How Biden could become the first U.S. President removed from office

By Nicholas Allen

Published: 06:00 EDT, 13 September 2023 | Updated: 06:00 EDT, 13 September 2023

Advertisement

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has fired the starting gun on a monumental battle that could lead to Joe Biden becoming the first U.S. President removed from office – but there is still a long way for Republicans to go. 

By launching a formal impeachment inquiry McCarthy has increased the chance of Biden, his son Hunter and their associates, being dragged before Congress to answer questions about allegations of corrupt foreign business dealings.

The Bidens could now have their bank records, mortgage details, emails, text messages and mobile phones subpoenaed, along with anything else Congress wants to see.  

Such impeachment inquiries into a president have been extremely rare throughout U.S. history.

What is an impeachment inquiry?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach the president for treason, bribery and other ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’

An impeachment inquiry can be launched by the Speaker, or by any member of Congress who secures a majority vote for it in the House of Representatives.

In the Biden case several committees – Oversight, Judiciary and Ways and Means – have already been investigating allegations that he corruptly used the office of Vice President to help his son Hunter make money from deals in countries including China and Russia.

Their discoveries included that Biden repeatedly met with his son’s foreign business partners, and took him on Air Force Two trips. 

It contributed to McCarthy’s decision to announce a formal inquiry to pursue more evidence. 

The committees will now be able to hold hearings and call witnesses, who could include Hunter, his business partners, and even Joe Biden himself. 

Ultimately, the findings of the various investigating committees will be considered by the House Judiciary Committee.

What are articles of impeachment?

The Judiciary Committee will prepare articles of impeachment, which are proposed charges based on the evidence.

The Republican-led Judiciary Committee will then vote on whether to adopt the articles.

If it does, then the articles will be sent to the House, which will debate them and then vote on whether the president should face a trial on the charges.

Only a simple majority of the House – where the Republicans outnumber Democrats 222 to 212 – is needed to proceed.

If the articles did pass the House then Biden would be officially ‘impeached’. 

The ensuing trial of President Joe Biden would be held in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts.

The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict the President and remove him from office.

Has a President ever been successfully impeached? 

In the history of the United States so far, no President has been convicted in the Senate.

Donald Trump was impeached twice and acquitted both times in Senate trials.

Bill Clinton was impeached and acquitted on charges of perjury and obstruction relating to the Monica Lewinsky affair.  

Richard Nixon resigned before he was impeached amid the Watergate scandal.

What does the Constitution actually say about impeachment?

The United States Constitution says that the House of Representatives ‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…(but) no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present’

Impeachment can be pursued against the president, vice president, and other government officials.

The process of impeachment started in England and it was later adopted by state governments in America.

In the U.S. Constitution it became a key plank of the system of ‘checks and balances’.

It allows Congress charges to hold executive officials to account and remove them for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’

The wording ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was not defined further by the Founding Fathers and its meaning has long been debated.

• Photographer Ross Jennings snapped Northern Lights over Cornwall last night
• Met Office says there’s a chance the stunning display will be out again tonight

By Shivali Best For Mailonline

Published: 08:08 EDT, 14 September 2023 | Updated: 08:08 EDT, 14 September 2023

Hunter Biden‘s former associate’s emails with then-Vice President’s staff from 2015 detail a closely coordinated relationship that blurred the line between official government work and the Biden family business and may be evidence of ‘collusion,’ say Republicans.

The GOP is ramping up its investigation into the Biden family’s decades-long ‘influence peddling scheme’ as lawmakers eye opening a potential impeachment inquiry into the sitting president over his connections to his son’s foreign business operations.

They are narrowing in on a series of emails between Eric Schwerin, a close business associate of Hunter’s at his investment firm Rosemont Seneca, and then-VP staffer Kate Bedingfield in December 2015 regarding Hunter’s Ukraine ties.

In an exchange on December 4, 2015 labeled ‘Quotes,’ Schwerin sought the VP’s sign-off on statements he suggested the White House use to respond to media inquiries regarding Hunter’s role in Ukrainian oil company Burisma as Joe ramped up his anti-corruption work in the country.

At the time, Hunter was serving on the board of the company making roughly $83,000 a month despite having no previous experience in the energy industry.

According to the records, Schwerin wrote to Bedingfield’s official ‘@ovp.eop.gov’ account, suggesting language ‘from a spokesperson for Hunter’ distancing Joe from Hunter’s lucrative Burisma role.

She replied: ‘VP signed off on this’ a few hours later, and then sent the statement to the New York Times and other inquiring outlets.

On the exact day of the email exchange, Hunter was actually in Dubai with Burisma executives at a dinner at the Four Seasons.

Hunter allegedly said at that dinner that he would be able to get ‘help from D.C.’ in order to relieve some ‘government pressure’ on the company as they faced corruption probes.

Archer testified before Congress last month that Burisma ‘requested Hunter, you know, help them with some of that pressure,’ and ‘D.C.’ meant his influence based on his connection to his then-VP father. 

‘Well, I mean, he was a lobbyist and an expert and obviously he carried, you know, a very powerful name. So I think it was that’s what they were asking for,’ said Archer about Hunter. 

He then continued on to confirm that immediately after Hunter was asked to help during the Four Seasons meeting, he ‘called his dad.’ 

Although Archer was not ‘privy’ to the call, he was told that ‘we called D.C.’ 

The emails between Schwerin and Bedingfield were first publicized by America First Legal in March as part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit with the National Archives. 

Many of the related emails have been ‘withheld in full’ due to White House executive privilege. 

Now, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is demanding the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) produce all the emails between Schwerin and Bedingfield in their full, un-redacted state. 

He also asks for documents and communications between the VP’s office and staff with Hunter’s other associates including Devon Archer, Vuk Jeremic, John Robinson ‘Rob’ Walker and Jeffrey Cooper.

‘Joe Biden never built an ‘absolute wall’ between his family’s business dealings and his official government work – his office doors were wide open to Hunter Biden’s associates,’ Chairman Comer told DailyMail.com in a statement. ‘There is evidence of collusion in the efforts to spin media stories about Burisma’s corruption while Vice President Biden was publicly pushing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine.’

A spokesperson for NARA said that the agency has received the request from Comer and will respond ‘in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA), NARA’s implementing regulations, and the governing Executive Order.’ 

The White House has maintained that Joe Biden has never been ‘in business’ with his son or aware of his foreign dealings. 

The follow-up request comes a week after Comer wrote to NARA asking the agency to provide records detailing reports that Hunter traveled to at least 15 countries with his dad then-Vice President Joe on Air Force Two.

They accuse then-VP Biden of having ‘abused’ his taxpayer-funded office ‘to enrich his family’ by flying Hunter all over the world to meet with his business associates, according to a letter to the National Archives on Aug. 29 obtained by DailyMail.com.

Hunter tagged along with his powerful father during official vice president trips between 2009 and 2017 to Asia, Europe, Africa, Mexico and Canada spanning at least 15 different countries, according to a recent report by Fox News.

During the trips, Hunter would reportedly meet with his international business associates and potential clients. He also apparently offered short ‘handshake’ meetings providing his partners direct access to his father on several occasions. 

They demanded all Air Force Two flight records and emails sent from the White House to Biden family members during the Obama-Biden administration.

Additionally, new records have revealed that then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s investment firm Rosemont Seneca exchanged over 1,000 emails during his time as the No. 2 most powerful politician in the world.

Republicans claim there is mounting evidence that the then-vice president was involved in Hunter’s overseas deals that raked in millions from nations including China, Romania and Ukraine.

The House Oversight Committee Republicans reiterate their ‘concerns’ that foreign nationals ‘sought access and influence by engaging in lucrative business relationships with high-profile political figures’ immediate family members,’ including members of the Biden family. 

DailyMail.com reached out to NARA for a response to the Republican-led letter last week, and a spokesperson said Comer’s ‘request’ has been received. 

‘NARA has received the request from Chairman Comer, and will respond in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA), NARA’s implementing regulations, and the governing Executive Order.’ 

The Foreign Office has apologised to a British academic who had accused the Government for ‘abandoning’ him while he was tortured in the UAE after being falsely accused of spying for the MI6.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has admitted that officials ‘did not fully follow our guidance on torture and mistreatment’ in the case of Matthew Hedges.

Mr Hedges was sentenced to life in jail after being arrested at Dubai airport in May 2018. He was held in UAE custody where he suffered intense interrogations and torture amid accusations he was collecting sensitive information which went ‘far beyond’ academic research.

The Durham University researcher was released after being granted a presidential pardon and returned to the UK in November 2018. 

The apology – which Mr Hedges has hailed as a ‘watershed moment’ – comes after Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled last month that the FCDO failed to protect Mr Hedges, should issue a formal apology and pay him compensation. 

The UAE Government categorically denies torturing Mr Hedges, and said his claims are ‘wholly untrue and without any foundation’. 

The FCDO issued a formal apology to Mr Hedges in a letter on August 31 this year, MailOnline can reveal.  

In the letter the authority accepted the findings of the parliamentary watchdog’s internal review in full and told Mr Hedges that officials ‘recognise the profound impact of your detention in UAE on you and the injustice you have faced’.

The letter reads: ‘On behalf of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I acknowledge, and apologise for, the failing identified by the Ombudsman, specifically I recognise that we did not fully follow our guidance on torture and mistreatment and that this failure has left you uncertain as to whether more could have been done on your behalf.’

The Ombudsman, which began its probe in 2019, ruled last month that the FCDO did not act in accordance to its own internal guidance when it came to ‘spotting signs of torture when meeting with British detainees’.

The watchdog recommended the FCDO should issue a formal apology to Mr Hedges within three months, as well as pay him £1,500 in compensation. The Ombudsman also advised that the authority review their internal practices.

Mr Hedges – who last month told MailOnline that he ‘felt completely abandoned’ by the British Government and ‘could not believe that they were not able to understand the very clear and obvious signs of my torture’ – said he is ‘delighted’ to have received the apology from the FCDO.

‘It has been a battle to reach this stage. The FCDO’s acknowledgement of the torture and injustice I suffered at the hands of the UAE is a watershed moment, not just for me and my family, but for all British nationals,’ he told MailOnline on Monday. 

‘There is now no doubt that the FCDO failed in their obligations towards one of their citizens and I truly hope that the hundreds of other British nationals who are currently detained and suffering torture will benefit from the FCDO’s promise of reviewing their clearly outdated and insufficient policies.’

However, Mr Hedges claims the apology does not alleviate all of the pain he endured, including the fact that ‘I still have a criminal record for espionage on behalf of the British Government’.

He criticised the Government’s continued relationship with the UAE, saying ‘it is baffling that the UK continues to work alongside the UAE knowing how callous they are with British lives’.

Mr Hedges also called the FCDO to ‘do more to push the UAE to clear my name given that they have this close relationship’. He also acknowledged that the false allegations of espionage were ‘refuted by all levels of the UK Government at the time of my detention’.

Mr Hedges was arrested at Dubai Airport on May 5, 2018, as he was poised to leave the country, having been in the UAE on a two-week research trip for his PhD in security.

He was accused of being an MI6 agent, detained and eventually found guilty on spying offences, before being given an official pardon after a long campaign by his wife Daniela and an intervention from Mr Hunt.

Last month he told MailOnline: ‘The reluctance of the FCDO to protect me – a completely innocent British citizen, within a country that they themselves know commits torture – was one of the most shocking things to deal with during that time.’ 

The academic has always fiercely denied being involved with any spying agency and the UK government has previously confirmed it did not see any evidence which supported the state’s claims.

During his detention, Mr Hedges was kept in a windowless cell, and for the first few months was forced to sleep on the floor with the lights constantly switched on.

Mr Hedges also previously revealed that he was forced to take a cocktail of drugs that doctors were made to prescribe for him, was constantly watched and repeatedly interrogated.

While in confinement, he suffered from anxiety and panic and was unable to sleep. After being sentenced to life in prison, he attempted to take his own life.

But he was granted clemency in November 2018 and returned to the UK shortly afterwards. 

He submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2019 and the watchdog last month ruled the FCDO failed to protect him. 

The watchdog said embassy staff who visited Mr Hedges while he was in detention noticed his voice was shaking, he avoided eye contact and mentioned having anxiety attacks.

It added these were signs he might have been subject to torture or mistreatment, and that Foreign Office guidelines say that staff should have acted in response even when they do not have consent.

The Ombudsman recommended the authority not only apologise and pay compensation, but also ‘say what it will do to ensure its handling of similar circumstances is consistent with relevant guidance’.

Mr Hedges has now said it is a ‘real shame’ that the ‘long-awaited apology’ only came in response to the parliamentary watchdog’s investigation.

‘I would have hoped that the FCDO would take the initiative to learn from their own mistakes without needing an oversight body to force them to do so,’ the academic told MailOnline on Monday. 

‘I cannot overstate how fundamental it is that the FCDO improves its procedures for protecting British citizens that are detained abroad, especially for those like Jaghtar Singh Johal in India, and Alaa Abd El-Fattah in Egypt, who like me, have suffered torture at the hands of the authorities holding them – also British allies.’

Mr Hedges said he will ‘continue to fight for those who are not lucky enough to have been freed’ and for those who have ‘ridiculous false charges made against them’.

He added: ‘And today I revel in the fact that the FCDO have agreed they must do more to protect and help British citizens.’

His vow to continue advocating for other alleged victims of torture, echoes remarks he made last month.

Last month, responding to the Ombudsman’s findings, Mr Hedges said he wants to do everything in his power to warn other British nationals about the dangers of travelling to the UAE, adding ‘there are serious limits to what the FCDO will actually do to help and protect you’.

He told MailOnline at the time: ‘Nothing will ever make up for what I went through, but it feels like a semblance of justice to know that the behaviour of the Foreign Office was unacceptable and to have their failure to protect recognised.’

‘The Foreign Office doesn’t tell you it’s unsafe, but people aren’t educated that this is a country that is known to do this.

‘The FCDO knows the UAE tortures and abuses people, it’s in the report. They know this occurs and they act as if there’s no issue.

‘This is when the anger starts to rise’, he said of individuals he is currently pursuing legal action against. ‘They act as if nothing happened and if something did happen they are disregarding it.

‘They are cosying up to the people involved in this, it questions their morality. I’m not here to say never contact these people. But they saw this torture occur and their acting as if nothing happened.’ 

Mr Hedges added that he was not angry with the FCDO as a whole, but instead with ‘individuals in the Foreign Office’ who he feels failed to protect him.

Last month, a statement from the UAE government said Mr Hedges was convicted of espionage following a ‘fair and transparent trial at which he admitted the charges against him’.

The UAE government said it provided Mr Hedges with ‘entirely proper care and treatment’.

‘He was never subjected to, or threatened with, either torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of any sort. The UAE has evidence to support this,’ the statement read.

‘Allegations by Mr Hedges of mistreatment are categorically false and lack evidentiary basis. His claims of being “tortured” while in UAE custody are wholly untrue and without any foundation whatsoever.

It added: ‘None of Mr Hedges’ claims have ever been accepted by any court, government, or international body.’

MailOnline has approached the Foreign Office for comment. 

CITY WHISPERS: Killjoys sound the death knell for office parties

By Calum Muirhead

Updated: 04:25 EDT, 3 September 2023

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

From last year’s Storm Eunice to 1990’s Storm Daria, many of us will remember some of the worst storms to have hit the UK in recent history.

Now, the Met Office has revealed the names of the storms set to batter Britain in the upcoming season, which runs from September 2023 through to the end of August 2024.

Agnes, Ciaran, and Elin are among the new names chosen to honour those who work to keep people safe in times of extreme weather.

Meanwhile, Minnie has made the list in honour of the famous Beano character, Minnie the Minx. 

So, do you share a name with any of the upcoming storms? Scroll down to see the full list of the storms set to batter Britain. 

Storms are named by the Met Office when they’re deemed to have the potential to cause ‘medium’ or ‘high’ impacts in the UK, Ireland, or the Netherlands.

Wind is the main consideration for naming a storm, although rain and snow are also taken into account, according to the Met Office.

‘This is the ninth year of us naming storms and we do it because it works,’ Mr Lang said.

‘Naming storms helps to ease communication of severe weather and provides clarity when people could be impacted by the weather.’

Storms are named alphabetically – but don’t expect to see any names beginning with Q, U, X, Y or Z.

‘To ensure we are in line with the US National Hurricane Centre naming conventions, we are not going to include names which begin with the letters Q, U, X, Y and Z,’ the Met Office explains on its website.

‘This will maintain consistency for official storm naming in the North Atlantic.’

Usually, the list is made up of alternating male and female names.

But the Met Office has broken tradition this year, to enable the inclusion of some of the more popular submitted names.

Agnes will be the first storm to strike Britain this season, followed by Babet.

The third storm – Storm Ciarán – was submitted by the public, but is also the name of Ciarán Fearon, who works for the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

‘With the effects of climate change, we are more aware than ever of how weather can affect us all in every aspect of our daily lives,’ Mr Fearon said.

‘In my role with the Department for Infrastructure I work closely with local communities in Northern Ireland and multi-agency partners to help keep everyone as warned and informed as possible.

‘We need to respect each weather event and this work, particularly during periods of severe weather and storms, helps to ensure that we are all as well prepared as possible to help reduce the impact of such events.’

Beano fans will be pleased to learn that Storm Minnie is also included on the list, following in the footsteps of Storm Dennis, which was named after Dennis the Menace in 2020.

If your name isn’t on the list, you’ll be happy to hear that you can submit it for consideration for next year’s list. 

‘Everyone is also welcome to suggest names for future consideration via email to nameourstorms@metoffice.gov.uk,’ the Met Office added. 

Itsu sales bounce back as workers return to office

• Itsu’s restaurant division saw sales hit £101m in 2022, up 73% on 2021
• But sales remain below pre-pandemic levels 
• Profits soared 42% to £6.5m; record number of restaurant openings in 2022

By Daily Mail City & Finance

Updated: 18:01 EDT, 22 August 2023

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

The jury’s no longer out on vaping.

Mountains of research in recent years have shown inhaling high doses of nicotine and heavy metals in e-cigarettes can lead to similar damage to the heart and lungs as smoking traditional cigarettes.

And now, researchers are beginning to warn of the dangers of second-hand nicotine vapor, which likely prompted a new law in Alabama banning residents from vaping in cars with children under 14 present.

Yet as millions of workers will attest, their colleagues are still vaping en masse in offices and other workplaces such as bars and restaurants across the country.

The ease of use and lack of smell means staff can subtly puff at their desks or in the break room without letting off plumes of pungent smoke, which can be odorless or sweet-smelling.

Experts told DailyMail.com society has been slow to catch up to the reality that these devices pose a serious risk to people’s health.

Seeing co-workers vape surreptitiously in the office is commonplace – nearly 62 percent of workers see it daily. 

A study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that 76 percent of e-cigarette users reported vaping at work.

And this is a real concern. The aerosolized byproducts of vapes pollute the surrounding air, potentially endangering workers. And non-vapers are fed up, with 74 percent supporting a vape-free workplace. Even vape users – at least 53 percent – support an indoor vaping ban at work.

Those points represent just one set of findings pointing to a growing sense that vaping at work, in bars, and in restaurants should be outlawed, yet in many places it’s not.

Thomas Carr, the Director of National Policy at the American Lung Association told DailyMail.com: ‘The fact that they’re using them indoors, it’s very troubling to hear about this, that workplaces are just turning a blind eye to this because it’s not acceptable to allow vaping indoors.’ 

He added that a shift to working at home full time during the pandemic, when people could vape without disrupting anyone around them, certainly added to the devices widespread use once people returned to their offices in person. 

Mr Carr said: ‘Not being in a workplace and understanding some of the norms that need to exist there and that your vaping is bothering other people. Because there are probably employees in these in places where this is happening that are tolerating it silently, and or maybe even not silently. And I think it’s just that things aren’t being done about it.’ 

A survey conducted in the fall of 2018 reported that, overall, more than 78 percent supported a policy to keep tobacco products out of view in stores where children can shop. More than 63 percent supported a policy to ban the sale of flavored e-cigarettes altogether.

The majority of participants – 76 percent – also supported prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes in bars, 83 percent supported a ban in all indoor public places such as offices and casinos, and 87 percent want a ban in restaurants.

Many workplaces have no rules in place governing vape use in the office, which gives employees tacit permission to puff on the devices at their desks. 

Dr Ashley Merianos, a professor at the University of Cincinnati with expertise in tobacco control, told DailyMail.com that the lack of hard and fast rules is a problem: ‘There may be confusion about whether vapes are covered by tobacco-free policies in work environments if there is no written policy addressing vaping, especially since these products became available on the market after combustible tobacco products.

She added: ‘Even if there is no tobacco-free law that prohibits tobacco use in the work place, it is encouraged that employers enact a strict, comprehensive tobacco-free policy that covers combustible tobacco products and non-combustible tobacco products, including vapes.’

But the days of being able to puff on e-cigarettes with impunity in bars, casinos, college campuses, and work spaces could be coming to an end amid an expanding body of scientific research that shows vaping could be as dangerous to one’s heart and lung health as cigarette smoking.

Societal attitudes toward vaping and how innocuous – or not – it might be have changed noticeably over the past decade.

Part of the shift in perspective came after an outbreak of e-cigarette- or vaping-use-associated lung injury (EVALI) that began in 2019 and by February 2020 had reached a total of more than 2,800 hospitalizations and 68 deaths.

Dr Jason Rose, a physician who specializes in lung injuries, told DailyMail.com that the EVALI outbreak of 2019 finally brought dangers of vaping into the mainstream. 

He said: ‘That did create a situation where it really got publicized that, hey, you know, these might not be completely safe. And that was probably a moment where it’s like, these can actually cause a problem, a clear and present problem.

‘These products really came out 10, 15 years ago, and they just more recently have been getting more publicity.’

In a recent report from the American Heart Association and co-authored by Dr Rose, it was determined vape devices contain a cocktail of nicotine, thickeners, solvents, and flavors that likely pose the same severe risks to cardiovascular health, including raising blood pressure levels and heart rate, as smoking traditional cigarettes.

The true extent of the health harms brought on by vaping, such as driving increased risk of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), likely won’t become apparent for many more years, though.

Dr Rose said: ‘Biomedical science and research have advanced significantly in the last 120 years. I think we have an experience with what [health harms of] combustible cigarettes looked like historically, that we can use to try to understand a little bit better what these vaping practices have an effect on.

‘We have to be strategic about our research because developing a hard link between product use and COPD, which takes decades to develop, we’re just not able to see it. They’ve only been on the market for 10, 15 years.’

And secondhand aerosols from high-nicotine vape products, while not laced with the same thousands of carcinogens produced as a byproduct of burning tobacco in cigarettes, are not as innocuous as once thought.

The plumes that come from a vaping device such as a Juul or a PuffBar can smell fruity, sweet, or like nothing at all, which scientists believe has lulled users into a false sense of security.

Vapes spew out 22 times the safe level of microscopic toxins known as particulate matter, which is small enough that when inhaled can cause respiratory issues and enter the bloodstream.

Dr Rose said: ‘I would say we don’t have a lot of data on the health risks for secondhand vaping product inhalation. I think policies that follow where other inhaled tobacco products are prohibited (e.g. not allowing smoking in most enclosed workplaces) are prudent.’  

A separate 2019 study in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health sought to measure the lingering effects of taking in second-hand aerosol from e-cigarettes following exposure for about six hours at vaping conventions.

Researchers found chemical markers from exposure to nicotine and tobacco in the environment spiked in 28 people who did not regularly vape after attending in-person conferences where they were surrounded by vapor.

They did not, however, vape themselves. Yet their bodies showed signs of exposure to nicotine and how it is metabolized.

In their urine, levels of two substances, cotinine and trans-3′-hydroxycotinine, were elevated, while levels of cotinine, trans-3′-hydroxycotinine, 3-HPMA, and CEMA were higher in their spit. And concentrations of each varied depending on how much time had passed since the conferences.

The findings signaled that being around e-cigarettes without puffing on them can still lead to higher concentrations of these substances in the body.

They also poke a gaping hole in the argument held by millions who vape that passive exposure to the vapor emitted by the devices must be harmless because it does not leave behind the offensive odor of a traditional cigarette.

With that growing evidence, more people have become aware of this common fallacy and are willing to re-examine cultural norms around vaping.

As the research builds, more officials in states and local governments are implementing various limits on where people can vape.

New York added vaping to be included in the Clean Indoor Air Act in 2017, formally banning it in indoor places. It is one of several states to have passed similar bans, most of which are Democrat-run.

In 2016, California imposed its own ban on vaping in indoor public places, including work settings. Illinois passed a similar ban in 2014 while New Jersey passed one in 2010.

Delaware was the most recent to ban indoor vaping with a law in 2019.

As more research emerges pointing to the deleterious effects of vaping and the aerosol the devices produce, more states and localities are expected to pass restrictions on their use indoors.