https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396
2019-10-06 14:54:00Z
52780399935508
Minggu, 06 Oktober 2019
2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney - ABC News
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396
2019-10-06 14:54:00Z
52780399935508
Second whistleblower comes forward in Trump-Ukraine scandal - NBC News
A second whistleblower has come forward with information about President Donald Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine, according to attorneys representing that whistleblower and the intelligence official whose earlier complaint set off a series of events culminating in an impeachment inquiry.
"I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers in connection to the underlying August 12, 2019, disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General," attorney Andrew Bakaj told NBC News.
The July 25 phone call led a U.S. intelligence official to file a whistleblower complaint that set off a cascade of fast-moving events, ultimately leading to an impeachment inquiry into the president.
Trump has publicly maintained that the call was "absolutely perfect" and "totally appropriate."
A description of the call made public by the White House showed Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to look into why Ukraine's top prosecutor had apparently ended an investigation into a Ukrainian gas company that once employed former Vice President Joe Biden's son as a board member.
Text messages given to Congress Thursday and released by House Democrats suggest the call was part of a broader effort from Trump and his administration to pressure Ukraine.
The texts show U.S. ambassadors working to persuade Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating Trump’s political opponents and explicitly linking the inquiry to whether Ukraine’s president would be granted an official White House visit.
The messages offer the fullest picture to date of how top diplomats and Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani sought to advance Trump’s goal of getting the Ukrainians to investigate both meddling in the 2016 election and Hunter Biden.
The new details on how Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine unfolded came as the president publicly called for another foreign country — China — to probe one of his top political opponents.
Trump lashed out at the second whistleblower on Saturday amid a day-long effort at defending himself on Twitter.
"The first so-called second hand information 'Whistleblower' got my phone conversation almost completely wrong, so now word is they are going to the bench and another 'Whistleblower' is coming in from the Deep State, also with second hand info," Trump tweeted. "Meet with Shifty. Keep them coming!"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/second-whistleblower-comes-forward-trump-ukraine-scandal-n1062961
2019-10-06 13:10:00Z
52780402612381
Is It Ever OK for a President to Ask a Foreign Country to Investigate a Political Rival? - POLITICO
Here’s the big question on which the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump could turn: Is it ever appropriate for a U.S. president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?
Democrats seem to assume the answer is no, that this kind of request could never be proper, given the implications for our electoral system. “Smoking gun” is what they say about Trump’s urging Ukraine—and now also China—to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Republicans, meanwhile, contend that it is perfectly normal, and justified, for Trump as president to ask the Ukrainians to look into potential corruption that involves Americans and could, in theory, affect U.S. relations with that country.
Story Continued Below
“This is not about politics. This is about corruption,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Friday.
But the real answer to this question is more complicated. History shows that a president sometimes might be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including a former vice president. So, the mere fact of Trump’s request for an investigation into the Bidens, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not enough to impeach him.
In order prove that Trump abused his presidential powers to the point that he no longer can be trusted in exercising them—the constitutional standard for impeachment—Congress must establish Trump’s intent in making the request. Was it done in good faith, with U.S. foreign or domestic interests in mind, or in bad faith, merely for Trump’s personal and political benefit? To prove the latter, Congress can’t rely on Trump’s words alone; it must show that the charges of corruption against the Bidens are baseless and that Trump’s request to Ukraine is part of a pattern of bad faith demonstrating that the nation no longer can tolerate his incumbency.
Going back to America’s early days, there have been occasional instances in which presidents would have been justified had they sought foreign investigations into political rivals. In 1804, Aaron Burr contacted the British government, apparently to peddle a plan for severing part of the United States to form a new country in western territory. In response, President Thomas Jefferson had Burr prosecuted for treason, and he was found not guilty. We can stipulate that Jefferson was excessively involved in the treason trial. But had he instead simply asked for Britain’s assistance in gathering more information about Burr’s involvement in this plot, that would have been entirely appropriate given the high stakes for the country.
This is true despite the fact that Jefferson was seeking reelection at the time and Burr, an incorrigibly ambitious politician, might still have coveted the presidency. It was unlikely that Burr would have been a serious rival to Jefferson’s reelection; the Federalist party, which opposed Jefferson, hated Burr for having slayed its hero, Alexander Hamilton. But Burr was still active politically and could not be discounted completely. Whatever the circumstances of the electoral rivalries at that moment—and campaigns back then were, of course, very different from today—Jefferson as president would have been acting responsibly if he had requested Britain’s assistance in the investigation of Burr.
For a more recent example, look to 1968, when Richard Nixon was the Republican nominee attempting to wrest the White House from Democratic hands. During the campaign, Nixon went so far as to encourage an emissary, Anna Chennault, to intervene with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s peace talks to end the Vietnam War. Johnson by then had dropped out of the Democratic primary, but his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, would end up the party’s nominee—making Nixon, in effect, a political rival. Even so, it would have been completely legitimate if LBJ, who did get wind of what Chennault was doing, had decided to ask South Vietnam for information about whether Nixon was directly involved in this ploy.
Sometimes, there is an inevitable tension between the president’s obligation to defend the nation as commander-in-chief and the president’s role as a candidate for reelection. But presidents, unlike subordinates, cannot recuse themselves from their commander-in-chief responsibilities. Rarely, but occasionally, acting in good faith as commander-in-chief might require an incumbent president to seek foreign assistance in pursuing an investigation of a former vice president—like Burr and Nixon—who is opposing the president’s reelection. As long as the president indeed acts in good faith, critics reasonably can question the soundness of the president’s decisions, but there would be no grounds for impeachment and removal of office.
What about Trump’s very real requests for foreign investigations of former Vice President Biden? Can they be defended from an impeachment charge on the ground that Trump was acting in good faith?
Maybe good faith wouldn’t be an adequate defense if Trump violated campaign finance laws by seeking a “thing of value” from foreign governments in support of his reelection campaign. But I would argue that some presidential conversations with foreign leaders must be considered beyond the scope of campaign finance regulation. The exercise of commander-in-chief responsibility in pursuit of the national interest should not get caught up in the interpretation of regulations that fundamentally are designed to protect American elections from foreign money.
Nor is a quid pro quo offer—if that is what Trump made to Ukraine when asking for an investigation—necessarily a sign of bad faith. Such an offer could be considered legitimate if it is in the service of a valid foreign policy objective, as Michael McFaul, President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia, recently observed.
These points are not to suggest that Trump was justified in requesting foreign investigation of Biden. Rather, they help point the focus of the inquiry where it belongs: on Trump’s motive. Congress must determine whether the president had a good-faith basis for believing that Biden engaged in any impropriety, comparable to Nixon’s or Burr’s, that could justify the kind of requests Trump made to Ukraine and China. From all the available evidence right now, it strains credulity for Trump’s defenders to claim he is acting in good faith, but Congress must make an official judgment as part of any formal impeachment proceedings.
How can Congress establish that Trump’s motive was nefarious? For starters, the House of Representatives will need to show that the Biden allegations are so spurious as to be necessarily made in bad faith. That will open the impeachment inquiry to whatever contrary evidence Trump can muster, unavoidably making Biden a focus of the inquiry—something Democrats presumably would prefer to avoid.
Members of Congress also will need to draw on their assessments of Trump’s character and behavior generally. For representatives in the House deciding whether to impeach, as well as potentially senators deciding whether to convict, if Trump is viewed as regularly acting in bad faith, then it is easier to rule out any defense of good faith as exonerating his conduct with regard to Ukraine.
Impeachment advocates will need to decide how much general character evidence they wish to pursue as a formal part of the process. Because impeachment is not a conventional criminal prosecution, they could rely on more of it than would be permitted in a courtroom. But doing so would go against the strategy of keeping impeachment proceedings narrowly focused.
This puts impeachment advocates in something of a procedural bind. They can limit their evidence solely to facts that directly relate to the president’s request for foreign investigation of the Bidens, like the recently revealed text messages among U.S. diplomats working on the issue. This strategy might end up being enough, but it risks leaving wiggle room for those in Congress inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the Ukraine matter. Conversely, impeachment advocates could widen the range of evidence—pointing to all the ways that Trump has arguably abused the powers of the presidency for personal gain throughout his time in office—but this approach risks the accusation that Democrats are just relitigating matters that the voters want to decide for themselves at the ballot box.
The Goldilocks approach to impeachment evidence might be to focus on facts that demonstrate a specific form of bad faith and why it necessitates impeachment. This evidence would show not merely that Trump acted for reasons of personal electoral advantage in his dealings with Ukraine and China, but that he can never be expected to exercise his presidential powers on behalf of the public, as his oath of office requires, in the midst of a reelection campaign when his own interests are at stake. Proof of his incapacity to elevate national over self-interest can help persuade the public that impeachment truly is about the future, not the past—and, even more importantly, that the remedy of impeachment is necessary, because voters’ power to choose their president without improper interference cannot be safeguarded otherwise.
Of course, Trump might end up, in a sense, impeaching himself, if he continues to act in ways that only can be construed reasonably as bad faith. And evidence of U.S. envoys saying things like “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” would go far in demonstrating that Trump’s sole motive is (and will continue to be) an improper desire to secure an electoral advantage. Yet impeaching Trump for seeking a foreign investigation of Biden will require the conviction to be based not on his words alone, but on what was in his heart when he uttered those words. That is a tricky—but not impossible—bar for Congress to clear.
More from POLITICO Magazine
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341
2019-10-06 10:54:00Z
52780399935508
Key Republicans split with Trump on Biden investigation push | TheHill - The Hill
President Trump
Donald John TrumpTrump criticizes supposed second whistleblower North Korea missile test raises fears of new capabilities Window narrows for Trump trade deals MORE is pushing hard for an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden
Joe BidenTrump criticizes supposed second whistleblower North Korea missile test raises fears of new capabilities Trump told House Republicans that he made Ukraine call because of Perry: Report MORE and his son, but the prospect of using the Oval Office to go after a political rival is prompting some GOP senators to speak out.
Sens. Mitt Romney
Willard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyCollins: Trump's call for China to probe Biden 'completely inappropriate' Trump compares his impeachment to Clinton email server Trump calls for Romney's impeachment MORE (Utah), Susan Collins
Susan Margaret CollinsCollins: Trump's call for China to probe Biden 'completely inappropriate' GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman McConnell signaling Trump trial to be quick, if it happens MORE (Maine), Ben Sasse
Benjamin (Ben) Eric SasseCollins: Trump's call for China to probe Biden 'completely inappropriate' GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman Trump slams 'ass' Romney for criticizing Ukraine dealings MORE (Neb.) and Lindsey Graham
Lindsey Olin GrahamGOP searches for impeachment boogeyman Graham defends Trump's calls with foreign leaders: He sounds like a 'normal person' Trump says House Democrats 'unfortunately' have the votes to impeach MORE (S.C.) have raised concerns, to varying degrees, about launching a politically motivated probe into the Bidens.
ADVERTISEMENT
"When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated," Romney said in a statement, which he also tweeted.
A day later, Collins said it was "completely inappropriate" for Trump to urge China to investigate Biden and his son.
"I thought the president made a big mistake by asking China to get involved in investigating a political opponent," Collins told the Bangor Daily News. "It’s completely inappropriate."
The Maine Republican has at times broken with her party on key votes in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority.
Graham said earlier that he has no interest in conducting an investigation into the Bidens’ business dealings.
ADVERTISEMENT
He told reporters before the two-week October recess that any investigation of Biden and his son should be conducted outside the sphere of politics.
“We’re not going to do anything,” Graham said when asked what action he was going to take as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman regarding Hunter Biden's dealings with Ukraine. “I have no interest in opening up that front.”
“I don’t want to turn the Senate into a circus,” said Graham, who is considered one of Trump's strongest allies on Capitol Hill. “I want somebody to look at the conflict of interest outside of politics.”
The remarks were the latest example of occasional friction between Trump and Graham, who in September criticized the president's approach to Iran.
Romney's sharp remarks about Trump's effort to enlist China in a Biden investigation came a few days after he warned at a closed-door meeting of GOP senators that pushing for an investigation of Biden’s son Hunter was treading on dangerous ground that could boomerang on the party.
Romney made the point to lawmakers before the October recess that he’s not intimately familiar with the business dealings of his own children, suggesting that politicians should not be attacked because of the private employment of family members, according to a GOP senator in the room during the meeting.
“He said, ‘I don’t discuss my son’s business dealings with them,’” the GOP senator recounted, referring to Romney’s comments that he doesn’t vet the business and financial conduct of his five sons.
The implied message was that once Republicans go down the path of attacking political rivals over their family members, they open themselves up to the same types of criticisms.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGOP searches for impeachment boogeyman Overnight Defense: House Dems subpoena White House for Ukraine documents | Pence pulled into inquiry | GOP senator says he confronted Trump over Ukraine aid | Iran hackers target 2020 campaign Trump says House Democrats 'unfortunately' have the votes to impeach MORE (R-Ky.) has already come under scrutiny for the business dealings and personal wealth of his father-in-law James Chao, the founder of a shipping company worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to Forbes.
And Sen. Roy Blunt
Roy Dean BluntSunday shows preview: Republicans on defense as new reports emerge on impeachment GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman McConnell signaling Trump trial to be quick, if it happens MORE (R-Mo.), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, has family members who have worked as lobbyists for a variety of corporate interests, according to McClatchy News. His wife Abigail has lobbied for Altria, which recently bought a major stake in e-cigarette maker Juul.
Democratic strategists say Trump’s attacks on Hunter Biden, whom the president called “stone-cold crooked” at a nationally televised press conference with the president of Finland, make his eldest sons, Eric Trump
Eric Frederick TrumpThe Hill's Campaign Report: Warren, Sanders overtake Biden in third-quarter fundraising Trump campaign, GOP raise M after Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry Schiff introduces bill to require agencies report spending at Trump properties MORE and Donald Trump Jr.
Donald (Don) John TrumpOcasio-Cortez says woman who suggested 'eating babies' was Trump supporter Ocasio-Cortez hits Trump after he calls her a 'wack job' Hillicon Valley: Barr targets Facebook's encryption plans | Social media platforms dragged into 2020 fight | EU court says Facebook can be ordered to remove content | FBI warns of 'high-impact' ransomware attacks MORE, fair game to similar attacks.
“What the hell are Trump’s kids doing all around the world right now? It’s a minefield for Trump in many ways to me, attacking somebody’s family given what he does himself and what he has his family do,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist.
“I just don’t see this as some kind of golden bullet that’s going to hurt Biden and take him out in the primary process,” he added.
Trump’s second-eldest son, Eric, who is helping run the president’s business empire as executive vice president of The Trump Organization, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Thursday that media outlets would be all over him if he engaged in some of the same deals as Hunter Biden.
“If the situation were reversed, I would have been front page news in every newspaper, online publication, and cable news outlet for the rest of my life,” Eric Trump wrote.
“Reporters would be camping outside of my door, my family would have been picked apart, my name would have been smeared in the news every single week, and my father arguably would not even be president of the United States today,” he wrote.
But while some Republicans would like to see the media comb through Hunter Biden’s business dealings, others like Romney have expressed reluctance about making him and his father the target of official probes — a practice associated more with totalitarian regimes than the United States.
Trump, however, has ignored those concerns and instead doubled down on his calls for the Bidens to be investigated.
On Thursday he caused an uproar when he declared “China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”
That statement sparked pushback from Sasse, who Trump has endorsed for reelection in 2020.
“Americans don’t look to Chinese commies for the truth. If the Biden kid broke laws by selling his name to Beijing, that’s a matter for American courts, not communist tyrants running torture camps,” Sasse said in a statement to the Omaha World-Herald.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464476-key-republicans-split-with-trump-on-biden-investigation-push
2019-10-06 10:00:12Z
52780399935508
Hong Kong Emergency Law Fails to Stop Masked Protesters Taking Over Streets - The Wall Street Journal
HONG KONG—Tens of thousands marched across Hong Kong to protest the government’s ban on wearing face masks at public gatherings, as backlash grew against the new regulation, enacted under an emergency-powers law.
Protesters turned out despite widespread closures of subway stations, working their way through the city’s streets in the rain. Many passed out masks, helmets and umbrellas to fellow protesters, and wore masks themselves in defiance of the ban.
“We’re not afraid of getting arrested,” said Tiffany, who works in customer service and declined to give her last name. “The government is trying to suppress us even more—that’s exactly why this movement started in the first place.”
Hong Kong’s subway operator, MTR Corp. , reopened some stations early Sunday after closing down the city’s subway network Friday night and all day Saturday. Some stations that have been vandalized by protesters remained shuttered on Sunday and those that were reopened are set to close earlier than usual, at 9 p.m.
Masked and Anonymous: Meet Hong Kong’s Army of Protesters
Photos of activists prepared to face off against tear gas and police scrutiny
VIEW Photos
Nicole Tung for The Wall Street Journal
Hong Kong’s Mask Ban
The measure prohibits anyone from wearing a mask at unlawful or public gatherings. Here’s what that means.
- Any material—including paint—that covers a person’s face is prohibited.
- Exemptions can be granted for religious, medical and professional reasons.
- Police are authorized to stop and search anyone wearing a mask in a public area and require the person to remove it.
- People who wear masks at unlawful assemblies of three or more people, public gatherings of more than 50 and public marches of more than 30 face up to 12 months in jail and a fine of more than $3,000
- People in a public area who don’t remove masks at the request of police face up to six months in jail and a fine of around $1,300.
Protesters said the decision by the city’s leader, Chief Executive Carrie Lam, to invoke the colonial-era emergency law on Friday wouldn’t solve the crisis. The emergency law gives the government sweeping powers to impose curfews, censor media and seize control of ports and transport links. Only the ban on masks has been put into force under the law.
Angela, a recent graduate who works in marketing, said the government’s decision to invoke emergency powers has strengthened the protest movement. “It’s backfired,” she said. “It’s made us more angry.”
The ban prompted a night of violent clashes across Hong Kong on Friday night, including one in which a police officer shot a 14-year-old boy, who was later arrested on charges of rioting and assaulting police, authorities said. Saturday saw relatively few demonstrations, though in the evening police said protesters erected barricades and vandalized shops in several neighborhoods in the city’s northern Kowloon district.
Separately, Hong Kong’s High Court rejected a request for an injunction blocking the ban on face masks at a hearing on Sunday. The request—the second in three days—was sought by 24 pro-democracy members of the city’s legislative council. The lawmakers argued that Mrs. Lam acted unconstitutionally in bypassing the legislature to issue the ban.
A lawyer for the city said the ban was justified due to “mayhem that we have not seen since 1967,” pointing to acts of vandalism and arson at recent protest sites. Lawmakers have requested a judicial review of the emergency law. Another hearing is set for late October.
The citywide unrest, now in its 18th weekend, was sparked by an extradition bill that would have allowed Hong Kong to send suspects for trial in mainland China. Ms. Lam said last month she would withdraw the bill, giving into one of the protesters’ key demands. The movement demands the government meet four additional demands, including the establishment of a judge-led commission to investigate allegations of excessive use of force by police.
Sunday’s march was broadly peaceful as of late afternoon, though police in a statement said some protesters had blocked roads and erected barricades at locations around the city. Several riot police could be seen occupying overpasses and other elevated areas near areas where protesters had gathered.
Related Coverage
—Preetika Rana and Joyu Wang contributed to this article.
Write to Dan Strumpf at daniel.strumpf@wsj.com
Copyright ©2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-emergency-law-fails-to-stop-masked-protesters-taking-over-streets-11570350249
2019-10-06 08:24:00Z
52780402433211
Sabtu, 05 Oktober 2019
Gregg Jarrett: Trump's request for info on Biden is a 'proper exercise of power' - Fox News
President Trump exhibited a "proper exercise of power" when he asked for information on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden from Ukraine's president, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said Saturday.
Appearing on "Fox & Friends" with host Griff Jenkins, Jarrett said the president "had every right to ask Ukraine to look into" whether Biden's son's work in Ukraine during his time in office represented a conflict of interest.
"If the president is aware of potential evidence in the hands of a foreign government that a U.S. official, Joe Biden, misused his office to confer a benefit on that nation in exchange for something of value -- protecting his son -- that's a corrupt act, if proven," Jarrett told Jenkins.
"It is not just extortion and bribery, statutory crimes and Honest Services Fraud, it's a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," he said, adding, "There's a treaty that we have with Ukraine that requires them to provide this information."
"It is not an abuse of power to ask for information from a foreign government. Presidents to it all the time. Justice Department officials do it almost on a daily basis...It's a proper exercise of power," said Jarrett.
Ukraine’s top prosecutor said Friday that his office is "conducting an audit" of cases that have been previously investigated and closed, including the probe involving the energy giant Burisma, where Hunter Biden had served on the board.
Ruslan Ryaboshapka, the country's prosecutor general, said at a news conference that his office was instructed to review cases that have been closed, fragmented or investigated to make sure they were fairly and thoroughly handled. He said no one attempted to influence him to make the call.
The office plans to review 15 cases that previously were closed, including the Burisma case. This does not yet mean Ukraine is opening a new investigation involving Burisma or the Bidens.
Trump and his fellow Republicans have questioned Biden's role in pushing for the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been looking into corruption and Hunter's company Burisma Holdings. Although, the prosecutor was viewed by officials in several countries as being corrupt himself. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son in Ukraine.
Biden is maintaining his and his son Hunter's innocence, telling reporters in Los Angeles on Friday that "there is no conflict of interest. From Ukraine or anywhere else. Period."
CLICK HERE FOR THE ALL-NEW FOXBUSINESS.COM
"It's an egregious conflict of interest and Joe Biden knows it, but he's spinning it because he got caught," said Jarrett. "This is a kid who is leveraging his father, and the question is what was Joe Biden's intent when he was essentially extorting or bribing Ukraine to drop an investigation or to get rid of a prosecutor who was investigating his son?"
Jarrett continued: "The president has been crystal clear there is no quid pro quo...There's no demand, unlike what Joe Biden was doing. That was an extortion and bribery demand"
"The question is, what was his purpose?" he asked.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/gregg-jarrett-trumps-request-for-info-on-biden-is-a-proper-exercise-of-power
2019-10-05 15:11:28Z
52780399935508
In pictures: Ethiopia's Oromos celebrate spring - BBC News
Huge crowds turned out in Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa, as it hosted for the first time in more than a century the annual Irreecha thanksgiving festival of the Oromo, the country's largest ethnic group.
In one Irreecha tradition, freshly cut grass and flowers are placed to thank God for the end of the rainy season and the beginning of spring.
There was tight security as hundreds of thousands of people clogged the streets, including Addis Ababa's main public area, Meskel Square. They chanted, sang and waved flags and flowers.
City officials said they were expecting 10 million people to take part, though the final attendance figures are hard to estimate.
Previously, the annual festival had been celebrated in Bishoftu, 40km (25 miles) away, but similar gatherings have taken place in other parts of Oromia at different times of the year.
The move to the capital, which is surrounded by Oromia, is seen by some as a recognition of Oromo culture by the authorities. For years, Oromo people had complained of cultural and political marginalisation.
But some say it is an attempt by the ruling party to cultivate popular support ahead of next year's general election, reports the BBC's Kalkidan Yibeltal.
There are thought to be at least 40 million Oromos in Ethiopia, making up more than 30% of the population.
Within the Oromos there are many different traditions associated with where people come from, and Irreecha brings them all together.
The celebration is a chance for people to wear traditional costume.
These men, from the Shoa region, are wearing "Daabe", made from baboon skin.
The beadwork, known as chelie, that these women are wearing on their foreheads is common to all Oromos, but their clothes are typical of people from the Borena region.
These men made the 400km journey from Bale, in southern Ethiopia, to join in the festivities. Their headscarves, known as ruufa, are worn at any major celebration.
This woman from Hararghe, in the east of Ethiopia, came in the clothes typical of her region.
A community from Alaba, which is in southern Ethiopia outside of Oromia, also joined in.
Ethiopia Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is himself from Oromia.
He has implemented radical reforms since coming to power last year following protests demanding more rights for ethnic groups.
But despite the move to the capital, the festival comes amid rising political tensions and ethnic rivalries that are dogging Mr Abiy's administration, our correspondent says.
Photographs by Yadeta Berhanu (BBC), Amensisa Negera (BBC), Reuters and AFP.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49945694
2019-10-05 13:27:42Z
CBMiLmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC1hZnJpY2EtNDk5NDU2OTTSATJodHRwczovL3d3dy5iYmMuY29tL25ld3MvYW1wL3dvcmxkLWFmcmljYS00OTk0NTY5NA
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)