Why The U.S. Government Pays Lockheed Martin Billions


Lockheed Martin is the top grossing defense
firm in the world, and the U.S. government supports that business to
the tune of over $37.7 billion. It surpasses its closest
competitors, Boeing and Raytheon, by nearly $20 billion in arms sales. These funds are granted by Congress
to provide equipment that enables the U.S. military to protect the
country at home and abroad. So why is Lockheed the
defense darling of the U.S. government? And how did it
beat out its competitors? One of the top priorities of
all administrations is the protection and safety of the American people. To ensure that, politicians work
with defense contractors to provide equipment to the military. This partnership provides a unique
opportunity for private corporations to execute the will of the government
and requires a delicate balance. President Eisenhower, in his farewell
address, coined the term military-industrial complex. And what he was talking about
was the close connection and collaboration between arms contractors
and uniformed military. In the councils of government, we
must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought
or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The political incentives of the U.S. Congress and the Department of Defense tended
to work together in a way that created enormous incentives
to increase military spending. For example, when there’s a major
weapons program like, say, the F-35, which is the current Air Force
combat aircraft, is being purchased, members of Congress might have questions
about this plane like is it performing well? Are we getting a good
deal for our money and so forth. They are reluctant to vote against it
because it means going up against potential jobs in their states. The Congress people in whose district
those companies are located and the Defense Department that then gets to
use the equipment that is purchased in this way. And Eisenhower believed
that that complex of the military, the industry and the government, the
Congress in particular, created a tendency for the United States
to overspend on national security. For most of the defense industry, their
biggest source of business is the Department of Defense. So they kind of
live and die with the defense budget as it increases, the revenue
increases, as it decreases, the revenue decreases. Waging an actual war is
a very expensive project. The 9/11 attacks in 2001 were a shock
to the American psyche, led to a substantial ramping up of U.S. military spending in the years after
2001, partly because of the immediate issue of terrorism and partly because
of the closely related but second order problems of the wars that
the counterterrorist program led to in Afghanistan and Iraq. The price tag gets huge. And so American defense spending has
grown radically since 2001 and remains very high. And Lockheed Martin is the
top-contracted company by the U.S. government. In 2018 alone,
the company sold $37.7 billion worth of contracts
to the U.S. government, making up 70%
of their net sales. The other 28% came from foreign military
sales and 2% came from commercial and other customers. Lockheed’s total revenue in 2018
was about $53 billion. By contrast, Lockheed’s next biggest
competitor, Boeing, was awarded about $23 billion from government
contracts the same year. So even though Boeing is a much
larger company with $101 billion in total revenue in 2018, only a small portion
of its business relies on defense contracts. Boeing might be a prominent example
where they do get a lot of revenue from the commercial business falling,
in fact, it’s about two thirds of its revenue from commercial
aviation, about a third from its defense business. Boeing mostly makes
planes for commercial airlines, but it also has a robust business
making military aircraft and other weapons. The next largest
competitor is Raytheon. Raytheon is a prominent defense firm
that offers services in everything from cybersecurity to
missile defense. 68% of Raytheon’s net sales
came from the U.S. government in 2018, which
means about $18.4 billion. They list
their principal U.S. government customer as the U.S. Department of Defense, as
does Lockheed Martin. However, before Lockheed Martin got
this very crucial customer, it struggled to define its identity. Glenn L. Martin opened his aviation
company on August 16th, 1912. The company went on to become one
of the earliest suppliers of the U.S. military, making aircraft for both
the army and the navy. They went on from success to success
through the twenties and the thirties pioneering all sorts of new
aircrafts, but particularly military airplanes. In 1961, the
second Glenn L. Martin Company merged with
the American Marietta Corporation. It was renamed the
Martin Marietta Corporation. The same year, Glenn Martin
launched his aviation business, the Lockheed brothers launched their
aviation business, the Alco Hydro Aeroplane Company, which was later
named Lockheed Aircraft Company. Lockheed, L-o-u-g-h-e-a-d, is
pronounced like Lockheed. People had a hard time pronouncing it
that led to the brothers legally changing the spelling of
their surname to Lockheed. Malcolm went on to start a
successful car hydraulic brake company, and Alan resigned after the company
was bought by Detroit Aircraft Corporation. But the company didn’t last
long and fell into receivership under the Title Insurance and Trust
Company of Los Angeles, officially killing Lockheed Aircraft Corp., which was a subsidiary. Its assets were sold off to Robert
Gross and other investors who went on to form a new Lockheed
Aircraft Corporation of Delaware. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation changed its
name in 1977 to Lockheed Corporation to demonstrate they offer
other services besides aviation. Those two companies, the Martin
Marietta Corporation and Lockheed Corporation, were two prominent competitors
in the defense marketplace. However, that marketplace has never
been completely independent of the government’s actions, just as President
Eisenhower had warned when he spoke of the
military-industrial complex. Military procurement had declined around 52%
from 1985 to 1997 in current dollar terms. Before 2001,
many people believed that national security had become a lot easier with
the end of the Cold War and that the United States could take what
was referred to at the time, a peace dividend. The much larger defensive
efforts that the United States had made during the Cold War when
we had to fight Soviet Union weren’t necessary anymore when the Soviet Union
collapsed and the Cold War ended. So defense budgets tended to decline. Leadership at the Department of Defense
inferred that the defense industry would have to shrink around 40% in
order to save the industry from collapsing amid declining demand
from the department. Officials encouraged companies to consolidate in
an effort to save each other. At the end of the Cold
War, there were concerns about whether the Pentagon budget, which was going to come down
about 10 to 25 percent or so was projected in real terms. Could that smaller budget sustain
the same number of contractors? And William Perry, the secretary of
defense, in the administration felt the answer was no. In fact, in
1993, the government asked specifically for less competition among
defense contractors. Look to your left.
Look to your right. One of your companies is not going to
be here in a couple of years. And then you also had
the infamous Last Supper. We think there are too many companies
in this business and we want to merge and combine with one another at
reduced costs to us, overhead costs at the corporate level. Norm Augustine
kind of engineered the whole series of mergers. Infamously or famously, Norm Augustine
who at the time was the head of Martin Marietta was at the
table with a bunch of other industry haters. And he was one of
the most aggressive executives taking that guidance and running with it. And he became CEO of the
combined Lockheed Martin and also consolidated and purchased lot of other
companies. Lockheed Martin absorbed large companies like Ford Aerospace
and Loral Corporation. Basically the big winner and that
consolidation after the Last Supper was Lockheed Martin. It was after that
that Lockheed aircraft and Martin Mary had emerged. In 1958, Lockheed Martin
proposed to Northrop Grumman and the government actually told them
not to do that. They cancelled that transaction. They said they wouldn’t approve it
and the idea was dropped. So that was that’s kind of, if
you will, the sort of the generally accepted end of the the
Last Supper consolidation era. By 2000, the industry had consolidated
into the marketplace we know today with Lockheed on top. So the way
the industry is structured now, the barriers to enter are huge. Unless they
brought up some of the existing companies, you’re only going to have
a couple of competitors for most things you might want to
do. Lockheed Martin now stretches into four business segments:
Aeronautics, Missiles and Fire Control, Rotary and Mission
Systems and space. It’s a company that has combined with
other companies over time to gain its current market position as the
largest company in the world. In 2019, Raytheon and United Technologies
announced intention to merge to have a better edge
on the defense industry. To protect their profits, companies like
Lockheed Martin also sell their aircraft to American allies when
cleared by the State Department. When the defense budget in the U.S. started to fall, a lot of companies
really amped up their work to sell products overseas. So depending on the company, that’s probably
now like 25 to 30 percent of their revenue may come
from international sales. That’s one way the government
controls the defense marketplace. Another way is through direct
negotiations with industry CEOs. In the 2017 fiscal year, the
then president, Barack Obama, proposed a budget of $582.7 billion for the
Department of Defense. The following year in 2018, President
Trump proposed a budget of $639.1 billion. For the fiscal year 2019,Trump
proposed a budget of $716 billion for national security, with $686
billion for the Department of Defense. And looking to the future,
Trump proposed a budget of $750 billion with $718.3 billion going to the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year 2020. The company was well positioned in the
Obama years as well because, you know, he actually spent significant money
in this decade, which includes most of the Obama two terms. We’ve spent a trillion more on the
Pentagon than in the prior decade, which was at the peak of
the Iraq and Afghan wars. President Barack Obama appointed Lockheed
CEO Marillyn Hewson to the president’s export council in
September of 2013. Marillyn Hewson from Lockheed Martin. Obviously, one of our greatest innovators
and one of those innovations is the F-35 fighter jet. It is the most advanced
fighter in the world. It’s stealth. You cannot see it. Is that correct? That’s correct. Better be correct. Right? A single F-35
can cost over $80 million and the government hasn’t always been happy with
the F-35’s performance and price. Then President-elect Donald Trump thought
the F-35’s program delays and high costs were bad for business. This one from the president-elect based
on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I’ve
asked Boeing to price out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet. This caused Lockheed Martin shares to
fall around 2% and sent Boeing shares up 0.5%. In January 2017, Trump commented on
the tension of his negotiation with Lockheed Martin. Look at
what’s happening with Lockheed. Number one, we’re cutting the price of
their planes by a lot, but they’re also expanding. And that’s going
to be a good thing. Ultimately, they’re going to
be better off. Hewson is actually in this very
interesting sweet spot where the defense budgets never been bigger
under any presidency. So that gives her company a lot of
leeway to snatch up a lot of those contracts. I don’t see any realistic
chance that there’s another company that’s going to exceed Lockheed Martin
in the next five years. Lockheed Martin will be delivering 478
F-35 aircraft to the U.S. government under their biggest deal yet,
a $34 billion contract with the Pentagon. In 2019, the U.S. government also approved the sale of 32
F-35 jets to Poland for around $6.5 billion so the company is poised
to be successful among allies as well. When you look at Lockheed’s diverse
portfolio and you pair that with a defense budget at a tune of
$700 billion, of course Lockheed is prime suited to pick up more government contracts
and to ride even more of a successful wave.

Why Companies Like Google And Facebook Pay Hackers Millions


Think about hackers. The term probably brings to mind
hooded figures operating in the dark, probably in a basement,
definitely in secret. They’re exploiting vulnerabilities, stealing our
money or our personal information, and costing
companies millions. In fact, cybercrime costs the world
an estimated $600 billion dollars per year. But the past decade has seen a
rise in a new type of hacker called an ethical hacker, or
a white hat hacker. These men and women want to use
their hacking know-how for good, and a legal market for their
skills has rapidly emerged. There’s this creativity, there’s this curiosity
and there’s this kind of almost mischief in how you think. But then that’s coupled with a
strong moral framework and ethical framework to actually use
that for good. These hackers help companies protect
themselves by finding vulnerabilities before the criminal hackers do. When an ethical hacker finds a bug,
they disclose the security issue in exchange for cash or other rewards, in
what’s known as a bug bounty program. So we’re like
a neighborhood watch. We come to your house, we look for ways
to break in, and if we can break in, we tell you. We don’t break in, we tell you
how we could have done it. Companies like HackerOne, Bugcrowd and Synack
have sprung up to connect freelance hackers with corporations that
offer bug bounty programs. This has led to the creation
of a geographically dispersed network of cybersecurity experts, a.k.a. hackers, who are integral to the
safety of corporations in every industry from tech to finance
to national defense. We work with MasterCard, we work
with Fiat Chrysler in the automotive space, we work with Cisco
in the engineering I.T. technology space, you know
Department of Defense, Pinterest. These days, hackers can make a lot
of money identifying security flaws for companies like these. The payout for finding a single,
highly critical vulnerability can be tens of thousands of dollars, and some
companies have paid out millions overall. I know Verizon Digital Media
actually just passed $7 million dollars in bounties paid. Uber has paid out
over $2 million dollars. Hacking for good is gaining traction
and there’s big money at stake. So it may be time for the public
to rethink its conception of what being a hacker really means. Ever since computers have existed, people
have been trying to break into them. Back when these machines were
clunky novelties found only in universities and large corporations, hackers
were commonly seen as tinkerers, technology enthusiasts who
liked exploring and altering existing computer programs. They made improvements that helped
move the industry forward. But with the emergence of the
personal computer in the 1980s, cybercrimes became much more common. From the comfort of their
living rooms, self-taught programmers learned how to break into and manipulate
important systems, pirate software and spread viruses. I broke into mostly websites
belonging to corporations, governments, military agencies and
just defaced them. I changed them. A lot
of people went to jail. Like a lot of
people got nasty letters. A lot of people got
knocks on the door. And that’s really the history of
hacking that actually precedes this season that we’re in now. Ended up getting arrested several times
by the federal government for that. And they sent me to prison for
27 months, 10 months and 14 months. Three separate occasions. Ellis began hacking in the 1990s,
and DeVoss in the early 2000s. By then, the hacker stereotype was
already well established, thanks to media like the popular 1983 movie
WarGames, which revolved around a disaffected but intelligent teen accidentally
hacking into a top secret military supercomputer nearly starting
World War 3. Even though the young protagonist wasn’t
malicious, the idea that computer whizzes could gain access to systems
like this terrified the public. After Ronald Reagan watched the film,
he proposed a number of anti-hacking bills resulting in the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, which prohibits anyone from intentionally accessing
a computer without authorization. And it hasn’t really
been changed since. So it is legal in the sense that
if there is authorization, then at that point they have safe harbor. But outside of that,
it is basically illegal. Because the law doesn’t really define
what “authorization” means, it isn’t exactly clear how it relates to
our new reality, where cybersecurity is increasingly outsourced. Security used to be
something you fix internally. It’s very secretive, it’s not
transparent, it’s not open. And we’re seeing a shift towards
security becoming more and more collaborative and enlisting
outside help. For a company, enlisting this outside
help often means starting a bug bounty program, in which corporations pay
hackers who report bugs or vulnerabilities in their software. What’s believed to be the first of
these programs came about in 1983, when a Silicon Valley startup called Hunter
& Ready offered a free Volkswagen Beetle to anyone who identified a
bug in its operating system. Over a decade later, in 1995,
Netscape began offering more straightforward financial incentives for finding flaws
in its popular browser, Netscape Navigator. The idea took a while to
catch on, but by the mid-2000s, security companies iDefense and TippingPoint,
as well as the Mozilla Foundation, offered similar programs. Other tech giants eventually followed suit, giving
rise to a new crop of startups like Bugcrowd, HackerOne and
Synack, which connect ethical hackers with companies offering
bug bounty programs. When starting one of these programs,
a company simply describes what type of vulnerabilities they want to be notified
of, what parts of their site hackers can test, and what
types of testing are allowed. They also determine how much
each bug is worth. Then the bug bounty platforms
verify the legitimacy of the vulnerabilities, coordinate payouts to hackers
and work with the companies to ensure that bugs are properly fixed,
greatly reducing the burden on a company’s in-house security team. On average, you get about a thousand
dollars per find, and the highest bounty we’ve paid is $100 thousand
dollars for a single vulnerability. Companies pay a fee to use bug
bounty platforms like HackerOne, but for the hackers themselves, these sites are
free and easy to join. You fill out your Twitter
handle, your LinkedIn I.D., your GitHub I.D., you know, that’s really the starting point
of how we figure out how to connect you with the
right programs going forward. Every time when you file a vulnerability
report to a company, you get scored by how good it was
and how serious it was. And then you are collecting points,
we call them reputation points. And then we can see in all these
metrics how good they are, what their special skills are, and that’s how we
can pick the right talent for every job. For hackers who were previously
operating illegally, the fact that you could now make good money this
way seemed difficult to believe at first. I was introduced to bug bounties
in 2014, but I didn’t actually participate because it still seemed like it
was too good to be true. Because if I get in trouble for
hacking illegally again, it’s life in prison. And I wasn’t willing to take
that risk on something that was so new. Eventually though, hackers like
DeVoss realized these platforms were for real, and their networks
have been growing rapidly worldwide. We have half a million
hackers in our network. Half of them are 24 years or younger. Some of them are as
young as 15 or 16. They can be all over the world. They have endless curiosity. They like to outsmart systems. And they figure out how to break
in, before the criminals can do that. Today, over 1,400 organizations use HackerOne
and over 1,200 use Bugcrowd. Even though many of these organizations
have their own internal security teams, the complexity of software
these days pretty much guarantees they’ll still have some weak spots. I don’t think there’s ever been a
company that’s come onto the platform that has had just zero vulnerabilities in
it, no matter how mature it is. There’s always something, because
humans make mistakes. And in recent years, these mistakes
have led to some high profile disasters. Equifax paid a $700 million
dollar settlement to consumers for its 2017 data breach. And in 2019, Yahoo! agreed to pay an $117.5 million dollar settlement for a series
of hacks that exposed the personal information of up to
three billion accounts. If you have a data breach, the average
cost to you is $7 million dollars, and many have had breaches that have
cost them $100 million or more. We help averting the breaches by
fixing the vulnerabilities ahead of time. And the price you pay for that is a
fraction of a fraction of the cost of a breach. Research and advisory
firm Gartner estimated that globally, cybersecurity spending would reach
$124 billion in 2019. Overall, the high cost of
preventing and mitigating cybersecurity threats has spurred a wide range of
companies from United Airlines to the Department of Defense to Goldman Sachs
to adopt bug bounty programs over the past five years. Probably the turning point in adoption for
what we’re doing was when the Department of Defense launched the Hack
The Pentagon project, which we’re now very much a part of. So there you have the world’s
largest organization, with the most powerful weapons in the world, unlimited budgets,
and they’ve concluded that to be truly secure, they need
the help of hackers. And we’ve found already over
12 thousand vulnerabilities for the Department of Defense. That’s like the greatest part of it, is
being able to hack like the U.S. government and military, and not worry that
your door is going to get kicked in by a SWAT team anymore. Because that’s happened four
times to me. These days, rather than getting
arrested, DeVoss’s hacking obsession has made him wealthier than
he’d ever imagined. In total, he’s netted well over $1
million dollars over the course of his ethical hacking career. I’m at $840 thousand dollars
just on HackerOne for 2019. If you add in the other platforms,
then I’m a little over $900 thousand for the year. Only a select
few have matched his success. But their backgrounds provide an
interesting glance into a diverse network. We have six hackers today who
have made more than a million, and the first one to get to a million
was 19 year old Santiago Lopez in Buenos Aires. So no university education, no background
in a tech center in the world. Just endless curiosity, a good
sense of computers and mathematics and hard work. And
he earned a million. CNBC got Lopez on the phone
to talk about his accomplishments. At the beginning, when I started hacking,
I didn’t knew that I was going to make a million. It
was like impossible for me. So it was a very good surprise. But despite the incentives for hackers
and organizations alike, the grand majority of companies still
don’t offer bug bounties. Actually, most don’t even offer
any sort of vulnerability disclosure program, which would allow hackers to
report bugs without fear of punishment. A vulnerability disclosure program
is extremely similar to a bug bounty program. You’re still allowed to
hack into the system as long as you report it to them. The only difference is you don’t
get paid for your vulnerabilities. While this may seem like an easy
win for organizations, the most recent HackerOne security report revealed that 93
percent of companies on the Forbes Global 2000 list don’t
have any vulnerability disclosure policies. Without a proper channel
to report security issues. HackerOne says nearly 1 in 4 ethical
hackers have failed to disclose a vulnerability that they’ve found. Luckily, the industry is showing some
trends in the right direction. At the end of 2019, the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a draft of a mandatory
directive that would require all government agencies to adopt
vulnerability disclosure policies. HackerOne and Bugcrowd hope this means
that more companies will follow suit. And to ensure that the talent
pool is able to meet the growing demand, both even offer their own
free educational initiatives to teach newbies the basics of hacking. The Internet is a pretty,
pretty gnarly place these days. And really what it comes down to
is that you can’t control what an attacker is going to do, but you can
control where your defenses are up to when they arrive. As for the
individuals on these platforms, they just want people to know that despite what
you may have heard about “hackers”, in the world we live in
today, they’re often on our side. They always see the hacker like the bad
guy, but he’s the good guy now. We’re here to help. We’re not just
some sketchy people in their mom’s basement who are out
there to cause damage. We’re professionals who work in the
industry who actually wanna make the companies better.

With the House walking over its impeachment work to the Senate, what happens next?


JUDY WOODRUFF: The House of Representatives
voted today to send articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate, setting
the stage for an intensely partisan battle ahead. Capitol Hill correspondent Lisa Desjardins
begins our coverage. LISA DESJARDINS: Today, a historic walk across
the Capitol that Washington waited nearly a month to see, House officials crossing to
the Senate to signal and spark the impeachment trial. The newly appointed House managers, members
of Congress who will prosecute the case, walked behind the House clerk, who delivered a message
setting the trial in motion, this timing determined by the House speaker. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): We are here today
to cross a very important threshold in American history. LISA DESJARDINS: On the floor of the House
chamber, Nancy Pelosi defended her decision to hold back the articles of impeachment until
now. REP. NANCY PELOSI: Don’t talk to me about
my timing. For a long time, I resisted the calls from across the country for impeachment
of the president. LISA DESJARDINS: She said the president’s
actions regarding Ukraine gave the House no choice. Republicans, led by California’s Kevin McCarthy,
fired back that Democrats are motivated solely by politics. REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): This is not a
moment this body should be proud of. If, as Speaker Pelosi likes to say, impeachment is
a national civics lesson, let’s use this blunder as a teachable moment. REP. NANCY PELOSI: Good morning, everyone. LISA DESJARDINS: With the new phase of impeachment
comes the newly announced team of House managers. The group of seven, nearly half the size of
that appointed in the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial, includes Democrats Adam Schiff and
Jerry Nadler, the two chairmen who led the impeachment hearings. It’s also made up of two former lawyers, a
former police chief, and a former judge, as well as Representative Zoe Lofgren, who was
in Congress for both the Clinton and Nixon impeachments. Those managers have some new evidence today,
with the release of documents last night obtained from Lev Parnas. He’s an indicted associate
of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Those include his handwritten note about the
Ukrainian president, saying, “Get Zelensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated,”
also a letter displaying Giuliani’s first outreach to the newly elected president, stating
Giuliani was working — quote — “with Trump’s knowledge and consent.” And a copy of text messages between Parnas
and Ukraine’s top prosecutor, which appear to show they were tracking the whereabouts
of former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. She was later recalled by President Trump. Democrats say that’s the kind of information
that the delay in starting the trial has brought. REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): New documents
and additional witnesses have emerged that unmistakably point to the president’s guilt. LISA DESJARDINS: On Twitter, President Trump
charged Democrats with a con job and questioned the timing of the new evidence, writing: “All
of this work was supposed to be done by the House, not the Senate.” On the Senate floor, on the precipice of the
trial, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell dismissed the House investigation. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): It was not, Mr.
President, some earnest fact-finding mission that brought us to where we are. This is not
about the nuances of foreign assistance to Eastern Europe. This has been naked partisanship
all along. LISA DESJARDINS: The Senate will transform
into an impeachment courtroom soon, when senators are sworn in for the trial. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Lisa is here with me now,
as inch closer to this historic trial. So, Lisa, tell us a little bit about what
we know about the thinking on the part of Speaker Pelosi in choosing this group of managers. LISA DESJARDINS: My reporting is, there was
a lot of thought over who would do this. There were many members who wanted this opportunity,
who knew this case, who were on the two committees involved. In the end, they picked a small team that
they felt would both be good in representing the message and the substance of what they
are pursuing here with the articles of impeachment. There is also another factor here. They wanted
this team to look different than the 1999 team. Let’s take a look at that 1999 Republican
impeachment team that prosecuted the articles against President Clinton. There you see 13 of them. Now, the photos,
I think, show what Democrats are trying to do here. Let’s look at the team that they
have appointed for this impeachment trial. There you are, seven. There were no women
in 1999, no people of color prosecuting that case. Here, you have a team that looks more
like America. And that’s the point that Democrats are trying to make. They also said they thought
that large team in 1999 was just too unwieldy. They want this to be more focused. JUDY WOODRUFF: So clearly, Lisa, White House
— folks at the White House watching all this very, very closely. What do we know about
what they’re expecting at this point? LISA DESJARDINS: What we don’t know is who
will be representing the president next week when this trial starts in earnest with the
opening arguments. They had a call. A senior administration official
said they will announce that when they’re ready. They also said that they do not think
witnesses should be allowed for the House team, because they think the House has had
its opportunity to gather evidence. However, the White House also said they think the president
should be able to call witnesses, because they do not think he has had the chance to
do that in a fair manner yet. JUDY WOODRUFF: So they’re still saying, we
need to call witnesses? LISA DESJARDINS: They’re saying the White
House would like to call its witnesses. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. So, as you reported, as we heard, new evidence
coming out from this associate of the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, a man named Lev Parnas. What do we know about that? LISA DESJARDINS: Right. Well, as we reported in the story, these are
a lot of his own notes, his conversations with different people. Democrats look at this
evidence and say, these are more dots connecting the president directly to what was going on
in Ukraine, and that the president himself was part of Giuliani’s efforts for their reasons
that they think were corrupt. Republicans say , no, wait a minute. This
is just someone who worked with Giuliani. We don’t know if this person is truthful.
We also don’t know if Giuliani really did talk to the president or not, or if he was
just relaying that. Republican say this is not the direct piece
of evidence that Democrats see. JUDY WOODRUFF: And so we don’t know whether
that’s going to be introduced or part of the Senate trial. LISA DESJARDINS: It’s interesting. It actually has been forwarded. It will be
forwarded when all the evidence comes over to the Senate. And it is some something that
is actually leading to some confusion today. Maine Senator Susan Collins, a significant
potential swing vote, said it was perplexing that the House presented this evidence now. But we will see what happens. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, as we wait for the trial,
what do we look for tomorrow? LISA DESJARDINS: Right. OK. Let’s start with
the order of events. Tomorrow at noon Eastern time, that’s when
the House managers will come in and formally present the articles of impeachment. They
walked them over tonight, but because of how the rituals and rules of the Senate go, they
will formally present them tomorrow. They will be read out loud just after noon. Then, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow,
5:00 — sorry — 2:00 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow, that’s when we will see Chief Justice John
Roberts sworn in as the presiding officer of this trial. He will then, in turn, swear
in the rest of the Senate as essentially jurors, and that will close out sort of the formal
opening of this trial. It’s interesting, Judy, that that’s not the
only business the Senate is going to conduct tomorrow. We also expect the Senate, before
all of this, to perhaps vote on this large USMCA, U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal. And early next week, Judy, there could be
a vote on war powers, limiting the president’s war powers in regards to Iran. All of those
are things that we’re watching. And we know, Judy, right now, the American
public is split on impeachment. So it’s going to be interesting to see how these two sides
try to focus that opinion. JUDY WOODRUFF: For sure. And what you’re saying suggests the Senate
leadership wants to make it clear they’re doing other business at the same time they’re
dealing with… LISA DESJARDINS: I think that’s part of it. But I think the truth is, the Senate wants
to get these things done. If they don’t do this U.S.-Mexico trade deal now, then they
would be in the middle of a trial. It would be much harder to do for another two, perhaps
more weeks. JUDY WOODRUFF: Understand. Thank you. Lisa Desjardins, thank you. LISA DESJARDINS: You’re welcome.

Buttigieg: We Can Win, And We’ll Really Have To Work For It | Morning Joe | MSNBC


THEY WILL BE STUCK IN WASHINGTON FOR THREE SOLID WEEKS SHOO ONE FOR THREE SOLID WEEKS SHOO ONE WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE STUCK IN WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE STUCK IN WASHINGTON FOR THREE SOLID WEEKS WASHINGTON FOR THREE SOLID WEEKS IN MAYOR PETE WHO HAS BEEN IN MAYOR PETE WHO HAS BEEN SITTING BY LISTENING TO US WHILE SITTING BY LISTENING TO US WHILE WE WERE TALKING AS IF HE WEREN’T WE WERE TALKING AS IF HE WEREN’T THERE. THERE.>>VERY IMPRESSIVE.>>VERY IMPRESSIVE.>>THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING>>THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING WITH US. WITH US.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>WHAT HAS STRUCK US, WE WILL>>WHAT HAS STRUCK US, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE DEBATE IN A TALK ABOUT THE DEBATE IN A SECOND, BUT WHAT STRUCK US ABOUT SECOND, BUT WHAT STRUCK US ABOUT THE IOWA FIELD AND THE POLLS THE IOWA FIELD AND THE POLLS THAT HAVE BEEN OVER THE PAST THAT HAVE BEEN OVER THE PAST COUPLE WEEKS IS HOW OPEN IT IS, COUPLE WEEKS IS HOW OPEN IT IS, HOW FLUID IT IS. HOW FLUID IT IS. ANY OF FOUR CANDIDATES CAN VERY ANY OF FOUR CANDIDATES CAN VERY EASILY BE SEEN AS NOT ONLY EASILY BE SEEN AS NOT ONLY WINNING IN IOWA, BUT YOUR RECENT WINNING IN IOWA, BUT YOUR RECENT POLLING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE SHOWS POLLING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE SHOWS YOU CAN WIN THERE, TOO. YOU CAN WIN THERE, TOO. TELL US ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THE TELL US ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THE NEXT THREE WEEKS LOOK LIKE FOR NEXT THREE WEEKS LOOK LIKE FOR YOU. YOU.>>YEAH, WE KNOW TWO THINGS, ONE>>YEAH, WE KNOW TWO THINGS, ONE IS THAT WE CAN WIN AND THE OTHER IS THAT WE CAN WIN AND THE OTHER IS THAT WE WILL REALLY HAVE TO IS THAT WE WILL REALLY HAVE TO WORK FOR IT. WORK FOR IT. IT’S FUNNY WHEN I’M ON THE TRAIL IT’S FUNNY WHEN I’M ON THE TRAIL I’M MEETING SOME VOTERS WHO I’VE I’M MEETING SOME VOTERS WHO I’VE SEEN FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW, THEY SEEN FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW, THEY ARE THE SAME ONES WHO OVER THE ARE THE SAME ONES WHO OVER THE SUMMER WERE SAYING THINGS LIKE, SUMMER WERE SAYING THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE IN MY TOP YOU KNOW, YOU ARE IN MY TOP SEVEN, WE WILL SEE AS I GET TO SEVEN, WE WILL SEE AS I GET TO KNOW YOU. KNOW YOU. NOW THEY ARE IN DECISION MODE. NOW THEY ARE IN DECISION MODE. OTHER FOLKS WHO I THINK HAVE OTHER FOLKS WHO I THINK HAVE FELT LIKE THE PROCESS WAS SO FELT LIKE THE PROCESS WAS SO OVERWHELMING OVER THE LAST YEAR, OVERWHELMING OVER THE LAST YEAR, IT’S JUST NOW THAT THEY’RE IT’S JUST NOW THAT THEY’RE TUNING IN. TUNING IN. BUT WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON BUT WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON IS THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THIS IS THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THIS ELECTION IS GOING TO MEAN FOR ELECTION IS GOING TO MEAN FOR THEM. THEM. I THINK IN THE END EVERY I THINK IN THE END EVERY ELECTION IS ABOUT THE VOTERS’ ELECTION IS ABOUT THE VOTERS’ FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, HOW IS MY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, HOW IS MY LIFE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT IF LIFE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT IF YOU ARE PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF YOU YOU ARE PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF YOU OR YOU OR YOU. OR YOU OR YOU. BEING ABLE TO CONNECT WITH BEING ABLE TO CONNECT WITH VOTERS DIRECTLY ON THE GROUND, VOTERS DIRECTLY ON THE GROUND, TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO TURN THE PAGE FROM JUST THE TURN THE PAGE FROM JUST THE EXHAUSTION AND THE CYNICISM THAT EXHAUSTION AND THE CYNICISM THAT WE’RE DEALING WITH IN DONALD WE’RE DEALING WITH IN DONALD TRUMP’S WASHINGTON AND ACTUALLY TRUMP’S WASHINGTON AND ACTUALLY DELIVERING SOLUTIONS ON DELIVERING SOLUTIONS ON EVERYTHING FROM HEALTH CARE TO EVERYTHING FROM HEALTH CARE TO JUST MAKING SURE PEOPLE GET PAID JUST MAKING SURE PEOPLE GET PAID MORE. MORE. THAT’S WHERE WE’RE CONNECTING THAT’S WHERE WE’RE CONNECTING AND WE WILL CONTINUE DRIVING AND WE WILL CONTINUE DRIVING THAT MESSAGE AND HAVING THOSE THAT MESSAGE AND HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS ALL THE WAY UNTIL CONVERSATIONS ALL THE WAY UNTIL THE VOTING BEGINS AND BEYOND. THE VOTING BEGINS AND BEYOND.>>SO THE DISCUSSION THIS>>SO THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING A LOT OF IT HAS BEEN MORNING A LOT OF IT HAS BEEN ABOUT THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT AND ABOUT THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT AND WHETHER ALL THE CANDIDATES ON WHETHER ALL THE CANDIDATES ON THE STAGE ANY OF THEM LOOKED THE STAGE ANY OF THEM LOOKED LIKE THEY COULD TAKE ON DONALD LIKE THEY COULD TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP. TRUMP. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS BUTTIGIEG VERSUS TRUMP, WHAT BUTTIGIEG VERSUS TRUMP, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?>>WELL, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS>>WELL, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS YOU WILL HAVE DONALD TRUMP YOU WILL HAVE DONALD TRUMP STANDING NEXT TO SOMEBODY WHO STANDING NEXT TO SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE KIND OF ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE KIND OF INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY THAT HE INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY THAT HE TALKS ABOUT ALL THE TIME, BUT TALKS ABOUT ALL THE TIME, BUT HAS CLEARLY WALKED AWAY FROM. HAS CLEARLY WALKED AWAY FROM. YOU KNOW, THE DECISIONS HE’S YOU KNOW, THE DECISIONS HE’S MADE, THE ECONOMIC POLICIES MADE, THE ECONOMIC POLICIES WHERE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL THE WHERE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL THE ONLY PROMISE HE’S KEPT WHEN IT ONLY PROMISE HE’S KEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ECONOMIC POLICY WAS A COMES TO ECONOMIC POLICY WAS A GIANT TAX CUT FOR CORPORATIONS GIANT TAX CUT FOR CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY. AND THE WEALTHY. MEANWHILE, MANUFACTURING IS IN MEANWHILE, MANUFACTURING IS IN ITS OWN RECESSION AND SO MANY ITS OWN RECESSION AND SO MANY FOLKS IN COMMUNITIES LIKE MINE, FOLKS IN COMMUNITIES LIKE MINE, EVEN IF THEIR WAGES ARE GOING UP EVEN IF THEIR WAGES ARE GOING UP IT’S NOT NEARLY AS FAST AS THE IT’S NOT NEARLY AS FAST AS THE COST OF HEALTH, COST OF COST OF HEALTH, COST OF LONG-TERM CARE, COST OF LONG-TERM CARE, COST OF RETIREMENT. RETIREMENT. WHEN I’M STANDING NEXT TO THIS WHEN I’M STANDING NEXT TO THIS PRESIDENT I WILL BE ABLE TO PRESIDENT I WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT. SPEAK TO THAT. IF HE TRIES TO TOUGH TALK HE IF HE TRIES TO TOUGH TALK HE WILL HAVE TO DO IT STANDING NEXT WILL HAVE TO DO IT STANDING NEXT TO SOMEBODY WHO IS A WALKING TO SOMEBODY WHO IS A WALKING REMINDER OF THE PRESIDENT’S REMINDER OF THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION NOT TO SERVE AND TO DECISION NOT TO SERVE AND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS STATUS AS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS STATUS AS THE SON OF A MILLIONAIRE IN THE SON OF A MILLIONAIRE IN ORDER TO GET OUT ON BONE SPURS. ORDER TO GET OUT ON BONE SPURS. I’M JUST GOING TO BE A I’M JUST GOING TO BE A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF CANDIDATE AND I THINK THAT’S CANDIDATE AND I THINK THAT’S WHAT WE NEED BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK WHAT WE NEED BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PRESIDENT AND HOW HE GOT AT THIS PRESIDENT AND HOW HE GOT HERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT HERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS WHO DON’T EVEN LIKE OF FOLKS WHO DON’T EVEN LIKE HIM, BUT VOTED THE WAY THEY DID HIM, BUT VOTED THE WAY THEY DID BECAUSE OF A SENSE OF NOT JUST BECAUSE OF A SENSE OF NOT JUST EXHAUSTION, BUT FRUSTRATION AND EXHAUSTION, BUT FRUSTRATION AND SENDING A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON. SENDING A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO SEND A NEW THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO SEND A NEW MESSAGE, ONE THAT WE WON’T STAND MESSAGE, ONE THAT WE WON’T STAND FOR THE DIVISIVENESS, THE LIES, FOR THE DIVISIVENESS, THE LIES, THE CRUELTY AND THAT WE’RE GOING THE CRUELTY AND THAT WE’RE GOING TO REENTER OUR POLITICS AROUND

Court Lets Trump Steal Military Funds To Pay For His Border Wall


In a horrible ruling earlier this week, the
US court of appeals in New Orleans voted two to one to allow Donald Trump to steal money
from the US military in order to fund his border wall. This could be as little as $2.1 million, billion
dollars, excuse me, or it could be as much as a little over $6 billion that the two judges
on this panel said, sure, Mr. Trump, you can go steal money from these military projects
and use them to fund you’re completely useless and not needed border wall. So the two judges out of the three judge panel
who voted to say yes, Trump, you can have this, one of them not surprising was a Trump
appointee. The other was a Ronald Reagan appointee and
I want to hit on that point just a little bit here. A Reagan appointee from the 19 friggin 80s
is still sitting and serving on a court in the United States and clearly basing their
rulings on their party affiliation because the law US law is very clear about the was
what the president can and cannot do with military funds, once Congress has voted on
them. If he wants to change the allocation for what
military funds have already been allocated for by Congress, when they vote on it, he
has to get congressional approval and if Congress does not approve, he cannot divert that money. If he declares a state of emergency, which
he has, then he is free to use a little bit of that money, but he must also tell Congress
what it is for and since it’s from the military, the military has to be the one to do the actual
project and none of those things are happening. He’s hiring private contractors. People who’ve donated to his campaign are
getting rich off this, so he’s clearly not following the very clear rules set forth in
US code. And the two Republican judges on this panel,
one of whom has been sitting there since the 1980s just said, sure, go ahead. We don’t care. We’re Republicans and Republicans stick together
and that’s all we base our rulings on. But back to the idiot sitting on that court
since the 1980s let me hit on that for just a moment because that absolutely pisses me
off. This is why we need term limits. There is nobody in this country who was appointed
in the 1980s who should still be serving on a court today. They shouldn’t have been serving on a court
10 years ago, and to be honest, they shouldn’t have even been sitting on a court 10 years
after that. We have got to put judicial term limits in
place, now. The next president of the United States has
to make that a priority because there is no way in hell that somebody who’s been sitting
on a bench since the 1980s still has the same kind of mental clarity that they had when
they were first appointed. There is no way that they have the same acute
legal mind that they had when they were appointed. People’s cognitive abilities, once they hit
a certain age, begin to decline, that’s science. That’s not an attack on whoever this judge
is. I’m not going to name them, but it’s not an
attack on them. That’s basic human biology. This person should not be there, and their
partisanship with this particular ruling just goes to prove that even further. So now, Donald Trump, the administration already
issued a response, a statement to the world declaring a victory here saying, here we go,
folks. Buckle up. We’re about to build this unnecessary and
useless wall because this court with a Trump appointee and a Reagan appointee says that
we can ignore the established laws of the United States and steal money from the military.

Judge Orders Alex Jones To Pay Nearly $100,000 In Court Costs Over Pushing Sandy Hook Hoax


And finally tonight, some good news. InfoWars founder Alex Jones is finally facing
the consequences of his years of spreading conspiracy theories and fake news. A judge in Texas last week ordered Jones to
pay nearly $100,000 in court costs for the families who are suing him over his claim
that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. The families of the victims filed suit against
Jones years ago for his claims after they began receiving death threats from deranged
InfoWars viewers. This is just the latest blow to Alex Jones
and InfoWars in this particular case, and hopefully it provides a little bit of relief
for the families who are still grieving over the loss of their children. Furthermore, let’s hope that this actually
sends a message to the purveyors of fake news all across America. Outlooks, outlets like InfoWars need to be
on notice that spreading conspiracy theories and fake news can come with a hefty price
tag. And that’s all for tonight, but you can find
us on Twitter and Facebook @facebook.com/rtamericaslawyer. You can watch RT America programs on Direct
TV, Channel 321 and you can stream them live on YouTube. I’m Farron Cousins and this is America’s Lawyer,
where every week we tell you the stories that corporate media is ordered, not to tell because
their advertisers won’t let them. Have a great night.

Former Fox News Reporter Says Trump Asked Her To His Office “For A Kiss”


One of the more interesting things that has
happened ever since Donald Trump announced that he was even going to be running for president
is the fact that every couple of months we get a new woman coming forward saying that
Donald Trump behaved inappropriately. Sometimes with just a verbal suggestion, other
times being accused of full blown rape against these women. But like clockwork, every couple of months
a new story emerges. And what also follows that trend is that the
media doesn’t seem to care. I mean, Donald Trump has been credibly accused
of sexual assault by nearly two dozen women since he announced he was running for president,
two dozen. A Huffington Post report from a year or so
ago actually puts that number closer to 40 women who have come forward with allegations
against the president. And guess what folks? We got another one, a former Fox news reporter
by the name of Courtney Friel has a new book coming out and in this book she describes
an incident that took place. She had made a phone call to the president. Of course, at the time he was not the president. He was not even running for president at the
time. He was just in charge of the miss America
pageant. And her being a Fox news reporter called him
up and said, hey, listen, I’m very interested in being a judge for miss America. You know what, what can I do? What kind of process do I need to go to? This is something I would really like to do. And Trump said, well, you’re the hottest one
at Fox news, but unfortunately you do work for another network. So you cannot go judge this because it’s on
a different network. But I’ll tell you what, Mrs. Friel claims,
Trump then asked her, how about we schedule a meeting, you come up to my office so we
can kiss. So she wanted a job, basically, judging miss
America a temporary job, well, part time gig there. And instead of giving her that, the president
at the time, not the president said, no, I’m not going to do that, but why don’t you come
up to my office and we can make out a little bit. Now, according to this story, Mrs. Friel then
said, um, sir, I believe we’re both married, and then she ended the phone call. Now, to be clear, this is inappropriate, absolutely. I don’t know that it rises to the level of
harassment or anything illegal like that, but it just gives us a little bit more insight
into this man and how he operates. But the question is, do we even need more
insight? Do we need to really figure this out? We know because we heard it in his own words
in that access Hollywood tape, we know how this man behaves. And that’s another reason why these stories
by these women, each time they come out are, are more and more believable because we’ve
heard the president’s words himself. We know how he views women, we know what he
says about them when he thinks the cameras aren’t rolling or the audio recorders aren’t
rolling. We know. And all of this does fall in line with the
president’s own stated way of dealing with women. So the only question that remains is why does
the media continue to ignore these allegations? Why does the media continue to ignore these
stories? Not just from Mrs. Friel here, but the, the
story from, from E. Jean Carroll. That to me is the biggest one out there. But the media doesn’t seem to care. I know we’re supposed to talk policy and that’s
what we should do with the election. But when it comes to the day to day news,
the way this man has treated women, as objects, almost as animals that he goes and shows off,
that to me, warrants a heck of a lot more media coverage than it has gotten over the
last four years.

Billionaire pledges to pay off student debt of 2019 class at commencement ceremony


On behalf of the eight
generations of my family who have been
in this country, we’re going to put
a little fuel in your bus. Now, I’ve got the alumni over there
and this is a challenge to you alumni. This is my class, 2019.
[Cheering/Applause] And my family is making a grant
to eliminate their student loans. [Gasping/Cheering/Applause] Now, I know my class will make sure
they pay this forward and I want my class to look
at these alumnus, these beautiful Morehouse brothers,
and let’s make sure every class has the same opportunity
going forward. [Applause] Because we are enough to take
care of our own community. [Cheering] We are enough to ensure we have all
the opportunities of the American dream and we will show it to each other
through our actions and through our words
and through our deeds. So, class of 2019, may the sun
always shine upon you, may the wind always be
at your back and may god always hold you
in the cradle of her hands. Congratulations. [Cheering/applause]