Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic contender who fielded the largest number of celebrity donors, dropped out of the race for president Tuesday. So where will those folks take their support?

“I’ve taken stock and looked at this from every angle, and over the last few days have come to one of the hardest decisions of my life,” Harris said in a Medium post announcing her decision. “My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue.”

The financial resources it did have came in part from the 70 people identified by The Times as celebrity donors to her campaign, as of the most recent Federal Election Commission report. That cash made Harris the leader in Hollywood-famous donors.

While there’s not a single clear next-step candidate of choice, the donors themselves have provided some hints.

A few people — most of them “honchos” such as James L. Brooks, Rob Reiner, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Dana Walden — have already spread their money around to multiple candidates, including Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former VP Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar. They could go any number of ways, so forget them for now.

But another group has given to Harris plus one, which could be a good indicator of their future intentions. The “plus one” names vary, of course.

Lisa Edelstein, Steven Spielberg and Scooter Braun are donors to Booker as well as Harris. Gloria Steinem, Kirsten Vangsness and Barbra Streisand split their money between Harris and Warren. Ryan Murphy, Jeff Shell, Anna Wintour and Carol Bayer Sager have all supported Mayor Pete Buttigieg of Indiana in addition to the California senator.

Bette Midler dropped some bucks on Marianne Williamson’s campaign, and Jackson Browne also gave to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Peter Chernin gave to Biden.

But there are still a lot of wild cards who had Harris’ back and Harris’ back only: Shonda Rhimes, Mindy Kaling, Chris Rock, Demi Lovato, k.d. lang, Anthony Anderson, William H. Macy, Felicity Huffman, Alfre Woodard, Reese Witherspoon, Ben Affleck, Sean Penn and Michael Douglas are among those who are still up for grabs, to name but a few.

Of course, Harris could also show up as the eventual candidate’s VP pick.

The Times’ celebrity donor database will update after the next quarterly report arrives at the end of January. Then we might have some answers.

The House Judiciary Committee brought in four experts: Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor; Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor; Jonathan Turley of George Washington University law school and Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina.

WASHINGTON — 

The House Judiciary Committee is holding its first impeachment hearing involving the Ukraine scandal today, marking a new phase in the proceedings that threaten President Trump’s tenure in the White House.

Although the House Intelligence Committee has led the investigation, this panel is responsible for drafting articles of impeachment if Democrats choose to take that step. The full House of Representatives would need to vote to impeach Trump before the Senate can begin debating whether to remove him from office.

Today’s hearing will not feature witnesses who can testify about Trump’s efforts to push Ukraine to investigate his political enemies. Instead, it is scheduled to include four legal scholars — three chosen by Democrats, one by Republicans — to discuss the “constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment.”

Melania, Republicans outraged by Barron Trump reference

Updated: 2:28 p.m. PT

Professor Pamela Karlan mentioned President Trump’s son, Barron, during the Judiciary Committee hearing, prompting a barrage of backlash from Republicans.

Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor, was making the point that the Constitution doesn’t give the president the power to do whatever he wants, such as give someone a title of nobility. “So, while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron,” she said.

The mention of the president’s 13-year-old son prompted outrage from Republicans on the panel, including Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, and the Trump campaign.

“A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics,” First Lady Melania Trump said on Twitter. “Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.”

Karlan later apologized for the remarks. “It was wrong of me to do that,” she said, adding that she wished the president would apologize for “some” of his behavior. “But I do regret having said that.”

— Jennifer Haberkorn

Republicans accuse witnesses of partisan agenda

Updated: 2:26 p.m. PT

In a series of feisty exchanges, Republicans sought to undermine the credibility of the three law professors requested by the committee’s Democratic majority by suggesting their analysis was politically motivated.

The argument was somewhat undermined when their own expert, Jonathan Turley, made clear that he is not a Trump supporter and didn’t vote for him in 2016. In the prior elections, he voted for Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama.)

Still, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla) and others focused their ire at the three witnesses called by Democrats.

“I do not have contempt for conservatives,” said Prof. Pamela Karlan, when Gaetz suggested she did. The congressman and professor then spoke over each other until he complained, “You don’t get to interrupt me on this time.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) alleged that the constitutional scholars had a partisan agenda, “What I’m suggesting to you today is a reckless bias coming in here.”

Karlan pointed out that contributions to political campaigns are protected under the First Amendment as free speech — in contrast to foreign interference or foreign contributions in U.S. elections, which are prohibited by law.

“I apologize for getting a little overheated a moment ago,” she said. “But I have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to give money to candidates, at the same time we have a constitutional duty to keep foreigners from spending money in elections, and those are two sides of the same coin.”

— Molly O’Toole

Judiciary members: long on speeches, short on questions

Members of the House Judiciary Committee get five minutes each to ask questions of witnesses as part of the day’s impeachment hearing.

But many are giving speeches rather than questioning the four constitutional scholars brought in to testify.

Most members who queried the witnesses simply asked for confirmation of their own position.

“Let me go with a few examples and see if you agree with me,” Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) prompted Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor brought by Republicans, asking if certain actions by previous presidents would be an abuse of power.

Televised congressional hearings, especially in Judiciary, which has some of the most conservative and liberal members of Congress, can devolve quickly into speechifying and pontificating as some lawmakers try to get TV soundbites that can be used for reelection campaigns.

But the hearing is far from over. With 41 members, the Judiciary Committee is one of the largest in Congress, and at least half still are waiting their turn to speak.

— Sarah D. Wire

Meanwhile, in Ukraine …

Updated: 10:41 a.m. PT

Democrats and Republicans sparred in the House Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing, battling over whether Trump’s pressure on Ukraine to conduct investigations into his political rivals constituted impeachable offenses.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, met with former government officials in what he said was an effort to undermine the impeachment inquiry and continue his crusade to dig up dirt on those same Democratic rivals, according to the New York Times.

“Like a good lawyer, I am gathering evidence to defend my client against the false charges being leveled against him,” Giuliani wrote the New York Times in a text message on Wednesday.

Giuliani did not respond to requests for comment from the Los Angeles Times. It’s unclear whether he briefed Trump, who has been in London since Monday for a two-day NATO summit, about his travel plans.

Giuliani canceled a trip to Ukraine last spring after he was heavily criticized, and State Department officials are tracking his current sojourn with concern due to the ongoing scrutiny, the New York Times reported.

Both impeachment investigators and federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are looking at Giuliani’s activities with Ukraine, in part to determine whether he violated laws regarding lobbying for a foreign country.

“If S.D.N.Y. leaks and Democrats’ threats stopped me then I should find a new profession,” Giuliani told the New York Times.

After a stop in Budapest, Giuliani traveled to Kiev, Ukraine’s capital. He met with former Ukrainian prosecutors who have faced allegations of corruption and promoted unfounded claims about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, as well as the 2016 presidential election.

Along for the ride were reporters for conservative television outlet One America News Network, promoting a documentary series that OANN says is “Debunking Schiff’s Impeachment Narrative” with “first-hand witnesses.”

— Molly O’Toole

Democrats ‘want to set the record for fastest impeachment,’ law expert says

Updated: 10:32 a.m. PT

Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University Law School expert called by Republicans, said Democrats are moving too quickly on impeachment and haven’t taken the time to prove their case. He said their case is thin compared to the voluminous evidence presented against Presidents Clinton and Nixon during their impeachment battles.

“It has not been explained to me why you want to set the record for the fastest impeachment,” Turley said. “You need to stick the landing on quid pro quo.”

He warned that the American public isn’t behind the idea of impeaching Trump, noting that public sentiment eventually turned to favor impeachment during the longer Nixon impeachment inquiry. The Judiciary Committee held several hearings over six months when considering articles against Nixon. It held just four hearings over two days when considering the Clinton impeachment articles in 1998.

“If you rush this impeachment, you’re going to leave half the country behind,” Turley said. “This is not an impulse buy item.”

— Sarah D. Wire

Democrats narrow questions onto likely articles of impeachment

Updated: 9:58 a.m. PT

Over 45 minutes of questions, Democrats focused on three areas of what they consider President Trump’s offenses, suggesting the basis of likely articles of impeachment.

“We talked first about abuse of power and bribery and then about obstruction of Congress. Now… a third impeachable offense [and] that is obstruction of justice,” Norm Eisen, the Democratic counsel, said as a form of summary.

Eisen focused his questions on the three legal scholar witnesses who were brought forward by Democrats to reinforce their argument. The questions focused on whether Trump abused his office while pressuring Ukraine to begin an investigation into the Bidens and whether it could be identified as a form of bribery, which is specifically listed in the constitution as an impeachable offense. The professors were also quizzed on whether the president obstructed justice and obstructed Congress.

— Jennifer Haberkorn

Democrats steer clear of Republican witness

Updated: 9:45 a.m. PT

Committee counsel Norm Eisen led Democrats’ questioning of the legal experts, but almost entirely ignored Jonathan Turley, the sole witness called by Republicans.

Turley was the only member of the panel who cautioned the House of Representatives against impeaching President Trump, suggesting that the evidence did not support such a step.

Eisen clearly had no use for that argument, directing nearly all of his queries to the other legal scholars. He did, however, ask Turley a question about a Wall Street Journal column he had written.

Did Turley write that impeachable offenses did not need to be violations of criminal law? Eisen asked. Turley confirmed his writing, but Eisen quickly cut him off when Turley tried to elaborate on his column, which argued that Trump should not be impeached.

— Chris Megerian

Trump questions panel’s loyalty: ‘Do they love our country?’

From London, where he’s taking part in a two-day NATO summit, President Trump denounced the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing, calling it a “joke” that is harmful to the country.

“You almost question whether or not they love our country, and that’s a very serious thing: Do they love our country?” Trump said.

Trump is scheduled to return Wednesday night after the hearing ends. He was invited to attend or send an attorney to question the witnesses, but declined.

“The word impeachment is a dirty word,” Trump said. “That should only be used in special occasions.”

— Sarah D. Wire

Republican tactic: Demand votes and kill time

Updated: 8:37 a.m. PT

The Judiciary hearing started with a sharp partisan bent, with Republicans immediately demanding a vote on whether House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) should be required to testify.

The vote failed along partisan lines and provided a preview of a delay tactic Republicans are expected to use repeatedly in today’s hearing. Nearly one hour into the hearing, several Republican lawmakers have already tried to pause the opening speeches to demand votes on motions. Democrats are expected to be able to vote down all of the procedural motions, but they each eat up time.

Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) tried to frame the hearing in its historical context as the panel that traditionally leads impeachment inquiries.

“This Committee has voted to impeach two presidents for obstructing justice. We have voted to impeach one president for obstructing a congressional investigation. To the extent that President Trump’s conduct fits these categories, there is precedent for recommending impeachment here,” he said. “But never before, in the history of the republic, have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal, political favors from a foreign government.”

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the top Republican on the committee, blasted the hearing, criticizing Democrats for bringing in a panel of law professors who should be preparing for finals. He also accused the Judiciary hearing for merely acting as a “rubber stamp” for the report written by the Intelligence Committee.

“The clock and the calendar are driving this. Not the facts,” he said.

— Jennifer Haberkorn

Stanford professor snaps back at Georgia lawmaker

Updated: 8:26 a.m. PT

Pamela S. Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School, has represented the Judiciary Committee before the Supreme Court. An expert on voting rights, she framed Trump’s actions toward Ukraine as “demanding” foreign involvement in the 2020 presidential election, arguing they rise to impeachable offenses.

“That demand constituted an abuse of power,” she said. “Drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself.”

She referred to Russian interference in the last election cycle, saying, “What happened in 2016 was bad enough.” What Trump should’ve said then, she continued, was “Russia, if you’re listening, butt out of our elections.””

Amid that argument, she chided the committee’s senior Republican, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, who said in his opening statement that the witnesses could not have had time to review all the evidence in the case. She has read every transcript released in the impeachment inquiry, Karlan said.

“I’m insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor, I don’t care about those facts,” she said.

— Molly O’Toole

Law professor testifying today also appeared as witness in Clinton impeachment

Updated: 7:38 a.m. PT

Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University law school, found himself in a familiar place Tuesday morning: testifying before the House Judiciary Committee as part of impeachment proceedings against a president.

More than two decades ago, Turley was a witness in the impeachment of Democratic President Bill Clinton. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a longtime member of the powerful committee and now its chairman, was also present.

Clinton was ultimately impeached by the House, but acquitted in the Senate trial — a likely outcome for Trump, with a Democratic majority in the House but GOP control of the Senate.

“I never thought that I would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president,” Turley, who was called as a witness by the committee’s Republican minority, wrote in his prepared remarks. “The intense rancor and rage of the public debate is the same.”

He made clear he wasn’t a Trump supporter, but also wrote, “In truth, I have not held much fondness for any president in my lifetime.”

In his prepared statements in 1998, he issued a stark warning.

“Crime is contagious,” he said. “If the government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto itself; it invites anarchy.”

This time, he found himself on the other side. The case for impeachment against Trump is “not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous,” he wrote. “I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.”

— Molly O’Toole

Legal expert: Trump’s actions were worse than those of any prior president who faced impeachment proceedings

Updated: 7:26 a.m. PT

One of the constitutional law experts testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday will tell members that President Trump’s conduct is worse than that of any prior president who faced similar proceedings.

Trump’s “serious misconduct” includes “bribery, soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power, and obstructing justice and Congress,” Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, will say according to his prepared remarks. Those transgressions “are worse than the misconduct of any prior president, including what previous presidents who faced impeachment have done or been accused of doing,” Gerhardt plans to say.

Gerhardt, who also testified to lawmakers while they considered impeaching President Clinton, plans to tell lawmakers that when constitutional law is applied to the facts of the Mueller report and the evidence gathered in the impeachment inquiry, “I cannot help but conclude that this president has attacked each of the Constitution’s safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country.”

Gerhardt takes particular issue with Trump blocking his administration from complying with House subpoenas for testimony and documents.

“The power to impeach includes the power to investigate, but, if the president can stymie this House’s impeachment inquiry, he can eliminate the impeachment power as a means for holding him and future presidents accountable for serious misconduct,” he wrote. The House has an obligation to push back on the attempt to block congressional oversight, he added.

“If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil,” Gerhardt wrote.

Read Gerhardt’s testimony here.

— Sarah D. Wire

Expect today’s hearing to be more theatrical

Updated: 7:16 a.m. PT

The tone of the Judiciary hearing is likely to be far more partisan and theatrical than the recent sprint of hearings in the more staid Intelligence Committee.

The Judiciary Committee is a much bigger panel and is packed with partisans on both sides of the aisle.

“It won’t look like Intel, that’s for sure,” said one Democratic source.

Several of Trump’s strongest allies sit on the Republican side, including Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, John Ratcliffe of Texas and Jim Jordan of Ohio, who was briefly moved to the Intelligence Committee to provide support to the White House position during last month’s public hearings. At the helm for the GOP is another Trump ally: Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, who speaks as quickly and forcefully as an auctioneer hawking a hot product.

The Democrats are just as partisan: Nearly the entire Judiciary Committee supported an impeachment inquiry during former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference and long before the president spoke with the new president of Ukraine.

That combination could give the Judiciary Committee hearings a level of bombast the public hasn’t seen so far. That poses some risks for Democrats because the proceedings could give Republicans a lot of television time to muddy the Democrats’ presentation, pointing out flaws in a process that they view as unfair and poking holes in the Democrats’ case.

Read more here.

— Jennifer Haberkorn

Who will House Judiciary Committee members hear from?

The committee is bringing in four experts: Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor; Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor; Jonathan Turley of George Washington University law school and Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina.

• Feldman has argued that an actual crime is not necessary to impeach a president and has written in opinion columns that Democrats have legitimate grounds to impeach Trump because he has abused the power of his office.

• Karlan is a former Obama administration Justice Department official who has not been vocal about the impeachment proceedings. She is well known in legal circles for her work of voting rights and political processes and has argued several cases before the Supreme Court. Karlan was a law clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun.

• Gerhardt, a former Al Gore campaign official, gave a similar presentation to Congress when the Judiciary Committee was considering impeaching Clinton. His book “Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know” describes itself as a nonpartisan “primer for anyone eager to learn about impeachment’s origins, practices, limitations and alternatives.”

• Turley, the one expert called by Republicans, has written extensively about Trump and impeachment and has criticized Democrats for moving too quickly and being too narrowly focused in the impeachment process.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

WASHINGTON — 

The House Judiciary Committee took a major step Wednesday toward defining how it could craft articles of impeachment against President Trump, encompassing both the president’s alleged abuse of power in the Ukraine scandal and obstruction of justice stemming from the Russia investigation.

In a daylong hearing marked by sharp partisan bickering, Democrats outlined a sweeping array of presidential misconduct that they said could warrant impeachment, including jeopardizing the constitutional balance of powers by stonewalling Congress and damaging the integrity of national elections by asking Ukraine to investigate Democrats.

With Democrats racing to bring impeachment to a vote, possibly before Christmas, Republicans have denounced the process as rushed and unfair. But the committee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), suggested the accelerated pace would block Trump from further misbehavior.

“If we do not act to hold him in check now, President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal political gain,” Nadler said.

The panel is responsible for drafting any articles of impeachment, and Wednesday’s hearing thus marked a milestone in a fast-tracked inquiry that began in September. It followed two weeks of public hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, and a Democratic report issued on Tuesday that cited “overwhelming” evidence that Trump violated his oath of office.

Trump weighed in from a NATO summit in London, accusing Democrats of being “very unpatriotic” for scheduling the hearing while he was abroad.

“I think it’s a disgrace. I think the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves,” he said before flying home Wednesday night.

Republicans on the committee staunchly defended Trump, denouncing the Democratic-led proceedings as a “sham” and “a simple railroad job.” Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member, said Democrats were motivated by “a deep-seated hatred of a man who came to the White House and did what he said he was going to do.”

Although the hearing produced no new facts about Trump’s activities or communications, it gave Democrats an opportunity to preview three potential articles of impeachment.

The first was abuse of power by urging Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to announce investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential opponent in the 2020 election, and a debunked theory about Ukraine’s supposed meddling in the 2016 election.

The next was obstruction of Congress by refusing to honor subpoenas and ordering witnesses not to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

The final issue was obstruction of justice for, among other things, instructing his White House counsel to dismiss Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel heading the Russia investigation. Mueller was left in place, and he submitted a lengthy report in March that found no direct coordination between Moscow and the Trump campaign, the initial focus of his inquiry.

Four legal scholars testified about whether Trump’s actions were impeachable offenses under the Constitution. Only one, who was called by Republicans, said he did not consider Trump’s actions impeachable.

“If you rush this impeachment, you’re going to leave half the country behind,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “This is not an impulse buy item.”

Although Turley said he considered Trump’s actions improper, he said that Democrats had not made an adequate case for impeachment and that moving forward would be a historic mistake. He called the Democrats’ case thin compared to the evidence presented against President Nixon in 1974 and President Clinton in 1998.

“What we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come,” he said. “I am concerned with lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.”

The three scholars called by Democrats all agreed Trump should be impeached, even suggesting Congress would be derelict in its duty if it failed to do so.

“If we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a monarchy, or we live in a dictatorship,” said Noah Feldman, a Harvard University law professor.

Pamela Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor, said Trump had tried to “strong-arm a foreign leader into smearing one of the president’s opponents in our ongoing election season. That’s not politics as usual.”

She added, “It is a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power.”

Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor who has written a widely respected textbook on impeachment, said the House had no choice but to push forward.

“If Congress fails to impeach here,” he said, “then the impeachment process has lost all meaning and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil.”

There was little attempt to find common ground or challenge opposing viewpoints. Democrats mostly questioned their own witnesses, while Republicans either delivered speeches or queried their own witness.

At times, Democrats and witnesses struggled to speak without interruption as Republicans called for adjourning the hearing or holding one of their own. They also asked to subpoena the still-unidentified whistleblower who set the scandal in motion by filing a complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky.

Impeachment proceedings are expected to continue in the Judiciary Committee next week, but Democrats will have to quickly finalize articles of impeachment and send them to the House floor if they want a vote before Christmas.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday that while that deadline is possible, Democrats have left open the possibility that the vote will slip into January.

Both chambers are preparing for what appears an inevitable impeachment vote in coming weeks.

Vice President Mike Pence huddled with House Republicans ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) did the same with Democrats.

Similar meetings took place in the Senate, which would hold a trial to determine whether to remove Trump from office if the House votes to impeach.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) gave a presentation on the mechanics of a trial to familiarize Democrats who weren’t in office in 1999, the last time the Senate held an impeachment trial. Clinton was acquitted in that trial.

Senate Republicans released a 2020 calendar with no plans for January, a reminder of the unpredictability of when impeachment articles may arrive from the House.

If the articles are drafted and approved by the full House, Trump would be the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. None was removed from office by the Senate. A fourth, Nixon, resigned when it was clear he would be impeached and convicted.

While the hearing was underway, the New York Times reported that Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, was visiting Ukraine to meet with former prosecutors who have faced allegations of corruption and promoted unfounded claims about Biden and his son Hunter.

“I am defending my client against almost self evident false charges. Not confirming where I am,” he told the Los Angeles Times in a text.

Giuliani has defied a subpoena from impeachment investigators and is under criminal investigation by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, who are scrutinizing whether he violated laws regarding lobbying for a foreign government.

Times staff writer Molly O’Toole contributed to this report.

WATFORD, England — 

President Trump, who views norms like a teenager does curfews, shattered another tradition Wednesday when he became the first U.S. president to be laughed at by some of America’s closest allies at a NATO summit, a sign of his increasing isolation on the world stage.

Trump, who long has claimed his leadership has brought unprecedented respect to the United States, was not amused. He called Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “two-faced,” scrubbed a scheduled news conference and headed for the airport.

The contretemps seemed a fitting finale to a contentious two-day summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the 29-nation military alliance that is struggling with internal rifts, Europe’s shifting political currents and Trump’s open clashes with America’s political and military allies over a host of issues.

During joint appearances over the last three years, world leaders have largely stood silently and patiently while Trump lavished praise on his self-described achievements and bitterly attacked his perceived enemies. On Tuesday, Trump vented to reporters about impeachment, Democrats and other vexations for more than two hours during his supposed private meetings with other leaders.

That night, a hot mic video caught by the Canadian Broadcast Corp. appeared to show three of America’s closest traditional allies — Trudeau, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson — laughing as Trudeau seemed to ridicule Trump over his extended news briefings.

“He was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference off the top,” Trudeau can be heard saying.

“Well, he’s two-faced,” Trump responded Wednesday when asked about the comment during a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “He’s a nice guy. I find him to be a nice guy. But the truth is, I called him out on the fact that’s he’s not paying 2%, and I guess he’s not very happy about it.”

Trump was referring to his demand that NATO members honor a goal to spend 2% of their gross domestic product on defense by 2024. Canada has not met that standard.

The president apparently appreciated his own wit. After a working lunch with the leaders of nine nations that meet or exceed the 2% goal, another hot-mic moment heard him boast: “That was funny when I said that guy was two-faced.”

He also complained that Democrats leading the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing back in Washington were trying to weaken him on the world stage.

“To do it on a day like this, where we’re in England and some of the most powerful countries in the world [are] having very important NATO meetings. And it just happened to be scheduled on this day. It’s really, honestly, it’s a disgrace,” he told reporters.

Trump has long galvanized his supporters with the dubious claim that other countries laughed at previous presidents, but that they now respect him and the United States as never before.

The president has accepted that allies and adversaries might fear or resent him and his “America first” policies. But he sees ridicule as the highest form of insult, leading him to boycott the annual White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner roast since taking office, and to fume over “Saturday Night Live” parodies.

In September 2018, some members of the United Nations General Assembly laughed aloud when Trump used his address to claim his administration had accomplished more in fewer than two years than almost any administration in U.S. history.

“So true,” said Trump, who appeared surprised by the guffaws. “I didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s OK,” he added, to more laughter and some applause.

The NATO summit ended Wednesday with declarations of cooperation and assurances of mutual defense. But it revealed a visible shift in how America’s allies deal with Trump.

Leaders have gone from flattering Trump, to trying to accommodate him, to tolerating him, to trying to ignore him. They still need him, given America’s power and authority, but more often, they try to keep interactions at an arm’s length.

Johnson, who cast himself as a disruptive Trumpian figure, sought to avoid a public meeting with the president, who is deeply unpopular in Britain. The prime minister’s conservative allies worried Trump’s embrace could damage Johnson ahead of crucial parliamentary elections next week.

The two leaders met one-on-one Tuesday night outside the view of the press. But the meeting was kept off Trump’s schedule and not revealed until Trump tweeted about it Wednesday morning.

That may have contributed to Johnson’s apparent annoyance when Trump kept all the other leaders waiting 15 minutes for a group photo.

“How are we doing?” Johnson asked an aide. “Come on!”

Trump also met privately for 30 minutes Wednesday with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is facing the wrath of fellow NATO members for buying Russian missile systems and invading a Kurdish-controlled zone in northern Syria.

The White House confirmed the meeting only after Erdogan’s official Twitter account posted photos of it.

Trump insisted his accommodation of Erdogan has helped U.S. interests, even as it has cost the lives and territory of the Kurds, America’s longtime allies against Islamic State militants, and helped Russia bolster its power and influence in the region.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

“Maybe someday they’ll give me credit, but probably not,” Trump said Wednesday.

Beyond Erdogan, many allies appear to have grown fatigued. Macron, once a prime flatterer of Trump, was unwilling to back down or play a willing prop when the two met Tuesday, hours after Trump had publicly attacked him.

“Let’s be serious,” Macron said when Trump appeared to make a joke that France might accept some Islamic State fighters, one of several times the French leader expressed strong public disagreement. Macron used the opportunity to dispute Trump’s claim that the threat from Islamic State had been all but eliminated.

At another point, Macron drew a wide distance from Trump’s transactional view of foreign policy, which puts a priority on which countries are willing to spend money on arms.

“When you speak about NATO, it’s not just about money,” he said, launching into a lecture about the “fundamentals of what NATO should be.”

Click:best place to sell gold Auckland
SACRAMENTO — 

California’s campaign watchdog agency has suspended a longstanding policy banning its members from contributing to federal candidates after one commissioner donated to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid.

The decision by the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is responsible for policing campaign finance in California, is drawing criticism from some political reform advocates and former state officials who say the policy was put in place to avoid an appearance of bias in favor of political candidates whose campaigns are scrutinized by the state agency.

Dan Schnur, a former FPPC chairman who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley, said the policy is important because “board members are entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the state’s elections in a fair-minded and even-handed way.”

“Even the perception of bias undermines the credibility of the board’s decisions,” Schnur said. “If you are going to oversee state elections then you should be able to restrain yourself from partisan political involvement during your time of service.”

The panel voted on Sept. 19 to suspend the policy restricting donations and asked the state attorney general for an opinion on the legality and scope of the rules, which some FPPC members say violates their 1st Amendment rights.

“I absolutely believe that both the U.S. and the State constitutions protect my right to make political campaign contributions,” Commissioner Brian Hatch said in an email to The Times. “The issue that the making of campaign contributions is a form of political speech protected by the [U.S.] Constitution has been settled law for nearly five decades.”

Hatch made two campaign contributions totaling $30 to the Sanders campaign in June. He initiated a discussion about the policy in September that led to the panel vote to suspend it.

“Suffice it to say that I have made a small number of very small contributions to Bernie Sanders for President, just as more than four million other people have,” Hatch said.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Hatch, a former labor lobbyist who was appointed to the panel in 2017 by Secretary of State Alex Padilla, said he knew about the policy when he made the contributions, but believes the commission’s rule is in conflict with a state law that he says bars any action that would impinge on constitutional freedom of speech guarantees.

Robert Stern, former general counsel for the FPPC and a co-author of the state’s Political Reform Act in the 1970s, disagrees with Hatch’s stance, noting that the prohibition on federal campaign contributions has been in place for decades.

“I think it’s wrong for Brian Hatch to make contributions to Bernie Sanders,” Stern said. “The policy was put in place by the FPPC in order to remove any appearance of partisanship or bias on the part of commissioners.”

Stern said the commissioner should request that his contributions be returned. Hatch said he would do so if the attorney general finds the rules on contributions extend to federal campaigns and are not in violation of constitutional protections.

Schnur said Hatch does not have a constitutional right to serve on the commission, and commissioners can always step down if they want to contribute to political candidates.

Hatch, a Long Beach resident, said the panel’s job is to enforce state laws that apply to state campaigns and it has no jurisdiction over federal campaigns that are regulated by the federal government. The panel’s action does not affect the ban on commissioners making contributions to state candidates.

The state manual provided to commissioners has long said that state law “prevents Commissioners from participating in or contributing to any election campaign.”

“Thus,” the manual adds, commissioners “may not make contributions to any campaign involving an election held in this state. This includes campaigns for federal office if the candidate will appear on the ballot in California (e.g., a campaign for President or a California congressional seat).”

FPPC Chairman Richard C. Miadich noted that many federal elected officials also held state office in California and have state campaign committees that are subject to the FPPC’s oversight. He said he did not know Hatch had contributed to the Sanders campaign when the panel voted unanimously to suspend the policy pending the attorney general’s opinion.

“This statute as we have been interpreting it previously does arguably infringe on commissioners’ 1st Amendment rights to contribute to federal candidates,” Miadich told his fellow commissioners during a public hearing in September. “That’s a significant concern.”

Miadich, an attorney and former lobbyist appointed chairman in May by Gov. Gavin Newsom, said Tuesday that he will not make campaign contributions to federal candidates, including while the legal opinion is pending.

“At a minimum, it could create an appearance of bias, and I think it is our duty to be fair and impartial,” Miadich said.

Miadich said that if state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra concludes the policy does not violate the constitutional rights of commissioners, he will propose that the commission make clear that federal contributions are prohibited.

“If it doesn’t breach free speech, I believe that is the right thing to do for the state’s ethics and campaign watchdog agency,” he said.

SALT LAKE CITY — 

On a group text thread among Lakers players earlier this week, someone made reference to a social media slogan Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson has adopted.

“Nobody cares, work harder.”

It resonated with the Lakers.

“That’s kind of the motto we talked about after our loss,” Alex Caruso said. “Nobody cares if we lose. If we lose, people get excited, people get up for that. We’ve gotten to that point after such a good start. For us, it’s not worrying about that. We gotta go out there and do our job regardless. Sick, not sick. It’s going to be harder on certain nights.”

On Wednesday night, the Lakers (19-3) ensured they would come out of their latest trip with a winning record. They beat the Utah Jazz 121-96 a night after beating the Denver Nuggets. The trip will finish in Portland on Friday.

“We know who we are,” Danny Green said. “We know our identity. We’re not getting too excited about anything or too low about anything. We know we’ve played some pretty good basketball at times, we’ve played some bad basketball at times. You continue to get better, continue to move forward and take on every challenge every night.”

Anthony Davis scored 26 points, on nine-of-11 shooting, and blocked three shots. He rested for the fourth quarter with the game well in hand. LeBron James also exited early, having scored 20 points with 12 assists. It was the first time since Dec. 8, 2010, that James had won a game in Salt Lake City.

Kyle Kuzma, Rajon Rondo and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope each scored in double figures too.

Coach Frank Vogel cautioned before the game that Utah wasn’t what its record suggested. The Jazz had just come off a trip in which they lost four out of the five games they played, they were missing an injured Mike Conley, but they entered Wednesday’s game 8-1 at home.

Utah took an early lead, but once the Lakers settled into their game plan there was little the Jazz could do to stop them. The Lakers took the lead with 5:50 left in the first quarter and never trailed again.

“We gave it up a little bit tonight then we kind of found it again,” Davis said. “And tried to make sure that we gave them no life and tried to put the game away.”

Kuzma hit last-second shots at the end of the first and second quarters, and the Lakers went into halftime with an 18 point lead.

That was the closest the Jazz got to the Lakers in the third quarter. They never got closer than 17 in the fourth. Around that time, James stood near the Lakers bench in his stocking feet because he’d given his game shoes to a little girl. He cheered for his teammates while sometimes wandering onto the court in his socks.

“Late in the fourth quarter when we were up and I felt like we had a win in hand, I was just thinking to myself, ‘It’s been awhile since I won a game here,’” James said. “So, for us to come in in a hostile environment, one of the toughest places to play in the NBA and get a win, it’s a big game for us.”

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

It was a big game for Dwight Howard, too, who made his first three of the season.

“We tried it yesterday, it didn’t work,” Rondo said as he recounted what happened. “The shot clock was low. I looked at the bench I was like, welp. He got a green light to shoot this time, there’s no other option here. Four seconds on the shot clock so I was excited he made it. Winning’s fun.”

There’s not many better finishers in high school basketball than sophomore Amari Bailey of Sierra Canyon. Get him the ball during a fast break, then get out of the way and let his athleticism do the rest.

Bailey finished with 23 points on Wednesday night before 1,550 at CSUN in a 72-54 victory over Santa Clarita Christian. It was the most comfortable he has looked for Sierra Canyon (6-0) this season. He was in total attack mode. His 14 points in the first half were badly needed because BJ Boston didn’t score his first point until there was 37 seconds left in the half. The Trailblazers led at halftime 30-29.

“I was being myself,” Bailey said. “I was being Amari.”

Keeping Boston quiet was never going to happen. Like any good shooter, he knew his touch would return even when he started the game 0-for-9 shooting. He finished with 19 points and contributed 13 points in the third quarter when Sierra Canyon outscored the Cardinals 28-9. Bronny James made a couple of threes to help out.

“I feel me shooting out of a slump is good,” Boston said. “I felt comfortable toward the end.”

One of the most impressive players was junior Ty Harper of Santa Clarita Christian (4-2). He scored 28 points and made four threes in the first half.

In other games, Fairfax advanced to the semifinals of the Maranatha tournament with an 82-73 win over Providence. Keith Dinwiddie finished with 28 points. A’Jahni Levias had 35 points for Providence. Fairfax will play Oak Park on Friday at 8 p.m. Clark Slajchert scored 25 points in the Eagles’ 57-50 win over Maranatha.

In the Westchester tournament, Heritage Christian rallied for a 59-54 win over Bishop Montgomery to earn a semifinal matchup against Etiwanda. Justin Rochelin scored 17 points. Etiwanda defeated Washington Prep 62-40.

Mayfair defeated Los Alamitos 68-63. Joshua Christopher had 25 points and Dior Johnson 16.

Taft defeated Camarillo 76-52. Ramel Lloyd had 23 points and Khalil Haywood 19.

Servite defeated Norco 63-48. Tajavis Miller scored 20 points and Andrew Cook 19.

Rolling Hills Prep is 3-0 after an 81-40 win over Lawndale. Benny Gealer had 21 points and JT Tan and Troy Murphy added 15 points.

Saugus defeated Cleveland 81-41. Adrian McIntyre had 23 points.

In Sacramento, St. Francis defeated Sacramento Kennedy 74-35. Andre Henry finished with 26 points.

Sam Cabral made seven threes in Sun Valley Poly’s 70-29 win over Marshall. Quadre Johnson added 20 points.

Hugo Clarkin had 24 points and 11 rebounds in JSerra’s 66-39 win over La Habra.

Oaks Christian defeated Crespi 50-41. Mike Price had 16 points for Crespi.

Harvard-Westlake defeated Bonita 77-49. Cameron Thrower made six threes and finished with 20 points.

It’s on him.

He’s the quarterback. He’s the player with the $134-million contract.

Jared Goff nodded.

“That’s part of the job, man,” he said. “That’s part of the job.”

Less than a year removed from playing in the Super Bowl, the Rams are in danger of missing the postseason entirely.

The Minnesota Vikings are a game ahead of them for the final wild-card spot. Overtaking them could require the Rams to win their four remaining games, beginning Sunday against the Seattle Seahawks.

If Goff’s reputation was damaged by many of the previous 12 games, this final stretch offers a chance for redemption, an opportunity to justify the faith the organization placed in the former No. 1 overall pick by signing him to a nine-figure extension before the season.

With running back Todd Gurley yet to have a 100-yard game and their offensive line in shambles, the Rams desperately need Goff to perform like a franchise quarterback they are paying him to be.

While Goff still has to prove he can play the role, he has demonstrated he can at least act the part.

From the time he was drafted, Goff has always said the right things. What’s changed isn’t so much what he says, but how he says it. There’s a calmness about him that inspires confidence.

“When you’re drafted high like I was, it’s already kind of in your head you are that guy, you are the face of the franchise,” he said. “You have to carry yourself that way. Over the last four years, it’s been a maturation process and I feel like I’m getting to the point where I’m feeling really, really comfortable as that, and have been for a few years, at this point.”

Speaking at his team’s practice facility Wednesday, Goff acknowledged the obvious: He’s been inconsistent.

The NFL’s No. 8 passer last year, his rating of 84.1 this year ranks 25th in the league, right behind Mitch Trubisky of the Chicago Bears. Philip Rivers of the Chargers, whose down season has resulted in speculation that he could be benched, is two places ahead of Goff.

Goff has passed for only 13 touchdowns. He finished with 32 last season and 28 the season before that.

His numbers are down across the board. The exception: He’s already matched his 12 interceptions from last season.

“It’s just always about how you respond,” Goff said. “It’s never going to be perfect. It’s never going to be exactly how you like it. Sometimes, it’s going to be really, really good and you want to always try to be on that side of it as much as possible. But there’s times where it’s not going to go your way and that’s in football, in life, in everything, and it’s always going to be about how you respond. That’s how you’re truly judged.”

Click Here: thierry mugler angel

Goff enjoyed his best game of the season last week, albeit against the last-place Arizona Cardinals, who have the league’s worst pass defense. The 424-yard, two-touchdown performance ended a three-game stretch in which he didn’t pass for a single score.

The Rams’ next three games are against playoff-bound teams: at home against the Seahawks (10-2), on the road against the San Francisco 49ers (10-2) and Dallas Cowboys (6-6).

Some of Goff’s problems are byproducts of factors outside of his control. He’s had an average of 2.76 seconds to throw per pass attempt this year, compared with 2.95 in 2018 and 2.93 in 2017, according to NFL Next Gen Stats.

But if the team around Goff isn’t operating as well as it has in the past, how much of it is his responsibility to make up for that?

“I would never say that it’s just on him,” coach Sean McVay said. “I think it’s always on the unit.”

Whatever is happening, Goff said he is the same.

“You try to stay within yourself,” he said. “There’s been obviously shuffling up front, but that’s no excuse, ever. We just have done a good job figuring it out in the last couple weeks, I think. We feel good. I don’t think there’s anything to look back on at this point. I think we’re moving forward and want to go beat Seattle.”

When the Rams played in Seattle in October, in Week 5, Goff moved them from their own seven-yard line to the Seahawks’ 26. Greg Zuerlein missed a 44-yard field-goal attempt with 15 seconds remaining and the Rams lost 30-29.

Reflecting on that defeat, Goff held himself accountable.

“We were able to move the ball there, but left a little bit more meat on that than we wanted to,” he said. “I think we could have got maybe a few more yards there for Greg.”

Standing at the lectern in the Rams media room, Goff looked like a leader. He sounded like a leader.

Sunday, he will have to play like one.

Howdy, I’m your host, Houston Mitchell. Let’s get right to the news.

USC FOOTBALL

After months of rampant speculation surrounding the future of USC’s football program, a new athletic director and new president have opted to stick with the status quo.

The university’s new leadership announced Wednesday that Clay Helton, whose uneven tenure as head coach saw the Trojans reach the Rose Bowl in 2016 and win the Pac-12 Conference title in 2017 before stumbling the last two seasons, will remain USC’s coach for the foreseeable future.

The controversial decision to keep Helton comes on the heels of an 8-4 campaign marred by injury and inconsistency in which the Trojans struggled to find a foothold even while managing for months to stay within striking distance of winning the Pac-12 South Division.

“I am pleased to let you know Coach Helton will continue to be our head coach,” USC athletic director Mike Bohn wrote in a letter to athletic department supporters. “His commitment to our student-athletes and to leading with integrity is vital to restoring our championship program, which is the goal for all of our teams. Heading into 2020, Coach Helton and I will work together to take a hard look at all aspects of the football enterprise and will make the tough decisions necessary to compete at a championship level.”

Read more

Bill Plaschke: USC is keeping Clay Helton. What is Mike Bohn thinking?

Fan reaction: USC fans contacted wrong Mike Bohn to get Clay Helton fired

USC President Carol L. Folt stands behind Mike Bohn’s decision on Clay Helton

LAKERS

On Wednesday night, the Lakers (19-3) ensured they would come out of their latest road trip with a winning record. They beat the Utah Jazz 121-96 a night after beating the Denver Nuggets. The Lakers’ trip will finish in Portland on Friday.

Frank Vogel cautioned before the game that Utah wasn’t what its record suggested. The Jazz had just come off a road trip in which they had lost four out of the five games, but entered Wednesday 8-1 at home.

The Lakers took them seriously enough to blow them out.

Anthony Davis scored 26 points on nine-of-11 shooting and blocked three shots. He rested for most of the fourth quarter with the game well in hand. LeBron James also exited early, having scored 20 points with 12 assists.

Kyle Kuzma, one of the two players most affected by a cold permeating the locker room, hit three-pointers in the final seconds of both the first and second quarters. He finished with 13 points and a team-high four steals.

The game closed with one familiar sight for the Lakers — the home fans leaving while interloping Lakers fans chanted for them.

KINGS

John Carlson scored twice, Ilya Samsonov stopped 22 shots and the Washington Capitals beat the Kings 3-1 on Wednesday night.

Tom Wilson also had a goal as the Capitals have won five in a row for the second time this season. They won six straight Oct. 25-Nov. 9.

Blake Lizotte had a goal and Jonathan Quick made 19 saves for the Kings, who lost for the third time in their last 10 home games.

ANGELS

The Angels and the city of Anaheim agreed Wednesday on a deal under which a company affiliated with Angels owner Arte Moreno would buy Angel Stadium and the surrounding property for $325 million. The city would not contribute to the cost of either renovating the stadium or building a new one, and the Angels would decide whether to upgrade or replace the current stadium.

Under the deal, the Angels are committed to playing in Anaheim through 2050, with options that could keep them there through 2065. The Angels were faced with a Dec. 31 deadline to opt out of their stadium lease or remain bound to it through 2029.

RAMS

Since becoming the Rams coach in 2017, Sean McVay never has shied from accountability. He protectively falls on the sword for every miscue or poor performance by players, saying it was his fault for not putting them in better positions.

But as the play-caller, his limited use of running back Todd Gurley during the first half of the season indisputably was McVay’s error — and his alone — to own.

He all but did so Wednesday when asked what precipitated Gurley’s increased usage of late.

“Me not being an idiot?” McVay said.

As the Rams prepare for Sunday’s game against the NFC West-leading Seattle Seahawks, all indications are that McVay will stick to a plan that worked against the Arizona Cardinals and mostly worked wonders during a run to the playoffs in 2017 and to the Super Bowl last season.

“You don’t want to make the same mistakes that you ended up making earlier on,” McVay said.

YOUR FAVORITE SPORTS MOMENT

What is your all-time favorite local sports moment? Email me at [email protected] and tell me what it is and why, and it could appear in a future Sports newsletter.

This moment comes from Perry Grant of Arcadia:

“May, 1968, the week before finals. Studying too much and had to take a break. Went over to Pauley Pavilion to shoot some hoops. The four side baskets were down so there were six open half courts. Got into a 3-on-3 game. There were three games going on.

“The door on the west end opened up and in walked six more players. All three games immediately stopped, because the best collegiate basketball team in the nation (maybe of all time) had just walked in, plus one. Lew Alcindor (later Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), Lynn Shackelford, Kenny Heitz, Lucius Allen and Mike Warren and the plus-one. The six quickly chose teams and started playing. I did not know the name of the plus-one. He seemed almost as tall as Alcindor and very athletic. I figured him to be a pro. He was that good and he blocked one of Alcindor‘s sky hooks (I know, I know. Everybody tells me that’s impossible but I know what I saw.)

“I turned to the guy next to me and said, ‘Who the heck is that?’ He said, ‘You really don’t know who that is? That’s Sidney Wicks; he was at Santa Monica College this past year but he’ll be here next year to help us win another title.’

“And he came and did exactly that.”

TODAY’S LOCAL MAJOR SPORTS SCHEDULE

All times Pacific

No games scheduled.

BORN ON THIS DATE

1947: Football player Jim Plunkett

1949: Golfer Lanny Wadkins

1951: Golfer Tom Purtzer

1957: Football player Art Monk

1963: Ski jumper Eddie “the Eagle” Edwards

1964: Swimmer Pablo Morales

1978: Hockey player Olli Jokinen

1985: Basketball player Josh Smith

DIED ON THIS DATE

1951: Baseball player “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, 64

2001: Yachtsman Peter Blake, 53

2002: Sports broadcasting executive Roone Arledge, 71

2010: Football player/broadcaster Don Meredith, 71

2016: Football player Rashaan Salaam, 42

AND FINALLY

The top 10 Raiders of all time, No. 8: Jim Plunkett. Watch it here.

That concludes the newsletter for today. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, please email me at [email protected]. If you want to subscribe, click here.

Officers can get up to a $50,000 loan toward a down payment if they’re first-time buyers

SAN DIEGO — 

San Diego’s chronic police officer shortage has prompted the city to start a home-buying incentive that will give officers as much as $50,000 toward a down payment if they buy a house in the city.

The $750,000 program will help the Police Department recruit and retain more officers, while also boosting community policing by encouraging more officers to live in the city instead of other parts of the region, city officials said.

“Maintaining San Diego’s status as one of the safest cities in the country starts with recruiting the best and brightest to protect and serve,” Mayor Kevin Faulconer said at a Wednesday news conference.

“This new home-buyer program gives us another powerful tool to attract top talent and provides the opportunity for more of our officers to live in the neighborhoods they’re working to keep safe,” he said. “It sends a very strong and powerful message, backed up with dollars.”

Police Chief David Nisleit said he expected many officers to embrace the incentive, noting that three preliminary workshops hosted by the department had been well-attended.

“One of the things we constantly hear when people leave is that they can’t afford to own a home here,” Nisleit said Wednesday.

Many San Diego officers live as far away as southwest Riverside County, where homes are cheaper but the commute to work can be longer than 90 minutes. An analysis last year by the police officers labor union found that about 30% of city officers lived within San Diego.

Union President Jack Schaeffer said he also expected officers to embrace the program.

“We believe quality of life will improve for our officers and their commute times will decrease exponentially,” he said.

Since Nisleit took over the department from former Chief Shelley Zimmerman in March 2018, the number of officer vacancies has shrunk from nearly 300 to about 150.

The city’s goal is to have 2,040 officers. Nisleit said there will be just under 1,900 when a new Police Academy starts on Monday with 48 recruits.

Officials credit the reduction in vacancies to several new programs and policies, including signing bonuses and finder’s fees for San Diego officers who successfully recruit new colleagues.

In addition, the city has given pay raises of at least 25% to officers, hired a social media marketing firm to boost recruiting, and revamped the Police Department’s written exam and background checks.

While most other departments have used signing bonuses and finder’s fees for years, San Diego appears to be ahead of the curve on the home-buying program.

Chicago, San Francisco and Stockton offer similar home-buying incentives, but San Diego officials said such programs were relatively rare.

The program is open to officers who have never owned a home, and they must contribute at least 3.5% of the purchase price toward the down payment. They must also have a credit score of at least 680.

The incentive loan must be repaid within five years and the officer must live at the property during the entire course of the loan. The city won’t charge them any interest.

City Council members Chris Cate and Barbara Bry first proposed a home-buying incentive last year. On Wednesday, Cate said he was pleased to see the program finally come together.

“Assisting our San Diego police officers with purchasing a home in the city helps them establish roots in the communities they serve, and provides them with an additional incentive to join and stay with the San Diego Police Department,” he said.

The city is contributing $250,000 to the program. The other $500,000 is coming from Pacific Western Bank and Mechanics Bank.

Faulconer and Cate said they expected the program to become larger in the future.

Garrick writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Click Here: chloe perfume