 13 1 Nov 23, 2016 37 31 15 16 1 Link to full trend on website
50. Do you think the United States is doing enough to address climate change, doing too much, or do you think more needs to be done to address climate change?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Doing enough 18% 35% 7% 17% 20% 17% 18% 23% Doing too much 19 38 3 20 25 14 20 26 More to be done 59 22 87 60 54 64 59 46 DK/NA 4 5 3 3 2 5 3 5 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Doing enough 15% 19% 19% 19% 22% 19% 21% 13% Doing too much 14 19 22 21 30 16 23 10 More to be done 71 59 55 53 46 58 53 74 DK/NA - 2 4 7 2 6 4 3
TREND: Do you think the United States is doing enough to address climate change, doing too much, or do you think more needs to be done to address climate change?
Doing Doing MoreTo Enough TooMuch BeDone DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 18 19 59 4 Feb 08, 2017 17 18 59 5
52. Do you support or oppose increasing federal spending for roads, bridges, mass transit and other infrastructure?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Support 90% 90% 90% 91% 92% 88% 92% 94% Oppose 8 7 7 8 6 9 6 5 DK/NA 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Support 85% 89% 93% 93% 94% 93% 93% 83% Oppose 12 9 5 5 4 6 5 13 DK/NA 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 4
TREND: Do you support or oppose increasing federal spending for roads, bridges, mass transit and other infrastructure?
Sup Opp DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 90 8 2 Feb 23, 2017 87 10 3 Feb 08, 2017 89 9 2 Nov 23, 2016 83 15 2
53. Do you support or oppose increasing federal spending for the Defense Department by about 54 billion dollars?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Support 45% 84% 17% 41% 51% 39% 40% 60% Oppose 51 11 77 54 46 54 56 36 DK/NA 5 5 6 5 3 6 4 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Support 31% 42% 48% 54% 58% 43% 50% 31% Oppose 64 55 47 37 40 51 46 63 DK/NA 4 4 4 8 2 6 4 6
54. Do you support or oppose reducing taxes across the board?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Support 58% 82% 39% 58% 62% 54% 49% 67% Oppose 37 16 55 37 35 39 46 29 DK/NA 5 1 6 5 3 7 5 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Support 51% 63% 60% 57% 62% 55% 58% 55% Oppose 45 31 37 35 35 39 37 39 DK/NA 4 5 3 8 3 6 5 6
54a. Do you support or oppose reducing taxes across the board? (If support q54) If the tax reductions caused an increase in the deficit, would you still support reducing taxes across the board, or not?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Support even if incr deficit 29% 48% 14% 29% 30% 27% 25% 34% Support only if not incr deficit 26 28 22 27 28 23 22 29 Oppose 37 16 55 37 35 39 46 29 DK/NA 8 7 9 7 6 10 7 8 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Support even if incr deficit 24% 32% 30% 30% 32% 27% 29% 26% Support only if not incr deficit 24 30 27 23 28 24 26 26 Oppose 45 31 37 35 35 39 37 39 DK/NA 7 7 6 12 6 10 8 9
55. Do you think public schools should allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that are consistent with the gender they identify with or don't you think so?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes/Should 48% 15% 77% 47% 39% 55% 56% 34% No/Should not 45 79 16 45 54 37 36 60 DK/NA 8 6 8 8 7 8 8 6 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes/Should 57% 53% 45% 40% 36% 54% 45% 54% No/Should not 36 41 48 50 59 38 48 38 DK/NA 7 6 8 11 5 8 7 8
56. Do you support or oppose suspending immigration from "terror prone" regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Support 42% 80% 13% 41% 48% 36% 37% 58% Oppose 51 14 79 53 47 55 59 36 DK/NA 7 5 8 6 5 8 4 6 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Support 32% 46% 43% 46% 56% 39% 47% 29% Oppose 64 50 51 41 41 53 47 61 DK/NA 4 5 6 13 3 7 5 9
TREND: Do you support or oppose suspending immigration from "terror prone" regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions?
Sup Opp DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 42 51 7 Feb 22, 2017 43 49 8 Feb 07, 2017 44 50 6 Jan 12, 2017 48 42 10 Nov 23, 2016 50 44 6
57. How concerned are you about President Trump's relationship with Russia; very concerned, somewhat concerned, not so concerned, or not concerned at all?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Very concerned 41% 4% 71% 40% 33% 48% 43% 25% Somewhat concerned 20 21 18 21 20 20 22 21 Not so concerned 16 27 6 16 19 14 14 22 Not concerned at all 22 45 5 22 28 16 20 30 DK/NA 1 4 - 1 1 2 1 2 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Very concerned 40% 39% 44% 41% 26% 42% 34% 57% Somewhat concerned 24 22 15 19 21 22 21 17 Not so concerned 21 16 15 14 20 17 18 11 Not concerned at all 13 22 26 25 33 17 25 15 DK/NA 3 - 1 1 1 3 2 1
TREND: How concerned are you about President Trump's relationship with Russia: very concerned, somewhat concerned, not so concerned, or not concerned at all?
Very Smwht NotSo Not Concern Concern Concern Concern DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 41 20 16 22 1 Feb 23, 2017 42 22 16 18 2
58. Do you think that the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election is a very important issue, a somewhat important issue, a not so important issue, or not an important issue at all?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Very important 42% 7% 71% 42% 36% 48% 45% 30% Somewhat important 20 20 20 20 16 23 19 19 Not so important 12 22 3 11 14 10 12 13 Not important at all 23 47 4 23 31 16 20 33 DIDN'T INTERFERE(VOL) 1 2 - 2 2 1 1 2 DK/NA 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Very important 38% 41% 47% 42% 30% 45% 38% 55% Somewhat important 32 21 13 17 16 22 19 21 Not so important 16 8 12 11 13 12 13 8 Not important at all 12 24 25 27 37 18 27 14 DIDN'T INTERFERE(VOL) - 3 1 1 2 2 2 - DK/NA 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2
TREND: Do you think that the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election is a very important issue, a somewhat important issue, a not so important issue, or not an important issue at all?
Very Smwht NotSo NotImp DIDN'T Imp Imp Imp Atall INTRFR DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 42 20 12 23 1 2 Feb 23, 2017 47 18 12 20 1 2 Jan 30, 2017 47 20 11 19 1 2
59. Do you support or oppose an independent commission investigating the potential links between some of Donald Trump's campaign advisors and the Russian government?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Support 66% 30% 88% 70% 62% 69% 70% 55% Oppose 30 64 9 27 36 25 27 42 DK/NA 4 5 3 3 2 5 3 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Support 72% 71% 64% 59% 58% 66% 63% 73% Oppose 22 26 33 38 40 29 35 20 DK/NA 7 2 3 4 1 4 3 6
60. As you may know, during his Cabinet confirmation hearing, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that he did not have any communications with Russian officials while working with the Trump campaign. It has since been revealed that he did meet with the Russian ambassador when he was a Senator on the Armed Services Committee and a top advisor for the Trump campaign. Do you think he lied under oath about this issue, or do you think he made an unclear statement without lying?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Lied under oath 52% 14% 83% 53% 44% 59% 49% 40% Unclear statement 40 76 12 38 49 32 42 51 DK/NA 8 10 5 9 7 9 9 10 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Lied under oath 64% 52% 49% 45% 37% 51% 44% 70% Unclear statement 28 39 44 49 56 37 46 24 DK/NA 8 9 7 6 7 12 9 6
61. Do you think Jeff Sessions should resign over this matter or should he remain as U.S. Attorney General?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Resign 51% 11% 83% 52% 44% 58% 50% 36% Remain 42 80 12 42 52 33 43 56 DK/NA 7 8 5 6 4 9 6 8 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Resign 60% 52% 49% 45% 37% 49% 43% 70% Remain 31 42 46 50 60 40 50 23 DK/NA 9 7 5 5 3 10 7 7
62. Which of the following statements best describes your view of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' actions in this matter: he did something illegal, he did something unethical, but nothing illegal, or he did not do anything seriously wrong?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Illegal 34% 4% 58% 33% 29% 38% 35% 22% Unethical/Not illegl 29 27 35 28 27 31 26 32 Not seriously wrong 30 61 4 31 38 22 32 39 DK/NA 7 9 4 8 6 8 7 7 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Illegal 41% 31% 36% 28% 24% 32% 28% 46% Unethical/Not illegl 34 35 26 26 25 32 29 32 Not seriously wrong 14 28 34 41 46 27 36 15 DK/NA 11 6 4 6 4 9 7 7
65. Do you think Donald Trump should publicly release his tax returns, or not?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 67% 32% 95% 65% 60% 72% 68% 54% No 29 59 3 30 33 24 27 40 DK/NA 5 9 2 5 6 4 5 6 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes 73% 65% 66% 64% 55% 67% 61% 81% No 22 32 29 29 39 29 34 15 DK/NA 5 2 5 7 6 4 5 4
TREND: Do you think Donald Trump should publicly release his tax returns, or not?
Yes No DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 67 29 5 Feb 23, 2017 68 27 5
66. Do you support or oppose a review of President Trump's finances to identify possible conflicts of interest that may interfere with his job as president?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Support 66% 31% 88% 68% 61% 70% 68% 55% Oppose 30 62 9 28 35 26 29 41 DK/NA 4 7 3 4 5 4 3 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Support 73% 67% 63% 59% 56% 66% 61% 76% Oppose 21 32 32 36 40 30 35 18 DK/NA 6 2 4 5 3 4 4 5
TREND: Do you support or oppose a review of President Trump's finances to identify possible conflicts of interest that may interfere with his job as president? (*President-elect)
Sup Opp DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 66 30 4 Jan 26, 2017 70 27 3 Jan 10, 2017* 72 22 6
67. Since President Trump's election, have you become more politically active, less politically active, or are you just as politically active as before?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No More 34% 29% 46% 30% 29% 39% 34% 32% Less 4 4 5 4 5 3 3 4 Same 61 67 48 66 66 57 63 64 DK/NA - - - - - - - - AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht More 38% 36% 36% 26% 25% 40% 33% 37% Less 6 5 4 2 5 2 4 6 Same 55 59 59 71 69 58 64 56 DK/NA - - 1 1 - - - 1
TREND: Since President Trump's election, have you become more politically active, less politically active, or are you just as politically active as before?
More Less Same DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 34 4 61 - Feb 23, 2017 35 3 61 1
68. Have you recently become more interested in attending town hall meetings with your U.S. Senator or Congressperson, less interested, or are you just as interested in attending those meetings as before?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No More 28% 10% 42% 28% 26% 29% 30% 20% Less 11 12 10 10 8 13 7 12 Same 60 76 45 61 64 55 61 65 DK/NA 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht More 31% 30% 28% 21% 22% 28% 25% 34% Less 5 10 11 12 8 11 10 13 Same 62 59 58 62 69 58 63 50 DK/NA 2 - 3 5 2 2 2 3
70. When it comes to presidential elections, which do you believe is the biggest problem: voter fraud, voter suppression, or outside interference?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Voter fraud 33% 62% 10% 31% 38% 28% 28% 45% Voter suppression 34 9 57 32 32 35 38 25 Outside interference 26 20 27 29 22 29 26 21 DK/NA 8 10 6 7 7 8 8 9 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Voter fraud 29% 34% 32% 35% 42% 32% 36% 24% Voter suppression 42 37 31 26 30 32 31 40 Outside interference 24 25 28 27 21 26 24 32 DK/NA 5 4 9 12 7 10 9 4
TREND: When it comes to presidential elections, which do you believe is the biggest problem: voter fraud, voter suppression, or outside interference?
Voter Voter Outside Fraud Supprn Intrfrn DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 33 34 26 8 Feb 23, 2017 31 33 28 7 Feb 08, 2017 30 33 29 7
71. Does the election of Donald Trump make you feel more safe, less safe, or just as safe as you did before?
WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No More safe 28% 71% 2% 24% 32% 25% 25% 42% Less safe 49 4 86 47 39 57 52 33 Just as safe 23 24 12 29 29 18 22 26 DK/NA - - - - - - - - AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht More safe 15% 26% 32% 37% 38% 29% 34% 14% Less safe 54 50 48 43 33 51 42 63 Just as safe 31 24 20 19 29 19 24 22 DK/NA - - 1 1 - - - 1
TREND: Does the election of Donald Trump make you feel more safe, less safe, or just as safe as you did before?
More Less JustAs Safe Safe Safe DK/NA Mar 08, 2017 28 49 23 - Feb 23, 2017 27 51 21 1 Feb 08, 2017 33 50 16 1 Jan 26, 2017 28 45 26 1 Jan 10, 2017 27 45 27 1 Nov 22, 2016 29 39 32 1

Ivanka Trump PoorLittle Rich Girl: Documents reveal Ivanka, Jared have fortune worth over $740M

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Still Benefiting From Business Empire, Filings Show



President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, leaving the Oval Office in February.CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s daughter and son-in-law, will remain the beneficiaries of a sprawling real estate and investment business still worth as much as $740 million, despite their new government responsibilities, according to ethics filings released by the White House Friday night.

Ms. Trump will also maintain a stake in the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. The hotel, just down the street from the White House, has drawn protests from ethics experts who worry that foreign governments or special interests could stay there in order to curry favor with the administration.

It is unclear how Ms. Trump would earn income from that stake. Mr. Kushner’s financial disclosures said that Ms. Trump earned between $1 million and $5 million from the hotel between January 2016 and March 2017, and put the value of her stake at between $5 million and $25 million.

The disclosures were part of a broad, Friday-night document release by the White House that exposed the assets of as many as 180 senior officials to public scrutiny. The reports showed the assets and wealth of senior staff members at the time they entered government service.

This is just more testament to the stupidity and ignorance of at least half of the US electorate.

It is important, for the future edification and need for closure of the American tax payer/voter, that Trump's solitary confinement in a...

The word "earned" with regard to the second-generation beneficiaries of Fred Trump's lucre may be taken with a grain of salt. 

Those disclosures included the assets of Gary D. Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs who now leads the National Economic Council, Kellyanne Conway, the pollster and counsel to Mr. Trump and Stephen K. Bannon, the chief strategist to the president.

Mr. Bannon disclosed $191,000 in consulting fees he earned from Breitbart News Network, the conservative media organization, $125,333 from Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that worked for the Trump campaign, and $61,539 in salary from the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative nonprofit organization. All three are backed by Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, financiers and major Republican donors.

Mr. Bannon’s most valuable asset was Bannon Strategic Advisors Inc., a privately held consulting firm into which income from his other investments appeared to flow. It was valued at between $5 million and $25 million. He also held bank accounts valued at up to $2.25 million, and rental real estate worth as much as $10.5 million.

Ms. Conway earned at least $842,614 last year, and perhaps slightly more, the filings show. Her assets are valued at between $11 million and at least $44.2 million.

Mr. Cohn is far wealthier, with assets valued between $253 million and $611 million, and income last year as high as $77 million. Another White House official, Reed Cordish, who heads up technology initiatives, accumulated assets as a Maryland developer valued as high as $424 million.

Mr. Trump’s administration is considered the most wealthy in American history, with members of his senior staff and cabinet worth an estimated $12 billion, according to a tally by Bloomberg. The Friday filings will add voluminous detail to that top-line figure. The White house chief of staff, Reince Priebus, for example, earned at least $1.18 million — nearly half of which came from the Republican National Committee, which he formerly led. His assets totaled between $604,008 and at least $1.26 million.

“I think one of the really interesting things that people are going to see today — and I think it’s something that should be celebrated — is that the president has brought a lot of people into this administration, and this White House in particular, who have been very blessed and very successful,” said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. The officials “have given up a lot to come into government by setting aside a lot of assets,” he said.

Until January, Mr. Kushner was the chief executive of Kushner Companies, a family-run real estate investment firm with holdings across the country. It is a growing business that has taken part in at least $7 billion of acquisitions over the past decade.

Late Friday, the White House released details of the plan devised by his advisers to avoid conflicts of interest between Mr. Kushner’s government role and the wide-ranging business empire he ran with his father. That business depends on foreign investment from undisclosed sources, as well as billions of dollars in loans from the world’s biggest financial services firms.

Although Mr. Kushner has stepped down from his management positions at the more than 200 entities that operated aspects of the family real estate business, he will remain a beneficiary of a vast majority of the business he ran for the past decade, through a series of trusts that already owned the various real estate companies.

The plan laid out on Friday “is not sufficient,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel and chief ethics officer for the Federal Election Commission. “While removing himself from the management of the businesses is an important step, he is still financially benefiting from how the businesses do. This presents potential for a conflict of interest. Given his level in the White House and broad portfolio, it’s hard to see how he will recuse himself from everything that may impact his financial interest.”

While the filing discloses Mr. Kushner’s personal lenders, it does not provide information on his business partners or lenders to his projects.

His real estate firm has borrowed money from the likes of Goldman Sachs, the Blackstone Group, Deutsche Bank and the French bank Natixis. It also received loans from Israel’s largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, which is the subject of a United States Justice Department investigation into allegations that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes using undeclared accounts.

Most recently, his firm’s flagship property at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan was the subject of controversy: Around the time his father-in-law received the Republican nomination last spring, Mr. Kushner’s firm began conversations with a Chinese company with ties to some of the Communist Party’s leading families about a plan to invest billions of dollars in the troubled office tower.

Mr. Kushner’s company and the firm, Anbang Insurance Group, agreed to end the talks on Wednesday after weeks of negative publicity about the deal, criticized as a bailout of the Kushners. The building had already been rescued by a number of prominent firms, including the private equity giant Carlyle Group, and Zara, the Spanish fashion retailer founded and owned by Amancio Ortega, one of the world’s wealthiest men.

Mr. Kushner has divested his stakes in any businesses connected to that property.

The disclosures do not reveal the names of investors and lenders to ventures that Mr. Kushner is retaining a stake in. For example, the form shows Mr. Kushner is retaining a stake in a limited liability corporation that owns a Trump-branded luxury rental high-rise building in Jersey City worth as much as $5 million. That project was financed with tens of millions of dollars from wealthy Chinese investors through a controversial visa-for-sale program called EB-5.

However, the filing does not disclose the names of any of those investors — or partners in any of his other projects.

“We don’t know who the business partners are in many of these investments,” Mr. Noble said, “and those business partners may also have interests that will be affected by how he advises the government. And that’s a concern.”

“He could have foreign business partners who have a real interest in policy, and he may be advising the president on those policies,” Mr. Noble added. “This is a dark area where we just don’t know what’s going on.”

In all, the Kushner company owns more than 20,000 apartments and approximately 14 million square feet of office space.

Previous disclosures by the United States Office of Government Ethics showed that Mr. Kushner had divested his interests in several entities, mostly partnerships connected to a venture capital firm run by his brother, Joshua, called Thrive Capital, that invests in technology firms like Instagram.

He also shed his interests in funds run by the private equity giant Blackstone Group — whose chief executive, Stephen A. Schwarzman, is an economic adviser to Mr. Trump — as well as BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager.

Over all, he has shed his stakes in 58 businesses.

He is still the sole primary beneficiary of a majority of the trusts that will retain assets, with his children as the secondary beneficiaries.

Mr. Kushner was required to submit some limited financial information for his wife, Ms. Trump, who will continue to receive payments from the Trump Organization as well as her fashion brand.

Ms. Trump, who now serves as an assistant to the president, resigned from her leadership roles at both companies. Instead of performance-based payments, Ms. Trump will receive fixed payments from T International Realty, the family’s luxury brokerage agency, as well as fixed fees from two entities related to real estate projects, the documents show.

Ms. Trump had previously rolled her fashion brand into the Ivanka M. Trump Business Trust, which is overseen by her brother-in-law, Josh Kushner, and sister-in-law, Nicole Meyer. The documents released on Friday valued the trust at more than $50 million.

The brand is largely a licensing operation, meaning that it sells the use of Ms. Trump’s name to partners who manufacture her clothes, shoes and other accessories. Since it is privately held, little is known about the company’s financials, but The New York Times has previously reported that revenues were roughly between $4 million and $6 million in 2013, before the debut of a major partnership.

The disclosure forms released Friday for less senior White House staff members were not reviewed by the federal Office of Government Ethics. Only the White House Counsel’s Office examines their assets to determine if there are potential conflicts, and to decide what steps employees must take to sell assets, resign positions or recuse themselves from decisions.

Already, a complaint has been filed against at least one White House staff member for taking actions that might benefit his own financial interests. Christopher P. Liddell, an assistant to the president and the director of strategic initiatives, had been the chief financial officer of companies including Microsoft, International Paper and General Motors before taking his White House job. Until recently, he also owned stock in General Motors, according to disclosure forms, among more than 750 other companies.

But in late January and early February, according to a complaint filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Mr. Liddell participated in meetings that involved several of the companies in which he still owned a total of about $2 million in stock, including International Paper and General Motors. Mr. Liddell, according to disclosures, sold these stock holdings by mid-February.273COMMENTS

“It is Ethics 101 — the most basic thing you are not supposed to do: using your official capacity to benefit your financial interest,” said Norman Eisen, who served as a White House ethics lawyer during the Obama administration and now is a co-chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The White House did not respond Friday when asked about the complaint.

Ivanka Trump.... hardly a good Ambassador for Working Women

Ivanka Trump at a meeting at the White House in February. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

Ivanka Trump will now have an official job at the White House. It’s an unpaid role as an adviser to her father, the president, but it comes with an office, a title and, presumably, an even higher perch from which to fashion herself as a crusader for working women.

“Policies that allow women with children to thrive should not be novelties — they should be the norm,” she said at the Republican National Convention last summer. She has written a book, to be published in May, called “Women Who Work.” In her very own West Wing office she will shepherd policy related to “women in the workplace,” according to her lawyer. In April she’s headed to a summit meeting in Berlin on women in the work force.

While Ms. Trump may want to be the new face of working motherhood, the reality of the policies she has devised for her father diverge starkly from her rhetoric. They offer very little to most parents, especially the ones who really need the support.

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump unveiled his daughter’s plan for six weeks of paid leave for women who give birth. When pressed, Ms. Trump made it clear that her policy was tailored specifically for coping with childbirth and was not meant for new fathers or parents who adopt.

It’s a plan that is likely to hurt all working women more than help them.

Employers are already more hesitant to hire mothers than other candidates, male or female. Part of what they fear, fair or not, is investing in an employee who will then leave to care for her children for some unknown period, taking all her training and knowledge with her and requiring the company to spend resources hiring a replacement.

Their anxiety will be amplified if women are afforded time off from work for a new child and men aren’t. If only mothers get a paid leave benefit when their family welcomes a new child, the stigma falls squarely on one gender.

That stigma then spreads from mothers to all women, even if they don’t have or plan to have kids. Any female employee within a certain age range becomes a risk if she could decide to take six weeks off at some point. Women are transformed into potential mothers and therefore potential costs.

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Experience elsewhere offers some evidence that this is what will happen. On the whole, other developed countries — all of which ensure new mothers get paid leave — are attracting and keeping more women in their work forces than the United States. But there can be negative consequences depending on how they do it. Research has found that giving mothers long leaves that don’t apply to men depresses their earnings and makes them less likely to move up to higher positions. Other policies aimed just at women, such as a law in Chile that required employers with a large share of female employees to provide child care assistance, have had similar effects. Employers turn women away if they become more expensive than men.

The solution here isn’t complicated: Extend paid leave to all new parents. When California established gender-neutral paid family leave, the number of fathers taking time to be with their infants doubled. Women’s earnings and employment go up when men take more leave.

Ms. Trump and administration officials are reportedly now considering a plan that also covers fathers and adoptive parents and changes the funding structure, though a more expansive benefit program is going to be a very tough sell to Republicans in Congress.

The child care plan that Ms. Trump put forward isn’t much better than her paid-leave idea. Her proposal to allow parents to fully deduct the cost of care up to a certain limit would apply to all parents, unlike maternity leave. But it would give the biggest benefit to those who need it least. Even though it includes a tax credit for families with the lowest incomes, the bulk of the policy is a tax deduction, which is worth much more to those who owe the most taxes.

According to analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, families that make more than $100,000 a year would gobble up 70 percent of the total benefits. Those making less than $40,000, on the other hand, would get about a $20 boost to their incomes — not much compared with the thousands of dollars it can cost to put a child in day care. Yet poorer families spend a much larger share of their incomes on child care than those with more means.

These proposed child care tax credits, shortcomings and all, would cost the government $115 billion over the next decade.

Rather than offer a step toward something better later, Ms. Trump’s plan

could stymie progress. If she were somehow able to persuade members of Congress to pass a pricey child care plan that does nothing to address the real concerns for most families, it would allow them to claim they already did something about the issue and ignore other, superior solutions. Worse, she risks giving them sticker shock without actually doing anything for families that aren’t wealthy. Conservatives are already calling her plan “mammoth.” If a real, comprehensive solution were to come down the road, would they have any appetite for it after this?

The climbing cost of child care has led to a 5 percent reduction in women’s employment in the United States in the past two decades. The lack of investment in child care is another reason other developed countries surpass this country on the percentage of women in the work force. No wonder, when far more women than men say they’ve had to take long chunks of time off from work to care for their families. Meanwhile, mothers with steady child care are twice as likely to stay in their jobs. If they were all able to get their kids into early childhood education programs, mothers’ employment would increase by 10 percent. A tax benefit for rich families won’t do it.

The politics of paid leave and child care have certainly shifted: They’re now bipartisan issues, at least among some lawmakers. But it is important not just that the country adopt these policies, but what kinds of policies it adopts. If Ms. Trump wants to champion working women, she needs to offer more than photo ops and empty promises.

​Looking for a host for a free Shabbat meal ( with or without accommodation) or a invitation to a free Pesach seder near you.( or in other 123 countries)?? ​Whatever Movement of Judaism you follow , Secular, Traditional to Modern Orthodox Machmir ,Chabad, Haradi or Hassid ....Join http://www.shabbat.com/ ​( it is completely free)​

​


Looking for a host for a free Shabbat meal ( with or without accommodation) or a invitation to a free Pesach seder near you.( or in other 123 countries)?Whatever Movement of Judaism you follow , Secular, Traditional to Modern Orthodox Machmir ,Chabad, Haradi or Hassid ....Join http://www.shabbat.com/ ​( it is completely free)​ for free Shabbat meals and hey its not too late to join http://www.seder.com to find a Pesach seder host( completely free)

Shabbat.com has been endorsed by both Chief Rabbi "s of Israel David Lau and Yitschak Yosef Israel)+ Rafi Peretz ( previous IDF Chief Rabbi) , Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis ( Great Britain), Chief Rabbi Haim Korsia ( France) and Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein ( South Africa) . Shabbat.com is not a commercial site and absolutely everything is completely free with no hidden charges . Shabbat.com matches Hosts with Guests for Shabbos and Chaggim Meals and because this service appeals most to singles ( as guests) there is also a dating ( matching module) . In Israel there are just over 3000 singles with dating profiles. The Dating ( Matching) module differs from other Jewish equivalents in that their is no anonymity , no silly lists that need to be completed , you write you own narrative and what you are looking for in your Match and Basheret and do your own matchmaking. Hosting Guests for Shabbat and Chaggim is a Mitzvah ....obviously for free . Matchmaking is a Jewish profession as old as time in memorial.... also a Mitzvah.... the Yenta in Fiddler on the Roof in the 21st Century has been replaced by Social Media ..... you can do your own matchmaking on Shabbat.com orR use or use Yenta,a Shmenta ( a modern day Yenta) Aunt, Sister, Best Friend or nagging Mom .Get them all to join and may the Chuppah be with You ( soon) with apologies to George Lucas.

Shabbat.com is the largest Jewish Social Media Patform in the world. It resembles Facebook in many ways. No advertising. No membership charges . 243,765 members in 122 countries , as of right now . 72% are singles .67% have dating files with pictures . Join Shabbat.com and find your George Cooney with payot . Your Bar Refaeli who wants to cover her hair and wear skirts .or perhaps both without their religious statement. Shabbat,com caters for all different degrees of religious adherence from in the process of conversion, Secular, Traditional,Conservadox to National Religious ,Haradi, Chabadnik and Hassidi כמובן אפשר להירשם בעברית http://www.shabbat.com

another free Jewish Matching site worth join is http://yamsuf.com/ ( it is also free) with over 51 shadchannim , matchmakers .... obviously for traditional to hasidic orientated  people and not at really all for secular Jews

​and hey I am looking for (seriously) my basheret 2.0 in her late thirties , forties and maybe early 50's for another go at that big M (chuppah+ kids or and puppies to raise together ) Check out my own dating profile, investment portfolio and financial disclose to ROR ( for your two barrel shotgun dad/ brother) and MI6,CIA, FBI, Mossad, Shin Bet files ( for that suspicious best friend/ and my family heritage from Poland, Latvia, Lithuania South Africa and Zion (for your Bobbie/Yiddisha Mama ) ​. 72 references are also attached ....including 67 related to performance in bed ​. Yes , I am witty and wise, flirty and funny , self effacing and have a huge internet footprint that I cannot now escape ...... http://www.shabbat.com/profile/dating/stephen.darori/

.......and hey if you reached this final line of my post ( I am the pro bono publicist of shabbat.com) .... do share it ..

#OYVEYDonaldTrump's Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

Reprinted from The New York Times with permission of the newspaper and authors Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo




Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. CreditSam Hodgson for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. At one point last summer, Mr. Trump said at a campaign event that he hoped Russian intelligence services had stolen Hillary Clinton’s emails and would make them public.
The dimension of the political apocalypse that is happening right in front of our faces is hard to comprehend because we are smack in the...
Michael Hoffman February 16, 2017

Your sources are anonymous. This paragraph reveals how flimsy and scurrilous your charges are:"The officials would not disclose many...
Jim February 16, 2017

Lots of Trump supporters are clinging to the apparent fact that there is no evidence of collusion yet. This may be because of US laws that...

The officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other associates of Mr. Trump. On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the government outside of the intelligence services, they said. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified.

The officials said that one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Ukraine. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.

The call logs and intercepted communications are part of a larger trove of information that the F.B.I. is sifting through as it investigates the links between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russian government, as well as the hacking of the D.N.C., according to federal law enforcement officials. As part of its inquiry, the F.B.I. has obtained banking and travel records and conducted interviews, the officials said.

Mr. Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the officials’ accounts in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “This is absurd,” he said. “I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today.”

He added, “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

Several of Mr. Trump’s associates, like Mr. Manafort, have done business in Russia. And it is not unusual for American businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society. Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts might have been about business.

The officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, the identity of the Russian intelligence officials who participated, and how many of Mr. Trump’s advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Mr. Trump himself.

A report from American intelligence agencies that was made public in January concluded that the Russian government had intervened in the election in part to help Mr. Trump, but did not address whether any members of the Trump campaign had participated in the effort.

The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, and Sergey I. Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States. In those calls, which led to Mr. Flynn’s resignation on Monday night, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December.

But the cases are part of American intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ routine electronic surveillance of the communications of foreign officials.

The F.B.I. declined to comment. The White House also declined to comment Tuesday night, but earlier in the day, the press secretary, Sean Spicer, stood by Mr. Trump’s previous comments that nobody from his campaign had contact with Russian officials before the election.

“There’s nothing that would conclude me that anything different has changed with respect to that time period,” Mr. Spicer said in response to a question.

Two days after the election in November, Sergei A. Ryabkov, the deputy Russian foreign minister, said “there were contacts” during the campaign between Russian officials and Mr. Trump’s team.

“Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Mr. Ryabkov told Russia’s Interfax news agency.

The Trump transition team denied Mr. Ryabkov’s statement. “This is not accurate,” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said at the time.

The National Security Agency, which monitors the communications of foreign intelligence services, initially captured the calls between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russians as part of routine foreign surveillance. After that, the F.B.I. asked the N.S.A. to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls, and to search through troves of previous intercepted communications that had not been analyzed.

The F.B.I. has closely examined at least three other people close to Mr. Trump, although it is unclear if their calls were intercepted. They are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign; Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative; and Mr. Flynn.

All of the men have strongly denied that they had any improper contacts with Russian officials.

As part of the inquiry, the F.B.I. is also trying to assess the credibility of the information contained in a dossier that was given to the bureau last year by a former British intelligence operative. The dossier contained a raft of allegations of a broad conspiracy between Mr. Trump, his associates and the Russian government. It also included unsubstantiated claims that the Russians had embarrassing videos that could be used to blackmail Mr. Trump.

The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims.

Senior F.B.I. officials believe that the former British intelligence officer who compiled the dossier, Christopher Steele, has a credible track record, and he briefed investigators last year about how he obtained the information. One American law enforcement official said that F.B.I. agents had made contact with some of Mr. Steele’s sources.

The agency’s investigation of Mr. Manafort began last spring as an outgrowth of a criminal investigation into his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country’s former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. It has focused on why he was in such close contact with Russian and Ukrainian intelligence officials.

The bureau did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant for a wiretap of Mr. Manafort’s communications, but it had the N.S.A. scrutinize the communications of Ukrainian officials he had met.

The F.B.I. investigation is proceeding at the same time that separate investigations into Russian interference in the election are gaining momentum on Capitol Hill. Those investigations, by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, are examining not only the Russian hacking but also any contacts that Mr. Trump’s team had with Russian officials during the campaign.

On Tuesday, top Republican lawmakers said that Mr. Flynn should be one focus of the investigation, and that he should be called to testify before Congress. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said the news about Mr. Flynn underscored “how many questions still remain unanswered to the American people more than three months after Election Day, including who was aware of what, and when.”

1968 Democratic convention Protests - The Chicago Seven Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Tom Haydena

.

Poster in support of the "Conspiracy 8"

The Chicago Seven (originally Chicago Eight, also Conspiracy Eight/Conspiracy Seven) were seven defendants—Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, and Lee Weiner—charged by the federal government with conspiracy, inciting to riot, and other charges related to anti-Vietnam War and countercultural protests that took place in Chicago, Illinois, on the occasion of the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Bobby Seale, the eighth man charged, had his trial severed during the proceedings, lowering the number of defendants from eight to seven.

Seale was eventually sentenced to four years in prison for contempt of court, although this ruling was later reversed.

After a federal trial resulting in both acquittals and convictions, followed by appeals, and reversals, some of the seven defendants were finally convicted, although all of the convictions were reversed.

Background

The 1968 Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago in late August to select the party's candidates for the November 1968 presidential election. Prior to and during the convention—which took place at the International Amphitheatre—rallies, demonstrations, marches, and attempted marches took place on the streets and in the lakefront parks, about five miles away from the convention site. These activities were primarily in protest of President Lyndon B. Johnson's policies for the Vietnam War, policies which were vigorously contested during the presidential primary campaign and inside the convention.

Anti-war groups had petitioned the city of Chicago for permits to march five miles from the central business district (the Chicago Loop) to within sight of the convention site, to hold a number of rallies in the lakefront parks and also near the convention, and to camp in Lincoln Park. The city denied all permits, except for one afternoon rally at the old bandshell at the south end of Grant Park. The city also enforced an 11:00 pm curfew in Lincoln Park. Confrontations with protesters ensued as the police enforced the curfew, stopped attempts to march to the International Amphitheatre, and cleared crowds from the streets.

The Grant Park rally on Wednesday, August 28, 1968, was attended by about 15,000 protesters; other nearby activities involved hundreds or thousands of protesters. After the large rally outside of the venue, several thousand protesters attempted to march to the International Amphitheatre, but were stopped in front of the Conrad Hilton Hotel, where the presidential candidates and their campaigns were headquartered. Police worked to push the protesters out of the street, using tear gas, verbal and physical confrontation, and police batons to beat people; protesters retaliated by throwing rocks and bottles, and damaging private commercial property. The police made scores of arrests. The television networks broadcast footage of these violent clashes, cutting away from the nominating speeches for the presidential candidates.

Over the course of five days and nights, the police made numerous arrests, in addition to using tear gas, mace, and batons on the marchers.Hundreds of police officers and protesters were injured. Dozens of journalists covering the actions were also clubbed by police or had cameras smashed and film confiscated. In the aftermath of what was later characterized as a "police riot" by the U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violencea federal grand jury indicted eight demonstrators and eight police officers.

Grand jury and indictment

Following the convention on September 9, 1968, a federal grand jury was convened to consider criminal charges. The grand jury focused on the possible grounds for charges in four areas:

• A conspiracy by protesters to cross state lines to incite a riot;
• Violations by police of the civil rights of demonstrators by use of excessive force;
• TV network violations of the Federal Communications Act; and
• TV network violations of federal wiretap laws.

Over the course of more than six months, the grand jury met 30 times and heard some 200 witnesses. President Lyndon Johnson's Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, discouraged an indictment, believing that the violence during the convention was primarily caused by mishandling of the protests by the Chicago police. The grand jury returned indictments only after President Richard Nixon took office and John Mitchell assumed the office of Attorney General. On March 20, 1969, eight protesters were charged with various federal crimes and eight police officers were charged with civil rights violations.

Charges

The eight defendants were charged under the anti-riot provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968which made it a federal crime to cross state lines with the intent to incite a riot. The Chicago Eight indictments alleged crimes of three kinds:

• That all eight defendants conspired (together with another 16 other co-conspirators who were not indicted) to cross state lines to incite a riot, to teach the making of an incendiary device, and to commit acts to impede law enforcement officers in their lawful duties.
• That David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Bobby Seale individually crossed state lines to incite a riot.
• That John Froines and Lee Weiner instructed other persons in the construction and use of an incendiary device.

The 16 alleged co-conspirators who avoided prosecution were: Wolfe B. Lowenthal, Stewart E. Albert, Sidney M. Peck, Kathy Boudin, Corina F. Fales, Benjamin Radford, Thomas W. Neumann, Craig Shimabukuro, Bo Taylor, David A. Baker, Richard Bosciano, Terry Gross, Donna Gripe, Benjamin Ortiz, Joseph Toornabene, and Richard Palme
Trial[edit]

Bobby Seale as depicted by Franklin McMahon at the trial.

The original eight defendants indicted by the grand jury on March 20, 1969, were Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale. The trial began on September 24, 1969. The defense attorneys were William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the judge was Julius Hoffman, and the prosecutors were Richard Schultz and Tom Foran. On October 9, the governor of Illinois requested the United States National Guard for crowd control as demonstrations increased outside the courtroom.

When the names of the defendants were mentioned in court, at the early part of the trial, Judge Hoffman made a comment about defendant Abbie Hoffman; "He is not my son." In an immediate reply, Abbie called out, "Dad, dad, have you forsaken me?!"

Early in the course of the trial, Black Panther Party activist Bobby Seale was denied his constitutional right to counsel of his choice and was thereafter illegally denied his right to defend himself. Seale requested that the trial postponed so that his attorney Charles Garry could represent him (as Garry was about to undergo gallbladder surgery). The Judge denied the postponement, and refused to allow Seale to represent himself. Seale vehemently protested the judge's illegal and unconstitutional actions, and arguing that they were not only illegal, but also racist. The judge in turn accused Seale of disrupting the court, and on October 29, Judge Hoffman ordered Bobby Seale to be bound, gagged, and chained to a chair, citing a precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois v. Allen.For several days, Seale appeared in court bound and gagged before the jury, struggling to get free and managing to make muffled sounds. Defense attorney Kunstler declared, "This is no longer a court of order, Your Honor, this is a medieval torture chamber." (This was alluded to in Graham Nash's song, "Chicago", which opened with: "So your brother's bound and gagged, and they've chained him to a chair"). Ultimately, Judge Hoffman severed Seale from the case, sentencing him to four years in prison for contempt of court, one of the longest sentences ever handed down for that offense in the U.S. up to that time.Due to the judge's unconstitutional actions, the contempt charges against Seale were soon overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The Chicago Eight were then reduced to the Chicago Seven. The defendants, particularly members of the Youth International Party ("yippies"), Hoffman and Rubin, mocked courtroom decorum and the widely publicized trial became a focal point for a growing legion of protesters. One day, defendants Hoffman and Rubin appeared in court dressed in judicial robes. When the judge ordered them to remove the robes, they complied, to reveal that they were wearing Chicago police uniforms underneath. Hoffman blew kisses at the jury. Judge Hoffman was a frequent target of the defendants, who insulted him to his face. Abbie Hoffman (no relation) told Judge Hoffman "you are a shande fur de Goyim [disgrace in front of the gentiles]. You would have served Hitler better." He later added that "your idea of justice is the only obscenity in the room." Both Davis and Rubin told the judge "this court is bullshit."


I pointed out that it was in the best interests of the City to have us in Lincoln Park ten miles away from the Convention hall. I said we had no intention of marching on the Convention hall, that I didn't particularly think that politics in America could be changed by marches and rallies, that what we were presenting was an alternative life style, and we hoped that people of Chicago would come up, and mingle in Lincoln Park and see what we were about.
— Abbie Hoffman, from the Chicago Seven trial.
“ While defending the Chicago Seven, [Kunstler] put the war in Vietnam on trial—asking Judy Collins to sing "Where Have All The Flowers Gone" from the witness stand, placing a Viet Cong flag on the defence table, and wearing a black armband to commemorate the war dead. ”
— Ron Kuby, in his 1995 eulogy of Kunstler.


The trial extended for months, with many celebrated figures from the American left and counterculture called to testify, including singers Phil Ochs, Judy Collins, Arlo Guthrie, and Country Joe McDonald; writers Norman Mailer and Allen Ginsberg; and activists Timothy Leary and Rev. Jesse Jackson. Ochs, who was involved in planning for the demonstrations, told the court that he had acquired a pig to nominate as a presidential candidate. Rubin had tried to deliver the acceptance speech for the pig, named Pigasus, but before he could finish, police arrested him and Ochs under a livestock ordinance; this charge was later changed to disorderly conduct.

Contempt citations

While the jury deliberated on the verdict, Judge Hoffman cited all the defendants—plus their lawyers Kunstler and Weinglass—for numerous contempts of court, imposing sentences ranging from 2½ months to four years.

Verdict

On February 18, 1970, each of the seven defendants was acquitted of conspiracy. Two (Froines and Weiner) were acquitted completely, while the remaining five were convicted of crossing state lines with the intent to incite a riot. The crime was instituted by the anti-riot provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, a provision that was introduced in the House by Representative William C. Cramer of FloridaOn February 20, they were sentenced to five years in prison and fined $5,000 each.

Appeal

On November 21, 1972, all of the convictions were reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the basis that the judge was biased in his refusal to permit defense attorneys to screen prospective jurors for cultural and racial bias.[19] The Justice Department decided against retrying the case. During the trial, all of the defendants and both defense attorneys had been cited for contempt and sentenced to jail, but those convictions were also overturned on appeal.

The contempt charges were retried before a different judge, who found Dellinger, Rubin, Hoffman, and Kunstler guilty of some of the charges, but did not sentence any of them to jail or fines.