Thursday, April 26, 2018

James Comey's Book Sold 600,000 Copies In A Week, But Isn't The Next 'Fire And Fury' (Yet) - Forbes

Media & Entertainment #LitLife

APR 25, 2018 @ 11:50 AM 882 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
James Comey's Book Sold 600,000 Copies In A Week, But Isn't The Next 'Fire And Fury' (Yet)

Adam Rowe , CONTRIBUTOR
I write about the future of books and the business of storytelling. 
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Former FBI director James Comey poses with his book "A Higher Loyalty" (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, File)

Former FBI Director James Comey's book A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership, sold more than 600,000 copies in its first week of sales, according to its publisher. That's 400,000 copies more than Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury sold in its first week, but that doesn't mean Comey's book will become the next Trump-critical blockbuster: Fire and Fury has been on the New York Times bestseller lists for 15 weeks and has sold more than 2 million copies to date.

Comey's nonfiction book — published through Macmillan’s Flatiron Books in a reported $2 million deal — pre-sold nearly 200,000 copies before its release and consistently topped Amazon's hourly-updated bestseller list following its April 17 release in the U.S. and U.K., as well as topping lists from Nielsen BookScan and iBooks on its first week.

The Times' hardcover nonfiction list has seen an explicitly Trump-related book at the No. 1 position every week since the middle of January 2018, and the not-exactly-stable publishing industry isn't missing the opportunity to capitalize on the political climate. Random House inked a deal last week for #NeverAgain: A New Generation Draws the Line, written by two survivors of the shooting in Parkland, Fl., David and Lauren Hogg, to be published June 5. Where does James Comey's book fall in the ranking of Trump-centric bestsellers?


Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury hit an early snag that definitely won't trip up Comey: Macmillan's initial print run consisted of 150,000 copies, a number far below demand as evidenced by the more than 2 million units that have been sold to date across all formats. This wasn't an oversight as much as an example of how difficult print sales can be to predict. Nevertheless, Macmillan took away its lesson — Trump exposés sell like hotcakes in 2018 — and have given A Higher Loyalty a 850,000-copy run, the largest Macmillan has printed so far this year. Given A Higher Loyalty pre-sales, it appears printing 850,000 copies was a smart move.

A few warning signs hint that Comey's book may simply be a success rather than a blockbuster. On Sunday April 15, George Stephanopoulos's much-touted ABC News interview with Comey averaged 9.8 million viewers: A strong showing, but lower than CBS's Academy of Country Music Awards' average of 12.1 million viewers that same evening, and well below Stormy Daniels' appearance on 60 Minutes, which drew an average of more than 22 million viewers. One attendant to a DC bookstore's midnight release event for A Higher Loyalty noted the smaller turnout, calling it a "different experience" in relation to the same store's release of Fire and Fury.

But the most meaningful metric that could prove whether Comey can compete with Wolff is how long A Higher Loyalty can stay on the bestseller lists, not whether it makes it there at all. Time magazine recently crunched the numbers, ranking The Times' nonfiction list of bestsellers since November 2016, and picking out every book "explicitly about Trump." They found that, since mid-January, every top best-seller has been about Trump: Fire and Fury topped the list in January and Michael Isikoff and David Corn's Russian Roulette beat it in March before losing its spot to Jennifer Palmieri's Dear Madam President: An Open Letter to the Women Who Will Run the World.

So, is Comey's book objectively as popular as Wolff's take on the Trump administration? Not yet. Only the coming weeks will confirm whether A Higher Loyalty has the staying power to qualify as successor to Wolff's Fire and Fury, which has now passed its 15th week on The Times' hardcover nonfiction list.

One thing's for sure: Comey seems happy to feed the narrative that he's the underdog in the publishing industry's 2018-era Trump bump. "I don't crave to be known," he said during a Thursday interview for The New Yorker Radio Hour, adding that he'd be more comfortable "not doing something like this."

Trump's VA nominee Ronny Jackson in talks to withdraw after new allegations raised - NBC News

Trump's VA nominee Ronny Jackson in talks to withdraw after new allegations raised
The development comes as congressional Democrats released new allegations of improper conduct involving Jackson.
by Kasie Hunt, Geoff Bennett, Kristen Welker, Adam Edelman and Rebecca Shabad / Apr.26.2018 / 1:20 AM ET / Updated 2:54 PM ET

Dr. Ronny Jackson arrives for a meeting with Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., at his office on Capitol Hill on April 17.Joshua Roberts / Reuters
WASHINGTON — Ronny Jackson, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, has grown frustrated with the process and is in active discussions with senior White House officials about withdrawing his name from consideration for the cabinet post, two sources with knowledge of the conversations said.

A decision about Jackson's future could come as early as Wednesday night or Thursday, one source said.

The development comes as congressional Democrats released additional details Wednesday on allegations of improper conduct involving Jackson who said earlier in the day that he has no intention of backing out.

New allegations emerge against VA nominee Ronny Jackson

Democrats on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs spoke to nearly two dozen current and former colleagues of Jackson — most of whom the committee said are still in uniform — and said those interviewed "raised serious concerns about Jackson’s temperament and ethics, and cast doubt on his ability to lead the second-largest agency in government."

According to a two-page summary of those interviews released by the panel’s staff Wednesday, the White House medical unit had "questionable record keeping" for the medications it was distributing under Jackson's leadership. On one occasion, Jackson was said to have provided a "large supply" of the opioid drug Percocet to a staffer for the White House Military Office, which threw the office "into a panic" because it didn't know where the drugs went.

In addition to concerns about his prescribing practices, the summary noted "multiple incidents of drunkenness on duty," including one instance when Jackson could not be reached when he was needed "because he was passed out drunk in his hotel room." It added that Jackson once got drunk at a Secret Service going-away party and "wrecked a government vehicle." It did not note the year of the incident.

Jackson denied that specific allegation Wednesday, telling NBC News, "I never wrecked a car," and said that should be pretty easy to prove. He also claimed that he did not know where the allegations were coming from, and added that he is "still moving ahead as planned" with his nomination.

Earlier in the day, the White House rallied around Jackson as the embattled doctor continued to face allegations of impropriety.

Marc Short, Trump’s top legislative affairs aide, told reporters outside the White House that Jackson deserved a fair hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and said the allegations against the doctor were politically motivated. He also indicated that Jackson has no plans to withdraw.





Tester on Ronny Jackson allegations: 'There's more that come forth everyday'
02:20
"We all look at allegations, but I think you have to question if there is a process within the Department of Defense for active military people to bring those concerns," Short said, noting that concerns were instead raised to the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who has been vocal in sharing his findings.

Short added he thought it was unfair for Tester to have dubbed Jackson, the White House physician who shared the results of Trump's annual physical with the press earlier this year, the "candy man" — a reference to his prescription practices — in media interviews.

"Every year they come in and they do a review of the White House physician’s office on things like prescriptions, and every year they have said that he is totally in compliance with what he has been prescribing," Short said.

According to the summary of interviews released Wednesday, multiple people said Jackson was known as the "candy man" among White House staff because they said he would provide prescription drugs without paperwork.

Jackson also engaged in a pattern of handing out Ambien to help people go to sleep on Air Force One and distributing Provigil to help people wake up, says the summary, which added that he did not triage patients' medical history when giving those drugs out.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday that Jackson's character had been praised by three administrations and that he underwent the standard vetting process before Trump selected him to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs. She said she is "not aware" of any allegations made against the doctor prior to his nomination.





Iraq War veteran: Ronny Jackson scandal is 'bonkers'
05:38
Meanwhile, Trump — who showed support for Jackson a day earlier, despite opening the door for him to withdraw his nomination — met with Jackson for a private Oval Office meeting Tuesday, and asked his nominee how he wanted to address the allegations, according to a White House official.

The official told NBC News that Jackson told Trump that the allegations are untrue and misleading and that he wants to make his case, which the president encouraged him to do.

Tester defended releasing the summary of allegations in an interview Wednesday, saying that the document was also shared with the office of the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Johnny Isakson.

"So we gave it to them and then we gave it to other people and you guys need to have it too," Tester said on MSNBC's "Meet the Press Daily," adding that his staff was sharing information as quickly as possible with his GOP counterpart.

"These aren't my accusations, these are accusations from retired and active-duty military personnel that have come to us. We are just trying to follow up and see what is true and what is not," Tester said.

Jackson's confirmation hearing had been scheduled for Wednesday, but was postponed amid concerns over the allegations.

Asked Wednesday whether the White House is pushing to reschedule the hearing, Sanders told reporters, "We are continuing to work with members on the Hill." Tester also did not rule out the possibility that Jackson could still receive a hearing.

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said Jackson denied allegations of a hostile workplace while working as the White House physician, and told Moran that he has never had a drink while on duty.

Golden State Killer: DNA links ex-officer to California cold cases - BBC News

Golden State Killer: DNA links ex-officer to California cold cases
25 April 2018

The charges were announced at a news conference in Sacramento
California police have arrested a former police officer for a notorious spree of murders, rapes and burglaries in the 1970s and 80s.

Sacramento police say they arrested suspect Joseph James DeAngelo, 72.

The suspect has been living in the Sacramento area and was identified after new efforts to solve the case, investigators say.

Police blame the so-called Golden State Killer for 12 murders, 51 rapes and more than 120 burglaries.

Mr DeAngelo is being held on suspicion of four counts of murder - the 1978 deaths of Brian and Katie Maggiore in Sacramento and the 1980 killings of Charlene and Lyman Smith in Ventura County.

Prosecutors say additional charges are likely to follow.

What did police say?
Police had been monitoring the suspect and used "discarded DNA" to match him to the crimes, according to Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones.

Media captionGolden State Killer: 'A staggering crime spree'
Announcing the arrest, Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said: "The answer has always been in Sacramento."

"The magnitude of this case demanded that it be solved," she added.

Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten said that prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty.

Two years ago the FBI offered a $50,000 (£36,000) reward to anyone who could help crack the case.

Crime spree that terrorised communities
By James Cook, BBC News Los Angeles correspondent

After four decades of frustration for detectives, it turned out the suspect had been living under their noses all along.

"We found the needle in the haystack and it was right here in Sacramento," said district attorney Anne Marie Schubert.

Joseph James DeAngelo had apparently been living an ordinary life on a quiet suburban street, a former police officer with grown-up children who was "very surprised" when he was arrested and taken into custody.

Details of his alleged crimes are deeply disturbing and collective psychological scars endure.

Many police officers and prosecutors involved in the case vividly recall the terror of the crime spree in their communities.

"Everyone was afraid," said FBI special agent Marcus Knutson, who was born and raised in Sacramento, as he announced a fresh appeal for information on the case two years ago.

"We had people sleeping with shotguns, we had people purchasing dogs. People were concerned, and they had a right to be. This guy was terrorising the community. He did horrible things."

What do we know about the accused?
According to the Sacramento Bee newspaper, he had been living with his daughter and granddaughter in the city's Citrus Heights neighbourhood.

He was fired from the Auburn Police Department in 1979 after he was charged with shoplifting, according to the Auburn Journal.

Billy Jensen

@Billyjensen
 If you’ve been following the Golden State Killer case, stay tuned. We will be having a rather large announcement tomorrow. #michellemcnamara #IllBeGoneInTheDark #stepintothelight

4:52 PM - Apr 25, 2018 · Chicago, IL

Police say it was "very likely" that he was committing these crimes while employed as a police officer.

He had also worked as an officer in Exeter, California from 1973 to 1976, during a time when several crimes were committed there, police say.

What reaction has there been?
Jane Carson-Sandler, who was the rapist's fifth victim in October 1976, told the Island Packet newspaper that detectives had emailed her on Wednesday to inform her of the arrest.

"I just found out this morning," she said. "I'm overwhelmed with joy. I've been crying, sobbing."

The case was investigated by author Michelle McNamara for her book I'll Be Gone in the Dark. McNamara died before the book could be published.

Her co-author, Billy Jensen, tweeted on Tuesday night to say there would be a "rather large announcement tomorrow".

Another contributor to the book, Paul Haynes, said: "Stunned. Excited. No other words right now."

Skip Twitter post by @ThePaulOfHaynes

Paul Haynes
@ThePaulOfHaynes
 Stunned. Excited. No other words right now.

10:59 PM - Apr 25, 2018

What were the crimes?
The Golden State Killer, also known as the East Area Rapist, Original Night Stalker, and the Diamond Knot Killer is believed to have carried out rapes and murders between 1976 and 1986, killing girls and women aged between 12 and 41.

Prosecutors say the "reign of terror" began in Sacramento and spread to San Francisco and then on to central and southern California. Links between the cases were established by DNA evidence, police say.

A police reward poster shows photofit pictures of the suspect
The attacker broke into homes at night and then tied up and raped his female victims.

Before fleeing he stole items such as cash, jewellery and identification.

The last case to be linked to the Golden State Killer was the rape and murder of an 18-year-old woman in Irvine, Orange County, in May 1986.

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said the suspect had been called many names but added: "Today, it's our pleasure to call him 'defendant'."

For Young South Koreans, the Inter-Korea Summit Is Just Another Thing to Worry About - TIME

'Our Hands Are Already Full.' For Young South Koreans, the Inter-Korea Summit Is Just Another Thing to Worry About
 A couple walk through a park in Seoul on March 24, 2016.
By CHARLIE CAMPBELL / SEOUL April 25, 2018
History weighs heavy over Friday’s meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea. The talks bring together Kim Jong Un, grandson of North Korea’s founder Kim Il Sung, and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, the child of refugees who fled the North during the 1950-53 Korean War. The setting is also significant; the demilitarized zone, or DMZ, is a narrow strip of land that has separated the two nations since that Cold War conflict ended in a prickly stalemate.

On one level, this is a summit between two leaders striving to fulfill their forebears’ legacies: Kim’s mission to safeguard his dynastic regime; Moon’s to reunite the riven peninsula. But Pyongyang’s development of a nuclear-armed missile capable of striking the U.S. mainland has hauled Washington into the reckoning, with U.S. President Donald Trump poised to meet with Kim in coming weeks for what would be the first ever meeting between leaders of these longtime adversaries.

Another historic moment, to be sure. But for many younger South Koreans with no recollection of the two nations united, the talks are an irritation piled onto mounting domestic pressures, such as record youth unemployment, an aging and declining population, sluggish growth, and corruption scandals involving the nation’s highest office. “We don’t want North Korea to be part of the agenda,” says Minyong Yoon, 25, a computer science student from the city of Suwon outside Seoul. “Our hands are already full.”

Seoul’s Hanyang University, where TIME met Yoon and a group of his fellow students, occupies a manicured campus befitting its reputation as South Korea’s equivalent of MIT. With a focus on engineering, alumni include current board members of multinationals Samsung, LG and Hyundai, as well as a bevy of politicians, artists and sports stars. But what unites all students is a desire to forge the future — and North Korea is conspicuously absent from their vision.

A survey last year by the government-run Korea Institute for National Unification found that 71.2% of South Koreans in their 20s oppose reunification. Across all age groups, support has dropped to just 57.8% from almost 70% four years prior. “For the younger generation, North Korea is no longer important,” says economics student Somin Yoon, 23, from Seoul, and no relation to Minyong.

These views chafe with a recent flood of ostensibly good news. On Saturday, North Korea announced it would immediately suspend nuclear and missile tests, dismantle its nuclear test site and prioritize economic growth. In response, South Korea turned off propaganda broadcasts at the DMZ. Kim Jong Un has also suggested that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea wouldn’t be a precondition for nuclear disarmament. President Moon called the move “a significant decision towards total denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.”

But Hanyang students are unassuaged, saying too much time has already been sacrificed to the past. All South Korean men between 18-35 must complete two years of national service, which feels like time snatched away while they are in their prime. The training and drills that comprise this obligation fortify the idea that North Korea is an existential enemy.

Students warn of North Korean spies and underground extreme leftist groups that praise Kim Jong Un and encourage protests against the American THAAD anti-missile system that South Korea now hosts. “I’ve actually seen their leaflets scattered around this campus,” says Yu Kin Kim, 23, a business student from the central city of Daejeon. “It worries me a lot.”

While the division of the Koreas is a painful memory for their parents’ generation, Hanyang students mainly feel apathy. Only 2.5 miles of barbwire and minefields divide these lands, but culturally it’s a chasm: K-Pop and cosmetic surgery versus goose-stepping collectivism; bullet train and smartphone versus bullock cart and whip. “In terms of geography, it’s the closest country, but diplomatically it’s the furthest; we cannot just visit North Korea,” says Hanju Kim, 21, from Seoul, and no relation to Yu Kin.

A man walks past a military fence covered with ribbons calling for peace and reunification at the Imjingak peace park near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) dividing the two Koreas at the border city of Paju on Jan. 8, 2018.
A man walks past a military fence covered with ribbons calling for peace and reunification at the Imjingak peace park near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) dividing the two Koreas at the border city of Paju on Jan. 8, 2018. Jung Yeon-Je—AFP/Getty Images
Compounding matters are the enormous pressures South Korea puts on young people. The school year lasts 11 months and students often spend 16 hours a day in class and afterschool study sessions called hagwons. South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the world for children aged 10-19. During Minyong Yoon’s final year of high school, “I slept for only four or five hours a night,” he says.

Japanese and American culture has seeped into South Korean society, while the North remains ossified under Stalinist indoctrination. Interactions with the 32,000 North Koreans who have made the perilous journey to South Korea reinforce the differences. “Having a whole bunch of brainwashed people wandering around the country just isn’t good for us,” says Hanju Kim.

Defectors gain preferential access to university though affirmative action programs, which breeds resentment. Hanju Kim says there are one or two defectors in each grade of his public administration degree course, accounting for about 2% of all students. But they “definitely struggle” because of mandatory English courses, he says, adding, “they also have some problems understanding our professors’ language.”

For many students, the idea of opening the floodgates to North Koreans is almost as unpalatable as war. Reunification would be prohibitively costly for the world’s 11th biggest economy, not to mention the significant social and security problems. North Korea’s GDP is less than 1% of that of the South, meaning uniting the nations would involve many times the burden of binding East and West Germany in 1990. (Even a quarter of a century later, former East German provinces lag behind in most developmental metrics.) “As an economist, I have to weigh the benefits versus the cost allocation,” says Somin Yoon. “And it just doesn’t add up.”

But not all agree. Soojin Oh, a 23-year-old tourism student, favors reunification, though admits it is a minority view within her peer group. “If reunification means we would be linked to Russia and continental Europe then Korea will become truly part of the globe,” she says. “And we would have peace dividends owing to reducing our military costs.”

After Kim and Moon sit down Friday, the next step will be a meeting between the despot and the irascible Trump, who even threatened to “totally destroy North Korea” while speaking at the U.N. Earlier this month, hawkish CIA chief and Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo reportedly met with Kim in Pyongyang to draw up parameters for the meeting with Trump. National Security Adviser John Bolton, who has frequently advocated for preemptive strikes against both North Korea and Iran, joins Pompeo in Trump’s combative new-look inner circle.

Read more: Will Trump Make a Bad Deal With North Korea?

The prospect of the former reality TV star Trump, who came to power bellowing “America First,” dictating South Korea’s future security with a cabal of saber-rattlers is understandably galling. When Trump and Kim exchanged barbs late last year, “It looked like UFC or World Wrestling Entertainment,” says Minyong Yoon. “They just want to show how big and strong they are to their own people.” Hanju Kim agrees: “It was like childish bragging.”

It’s hard not to sympathize. Koreans have rarely held the levers of their own destiny. Since the 13th century, the peninsula has alternated between Chinese and Japanese occupation, and following World War II was split down the 38th parallel. But unlike Germany, which suffered a similar fate in retribution for Nazi aggression, Korea never invaded anywhere — it was scythed apart simply because of the rivalry between Soviet Russia and its erstwhile Western Allies.

Today, the Korean people sit on the frontline as a mercurial U.S. President fires off the occasional 280-characters of vitriol on social media. And despite Trump’s bluster, Hanyang students — who would likely be called upon to fight if conflict broke out — don’t believe the U.S has the stomach to stay the course, pointing to how the hippie movement catalyzed Washington’s withdrawal from the Vietnam War.

“America in all its history has never been bombarded on its own [mainland],” says Yu Kin Kim. “The North Koreans think that were they to land a direct hit on America itself, then just maybe like Vietnam there will be anti-war protests because they’ve never been in the situation of war [in their homeland.]”

It all leaves Yu Kin Kim fatalistic about the future, believing that South Korea waging war on its own terms may be preferential to having its fate decided by an unreliable Washington, or the purgatory of waiting for the next escalation. “Otherwise, it’s like living every day with a big gun to the back of your neck,” he says grimly. “And I really don’t want to live like that.”

— With reporting by Stephen Kim / Seoul

The WTO still considers China a 'developing nation.' Here's the big problem with that - CNBC News

The WTO still considers China a 'developing nation.' Here's the big problem with that
President Trump recently called out China for claiming the special privileges of a poor country.
China is still considered a developing nation by the WTO a status it received when it joined decades ago. That allows it to take on fewer commitments than developed nations.
China's economy is now one of the biggest in the world; it needs to step up and pull its economic weight.
Simon Lester and Huan Zhu, Cato Institute
Published April 25, 2018  Updated 20 Hours Ago
CNBC.com
Two workers load steels products at a wharf in Yichang, Hubei Province of China.
VCG | Getty Images
Two workers load steels products at a wharf in Yichang, Hubei Province of China.
President Trump recently called out China for claiming the special privileges of a poor country, tweeting that "China, which is a great economic power, is considered a Developing Nation within the World Trade Organization. They therefore get tremendous perks and advantages, especially over the U.S. Does anybody think this is fair[?]"

With a number of U.S.-China trade disputes simmering, this criticism from Trump seemed designed to justify his various tariff threats, on steel, aluminum and a wide range of other products.

Like many of Trump's policy pronouncements, this one was clumsily framed and misleading, but had a grain of truth to it. If China is dominating the international economy, as you might conclude from headlines, why is it classified as "developing" and why does it get special treatment?

The answer is fairly simple: When China began the process of joining the WTO in 1986, it was, in fact, quite poor. Its GDP per capita, taking into account purchasing power parity (PPP), was around $677, compared to $19,078 for the United States. However, the critics are right that China's economy has grown substantially in recent years, and it is now time for China to become a more equal partner in international economic affairs.

There is no official WTO classification as to which countries are "developing." This status is self-selected, based on politics more than law or economics, and can be contested. It is a controversial point that usually stays buried beneath the surface, but occasionally flares up into minor controversy.

"The critics are right that China's economy has grown substantially in recent years, and it is now time for China to become a more equal partner in international economic affairs."
By declaring itself a developing country as part of the negotiations, China was able to take on fewer commitments at the WTO. However, 17 years into its WTO membership, China has surged to become the second largest economy in the world. Parts of China are now as advanced as parts of the industrialized world.

At the same time, before you assume that China has now "graduated" to rich country status, keep in mind that not all Chinese are doing so well. National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow recently said, "China is a first-world economy, behaving like a third-world economy," but that is an exaggeration.

China's GDP per capita, measured with PPP, was $16,660 in 2017. That is a vast improvement over where it was in 1986, or in 2001 when it joined the WTO, but it is still much lower than the United States ($59,501).

This low figure for average wealth, despite high incomes in some big cities, is the result of substantial income inequality in China. And as a result, China can still call itself "developing" in the context of the WTO.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that China is much richer as a whole than it used to be, and this is largely thanks to the economic reform, including lowering its tariffs and liberalizing some sectors of the economy, that accompanied China's accession to the WTO. In this sense, its economic status has changed. While it is still developing, it is much closer to the developed countries than before.

China's changed economic circumstances mean that its role in the world trading system merits reconsideration. A key objective of the WTO is to raise living standards, and although China's WTO membership has helped in this regard it still has a long way to go.

While China should maintain its developing country status, if it wants to avoid the ire of the Trump administration and the world community, China should pay back some of the "raise" it got by playing a more active role in supporting the world trading system.

In recent years, the WTO's liberalization agenda has stalled in a number of areas. There are no easy answers as to how revive it, but positive contributions by China could help. Here are some steps it could take to show that it is pulling its weight.

One area that could use a boost is the ongoing negotiations on the liberalization of environmental goods, which would lower tariffs on a wide range of products, including solar panels and wind turbines (China's tariffs on these products are relatively low, but other countries' tariffs are as high as 35%).

China has been accused of derailing these talks. A good way to change its image on the world stage would be to push this kind of basic tariff liberalization forward instead of getting in its way.

In addition, China could finally make a serious effort to join the WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement, after years of tepid offers in the negotiations. Governments are some of the biggest purchasers of goods and services in the world, and taxpayers are better served when they buy from the highest-quality/lowest-cost producer, rather than simply give preference to domestic companies.

Opening up more of its procurement market to foreign companies -- and getting access to foreign markets for its own companies in exchange -- would be a big step towards a more liberalized Chinese economy.

Lastly, China could join the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) talks taking place in Geneva, which aim to make progress in dealing with the complex regulatory barriers that interfere with services trade. In doing so, however, China must be constructive and not drag its feet in the negotiations, as some fear.

With greater wealth comes greater responsibility. Even if it continues to maintain its "developing" status, as China's economy grows it should take on additional international obligations and play a more equal role in international economic organizations such as the WTO. By doing so, China will improve its own economy, reduce international economic conflict, and help strengthen the world trading system.

Commentary by Simon Lester, the associate director of Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, and Huan Zhu, a research associate.

China warns of more action after military drills near Taiwan - Reuters

APRIL 25, 2018 / 1:01 PM / UPDATED A DAY AGO
China warns of more action after military drills near Taiwan
Ben Blanchard, Jess Macy Yu

BEIJING/TAIPEI (Reuters) - A series of Chinese drills near Taiwan were designed to send a clear message to the island and China will take further steps if Taiwan independence forces persist in doing as they please, Beijing said on Wednesday, as Taiwan denounced threats of force.

Over the past year or so, China has ramped up military drills around democratic Taiwan, including flying bombers and other military aircraft around the self-ruled island. Last week China drilled in the sensitive Taiwan Strait.

China claims Taiwan as its sacred territory, and its hostility towards the island has grown since the 2016 election as president of Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party.

China has been issuing increasingly strident calls for Taiwan to toe the line, even as Tsai has pledged to maintain the status quo and keep the peace.

Speaking at a regular news briefing, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesman for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, said the message the People’s Liberation Army was sending with its exercises was “extremely clear”.

“We have the resolute will, full confidence and sufficient ability to foil any form of Taiwan independence separatist plots and moves and to defend the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Ma said.


“If Taiwan independence forces continue to do as they please, we will take further steps,” he added, without giving details.

The military’s drills were aimed at protecting peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the interests of people on both sides of it, Ma said.

In Taipei, the government’s China policy-making Mainland Affairs Council said the people of Taiwan could not accept China’s military pressure and threats which it said had damaged peace in the Taiwan Strait.

“The mainland side should not attribute the consequences of misjudgment to Taiwan. This is an extremely irresponsible act,” it added.

The Republic of China is a sovereign state, the council said, using Taiwan’s formal name, and will brook no slander or criticism from China.

“We sternly warn the other side, do not create incidents again. Only by abandoning armed intimidation, facing up to the reality of the separate control on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and having pragmatic communication and dialogue can the differences be resolved.”

Amid the growing tension with China, Taiwan’s defense ministry said on Tuesday it will simulate repelling an invading force, emergency repairs of a major air base and using civilian-operated drones as part of military exercises starting next week.

Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Michael Perry
Why Trump Gets Away With Lying
When people feel marginalized, blatant lies can pass for authenticity.

By Mark Buchanan

April 25, 2018, 11:00 PM GMT+10

Authentic? Photographer: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
Over the past two years, Donald Trump has lied incessantly and brazenly, and trampled all over traditional norms of respectable behavior. Yet his supporters still admire him and, bizarrely, see him as an authentic figure, honestly and honorably fighting for their interests. For many, it’s difficult to fathom.

But more than 50 years ago, an American sociologist and political scientist predicted that extreme social conditions might make it possible for a vulgar, lying demagogue to appeal to a broad group of ordinary people. Three psychologists have now run experiments reproducing the effect in a set of volunteers holding a mock election — demonstrating how Trump’s vulgarity can be a feature, not a flaw, and a key part of his appeal to a huge swath of America that feels abandoned by the economic and political establishment.

As Oliver Hahl of Carnegie Mellon and colleagues note, a survey taken after the 2016 U.S. Election found that Trump supporters don’t believe many of his lies, especially his most egregious ones. When Trump claimed that global warming is a Chinese hoax, most recognized it as false, but they didn’t much care. They saw his language as expressing deeper truths.


As it turns out, the sociologist Seymour Lipset predicted that this kind of disconnect could happen, triggered by what he called a “crisis of legitimacy.” The legitimacy of democracy might be undermined, Lipset envisioned, if a large part of society came to feel abandoned by the political establishment. Or, if a group felt a loss of power as leaders shifted their favor to new social groups. The white working class today — Trump’s base — fits both descriptions, as policies furthering globalization and offshoring of jobs have robbed them of economic opportunity, and immigration and demographic trends have visibly altered American society.

Lipset suggested that a crisis of legitimacy would have psychological consequences — and set the stage for a lying demagogue to be perceived by many people as bravely speaking suppressed truths. In normal conditions, voters shun any candidate who obviously lies and abuses widely shared social norms. But in a crisis, Lipset argued, disenfranchised voters may see such violations as a symbolic protest, and a deliberate poke in the eye to the elites they have come to despise.

This would explain how many Trump supporters, ordinary people, could actually cheer when he bragged about grabbing women’s genitals, or mocked Senator John McCain for having been shot down in the Vietnam War. This is not to say that Trump supporters approved of his behavior. Rather, they delighted in the profound irritation of the press and the political establishment.

Hahl and colleagues went further, with some experiments designed to assess how the political landscape can affect people’s perception of lies. They split volunteers into two groups, one of which they manipulated to feel marginalized, neglected by a powerful establishment group. They then presented the groups with two candidates, one of whom blatantly lied and made misogynistic comments. The vulgar behavior repelled the “establishment” group, but actually attracted the marginalized group — irrespective of previous political leanings. Lying helped form a bond of solidarity, by challenging the establishment’s authority to define what was true or correct.

From this perspective, Trump cleverly or by instinct found a way to appeal to the vast left-behind of the white middle classes, and did so in part through antagonism toward elites and disrespect for their norms. Pissing off elites cemented his bond with his base.


It’s depressing that politicians’ unthinking neglect of a large portion of society may have put us into such a dangerous spot. Then again, seeing Trump as the symptom of a crisis brought about by social and political dysfunction can also bring hope. The shock of Trump, or something similar, may have been unavoidable. And Trump's rise might signal the start of a necessary period of painful disruption and chaos, before we find a way to reverse decades of middle class social decay.

Call Him Mr. Impeachment: Tom Steyer’s War Against Donald Trump - Bloomberg Businessweek

Call Him Mr. Impeachment: Tom Steyer’s War Against Donald Trump
A lot of Democrats think the billionaire investor is the wrong man with the wrong idea. Ask him if he cares.

By April 25, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
Narcissism was in the air in Washington. On a February night a few hundred yards from the White House, Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire and political activist, had taken over three rooms at the National Press Club for a panel called Presidential Mental Health & Nuclear Weapons. On the dais, two psychiatrists, a psychologist, a Jungian author, and a warhead-security specialist were settling into blue chairs in front of a blue curtain. They were there to discuss the matter of Donald Trump’s ego. But Steyer, stepping to the lectern by their side, was unmistakably the star of the show. Applause broke out. He smiled and locked eyes with people around the room. Fans following the Facebook livestream sent thumbs-ups by the thousands as he and the five speakers set about explaining why Trump’s sadism, paranoia, unpredictability, and self-obsession make him ill-suited to nuclear weaponry.

Steyer has commanded the spotlight before. His fund, Farallon Capital Management, made him a finance kingpin, and he became a darling of environmentalists after quitting in 2012 to fight climate change full time. His third act began six months ago, when he paid for and starred in his first nationwide ad agitating for Trump’s impeachment. If you’ve watched cable news recently, you’ve probably seen him, 60 years old with a healthy tan and a look of grim concern, staring into your soul.

“I’m Tom Steyer, and like you, I’m a citizen who knows it’s up to us to do something,” he says in the first spot, his voice gravelly and grave. He’s sitting by a fireplace wearing a folksy-billionaire midnight-blue denim shirt. His name comes on screen above “American Citizen” in smaller letters. Strings murmur eerily as the camera closes in. “People in Congress and his own administration know that this president is a clear and present danger,” Steyer says. Within four months of the ad’s first airing, 5 million people had joined his campaign, Need to Impeach, providing names for an impeachment petition and email addresses for his budding list.

Steyer isn’t the first to claim there are grounds for booting Trump from office, but his enormous pools of wealth, outrage, and ambition mean he can do more than the members of Congress responsible for impeachment proceedings: He can spend the money required to stoke a fire and fan its flames until a real chance to burn down the administration presents itself. Thus far, he’s pledged about $40 million for Need to Impeach and an additional $30 million to get millennials into voting booths in November. He views himself as the leader of a movement to deliver America from evil—not one of those billionaires who cut checks merely to buy influence in Washington. Never mind that Steyer spent more on disclosed donations during the 2014 and 2016 election cycles than anyone else, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

His spending over the past year has bought him at least three kinds of opponents. The first are supporters of Trump, the celebrity-king who’s survived bedlam, bankruptcy, and scandal that would have wiped out, or at least embarrassed, mere mortals. To them, Steyer is a younger George Soros, pulling strings from the shadows. The second are fellow Democrats who think his fixation is distracting at best and harebrained at worst. They point out that no president has been removed via impeachment, that Democrats don’t have the congressional majority they would need to initiate the proceedings, and that polls show less than half the country wants them to try. Steyer’s third set of opponents are skeptics who see his vast resources as the symptom of a disease, not its cure. Does America, they ask, need one billionaire to save it from another?





At his event in Washington, Steyer toggled between his two dominant modes, apocalyptic and jubilant. Toward the end, he riffed on the motivational value of fear. “When you’re absolutely sure you’re right,” he said, “and you’re fighting for the things you think are most important, then there’s also great joy in being able, once you’re in it, to push as hard as you can.”

He stepped down from the dais and was mobbed. As aides tried to usher him out, Steyer hugged and high-fived. Only when a lawyer launched into a sales pitch for a project did Steyer start to extract himself—except, no, he couldn’t help but stick around to listen. When he finally moved on, an aide tried again to focus his attention, but Steyer swung around him to say something into a supporter’s ear. He leaned back to show he was listening as the man replied, then plunged back in, aiming his finger at the guy’s heart. He was still gabbing as he left, the long goodbye of a born candidate.

A chemical reaction seems to take place inside the brains of the megarich when their fortunes grow from extraordinarily big to inconceivably vast. It convinces some of them that they possess the power to solve a great challenge or crisis of the day. This might help explain why billionaires go on quests to colonize space (Jeff Bezos), slow the aging process (Larry Ellison), build flying cars (Larry Page), or bore holes into the Earth for transportation by tunnel (Elon Musk).

Steyer isn’t living out a sci-fi fantasy. A former prep school jock who says he crushes 300 crunches a day, he’s cast himself as the hero of a black-and-white Western, ever preparing for a showdown at high noon. He even wears cowboy boots these days, though he says it’s for the heel support.


PHOTOGRAPHER: NATHANAEL TURNER FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK
Before he can take down Trump, though, Steyer will have to claw past his own party’s sheriffs. Congressional minority leaders Nancy Pelosi of California and Chuck Schumer of New York are among those who’ve aired their displeasure with calls for impeachment, arguing that such talk is divisive and premature. David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s former senior adviser, has punched harder. “Steyer impeachment ads seem to me more of a vanity project,” he tweeted in November. “It is-at least [at] this point-an unhelpful message.” It took Steyer exactly one hour to slap back: “Unhelpful to whom, David?” He followed up a minute later with the less aristocratic “No fear.” The spat resumed a few months later. “Dems should NOT commit to impeachment,” Axelrod wrote on April 8. Steyer really didn’t like that. “Appeasing Mr. Trump and being polite is what’s wrong with the Establishment,” he replied. “Spare me,” Axelrod wrote back. “Don’t make the mistake of confusing your ad copy for a bill of impeachment.”

This kind of talk infuriates Steyer. A week before the Washington event, he was at a hotel bar in Las Vegas, banging his hand on a table. “There was no one in the United States who wanted to make a big deal out of impeachment!” he said. Some billionaires find Vegas irresistible for its bacchanalia, but Steyer was drinking seltzer with cranberry juice, light on the juice. He was in town to demand protections for young immigrants and to back an effort to make Nevada’s electricity greener.

Steyer’s most distinctive feature is a Roman nose, though it often cedes the stage to eyebrows that perform circus tricks when he gets excited. Trump gets them going. Steyer maintains that the president has disqualified himself from the land’s highest office by obstructing justice, conspiring with Russians, violating the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, undermining the free press, and simply being dangerously crazy. “We believe we have a gigantic threat to our democracy,” he said at the bar. “We believe this guy is very dangerous to the health and safety of American citizens.”

“When you’re absolutely sure you’re right and you’re fighting for the things you think are most important, then there’s also great joy in being able, once you’re in it, to push as hard as you can”

The “we” risked coming off as royal, but Steyer was reaching for the unifying vibe of a stump speech. Decades ago, he ran (successfully) for student body president at Phillips Exeter Academy, the New Hampshire school where Abraham Lincoln sent one of his sons. Steyer went from there to Yale, joining Morgan Stanley’s training program after graduation. He left, earned an MBA at Stanford, and in 1983 got a job at Goldman Sachs on Robert Rubin’s merger arbitrage team, which trained at least three future billionaires. Steyer quit a few years later for the only comparably glamorous job in finance: managing his own fund. While getting it up and running, he scored an intro to the investment firm Hellman & Friedman from Matthew Barger, a friend from Yale. “Tom’s possibly the only person I’ve ever met who I think could be president of the United States someday,” Barger told his colleagues at the time.

Hellman & Friedman helped Steyer set up the fund that would become Farallon, based in San Francisco and named for nearby islands that jut out of shark-infested waters. It made money every year for decades, buying up the junk bonds of distressed companies, betting on some stocks, shorting others, investing in real estate, and doing some private equity. Before 2008, when the financial crisis reached its nadir, Farallon’s main fund was returning an annual average of almost 15 percent, and the firm was overseeing more than $30 billion, making it one of the biggest hedge funds in the world.


It was also, to Steyer’s growing embarrassment, investing in oil, private prisons, subprime lending, and coal. By 2008 he’d grown alarmed about climate change; he was going to church more often and thinking seriously about politics. When a proposition to suspend some of California’s robust air pollution rules reached the state ballot in 2010, he donated $5 million to the campaign that ultimately defeated it. Two years later he left Farallon and went on to start NextGen Climate, a nonprofit with a super PAC arm, writing seven-digit checks that helped candidates willing to fight for the environment.

The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to strip away long-standing limits on corporate money in politics had inaugurated an era of historic hospitality to politically motivated billionaires. Some of the cash they’ve spent has stayed hidden, but as far as disclosed donations go, Steyer reigns supreme. By that measure, he outspent even notable Republican kingmakers Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson, and Robert Mercer during the 2014 and 2016 national campaigns. The $75 million Steyer spent in 2014 exceeded the total from the next three donors combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (One of those three was Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, which publishes Bloomberg Businessweek.) Steyer spent even more in 2016, about $91 million.

Bankers love to talk about their return on investment, but his was mediocre. Half of the eight Democrats he backed in big races in 2016, including Hillary Clinton, lost. That was slightly better than in 2014, when three of his seven candidates in Senate and gubernatorial races won. Steyer had a better run backing California ballot propositions, helping kill the 2010 air pollution plan and, two years later, spending more than $29 million on a measure that changed corporate tax rules and funneled money to green jobs.

“Politics is understood by very few people in the United States of America, and if you want to understand it, then I think you’ve got to put in your 10,000 hours. I have, actually. Do the math”

He didn’t see Trump coming. But only a few hours after the election, he published a pledge that he’d stand up to the incoming president. In July, six months into Trump’s term, something new took shape. Steyer changed NextGen Climate’s name to NextGen America and said its mission would expand to include health care, equality, and immigration issues.

That wasn’t enough for him, though. He was also thinking about running for the U.S. Senate or for governor of California, his home since he left Goldman Sachs. (He and his wife, Kat, own a mansion overlooking San Francisco Bay, a place whose marketing brochure showed a ballroom, five bedrooms, and two fireplaces. They also have an 1,800-acre cattle ranch down the coast.) In September, Steyer met Democratic consultant Kevin Mack, a direct-mail specialist who’s worked for Planned Parenthood and the AFL-CIO. “I sat down with him to talk about a whole range of things: ‘This is what it might look like to run for office, this is what it might look like to start a movement,’ ” Mack said.


Within days, they’d landed on a crusade for Steyer—something national and big. The logic was that Steyer could spend, say, $150 million to try to win a Senate seat—or he could start “running a national movement right now to hold this president accountable,” Mack said. “You do that for a hell of a lot less.”

Steyer decided to launch this movement outside the auspices of NextGen America, choosing the name Need to Impeach. He shot the fireplace spot and bought time on cable, including enemy territory: Fox News. It took mere days to catch the attention of his target. On Oct. 27 at 6:58 a.m., before the sun rose over Washington, Trump tweeted that Steyer was “wacky & totally unhinged.” Fox pulled the ad not long after. In a statement, the channel’s co-president cited “the strong negative reaction to their ad by our viewers.”

With that, Steyer had earned his spurs, complete with a pair of shiners to exhibit to the resistance. Signatures soared. He filmed more ads, set on a ranch, in front of the White House, by the Liberty Bell, and in Times Square, where he also paid for jumbo impeachment billboards. By February, Need to Impeach had about 40 staffers and a headquarters in a San Francisco Beaux Arts building. The group set up a war room for opposition research, plus a media arm and a legislative outreach team, and sent Steyer on a 30-stop tour to press his case across the U.S. The plan for November is to compare the organization’s list of millions against voter files, register anyone who isn’t signed up, and turn out everyone on Election Day.

Mack likes to say that Steyer’s list is now bigger than the National Rifle Association’s. But there are reasons why old hands such as Axelrod see the campaign as a billionaire’s vanity project. As with the ads, almost every Need to Impeach press release places Steyer front and center, announcing plans to file Freedom of Information Act requests about Trump or to mail 5,100 impeachment guides to 2018 candidates.

Still, Steyer has fans inside the impeachment cottage industry who are grateful for an ally rich enough to turn their ideas into zeitgeist. Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who teaches a class on Trump and has a book about impeachment coming out in May, credits Steyer with pushing the topic into late-night talk shows and dinner-table conversations. “He’s encouraging people to take seriously something that might have been too much in the background,” Tribe said. “People need to be conditioned to think about it. And he’s certainly put it on the national agenda in a really important way.”


As Steyer’s eyebrows bounced across the airwaves late last year, talk about his political ambitions grew louder. In January he stepped before a row of American flags in Washington to announce that he wouldn’t run for office in California, at least not in 2018. Instead, he said, he would double his impeachment spending and focus on registering millennial voters.

Watching him, though, you sense that the itch hasn’t subsided. His teams at NextGen and Need to Impeach include flacks and Obama veterans, even a body man who keeps his Honest Tea at the ready. He’s been known to invoke Lincoln twice in an hour while espousing policies that position him as a billionaire Bernie Sanders: single-payer health insurance, higher taxes for the rich, and clean energy.

In the past year, a titillated press has played are-they-running with entertainment mogul Oprah Winfrey (after she delivered a galvanizing speech at the Golden Globe Awards in January), Facebook Inc. co-founder Mark Zuckerberg (after he hired two top Obama campaign operatives), and Starbucks Corp. Chairman Howard Schultz (whose unofficial side job is calling for nationwide transformation). Each eventually offered the ritual not-I.

Although Steyer did the same for 2018, he’s been coy about 2020, refusing to say whether he’ll run for the White House. He nevertheless gets exercised when asked about one hypothetical billionaire rival. “The day that Howard Schultz gets up with me at 4:25 to walk in Palmdale, I’m going to start thinking differently about him,” Steyer said, invoking a recent NextGen door-knocking trip in California. Schultz didn’t respond to an email asking for comment about Steyer, but Dallas Mavericks owner and Shark Tank star Mark Cuban, who’s said there’s a chance he’ll run, obliged. “Don’t know him. Never met him,” he wrote. Eight minutes later, Cuban sent a follow-up: “Don’t have any thoughts on him at all.”

Whether he’s thinking about a presidential run or not, Steyer is clearly enjoying himself. In Las Vegas he met with young immigrants at the University of Nevada, then headed out into the desert sun to ask students what they cared about. Afterward, sitting outside a campus cafe, he was practically glowing. He teased a reporter and laughed at his own zinger, then kept on laughing, clapping his hands and thumping the table before taking a breath and howling some more. Finally, 12 seconds on, he silenced himself with a final slam of the hand.

Moments later, talk of Trump flipped him to apocalyptic mode. But like a hero saddling up against formidable odds, he professed to be up to the task. “Politics is understood by very few people in the United States of America, and if you want to understand it, then I think you’ve got to put in your 10,000 hours,” he said. “I have, actually. Do the math.”

A week later, at a Presidents Day panel in Philadelphia, he was confronted by the possibility that five digits wouldn’t be enough. As Steyer sat on a stool in his jeans and cowboy boots, a man in the audience interrupted. “You’re talking about good and evil,” the man said, “and there are those of us who think that a billionaire who has $1.6 billion to throw around of his own money may be a threat to democracy.”

Steyer listened, hands on knees. “So you want me to address that?” he said.

“I think so,” the man replied.

Steyer’s mood seemed to dim. “OK, fine,” he said. “Let’s talk for a second about money in politics.”

“Let’s talk about you,” the man said. The room fell so quiet you could hear a throat clear. Before Steyer could address the expensive elephant in the room, a fan piped up: “Thank God you’re doing what you’re doing!” People clapped.

“Let me answer this question,” Steyer said, pointing at the heckler, forefinger wagging twice. “I think it is true that my ability to be heard is disproportionate based on the amount of money I have.” The man tried unsuccessfully to interrupt. “Look, I think we have a great system,” Steyer continued. “But we have very far from a perfect system.”

He was getting worked up. “If there was no money on the side of progressivism,” he said, “then, actually, we wouldn’t be able to organize against the people who are—”

He kept on speaking, but it was hard to hear him over the applause.

Trump attorney Michael Cohen says he'll plead the Fifth in Stormy Daniels civil case - Fox News

April 25, 2018

Trump attorney Michael Cohen says he'll plead the Fifth in Stormy Daniels civil case
By Elizabeth Zwirz | Fox News

Michael Cohen to plead the Fifth in Stormy Daniels lawsuit
President Trump's longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen says he will assert his Fifth Amendment rights in lawsuit filed against him by Stormy Daniels; Catherine Herridge reports.

Michael Cohen, the personal attorney for President Trump, has said he will plead the Fifth in a lawsuit with adult-film star Stormy Daniels due to an ongoing criminal investigation in New York, according to court documents.

The formal declaration was filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

In it, Cohen noted the April 9 FBI raid on his home, office and hotel room, during which he said the agency seized “various electronic devices and documents in my possession, which contain information relating to the $130,000 payment to Plaintiff Stephanie Clifford at the center of this case, and my communications with counsel, Brent Blakely, relating to this action.”

He continued to say that “based upon the advice of counsel” he would be pleading the Fifth “in connection with all proceedings in this case due to the ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.”

MICHAEL COHEN RAID RATTLES TRUMP ALLIES: DID FEDS SEIZE PRESIDENT’S COMMUNICATIONS

Cohen asked a judge to delay the civil case 90 days following the FBI raid. Federal prosecutors in New York said they are investigating Cohen's personal business dealings.

This comes as attorneys for the president informed a federal judge on Wednesday that Trump would “make himself available, as needed” to look over materials seized in the FBI raid to ensure the protection of privileged information, ABC News reported.

Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford and is referenced by Cohen in the filing, has claimed that she had a one-time sexual encounter with the president in 2006 and was paid $130,000 by Cohen in the days before the 2016 presidential election as part of a nondisclosure agreement she has sought to invalidate in order to speak freely.

FBI RAID TARGETS TRUMP ATTORNEY MICHAEL COHEN, UNDER SCRUTINY OVER STORMY DANIELS PAYMENTS

Trump has denied the allegations.

Daniels has offered to return the $130,000 and argues the agreement is legally invalid because it was signed by her and Cohen, not by Trump.

Daniel’s attorney Michael Avenatti tweeted that Cohen’s filing was “a stunning development.”


Michael Avenatti

@MichaelAvenatti
 This is a stunning development. Never before in our nation’s history has the attorney for the sitting President invoked the 5th Amend in connection with issues surrounding the President. It is esp. stunning seeing as MC served as the “fixer” for Mr. Trump for over 10 yrs. #basta

8:52 AM - Apr 26, 2018

“Never before in our nation’s history has the attorney for the sitting President invoked the 5th Amend in connection with issues surrounding the President,” Avenatti said. “It is esp. stunning seeing as MC served as the 'fixer' for Mr. Trump for over 10 yrs.”


Michael Avenatti

@MichaelAvenatti
 And yes, my record of prediction stays intact. We will keep shooting until we miss. #searchforthetruth #basta

8:55 AM - Apr 26, 2018

“And yes, my record of prediction stays intact,” he continued. “We will keep shooting until we miss.”

Fox News Jodie Curtis, Brooke Singman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

New York Times exposé of Harvey Weinstein to be made into movie - Guardian

Harvey Weinstein
New York Times exposé of Harvey Weinstein to be made into movie
The Pulitzer prize-winning work of two female journalists is to become a film in the mould of Spotlight and All the President’s Men

Catherine Shoard

 @catherineshoard
Thu 26 Apr 2018 19.32 AEST

 Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey at a book launch
 Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey at the launch for Peter Bart’s book Boffo! in 2006. Photograph: Stephen Lovekin/WireImage for The Weinstein Company
The investigation by New York Times reporters into allegations of sexual misconduct against Harvey Weinstein that led to the downfall of the Hollywood mogul is to be made into a film.

The as-yet-untitled project, to which no stars or directors are yet formally attached, will focus on the work of reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, who faced down intimidation and threats to reveal the scale of abuse allegedly perpetrated by one of the most influential figures in modern cinema.

Weinstein’s downfall has hastened a sea change not only within Hollywood, where such misconduct had been perceived as systemic, but also within the wider world.

The film will not focus on the producer and his alleged victims, but instead on the journey towards publication of Kantor and Twohey, with Oscar-winning films Spotlight and All the President’s Men cited as inspirations.

The allegations against Harvey Weinstein – a list

It will be financed by Plan B, Brad Pitt’s company, which backed 12 Years a Slave, and by Annapurna Pictures, whose founder, Megan Ellison, has been touted as the next Harvey Weinstein.

Kantor and Twohey received a Pulitzer prize for the investigation. They were awarded it jointly with Ronan Farrow, whose reporting on further testimonies by female actors alleging harassment by Weinstein was published a week later in the New Yorker.

Yesterday, one of the most vocal figures alleging abuse by Weinstein claimed that representatives for the producer were still attempting to contact her.

Speaking on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show, Rose McGowan said that as recently as a month ago she was receiving calls and texts from harassers she assumes were deployed by Weinstein.

She is one of several women to accuse Weinstein of rape. He denies all allegations of nonconsensual sex.

Rudd urged to resign as she admits Home Office has used internal deportation targets - Guardian


Politics live with Andrew Sparrow
Rudd urged to resign as she admits Home Office has used internal deportation targets - Politics live
Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including the Commons debate on staying in the customs union after Brexit

LIVE Updated 52s ago
 Amber Rudd giving evidence to the home affairs committee yesterday.
 Amber Rudd giving evidence to the home affairs committee yesterday. Photograph: BBC Parliament
Andrew Sparrow

 @AndrewSparrow
Thu 26 Apr 2018 19.51 AEST First published on Thu 26 Apr 2018 18.10 AEST
16m ago Rudd admits Home Office has used internal targets for deportations
20m ago Amber Rudd responds to Commons urgent questions on Home Office removal targets
40m ago Recorded knife crime in England and Wales up 22%, says ONS
48m ago David Lammy claims Rudd lied to parliament
1h ago Starmer accuses McCluskey of playing down Labour's antisemitism problem
2h ago Labour says Amber Rudd must face MPs to explain why she denied deportation targets exist
2h ago Amber Rudd summoned to Commons to explain why she denied deportation targets exist
52s ago
19:51
Labour’s John Woodcock says people will accept Rudd did not deliberately mislead the home affairs committee, not least because what she said was so easily disproved. But it it is worrying that she and her lead official did not know what was going on.

Rudd says she is not authorising targets. She wants a compassionate approach to immigration, she says.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
2m ago
19:49
Labour’s Diana Johnson asks Rudd if she was asleep when she did not know there were targets.

Rudd says immigration is an important part of her job, although not the only one. She says the changes she is making will flag up problems more quickly.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
2m ago
19:49
Since you’re here … we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Make a contribution. - Guardian HQ

3m ago
19:48
Labour’s Stephen Doughty says this goes well beyond the Windrush generation. How many people have been wrongfully deported or wrongfully detained? He has met people in both categories.

Rudd says she is looking into this, going back to 2002. She says she will get back to the home affairs committee.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
5m ago
19:46
Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, said it was “deeply disappointing that the home secretary did not know the facts” when she spoke to the committee yesterday. She said that in April 2016, after talks with Caribbean diplomats, Foreign Office ministers were made aware of concerns about Windrush migrants being deported. Cooper asked what action was taken.

Rudd said Cooper raised this in the committee hearing yesterday. She said she would look into it.

The Labour MP David Lammy said he had asked Rudd various questions about Windrush migrants, including how many were deported, and she could not reply. He asked Rudd to consider if he was really the right person “to lead this office of state”.

Rudd said she has been investigating if any Windrush migrants were wrongly deported, and so far there is no evidence of that happening.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
9m ago
19:42
The SNP’s Alison Thewliss also said that Rudd should resign.

But Rudd is getting the support of Conservative MPs. Sir Nicholas Soames said all Tory MPs were supporting Rudd, and Philip Davies, another Conservative backbencher, said people wanted tougher action against illegal immigrants.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
14m ago
19:37
In her response to Rudd, Abbott says Rudd should resign

Rudd responds by saying that illegal immigration is not the same as legal immigration. She says she was not aware of the internal targets.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
16m ago
19:36
Rudd admits Home Office has used internal targets for deportations
Diane Abbott asks for a statement about removal targets (that’s the question).

Amber Rudd says she gave evidence to the committee yesterday.

Windrush migrants are here legally and should not be subject to removal action, she says.

She says all MPs agree that the Windrush generation are here legally, but that the government should tackle illegal immigration. She says she has seen the exploitation and abuse that comes with that.

Her department has been working

The immigration arm of the Home Office has been using local targets for internal perfomance management.

She says, if they have affected policy, that will change.

Rudd admits Home Office has used internal targets for deportations.
Facebook Twitter Google plus
20m ago
19:31
Amber Rudd responds to Commons urgent questions on Home Office removal targets
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, is about to face Labour’s urgent question on the Home Office’s deportation removal targets.

This is what Rudd said about it at the Commons home affairs committee yesterday.



Alan Travis

@alantravis40
 Was this the moment Amber Rudd revealed she has no grip on #Windrush or her department?
"Targets for removals when were they set?" asks @yvettecooper
"Err we don't have targets for removals," says Amber Rudd.
"But you did," says Cooper.
"I don't know what you are talking about."

3:37 PM - Apr 26, 2018
186
199 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Facebook Twitter Google plus
40m ago
19:12
Recorded knife crime in England and Wales up 22%, says ONS
Police-recorded offences involving knives or other sharp instruments increased
by 22% year-on-year in England and Wales in 2017, the Press Association reports. The PA report goes on:

Police recorded 39,598 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument in the latest year ending December 2017, a 22% increase compared with the previous year (32,468), and the highest number registered since comparable records started in 2010.

The Office for National Statistics said: “The past three years have seen a rise in the number of recorded offences involving a knife or sharp instrument, following a general downward trend in this series since the year ending March 2011.”

Offences involving firearms were also up, by 11% to 6,604 recorded crimes.

These offences tend to be disproportionately concentrated in London and other metropolitan areas, the ONS said, but it added that the majority of police force areas saw rises in these types of violent crime.

The full ONS bulletin with the crime figures for England and Wales for 2017 is here.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
48m ago
19:03
David Lammy claims Rudd lied to parliament
The Labour MP David Lammy, one of the leading campaigners for the rights of the Windrush migrants, has accused Amber Rudd of lying to parliament. He has posted these on Twitter.


David Lammy

@DavidLammy
 It is now clear that a) targets meant innocent Windrush citizens were targeted as ‘easy targets’, b) the Home Secretary lied to Parliament @CommonsHomeAffs and c) has completely lost control of her department. If I was responsible for this disgrace I would have resigned last week https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/989380922536538112 …

4:53 PM - Apr 26, 2018
1,293
1,113 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

David Lammy

@DavidLammy
 The Home Office has imprisoned innocent citizens in their own country and stripped them of their rights for years. Then the Home Secretary either lied to Parliament yesterday about the existence of removal targets, or has absolutely no idea what is going on in her Department. https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/989413286956412928 …

6:24 PM - Apr 26, 2018
314
235 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

David Lammy

@DavidLammy
 As I said two days ago: I have been a government minister. If I had been responsible for the Windrush scandal I certainly would have resigned I would have been so embarrassed and ashamed. And now it turns out the Home Secretary lied to Parliament yesterday http://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/news/david-lammy-mp-those-responsible-for-windrush-should-fall-on-their-sword …

6:46 PM - Apr 26, 2018

David Lammy MP: Those responsible for Windrush should 'fall on their sword'
Labour MP David Lammy told today’s Good Morning Britain that those responsible for the Windrush scandal should fall on their sword. He said: “I’ve been a minister in the government, if I had been...

itv.com
635
429 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Unfortunately for those of us who enjoy a good row, Lammy will not be allowed to accuse Rudd in quite these terms when the UQ comes up later. Accusing a fellow MP in the chamber of lying is deemed unparliamentary and unacceptable (even if the culprit has lied), and if an MP tries to use that language, the speaker forces him or her to withdraw or face being removed from the chamber.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
Advertisement

1h ago
18:50
The government is keen to downplay the importance of the backbench debate on the customs union later. That may explain why it has decided to schedule two ministerial statements today. Taking into account the urgent question on Home Office deportation targets too, that means the debate will not start until after 1pm. It is likely to run for less than three hours.


Labour Whips

@labourwhips
 Govt squeezing debate on Customs Union by any chance? Two Oral Ministerial Statements in addition to Business Statement: 
1)   Artificial Intelligence sector deal – Margot James
2)   Stamp duty land tax – Mel Stride

5:55 PM - Apr 26, 2018
5
See Labour Whips's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Facebook Twitter Google plus
1h ago
18:42
Starmer accuses McCluskey of playing down Labour's antisemitism problem
Yesterday the New Statesman published an article by Len McCluskey, the pro-Corbyn Unite general secretary and the most powerful union leader in the Labour movement, criticising Labour MPs who have complained about antisemitism in the party, saying they should be “held to account”.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said this morning he thought McCluskey’s arguments were wrong. He implied that McCluskey was denying that antisemitism was a problem in the party, telling Today:

I disagree with Len McCluskey. Jeremy Corbyn has made it clear, and it is obvious, that we have got a problem with antisemitism. We have got to deal with it robustly and effectively.

Part of that is the disciplinary procedure, which needs to be much quicker and much more effective, but there is also a cultural question.

Part of that cultural question is to stop those denying that there is even a problem. That is part of the problem. So I am afraid I disagree with Len on this.

In his article McCluskey explicitly said that he accepted that a “small number” of Labour members were guilty of antisemitism and that they should be expelled. But he also said the issue was being deliberately exploited by Corbyn’s critics and most of his article focused on them.

 Sir Keir Starmer
 Sir Keir Starmer Photograph: Andy Hall for the Observer
Facebook Twitter Google plus
2h ago
18:18
The UQ will start at 10.30am. Full coverage here, obviously ...

Facebook Twitter Google plus

2h ago
18:16
Amber Rudd summoned to Commons to explain why she denied deportation targets exist
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, will be responding to the UQ, the Home Office says.

Updated at 6.18pm AEST
Facebook Twitter Google plus
2h ago
18:13
Speaker grants urgent question on Home Office deportation targets
The speaker, John Bercow, has granted an urgent question on the Home Office’s removal targets. It has been tabled by Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary.


Labour Whips

@labourwhips
 🍿 UQ granted to @HackneyAbbott at 1030 to ask @AmberRuddHR if she will make a statement on the use of removal targets in the Home Office.

5:58 PM - Apr 26, 2018
64
59 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Facebook Twitter Google plus
2h ago
18:10
Labour says Amber Rudd must face MPs to explain why she denied deportation targets exist
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, is in trouble. Yesterday, when she gave evidence to the Commons home affairs committee, she rejects claims that the Home Office set targets for the removal of illegal immigrants. She told the MPs:

We don’t have targets for removals ... If you ask me, ‘are there numbers of people we expect to be removed?’, that’s not how we operate.

But overnight it has emerged that the Home Office did have targets for the removal of illegal immigrants as recently as three years ago. My colleague Pippa Crerar has the story.

Amber Rudd faces questions over immigrant removal targets
 Read more
The reference to targets is in this report (pdf), published in December 2015 by the chief inspector of borders and immigration. Here is an excerpt.

 Excerpt from report on removals by independent chief inspector of borders and immigration
 Excerpt from report on removals by independent chief inspector of borders and immigration Photograph: Home Office
Overnight the government has revised its line on this from the one taken by Rudd in her hapless select committee outing yesterday. Matt Hancock, the culture secretary, set it out when he appeared on the Today programme to discuss a separate issue. He told the programme.

As far as I understand it, it has never been Home Office policy to take decisions arbitrarily to meet the target. There are rules around immigration. Immigration needs to be controlled but the rules also need to be fair.

Alert readers will spot that this formula, which Hancock repeated more than once, does not deny the existence of a target.

On Sky News Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said the government was “dancing on the head of a pin”. He said Rudd should come to the Commons this morning to clear up what is going on. He told Sky:

The key question at the moment is, ‘Did you have a target for the number that were to removed?’ And that’s got to be answered. Amber Rudd appeared yesterday to say no. It looks as though she may have been contradicted in reports today. That’s got to be cleared up. The right thing to do would be to come to the House of Commons as the home secretary and make a statement setting out what the full position is and then face questions.

Obviously I will be following all the latest developments closely.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Michael Gove, the environment secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

9.30am: Crime figures for England and Wales are published.

10am: The pro-European MPs Chuka Umunna and Anna Soubry hold a briefing ahead of the customs union debate.

10.30am: Mike Schroepfer, Facebook’s chief technical officer, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee.

After 11.30am: MPs debate a backbench motion saying the UK should stay in the customs union after Brexit. If there is a division, it will take place mid-afternoon.

As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another at the end of the day.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.

Here's a Scorecard of the Scott Pruitt Investigations - Bloomberg

Here's a Scorecard of the Scott Pruitt Investigations
By Jennifer Dlouhy
April 26, 2018, 5:05 AM GMT+10

Scott Pruitt Photographer: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Bloomberg
Scott Pruitt drew criticism from the moment President Donald Trump installed him at the helm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, since the former Oklahoma attorney general had built his career challenging EPA rules. But that was nothing compared with the deluge of damaging revelations that have emerged in recent months. At last count, there were at least nine open investigations of Pruitt, not counting informal inquiries. Here’s a guide to who is investigating Pruitt and what’s under the microscope:

Travel
The EPA’s inspector general, an internal watchdog, is auditing Pruitt’s travel, amid questions about frequent trips to his home state of Oklahoma at taxpayer expense and his reliance on first-class seats on commercial airplanes. This line of inquiry has twice been expanded to cover a longer time frame. The current window, through the end of 2017, permits scrutiny of Pruitt’s December trip to Morocco to promote U.S. liquefied natural gas.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is scrutinizing Pruitt’s frequent first-class seats, marking House Republicans’ first formal investigation of a member of Trump’s cabinet. The panel broadened its investigation in April to seek more information about Pruitt’s trips to Morocco and Italy, the administrator’s security protection and his lease of a Capitol Hill condominium from a lobbyist. The Republican chairman also is asking for transcribed interviews with five key EPA aides.
Security
The EPA inspector general is probing Pruitt’s round-the-clock security protection, including the possibility that bodyguards accompanied him on trips to Disneyland and the Rose Bowl.
Separately, the inspector general is auditing the administrator’s protective service detail in response to an anonymous complaint lodged before Pruitt was nominated. In September, the inspector general released an interim report saying it had discovered an unauthorized $23,413 pay adjustment for an unnamed agent.
The inspector general says it is conducting preliminary research on how the EPA’s criminal enforcement office reports "availability pay" awarded to officers who frequently work extra, unscheduled time beyond their regular workdays.
Spending
The Government Accountability Office already concluded the EPA violated an appropriations law by failing to give Congress advance notification about plans to spend more than $43,000 installing a secure phone booth in Pruitt’s office. The GAO said the EPA ran afoul of another law, the Antideficiency Act, by effectively spending government funds that hadn’t yet been appropriated or exceeded the appropriate amount. Federal employees who violate the law are subject to suspension from duty without pay or removal from office, as well as fines and imprisonment.
The White House Office of Management and Budget is examining the purchase of that soundproof phone booth, which morphed from a no-more-than $13,500 project into a $43,000 booth with silenced ventilation and "noise-lock" paneling.
$50 Condo Rental
So far, the EPA’s inspector general has not decided whether to open an inquiry into Pruitt’s rental of a Capitol Hill bedroom from a lobbyist at terms -- $50 a day, just for the days used -- considered unusually favorable. But the U.S. government’s top ethics official is prodding the inspector general to probe the arrangement.
Pay Raises
The EPA inspector general is studying how Pruitt’s office used special legal authority to fill up to 30 "administratively determined" positions and award pay raises to some political appointees. Two of Pruitt’s top aides were given raises worth tens of thousands of dollars over White House objections, using special authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The authority, which has been used by Pruitt’s predecessors, enables EPA administrators to swiftly bring on staff. Documents released as part of an interim report April 16 showed that Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, authorized the salary increases.
Lobbying
The GAO is examining whether the EPA violated lobbying laws because of Pruitt’s appearance in a video describing his opposition to a rule on water pollution enacted under former President Barack Obama. The National Cattleman’s Beef Association video urges ranchers to file public comments on the rule the EPA is now rewriting and features Pruitt explaining the importance of that input. House Democrats, including Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, said Pruitt’s involvement in the video could run afoul of federal laws barring the use of taxpayer dollars for lobbying or propaganda purposes.
The EPA inspector general is compiling information about a meeting Pruitt had with the National Mining Association in April 2017, following a report the administrator urged the coal group to encourage Trump to pull the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. Pallone and other critics said that if true, Pruitt’s prodding would violate lobbying laws. Inspector General Arthur Elkins Jr. told Pallone he could submit the complied factual record to the GAO to investigate potential legal violations.
Pending Requests
Democratic lawmakers asked Trump to conduct his own investigation of allegations by Kevin Chmielewski, a supporter of the president who worked at the EPA and, they said, “painted an extremely troubling picture” of waste, unethical behavior and “potentially illegal” actions by Pruitt.
Senate Democrats have asked Pruitt to explain how his top bodyguard’s business partner won a contract to search the administrator’s office for listening devices. At issue is an EPA security move that may have enriched one of Pasquale "Nino" Perrotta’s business partners, Edwin Steinmetz, the vice president for technical surveillance countermeasures at Perrotta’s Maryland-based company, Sequoia Security Group Inc. Perrotta is the company’s principal, and the EPA’s $3,000 contract to search for bugs in Pruitt’s office was awarded to Edwin Steinmetz Associates LLC.
Democratic lawmakers also have asked EPA’s top ethics official to explain how the agency approved and monitors outside work by Perrotta and other employees.

Nasdaq is open to becoming cryptocurrency exchange, CEO says - CNBC News

Nasdaq is open to becoming cryptocurrency exchange, CEO says
Once the regulation is smoothed out and the space "matures", Nasdaq would consider becoming a digital currency exchange, the company's CEO says.
"Certainly Nasdaq would consider becoming a crypto exchange over time," Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman says.
In the meantime, Nasdaq is supporting existing crypto exchanges, and announced a technology deal with Gemini Wednesday.
Kate Rooney | @Kr00ney
Published April 25, 2018 Updated 16 Hours Ago
CNBC.com
 Nasdaq is open to becoming cryptocurrency exchange, CEO says Nasdaq is open to becoming cryptocurrency exchange, CEO says 
16 Hours Ago | 01:02
Once the space matures, Nasdaq is open to becoming a platform for trading cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, according to the company's CEO.

"Certainly Nasdaq would consider becoming a crypto exchange over time," Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman told CNBC's Squawk Box Wednesday. "If we do look at it and say 'it's time, people are ready for a more regulated market,' for something that provides a fair experience for investors."

A key roadblock for the Nasdaq and other institutional investors is regulation, which Friedman said needs to be ironed out before the company would add an exchange. But she was bullish on the future of digital assets.

"I believe that digital currencies will continue to persist it's just a matter of how long it will take for that space to mature," Friedman said. "Once you look at it and say, 'do we want to provide a regulated market for this?' Certainly Nasdaq would consider it."

In the meantime, the Nasdaq is supporting existing cryptoexchanges.

On Wednesday, the company announced a collaboration with cryptocurrency exchange Gemini, founded by early bitcoin investors Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. The deal gives Gemini access to Nasdaq's surveillance technology to help make sure the platform provides a fair and "rules-based marketplace," for their own participants, Gemini CEO Tyler Winklevoss said in a statement.

While Friedman was optimistic about the future of cryptocurrencies she was less so on the fundraising process known as an initial coin offering, or ICO.

 Nasdaq CEO: Seeing revenue growth across the entire business Nasdaq CEO: Seeing revenue growth across the entire business 
21 Hours Ago | 05:26
"ICOs need to be regulated," she said. "The SEC is right that those are securities and need to be regulated as such."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has cracked down on ICO fraud in 2018, and said in March it is looking to apply securities laws to everything from cryptocurrency exchanges to digital asset storage companies known as wallets. SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said the watchdog is devoting a "significant portion of resources" to the ICO market.

The more than 1,300 percent rise of bitcoin prices last year certainly caught the attention of regulators. Bitcoin neared $20,000 in December before having its worst first quarter in history, dropping 48 percent in the first three months of this year. The cryptocurrency has recovered above $9,000 this week, and hit a high of $9,746.82 Wednesday, according to CoinDesk. The digital currency is up roughly 20 percent this week.

Kate Rooney
Markets Reporter

Amazon Will Start Delivering Packages Straight to Your Parked Car - TIME Business

Amazon Will Start Delivering Packages Straight to Your Parked Car

Posted: 24 Apr 2018 06:43 AM PDT

Amazon.com Inc. has partnered with General Motors Co. and Volvo Cars to deliver packages to car trunks in 37 U.S. cities, as the e-commerce giant seeks new delivery methods for customers who may be wary of leaving packages outside or allowing couriers into their homes.

The app-based service, which lets car owners provide delivery agents with keyless access to trunks, is an example of how Amazon is exploring new methods of delivering goods to customers. It also follows moves by competitors to get their technology into cars, such as Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.’s partnership with Daimler AG, Volkswagen AG and Volvo to bring its digital assistant to autos in China.
The two carmakers are logical partners for Amazon. GM has millions of cars that are wirelessly connected. With Volvo, the collaboration with Amazon is an expansion of a service that has been available in Sweden and Switzerland since 2015 through the Swedish carmaker’s Volvo On Call app.

“I think what we’re doing in the U.S. with Amazon will be even more seamless and the adoption will be stronger,” Atif Rafiq, chief digital officer at Volvo Cars, said in a phone interview. “For Volvo owners this is another way to take advantage of how they can use the car.”

Security Concerns
The in-car delivery scheme, available to Amazon Prime members, is an attempt by Amazon to overcome the hesitation that many feel about opening their home remotely for couriers. It’s integrated with the company’s Amazon’s Key service, launched last year to enable customers to automatically open doors for delivery people. While the service has been touted as a way to reduce package theft, security concerns may still be an issue, as 69 percent of Americans say they wouldn’t want to use Amazon Key to let couriers into their home, according to a survey by InsuranceQuotes.com.

“With Amazon Key In-Car, we’re fueling another convenient and secure way to get packages to our customers,” Peter Larsen, Amazon’s vice president of delivery technology, said in the statement.

GM, the top-selling automaker in the U.S., will make the service available in more than 7 million vehicles that have 4G LTE connections, said a spokesman for the Detroit-based automaker. The service can be used in GM models dating back to 2015 across all four of its domestic brands. Rafiq said all Volvos since model year 2012 can support the service.

Geographic Expansion
The Swedish carmaker has enjoyed a renaissance under the ownership of China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., upgrading its lineup with new versions of its popular XC90 and XC60 SUVs and a new V60 station wagon that’s made the brand a stronger competitor to the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz.

Rafiq, who previously worked at Amazon, said Volvo might take the collaboration beyond the U.S. and into services beyond package delivery.

“It’s a natural path to think more globally with Amazon,” he said. “We will be exploring geographical expansion as well as expansion of other ways to take advantage of the car as a logistics endpoint. That could be other things like returns or more specialized types of deliveries. Everything is on the table.”

Macron believes Trump will drop Iran nuclear deal - BBC News

April 26, 2018

Macron believes Trump will drop Iran nuclear deal

Five times Macron ripped up Trump agenda
French President Emmanuel Macron has said he may have failed in efforts to persuade Donald Trump to retain an international nuclear deal with Iran.

"My view is... that he will get rid of this deal on his own, for domestic reasons," Mr Macron said at the end of a three-day state visit to the US.

Mr Trump has until 12 May to decide on the deal, which aimed to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

He has been a strong critic of the deal, calling it "insane".

Under the agreement, reached under Mr Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, Iran agreed to mothball its nuclear programme in return for an easing of economic sanctions.

Macron urges Trump to stick with Iran deal
Could the Iran nuclear deal collapse?
What did Macron say about the deal?
He had made changing the US president's mind on Iran a top priority for his visit but ended up admitting there was a "big risk" Mr Trump would abandon the deal.

He agreed with Mr Trump that any deal should include a wider agreement on Iran's influence in the Middle East and should cover the country's nuclear activities longer term, as well as its ballistic missile programme.

He said he would work with Mr Trump to build a "new framework" in the Middle East - and especially in Syria.

Analysis: Macron delivers a rebuke to Trump
Why does Trump dislike the current deal?
Warning of "big problems" if Iran resumed its nuclear programme, Mr Trump said a "bigger" deal was possible but it must be built on "solid" foundations.

The current deal, he said, was "insane". "They should have made a deal that covered Yemen, that covered Syria, that covered other parts of the Middle East," he said.

The US president has long complained that the accord - signed by the US, Iran, Europe, Russia, China and Germany - does nothing to halt Iran's support for militant groups in the region such as the Lebanese Shia Muslim group Hezbollah.

Mr Trump is also demanding that signatories to the pact agree permanent restrictions on uranium enrichment, a key part of any nuclear programme. Under the current deal these restrictions are set to expire in 2025.

Iran nuclear deal: Key details
In January, he signed a waiver suspending US sanctions on Iran for 120 days, saying this was the last time he would extend the sanctions relief. The next waiver is due to be signed on 12 May.

What has Iran said about changes to the deal?
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said the US and French leaders have no "right" to renegotiate a seven-party agreement.

Iran would take "important steps regarding our nuclear technology" but he added that the measures would be "peaceful".

Ayatollah Khamenei said Tehran would never yield to US "bullying"
Meanwhile Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on Muslim nations to unite against the US.

He said his country had "successfully resisted bullying attempts" by the US and would continue to do so.

What other issues did Macron and Trump discuss?
While the two have developed a strong relationship, Mr Macron used his US state visit to raise differences on global trade and the environment.

In what appeared to be a thinly veiled attack on Mr Trump during his speech to the joint houses of the US Congress on Wednesday, Mr Macron denounced nationalism and isolationism.


Media captionTrump and Macron's touching moments
Mr Macron said isolationism, withdrawal and nationalism looked "tempting... as a temporary remedy to our fears".

"But closing the door to the world will not stop the evolution of the world," he added. "It will not douse but inflame the fears of our citizens".

What does a Trump-Macron bromance mean for the world?
On the environment, he said the Trump administration was ignoring scientific consensus on global warming but he remained optimistic that the US might rejoin the Paris accord, which requires countries to limit the global rise in temperature attributed to emissions.

"I'm sure one day the US will come back and join the Paris agreement," the French leader said.