Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but the court said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
The PM said he would "respect the verdict", but he "strongly disagrees".
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
Mr Johnson argued he wanted to carry out the prorogation ahead of a Queen's Speech so he could outline his government's new policies.
But critics said he was trying to stop MPs from scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary for a Queen's Speech.
Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
He said prime minister's questions - which normally takes place on a Wednesday - would not go ahead, though, because Mr Johnson was in New York for a UN summit.
However, Mr Bercow said there would be "full scope" for urgent questions, ministerial statements and applications for emergency debates.
Where does this leave Boris Johnson?
Short of the inscrutable Lady Hale, with the giant diamond spider on her lapel, declaring Boris Johnson to be Pinocchio, this judgement is just about as bad for the government as it gets.
Mr Johnson is, as is abundantly clear, prepared to run a general election campaign that pits Parliament against the people. And so what, according to that view of the world, if that includes the judges as part of the establishment standing in his way?
But there is a difference between being ruthless and reckless.
And the scope and strength of this judgement cannot just be dismissed as some pesky judges sticking their noses in.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the ruling showed Mr Johnson's "contempt for democracy", adding: "I invite Boris Johnson, in the historic words, to consider his position."
Mr Corbyn was due to close the Labour Party conference in Brighton with a speech on Wednesday, but has brought it forward to Tuesday afternoon so he can return to Parliament.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Lawyers for the government had argued the decision to prorogue was one for Parliament, not the courts.
But the justices disagreed, unanimously deciding it was "justiciable", and there was "no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power".
The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".
The damage is done
Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.
It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.
The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.
And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament.
That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons.
This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges, through the mechanism of judicial review, stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful.
Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister.
Unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling.
What was the court considering?
The ruling was made after a three-day hearing at the Supreme Court last week which dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government.
Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.
The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.
The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller's appeal and against the government's.
How did those involved in the case react?
Speaking outside the court, Mrs Miller said the ruling "speaks volumes".
"This prime minister must open the doors of Parliament tomorrow. MPs must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account," she added.
The SNP's Joanna Cherry, who led the Scottish case, called for Mr Johnson to resign as a result of the ruling.
"The highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this Parliament, his advice given to Her Majesty the Queen, was unlawful," she said.
"His position is untenable and he should have the guts, for once, to do the decent thing and resign."
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major - one of the sponsors of the prorogation appeal - said it gave him "no pleasure to be pitted against a government and prime minister of my own party".
"No prime minister must ever treat the monarch or Parliament in this way again."
What about other MPs?
A number of MPs have taken to Twitter to support the court's decision, including former Tory minister Amber Rudd, who resigned her post - and the party whip - over the government's approach to Brexit.
Despite personal assurances from the PM, the Cabinet was not shown the legal advice around this prorogation.
This is an astonishing moment and I regret that the PM, who entered office with such goodwill, went down this route. I urge him to work with Parliament to pass a Deal.
The leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, said the suspension was the "worst political decision ever" and called for Mr Johnson's chief advisor to resign.
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who has been an outspoken critic of the suspension, said he was "not surprised" by the judgement because of the "gross misbehaviour by the prime minister".
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme he was "delighted" the Supreme Court had "stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks".
Media playback is unsupported on your device
But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said the court's decision was "the worst possible outcome for our democracy" and "an absolute disgrace".
He told the same programme: "What we've got is a Parliament that's completely out of step with sentiment of the country. They're holding out democracy to ransom.
"What we're going to see is the Speaker effectively taking control of Parliament and playing to the Remainers' tune until the 31st of October."
What happened before Parliament was suspended?
Prorogation is a power that rests with the Queen, carried out by her on the advice of the prime minister.
And at the end of August - shortly before MPs returned from their summer recess - Mr Johnson called Her Majesty to advise she suspend Parliament between 9 September until 14 October.
MPs had been expecting to be in recess for some of these weeks for their party conferences.
But unlike prorogation, a recess must be agreed by a vote, and a number of MPs said they would have voted against it to ensure they could scrutinise Mr Johnson's Brexit plans.
The decision to prorogue prompted an uproar from the Commons, especially from MPs who had planned to take control of Parliament to force through a law to block a no-deal Brexit after Mr Johnson said the UK would leave the EU with or without a deal on the Halloween deadline.
Despite only sitting for a week, they did manage to pass that law ahead of prorogation and it received royal assent on 9 September.
What questions do you have about the Supreme Court's decision?
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page on the BBC News app, you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question on this topic.
What happened last year: At the start of his 2018 address, Trump generated laughter among the delegates when he bragged about what his administration has accomplished. Later, he put on a brave face, saying the General Assembly was "laughing with me."
But the moment resonated because of what it illustrated about Trump's global standing.
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but the court said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
Commons Speaker John Bercow confirmed MPs would now return on Wednesday.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
Mr Johnson argued he wanted to carry out the prorogation ahead of a Queen's Speech so he could outline his government's new policies.
But critics said he was trying to stop MPs from scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary for a Queen's Speech.
Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
Mr Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
He said prime minister's questions - which normally takes place on a Wednesday - would not go ahead, though, because Mr Johnson was in New York for a UN summit.
However, Mr Bercow said there would be "full scope" for urgent questions, ministerial statements and applications for emergency debates.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the ruling showed Mr Johnson's "contempt for democracy", adding: "I invite Boris Johnson, in the historic words, to consider his position."
Mr Corbyn was due to close the Labour Party conference in Brighton with a speech on Wednesday, but has brought it forward to Tuesday afternoon so he can return to Parliament.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Lawyers for the government had argued the decision to prorogue was one for Parliament, not the courts.
But the justices disagreed, unanimously deciding it was "justiciable", and there was "no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power".
The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".
The damage is done
Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.
It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.
The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.
And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament.
That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons.
This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges, through the mechanism of judicial review, stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful.
Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister.
Unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling.
What was the court considering?
The ruling was made after a three-day hearing at the Supreme Court last week which dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government.
Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.
The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.
The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller's appeal and against the government's.
How did those involved in the case react?
Speaking outside the court, Mrs Miller said the ruling "speaks volumes".
"This prime minister must open the doors of Parliament tomorrow. MPs must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account," she added.
The SNP's Joanna Cherry, who led the Scottish case, called for Mr Johnson to resign as a result of the ruling.
"The highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this Parliament, his advice given to Her Majesty the Queen, was unlawful," she said.
"His position is untenable and he should have the guts, for once, to do the decent thing and resign."
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major - one of the sponsors of the prorogation appeal - said it gave him "no pleasure to be pitted against a government and prime minister of my own party".
"No prime minister must ever treat the monarch or Parliament in this way again."
What about other MPs?
A number of MPs have taken to Twitter to support the court's decision, including former Tory minister Amber Rudd, who resigned her post - and the party whip - over the government's approach to Brexit.
Despite personal assurances from the PM, the Cabinet was not shown the legal advice around this prorogation.
This is an astonishing moment and I regret that the PM, who entered office with such goodwill, went down this route. I urge him to work with Parliament to pass a Deal.
The leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, said the suspension was the "worst political decision ever" and called for Mr Johnson's chief advisor to resign.
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who has been an outspoken critic of the suspension, said he was "not surprised" by the judgement because of the "gross misbehaviour by the prime minister".
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme he was "delighted" the Supreme Court had "stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks".
Media playback is unsupported on your device
But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said the court's decision was "the worst possible outcome for our democracy" and "an absolute disgrace".
He told the same programme: "What we've got is a Parliament that's completely out of step with sentiment of the country. They're holding out democracy to ransom.
"What we're going to see is the Speaker effectively taking control of Parliament and playing to the Remainers' tune until the 31st of October."
What happened before Parliament was suspended?
Prorogation is a power that rests with the Queen, carried out by her on the advice of the prime minister.
And at the end of August - shortly before MPs returned from their summer recess - Mr Johnson called Her Majesty to advise she suspend Parliament between 9 September until 14 October.
MPs had been expecting to be in recess for some of these weeks for their party conferences.
But unlike prorogation, a recess must be agreed by a vote, and a number of MPs said they would have voted against it to ensure they could scrutinise Mr Johnson's Brexit plans.
The decision to prorogue prompted an uproar from the Commons, especially from MPs who had planned to take control of Parliament to force through a law to block a no-deal Brexit after Mr Johnson said the UK would leave the EU with or without a deal on the Halloween deadline.
Despite only sitting for a week, they did manage to pass that law ahead of prorogation and it received royal assent on 9 September.
What questions do you have about the Supreme Court's decision?
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page on the BBC News app, you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question on this topic.
San Juan, Puerto Rico — A 6.0-magnitude earthquake struck near Puerto Rico late Monday, scaring and rousing many from their sleep in the U.S. territory. The U.S. Geological Survey said the quake hit 49 miles off the island's northwest coast at a shallow depth of 6 miles.
Three aftershocks, with magnitudes of 4.7, 4.6 and another of 4.6, hit within less than an hour in the same region at the same depth.
Kiara Hernández, spokeswoman for the island's Emergency Management Agency, told The Associated Press that there were no immediate reports of damage and that there was no risk of tsunami.
Trending News
She said emergency management officials were already on alert for the approaching Tropical Depression Karen and communicated quickly with mayors and others across the island to check on any damage. Early Tuesday, Karen strengthened into a tropical storm again, the National Hurricane Center said.
The National Guard also had been activated for the storm, and schools and government offices remained closed as heavy rains were forecast for Puerto Rico on Tuesday, with warnings of possible flooding and landslides.
Hernández said crews would be inspecting buildings to ensure their safety.
"We will know this information little by little," she said.
CBS News correspondent David Begnaud retweeted video of a water main break that apparently followed the temblor:
Earthquake damage: Water main break in Mayagüez which is on the western side of Puerto Rico. https://t.co/SuzBEY3oLD
Yahaida Zabala, a 46-year-old San Juan resident, was asleep when she felt her building sway Monday around 11:23 p.m.
"I rushed into my son's room," she said. "He was sitting like he was paralyzed."
They ran down the stairs of their building and stood outside with a small group of people awaiting aftershocks.
The quake was felt across Puerto Rico and was the strongest to hit the island in recent years. While Puerto Rico experiences very small earthquakes on a daily basis that no one feels, seismologists have said it's rare for bigger ones to strike the island.
The last powerful quake to strike Puerto Rico was in January 2014, when a magnitude-6.4 tremor hit after midnight just north of the island's north coast at a depth of 17 miles. Authorities reported broken windows, a busted water line and cracked floors and walls, along with some power outages. Some 70 aftershocks were reported, with at least three of a magnitude 3.5 or greater.
The most damaging earthquake to hit Puerto Rico in recent history occurred in October 1918, a magnitude-7.3 quake that struck near the island's northwest coast, causing a tsunami and killing 116 people.
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but the court said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
Downing Street said it was "currently processing the verdict".
Mr Johnson argued he wanted to carry out the prorogation ahead of a Queen's Speech so he could outline his government's new policies.
But critics said he was trying to stop MPs from scrutinising his Brexit plans.
A raft of MPs have now called for the prime minister to resign and for Parliament to return as soon as possible.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the ruling showed Mr Johnson's "contempt for democracy", adding: "I invite Boris Johnson, in the historic words, to consider his position."
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant that Parliament had not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect - and it was for the Speakers of the Commons and Lords to decide what to do next.
Commons Speaker John Bercow welcomed the ruling and said Parliament "must convene without delay", adding that he would now consult party leaders "as a matter of urgency".
The damage is done
Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.
It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.
The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.
And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament.
That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons.
This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges, through the mechanism of judicial review, stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful.
Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister.
Unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling.
What was the court considering?
The ruling was made after a three-day hearing at the Supreme Court last week which dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government.
Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.
The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.
The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller's appeal and against the government's.
How did those involved in the case react?
Speaking outside the court, Mrs Miller said the ruling "speaks volumes".
"This prime minister must open the doors of Parliament tomorrow. MPs must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account," she added.
The SNP's Joanna Cherry, who led the Scottish case, called for Mr Johnson to resign as a result of the ruling.
"The highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this Parliament, his advice given to Her Majesty the Queen, was unlawful," she said.
"His position is untenable and he should have the guts, for once, to do the decent thing and resign."
What about other MPs?
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who has been an outspoken critic of the suspension, said he was "not surprised" by the judgement because of the "gross misbehaviour by the prime minister".
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme he was "delighted" the Supreme Court had "stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks".
Media playback is unsupported on your device
But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said the court's decision was "the worst possible outcome for our democracy" and "an absolute disgrace".
He told the same programme: "What we've got is a Parliament that's completely out of step with sentiment of the country. They're holding out democracy to ransom.
"What we're going to see is the Speaker effectively taking control of Parliament and playing to the Remainers' tune until the 31st of October."
What questions do you have about the Supreme Court's decision?
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page on the BBC News app, you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question on this topic.
Then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, attend a basketball game in Washington in 2010. Joe Biden frequently dealt with the Ukrainian government and pressed the government to deal with corruption issues. At the same time, Hunter Biden was on the board of a leading gas company in Ukraine. President Trump and some of his supporters have called for an investigation.
Nick Wass/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Nick Wass/AP
President Trump's July 25 conversation this summer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, flagged by a whistleblower, has sparked competing accusations between Republicans and Democrats.
The Democrats want to know if Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate and former vice president Joe Biden.
But Trump claims the real issue is Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, and what they did in Ukraine a few years ago.
"The one who's got the problem is Biden," Trump told reporters on Monday at the United Nations. "Biden did what they would like to have me do, except one problem: I didn't do it. What Biden did is a disgrace. What his son did is a disgrace."
The Biden camp has argued that claims of wrongdoing are unfounded and have been debunked. "Trump's doing this because he knows I'll beat him like a drum," Biden told reporters on Saturday. "And he's using the abuse of power and every element of the presidency to try to do something to smear me."
Here are five questions about the accusations and the facts behind them.
1. So what did Joe Biden do in Ukraine?
Ukraine had a revolution in February 2014, when the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted and fled to Russia amid massive, sustained protests that focused on corruption in his administration.
A pro-Western president, Petro Poroshenko, took over. Then-President Obama's administration was prepared to work with the new government, a position shared with European governments and international institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But they were all concerned about the country's endemic corruption, which had plagued the country ever since it gained independence in the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.
Obama made then-Vice President Biden the point man, and he became a frequent visitor to Ukraine.
2. What role did Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, play in Ukraine?
In the spring of 2014, as Joe Biden began has trips to Ukraine, Hunter Biden took a position on the board of the country's largest private gas company, Burisma. He was reportedly paid up to $50,000 a month.
The question of a possible conflict of interest — with Hunter Biden profiting in a country where his father was actively working with the government — was raised publicly at the time.
Joe Biden said that he followed government ethics regulations and that his son was a private citizen who made his own decisions.
Also, the Obama administration actually supported an investigation into the gas company because the owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, was close to the ousted president and they had both fled the country.
3. Is there any sign of wrongdoing by either Joe Biden or his son, Hunter Biden?
This is what Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, are suggesting. But they have not provided evidence of illegal actions. Multiple fact checks have called Trump's accusations of corruption by the Bidens misleading.
....know the correct facts. Is he on our Country’s side. Where does he come from. Is this all about Schiff & the Democrats again after years of being wrong?
Joe Biden has actually boasted about his work in Ukraine as a spokesperson for the White House and the West generally. He called for the ouster of the top Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for what was widely seen as his failure to investigate corruption.
In March 2016, Biden made one of his many trips to Ukraine and told the country's leaders that they had to get rid of the prosecutor if they wanted $1 billion in U.S. aid. Biden told the story last yearat the Council on Foreign Relations:
"I said, 'You're not getting the [$1 billion]. I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a b****. He got fired," Biden said.
4. How do Trump and his supporters see Joe Biden's work?
They argue that Joe Biden wanted the prosecutor ousted to protect his son from being investigated. But there has been no evidence of wrongdoing, and Joe Biden was tasked as vice president with helping to weed out corruption in Ukraine.
The key figure in pushing the corruption narrative appears to be Giuliani. He has been in contact with Ukraine multiple times and urged officials there to look into the Bidens. The story has been percolating for the past few months. Giuliani has repeatedly tweeted about it and discussed it on TV.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden stepped down from his post at the gas company this past spring as his term expired, saying he turned down an offer to have it extended. He recognized that it was going to be an issue in the 2020 campaign.
"My qualifications and work are being attacked by Rudy Giuliani and his minions for transparent political purposes," Hunter Biden said in a statement at the time.
5. What's next?
Democrats are demanding to see a transcript of Trump's July 25 conversation with Ukraine's president, which the White House has declined to release.
The inspector general of the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, reported the whistleblower complaint about the call to the House Intelligence Committee in a Sept. 9 letter.
But when Atkinson was called before a closed-door committee hearing last Thursday, he reportedly told members that he was being blocked from releasing the details of the complaint by Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence. Maguire has been called for the same committee this Thursday in a public hearing.
Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are talking about a new investigation of the president and whether they should pursue impeachment,a move that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has so far opposed.
