Trump imposes major sanctions on Russian oligarchs, officials, companies
The move marks one of the administration's most aggressive actions against Russia.
by Vivian Salama / Apr.06.2018 / 10:56 PM ET / Updated 11:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration took one of its most aggressive actions against Russia on Friday, announcing sweeping sanctions on oligarchs, top officials and several businesses, including a bank and a state-owned weapons trading company.
Senior administration officials said that the sanctions are not aimed to punish Moscow for any particular event, but are instead a broader measure aimed at the "totality of the Russian government's ongoing and increasingly malign activities in the world."
The Treasury Department, in connection with the Department of State, targeted seven Russian oligarchs and 12 companies they own or control. It also issued sanctions on 17 senior government officials, along with a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank.
As a result of the Trump administration's action, the Russian assets are blocked, and U.S. entities are blocked from dealing with them.
"The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites," Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said in a statement.
Mnuchin cited a number of Russian activities around the world as support for Friday's U.S. action, including Moscow's ongoing occupation of Crimea and violence in eastern Ukraine, support of Syrian President Bashar Assad's attacks against Syrian civilians, Russia's "ongoing cyber activities" and efforts to "interfere in the democratic processes of the United States and its allies."
"Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities," Mnuchin said.
To date, the Trump administration has issued Russia-related sanctions against 136 individuals and entities.
A senior administration official who briefed reporters on the sanctions said that they had been carefully coordinated with American allies, particularly in Europe.
Tensions between the U.S. and Russia have soared in recent days after the United States and the European Union announced the expulsion of dozens of Russian diplomats in response to the poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil, allegedly orchestrated by the Kremlin.
The U.S. expelled 60 Russian diplomats, identified by officials as intelligence officers, and closed Russia's Seattle consulate. In response, Russia expelled 60 American diplomats and closed the U.S. consulate in St. Petersburg.
The senior administration official, who requested anonymity, said Friday's action is not a direct response to the expulsion of U.S. diplomats or the attack in the United Kingdom.
Friday, April 6, 2018
Why More Animals Died on United Airlines Than Any Other Airline in 2017 - TIME Business
Why More Animals Died on United Airlines Than Any Other Airline in 2017
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 08:54 PM PDT
More animals died on United Airlines in 2017 than any other airline, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s February 2018 Air Travel Consumer Report, which details everything from flight delays and mishandled baggage to disability and discrimination complaints. There were four airlines with reported deaths, and on United Airlines there were 12 more animal deaths than the three others combined.
The numbers in this report reflect last year’s animal fatalities, injuries, and losses — and it doesn’t just pertain to dogs, but any animal flown, including cats and birds. The animals were either pets owned by U.S. families or animals being shipped on commercial flights (i.e. from a breeder). Here’s a look at the numbers:
Totals:
Total number of animals flown last year according to the DOT: 506,994
Total number of animal incidents (loss, injury, death): 40
Total number of animal deaths: 24
Total number of animal injuries: 15
Total number of animal losses: 1
United Airlines:
Total number of animals flown by United Airlines last year according to the DOT: 138,178
Total number of animal incidents on United (loss, injury, death): 31
Total number of animal deaths on United: 18
Total number of animal injuries on United: 13
Total number of animal losses on United: 0
American Airlines:
Total number of animals flown by American Airlines last year according to the DOT: 34,628
Total number of animal incidents (loss, injury, death) on American: 3
Total number of animal deaths on American: 2
Total number of animal injuries on American: 1
Total number of animal losses on American: 0
Delta Air Lines:
Total number of animals flown by Delta Air Lines last year according to the DOT: 57,479
Total number of animal incidents (loss, injury, death) on Delta: 3
Total number of animal deaths on Delta: 2
Total number of animal injuries on Delta: 1
Total number of animal losses on Delta: 0
Alaska Airlines:
Total number of animals flown by Alaska Airlines last year according to the DOT: 114,974
Total number of animal incidents (loss, injury, death) on Alaska: 3
Total number of animal deaths on Alaska: 2
Total number of animal injuries on Alaska: 0
Total number of animal losses on Alaska: 1
Why are United Airlines’ totals higher than the three other airlines with pet-related-issues?
By the numbers, United flew more animals in 2017 than any other airline: 23,204 more than the next highest total number of pets flown (Alaska Airlines). And according to United Airlines spokesman Charles Hobart, the airline flies risky breeds that others, including Alaska, American, and Delta, won’t allow onboard. (Some airlines won’t fly pets in cargo at all, according to the DOT report, including Spirit, Virgin American, Southwest Airlines and JetBlue Airlines.)
“But you’ll notice that some of those animals — in fact a lot of them that died last year — were what is called brachycephalic breeds,” Hobart told TIME. “These are dogs that essentially have a very short nose — short muzzles. Most other carriers don’t fly those breeds.” Dog breeds that are brachycephalic, include Pugs, Boxers, Boston Terrier, Shih Tzu, and Pekingese. Some cats are also considered brachycephalic, including Persian, Burmese and Exotic Shorthairs.
These animals have a tougher time flying due to “smaller openings to their noses and elongated soft palates on the roofs of their mouths, which make breathing more difficult for them, veterinarians said,” according to a 2011 New York Times piece that detailed why these types of pets were being banned from airlines. Extreme heat and travel can also make it harder for these snub-nosed animals to breath.
Hobart contends that often United Airlines is the only option for these owners to fly with their pets, and he cited that roughly 3,000 military families used United Airlines’ PetSafe program for flying their pets in the cargo hold in 2017.
A detailed incident report of United Airlines’ pet deaths and injuries in 2017 (which the DOT report links to) shows that a slight majority of the dogs that died on a United flight were in fact brachycephalic breeds; there were also several other dogs, three felines, along with one bird and two geckos that died.
An in-depth analysis from the Washington Post found that from 2015 to 2017, 40% of dog deaths on United Airlines were high-risk breeds. Of the 85 pet deaths from 2015 to 2017, 41 were on United Airlines: 16 were high-risk breeds, 16 were other breeds, 5 were cats and the rest were other animals.
Still, there’s room for improvement.
The Humane Society of the United States’ acting President and CEO Kitty Block thinks that United Airlines needs to do a better job of handling those high-risk breeds.
“The fact is that while there is some risk with traveling with a brachycephalic breed on a plane, traveling with them in the cabin can be done safely if the right measures are taken by both the owner and the airline,” Block told the Post. “And that is what we’re asking for — that airlines take steps to reduce the risk of flying with pets, regardless of breed, as much as possible.”
Hobart, too, said that safely carrying pets is a priority for the airline, stating that United suspended its PetSafe program (with exceptions for military families, and those who made reservations prior to March 20) to do a “top to bottom review” of the policies by May 1. Certain pets will still be able to fly in the cabin.
“If you take away the brachycephalic breeds, if you take away the animals with preexisting conditions, that number would be incredibly low, and I would also state that when you look at the total number of animals flown, 140,000 [note: it’s 138,178], it’s still an astronomically low number of animals that suffer some sort of incident,” Hobart said of the report. “However, it’s high enough to concern us, suspend the service, and find ways to do it better. And it’s certainly a concern for our customers, and that’s who we’re looking out for when we do this.”
There is a debate over wether brachycephalic breeds should even be allowed to fly in cargo at all, the Times noted back in 2011. Between June 2005 and June 2011, 189 animals died in flight, and 98 of those were brachycephalic, according to the Times, which led to some airline bans. (The Times also notes that if dog owners want to fly these breeds, they can opt to use a pet airline like Pet Airways, which does charter flights and can cost a pretty penny.)
The Humane Society expressly says on its website not to ship brachycephalic animals in cargo.
Some airlines let certain pets fly in the cabin area, which the Humane Society recommends (but is lobbying against pets being held in an overhead bin). “Most airlines will allow you to take a cat or small dog in the cabin for an additional fee,” the organization explains on its website. “But you must call the airline well in advance; there are limits to the number of animals allowed in the cabin. If you are transporting a dog, make sure they meet the size requirements.” Airlines may charge a fee for bringing a pet into the cabin.
Mark Zuckerberg Says He’s Still the Best Person to Run Facebook, Despite Its ‘Huge Mistake’ With the Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal - TIME
Mark Zuckerberg Says He’s Still the Best Person to Run Facebook, Despite Its ‘Huge Mistake’ With the Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 03:49 PM PDT
On the same day that Facebook announced that 87 million users may have had their personal data improperly accessed — updated from the “tens of millions” figure the social network previously reported — the company’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg held a rare question-and-answer session with the media Wednesday, admitting that the company made a “huge mistake” by not taking more steps to protect user data and privacy early on.
When asked if he thinks he is still the best person to run Facebook, Zuckerberg said, “Yes, I think life is about learning from the mistakes and figuring out what you need to do to move forward.”
Questions about Zuckerberg’s leadership come after it’s been revealed that Cambridge Analytica might have improperly obtained data from as many as 87 million people, mostly in the United States. The firm had ties to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
“At the end of the day, this is my responsibility,” Zuckerberg said, when asked if anyone at Facebook had been fired over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. “I still think that I’m going to do the best job running it going forward, but I’m not going to throw anyone else under the bus over the mistakes that we’ve made here.”
During Wednesday’s call with reporters, Zuckerberg said Facebook did not initially take a “broad enough view” of what the company’s responsibility was when it came to protecting user data. “That was a huge mistake,” he said. “It was my mistake.”
When asked if Facebook’s board had discussed whether he should step down, Zuckerberg said, “not that I’m aware of.” Zuckerberg is the board’s chairman.
Next week, Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify before Congress about Facebook’s “use and protection of user data.”
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 03:49 PM PDT
On the same day that Facebook announced that 87 million users may have had their personal data improperly accessed — updated from the “tens of millions” figure the social network previously reported — the company’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg held a rare question-and-answer session with the media Wednesday, admitting that the company made a “huge mistake” by not taking more steps to protect user data and privacy early on.
When asked if he thinks he is still the best person to run Facebook, Zuckerberg said, “Yes, I think life is about learning from the mistakes and figuring out what you need to do to move forward.”
Questions about Zuckerberg’s leadership come after it’s been revealed that Cambridge Analytica might have improperly obtained data from as many as 87 million people, mostly in the United States. The firm had ties to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
“At the end of the day, this is my responsibility,” Zuckerberg said, when asked if anyone at Facebook had been fired over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. “I still think that I’m going to do the best job running it going forward, but I’m not going to throw anyone else under the bus over the mistakes that we’ve made here.”
During Wednesday’s call with reporters, Zuckerberg said Facebook did not initially take a “broad enough view” of what the company’s responsibility was when it came to protecting user data. “That was a huge mistake,” he said. “It was my mistake.”
When asked if Facebook’s board had discussed whether he should step down, Zuckerberg said, “not that I’m aware of.” Zuckerberg is the board’s chairman.
Next week, Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify before Congress about Facebook’s “use and protection of user data.”
Facebook Just Doubled the Number of People Exposed in Data Breach - TIME
Facebook Just Doubled the Number of People Exposed in Data Breach
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 12:28 PM PDT
Facebook Inc. said that data on as many as 87 million people, most of them in the U.S., may have been improperly shared with research firm Cambridge Analytica.
This is Facebook’s first official confirmation of the possible scope of the data leak, which was previously estimated at roughly 50 million in news reports. About 270,000 people downloaded a personality quiz app and shared information about themselves and their friends with a researcher, who then passed along the information to Cambridge Analytica, in a move that Facebook says was against its rules.
Facebook reached the 87 million figure by adding up all the unique people that those 270,000 users were friends with at the time they gave the app permission. Facebook made the new disclosure in an online posting Wednesday.
Facebook says it will tell people, in a notice at the top of their news feeds starting April 9, if their information may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. But it still hasn’t independently confirmed if the firm currently has the data. The revelation hints at the grilling Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg will likely have to face when he testifies on the matter before Congress next week: How many other Cambridge Analytica-scale leaks of data are out there?
The company has been embroiled in controversy for weeks over the revelation that data was shared and then not deleted. It raised questions over the reams of data Facebook compiles on users, makes available to third parties, and what happens to it afterward. Facebook made the announcement along with an update on its plans to restrict data access through its platform.
One of the most dramatic updates on Wednesday was the removal of a tool that let users enter phone numbers or email addresses into Facebook’s search tool to find other people. That was being used by malicious actors to scrape public profile information, Facebook said.
“Given the scale and sophistication of the activity we’ve seen, we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way,” the company said. “So we have now disabled this feature.”
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 12:28 PM PDT
Facebook Inc. said that data on as many as 87 million people, most of them in the U.S., may have been improperly shared with research firm Cambridge Analytica.
This is Facebook’s first official confirmation of the possible scope of the data leak, which was previously estimated at roughly 50 million in news reports. About 270,000 people downloaded a personality quiz app and shared information about themselves and their friends with a researcher, who then passed along the information to Cambridge Analytica, in a move that Facebook says was against its rules.
Facebook reached the 87 million figure by adding up all the unique people that those 270,000 users were friends with at the time they gave the app permission. Facebook made the new disclosure in an online posting Wednesday.
Facebook says it will tell people, in a notice at the top of their news feeds starting April 9, if their information may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. But it still hasn’t independently confirmed if the firm currently has the data. The revelation hints at the grilling Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg will likely have to face when he testifies on the matter before Congress next week: How many other Cambridge Analytica-scale leaks of data are out there?
The company has been embroiled in controversy for weeks over the revelation that data was shared and then not deleted. It raised questions over the reams of data Facebook compiles on users, makes available to third parties, and what happens to it afterward. Facebook made the announcement along with an update on its plans to restrict data access through its platform.
One of the most dramatic updates on Wednesday was the removal of a tool that let users enter phone numbers or email addresses into Facebook’s search tool to find other people. That was being used by malicious actors to scrape public profile information, Facebook said.
“Given the scale and sophistication of the activity we’ve seen, we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way,” the company said. “So we have now disabled this feature.”
Facebook Just Confirmed That It Reviews Your Private Messages - TIME
Facebook Just Confirmed That It Reviews Your Private Messages
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 11:16 AM PDT
Facebook Inc. scans the links and images that people send each other on Facebook Messenger, and reads chats when they’re flagged to moderators, making sure the content abides by the company’s rules. If it doesn’t, it gets blocked or taken down.
The company confirmed the practice after an interview published earlier this week with Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg raised questions about Messenger’s practices and privacy. Zuckerberg told Vox’s Ezra Klein a story about receiving a phone call related to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. Facebook had detected people trying to send sensational messages through the Messenger app, he said.
“In that case, our systems detect what’s going on,” Zuckerberg said. “We stop those messages from going through.”
Some people reacted with concern on Twitter: Was Facebook reading messages more generally? Facebook has been under scrutiny in recent weeks over how it handles users’ private data and the revelation struck a nerve. Messenger doesn’t use the data from the scanned messages for advertising, the company said, but the policy may extend beyond what Messenger users expect.
The company told Bloomberg that while Messenger conversations are private, Facebook scans them and uses the same tools to prevent abuse there that it does on the social network more generally. All content must abide by the same “community standards.” People can report posts or messages for violating those standards, which would prompt a review by the company’s “community operations” team. Automated tools can also do the work.
“For example, on Messenger, when you send a photo, our automated systems scan it using photo matching technology to detect known child exploitation imagery or when you send a link, we scan it for malware or viruses,” a Facebook Messenger spokeswoman said in a statement. “Facebook designed these automated tools so we can rapidly stop abusive behavior on our platform.”
Messenger used to be part of Facebook’s main service, before it was spun off into a separate application in 2014. Facebook’s other major chat app, WhatsApp, encrypts both ends of its users’ communications, so that not even WhatsApp can see it — a fact that’s made it more secure for users, and more difficult for lawmakers wanting information in investigations. Messenger also has an encrypted option, but users have to turn it on.
The company updated its data policy and proposed new terms of service on Wednesday to clarify that Messenger and Instagram use the same rules as Facebook. “We better explain how we combat abuse and investigate suspicious activity, including by analyzing the content people share,” Facebook said in a blog post.
Facebook is on the defensive after revelations that private information from about 50 million users wound up in the hands of political ad-data firm Cambridge Analytica without their consent. Zuckerberg has agreed to testify before the House next week and is holding a conference call on Wednesday afternoon to discuss changes to Facebook privacy policies. (Follow the call on the TOPLive blog.)
The company is working to make its privacy policies clearer, but still ends up with gaps between what it says users have agreed to, and what users think they actually agreed to.
The Messenger scanning systems “are very similar to those that other internet companies use today,” the company said.
Planned Parenthood president claims she felt bribed by Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner - CNN politics
Planned Parenthood president claims she felt bribed by Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner
By Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN
Updated 1806 GMT (0206 HKT) April 4, 2018
What does Planned Parenthood do?
What does Planned Parenthood do? 01:36
Washington (CNN)Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards accused Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner of making an offer that felt like a "bribe" during a meeting back in January 2017.
Richards, who is planning on stepping down as president in 2018, reveals in her new book that the President's daughter and son-in-law offered her an increase in federal funding for Planned Parenthood in exchange for its agreement to stop providing abortion services, according to People magazine.
"Jared and Ivanka were there for one reason: to deliver a political win," Richards writes in "Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out, and Finding the Courage to Lead," which was released Tuesday, People reported. "In their eyes, if they could stop Planned Parenthood from providing abortions, it would confirm their reputation as savvy dealmakers. It was surreal, essentially being asked to barter away women's rights for more money."
Sponsor Content
Highlights from Mobile World Congress, Day 1
Game-changing UK startups making a tech splash in cyber security and organic electronics.
Content provided by the UK’s Department for International Trade
First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to target 8 states, spend $20 million as part of midterm battle plan
First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to target 8 states, spend $20 million as part of midterm battle plan
According to People, Richards recalled, "The main issue, (Kushner) explained, was abortion. If Planned Parenthood wanted to keep our federal funding, we would have to stop providing abortions."
A message left with the White House by CNN Wednesday was not immediately returned. In April 2017, when the meeting was first reported, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood told CNN the sit-down was "cordial and informative."
"The purpose of the meeting, from Planned Parenthood's perspective, was to make sure that Ivanka Trump fully understood the important role Planned Parenthood plays in providing health care to millions of people and why it would be a disastrous idea to block people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood," the spokeswoman said at the time.
Richards writes in her book that after her meeting with Trump and Kushner, she told the organization's executive vice president Dawn Laguens that the deal "felt almost like a bribe," People reported.
The Planned Parenthood leader, who was a Hillary Clinton supporter in the 2016 election, wrote that she met with Trump and Kushner because "even if there was only a sliver of a chance of changing anyone's mind, I owed it to Planned Parenthood patients to at least take the meeting," according to People.
Richards told CNN's Erin Burnett in an interview Tuesday that she thinks Ivanka Trump isn't being a champion for women in her role as senior adviser to her father, the President.
"If her job is to advocate for women, I don't think she's done a very good job," Richards said. "And particularly when it comes to women's rights, we need a strong advocate in this White House."
The bulk of federal money Planned Parenthood receives goes toward preventive health care, birth control, pregnancy tests and other women's health services. Federal law prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.
But President Donald Trump signed a bill in April 2017 that allowed states to withhold federal money from organizations that provide abortion services, including Planned Parenthood, which has been frequently targeted by Republicans.
Planned Parenthood claims to be the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States, offering sexual and reproductive health care, education and outreach to nearly 5 million women, men and adolescents annually worldwide. Planned Parenthood says abortions make up 3% of its provided services.
CNN's Betsy Klein contributed to this report.
By Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN
Updated 1806 GMT (0206 HKT) April 4, 2018
What does Planned Parenthood do?
What does Planned Parenthood do? 01:36
Washington (CNN)Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards accused Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner of making an offer that felt like a "bribe" during a meeting back in January 2017.
Richards, who is planning on stepping down as president in 2018, reveals in her new book that the President's daughter and son-in-law offered her an increase in federal funding for Planned Parenthood in exchange for its agreement to stop providing abortion services, according to People magazine.
"Jared and Ivanka were there for one reason: to deliver a political win," Richards writes in "Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out, and Finding the Courage to Lead," which was released Tuesday, People reported. "In their eyes, if they could stop Planned Parenthood from providing abortions, it would confirm their reputation as savvy dealmakers. It was surreal, essentially being asked to barter away women's rights for more money."
Sponsor Content
Highlights from Mobile World Congress, Day 1
Game-changing UK startups making a tech splash in cyber security and organic electronics.
Content provided by the UK’s Department for International Trade
First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to target 8 states, spend $20 million as part of midterm battle plan
First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to target 8 states, spend $20 million as part of midterm battle plan
According to People, Richards recalled, "The main issue, (Kushner) explained, was abortion. If Planned Parenthood wanted to keep our federal funding, we would have to stop providing abortions."
A message left with the White House by CNN Wednesday was not immediately returned. In April 2017, when the meeting was first reported, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood told CNN the sit-down was "cordial and informative."
"The purpose of the meeting, from Planned Parenthood's perspective, was to make sure that Ivanka Trump fully understood the important role Planned Parenthood plays in providing health care to millions of people and why it would be a disastrous idea to block people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood," the spokeswoman said at the time.
Richards writes in her book that after her meeting with Trump and Kushner, she told the organization's executive vice president Dawn Laguens that the deal "felt almost like a bribe," People reported.
The Planned Parenthood leader, who was a Hillary Clinton supporter in the 2016 election, wrote that she met with Trump and Kushner because "even if there was only a sliver of a chance of changing anyone's mind, I owed it to Planned Parenthood patients to at least take the meeting," according to People.
Richards told CNN's Erin Burnett in an interview Tuesday that she thinks Ivanka Trump isn't being a champion for women in her role as senior adviser to her father, the President.
"If her job is to advocate for women, I don't think she's done a very good job," Richards said. "And particularly when it comes to women's rights, we need a strong advocate in this White House."
The bulk of federal money Planned Parenthood receives goes toward preventive health care, birth control, pregnancy tests and other women's health services. Federal law prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.
But President Donald Trump signed a bill in April 2017 that allowed states to withhold federal money from organizations that provide abortion services, including Planned Parenthood, which has been frequently targeted by Republicans.
Planned Parenthood claims to be the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States, offering sexual and reproductive health care, education and outreach to nearly 5 million women, men and adolescents annually worldwide. Planned Parenthood says abortions make up 3% of its provided services.
CNN's Betsy Klein contributed to this report.
Lockheed Martin Is Building a Quieter Supersonic Jet - Fortune
Shh...A Quieter Supersonic Jet Is on Its Way
Lockheed Martin Is Building a Quieter Supersonic Jet
Thanks to NASA.
By ROBERT HACKETT April 5, 2018
We’re one step closer to faster, quieter flights.
NASA has awarded a nearly quarter-billion dollar contract to Lockheed Martin for the development of a supersonic jet plane that can break the sound barrier without causing an ear-splitting boom.
The contract, valued at $247.5 million, dictates that Lockheed’s Palmdale, Calif.-based Skunk Works division will build an experimental aircraft, known within the aeronautics industry as an X-plane, that produces sound only “as loud as a car door closing…instead of a sonic boom,” NASA said in a Tuesday news release. The specifications call for a plane that cruises as high as 55,000 feet and reaches a speed of about 940 miles per hour. (For reference, the speed of sound is about 767.3 miles per hour.)
NASA and Lockheed said the plane, a so-called low-boom flight demonstrator, will aim to provide regulators with useful data to inform their decision-making as they consider implementing new rules regarding supersonic flights. The United States’ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has banned supersonic flights over land by commercial and private aircraft since 1973.
Lockheed said in a Tuesday news release that the project “will help NASA establish an acceptable commercial supersonic noise standard to overturn current regulations.” The company is set to deliver a prototype of the jet for testing to NASA by the end of 2021.
NASA said in a Tuesday blog post that it plans to fly the aircraft over four to six yet-to-be-selected U.S. cities, collect data, and deliver findings to the FAA as well as the International Civil Aviation Organization, a standards-setting United Nations agency, by 2025.
The to-be-realized plane, whose designs build on an earlier 2016 contract between NASA and Lockheed, is intended to fit a single pilot in its cockpit.
Lockheed Martin Is Building a Quieter Supersonic Jet
Thanks to NASA.
By ROBERT HACKETT April 5, 2018
We’re one step closer to faster, quieter flights.
NASA has awarded a nearly quarter-billion dollar contract to Lockheed Martin for the development of a supersonic jet plane that can break the sound barrier without causing an ear-splitting boom.
The contract, valued at $247.5 million, dictates that Lockheed’s Palmdale, Calif.-based Skunk Works division will build an experimental aircraft, known within the aeronautics industry as an X-plane, that produces sound only “as loud as a car door closing…instead of a sonic boom,” NASA said in a Tuesday news release. The specifications call for a plane that cruises as high as 55,000 feet and reaches a speed of about 940 miles per hour. (For reference, the speed of sound is about 767.3 miles per hour.)
NASA and Lockheed said the plane, a so-called low-boom flight demonstrator, will aim to provide regulators with useful data to inform their decision-making as they consider implementing new rules regarding supersonic flights. The United States’ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has banned supersonic flights over land by commercial and private aircraft since 1973.
Lockheed said in a Tuesday news release that the project “will help NASA establish an acceptable commercial supersonic noise standard to overturn current regulations.” The company is set to deliver a prototype of the jet for testing to NASA by the end of 2021.
NASA said in a Tuesday blog post that it plans to fly the aircraft over four to six yet-to-be-selected U.S. cities, collect data, and deliver findings to the FAA as well as the International Civil Aviation Organization, a standards-setting United Nations agency, by 2025.
The to-be-realized plane, whose designs build on an earlier 2016 contract between NASA and Lockheed, is intended to fit a single pilot in its cockpit.
Perks Await Those Who Cooperate With Mueller's Russia Probe - Bloomberg - ( source : - Associated Press )
Perks Await Those Who Cooperate With Mueller's Russia Probe
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (ERIC TUCKER)
April 5, 2018, 2:58 PM GMT+10 Updated on April 6, 2018, 7:29 AM GMT+10
Why Mueller Is Seen as the Perfect Man for the Job
Washington (AP) -- George Papadopoulos, taken by surprise by FBI agents at an airport last summer, now tweets smiling beach selfies with a hashtag for the Greek resort island of Mykonos.
Rick Gates, for weeks on home confinement, gets rapid approval for a family vacation and shaves down his potential prison time.
Michael Flynn, once targeted in a grand jury investigation, travels cross-country to campaign for a California congressional candidate and books a New York speaking event.
It pays to cooperate with the government.
That's true in any criminal investigation. It's especially notable in a case as high profile as special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia inquiry, where deals for cooperators have raised speculation about incriminating information they're providing.
The perks of cooperation include freer travel, lenient punishment prospects and even public comments by defendants that might have been unthinkable months ago.
Compare that with the experiences of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who has refused to cooperate and faces decades in prison. And it sends the message that others could receive favorable treatment if they agree to work with investigators.
"There's no question that it's in the government's interest to take what steps they can to show that cooperating is in the interest of the defendant," said Daniel Petalas, a former federal prosecutor. "A basic principle of plea bargaining is that you have to make it worth it to the defendant to admit liability in a criminal matter."
The latest example came Tuesday when Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan was sentenced to 30 days in prison for lying to the FBI. Though his deal didn't explicitly require cooperation, the charge he pleaded guilty to carries a maximum five-year sentence and it's almost certain that he risked a longer punishment if convicted at trial. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said some incarceration was necessary to deter others from lying to investigators.
Defendants who admit guilt are stained with criminal convictions, may forfeit liberties including the right to vote and put their jobs and reputation at risk. And they can still wind up with tough sentences.
Given that uncertainty and stress, it's common for prosecutors looking to induce cooperation to make concessions, such as dismissing charges or agreeing to recommend a lighter sentence, especially for someone they think can help them build a case against a higher-value target.
"There is a societal interest, frankly, in having people cooperate with prosecutors because often the government only can know what's happened based on documentary evidence and witnesses that it speaks with," said Sharon McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in New York. "But insiders who can give insight into conversations and planning and things like that are crucial to being able to make cases."
There's nothing new about cutting deals, including for violent mobsters, but the tactics have drawn renewed scrutiny especially in conservative legal circles.
Former Manhattan federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote last month in the National Review that Mueller was shirking Justice Department protocols by offering Gates, Manafort's co-defendant and a onetime Trump campaign aide, a "penny-ante plea" instead of requiring him to plead to the most serious charges he faced.
Gates was initially charged in October in a 12-count indictment and faced well over a decade in prison. He pleaded guilty in February to just two charges. Under sentencing guidelines, he now faces fewer than six years or less, depending on the extent of his cooperation.
He spent weeks on home confinement as a potential flight risk, repeatedly requesting, and generally receiving, permission to attend children's sporting games and holiday events in the region.
The home confinement condition was lifted in January. Days after his plea, he filed a motion with the government's blessing asking to be able to ditch his GPS monitoring, but the judge said she was not ready to grant the motion at that time. He did, however, receive approval for a family trip to Boston for spring break, though that plan was aborted after he said threatening comments were posted online.
Papadopoulos's carefree tweets, including smiling snapshots of his wife on his lap and beside him at the beach, are a far cry from the frowning mug shot taken after his arrest at Dulles International Airport last summer.
Accused of lying to the FBI and facing the possibility of a lengthy sentence, he pleaded guilty in a secret court hearing and agreed to cooperate. Since then, he's resurfaced with a Twitter profile of more than 7,400 followers.
Mueller's team includes lawyers with deep experience in organized crime and financial fraud cases, which frequently require flipping witnesses and sometimes involve aggressive maneuvering.
Andrew Weissmann, one of the Gates prosecutors, indicted the wife of Enron's chief financial officer, Andrew Fastow, in
2003. The move was interpreted by some as a way to encourage Fastow himself to plead guilty and cooperate, which he ultimately did by testifying against high-level colleagues.
Still, prosecutors understand that juries may look askance at sweetheart plea deals, especially with those who've been publicly demonized, and that defense lawyers may subject cooperators to bruising cross-examinations.
"Prosecutors are going to be cognizant that there are always going to be credibility issues with cooperators," said former prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg, "but these are very experienced prosecutors and they're making a decision that, on balance, they're getting something in return."
___
Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP
___
This story has been corrected to say that judge didn't lift GPS monitoring for Gates.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (ERIC TUCKER)
April 5, 2018, 2:58 PM GMT+10 Updated on April 6, 2018, 7:29 AM GMT+10
Why Mueller Is Seen as the Perfect Man for the Job
Washington (AP) -- George Papadopoulos, taken by surprise by FBI agents at an airport last summer, now tweets smiling beach selfies with a hashtag for the Greek resort island of Mykonos.
Rick Gates, for weeks on home confinement, gets rapid approval for a family vacation and shaves down his potential prison time.
Michael Flynn, once targeted in a grand jury investigation, travels cross-country to campaign for a California congressional candidate and books a New York speaking event.
It pays to cooperate with the government.
That's true in any criminal investigation. It's especially notable in a case as high profile as special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia inquiry, where deals for cooperators have raised speculation about incriminating information they're providing.
The perks of cooperation include freer travel, lenient punishment prospects and even public comments by defendants that might have been unthinkable months ago.
Compare that with the experiences of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who has refused to cooperate and faces decades in prison. And it sends the message that others could receive favorable treatment if they agree to work with investigators.
"There's no question that it's in the government's interest to take what steps they can to show that cooperating is in the interest of the defendant," said Daniel Petalas, a former federal prosecutor. "A basic principle of plea bargaining is that you have to make it worth it to the defendant to admit liability in a criminal matter."
The latest example came Tuesday when Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan was sentenced to 30 days in prison for lying to the FBI. Though his deal didn't explicitly require cooperation, the charge he pleaded guilty to carries a maximum five-year sentence and it's almost certain that he risked a longer punishment if convicted at trial. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said some incarceration was necessary to deter others from lying to investigators.
Defendants who admit guilt are stained with criminal convictions, may forfeit liberties including the right to vote and put their jobs and reputation at risk. And they can still wind up with tough sentences.
Given that uncertainty and stress, it's common for prosecutors looking to induce cooperation to make concessions, such as dismissing charges or agreeing to recommend a lighter sentence, especially for someone they think can help them build a case against a higher-value target.
"There is a societal interest, frankly, in having people cooperate with prosecutors because often the government only can know what's happened based on documentary evidence and witnesses that it speaks with," said Sharon McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in New York. "But insiders who can give insight into conversations and planning and things like that are crucial to being able to make cases."
There's nothing new about cutting deals, including for violent mobsters, but the tactics have drawn renewed scrutiny especially in conservative legal circles.
Former Manhattan federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote last month in the National Review that Mueller was shirking Justice Department protocols by offering Gates, Manafort's co-defendant and a onetime Trump campaign aide, a "penny-ante plea" instead of requiring him to plead to the most serious charges he faced.
Gates was initially charged in October in a 12-count indictment and faced well over a decade in prison. He pleaded guilty in February to just two charges. Under sentencing guidelines, he now faces fewer than six years or less, depending on the extent of his cooperation.
He spent weeks on home confinement as a potential flight risk, repeatedly requesting, and generally receiving, permission to attend children's sporting games and holiday events in the region.
The home confinement condition was lifted in January. Days after his plea, he filed a motion with the government's blessing asking to be able to ditch his GPS monitoring, but the judge said she was not ready to grant the motion at that time. He did, however, receive approval for a family trip to Boston for spring break, though that plan was aborted after he said threatening comments were posted online.
Papadopoulos's carefree tweets, including smiling snapshots of his wife on his lap and beside him at the beach, are a far cry from the frowning mug shot taken after his arrest at Dulles International Airport last summer.
Accused of lying to the FBI and facing the possibility of a lengthy sentence, he pleaded guilty in a secret court hearing and agreed to cooperate. Since then, he's resurfaced with a Twitter profile of more than 7,400 followers.
Mueller's team includes lawyers with deep experience in organized crime and financial fraud cases, which frequently require flipping witnesses and sometimes involve aggressive maneuvering.
Andrew Weissmann, one of the Gates prosecutors, indicted the wife of Enron's chief financial officer, Andrew Fastow, in
2003. The move was interpreted by some as a way to encourage Fastow himself to plead guilty and cooperate, which he ultimately did by testifying against high-level colleagues.
Still, prosecutors understand that juries may look askance at sweetheart plea deals, especially with those who've been publicly demonized, and that defense lawyers may subject cooperators to bruising cross-examinations.
"Prosecutors are going to be cognizant that there are always going to be credibility issues with cooperators," said former prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg, "but these are very experienced prosecutors and they're making a decision that, on balance, they're getting something in return."
___
Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP
___
This story has been corrected to say that judge didn't lift GPS monitoring for Gates.
South Africa ex-President Jacob Zuma charged with corruption - BBC News
6/4/2018
South Africa ex-President Jacob Zuma charged with corruption
Mr Zuma briefly appeared in court on Friday morning
South Africa's former President Jacob Zuma has been charged with corruption linked to a 1990s arms deal.
After the 75-year-old's 15-minute appearance at the High Court in Durban on Friday morning, the case was adjourned until 8 June.
He faces 16 counts of corruption, racketeering, fraud and money laundering, which dogged his presidency and were reinstated in 2016.
Mr Zuma, who was forced out of office in February, denies any wrongdoing.
His supporters descended on the city to rally for him, while his critics think court action is long overdue.
After the hearing, Mr Zuma addressed the crowds, who had come to stand alongside him at the court in his home province.
"I have never seen it before where someone is charged with a crime, those charges are dropped and then years later those same charges are re-instated. This is a just a political conspiracy," he said in Zulu.
He then led them in song and dance.
Africa Live: latest updates
Jacob Zuma - the survivor whose nine lives ran out
The many trials of Jacob Zuma
What was the arms deal?
The arms deal took place in 1999, the year Mr Zuma moved from being a provincial minister to deputy president.
He is accused of accepting bribes from French arms firm Thales via his financial adviser.
The adviser, Schabir Shaikh, was found guilty of trying to solicit the bribes and was jailed in 2005.
The case against Mr Zuma was dropped shortly before he ran for president in 2009.
Supporters of former South African president Jacob Zuma outside the Durban's high court
Charming the crowds
By Pumza Fihlani, BBC News, Durban
The Zuma of old is still here - the crowd pleaser, the charmer and tactical politician.
This is the Jacob Zuma who boldly addressed crowds outside the courthouse, minutes after his brief hearing.
A sure, perhaps even defiant Zuma told crowds that he is being targeted by political foes both within his party, the ruling African National Congress (ANC), and opposition parties who were against his attempts to bring economic empowerment to black people.
Here in his home province, he remains a hero, who brought development to forgotten corners of this vast and largely rural province.
On the face of it, he appears to be unperturbed by the latest controversy, having survived many a scandal. "I keep asking what has Zuma done and no one has an answer for me," he told the crowds. And with that in mind, Mr Zuma fights on.
Why is this significant?
The BBC's Andrew Harding said the former president appearing in court on corruption charges was "hugely symbolic" for South Africa's young democracy.
Many, he reports, see it as an era of impunity coming to an end.
The ANC party, led by new president Cyril Ramaphosa, is keen to distance itself from the controversy as it prepares to contest the national elections in a year's time.
Mr Ramaphosa came in on a ticket of clean governance and his party cannot afford another scandal.
The ANC party asked Mr Zuma's supporters not to wear its colours outside court on Friday, but many did not follow this advice, and were seen dressed in black, green and yellow.
Hundreds of police officers were dispatched to provide security in Durban
Why now?
Mr Zuma's opponents had long fought for him to be charged over the 1990s bribes.
The charges were reinstated in 2016 as his grip on the ruling party, the ANC, weakened.
He was facing his ninth vote of no-confidence in parliament before he left office, forced out by the ANC.
Zuma's many scandals
His rule was beset with a series of scandals, including claims of state looting.
The Zuma presidency: Scandals and successes
In 2016, a court ruled that he breached his oath of office by using government money to upgrade a private home in the rural area of Nkandla. He later repaid the money.
Last year he was also accused of profiteering from a relationship with the wealthy Gupta family - allegations that both parties have denied.
In February, Mr Zuma resigned following intense pressure from the ANC party. He had been told to step down or face another vote of no-confidence in parliament.
Six reasons why S Africa's president quit
Mr Zuma's remaining supporters argue that he is being targeted for backing a radical economic reform agenda.
A battle is also brewing over whether the state should keep paying his legal bills.
South Africa ex-President Jacob Zuma charged with corruption
Mr Zuma briefly appeared in court on Friday morning
South Africa's former President Jacob Zuma has been charged with corruption linked to a 1990s arms deal.
After the 75-year-old's 15-minute appearance at the High Court in Durban on Friday morning, the case was adjourned until 8 June.
He faces 16 counts of corruption, racketeering, fraud and money laundering, which dogged his presidency and were reinstated in 2016.
Mr Zuma, who was forced out of office in February, denies any wrongdoing.
His supporters descended on the city to rally for him, while his critics think court action is long overdue.
After the hearing, Mr Zuma addressed the crowds, who had come to stand alongside him at the court in his home province.
"I have never seen it before where someone is charged with a crime, those charges are dropped and then years later those same charges are re-instated. This is a just a political conspiracy," he said in Zulu.
He then led them in song and dance.
Africa Live: latest updates
Jacob Zuma - the survivor whose nine lives ran out
The many trials of Jacob Zuma
What was the arms deal?
The arms deal took place in 1999, the year Mr Zuma moved from being a provincial minister to deputy president.
He is accused of accepting bribes from French arms firm Thales via his financial adviser.
The adviser, Schabir Shaikh, was found guilty of trying to solicit the bribes and was jailed in 2005.
The case against Mr Zuma was dropped shortly before he ran for president in 2009.
Supporters of former South African president Jacob Zuma outside the Durban's high court
Charming the crowds
By Pumza Fihlani, BBC News, Durban
The Zuma of old is still here - the crowd pleaser, the charmer and tactical politician.
This is the Jacob Zuma who boldly addressed crowds outside the courthouse, minutes after his brief hearing.
A sure, perhaps even defiant Zuma told crowds that he is being targeted by political foes both within his party, the ruling African National Congress (ANC), and opposition parties who were against his attempts to bring economic empowerment to black people.
Here in his home province, he remains a hero, who brought development to forgotten corners of this vast and largely rural province.
On the face of it, he appears to be unperturbed by the latest controversy, having survived many a scandal. "I keep asking what has Zuma done and no one has an answer for me," he told the crowds. And with that in mind, Mr Zuma fights on.
Why is this significant?
The BBC's Andrew Harding said the former president appearing in court on corruption charges was "hugely symbolic" for South Africa's young democracy.
Many, he reports, see it as an era of impunity coming to an end.
The ANC party, led by new president Cyril Ramaphosa, is keen to distance itself from the controversy as it prepares to contest the national elections in a year's time.
Mr Ramaphosa came in on a ticket of clean governance and his party cannot afford another scandal.
The ANC party asked Mr Zuma's supporters not to wear its colours outside court on Friday, but many did not follow this advice, and were seen dressed in black, green and yellow.
Hundreds of police officers were dispatched to provide security in Durban
Why now?
Mr Zuma's opponents had long fought for him to be charged over the 1990s bribes.
The charges were reinstated in 2016 as his grip on the ruling party, the ANC, weakened.
He was facing his ninth vote of no-confidence in parliament before he left office, forced out by the ANC.
Zuma's many scandals
His rule was beset with a series of scandals, including claims of state looting.
The Zuma presidency: Scandals and successes
In 2016, a court ruled that he breached his oath of office by using government money to upgrade a private home in the rural area of Nkandla. He later repaid the money.
Last year he was also accused of profiteering from a relationship with the wealthy Gupta family - allegations that both parties have denied.
In February, Mr Zuma resigned following intense pressure from the ANC party. He had been told to step down or face another vote of no-confidence in parliament.
Six reasons why S Africa's president quit
Mr Zuma's remaining supporters argue that he is being targeted for backing a radical economic reform agenda.
A battle is also brewing over whether the state should keep paying his legal bills.
Park Geun-hye: South Korea's ex-leader jailed for 24 years for corruption - BBC News
6/4/2018
Park Geun-hye: South Korea's ex-leader jailed for 24 years for corruption
Ms Park was brought to court in May 2017 shortly after her arrest
South Korea's former President Park Geun-hye has been sentenced to 24 years in jail after she was found guilty of abuse of power and coercion.
The verdict was broadcast live and represents the culmination of a scandal which rocked the country, fuelling rage against political and business elites.
Park, who was also fined 18bn won (£12m, $17m), faced a string of corruption charges.
The former leader was not in court on Friday for the verdict.
She has boycotted her trial hearings and has previously accused the courts of being biased against her. She has also denied all wrongdoing and has said she will appeal her sentence.
Who is Park Geun-hye?
South Korea's presidential scandal explained
Did a puppy bring down South Korea's president?
The friendship behind South Korea's presidential crisis
Judge Kim Se-yoon said Park had shown "no sign of repentance" after causing "massive chaos" in the country.
"We cannot help but sternly hold her accountable," the judge said.
South Korea's presidential residence, the Blue House, issued a statement after the verdict calling it a "heartbreaking event for the nation".
"A history that is not remembered is bound to be repeated," it read.
The move by the authorities to allow Friday's verdict to be broadcast live was unprecedented, but they cited extraordinary public interest in the case.
South Koreans watched as the verdict was broadcast live
What was she convicted of?
Park was found guilty of 16 out of 18 charges, most of which related to bribery and coercion.
The court ruled that she had colluded with her close friend, Choi Soon-sil, to pressure conglomerates such as electronics giant Samsung and retail chain Lotte to give millions of dollars to foundations run by Choi.
She was also convicted of forcing companies to sign lucrative deals with firms owned by Choi and donate gifts to Choi and her daughter.
In addition, Park was found guilty of leaking confidential presidential documents to Choi.
She has seven days to file an appeal.
What led to her downfall?
A friendship lies at the heart of the undoing of South Korea's first female president.
Park and Choi were childhood friends and Choi swiftly became the leader's most trusted confidante.
But their relationship latterly came under intense public scrutiny and the charge is that Choi had undue influence over a nation's affairs through her connection with Park.
Choi (centre) was a longtime friend and adviser to former South Korean President Park Geun-hye
Choi was eventually found guilty of corruption, and sentenced to 20 years in prison earlier this year.
After a prolonged series of hearings and months of street protests calling for her resignation, Park was finally removed from office in March 2017, making her the first democratically-elected president to be impeached.
She was arrested shortly afterwards, and has been in detention ever since.
Park's supporters gathered outside the court in Seoul demanding her release
Who else was caught up in this?
Some of the biggest South Korean companies and their leaders have been drawn into the scandal, as well as numerous figures from the entertainment world and government servants.
Samsung's de facto leader Lee Jae-yong, also known as Jay Y Lee, was singled out in particular after details emerged that he had given a horse to Choi's daughter Chung Yoo-ra, who is an equestrian.
He was sentenced to jail, but only served five months before he was freed, when an appeals court reduced and suspended his sentence.
Ms Chung has also faced scrutiny, and was extradited from Denmark to South Korea last year to face questioning.
Is this unusual in South Korea?
Park, the country's first female leader, was also the first democratically-elected president to be impeached.
But she is not the only former president to have been arrested for corruption.
Why South Korea's corruption scandal is nothing new
Last month former leader Lee Myung-bak was charged with corruption over allegations he took bribes while in office.
Two others, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, were convicted for treason and corruption in the 1990s.
In 2009, former president Roh Moo-hyun killed himself while he was under investigation for corruption.
What does the verdict mean for the country?
Park's sentencing has drawn a line under what has been one of the biggest corruption scandals to rock South Korea in recent years.
The scandal has created greater awareness and criticism of the longstanding close ties between the political elite and chaebols, or family-run conglomerates which dominate South Korea's economy.
It has also fuelled the rise of the liberal Moon Jae-in, Park's previous political opponent who eventually replaced her as president after campaigning on a platform of a clean government.
But South Koreans are divided on the verdict. Several hundred Park supporters gathered outside the court waving national flags during the ruling.
Some sat in tears after the conviction, with others started a protest march.
"The rule of law in this country is dead today," said one pro-Park demonstrator.
Park Geun-hye: South Korea's ex-leader jailed for 24 years for corruption
Ms Park was brought to court in May 2017 shortly after her arrest
South Korea's former President Park Geun-hye has been sentenced to 24 years in jail after she was found guilty of abuse of power and coercion.
The verdict was broadcast live and represents the culmination of a scandal which rocked the country, fuelling rage against political and business elites.
Park, who was also fined 18bn won (£12m, $17m), faced a string of corruption charges.
The former leader was not in court on Friday for the verdict.
She has boycotted her trial hearings and has previously accused the courts of being biased against her. She has also denied all wrongdoing and has said she will appeal her sentence.
Who is Park Geun-hye?
South Korea's presidential scandal explained
Did a puppy bring down South Korea's president?
The friendship behind South Korea's presidential crisis
Judge Kim Se-yoon said Park had shown "no sign of repentance" after causing "massive chaos" in the country.
"We cannot help but sternly hold her accountable," the judge said.
South Korea's presidential residence, the Blue House, issued a statement after the verdict calling it a "heartbreaking event for the nation".
"A history that is not remembered is bound to be repeated," it read.
The move by the authorities to allow Friday's verdict to be broadcast live was unprecedented, but they cited extraordinary public interest in the case.
South Koreans watched as the verdict was broadcast live
What was she convicted of?
Park was found guilty of 16 out of 18 charges, most of which related to bribery and coercion.
The court ruled that she had colluded with her close friend, Choi Soon-sil, to pressure conglomerates such as electronics giant Samsung and retail chain Lotte to give millions of dollars to foundations run by Choi.
She was also convicted of forcing companies to sign lucrative deals with firms owned by Choi and donate gifts to Choi and her daughter.
In addition, Park was found guilty of leaking confidential presidential documents to Choi.
She has seven days to file an appeal.
What led to her downfall?
A friendship lies at the heart of the undoing of South Korea's first female president.
Park and Choi were childhood friends and Choi swiftly became the leader's most trusted confidante.
But their relationship latterly came under intense public scrutiny and the charge is that Choi had undue influence over a nation's affairs through her connection with Park.
Choi (centre) was a longtime friend and adviser to former South Korean President Park Geun-hye
Choi was eventually found guilty of corruption, and sentenced to 20 years in prison earlier this year.
After a prolonged series of hearings and months of street protests calling for her resignation, Park was finally removed from office in March 2017, making her the first democratically-elected president to be impeached.
She was arrested shortly afterwards, and has been in detention ever since.
Park's supporters gathered outside the court in Seoul demanding her release
Who else was caught up in this?
Some of the biggest South Korean companies and their leaders have been drawn into the scandal, as well as numerous figures from the entertainment world and government servants.
Samsung's de facto leader Lee Jae-yong, also known as Jay Y Lee, was singled out in particular after details emerged that he had given a horse to Choi's daughter Chung Yoo-ra, who is an equestrian.
He was sentenced to jail, but only served five months before he was freed, when an appeals court reduced and suspended his sentence.
Ms Chung has also faced scrutiny, and was extradited from Denmark to South Korea last year to face questioning.
Is this unusual in South Korea?
Park, the country's first female leader, was also the first democratically-elected president to be impeached.
But she is not the only former president to have been arrested for corruption.
Why South Korea's corruption scandal is nothing new
Last month former leader Lee Myung-bak was charged with corruption over allegations he took bribes while in office.
Two others, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, were convicted for treason and corruption in the 1990s.
In 2009, former president Roh Moo-hyun killed himself while he was under investigation for corruption.
What does the verdict mean for the country?
Park's sentencing has drawn a line under what has been one of the biggest corruption scandals to rock South Korea in recent years.
The scandal has created greater awareness and criticism of the longstanding close ties between the political elite and chaebols, or family-run conglomerates which dominate South Korea's economy.
It has also fuelled the rise of the liberal Moon Jae-in, Park's previous political opponent who eventually replaced her as president after campaigning on a platform of a clean government.
But South Koreans are divided on the verdict. Several hundred Park supporters gathered outside the court waving national flags during the ruling.
Some sat in tears after the conviction, with others started a protest march.
"The rule of law in this country is dead today," said one pro-Park demonstrator.
Trump threatens further $100bn in tariffs against China - BBC News
6/4/2018
Trump threatens further $100bn in tariffs against China
US President Donald Trump has instructed officials to consider a further $100bn (£71.3bn) of tariffs against China, in an escalation of a tense trade stand-off.
These would be in addition to the $50bn worth of US tariffs already proposed on hundreds of Chinese imports.
The proposal comes after China retaliated to that by threatening tariffs on 106 key US products.
The tit-for-tat moves have unsettled global markets in recent weeks.
Analysts have said a full blown trade war between the US and China would not be good for the global economy or markets - and that ongoing behind-the-scenes negotiations between the two giants are crucial.
However, market reaction in early Asia trade on Friday suggested investors were not as troubled, and that trade war fears were somewhat exaggerated.
In China, Hong Kong's Hang Seng was in positive territory, up 1.5%. Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 was trading higher after the morning session.
Tit-for-tat tariffs
Last week Washington set out about 1,300 Chinese products it intended to hit with tariffs set at 25%. That followed an announcement earlier this year that the US would impose import taxes on aluminium and steel, which would include China.
The White House said its latest tariffs were a response to unfair Chinese intellectual property practices, such as those that pressure US companies to share technology with Chinese firms.
China responded swiftly and robustly by proposing tariffs on 106 key US products, including soybeans, aircraft parts and orange juice, narrowly aimed at politically important sectors in the US, such as agriculture.
Soybeans are one of the key US exports China said it could target with tariffs
But in a statement on Thursday Mr Trump branded Beijing's retaliation as "unfair".
"Rather than remedy its misconduct, China has chosen to harm our farmers and manufacturers
"In light of China's unfair retaliation, I have instructed the USTR (United States Trade Representative) to consider whether $100bn of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301 and, if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs," Mr Trump said.
White House criticises $3bn China tariffs
China hits back with tariffs on US imports
Trump: Tariffs on $60bn in Chinese goods
He said he had also instructed agricultural officials to implement a plan to protect US farmers and agricultural interests.
Meanwhile, China has initiated a complaint with the World Trade Organisation over the US tariffs, in what analysts say could be a sign that this will be a protracted process.
The WTO circulated the request for consultation to members on Thursday, launching a discussion period before the complaint heads to formal dispute settlement process.
Beijing Deals
What China sells to the US
$462.6bn
The value of of goods bought by the US from China in 2016.
18.2% of all China's exports go to the United States
$129bn worth of China-made electrical machinery bought by US
59.2% growth in Chinese services imported by US between 2006 & 2016
$347bn US goods trade deficit with China
CIA Factbook; USTR. All data for 2016.
Trump threatens further $100bn in tariffs against China
US President Donald Trump has instructed officials to consider a further $100bn (£71.3bn) of tariffs against China, in an escalation of a tense trade stand-off.
These would be in addition to the $50bn worth of US tariffs already proposed on hundreds of Chinese imports.
The proposal comes after China retaliated to that by threatening tariffs on 106 key US products.
The tit-for-tat moves have unsettled global markets in recent weeks.
Analysts have said a full blown trade war between the US and China would not be good for the global economy or markets - and that ongoing behind-the-scenes negotiations between the two giants are crucial.
However, market reaction in early Asia trade on Friday suggested investors were not as troubled, and that trade war fears were somewhat exaggerated.
In China, Hong Kong's Hang Seng was in positive territory, up 1.5%. Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 was trading higher after the morning session.
Tit-for-tat tariffs
Last week Washington set out about 1,300 Chinese products it intended to hit with tariffs set at 25%. That followed an announcement earlier this year that the US would impose import taxes on aluminium and steel, which would include China.
The White House said its latest tariffs were a response to unfair Chinese intellectual property practices, such as those that pressure US companies to share technology with Chinese firms.
China responded swiftly and robustly by proposing tariffs on 106 key US products, including soybeans, aircraft parts and orange juice, narrowly aimed at politically important sectors in the US, such as agriculture.
Soybeans are one of the key US exports China said it could target with tariffs
But in a statement on Thursday Mr Trump branded Beijing's retaliation as "unfair".
"Rather than remedy its misconduct, China has chosen to harm our farmers and manufacturers
"In light of China's unfair retaliation, I have instructed the USTR (United States Trade Representative) to consider whether $100bn of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301 and, if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs," Mr Trump said.
White House criticises $3bn China tariffs
China hits back with tariffs on US imports
Trump: Tariffs on $60bn in Chinese goods
He said he had also instructed agricultural officials to implement a plan to protect US farmers and agricultural interests.
Meanwhile, China has initiated a complaint with the World Trade Organisation over the US tariffs, in what analysts say could be a sign that this will be a protracted process.
The WTO circulated the request for consultation to members on Thursday, launching a discussion period before the complaint heads to formal dispute settlement process.
Beijing Deals
What China sells to the US
$462.6bn
The value of of goods bought by the US from China in 2016.
18.2% of all China's exports go to the United States
$129bn worth of China-made electrical machinery bought by US
59.2% growth in Chinese services imported by US between 2006 & 2016
$347bn US goods trade deficit with China
CIA Factbook; USTR. All data for 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
