John Bolton: Bush-era war hawk makes comeback
22 March 2018
President Donald Trump has appointed John Bolton, the former US envoy to the UN, as his national security adviser, politically reanimating a strident Bush administration neo-conservative.
The decision comes as a surprise, not least because Mr Trump was reported to have decided against naming Mr Bolton secretary of state last year as he disliked his walrus moustache.
Mr Bolton's new role will prove controversial since he remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq war, which the US president himself once lambasted as "a big mistake".
Known for that bushy facial hair, curmudgeonly manner and tousled appearance, Mr Bolton is praised by conservative admirers as a straight-talking foreign policy hawk.
But the Republican was also once memorably branded by a cable television host as "a massive neocon on steroids".
Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul described Mr Bolton last year in an op-ed as "hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the US has made in the last 15 years".
A Baltimore fireman's son, Mr Bolton has been a staunch conservative from his boyhood.
Mr Bolton with President Bush in the Oval Office in December 2006
At the age of 15 he took time off school to campaign for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential campaign.
At Yale University, where he studied law, he recalled in his memoir feeling like a "space alien" among the campus anti-Vietnam war activists.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were among his classmates, but he said he "didn't run in their circles".
Mr Bolton went on to serve in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush.
He ruffled feathers in the second Bush administration where he initially worked as US Department of State under-secretary for arms control.
Mr Bolton was accused of trying to force out two intelligence analysts who disagreed with him and of seeking to undermine his boss, Colin Powell.
He also helped build the case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong.
A 2003 satellite image, which the US State Department claimed showed an Iraqi chemical ammunition depot
But Mr Bolton was praised for his work establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative, an international agreement to prohibit fissile material shipments.
Nevertheless, President Bush dismayed diplomats when he named Mr Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations.
More than 100 former US envoys signed a letter urging senators to reject the nomination.
Five things Trump's new security chief believes
This was, after all, the man who had once said there was "no such thing" as the UN and called the US the world's "only real power".
Mr Bolton had also previously declared that if the 38-storey UN building "lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference".
President Bush had to use a recess appointment to crowbar Mr Bolton into the job in 2005 after Senate Democrats, and even a few Republicans, blocked the move.
Democrats ultimately refused to confirm Mr Bolton and he had to step down when his appointment expired in January 2007.
Diplomats at the UN privately criticised his style as abrasive.
Even the state department was not spared the ire of Mr Bolton, who is known for his scorn of dovish multilateral institutions.
He once derided careerists at the US foreign ministry as having been "schooled in accommodation and compromise with foreigners, rather than aggressive advocacy of US interests".
Mr Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, does not appear to have modified his views since his last spell in government.
As he briefly weighed his own run for the US presidency in 2016, he maintained the American-led invasion of Iraq had been "correct".
He also called in a New York Times op-ed for Iran to be bombed, and pilloried President Obama's nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic as a "diplomatic Waterloo".
In his memoir, Surrender is Not an Option, Mr Bolton railed against the "deadening Brussels bureaucracies" of the European Union.
And in a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, he set out the case for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.
His new role at the commander-in-chief's ear may perplex those who voted for Mr Trump because of his vow to avoid US military adventures overseas.
Friday, March 23, 2018
What Trump doesn't get about Obamacare and health insurers' profits - CNN Money
What Trump doesn't get about Obamacare and health insurers' profits
by Tami Luhby @Luhby
March 23, 2018: 6:39 AM ET
The Trump administration has once again pointed to health insurers' robust stock market performance as proof that they are profiting from Obamacare.
The White House's Council of Economic Advisers issued a report this week declaring that insurers have made a lot of money since the Affordable Care Act took effect, primarily thanks to large premium increases and generous federal funding of premium subsidies and Medicaid expansion. The release coincided with an unsuccessful attempt in the Senate to restore funding for a second set of Obamacare subsidies -- which helped to reduce low-income enrollees' deductibles and co pays -- that President Donald Trump eliminated last fall.
"Despite an initial rough patch in the ACA marketplaces, the ACA Medicaid coverage expansion and subsidies to insurers have resulted in a large increase in health insurer profits," the four-page report said.
The council's main argument: That the stock prices of health insurance companies rose by 272% since the health reform law's implementation in January 2014 -- more than double the gain of the S&P 500 over that period.
This is a flawed rationale that the Trump administration has used before.
Content by Breguet
The horologist who was admired by Louis XVIII
A.-L. Breguet consistently demonstrated his exceptional mastery of time measurement.
Related: Despite Trump's attacks, Obamacare sign-ups dip only slightly
While it's true that Obamacare insurers are finally becoming profitable, they aren't exactly rolling in the dough because of their involvement in the individual market, experts say. And carriers' stock prices are a poor measure of their performance on the exchanges given how many other factors contribute to their bottom line.
Let's take a closer look:
In the first few years of Obamacare, many insurers priced their plans too low, resulting in big losses. This prompted many carriers -- including most of the large publicly traded ones -- to downsize or exit the market completely. There are just over 130 insurers on the exchanges this year, down from 237 two years earlier, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Anthem (ANTM) is the only large public insurer with a sizable presence on the exchanges, but even it pulled out of several states for 2018.
At least two years of big rate hikes have helped the insurers that remain get on more solid financial footing. Several recent studies, including ones by the Kaiser Family Foundation and S&P Global, have found that many insurers' premiums in 2017 were more than adequate to cover policyholders' medical expenses.
The average monthly gross margin per member was nearly $79 in the third quarter of 2017, up from $9.90 two years earlier, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (The gross margin doesn't take into account administrative expenses.)
Related: Obamacare shoppers find fewer insurer choices on exchanges
Several insurers have reported their first profits in their Obamacare businesses. Highmark Health in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, announced earlier this week that its Affordable Care Act division generated income for the first time in 2017, calling it "a substantial turnaround."
"The fact that it has taken so long to achieve some level of profitability speaks to the challenges that have long existed in the individual market," said Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade association.
Still, the individual market is not likely to be a font of big profits for insurers. It's expected to generate margins of only 1% or 2%, which is why many of the larger public carriers left, said Deep Banerjee, a director at S&P Global. The employer insurance market, on the other hand, generally produces profit margins of 8% to 10%.
The Affordable Care Act also boosted enrollment in insurers' Medicaid divisions, which are generally profitable, experts said. States are increasingly contracting with insurers to manage the health care needs of their Medicaid enrollees, said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at Kaiser. This includes the more than 11 million low-income adults who entered the program through Medicaid expansion.
Related: Anthem pulls out of Virginia's Obamacare exchange
Nearly two-thirds of plans in states that expanded Medicaid said that it has had a positive effect on their financial performance, according to Kaiser's 2017 Survey of Medicaid Managed Care Plans.
As for the insurers' stock prices -- that's usually driven more by their employer and Medicare divisions, which are typically much larger, as well as by carriers' efforts to control costs, Banerjee said.
CNNMoney (New York)
by Tami Luhby @Luhby
March 23, 2018: 6:39 AM ET
The Trump administration has once again pointed to health insurers' robust stock market performance as proof that they are profiting from Obamacare.
The White House's Council of Economic Advisers issued a report this week declaring that insurers have made a lot of money since the Affordable Care Act took effect, primarily thanks to large premium increases and generous federal funding of premium subsidies and Medicaid expansion. The release coincided with an unsuccessful attempt in the Senate to restore funding for a second set of Obamacare subsidies -- which helped to reduce low-income enrollees' deductibles and co pays -- that President Donald Trump eliminated last fall.
"Despite an initial rough patch in the ACA marketplaces, the ACA Medicaid coverage expansion and subsidies to insurers have resulted in a large increase in health insurer profits," the four-page report said.
The council's main argument: That the stock prices of health insurance companies rose by 272% since the health reform law's implementation in January 2014 -- more than double the gain of the S&P 500 over that period.
This is a flawed rationale that the Trump administration has used before.
Content by Breguet
The horologist who was admired by Louis XVIII
A.-L. Breguet consistently demonstrated his exceptional mastery of time measurement.
Related: Despite Trump's attacks, Obamacare sign-ups dip only slightly
While it's true that Obamacare insurers are finally becoming profitable, they aren't exactly rolling in the dough because of their involvement in the individual market, experts say. And carriers' stock prices are a poor measure of their performance on the exchanges given how many other factors contribute to their bottom line.
Let's take a closer look:
In the first few years of Obamacare, many insurers priced their plans too low, resulting in big losses. This prompted many carriers -- including most of the large publicly traded ones -- to downsize or exit the market completely. There are just over 130 insurers on the exchanges this year, down from 237 two years earlier, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Anthem (ANTM) is the only large public insurer with a sizable presence on the exchanges, but even it pulled out of several states for 2018.
At least two years of big rate hikes have helped the insurers that remain get on more solid financial footing. Several recent studies, including ones by the Kaiser Family Foundation and S&P Global, have found that many insurers' premiums in 2017 were more than adequate to cover policyholders' medical expenses.
The average monthly gross margin per member was nearly $79 in the third quarter of 2017, up from $9.90 two years earlier, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (The gross margin doesn't take into account administrative expenses.)
Related: Obamacare shoppers find fewer insurer choices on exchanges
Several insurers have reported their first profits in their Obamacare businesses. Highmark Health in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, announced earlier this week that its Affordable Care Act division generated income for the first time in 2017, calling it "a substantial turnaround."
"The fact that it has taken so long to achieve some level of profitability speaks to the challenges that have long existed in the individual market," said Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade association.
Still, the individual market is not likely to be a font of big profits for insurers. It's expected to generate margins of only 1% or 2%, which is why many of the larger public carriers left, said Deep Banerjee, a director at S&P Global. The employer insurance market, on the other hand, generally produces profit margins of 8% to 10%.
The Affordable Care Act also boosted enrollment in insurers' Medicaid divisions, which are generally profitable, experts said. States are increasingly contracting with insurers to manage the health care needs of their Medicaid enrollees, said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at Kaiser. This includes the more than 11 million low-income adults who entered the program through Medicaid expansion.
Related: Anthem pulls out of Virginia's Obamacare exchange
Nearly two-thirds of plans in states that expanded Medicaid said that it has had a positive effect on their financial performance, according to Kaiser's 2017 Survey of Medicaid Managed Care Plans.
As for the insurers' stock prices -- that's usually driven more by their employer and Medicare divisions, which are typically much larger, as well as by carriers' efforts to control costs, Banerjee said.
CNNMoney (New York)
China $3 Billion Tariff Response Shows Xi Holding Fire on Trade - Bloomberg
China $3 Billion Tariff Response Shows Xi Holding Fire on Trade
Bloomberg News
March 23, 2018, 6:58 PM GMT+11
Chinese leader must look strong without tanking economy
Further response likely to target Trump’s political base
Xi Jinping Photographer: Giulia Marchi/Bloomberg
After Donald Trump fired the first shots in what may be an extended trade war, Chinese President Xi Jinping made clear he’s going to wait before unleashing his country’s formidable arsenal in response.
China’s plans for reciprocal tariffs of $3 billion on products from pork to wine represent a tiny fraction of its U.S. imports. Crucially, the Commerce Ministry said those were in response to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, and said it has a plan to act further on the planned levies on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports that his administration announced Thursday.
Xi has a lot at stake in his next move. Fresh off securing the power to rule indefinitely, he must look strong to reassure his 1.4 billion citizens that China won’t back down to a global challenge. At the same time, he wants to avoid an escalation that could tank China’s debt-laden economy and undermine the Communist Party’s legitimacy.
That means measures that will hurt Trump politically rather than inflict more damage on the global economy. After all, while Xi could stay in office for life if he wants, there’s a chance Trump might not even finish his four-year term.
“They will want to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze until it gets so loud that the administration is willing to do a deal that doesn’t hurt China too much,” said James McGregor, China chairman of the consultancy APCO Worldwide, which advises foreign companies. “They will strategically go after important industries, important companies, important trade groups so that their representatives in Washington raise hell.”
Trade War, Day One. Economic Casualties: Still Zero
For Xi, a key question is whether Trump is simply looking for applause lines at campaign rallies or if the moves represent a fundamental shift in the U.S.-China ties. Sectors subject to Trump’s tariffs include aerospace, information and communication technology and machinery: all areas that Xi’s government has identified as key to China’s development strategy.
Chinese officials have repeatedly said they want to resolve disputes through dialogue, even though they’re ready to fight a trade war. Xi has a daunting list of domestic structural economic problems to tackle, ranging from slowing growth to property bubbles to high leverage in state-owned enterprises.
Further complicating matters for Xi are shifts in Trump’s team, including the ouster of Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and H.R. McMaster as national security adviser. His replacement, John Bolton, has called for revisiting U.S. policy toward Taiwan -- a red line for Beijing.
Bolton’s World View: Bomb Iran, OK to Strike North Korea First
“A lot depends on how the Chinese are reading this,” said Dennis Wilder, former senior director for Asia at the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration. Xi may send stronger signals to Washington if he assesses that U.S. is taking a harder line on China, Wilder said, adding that scenario is “domestically more dangerous” for him.
Xi has a plethora of tools to deploy. China can tie up imports in red tape at the border, slap export taxes on goods heading to the U.S. and put tariffs on crops like sorghum and soybeans grown in some politically important farming states. China can also make like difficult for U.S. companies, including blocking the likes of Boeing Co. and Cisco Systems Inc. from accessing a procurement market it says is worth 3.1 trillion yuan ($490 billion).
Xi tours the Boeing assembly line in Sept. 2015.Photographer: Jason Redmond-Pool/Getty Images
Even without those harder measures, stocks took a beating on Friday. Equity indexes from Tokyo to Shanghai tumbled more than 3 percent after the S&P 500 Index fell 2.5 percent, the most in six weeks. Boeing dropped more than 5 percent, while Cisco Systems dropped 2.8 percent.
Gadfly: Has Beijing Brought a Knife to a Trade War Gunfight?
So far, China has signaled it can take more pain than Trump. Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador in the U.S., said Thursday: “If people want to play tough, we will play tough with them and see who will last longer.”
Even so, some analysts think China will wave the white flag. Recent statements from Premier Li Keqiang and Liu He, Xi’s top economic aide, indicate that China is ready to open up the services sector, address U.S. concerns on technology transfer and do more to protect intellectual property, according to Larry Hu, chief China economist at Macquarie Securities Ltd. in Hong Kong.
“China’s policy makers have made it clear that they are not ready for a full-blown trade war,” he wrote Friday. “Therefore, the most likely outcome is that China will concede.”
Xi’s big advantage for the moment is complete control over the government and state-owned companies that dominate China’s economy. Moreover, many American companies will also be looking to fight the Trump administration because they see the Chinese market as more important than the U.S., said APCO’s McGregor.
U.S. companies “are beholden to shareholders, not to the United States,” he said. “Globalization has untethered multinationals from having to look after the United States, and China knows that.”
— With assistance by Peter Martin, Dandan Li, and Keith Zhai
Bloomberg News
March 23, 2018, 6:58 PM GMT+11
Chinese leader must look strong without tanking economy
Further response likely to target Trump’s political base
Xi Jinping Photographer: Giulia Marchi/Bloomberg
After Donald Trump fired the first shots in what may be an extended trade war, Chinese President Xi Jinping made clear he’s going to wait before unleashing his country’s formidable arsenal in response.
China’s plans for reciprocal tariffs of $3 billion on products from pork to wine represent a tiny fraction of its U.S. imports. Crucially, the Commerce Ministry said those were in response to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, and said it has a plan to act further on the planned levies on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports that his administration announced Thursday.
Xi has a lot at stake in his next move. Fresh off securing the power to rule indefinitely, he must look strong to reassure his 1.4 billion citizens that China won’t back down to a global challenge. At the same time, he wants to avoid an escalation that could tank China’s debt-laden economy and undermine the Communist Party’s legitimacy.
That means measures that will hurt Trump politically rather than inflict more damage on the global economy. After all, while Xi could stay in office for life if he wants, there’s a chance Trump might not even finish his four-year term.
“They will want to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze until it gets so loud that the administration is willing to do a deal that doesn’t hurt China too much,” said James McGregor, China chairman of the consultancy APCO Worldwide, which advises foreign companies. “They will strategically go after important industries, important companies, important trade groups so that their representatives in Washington raise hell.”
Trade War, Day One. Economic Casualties: Still Zero
For Xi, a key question is whether Trump is simply looking for applause lines at campaign rallies or if the moves represent a fundamental shift in the U.S.-China ties. Sectors subject to Trump’s tariffs include aerospace, information and communication technology and machinery: all areas that Xi’s government has identified as key to China’s development strategy.
Chinese officials have repeatedly said they want to resolve disputes through dialogue, even though they’re ready to fight a trade war. Xi has a daunting list of domestic structural economic problems to tackle, ranging from slowing growth to property bubbles to high leverage in state-owned enterprises.
Further complicating matters for Xi are shifts in Trump’s team, including the ouster of Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and H.R. McMaster as national security adviser. His replacement, John Bolton, has called for revisiting U.S. policy toward Taiwan -- a red line for Beijing.
Bolton’s World View: Bomb Iran, OK to Strike North Korea First
“A lot depends on how the Chinese are reading this,” said Dennis Wilder, former senior director for Asia at the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration. Xi may send stronger signals to Washington if he assesses that U.S. is taking a harder line on China, Wilder said, adding that scenario is “domestically more dangerous” for him.
Xi has a plethora of tools to deploy. China can tie up imports in red tape at the border, slap export taxes on goods heading to the U.S. and put tariffs on crops like sorghum and soybeans grown in some politically important farming states. China can also make like difficult for U.S. companies, including blocking the likes of Boeing Co. and Cisco Systems Inc. from accessing a procurement market it says is worth 3.1 trillion yuan ($490 billion).
Xi tours the Boeing assembly line in Sept. 2015.Photographer: Jason Redmond-Pool/Getty Images
Even without those harder measures, stocks took a beating on Friday. Equity indexes from Tokyo to Shanghai tumbled more than 3 percent after the S&P 500 Index fell 2.5 percent, the most in six weeks. Boeing dropped more than 5 percent, while Cisco Systems dropped 2.8 percent.
Gadfly: Has Beijing Brought a Knife to a Trade War Gunfight?
So far, China has signaled it can take more pain than Trump. Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador in the U.S., said Thursday: “If people want to play tough, we will play tough with them and see who will last longer.”
Even so, some analysts think China will wave the white flag. Recent statements from Premier Li Keqiang and Liu He, Xi’s top economic aide, indicate that China is ready to open up the services sector, address U.S. concerns on technology transfer and do more to protect intellectual property, according to Larry Hu, chief China economist at Macquarie Securities Ltd. in Hong Kong.
“China’s policy makers have made it clear that they are not ready for a full-blown trade war,” he wrote Friday. “Therefore, the most likely outcome is that China will concede.”
Xi’s big advantage for the moment is complete control over the government and state-owned companies that dominate China’s economy. Moreover, many American companies will also be looking to fight the Trump administration because they see the Chinese market as more important than the U.S., said APCO’s McGregor.
U.S. companies “are beholden to shareholders, not to the United States,” he said. “Globalization has untethered multinationals from having to look after the United States, and China knows that.”
— With assistance by Peter Martin, Dandan Li, and Keith Zhai
Several Kushner Properties In New York City Are Under Investigation For Alleged ‘Illegal Activity’ - TIME
Several Kushner Properties In New York City Are Under Investigation For Alleged ‘Illegal Activity’
Posted: 21 Mar 2018 08:53 PM PDT
(NEW YORK) — New York City’s buildings regulator launched investigations at more than a dozen Kushner Cos. properties Wednesday following an Associated Press report that the real estate developer routinely filed false paperwork claiming it had zero rent-regulated tenants in its buildings across the city.
The Department of Buildings is investigating possible “illegal activity” involving applications that sought permission to begin construction work at 13 of the developer’s buildings, according to public records maintained by the regulator. The AP reported Sunday that Kushner Cos. stated in more than 80 permit applications that it had zero rent-regulated tenants in its buildings when it, in fact, had hundreds.
The false filings were made while Kushner Cos. was run by Jared Kushner, now senior adviser to his father-in-law, President Donald Trump. The false filings were all signed by a Kushner employee, sometimes by its chief operating officer. None were signed by Jared Kushner himself.
The false documents allowed the Kushner Cos. to escape extra scrutiny during construction at 34 of its buildings, many which showed a sharp decline in rent-regulated units following the work. Housing Rights Initiative, a watchdog group that uncovered the false filings, says that made it easier for the Kushner Cos. to harass the low-paying, rent-regulated tenants so they would leave, freeing up apartments for higher-paying tenants.
The Kushner Cos. said Wednesday that it is the victim of “politically motivated attacks.” It said it values and respects its tenants and operates under “the highest legal and ethical standards.”
In earlier statements the company said it outsourced preparation of its permit applications to third parties, and described the wrong information as “mistakes or typographical errors.” It also said it corrected mistakes as soon as it spotted them.
The buildings department confirmed on Wednesday that its building marshal’s office had launched investigations into possible false paperwork.
“Our building marshal is a key part of our Tenant Harassment Task Force,” spokesman Joseph Soldevere said. “And when they inspect a building they look into everything from the roof to the cellar to find illegal construction, and that’s what they are doing.”
The agency has disciplined a contractor involved in false filings at two Kushner buildings, he said.
The Kushners Cos. filed more than one permit application at many of the buildings under investigation. At least 10 of the 29 applications under investigation were filed by prior owners.
On Monday, the city council launched a joint investigation with Housing Rights Initiative into the false filings.
The heads of the joint investigations, Councilman Ritchie Torres, a Democrat, and Housing Rights Initiative founder Aaron Carr, said in a statement that they were encouraged by the buildings department probe, but that more needed to be done.
“The predatory practices of Kushner Companies is symptomatic of a systemic failure in DOB enforcement,” it said.
Dowd resigns as Trump's lawyer amid disagreements on strategy - CNN Politics
Dowd resigns as Trump's lawyer amid disagreements on strategy
By Jeremy Diamond, Gloria Borger and Pamela Brown, CNN
Updated 2248 GMT (0648 HKT) March 22, 2018
President Trump shakes up legal team
President Trump shakes up legal team 02:05
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's lead lawyer, John Dowd, has resigned from the President's personal legal team handling the response to the Russia investigation.
"I love the President and wish him well," Dowd said in a statement to CNN.
Dowd, who has urged the President to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller's probe and resist attacking him publicly, resigned as his disagreements with Trump intensified and the President stepped up his attacks on the special counsel. His departure raises questions about the direction of Trump's legal strategy and could signal a more aggressive posture on Trump's part.
Mueller team so far has indicated 4 main areas it wants to ask the President about
Mueller team so far has indicated 4 main areas it wants to ask the President about
Just days before his resignation, Dowd said in a statement the investigation should end, initially claiming he was speaking for the President before saying he was only speaking for himself. Two sources familiar with the matter said Trump had encouraged Dowd to speak out. But the statement only drew unwanted headlines and stoked turmoil within the President's legal team, according to multiple sources.
One source familiar with the decision described Dowd's resignation as a "mutual decision."
Despite public claims that he was happy with him, Trump complained privately in recent days that he thought Dowd was falling short of his duties, a source familiar with his thinking said. He questioned whether he had the energy or capacity to continue on in his role as the lead lawyer for the special counsel's investigation.
It was not immediately clear who would take over as the President's lead personal attorney, but Trump earlier this week hired another veteran Washington attorney, Joseph diGenova, to join his legal team. DiGenova was expected to play a forward-facing role on the legal team, filling what Trump felt was a lack of voices publicly defending him and challenging the special counsel.
DiGenova had publicly argued that Trump had been "framed" by FBI and Justice Department officials.
Dowd's departure also raises questions about the fate of negotiations between the President's attorneys and the special counsel's team over a potential interview with the President as Dowd has been the main point of contact with the special counsel's team throughout the investigation. One source said there is concern about the void Dowd will leave in his wake, particularly as Trump has had trouble finding top-flight lawyers to join his legal team.
Jay Sekulow, one of Trump's private attorneys, called Dowd a "friend" and said he "has been a valuable member of our legal team."
"We will continue our ongoing representation of the President and our cooperation with the Office of Special Counsel," Sekulow said in a statement.
The New York Times and The Washington Post first reported Dowd's resignation.
As the investigation seems to be intensifying, the President, according to multiple sources, is convinced he needs to take the reins of his own legal strategy and Trump has recently pushed to bring new attorneys onto his team.
The shift distressed some of his lawyers, namely Dowd, who felt blindsided and insulted by the President's hire of diGenova and other shifts, privately threatening to quit before ultimately resigning on Thursday, two sources said.
Trump had also continued to speak regularly with Marc Kasowitz, his longtime lawyer who stepped back from leading the team months ago but still remained involved.
NYT: Trump lawyers worried he'd lie to Mueller 00:54
Kasowitz had long recommended that Trump take a more aggressive posture toward the Mueller investigation. That strategy was on the backburner as Dowd and Ty Cobb, the White House's special counsel on the matter, worked with Mueller and urged the President to refrain from appearing to publicly undermine the Mueller investigation. Now that has all changed, as the President has reverted to his initial strategy to attack. An experienced cable news commentator, diGenova shares the President's view that the FBI and the Justice Department have waged a corrupt battle against him.
Dowd also faced criticism over his handling of the response to the guilty plea of Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who became the first Trump administration official to face charges in Mueller's investigation.
Dowd landed himself and the President in hot water after a tweet he says he authored suggested Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI in January, reviving questions of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice when he allegedly asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.
"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies," the tweet on Trump's account said.
The tweet led Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to note that the committee is investigating obstruction of justice and said: "What we're beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice."
In a testy exchange with CNN, Dowd said he authored the tweet, but then suggested it was incorrect, claiming that "at the time of the firing no one including Justice had accused Flynn of lying."
He declined to answer additional questions, saying: "Enough already ... I don't feed the haters."
The response was characteristic of Dowd's hard-charging style, which initially endeared him to the President and made him the lead attorney on the President's legal team after Kasowitz was asked to step back in July.
The latest shake-up now leaves questions about whether Trump's legal team will pursue the strategy that Dowd laid out in the wake of Flynn's guilty plea, when Dowd claimed that Trump could not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice because he is the US President and therefore its "chief law enforcement officer."
Dowd's claim signaled the President's legal team plans to rely on an untested theory that is heavily disputed by legal scholars: whether a sitting President can be charged with obstruction of justice or indicted at all.
CNN's John King and Kaitlan Collins contributed to this report.
By Jeremy Diamond, Gloria Borger and Pamela Brown, CNN
Updated 2248 GMT (0648 HKT) March 22, 2018
President Trump shakes up legal team
President Trump shakes up legal team 02:05
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's lead lawyer, John Dowd, has resigned from the President's personal legal team handling the response to the Russia investigation.
"I love the President and wish him well," Dowd said in a statement to CNN.
Dowd, who has urged the President to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller's probe and resist attacking him publicly, resigned as his disagreements with Trump intensified and the President stepped up his attacks on the special counsel. His departure raises questions about the direction of Trump's legal strategy and could signal a more aggressive posture on Trump's part.
Mueller team so far has indicated 4 main areas it wants to ask the President about
Mueller team so far has indicated 4 main areas it wants to ask the President about
Just days before his resignation, Dowd said in a statement the investigation should end, initially claiming he was speaking for the President before saying he was only speaking for himself. Two sources familiar with the matter said Trump had encouraged Dowd to speak out. But the statement only drew unwanted headlines and stoked turmoil within the President's legal team, according to multiple sources.
One source familiar with the decision described Dowd's resignation as a "mutual decision."
Despite public claims that he was happy with him, Trump complained privately in recent days that he thought Dowd was falling short of his duties, a source familiar with his thinking said. He questioned whether he had the energy or capacity to continue on in his role as the lead lawyer for the special counsel's investigation.
It was not immediately clear who would take over as the President's lead personal attorney, but Trump earlier this week hired another veteran Washington attorney, Joseph diGenova, to join his legal team. DiGenova was expected to play a forward-facing role on the legal team, filling what Trump felt was a lack of voices publicly defending him and challenging the special counsel.
DiGenova had publicly argued that Trump had been "framed" by FBI and Justice Department officials.
Dowd's departure also raises questions about the fate of negotiations between the President's attorneys and the special counsel's team over a potential interview with the President as Dowd has been the main point of contact with the special counsel's team throughout the investigation. One source said there is concern about the void Dowd will leave in his wake, particularly as Trump has had trouble finding top-flight lawyers to join his legal team.
Jay Sekulow, one of Trump's private attorneys, called Dowd a "friend" and said he "has been a valuable member of our legal team."
"We will continue our ongoing representation of the President and our cooperation with the Office of Special Counsel," Sekulow said in a statement.
The New York Times and The Washington Post first reported Dowd's resignation.
As the investigation seems to be intensifying, the President, according to multiple sources, is convinced he needs to take the reins of his own legal strategy and Trump has recently pushed to bring new attorneys onto his team.
The shift distressed some of his lawyers, namely Dowd, who felt blindsided and insulted by the President's hire of diGenova and other shifts, privately threatening to quit before ultimately resigning on Thursday, two sources said.
Trump had also continued to speak regularly with Marc Kasowitz, his longtime lawyer who stepped back from leading the team months ago but still remained involved.
NYT: Trump lawyers worried he'd lie to Mueller 00:54
Kasowitz had long recommended that Trump take a more aggressive posture toward the Mueller investigation. That strategy was on the backburner as Dowd and Ty Cobb, the White House's special counsel on the matter, worked with Mueller and urged the President to refrain from appearing to publicly undermine the Mueller investigation. Now that has all changed, as the President has reverted to his initial strategy to attack. An experienced cable news commentator, diGenova shares the President's view that the FBI and the Justice Department have waged a corrupt battle against him.
Dowd also faced criticism over his handling of the response to the guilty plea of Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who became the first Trump administration official to face charges in Mueller's investigation.
Dowd landed himself and the President in hot water after a tweet he says he authored suggested Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI in January, reviving questions of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice when he allegedly asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.
"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies," the tweet on Trump's account said.
The tweet led Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to note that the committee is investigating obstruction of justice and said: "What we're beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice."
In a testy exchange with CNN, Dowd said he authored the tweet, but then suggested it was incorrect, claiming that "at the time of the firing no one including Justice had accused Flynn of lying."
He declined to answer additional questions, saying: "Enough already ... I don't feed the haters."
The response was characteristic of Dowd's hard-charging style, which initially endeared him to the President and made him the lead attorney on the President's legal team after Kasowitz was asked to step back in July.
The latest shake-up now leaves questions about whether Trump's legal team will pursue the strategy that Dowd laid out in the wake of Flynn's guilty plea, when Dowd claimed that Trump could not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice because he is the US President and therefore its "chief law enforcement officer."
Dowd's claim signaled the President's legal team plans to rely on an untested theory that is heavily disputed by legal scholars: whether a sitting President can be charged with obstruction of justice or indicted at all.
CNN's John King and Kaitlan Collins contributed to this report.
From Boeing to Soybeans, China Has a Long Retaliation List - Bloomberg
From Boeing to Soybeans, China Has a Long Retaliation List
Bloomberg News
March 23, 2018, 1:40 PM GMT+11
Donald Trump plans tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods
China announces tariffs on $3 billion of U.S. exports
China Places Tariffs on Wine, Fruit and Nuts
China’s $3 billion counter punch to Donald Trump’s tariffs is just the first move from the world’s second-largest economy. History suggests it won’t be the last.
The Commerce Ministry in Beijing said it will impose import taxes on the U.S., including a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork imports and recycled aluminum, and 15 percent tariffs on American steel pipes, fruit and wine.
But that is only the tip of a long list of options if trade tensions with the U.S. worsen. Here’s a look at other ways China can strike back at America’s $130 billion of annual exports to China.
U.S. Sales At Risk
These are the top U.S. exports to China, which could be restricted in a trade war
Aircraft
Chinese media have mentioned Boeing Co. as a key target in a trade war. President Xi Jinping gave Boeing a $38 billion order on a 2015 plant visit in Seattle, and China could retaliate by canceling those orders and shifting to Airbus, for example. There’s also the government procurement market, which China says is worth 3.1 trillion yuan ($490 billion). This is one option because China isn’t a signatory to the World Trade Organization’s rules on government procurement.
Agriculture
Farming is on the forefront of any trade war as it’s one of the few sectors where U.S. exporters run a surplus with China. China’s the biggest buyer of U.S. soybeans, taking $14.6 billion worth in the last marketing year -- more than a third of the entire crop. Sorghum is also said to be on the hit list.
Tech
While the genesis of the latest U.S. measures against China are meant to protect American intellectual property and technology, that doesn’t mean Silicon Valley will be shielded from the crossfire. Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Cisco Systems Inc. are among those vulnerable to a backlash.
Export Taxes
Another option is for China to impose special additional duties on locally made products exported to the U.S. Companies like Apple and other consumer goods and electronics giants would suffer if China imposes a duty on exported products. Such a move would hit U.S. companies and consumers hard, though it would also hurt Chinese firms.
Services/Education
The U.S. recorded a $38 billion services trade surplus with China in 2016. Some of the leading services exports from the U.S. to China include travel; IP, such as trademarks; and computer software, according to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office. China could also restrict the number of students who go to U.S. universities.
Transactional diplomacy
China can quickly throw up non-tariff obstacles to trade, stepping up safety inspections and delaying paperwork essential for goods to make it into the country. It’s an under-the-radar approach China has often used to advance its geopolitical goals in Asia. They can also disrupt the operations of U.S. multinationals in China. That could include anything from actions by customs officials, financial regulators, quality inspectors, antitrust bodies, environmental authorities, consumer groups or economic planning bodies.
Yuan
The nuclear option would be a deliberate devaluation of the yuan to make China’s exports more competitive. Such a move would send shock waves through global markets, which is probably why it’s not an immediate lever that Beijing wants to pull.
— With assistance by Enda Curran, Kevin Hamlin, Peter Martin, and Andrew Mayeda
Bloomberg News
March 23, 2018, 1:40 PM GMT+11
Donald Trump plans tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods
China announces tariffs on $3 billion of U.S. exports
China Places Tariffs on Wine, Fruit and Nuts
China’s $3 billion counter punch to Donald Trump’s tariffs is just the first move from the world’s second-largest economy. History suggests it won’t be the last.
The Commerce Ministry in Beijing said it will impose import taxes on the U.S., including a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork imports and recycled aluminum, and 15 percent tariffs on American steel pipes, fruit and wine.
But that is only the tip of a long list of options if trade tensions with the U.S. worsen. Here’s a look at other ways China can strike back at America’s $130 billion of annual exports to China.
U.S. Sales At Risk
These are the top U.S. exports to China, which could be restricted in a trade war
Aircraft
Chinese media have mentioned Boeing Co. as a key target in a trade war. President Xi Jinping gave Boeing a $38 billion order on a 2015 plant visit in Seattle, and China could retaliate by canceling those orders and shifting to Airbus, for example. There’s also the government procurement market, which China says is worth 3.1 trillion yuan ($490 billion). This is one option because China isn’t a signatory to the World Trade Organization’s rules on government procurement.
Agriculture
Farming is on the forefront of any trade war as it’s one of the few sectors where U.S. exporters run a surplus with China. China’s the biggest buyer of U.S. soybeans, taking $14.6 billion worth in the last marketing year -- more than a third of the entire crop. Sorghum is also said to be on the hit list.
Tech
While the genesis of the latest U.S. measures against China are meant to protect American intellectual property and technology, that doesn’t mean Silicon Valley will be shielded from the crossfire. Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Cisco Systems Inc. are among those vulnerable to a backlash.
Export Taxes
Another option is for China to impose special additional duties on locally made products exported to the U.S. Companies like Apple and other consumer goods and electronics giants would suffer if China imposes a duty on exported products. Such a move would hit U.S. companies and consumers hard, though it would also hurt Chinese firms.
Services/Education
The U.S. recorded a $38 billion services trade surplus with China in 2016. Some of the leading services exports from the U.S. to China include travel; IP, such as trademarks; and computer software, according to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office. China could also restrict the number of students who go to U.S. universities.
Transactional diplomacy
China can quickly throw up non-tariff obstacles to trade, stepping up safety inspections and delaying paperwork essential for goods to make it into the country. It’s an under-the-radar approach China has often used to advance its geopolitical goals in Asia. They can also disrupt the operations of U.S. multinationals in China. That could include anything from actions by customs officials, financial regulators, quality inspectors, antitrust bodies, environmental authorities, consumer groups or economic planning bodies.
Yuan
The nuclear option would be a deliberate devaluation of the yuan to make China’s exports more competitive. Such a move would send shock waves through global markets, which is probably why it’s not an immediate lever that Beijing wants to pull.
— With assistance by Enda Curran, Kevin Hamlin, Peter Martin, and Andrew Mayeda
Stocks Drop Most in Six Weeks on Trade War Tension: Markets Wrap - Bloomberg
Stocks Drop Most in Six Weeks on Trade War Tension: Markets Wrap
By and
March 22, 2018, 8:55 AM GMT+11 Updated on March 23, 2018, 7:53 AM GMT+11
Dow Jones Industial Average loses more than 700 points
Oil turns lower as trade fears spur global risk-off trade
Michael Purves, chief global strategist at Weeden & Co., comments on market uncertainty about tariffs.
U.S. stocks tumbled, pushing benchmark gauges back toward the lows set during the worst of the February rout, as President Donald Trump’s decision to slap tariffs on Chinese goods heightened concern that a trade war could throttle global growth.
The S&P 500 Index sank 2.5 percent, the biggest one-day drop in six weeks, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 700 points. As investors dumped stocks, they rushed to the safety of the Treasury bond market, where yields fell back toward 2.8 percent, and the yen, which rallied the most in three weeks.
In a stock market that’s been floundering ever since it hit record highs in late January, the prospect of a widening trade spat only added to jitters. Traders had already been bracing for the possibility of slowing growth as the Federal Reserve reiterated its commitment to further interest-rate increases after Wednesday’s hike. Not even technology stocks, long the favorite of Wall Street investors, have provided relief of late as the latest data fiasco at Facebook sparked a rout in the sector this week. The Nasdaq is down more than 6 percent since its record 10 days ago.
“Tariffs mean a trade war and the news has the world’s investors running for the exits,” Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank. “Those are storm clouds out there, that’s what the stock market is saying and that’s why investors are running for the exits.”
Trump’s first trade action directly aimed at China comes as policy makers including IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde warn of a global trade conflict that could undermine the broadest world recovery in years. Stocks were also hit earlier when John Dowd resigned as Trump’s lead attorney countering Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe as the inquiry into possible collusion in the 2016 election intensifies.
“The market doesn’t like trade wars, the market doesn’t like that the Fed is adamant about raising rates,” said Matt Schreiber, president and chief investment strategist at WBI Investments in Red Bank, New Jersey.
The technology rout also picked up steam, in large part because the sector stands to lose if China retaliates as it said it will. There was more, though. Facebook renewed its slide as the controversy over its handling of user data prompted calls for the Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg to appear before lawmakers. The Fed’s decision on Wednesday to raise rates and possibly accelerate the pace of tightening also has investors on edge.
Elsewhere, West Texas oil fluctuated before falling and the Australian dollar slipped after the country’s unemployment rate climbed. The British pound initially jumped after the country’s central bank voted 7-2 to maintain interest rates, but pared as investors digested comments from policy makers that weren’t overtly hawkish.
Terminal users can read more in our markets blog.
Here are some key events on the schedule for the remainder of this week:
The Bank of Russia’s rate decision is on Friday.
U.S. government funding is due to expire at the end of the day on Friday.
And these are the main moves in markets:
Stocks
The S&P 500 Index fell 2.5 percent as of 4:03 p.m. New York time, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 2.9 percent and the Nasdaq Composite Index dipped 2.4 percent.
The Stoxx Europe 600 Index fell 1.7 percent and the MSCI Asia Pacific Index was little changed.
The U.K.’s FTSE 100 Index dipped 1.5 percent, touching the lowest in 15 months.
The MSCI Emerging Market Index fell 1.2 percent.
Currencies
The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index rose 0.2 percent, rebounding from the largest drop since January.
The euro fell 0.2 percent to $1.2318.
The British pound dropped 0.2 percent to $1.4111.
The Japanese yen rose 0.6 percent to 105.41 per dollar.
Bonds
The yield on 10-year Treasuries fell six basis point to 2.82 percent.
Germany’s 10-year yield dropped six basis point to 0.53 percent, declining from the highest in more than a week.
Britain’s 10-year yield fell nine basis points to 1.44 percent.
Commodities
West Texas Intermediate crude dropped 1.4 percent to $64.24 a barrel, easing from the highest in almost seven weeks.
Gold fell 0.3 percent to $1,329.07 an ounce a day after the biggest rise since May 2017.
A Playboy model who allegedly had an affair with Trump said he compared her to Ivanka and everyone is grossed out - Independent
23/3/2018
A Playboy model who allegedly had an affair with Trump said he compared her to Ivanka and everyone is grossed out
Posted about an hour ago by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
A former Playboy model who claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump has said that the President compared her to his daughter Ivanka.
Speaking to CNN Karen McDougal stated that she had an affair with Trump for 10 months between 2006 and 2007, with their first sexual encounter taking place at a Beverly Hills Hotel.
She is said to have first met Trump at the Playboy Mansion during filming for the Celebrity Apprentice and admitted that he was a "nice looking" and charismatic man.
During the interview with journalist Anderson Cooper, the 47-year-old said that Trump had offered her money after the first time they had sex but she refused.
Despite admitting that she was upset after the gesture, she continued to see Trump at his various properties around the US and had sex with him "many dozens of times".
However, one of the most disturbing elements of this interview is McDougal's claims that Trump sometimes complimented her with comparisons to Ivanka.
Cooper asked her:
Did he ever compare you to any of his kids?
In reply, McDougal said that he did and that she heard a lot about Ivanka during the affair. She is quoted as saying:
You know, he’s very proud of Ivanka as he should be.
She’s a brilliant woman, she’s beautiful, she’s — you know, that’s his daughter and he should be proud of her.
He said I was beautiful like her and, you know, ‘you’re a smart girl’ and there wasn’t a lot of comparing but there was some, yeah. I heard a lot about her.
These quotes haven't escaped people on Twitter, who are grossed out the thought of Trump having sex with a woman who reminded him of his own daughter.
@KFILE
Karen McDougal says on CNN that Trump compared her to Ivanka during their alleged affair: "He said I was beautiful like her."
11:40 AM - Mar 23, 2018
Red
@Redpainter1
Donald Trump told Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels that they were "beautiful like his daughter, Ivanka."
And he had sex with them both.
With no protection.
While he (probably) fantasized that they were Ivanka.
Donald Trump has an incest fantasy.
Omg. I am going to vomit.
12:05 PM - Mar 23, 2018
CountessofNambia
@theClaudiaInez
Trump told playmate Karen Mcdougal that she reminded him of his daughter, Ivanka.
I guess we know now why he was having an affair with her.
11:46 AM - Mar 23, 2018
@bungdan
The Playboy model that Trump had an affair with was not only offered money by the president after the first time they had sex but he "complimented her by comparing her favorably to his eldest daughter, Ivanka." The creepiest of Trump's patterns. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/politics/karen-mcdougal-donald-trump/index.html?sr=twCNN032218karen-mcdougal-donald-trump0654PMVODtop …
2:02 PM - Mar 23, 2018
Karen McDougal tells CNN Trump tried to pay her after sex
Donald Trump once tried to offer Karen McDougal money after they had been intimate, the former Playboy model told Anderson Cooper Thursday in an exclusive interview on CNN.
cnn.com
Images of Donald, Melania and Ivanka with McDougal at the Playboy mansion have since begun to appear online.
@scottbix
Replying to @scottbix
Karen McDougal on the night she met Ivanka and Melania Trump.
“I tried to keep my distance, I tried to go as far away as I could, because I felt guilty.”
11:39 AM - Mar 23, 2018
Besides the allegations that Trump had an affair with a woman just a few months into his marriage to Melania, this will do little to distract people away from the awkward relationship the President shares with his daughter.
The White House has reported that Trump has denied having an affair with McDougal and chose not to immediately respond after the interview aired on Thursday night.
McDougal added that she had sympathy for Melania and wouldn't want the same thing to happen to her.
What can you say except, I'm sorry? I'm sorry I wouldn't want it done to me.
A Playboy model who allegedly had an affair with Trump said he compared her to Ivanka and everyone is grossed out
Posted about an hour ago by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
A former Playboy model who claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump has said that the President compared her to his daughter Ivanka.
Speaking to CNN Karen McDougal stated that she had an affair with Trump for 10 months between 2006 and 2007, with their first sexual encounter taking place at a Beverly Hills Hotel.
She is said to have first met Trump at the Playboy Mansion during filming for the Celebrity Apprentice and admitted that he was a "nice looking" and charismatic man.
During the interview with journalist Anderson Cooper, the 47-year-old said that Trump had offered her money after the first time they had sex but she refused.
Despite admitting that she was upset after the gesture, she continued to see Trump at his various properties around the US and had sex with him "many dozens of times".
However, one of the most disturbing elements of this interview is McDougal's claims that Trump sometimes complimented her with comparisons to Ivanka.
Cooper asked her:
Did he ever compare you to any of his kids?
In reply, McDougal said that he did and that she heard a lot about Ivanka during the affair. She is quoted as saying:
You know, he’s very proud of Ivanka as he should be.
She’s a brilliant woman, she’s beautiful, she’s — you know, that’s his daughter and he should be proud of her.
He said I was beautiful like her and, you know, ‘you’re a smart girl’ and there wasn’t a lot of comparing but there was some, yeah. I heard a lot about her.
These quotes haven't escaped people on Twitter, who are grossed out the thought of Trump having sex with a woman who reminded him of his own daughter.
@KFILE
Karen McDougal says on CNN that Trump compared her to Ivanka during their alleged affair: "He said I was beautiful like her."
11:40 AM - Mar 23, 2018
Red
@Redpainter1
Donald Trump told Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels that they were "beautiful like his daughter, Ivanka."
And he had sex with them both.
With no protection.
While he (probably) fantasized that they were Ivanka.
Donald Trump has an incest fantasy.
Omg. I am going to vomit.
12:05 PM - Mar 23, 2018
CountessofNambia
@theClaudiaInez
Trump told playmate Karen Mcdougal that she reminded him of his daughter, Ivanka.
I guess we know now why he was having an affair with her.
11:46 AM - Mar 23, 2018
@bungdan
The Playboy model that Trump had an affair with was not only offered money by the president after the first time they had sex but he "complimented her by comparing her favorably to his eldest daughter, Ivanka." The creepiest of Trump's patterns. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/politics/karen-mcdougal-donald-trump/index.html?sr=twCNN032218karen-mcdougal-donald-trump0654PMVODtop …
2:02 PM - Mar 23, 2018
Karen McDougal tells CNN Trump tried to pay her after sex
Donald Trump once tried to offer Karen McDougal money after they had been intimate, the former Playboy model told Anderson Cooper Thursday in an exclusive interview on CNN.
cnn.com
Images of Donald, Melania and Ivanka with McDougal at the Playboy mansion have since begun to appear online.
@scottbix
Replying to @scottbix
Karen McDougal on the night she met Ivanka and Melania Trump.
“I tried to keep my distance, I tried to go as far away as I could, because I felt guilty.”
11:39 AM - Mar 23, 2018
Besides the allegations that Trump had an affair with a woman just a few months into his marriage to Melania, this will do little to distract people away from the awkward relationship the President shares with his daughter.
The White House has reported that Trump has denied having an affair with McDougal and chose not to immediately respond after the interview aired on Thursday night.
McDougal added that she had sympathy for Melania and wouldn't want the same thing to happen to her.
What can you say except, I'm sorry? I'm sorry I wouldn't want it done to me.
Putin Won. But Russia Is Losing - TIME
Putin Won. But Russia Is Losing
By IAN BREMMER March 22, 2018
Vladimir Putin may have been re-elected president of Russia on March 18, but he’s far from the grand master of geopolitical chess portrayed in the Western media. Whether bragging about Russia’s “invincible” new missile, playing coy over accusations that his hackers play games with foreign elections or that his spies murder opponents in faraway places, the Russian President seems intent on restaging the Cold War–but without the military reach or global ideological appeal that made the Soviet Union a formidable foe.
What has Putin really won? Today’s Russia has an economy smaller than that of Canada. Its entire military budget is less than the extra money President Donald Trump wants Congress to spend on U.S. defense. It has no NATO allies, and it counts countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, Syria and Serbia among its few reliable friends. China makes occasional deals with Russia but only at a Chinese price.
While Putin wants the world to see him as a strong, decisive leader, he often fails to understand the full impact of his actions. Looking at the foreign policy fights he has picked, it’s clear that he is a shrewd short-term tactician and a lousy long-term strategist.
Let’s begin with Ukraine. In response to the public protests in 2014 that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych–Russia’s man in Kiev–Putin ordered Russian troops into action. Seizing Crimea gave Putin a trophy at the West’s expense and boosted his tough-guy reputation. But freeing Ukraine of its most pro-Moscow region eased the way for Ukrainian nationalists to win the country’s elections and left Russia responsible for paying pensions in a place full of pensioners. Meanwhile, the Russian navy gained nothing of strategic value in Crimea; it already had a base on that peninsula. For all this, Putin invited sanctions from the U.S. and Europe–which contributed to a drop in Russia’s GDP from 2014 to 2015 that the World Bank put at 35%.
Nor did Putin win the hearts and minds of the people he tried to subdue. His move to destabilize Ukraine’s eastern regions led an entire generation of Ukrainians–too young to remember life in an empire governed by Moscow–to believe that Russia was their country’s bitter enemy. Ukraine may not move quickly toward the E.U. or NATO, but there is now a deep determination among many Ukrainians to never again serve as Russia’s junior partner. Putin may well be remembered as the Russian who lost Ukraine.
What about other former Soviet republics? The Baltic states–Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia–have long since turned to the West; NATO troops are even stationed there now, a direct result of Russia’s continued antagonism. Azerbaijan and the Central Asian states are more interested in long-term ties with rising China than with rusting Russia. If there is a dominant power in central Asia today, it’s strategic and hungry Beijing–to Moscow’s increasing chagrin.
In his quest for influence, Putin can look to Syrian President Bashar Assad, Russia’s only reliable Middle East partner, to claim victory over former U.S. President Barack Obama. Russia will now get to keep its one Mediterranean naval base. But to what end? Deeper involvement in the Middle East is not a good thing for a country with a stagnant economy that already spends too much on its military.
Putin’s worst decision was the green light he gave his intelligence services to play with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It wasn’t a surprising move; manipulation and sabotage are art forms in which any former KGB lieutenant colonel will take pride. Putin wanted to bring the U.S. down a peg, and he hated Hillary Clinton. No evidence has yet emerged that Putin made Trump President, but the U.S. intelligence community and lawmakers of both parties are now focused on threats posed by Russia. Yet in spite of Trump’s fascinating refusal to criticize Putin, Russia’s President has gained nothing of value from the U.S. President. Only Putin’s failure to understand the checks and balances at the heart of the U.S. political system explains his apparent belief that Trump could override all objections to his would-be Russia reset. Sanctions aren’t going away. Now that Russia’s secret services stand accused of brazenly poisoning Sergei Skripal, a former double agent exiled in the U.K., more may be coming.
Putin’s adventurism has so far helped divert the attention of the Russian public away from endemic corruption and economic stagnation at home. There, his one lasting achievement is ensuring the independence of the country’s central bank and stashing away money in reserve funds during good times for use in bad times.
Russia is slowly emerging from two years of recession, mainly because oil prices have enjoyed a modest recovery. But as Putin begins his fourth term as President, he’ll face a stark reality: Russia remains as deeply dependent on oil prices as when he took office a generation ago. Ten years ago, the oil price climbed to $147 per barrel, and Russian living standards and self-confidence rose with it. Since then, the price has fallen to less than half that amount and looks set to remain there for the foreseeable future. And the U.S. is at the heart of a revolutionary shift in energy markets: technological innovation in crude oil and natural gas production has helped the U.S. rival Russia and keep prices much lower than during the commodity boom of the past decade.
There’s no evidence that Russia will adjust to this new reality by finally diversifying its economy. Even today, about 80% of Russia’s exports are directly related to oil and gas, according to the Carnegie Center in Moscow. It will slowly become harder for Russians to maintain their standard of living, and the state will have less money to spend on both guns and butter. Recent efforts to create a Russian version of Silicon Valley have produced little. That’s in part because Russia’s smartest and most talented minds have every reason to leave the country in search of better opportunities.
Putin should enjoy his victory celebration while it lasts. He and his country don’t have much else on the horizon.
This appears in the April 02, 2018 issue of TIME.
By IAN BREMMER March 22, 2018
Vladimir Putin may have been re-elected president of Russia on March 18, but he’s far from the grand master of geopolitical chess portrayed in the Western media. Whether bragging about Russia’s “invincible” new missile, playing coy over accusations that his hackers play games with foreign elections or that his spies murder opponents in faraway places, the Russian President seems intent on restaging the Cold War–but without the military reach or global ideological appeal that made the Soviet Union a formidable foe.
What has Putin really won? Today’s Russia has an economy smaller than that of Canada. Its entire military budget is less than the extra money President Donald Trump wants Congress to spend on U.S. defense. It has no NATO allies, and it counts countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, Syria and Serbia among its few reliable friends. China makes occasional deals with Russia but only at a Chinese price.
While Putin wants the world to see him as a strong, decisive leader, he often fails to understand the full impact of his actions. Looking at the foreign policy fights he has picked, it’s clear that he is a shrewd short-term tactician and a lousy long-term strategist.
Let’s begin with Ukraine. In response to the public protests in 2014 that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych–Russia’s man in Kiev–Putin ordered Russian troops into action. Seizing Crimea gave Putin a trophy at the West’s expense and boosted his tough-guy reputation. But freeing Ukraine of its most pro-Moscow region eased the way for Ukrainian nationalists to win the country’s elections and left Russia responsible for paying pensions in a place full of pensioners. Meanwhile, the Russian navy gained nothing of strategic value in Crimea; it already had a base on that peninsula. For all this, Putin invited sanctions from the U.S. and Europe–which contributed to a drop in Russia’s GDP from 2014 to 2015 that the World Bank put at 35%.
Nor did Putin win the hearts and minds of the people he tried to subdue. His move to destabilize Ukraine’s eastern regions led an entire generation of Ukrainians–too young to remember life in an empire governed by Moscow–to believe that Russia was their country’s bitter enemy. Ukraine may not move quickly toward the E.U. or NATO, but there is now a deep determination among many Ukrainians to never again serve as Russia’s junior partner. Putin may well be remembered as the Russian who lost Ukraine.
What about other former Soviet republics? The Baltic states–Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia–have long since turned to the West; NATO troops are even stationed there now, a direct result of Russia’s continued antagonism. Azerbaijan and the Central Asian states are more interested in long-term ties with rising China than with rusting Russia. If there is a dominant power in central Asia today, it’s strategic and hungry Beijing–to Moscow’s increasing chagrin.
In his quest for influence, Putin can look to Syrian President Bashar Assad, Russia’s only reliable Middle East partner, to claim victory over former U.S. President Barack Obama. Russia will now get to keep its one Mediterranean naval base. But to what end? Deeper involvement in the Middle East is not a good thing for a country with a stagnant economy that already spends too much on its military.
Putin’s worst decision was the green light he gave his intelligence services to play with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It wasn’t a surprising move; manipulation and sabotage are art forms in which any former KGB lieutenant colonel will take pride. Putin wanted to bring the U.S. down a peg, and he hated Hillary Clinton. No evidence has yet emerged that Putin made Trump President, but the U.S. intelligence community and lawmakers of both parties are now focused on threats posed by Russia. Yet in spite of Trump’s fascinating refusal to criticize Putin, Russia’s President has gained nothing of value from the U.S. President. Only Putin’s failure to understand the checks and balances at the heart of the U.S. political system explains his apparent belief that Trump could override all objections to his would-be Russia reset. Sanctions aren’t going away. Now that Russia’s secret services stand accused of brazenly poisoning Sergei Skripal, a former double agent exiled in the U.K., more may be coming.
Putin’s adventurism has so far helped divert the attention of the Russian public away from endemic corruption and economic stagnation at home. There, his one lasting achievement is ensuring the independence of the country’s central bank and stashing away money in reserve funds during good times for use in bad times.
Russia is slowly emerging from two years of recession, mainly because oil prices have enjoyed a modest recovery. But as Putin begins his fourth term as President, he’ll face a stark reality: Russia remains as deeply dependent on oil prices as when he took office a generation ago. Ten years ago, the oil price climbed to $147 per barrel, and Russian living standards and self-confidence rose with it. Since then, the price has fallen to less than half that amount and looks set to remain there for the foreseeable future. And the U.S. is at the heart of a revolutionary shift in energy markets: technological innovation in crude oil and natural gas production has helped the U.S. rival Russia and keep prices much lower than during the commodity boom of the past decade.
There’s no evidence that Russia will adjust to this new reality by finally diversifying its economy. Even today, about 80% of Russia’s exports are directly related to oil and gas, according to the Carnegie Center in Moscow. It will slowly become harder for Russians to maintain their standard of living, and the state will have less money to spend on both guns and butter. Recent efforts to create a Russian version of Silicon Valley have produced little. That’s in part because Russia’s smartest and most talented minds have every reason to leave the country in search of better opportunities.
Putin should enjoy his victory celebration while it lasts. He and his country don’t have much else on the horizon.
This appears in the April 02, 2018 issue of TIME.
John Bolton’s Incompetence May Be More Dangerous Than His Ideology - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )
March 23, 2018
2:29 am
John Bolton’s Incompetence May Be More Dangerous Than His Ideology
By
Heather Hurlburt
@natsecHeather
John Bolton has been one of liberals’ top bogeymen on national security for more than a decade now. He seems to relish the role, going out of his way to argue that the Iraq War wasn’t really a failure, calling for U.S.-led regime change in Iran and preventive war against North Korea, and writing the foreword for a book that proclaimed President Obama to be a secret Muslim. He is a profoundly partisan creature, having started a super-PAC whose largest donor was leading Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer and whose provider of analytics was Cambridge Analytica, the firm alleged to have improperly used Facebook data to make voter profiles, which it sold to the Trump and Brexit campaigns, among others.
Recently Bolton’s statements have grown more extreme, alarming centrist and conservative national security professionals along with his longtime liberal foes. He seemed to say that the United States could attack North Korea without the agreement of our South Korean allies, who would face the highest risk of retaliation and casualties; just two months ago he called for a regime change effort in Iran that would allow the U.S. to open a new embassy there by 2019, the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage in Tehran. His hostility toward Islam points toward a set of extreme policies that could easily have the effect of abridging American Muslims’ rights at home and alienating America’s Muslim allies abroad.
As worrying as these policies are, it’s worth taking a step back and thinking not about Bolton, but about his new boss, Donald Trump. Trump reportedly considered Bolton for a Cabinet post early on, but then soured on him, finding his mustache unprofessional. His choice of Bolton to lead the National Security Council reinforces several trends: right now, this administration is all about making Trump’s opponents uncomfortable and angry. Internal coherence and policy effectiveness are not a primary or even secondary consideration. And anyone would be a fool to imagine that, because Bolton pleases Trump today, he will continue to do so tomorrow.
Yes, Bolton has taken strong stances against the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin (though he has also been quoted praising Russian “democracy” as recently as 2013). That’s nothing new: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, incoming Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have called for greater pushback on Russia as well. But there’s every reason to think that, rather than a well-oiled war machine, what we’ll get from Bolton’s National Security Council is scheming and discord – which could be even more dangerous.
President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. Their disagreements are real – Bolton has famously pooh-poohed the kind of summit diplomacy with North Korea that Trump is now committed to. While Trump famously backed away from his support for the 2002 invasion of Iraq, courting the GOP isolationist base, Bolton continues to argue that the invasion worked, and seldom hears of a war he would not participate in. Trump attempted to block transgender people from serving in the military, but Bolton has declined to take part in the right’s LGBT-bashing, famously hiring gay staff and calling for the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
That’s all substance. What really seems likely to take Bolton down is his style, which is legendary – and not in a good way. His colleagues from the George W. Bush administration responded to Trump’s announcement with comments like “the obvious question is whether John Bolton has the temperament and the judgment for the job” – not exactly a ringing endorsement. One former co-worker described Bolton as a “kiss up, kick down kind of guy,” and he was notorious in past administrations for conniving and sneaking around officials who disagreed with him, both traits that Trump seems likely to enjoy … until he doesn’t. This is a man who can’t refrain from telling Tucker Carlson that his analysis is “simpleminded” – while he’s a guest on Carlson’s show. Turns out it’s not true that he threw a stapler at a contractor – it was a tape dispenser. When Bolton was caught attempting to cook intelligence to suggest that Cuba had a biological weapons program, he bullied the analyst who had dared push back, calling him a “midlevel … munchkin.” How long until Trump tires of the drama – or of being eclipsed?
Nobody Is Left to Save the World From Trump Now
Trump Is Sabotaging His Chance for a Peaceful North Korea Solution
Bolton may find that in this job, he’s the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional. Love Bolton or hate him, no one imagines he will be a self-effacing figure, and no one hires him to run a no-drama process. It’s also hard to imagine that many of the high-quality professionals McMaster brought into the National Security Council staff will choose to stay. McMaster repeatedly had to fight for his team within the Trump administration, but Bolton seems unlikely to follow that pattern, or to inspire the kind of loyalty that drew well-regarded policy wonks to work for McMaster, regardless their views of Trump.
So even if you like the policies Bolton espouses, it’s hard to imagine a smooth process implementing them. That seems likely to leave us with Muslim ban-level incompetence, extreme bellicosity, and several very loud, competing voices – with Twitter feeds – on the most sensitive issues of war and weapons of mass destruction.
2:29 am
John Bolton’s Incompetence May Be More Dangerous Than His Ideology
By
Heather Hurlburt
@natsecHeather
John Bolton has been one of liberals’ top bogeymen on national security for more than a decade now. He seems to relish the role, going out of his way to argue that the Iraq War wasn’t really a failure, calling for U.S.-led regime change in Iran and preventive war against North Korea, and writing the foreword for a book that proclaimed President Obama to be a secret Muslim. He is a profoundly partisan creature, having started a super-PAC whose largest donor was leading Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer and whose provider of analytics was Cambridge Analytica, the firm alleged to have improperly used Facebook data to make voter profiles, which it sold to the Trump and Brexit campaigns, among others.
Recently Bolton’s statements have grown more extreme, alarming centrist and conservative national security professionals along with his longtime liberal foes. He seemed to say that the United States could attack North Korea without the agreement of our South Korean allies, who would face the highest risk of retaliation and casualties; just two months ago he called for a regime change effort in Iran that would allow the U.S. to open a new embassy there by 2019, the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage in Tehran. His hostility toward Islam points toward a set of extreme policies that could easily have the effect of abridging American Muslims’ rights at home and alienating America’s Muslim allies abroad.
As worrying as these policies are, it’s worth taking a step back and thinking not about Bolton, but about his new boss, Donald Trump. Trump reportedly considered Bolton for a Cabinet post early on, but then soured on him, finding his mustache unprofessional. His choice of Bolton to lead the National Security Council reinforces several trends: right now, this administration is all about making Trump’s opponents uncomfortable and angry. Internal coherence and policy effectiveness are not a primary or even secondary consideration. And anyone would be a fool to imagine that, because Bolton pleases Trump today, he will continue to do so tomorrow.
Yes, Bolton has taken strong stances against the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin (though he has also been quoted praising Russian “democracy” as recently as 2013). That’s nothing new: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, incoming Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have called for greater pushback on Russia as well. But there’s every reason to think that, rather than a well-oiled war machine, what we’ll get from Bolton’s National Security Council is scheming and discord – which could be even more dangerous.
President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. Their disagreements are real – Bolton has famously pooh-poohed the kind of summit diplomacy with North Korea that Trump is now committed to. While Trump famously backed away from his support for the 2002 invasion of Iraq, courting the GOP isolationist base, Bolton continues to argue that the invasion worked, and seldom hears of a war he would not participate in. Trump attempted to block transgender people from serving in the military, but Bolton has declined to take part in the right’s LGBT-bashing, famously hiring gay staff and calling for the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
That’s all substance. What really seems likely to take Bolton down is his style, which is legendary – and not in a good way. His colleagues from the George W. Bush administration responded to Trump’s announcement with comments like “the obvious question is whether John Bolton has the temperament and the judgment for the job” – not exactly a ringing endorsement. One former co-worker described Bolton as a “kiss up, kick down kind of guy,” and he was notorious in past administrations for conniving and sneaking around officials who disagreed with him, both traits that Trump seems likely to enjoy … until he doesn’t. This is a man who can’t refrain from telling Tucker Carlson that his analysis is “simpleminded” – while he’s a guest on Carlson’s show. Turns out it’s not true that he threw a stapler at a contractor – it was a tape dispenser. When Bolton was caught attempting to cook intelligence to suggest that Cuba had a biological weapons program, he bullied the analyst who had dared push back, calling him a “midlevel … munchkin.” How long until Trump tires of the drama – or of being eclipsed?
Nobody Is Left to Save the World From Trump Now
Trump Is Sabotaging His Chance for a Peaceful North Korea Solution
Bolton may find that in this job, he’s the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional. Love Bolton or hate him, no one imagines he will be a self-effacing figure, and no one hires him to run a no-drama process. It’s also hard to imagine that many of the high-quality professionals McMaster brought into the National Security Council staff will choose to stay. McMaster repeatedly had to fight for his team within the Trump administration, but Bolton seems unlikely to follow that pattern, or to inspire the kind of loyalty that drew well-regarded policy wonks to work for McMaster, regardless their views of Trump.
So even if you like the policies Bolton espouses, it’s hard to imagine a smooth process implementing them. That seems likely to leave us with Muslim ban-level incompetence, extreme bellicosity, and several very loud, competing voices – with Twitter feeds – on the most sensitive issues of war and weapons of mass destruction.
Why Facebook Needs Transparency to Protect Its Users — And Stay in Business - TIME
Why Facebook Needs Transparency to Protect Its Users — And Stay in Business
Posted: 22 Mar 2018 06:31 AM PDT
“It is not easy to protect 1.4 billion people every day. But if Facebook wants to be the home where all those people share their likes and heartbreaks and plans and politics with acquaintances online, it had better try a lot harder.”
That was the thrust of the news on March 17, when the Observer of London and the New York Times revealed that analytics firm Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained data from 50 million Facebook accounts. The company, which worked with both Senator Ted Cruz and Donald Trump on their 2016 presidential campaigns, then attempted to build psychological profiles of potential voters — with the hopes of using them to determine whom to target.
But in this case, unlike other recent privacy breakdowns — like the Equifax data breach that put 145.5 million accounts at risk — thieves or hackers did not steal information. The company actually just handed the data over, then didn’t watch where it went. As Facebook itself reported, Aleksandr Kogan, the academic researcher who first obtained the information through an app he developed, did so “in a legitimate way and through proper channels” and violated Facebook’s policies only when he passed it on to Cambridge Analytica. The social network was also under the impression until recently that the harvested data had been deleted, but the Times says it has viewed a set of it. Right now, it’s not clear who else can see the data.
Read more: Want to Fix Facebook? That’ll Cost You About $75 a Year
All This has prompted sharp criticism of the company, which meticulously tracks its users but failed to keep track of where information about the lives and thinking of those people went. Facebook’s shares were down by 6.8% in the first business day after the reports. Lawmakers in both the U.S. and Britain, where Cambridge Analytica did similar work ahead of the Brexit referendum, have demanded testimony from Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg; in an interview with CNN, Zuckerberg responded to a question about whether he would go before Congress by saying, “The short answer is I’m happy to if it’s the right thing to do.” The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general have reportedly begun investigations. On the site itself, many users mused, Why are we still here? This all comes at a time when the company reported that it had seen a decrease in daily active users in the U.S. and Canada for the first time — from 185 million to 184 million — in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Because Kogan obtained the data through legitimate channels, preventing such a scenario from happening again isn’t as simple as patching a bug or boosting Facebook’s security infrastructure. A fix would require Facebook to be stricter with its actual customers: developers and advertisers of all kinds, from retailers to political groups, who pay to know what you have revealed about yourself. But it will need to keep a closer eye on who can see what, even if that results in repercussions for its other partners. Facebook invites you to chronicle your life through its platforms, especially your most cherished moments. There is a natural expectation that a space with such precious material will be guarded. As Zuckerberg said in a statement that in part pledged to restrict developers’ access to data: “We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you.”
There’s another group in need of urgent introspection: users. In an era in which we tell companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon what groceries we eat, whom we’re in touch with and where we’re going (at a minimum), users themselves need to actually demand to know to whom their information is being sent and how they will use it, in a way that is readable and accessible. There’s no single obvious answer for preventing future data abuse, but one lesson is evident: Facebook needs to be more transparent with its users when their data is being exploited, and users themselves should be much more vigilant about the personal details they’re willing to share. “It’s clear these platforms can’t police themselves,” Senator Amy Klobuchar posted to Twitter. (Although even she expressed to Vice News Tonight skepticism that lawmakers will change the system ahead of this year’s elections, suspecting some will want one last election cycle with these tools in hand.)
Read more: Mark Zuckerberg Just Revealed 3 Steps Facebook Is Taking to Address the Cambridge Analytica Crisis
Users may not invest in Facebook with cash. Instead, we offer invisible things: our emotions, our interests, our time and, in the end, our trust. As Facebook asks for more and more of us as it expands, from its messenger apps to virtual reality to Instagram, we must ask, Why do we trust what we know so little about? Especially when what we do know is that the site profits off our interests? We need to value our minds and lives at least as much as the advertisers and politicians do.
Posted: 22 Mar 2018 06:31 AM PDT
“It is not easy to protect 1.4 billion people every day. But if Facebook wants to be the home where all those people share their likes and heartbreaks and plans and politics with acquaintances online, it had better try a lot harder.”
That was the thrust of the news on March 17, when the Observer of London and the New York Times revealed that analytics firm Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained data from 50 million Facebook accounts. The company, which worked with both Senator Ted Cruz and Donald Trump on their 2016 presidential campaigns, then attempted to build psychological profiles of potential voters — with the hopes of using them to determine whom to target.
But in this case, unlike other recent privacy breakdowns — like the Equifax data breach that put 145.5 million accounts at risk — thieves or hackers did not steal information. The company actually just handed the data over, then didn’t watch where it went. As Facebook itself reported, Aleksandr Kogan, the academic researcher who first obtained the information through an app he developed, did so “in a legitimate way and through proper channels” and violated Facebook’s policies only when he passed it on to Cambridge Analytica. The social network was also under the impression until recently that the harvested data had been deleted, but the Times says it has viewed a set of it. Right now, it’s not clear who else can see the data.
Read more: Want to Fix Facebook? That’ll Cost You About $75 a Year
All This has prompted sharp criticism of the company, which meticulously tracks its users but failed to keep track of where information about the lives and thinking of those people went. Facebook’s shares were down by 6.8% in the first business day after the reports. Lawmakers in both the U.S. and Britain, where Cambridge Analytica did similar work ahead of the Brexit referendum, have demanded testimony from Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg; in an interview with CNN, Zuckerberg responded to a question about whether he would go before Congress by saying, “The short answer is I’m happy to if it’s the right thing to do.” The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general have reportedly begun investigations. On the site itself, many users mused, Why are we still here? This all comes at a time when the company reported that it had seen a decrease in daily active users in the U.S. and Canada for the first time — from 185 million to 184 million — in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Because Kogan obtained the data through legitimate channels, preventing such a scenario from happening again isn’t as simple as patching a bug or boosting Facebook’s security infrastructure. A fix would require Facebook to be stricter with its actual customers: developers and advertisers of all kinds, from retailers to political groups, who pay to know what you have revealed about yourself. But it will need to keep a closer eye on who can see what, even if that results in repercussions for its other partners. Facebook invites you to chronicle your life through its platforms, especially your most cherished moments. There is a natural expectation that a space with such precious material will be guarded. As Zuckerberg said in a statement that in part pledged to restrict developers’ access to data: “We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you.”
There’s another group in need of urgent introspection: users. In an era in which we tell companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon what groceries we eat, whom we’re in touch with and where we’re going (at a minimum), users themselves need to actually demand to know to whom their information is being sent and how they will use it, in a way that is readable and accessible. There’s no single obvious answer for preventing future data abuse, but one lesson is evident: Facebook needs to be more transparent with its users when their data is being exploited, and users themselves should be much more vigilant about the personal details they’re willing to share. “It’s clear these platforms can’t police themselves,” Senator Amy Klobuchar posted to Twitter. (Although even she expressed to Vice News Tonight skepticism that lawmakers will change the system ahead of this year’s elections, suspecting some will want one last election cycle with these tools in hand.)
Read more: Mark Zuckerberg Just Revealed 3 Steps Facebook Is Taking to Address the Cambridge Analytica Crisis
Users may not invest in Facebook with cash. Instead, we offer invisible things: our emotions, our interests, our time and, in the end, our trust. As Facebook asks for more and more of us as it expands, from its messenger apps to virtual reality to Instagram, we must ask, Why do we trust what we know so little about? Especially when what we do know is that the site profits off our interests? We need to value our minds and lives at least as much as the advertisers and politicians do.
Russia 'arming the Afghan Taliban', says US - BBC News
23/3/2018
Russia 'arming the Afghan Taliban', says US
Justin Rowlatt
South Asia correspondent
@BBCJustinR on Twitter
Gen John Nicholson: "We know that the Russians are involved"
Russia is supporting and even supplying arms to the Taliban, the head of US forces in Afghanistan has told the BBC.
In an exclusive interview, Gen John Nicholson said he'd seen "destabilising activity by the Russians."
He said Russian weapons were smuggled across the Tajik border to the Taliban, but could not say in what quantity. Russia has denied such US allegations in the past, citing a lack of evidence.
But the new claims come at a sensitive time in Russia's ties with Nato powers.
Britain and Russia are locked in a dispute over claims that Russia was behind an attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter on UK soil using a deadly nerve agent.
Meanwhile a US Congressional Intelligence Committee has just published a report concluding that Russian provocateurs meddled in the 2016 election.
Russian spy: What we know so far
US punishes Russians over vote meddling
Russia denies supplying the Taliban
"We see a narrative that's being used that grossly exaggerates the number of Isis [Islamic State group] fighters here," Gen Nicholson told BBC News. "This narrative then is used as a justification for the Russians to legitimise the actions of Taliban and provide some degree of support to the Taliban."
"We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial support provided by the enemy. We've had weapons brought to this headquarters and given to us by Afghan leaders and said, this was given by the Russians to the Taliban," he continued. "We know that the Russians are involved."
Much of Gen Nicholson's career has been spent in the conflict in Afghanistan. He narrowly escaped death when his office in the Pentagon was destroyed by one of the 9/11 planes and the US campaign in Afghanistan has shaped his career ever since.
He believes this direct Russian involvement with the Taliban is relatively new. He says Russia has conducted a series of exercises on the Afghan border with Tajikistan. "These are counter terrorism exercises," says Gen Nicholson, "but we've seen the Russian patterns before: they bring in large amounts of equipment and then they leave some of it behind."
The implication is that these weapons and other equipment are then smuggled across the border and supplied to the Taliban.
Gen Nicholson's military career has been shaped by the conflict in Afghanistan
The general admits it is hard to quantify how much support Russia is actually giving the Taliban, but senior Afghan police officers and military figures have told the BBC that it includes night vision goggles, medium and heavy machine guns as well as small arms.
Afghan sources say these weapons are likely to have been used against Afghan forces and the Nato advisers who support them on some combat missions.
However, Russia is not an obvious ally of the Taliban. The Soviet Union fought a bitter war against the US-backed mujahedin after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Many of those same mujahedin fighters joined the Taliban when it was formed during the civil war that followed the humiliating Russian withdrawal in 1989.
The Taliban's enmity towards Russia was enduring, says Kate Clarke of the Afghan Analysts Network: "The Taliban always castigated the Northern Alliance for dealing with Russia," she says.
It may be that now Russian and Taliban interests are becoming more closely aligned, she speculates.
US combat operations against the Taliban officially ended in 2014
President Trump has been pressuring Pakistan to sever its links with the Taliban. In January he suspended hundreds of millions of dollars of security aid after complaining on Twitter that Pakistan had "given us nothing but lies & deceit" and accusing it of providing "safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan".
The Taliban is also keen to distance itself from Pakistan and demonstrate that it is an independent force. That makes finding new funding lines and international backers important.
Russia, meanwhile, denies providing weapons or funds to the Taliban but has admitted that it has had talks with the insurgent group. It justified that on the basis of the shared opposition to the Islamic State group, which has been trying to establish a base in the north-east of Afghanistan.
However Russia may well believe there are wider geo-political benefits to be had from supporting the Taliban.
When I asked Gen Nicholson whether he thought that Russia was fighting a proxy war against America in Afghanistan he didn't address the question directly.
"This activity really picked up in the last 18 to 24 months," he replied. "Prior to that we had not seen this kind of destabilising activity by Russia here. When you look at the timing it roughly correlates to when things started to heat up in Syria. So it's interesting to note the timing of the whole thing."
Russia 'arming the Afghan Taliban', says US
Justin Rowlatt
South Asia correspondent
@BBCJustinR on Twitter
Gen John Nicholson: "We know that the Russians are involved"
Russia is supporting and even supplying arms to the Taliban, the head of US forces in Afghanistan has told the BBC.
In an exclusive interview, Gen John Nicholson said he'd seen "destabilising activity by the Russians."
He said Russian weapons were smuggled across the Tajik border to the Taliban, but could not say in what quantity. Russia has denied such US allegations in the past, citing a lack of evidence.
But the new claims come at a sensitive time in Russia's ties with Nato powers.
Britain and Russia are locked in a dispute over claims that Russia was behind an attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter on UK soil using a deadly nerve agent.
Meanwhile a US Congressional Intelligence Committee has just published a report concluding that Russian provocateurs meddled in the 2016 election.
Russian spy: What we know so far
US punishes Russians over vote meddling
Russia denies supplying the Taliban
"We see a narrative that's being used that grossly exaggerates the number of Isis [Islamic State group] fighters here," Gen Nicholson told BBC News. "This narrative then is used as a justification for the Russians to legitimise the actions of Taliban and provide some degree of support to the Taliban."
"We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial support provided by the enemy. We've had weapons brought to this headquarters and given to us by Afghan leaders and said, this was given by the Russians to the Taliban," he continued. "We know that the Russians are involved."
Much of Gen Nicholson's career has been spent in the conflict in Afghanistan. He narrowly escaped death when his office in the Pentagon was destroyed by one of the 9/11 planes and the US campaign in Afghanistan has shaped his career ever since.
He believes this direct Russian involvement with the Taliban is relatively new. He says Russia has conducted a series of exercises on the Afghan border with Tajikistan. "These are counter terrorism exercises," says Gen Nicholson, "but we've seen the Russian patterns before: they bring in large amounts of equipment and then they leave some of it behind."
The implication is that these weapons and other equipment are then smuggled across the border and supplied to the Taliban.
Gen Nicholson's military career has been shaped by the conflict in Afghanistan
The general admits it is hard to quantify how much support Russia is actually giving the Taliban, but senior Afghan police officers and military figures have told the BBC that it includes night vision goggles, medium and heavy machine guns as well as small arms.
Afghan sources say these weapons are likely to have been used against Afghan forces and the Nato advisers who support them on some combat missions.
However, Russia is not an obvious ally of the Taliban. The Soviet Union fought a bitter war against the US-backed mujahedin after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Many of those same mujahedin fighters joined the Taliban when it was formed during the civil war that followed the humiliating Russian withdrawal in 1989.
The Taliban's enmity towards Russia was enduring, says Kate Clarke of the Afghan Analysts Network: "The Taliban always castigated the Northern Alliance for dealing with Russia," she says.
It may be that now Russian and Taliban interests are becoming more closely aligned, she speculates.
US combat operations against the Taliban officially ended in 2014
President Trump has been pressuring Pakistan to sever its links with the Taliban. In January he suspended hundreds of millions of dollars of security aid after complaining on Twitter that Pakistan had "given us nothing but lies & deceit" and accusing it of providing "safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan".
The Taliban is also keen to distance itself from Pakistan and demonstrate that it is an independent force. That makes finding new funding lines and international backers important.
Russia, meanwhile, denies providing weapons or funds to the Taliban but has admitted that it has had talks with the insurgent group. It justified that on the basis of the shared opposition to the Islamic State group, which has been trying to establish a base in the north-east of Afghanistan.
However Russia may well believe there are wider geo-political benefits to be had from supporting the Taliban.
When I asked Gen Nicholson whether he thought that Russia was fighting a proxy war against America in Afghanistan he didn't address the question directly.
"This activity really picked up in the last 18 to 24 months," he replied. "Prior to that we had not seen this kind of destabilising activity by Russia here. When you look at the timing it roughly correlates to when things started to heat up in Syria. So it's interesting to note the timing of the whole thing."
Trump replaces National Security Adviser HR McMaster with John Bolton - BBC News
23/3/2018
Trump replaces National Security Adviser HR McMaster with John Bolton
John Bolton is to be Mr Trump's third national security adviser
President Donald Trump is replacing US National Security Adviser HR McMaster with Bush-era defence hawk and former United Nations ambassador John Bolton.
Mr Trump tweeted to thank Gen McMaster, saying he had done an "outstanding job & will always remain my friend".
Mr Bolton, who has backed attacking North Korea and Iran, told Fox News his job would be to ensure the president has "the full range of options".
He becomes Mr Trump's third national security chief in 14 months.
Gen McMaster is the latest high-profile departure from the White House.
Last week, Mr Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by a tweet, replacing him with former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
Why did Trump dump his security adviser?
The White House revolving door
Five things Bolton believes
Mr Bolton's appointment does not require US Senate confirmation. He will take the job on 9 April.
The National Security Adviser is the key counsellor to the president on national security and foreign policy issues, and acts as a conduit for policy proposals coming from various government departments, including defence and state.
@realDonaldTrump
I am pleased to announce that, effective 4/9/18, @AmbJohnBolton will be my new National Security Advisor. I am very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job & will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on 4/9.
9:26 AM - Mar 23, 2018
Responding to the move, Mr Bolton said he was looking forward to working with President Trump and his team "to make our country safer at home and stronger abroad".
@AmbJohnBolton
My official statement on accepting @POTUS' request to become the next National Security Advisor.
1:31 PM - Mar 23, 2018
Who is John Bolton?
Mr Bolton, 69, has been a foreign policy hawk in Republican circles for decades, having served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush.
The second Bush appointed him as US envoy to the UN, during which time diplomats privately criticised Mr Bolton's style as abrasive.
A strident neo-conservative, Mr Bolton helped build the case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong.
Known for his walrus moustache, Mr Bolton does not appear to have greatly moderated his views since his last spell in government.
He stands by the invasion of Iraq and has advocated in newspaper op-eds using military force against North Korea and Iran.
Media captionUS National Security Adviser HR McMaster is the latest victim of the President's line up changes.
Bush-era war hawk makes comeback
Mr Bolton - a hawk's hawk
Analysis by BBC North America reporter Anthony Zurcher
Earlier this month, Donald Trump tweeted: "I still have some people that I want to change". He wasn't kidding.
Since then chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, personal lawyer John Dowd and now National Security Adviser HR McMaster have headed to (or been shown) the exits.
One explanation is that the president feels more comfortable in his job - and more willing to challenge the advice given him by his closest aides.
He has chafed at the perception that he is being "handled" by those around him, and is installing men who agree to action, instead of preaching caution.
When it comes to Iran, Mr Bolton and the president are on the same page. Coupled with Mr Tillerson's exit, the US is heading toward a much more confrontational relationship with the Islamic Republic.
In other ways, however, the former UN ambassador is an unusual choice.
Mr Trump frequently has called the Iraq war a colossal mistake - the same war that Mr Bolton enthusiastically promoted during his time in the George W Bush administration.
Candidate Trump regularly espoused non-interventionism. Mr Bolton is a hawk's hawk.
Now that hawk has a perch in the Oval Office.
Trump's unprecedented staff turnover rate
Why is Trump replacing McMaster?
In a brief statement on Thursday, Gen McMaster thanked President Trump for appointing him and said he was applying to retire from the US Army later this year.
The 55-year-old three-star general is leaving after just over a year as national security adviser.
The White House said Mr Trump and Gen McMaster had "mutually agreed" that he would leave. He had been rumoured for weeks to be on his way out.
HR McMaster's briefings reportedly grated on the president
Gen McMaster's departure came a day after someone at the White House leaked to media that Mr Trump was advised this week in briefing documents not to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin on his recent re-election, but did it anyway.
White House reporter Tara McKelvey says Gen McMaster seems happy about his decision.
She says she saw him recently joking with colleagues in the West Wing, and he had already worked out his exit strategy.
The president had reportedly found Gen McMaster's briefings to be grating. He was also described as aggressive and prone to lecture.
Gen McMaster replaced Lt Gen Michael Flynn, who was fired after less than a month in the job for misleading the White House about his contacts with the Russian ambassador.
Tillerson bids farewell to 'mean-spirited' Washington
How have Washington foreign policy circles reacted?
Republican Senator Lindsay Graham described Mr Bolton's appointment as "good news for America's allies and bad news for America's enemies".
Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat, said the new national security adviser's stance on Iran and North Korea was "overly aggressive at best and downright dangerous at worst".
Abraham Denmark, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for East Asia in the Obama administration, said: "Bolton has long been an advocate for pre-emptive military action against North Korea, and his appointment as national security adviser is a strong signal that President Trump remains open to these options."
Bonnie Glaser, from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said: "Bolton has long supported regime change in North Korea and closer ties with Taiwan. Fasten your seat belts."
Trump replaces National Security Adviser HR McMaster with John Bolton
John Bolton is to be Mr Trump's third national security adviser
President Donald Trump is replacing US National Security Adviser HR McMaster with Bush-era defence hawk and former United Nations ambassador John Bolton.
Mr Trump tweeted to thank Gen McMaster, saying he had done an "outstanding job & will always remain my friend".
Mr Bolton, who has backed attacking North Korea and Iran, told Fox News his job would be to ensure the president has "the full range of options".
He becomes Mr Trump's third national security chief in 14 months.
Gen McMaster is the latest high-profile departure from the White House.
Last week, Mr Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by a tweet, replacing him with former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
Why did Trump dump his security adviser?
The White House revolving door
Five things Bolton believes
Mr Bolton's appointment does not require US Senate confirmation. He will take the job on 9 April.
The National Security Adviser is the key counsellor to the president on national security and foreign policy issues, and acts as a conduit for policy proposals coming from various government departments, including defence and state.
@realDonaldTrump
I am pleased to announce that, effective 4/9/18, @AmbJohnBolton will be my new National Security Advisor. I am very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job & will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on 4/9.
9:26 AM - Mar 23, 2018
Responding to the move, Mr Bolton said he was looking forward to working with President Trump and his team "to make our country safer at home and stronger abroad".
@AmbJohnBolton
My official statement on accepting @POTUS' request to become the next National Security Advisor.
1:31 PM - Mar 23, 2018
Who is John Bolton?
Mr Bolton, 69, has been a foreign policy hawk in Republican circles for decades, having served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush.
The second Bush appointed him as US envoy to the UN, during which time diplomats privately criticised Mr Bolton's style as abrasive.
A strident neo-conservative, Mr Bolton helped build the case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong.
Known for his walrus moustache, Mr Bolton does not appear to have greatly moderated his views since his last spell in government.
He stands by the invasion of Iraq and has advocated in newspaper op-eds using military force against North Korea and Iran.
Media captionUS National Security Adviser HR McMaster is the latest victim of the President's line up changes.
Bush-era war hawk makes comeback
Mr Bolton - a hawk's hawk
Analysis by BBC North America reporter Anthony Zurcher
Earlier this month, Donald Trump tweeted: "I still have some people that I want to change". He wasn't kidding.
Since then chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, personal lawyer John Dowd and now National Security Adviser HR McMaster have headed to (or been shown) the exits.
One explanation is that the president feels more comfortable in his job - and more willing to challenge the advice given him by his closest aides.
He has chafed at the perception that he is being "handled" by those around him, and is installing men who agree to action, instead of preaching caution.
When it comes to Iran, Mr Bolton and the president are on the same page. Coupled with Mr Tillerson's exit, the US is heading toward a much more confrontational relationship with the Islamic Republic.
In other ways, however, the former UN ambassador is an unusual choice.
Mr Trump frequently has called the Iraq war a colossal mistake - the same war that Mr Bolton enthusiastically promoted during his time in the George W Bush administration.
Candidate Trump regularly espoused non-interventionism. Mr Bolton is a hawk's hawk.
Now that hawk has a perch in the Oval Office.
Trump's unprecedented staff turnover rate
Why is Trump replacing McMaster?
In a brief statement on Thursday, Gen McMaster thanked President Trump for appointing him and said he was applying to retire from the US Army later this year.
The 55-year-old three-star general is leaving after just over a year as national security adviser.
The White House said Mr Trump and Gen McMaster had "mutually agreed" that he would leave. He had been rumoured for weeks to be on his way out.
HR McMaster's briefings reportedly grated on the president
Gen McMaster's departure came a day after someone at the White House leaked to media that Mr Trump was advised this week in briefing documents not to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin on his recent re-election, but did it anyway.
White House reporter Tara McKelvey says Gen McMaster seems happy about his decision.
She says she saw him recently joking with colleagues in the West Wing, and he had already worked out his exit strategy.
The president had reportedly found Gen McMaster's briefings to be grating. He was also described as aggressive and prone to lecture.
Gen McMaster replaced Lt Gen Michael Flynn, who was fired after less than a month in the job for misleading the White House about his contacts with the Russian ambassador.
Tillerson bids farewell to 'mean-spirited' Washington
How have Washington foreign policy circles reacted?
Republican Senator Lindsay Graham described Mr Bolton's appointment as "good news for America's allies and bad news for America's enemies".
Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat, said the new national security adviser's stance on Iran and North Korea was "overly aggressive at best and downright dangerous at worst".
Abraham Denmark, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for East Asia in the Obama administration, said: "Bolton has long been an advocate for pre-emptive military action against North Korea, and his appointment as national security adviser is a strong signal that President Trump remains open to these options."
Bonnie Glaser, from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said: "Bolton has long supported regime change in North Korea and closer ties with Taiwan. Fasten your seat belts."
South China Sea: Vietnam 'scraps new oil project' - BBC News
23/3/2018
South China Sea: Vietnam 'scraps new oil project'
By Bill Hayton
BBC News
The two countries had a tense stand-off in 2014 when China drilled for oil in disputed waters
Vietnam has cancelled a major oil project in the South China Sea for the second time in a year, in the wake of Chinese pressure, the BBC has learned.
State-owned PetroVietnam ordered Spanish energy firm Repsol to suspend a project off the south-east coast, a well-placed industry source said.
It means Repsol and partners could lose up to $200m of investment already made.
The news is unexpected as final preparations for commercial drilling were under way.
China is likely to regard this move as a significant victory. The Vietnamese decision seems to demonstrate that the recent show of force in the South China Sea by the United States has not changed Vietnam's strategic calculations.
The American aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its escort ships made a high-profile visit to Danang earlier this month.
'Massive cost'
Vietnam has been seeking to develop the so-called Red Emperor oil and gas discovery (known in Vietnamese as Ca Rong Do) since 2009.
As part of the "Red Emperor" project, a rig, the Ensco 8504, was scheduled to depart from Singapore for the drill site on Thursday.
The site is in an area of the South China Sea designated Block 07/03 by Vietnam and Repsol's local subsidiary had previously estimated that it contains 45 million barrels of oil and 172 billion cubic feet of gas.
The company had contracted a Malaysian-owned company, Yinson, to provide a Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel at the site for 10 years at an estimated cost of more than $1bn.
Moreover, Repsol had commissioned the American engineering company Keppel FloaTEC to build a production platform to service the site at a likely cost of several tens of millions of dollars.
Why is the South China Sea contentious?
China calls US warship 'a provocation'
Overall, according to the source, Repsol and its partners in the project (Mubadala Petroleum and PetroVietnam) are likely to be around $200m out of pocket. Repsol and related companies have not yet responded to questions from the BBC about the latest development.
This is the second time that Repsol has been ordered to suspend drilling. This area is adjacent to Block 136/03 where Repsol was ordered by the Vietnamese government to halt its development drilling in July last year.
That decision was reportedly taken after China threatened to attack Vietnamese outposts in a nearby piece of shallow sea known as the Vanguard Bank.
Reports from July 2017 suggested that it was the head of the Communist Party of Vietnam, General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, and the Minister of Defence, Gen Ngo Xuan Lich, who insisted that the drilling in Block 136/03 be stopped in order to avoid confrontation with China.
It is likely that the same dynamics were at work in the current decision.
There had been some thoughts in the region that Donald Trump's more muscular approach to China and the US Navy's more assertive posture in the South China Sea would generate political space for South East Asian governments to stand up more effectively for their maritime rights.
President Trump's visit to Vietnam late last year and his subsequent conversations with the Vietnamese leadership seemed to suggest that the two governments were working together to counteract pressure from China.
Other countries in the region are also keen to develop their offshore oil and gas reserves.
Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines are all coming under pressure from China to concede "joint development" in areas where the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives them sole rights. So far all the South East Asian states have resisted the pressure.
Vietnam has chosen to try to develop its fields alone and the result has been military threats from China and, now, a second climb-down, raising questions over Vietnam's offshore potential.
Speculation will turn to the fate of Exxon Mobil's Blue Whale gas project off central Vietnam. However, that is closer to land and so may not incur China's ire.
South China Sea: Vietnam 'scraps new oil project'
By Bill Hayton
BBC News
The two countries had a tense stand-off in 2014 when China drilled for oil in disputed waters
Vietnam has cancelled a major oil project in the South China Sea for the second time in a year, in the wake of Chinese pressure, the BBC has learned.
State-owned PetroVietnam ordered Spanish energy firm Repsol to suspend a project off the south-east coast, a well-placed industry source said.
It means Repsol and partners could lose up to $200m of investment already made.
The news is unexpected as final preparations for commercial drilling were under way.
China is likely to regard this move as a significant victory. The Vietnamese decision seems to demonstrate that the recent show of force in the South China Sea by the United States has not changed Vietnam's strategic calculations.
The American aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its escort ships made a high-profile visit to Danang earlier this month.
'Massive cost'
Vietnam has been seeking to develop the so-called Red Emperor oil and gas discovery (known in Vietnamese as Ca Rong Do) since 2009.
As part of the "Red Emperor" project, a rig, the Ensco 8504, was scheduled to depart from Singapore for the drill site on Thursday.
The site is in an area of the South China Sea designated Block 07/03 by Vietnam and Repsol's local subsidiary had previously estimated that it contains 45 million barrels of oil and 172 billion cubic feet of gas.
The company had contracted a Malaysian-owned company, Yinson, to provide a Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel at the site for 10 years at an estimated cost of more than $1bn.
Moreover, Repsol had commissioned the American engineering company Keppel FloaTEC to build a production platform to service the site at a likely cost of several tens of millions of dollars.
Why is the South China Sea contentious?
China calls US warship 'a provocation'
Overall, according to the source, Repsol and its partners in the project (Mubadala Petroleum and PetroVietnam) are likely to be around $200m out of pocket. Repsol and related companies have not yet responded to questions from the BBC about the latest development.
This is the second time that Repsol has been ordered to suspend drilling. This area is adjacent to Block 136/03 where Repsol was ordered by the Vietnamese government to halt its development drilling in July last year.
That decision was reportedly taken after China threatened to attack Vietnamese outposts in a nearby piece of shallow sea known as the Vanguard Bank.
Reports from July 2017 suggested that it was the head of the Communist Party of Vietnam, General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, and the Minister of Defence, Gen Ngo Xuan Lich, who insisted that the drilling in Block 136/03 be stopped in order to avoid confrontation with China.
It is likely that the same dynamics were at work in the current decision.
There had been some thoughts in the region that Donald Trump's more muscular approach to China and the US Navy's more assertive posture in the South China Sea would generate political space for South East Asian governments to stand up more effectively for their maritime rights.
President Trump's visit to Vietnam late last year and his subsequent conversations with the Vietnamese leadership seemed to suggest that the two governments were working together to counteract pressure from China.
Other countries in the region are also keen to develop their offshore oil and gas reserves.
Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines are all coming under pressure from China to concede "joint development" in areas where the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives them sole rights. So far all the South East Asian states have resisted the pressure.
Vietnam has chosen to try to develop its fields alone and the result has been military threats from China and, now, a second climb-down, raising questions over Vietnam's offshore potential.
Speculation will turn to the fate of Exxon Mobil's Blue Whale gas project off central Vietnam. However, that is closer to land and so may not incur China's ire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
