May 4, 2018, 4:54 PM
Top Democrat calls for investigation into Stormy Daniels payment
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is urging his Republican counterpart on the committee to launch an investigation into whether Michael Cohen's payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels violated federal law.
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told Fox News' Sean Hannity Wednesday night that Mr. Trump "reimbursed" Cohen for the $130,000 payment Cohen made to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, right before the 2016 presidential election.
Mr. Trump seemed to confirm the repayment on Twitter the following morning, with both he and Giuliani emphasizing there was no campaign finance violation, in their view, since the repayment wasn't from campaign coffers. But on Friday, Mr. Trump said Giuliani didn't know all the details at the time and will "get his facts straight." Giuliani issued a statement intended "to clarify" his earlier comments, which didn't necessarily correct anything he had previously said about the payment.
On Friday, Cummings sent a letter to committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, asking him to obtain documents that could shed light on the Clifford payment, and any related actions Mr. Trump took. Last month, Mr. Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One he was unaware of Cohen's $130,000 payment to Clifford.
"As a preliminary matter, this revelation appears to directly contradict President Trump's statements on Air Force One on April 5, 2018, that he knew nothing about this payment," Cummings wrote.
"Although President Trump and Mr. Giuliani appear to be arguing against potential prosecution for illegal campaign donations, they have now opened up an entirely new legal concern—that the president may have violated federal law when he concealed the payment to Ms. Clifford and his reimbursements for this payment by omitting them from his annual financial disclosure form."
The Ethics in Government Act, passed in 1978, requires federal officials to publicly disclose financial liabilities that might affect decision-making for Americans, Cummings explained. That law requires disclosure for any liabilities exceeding $10,000. Cohen's payment to Clifford was $130,000.
Mr. Trump hasn't clarified when he learned about Cohen's payment to Daniels. On Friday, Mr. Trump insisted that he isn't "changing any stories" about the payment to Clifford.
"I'm not changing any stories," he told reporters. "All I'm telling you is that this country is right now running so smooth. And to be bringing up that kind of crap, and to be bringing up witch hunts all the time -- that's all you want to talk about."
Sunday, May 6, 2018
White House slams China's demands to US airlines as 'Orwellian nonsense' - Fox News
White House slams China's demands to US airlines as 'Orwellian nonsense'
Adam Shaw By Adam Shaw | Fox News
China trying to lure President Trump into a bad trade deal?
Chair of Business and Finance Program at King's College, Brian Brenberg, comments on 'Fox & Friends First.'
The White House on Saturday slammed the Chinese government for engaging in “Orwellian nonsense” after Chinese officials demanded that U.S. airlines change how they refer to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao.
"President Donald J. Trump ran against political correctness in the United States,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. “He will stand up for Americans resisting efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to impose Chinese political correctness on American companies and citizens.”
The White House said that the Chinese Civil Aviation Administration sent a letter to a number of air carriers, including American ones, demanding changes to how the Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao are referred to on websites and promotional material.
Reuters reports that they were told to remove references suggesting that the three are separate countries, a claim the Chinese government has long disputed.
But the White House said it would resist that it described as “efforts to export its censorship and political correctness to Americans and the rest of the free world.”
The statement also called on China to “stop threatening or coercing American carriers and citizens.”
Treasury Secretary prepared to present issues to China that President Trump has been focused on.Video
Mnuchin optimistic about upcoming meeting with China
A U.S. delegation led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin met this week with business and government leaders in China. Trump has repeatedly sought to take a hard line on China, while at the same time praising President Xi Jinping.
On Friday, Trump said he would meet with the delegation, and added that “it is hard for China, in that they have become very spoiled with U.S. trade wins!”
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Our high level delegation is on the way back from China where they had long meetings with Chinese leaders and business representatives. We will be meeting tomorrow to determine the results, but it is hard for China in that they have become very spoiled with U.S. trade wins!
10:31 AM - May 5, 2018
Adam Shaw By Adam Shaw | Fox News
China trying to lure President Trump into a bad trade deal?
Chair of Business and Finance Program at King's College, Brian Brenberg, comments on 'Fox & Friends First.'
The White House on Saturday slammed the Chinese government for engaging in “Orwellian nonsense” after Chinese officials demanded that U.S. airlines change how they refer to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao.
"President Donald J. Trump ran against political correctness in the United States,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. “He will stand up for Americans resisting efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to impose Chinese political correctness on American companies and citizens.”
The White House said that the Chinese Civil Aviation Administration sent a letter to a number of air carriers, including American ones, demanding changes to how the Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao are referred to on websites and promotional material.
Reuters reports that they were told to remove references suggesting that the three are separate countries, a claim the Chinese government has long disputed.
But the White House said it would resist that it described as “efforts to export its censorship and political correctness to Americans and the rest of the free world.”
The statement also called on China to “stop threatening or coercing American carriers and citizens.”
Treasury Secretary prepared to present issues to China that President Trump has been focused on.Video
Mnuchin optimistic about upcoming meeting with China
A U.S. delegation led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin met this week with business and government leaders in China. Trump has repeatedly sought to take a hard line on China, while at the same time praising President Xi Jinping.
On Friday, Trump said he would meet with the delegation, and added that “it is hard for China, in that they have become very spoiled with U.S. trade wins!”
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Our high level delegation is on the way back from China where they had long meetings with Chinese leaders and business representatives. We will be meeting tomorrow to determine the results, but it is hard for China in that they have become very spoiled with U.S. trade wins!
10:31 AM - May 5, 2018
North Korea calls U.S. claims about upcoming summit "misleading" - CBS News
May 6, 2018, 7:39 AM
North Korea calls U.S. claims about upcoming summit "misleading"
PYONGYANG, North Korea -- North Korea on Sunday criticized what it called "misleading" claims that President Trump's policy of maximum political pressure and sanctions are what drove Pyongyang to the negotiating table. The new comments come with just weeks to go before Mr. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are expected to hold their first-ever summit.
The North's official news agency quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman warning the claims are a "dangerous attempt" to ruin a budding detente on the Korean Peninsula after Kim's summit late last month with South Korean President Moon Jae-in.
At the summit, Kim agreed to a number of measures aimed at improving North-South ties and indicated he is willing to discuss the denuclearization of the peninsula, though exactly what that would entail and what conditions the North might require have not yet been explained.
Mr. Trump and senior U.S. officials have suggested repeatedly that Washington's tough policy toward North Korea, along with pressure on its main trading partner China, have played a decisive role in turning around what had been an extremely tense situation.
Just last year, as Kim was launching long-range missiles at a record pace and trading vulgar insults with Mr. Trump, it would have seemed unthinkable for the topic of denuclearization to be on the table.
But the North's statement on Sunday seemed to be aimed at strengthening Kim's position going into his meeting with Mr. Trump. Pyongyang claims Kim himself is the driver of the current situation.
"The U.S. is deliberately provoking the DPRK at the time when the situation on the Korean Peninsula is moving toward peace and reconciliation," the spokesman was quoted as saying. DPRK is short for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's formal name.
Kim and Mr. Trump are expected to meet later this month or in early June.
Mr. Trump has indicated the date and place have been chosen and said he believes the Demilitarized Zone that divides the Koreas might be a good venue.
"Numerous countries are being considered for the MEETING, but would Peace House/Freedom House, on the Border of North & South Korea, be a more Representative, Important and Lasting site than a third party country? Just asking!" Mr. Trump said on Twitter late last month.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Numerous countries are being considered for the MEETING, but would Peace House/Freedom House, on the Border of North & South Korea, be a more Representative, Important and Lasting site than a third party country? Just asking!
10:19 PM - Apr 30, 2018
Singapore was also believed to be a potential site.
Experts are split over whether Kim's statement made with Moon at the DMZ marks a unique opening for progress or a rehash of Pyongyang's longstanding demand for security guarantees.
Sunday's comments were among the very few the North has made since Mr. Trump agreed in March to the meeting.
The spokesman warned the U.S. not to interpret Pyongyang's willingness to talk as a sign of weakness. He also criticized Washington for its ongoing "pressure and military threats" and its position that such pressure won't be eased until North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons completely.
Before Mr. Trump meets Kim, Washington is hoping to gain the release of three Korean-Americans accused of anti-state activities. Mr. Trump hinted the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim was in the offing.
There was no sign of an imminent release on Sunday, though the men had reportedly been moved to the capital.
The White House, meanwhile, has announced a separate meeting between Mr. Trump and Moon at the White House on May 22 to "continue their close coordination on developments regarding the Korean Peninsula."
North Korea calls U.S. claims about upcoming summit "misleading"
PYONGYANG, North Korea -- North Korea on Sunday criticized what it called "misleading" claims that President Trump's policy of maximum political pressure and sanctions are what drove Pyongyang to the negotiating table. The new comments come with just weeks to go before Mr. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are expected to hold their first-ever summit.
The North's official news agency quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman warning the claims are a "dangerous attempt" to ruin a budding detente on the Korean Peninsula after Kim's summit late last month with South Korean President Moon Jae-in.
At the summit, Kim agreed to a number of measures aimed at improving North-South ties and indicated he is willing to discuss the denuclearization of the peninsula, though exactly what that would entail and what conditions the North might require have not yet been explained.
Mr. Trump and senior U.S. officials have suggested repeatedly that Washington's tough policy toward North Korea, along with pressure on its main trading partner China, have played a decisive role in turning around what had been an extremely tense situation.
Just last year, as Kim was launching long-range missiles at a record pace and trading vulgar insults with Mr. Trump, it would have seemed unthinkable for the topic of denuclearization to be on the table.
But the North's statement on Sunday seemed to be aimed at strengthening Kim's position going into his meeting with Mr. Trump. Pyongyang claims Kim himself is the driver of the current situation.
"The U.S. is deliberately provoking the DPRK at the time when the situation on the Korean Peninsula is moving toward peace and reconciliation," the spokesman was quoted as saying. DPRK is short for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's formal name.
Kim and Mr. Trump are expected to meet later this month or in early June.
Mr. Trump has indicated the date and place have been chosen and said he believes the Demilitarized Zone that divides the Koreas might be a good venue.
"Numerous countries are being considered for the MEETING, but would Peace House/Freedom House, on the Border of North & South Korea, be a more Representative, Important and Lasting site than a third party country? Just asking!" Mr. Trump said on Twitter late last month.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Numerous countries are being considered for the MEETING, but would Peace House/Freedom House, on the Border of North & South Korea, be a more Representative, Important and Lasting site than a third party country? Just asking!
10:19 PM - Apr 30, 2018
Singapore was also believed to be a potential site.
Experts are split over whether Kim's statement made with Moon at the DMZ marks a unique opening for progress or a rehash of Pyongyang's longstanding demand for security guarantees.
Sunday's comments were among the very few the North has made since Mr. Trump agreed in March to the meeting.
The spokesman warned the U.S. not to interpret Pyongyang's willingness to talk as a sign of weakness. He also criticized Washington for its ongoing "pressure and military threats" and its position that such pressure won't be eased until North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons completely.
Before Mr. Trump meets Kim, Washington is hoping to gain the release of three Korean-Americans accused of anti-state activities. Mr. Trump hinted the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim was in the offing.
There was no sign of an imminent release on Sunday, though the men had reportedly been moved to the capital.
The White House, meanwhile, has announced a separate meeting between Mr. Trump and Moon at the White House on May 22 to "continue their close coordination on developments regarding the Korean Peninsula."
Kanye West says slavery for 400 years was 'a choice' - Independent
May 2, 2018
Kanye West says slavery for 400 years was 'a choice'
Rapper under fire for series of tweets and comments, including praise for Donald Trump
Clark Mindock New York @ClarkMindock
Kanye was recently seen wearing President Donald Trump's signature campaign hat BACKGRID
Kanye West has suggested that slavery in the United States was a choice by those enslaved, prompting a black TMZ reporter to challenge him in a heated exchange for his recent comments.
“When you hear about slavery for 400 years. For 400 years? That sounds like a choice!” Kanye said during an interview before the confrontation.
“Like, you was there for 400 years, and it’s all y’all? You know, it’s like, we’re mentally in prison. I like the word prison because slavery goes too direct to the idea of blacks,” Kanye continued.
Kanye West talks about Jay-Z and Beyonce not coming to his wedding
“Prison is something that unites us as one race. Blacks and whites being one race," he continued. "That we’re the human race.”
The comments followed after the hip-hop artist reactivated his Twitter account and began posting a series of tweets that drew heavy criticism. In some of the tweets he praised President Donald Trump, and went so far as to post a picture of himself wearing a Make America Great Again hat.
“Do you feel that I’m being free, and I’m thinking free?” Kanye is shown in a TMZ video before the confrontation.
“I actually don’t think you’re thinking anything. I think what you’re doing right now is actually the absence of thought,” the TMZ reporter, Van, responded from across the room.
“And the reason why I feel like that is because, Kanye, you’re entitled to your opinion, you’re entitled to believe whatever you want, but there is real life consequence behind everything that you just said.”
Kanye admits that he was 'hurt' that Jay Z and Beyonce didn't come to his wedding
Westworld season 2 features Kanye West song week after Trump comments
Questlove spotted in 'Kanye doesn't care about black people' T-shirt
Kanye West and John Legend put aside differences: 'Agree to disagree'
Kanye West trolls fans with new song 'Lift Yourself'
Van argued that Kanye is able to say whatever he wants in part because he is removed from the dangers that face people of lesser means in America, where the ugly history of racism still casts a shadow over the lives of many in black and minority communities.
“While you are making music and being an artist, and living the life that you’ve earned by being a genius, the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives,” he said. “We have to deal with the marginalization that has come from 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice. Frankly, I’m disappointed. I’m appalled. And, brother, I’m unbelievably hurt by the fact that you have morphed into something that, for me, is not real."
Kanye West says slavery for 400 years was 'a choice'
Rapper under fire for series of tweets and comments, including praise for Donald Trump
Clark Mindock New York @ClarkMindock
Kanye was recently seen wearing President Donald Trump's signature campaign hat BACKGRID
Kanye West has suggested that slavery in the United States was a choice by those enslaved, prompting a black TMZ reporter to challenge him in a heated exchange for his recent comments.
“When you hear about slavery for 400 years. For 400 years? That sounds like a choice!” Kanye said during an interview before the confrontation.
“Like, you was there for 400 years, and it’s all y’all? You know, it’s like, we’re mentally in prison. I like the word prison because slavery goes too direct to the idea of blacks,” Kanye continued.
Kanye West talks about Jay-Z and Beyonce not coming to his wedding
“Prison is something that unites us as one race. Blacks and whites being one race," he continued. "That we’re the human race.”
The comments followed after the hip-hop artist reactivated his Twitter account and began posting a series of tweets that drew heavy criticism. In some of the tweets he praised President Donald Trump, and went so far as to post a picture of himself wearing a Make America Great Again hat.
“Do you feel that I’m being free, and I’m thinking free?” Kanye is shown in a TMZ video before the confrontation.
“I actually don’t think you’re thinking anything. I think what you’re doing right now is actually the absence of thought,” the TMZ reporter, Van, responded from across the room.
“And the reason why I feel like that is because, Kanye, you’re entitled to your opinion, you’re entitled to believe whatever you want, but there is real life consequence behind everything that you just said.”
Kanye admits that he was 'hurt' that Jay Z and Beyonce didn't come to his wedding
Westworld season 2 features Kanye West song week after Trump comments
Questlove spotted in 'Kanye doesn't care about black people' T-shirt
Kanye West and John Legend put aside differences: 'Agree to disagree'
Kanye West trolls fans with new song 'Lift Yourself'
Van argued that Kanye is able to say whatever he wants in part because he is removed from the dangers that face people of lesser means in America, where the ugly history of racism still casts a shadow over the lives of many in black and minority communities.
“While you are making music and being an artist, and living the life that you’ve earned by being a genius, the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives,” he said. “We have to deal with the marginalization that has come from 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice. Frankly, I’m disappointed. I’m appalled. And, brother, I’m unbelievably hurt by the fact that you have morphed into something that, for me, is not real."
South Korea says it wants U.S. troops to stay regardless of any treaty with North Korea - Reuters
MAY 2, 2018 / 11:22 AM / 4 DAYS AGO
South Korea says it wants U.S. troops to stay regardless of any treaty with North Korea
Christine Kim
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea said on Wednesday the issue of U.S. troops stationed in the South is unrelated to any future peace treaty with North Korea and that American forces should stay even if such an agreement is signed.
“U.S. troops stationed in South Korea are an issue regarding the alliance between South Korea and the United States. It has nothing to do with signing peace treaties,” said Kim Eui-kyeom, a spokesman for the presidential Blue House, citing President Moon Jae-in.
The Blue House was responding to media questions about a column written by South Korean presidential adviser and academic Moon Chung-in that was published earlier this week.
Moon Chung-in said it would be difficult to justify the presence of U.S. forces in South Korea if a peace treaty was signed after the two Koreas agreed at an historic summit last week to put an end to the Korean conflict.
However, Seoul wants the troops to stay because U.S. forces in South Korea play the role of a mediator in military confrontations between neighboring superpowers like China and Japan, another presidential official told reporters on condition of anonymity earlier on Wednesday.
Presidential adviser Moon Chung-in was asked not to create confusion regarding the president’s stance, Kim said.
The United States currently has around 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, which North Korea has long demanded be removed as one of the conditions for giving up its nuclear and missile programs.
However, there was no mention in last week’s declaration by Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea. Kim and Moon Jae-in pledged to work for the “complete denuclearisation” of the Korean peninsula.
U.S. troops have been stationed in South Korea since the Korean War, which ended in 1953 in an armistice that left the two Koreas technically still at war.
Moon Jae-in and Kim have said they want to put an end to the Korean conflict, promising there will be “no more war” on the Korean peninsula.
Reporting by Christine Kim; Editing by Paul Tait
South Korea says it wants U.S. troops to stay regardless of any treaty with North Korea
Christine Kim
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea said on Wednesday the issue of U.S. troops stationed in the South is unrelated to any future peace treaty with North Korea and that American forces should stay even if such an agreement is signed.
“U.S. troops stationed in South Korea are an issue regarding the alliance between South Korea and the United States. It has nothing to do with signing peace treaties,” said Kim Eui-kyeom, a spokesman for the presidential Blue House, citing President Moon Jae-in.
The Blue House was responding to media questions about a column written by South Korean presidential adviser and academic Moon Chung-in that was published earlier this week.
Moon Chung-in said it would be difficult to justify the presence of U.S. forces in South Korea if a peace treaty was signed after the two Koreas agreed at an historic summit last week to put an end to the Korean conflict.
However, Seoul wants the troops to stay because U.S. forces in South Korea play the role of a mediator in military confrontations between neighboring superpowers like China and Japan, another presidential official told reporters on condition of anonymity earlier on Wednesday.
Presidential adviser Moon Chung-in was asked not to create confusion regarding the president’s stance, Kim said.
The United States currently has around 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, which North Korea has long demanded be removed as one of the conditions for giving up its nuclear and missile programs.
However, there was no mention in last week’s declaration by Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea. Kim and Moon Jae-in pledged to work for the “complete denuclearisation” of the Korean peninsula.
U.S. troops have been stationed in South Korea since the Korean War, which ended in 1953 in an armistice that left the two Koreas technically still at war.
Moon Jae-in and Kim have said they want to put an end to the Korean conflict, promising there will be “no more war” on the Korean peninsula.
Reporting by Christine Kim; Editing by Paul Tait
The FBI Is in Crisis. It's Worse Than You Think - TIME
POLITICS FBI
The FBI Is in Crisis. It's Worse Than You Think
By ERIC LICHTBLAU May 3, 2018
In normal times, the televisions are humming at the FBI’s 56 field offices nationwide, piping in the latest news as agents work their investigations. But these days, some agents say, the TVs are often off to avoid the crush of bad stories about the FBI itself. The bureau, which is used to making headlines for nabbing crooks, has been grabbing the spotlight for unwanted reasons: fired leaders, texts between lovers and, most of all, attacks by President Trump. “I don’t care what channel it’s on,” says Tom O’Connor, a veteran investigator in Washington who leads the FBI Agents Association. “All you hear is negative stuff about the FBI … It gets depressing.”
Many view Trump’s attacks as self-serving: he has called the renowned agency an “embarrassment to our country” and its investigations of his business and political dealings a “witch hunt.” But as much as the bureau’s roughly 14,000 special agents might like to tune out the news, internal and external reports have found lapses throughout the agency, and longtime observers, looking past the partisan haze, see a troubling picture: something really is wrong at the FBI.
The Justice Department’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, will soon release a much-anticipated assessment of Democratic and Republican charges that officials at the FBI interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign. That year-long probe, sources familiar with it tell TIME, is expected to come down particularly hard on former FBI director James Comey, who is currently on a high-profile book tour. It will likely find that Comey breached Justice Department protocols in a July 5, 2016, press conference when he criticized Hillary Clinton for using a private email server as Secretary of State even as he cleared her of any crimes, the sources say. The report is expected to also hit Comey for the way he reopened the Clinton email probe less than two weeks before the election, the sources say.
The report closely follows an earlier one in April by Horowitz, which showed that the ousted deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, had lied to the bureau’s internal investigations branch to cover up a leak he orchestrated about Clinton’s family foundation less than two weeks before the election. (The case has since been referred to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., for potential prosecution.) Another IG report in March found that FBI retaliation against internal whistle-blowers was continuing despite years of bureau pledges to fix the problem. Last fall, Horowitz found that the FBI wasn’t adequately investigating “high-risk” employees who failed polygraph tests.
There have been other painful, more public failures as well: missed opportunities to prevent mass shootings that go beyond the much-publicized overlooked warnings in the Parkland, Fla., school killings; an anguishing delay in the sexual-molestation probe into Olympic gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar; and evidence of misconduct by agents in the aftermath of standoffs with armed militias in Nevada and Oregon. FBI agents are facing criminal charges ranging from obstruction to leaking classified material. And then there’s potentially the widest-reaching failure of all: the FBI’s miss of the Russian influence operation against the 2016 election, which went largely undetected for more than two years.
In the course of two dozen interviews for this story, agents and others expressed concern that the tumult is threatening the cooperation of informants, local and state police officials, and allies overseas. Even those who lived through past crises say the current one is more damaging. “We’ve seen ups and downs, but I’ve never seen anything like this,” says Robert Anderson, a senior official at the FBI who retired in 2015.
The FBI’s crisis of credibility appears to have seeped into the jury room. The number of convictions in FBI-led investigations has declined in each of the last five years, dropping nearly 11% over that period, according to a TIME analysis of data obtained from the Justice Department by researchers at Syracuse University. “We’ve already seen where the bad guys and witnesses look at those FBI credentials, and it might not carry the same weight anymore,” says O’Connor.
Indeed, public support for the FBI has plunged. A PBS NewsHour survey in April showed a 10-point drop–from 71% to 61%–in the prior two months among Americans who thought the FBI was “just trying to do its job” and an 8-point jump–from 23% to 31%–among those who thought it was “biased against the Trump Administration.”
The FBI, of course, continues to do good work. On April 25, local authorities in Sacramento and the FBI announced the dramatic arrest of the Golden State Killer. That same day it helped bust 39 people in Pennsylvania in a cocaine-trafficking investigation, 14 prison employees in South Carolina in a bribery case and two men in New Jersey in a $5.3 million tax-evasion probe. Assistant FBI Director William F. Sweeney Jr., who runs the New York field office and oversaw the April 9 raid against Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, says his agents’ response to the turmoil has been to “double down and [say], ‘Hey, we’re gonna keep on moving.'”
Some question whether the FBI has gotten too big and has been asked to do too many things. After 9/11, then FBI director Robert Mueller, who is now the special counsel leading the Russia probe, made massive new investments in counterterrorism and intelligence, shifting resources and investigative focus from white collar crime and bank robberies.
Many of the bureau’s woes developed on Comey’s 3½-year watch. They extend beyond the most visible controversies, like the Clinton email and Russia investigations, to his costly confrontation with Apple over unlocking an iPhone used by one of the terrorists in the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting in 2015, and beyond. Critics say Comey’s penchant for high-profile moral fights has, ironically, undermined the bureau’s reputation. Trump himself has used that line of argument to challenge the FBI.
Democrats have questioned the integrity of the bureau as well, with Clinton and her aides claiming Comey and the FBI helped tip the election to Trump. But the biggest difference between past crises and the current one, according to virtually everyone interviewed for this article, is the President. Trump has continually attacked the integrity of the institution and its leaders, alleging not just incompetence but bad faith in the commission of justice. Ronald Hosko, who retired in 2014 after 30 years at the bureau, compares the moment to a wildfire, saying Trump “is either the spark that creates the flames, or he’s standing there with a can of gas to stoke the flames.”
The bureau’s current director, Christopher Wray, recently said his first priority is to “try to bring a sense of calm and stability back to the bureau.” But the FBI is facing one of the greatest tests of its 110 years. In the coming months, it must fix a litany of internal problems, fend off outside attacks on its trustworthiness and pursue investigations touching on a sitting President, at the same time a growing number of Americans are asking themselves: Can we trust the FBI?
Last May, McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, sat down at the table in his seventh-floor office for a meeting with two agents from the inspections division. The agents had some questions about the Clinton Foundation leak just before the election. It was a quick meeting. McCabe, an FBI veteran who rose through the ranks over a 21-year career, told them he had “no idea” where the leak came from. The agents left after just five minutes or so, according to the Inspector General’s April 13 report.
McCabe had offered that same basic assurance months earlier to his boss, then director Comey, investigators said, and had angrily lit into FBI officials under him, suggesting the Clinton leak had come from their offices and telling one senior agent in Washington to “get his house in order.” But as it turned out, McCabe knew exactly where the leak had come from. He personally authorized it, Horowitz’s investigators found, to counter charges that he favored Clinton. (His wife received $467,500 from the PAC of a Clinton ally, then Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, in a failed 2015 bid for state office.)
The McCabe findings have shaken the FBI. The bureau has massive power, and as a result, it has strict rules. Lying to investigators is considered a dire breach in an organization built on trust. The referral to the U.S. Attorney’s office, which emerged a week after the report was released, could result in charges against McCabe of making a false sworn statement. He has challenged the findings, disputing even the most basic elements, like how many people were in the room. The IG said it did not find many of his objections credible, with some elements contradicted by notes taken contemporaneously by an agent. McCabe previously called his firing part of a “war on the FBI” and the Russia investigation. But viewed against the backdrop of other Horowitz reports, McCabe’s alleged rule-breaking looks like part of a much larger problem.
In September, Horowitz found that bureau investigators had allowed employees with dubious polygraph results to keep their top-secret clearances for months or even years, posing “potential risks to U.S. national security.” In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four polygraph tests and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for that. In late 2016, Horowitz found that the FBI was getting information it shouldn’t have had access to when it used controversial parts of the Patriot Act to obtain business records in terrorism and counterintelligence cases.
Just as troubling are recent FBI missteps not yet under the IG’s microscope. At 2:31 p.m. on Jan. 5, the FBI’s round-the-clock tip center in West Virginia received a chilling phone call. The caller gave her name and said she was close to the family of an 18-year-old in Parkland, Fla., named Nikolas Cruz. Over 13 minutes, she said Cruz had posted photos of rifles he owned and animals he mutilated and that he wanted “to kill people.” She listed his Instagram accounts and suggested the FBI check for itself, saying she was worried about the thought of his “getting into a school and just shooting the place up,” according to a transcript of the call.
The FBI specialist checked Cruz’s name against a database and found that another tipster had reported 3½ months earlier that a “Nikolas Cruz” posted a comment on his YouTube channel saying, “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” But neither tip was passed on to the FBI field agents in Miami or local officials in Parkland. After Cruz allegedly killed 17 people with an AR-15 rifle at his old school just six weeks later, the bureau admitted that it had dropped the ball and ordered a full review. “You look at this and say, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,'” says Anderson, the former FBI official.
The Parkland shooting was only the latest in a string of devastating misses. After Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 people at the nightclub Pulse in Orlando in June 2016, the FBI said it had investigated him twice before on terrorism suspicions, but shut the inquiries for lack of evidence. The year before, after Dylann Roof shot to death nine African-American parishioners at a South Carolina church, the FBI acknowledged that lapses in its gun background-check system allowed him to illegally buy the .45-caliber handgun he used in the massacre. And in 2011, the FBI received a tip from Russian intelligence that one of the Boston Marathon bombers had become radicalized and was planning an overseas trip to join radical Islamic groups. The FBI in Boston investigated him but found no “nexus” to terrorism.
FBI agents at the damaged rear wall of the Pulse nightclub, where Omar Mateen killed 49 people in June 2016
FBI agents at the damaged rear wall of the Pulse nightclub, where Omar Mateen killed 49 people in June 2016 Joe Raedle—Getty Images
The Orlando shooting provoked more second-guessing in late March, when the shooter’s widow, Noor Salman, was acquitted on charges of aiding and abetting him and obstructing justice. The jury foreman pointed to inconsistencies in the FBI’s accounts of the disputed admissions that agents said Salman had made, according to the Orlando Sentinel. The judge also scolded the government after an FBI agent contradicted the government’s earlier claims that Salman and Mateen had cased the club.
The concerns about FBI testimony in a major terrorist prosecution underscore a larger question: Are people less likely to believe what the bureau says these days? In January, a federal judge threw out all the criminal charges against renegade Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a supporter who had been in an armed standoff over unpaid grazing fees. Judge Gloria Navarro accused the government of “outrageous” and “flagrant” misconduct, citing failures by both prosecutors and the FBI to produce at least 1,000 pages of required documents. The judge said the FBI misplaced–or “perhaps hid”–a thumb drive revealing the existence of snipers and a surveillance camera at the site of the standoff.
A related case in Oregon, growing out of the 2016 takeover of a wildlife refuge by Bundy’s sons and their followers, has not gone well for the FBI either. An agent at the scene, W. Joseph Astarita, is now charged with five criminal counts after prosecutors say he falsely denied shooting twice at an occupation leader who was fatally shot by police, who said he appeared to be reaching for his handgun during a roadside encounter. The Bundy sons and five supporters who helped in the takeover were found not guilty of conspiracy and weapons charges, in another jarring setback for the government.
Some legal experts and defense advocates see the string of recent not guilty verdicts as a sign that jurors and judges are less inclined to take what the FBI says in court at face value. Data examined by TIME support that conclusion. The number of convictions in FBI-led investigations dropped last year for the fifth consecutive year–from 11,461 in 2012 to 10,232, according to Syracuse University data, which was obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests.
Moreover, TIME’s analysis shows a surprisingly low rate of success for the thousands of cases the FBI investigates and sends to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. Over that same time period, the Justice Department has ultimately won convictions in fewer than half the cases the FBI referred for prosecution, with a conviction rate of 47% last year, the data showed. That fell well below the average of 72% for all agencies. Prosecutors themselves have rejected many of the FBI’s referrals before they ever got to court. The bureau’s low success rate in these cases has remained largely unchanged in recent years.
Federal prosecutors still win the bulk of the thousands of cases they choose to bring based on FBI investigations. Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior says a variety of factors could play into the drop in prosecutions and convictions over the last five years, including “de-emphasizing” some crimes under Obama-era policies and cutbacks in prosecutors in recent years. Prior says that “judging the performance of the FBI based on a minuscule sample of cherry-picked cases” ignores its thousands of annual convictions.
Gina Nichols, a nurse in Minnesota, says she never had strong impressions one way or the other about the FBI until her daughter Maggie Nichols, who was a member of the national gymnastics team, reported three years ago that team physician Larry Nassar had molested her. Gina waited anxiously for the FBI to contact her and interview Maggie. But no one did so for nearly a year as the case languished among different FBI field offices in Indianapolis, Detroit and Los Angeles. Nassar is believed to have molested dozens of additional victims over the course of that year. “It makes you sick,” Gina tells TIME. “I have a child who was sexually abused for 2½ years by an Olympic doctor, and the FBI did nothing.”
The FBI has opened an internal inquiry to determine why the Nassar investigations appear to have dragged on for so long. John Manly, a Southern California lawyer representing many of the women, says he is angry that no one from the FBI has contacted the victims to explain the delay. “Knowing that the best law-enforcement agency in the world knew exactly what he was up to and did nothing–I can’t explain that to them,” Manly says. “You’ve got people who were really hurt here, so fix it,” he says.
Perhaps the easiest problems to address are the internal lapses. Experts say putting assets and management attention back to work on cyber, counterintelligence and traditional crime after Mueller shifted them to counterterrorism would help. “There’s an overextension of the mission,” says Brian Levin, a professor of criminal justice at California State University, San Bernardino, who has worked with the FBI. Most of Horowitz’s reports include measures the FBI can take to address their problems, including stricter rules for investigating polygraph test failures and training to protect whistle-blowers.
A failure of imagination is harder to fix. Mueller’s Russia probe has found that Moscow’s operation against the 2016 election first got under way in 2014, but the FBI failed to grasp the scope and danger of what was unfolding. The bureau missed the significance of the damaging 2015 hack of the DNC database. And when the Russian operation began to heat up in the summer of 2016, the FBI was always a step behind the Russians, struggling to understand intelligence reports they were getting about possible connections between Moscow and Trump aides. The bureau also sat on the disputed “dossier” prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.
A report released on April 27 by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee found that the FBI was slow to confront the election meddling, especially in its failure to notify U.S. victims of Russian hacking quickly enough. The committee also charged that the bureau’s decision to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was influenced by politics. At the same time, the GOP has pointed to text messages between FBI special agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, which were critical of Trump–as well as many Democrats–to argue the bureau is fundamentally biased.
FBI Director Wray says the bureau has started “specific activities” to prevent election meddling by Moscow, but outsiders worry that the U.S. remains vulnerable this fall and beyond.
The most important thing the FBI can do to fix itself? Follow its own rules. In his handling of the Clinton email probe ahead of the 2016 election, Comey acted without telling the Justice Department what he planned to do. Comey is expected to come under fire in the upcoming IG report for breaking with Justice Department rules and norms by assuming authority usually held by prosecutors and speaking in public about a case that did not produce criminal charges, sources with knowledge of the report tell TIME. He will likely also be criticized for weighing in so close to the election in a way that could impact the outcome, sources familiar with the investigation say.
On his book tour, Comey has defended his decisions as the best way out of a bad situation. Facing what he called “a series of no-win decisions,” Comey says he did what he thought was necessary and transparent to protect the integrity of both the FBI and the legal process in such a high-profile case.
As he faces the crises at the FBI, Wray has told his senior aides to “keep calm and tackle hard.” Asked if recent misconduct cases concern Wray, FBI spokeswoman Jacqueline Maguire said the bureau’s 36,000 employees “are held to the highest standards of conduct–but as in any large organization, there may be occasions when an employee exercises poor judgment or engages in misconduct.” While she declined to discuss specific cases, Maguire said claims of misconduct are “taken seriously [and] investigated thoroughly,” leading to discipline when needed.
At FBI headquarters, agents and supervisors say they are keeping their heads down and focusing on their investigations. But the building is literally crumbling around them–Comey kept in his office a slab of concrete that had fallen off the side. Designs for a new complex were scrapped in February. Visible across Pennsylvania Avenue from the main entrance, with J. Edgar Hoover’s tarnished name above it, is the gleaming, gold-plated sign on the newly renovated Trump International Hotel.
Trump’s attacks on the FBI have been filled with inaccuracies and innuendo, wrongly claiming on Twitter, for instance, that McCabe was in charge of the Clinton email investigation. Trump makes a point of praising rank-and-file agents, but his punches have landed inside the FBI and out. Some worry the damage may take years to repair. “I fear Trump’s relentless attacks on the institution are having an effect on the public’s confidence in the FBI,” says Matthew S. Axelrod, a senior Justice Department official in the Obama Administration.
Mueller may play an outsize role in how his old agency gets through the current crisis. If the special counsel finds that Russia did collude with members of the Trump campaign–the central question in his investigation–and any perpetrators are charged and found guilty in court, it would rebut Trump’s charges of a “witch hunt.” If Mueller finds no evidence of collusion, or declines to make it public, it would open the door for Trump and his campaign to paint the FBI as a band of partisan hacks with a reputation, as he has tweeted, “in tatters.”
There may be no immediate way to fix a place with as many missions and masters as the FBI. One official, asked what it would take for the FBI to move past all the controversy, paused and said simply, “Time.” Many hope that the extraordinary confluence of events that drew the FBI into the 2016 election will prove to be, as Comey called it, “a 500-year flood” that won’t repeat itself anytime soon.
Others are doubtful. Jeffrey Danik, a retired FBI agent in Florida who now works with whistle-blowers at the bureau, blames the state of affairs on “a severe lack of leadership” and transparency at headquarters in owning up to recent mistakes. Those damaging failures, he says, “have just about pushed our incredible organization over the brink.” For now, everyone inside and out who cares about the reliability of law enforcement in America is left hoping that the bureau has at least started on the road back.
This appears in the May 14, 2018 issue of TIME.
The FBI Is in Crisis. It's Worse Than You Think
By ERIC LICHTBLAU May 3, 2018
In normal times, the televisions are humming at the FBI’s 56 field offices nationwide, piping in the latest news as agents work their investigations. But these days, some agents say, the TVs are often off to avoid the crush of bad stories about the FBI itself. The bureau, which is used to making headlines for nabbing crooks, has been grabbing the spotlight for unwanted reasons: fired leaders, texts between lovers and, most of all, attacks by President Trump. “I don’t care what channel it’s on,” says Tom O’Connor, a veteran investigator in Washington who leads the FBI Agents Association. “All you hear is negative stuff about the FBI … It gets depressing.”
Many view Trump’s attacks as self-serving: he has called the renowned agency an “embarrassment to our country” and its investigations of his business and political dealings a “witch hunt.” But as much as the bureau’s roughly 14,000 special agents might like to tune out the news, internal and external reports have found lapses throughout the agency, and longtime observers, looking past the partisan haze, see a troubling picture: something really is wrong at the FBI.
The Justice Department’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, will soon release a much-anticipated assessment of Democratic and Republican charges that officials at the FBI interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign. That year-long probe, sources familiar with it tell TIME, is expected to come down particularly hard on former FBI director James Comey, who is currently on a high-profile book tour. It will likely find that Comey breached Justice Department protocols in a July 5, 2016, press conference when he criticized Hillary Clinton for using a private email server as Secretary of State even as he cleared her of any crimes, the sources say. The report is expected to also hit Comey for the way he reopened the Clinton email probe less than two weeks before the election, the sources say.
The report closely follows an earlier one in April by Horowitz, which showed that the ousted deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, had lied to the bureau’s internal investigations branch to cover up a leak he orchestrated about Clinton’s family foundation less than two weeks before the election. (The case has since been referred to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., for potential prosecution.) Another IG report in March found that FBI retaliation against internal whistle-blowers was continuing despite years of bureau pledges to fix the problem. Last fall, Horowitz found that the FBI wasn’t adequately investigating “high-risk” employees who failed polygraph tests.
There have been other painful, more public failures as well: missed opportunities to prevent mass shootings that go beyond the much-publicized overlooked warnings in the Parkland, Fla., school killings; an anguishing delay in the sexual-molestation probe into Olympic gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar; and evidence of misconduct by agents in the aftermath of standoffs with armed militias in Nevada and Oregon. FBI agents are facing criminal charges ranging from obstruction to leaking classified material. And then there’s potentially the widest-reaching failure of all: the FBI’s miss of the Russian influence operation against the 2016 election, which went largely undetected for more than two years.
In the course of two dozen interviews for this story, agents and others expressed concern that the tumult is threatening the cooperation of informants, local and state police officials, and allies overseas. Even those who lived through past crises say the current one is more damaging. “We’ve seen ups and downs, but I’ve never seen anything like this,” says Robert Anderson, a senior official at the FBI who retired in 2015.
The FBI’s crisis of credibility appears to have seeped into the jury room. The number of convictions in FBI-led investigations has declined in each of the last five years, dropping nearly 11% over that period, according to a TIME analysis of data obtained from the Justice Department by researchers at Syracuse University. “We’ve already seen where the bad guys and witnesses look at those FBI credentials, and it might not carry the same weight anymore,” says O’Connor.
Indeed, public support for the FBI has plunged. A PBS NewsHour survey in April showed a 10-point drop–from 71% to 61%–in the prior two months among Americans who thought the FBI was “just trying to do its job” and an 8-point jump–from 23% to 31%–among those who thought it was “biased against the Trump Administration.”
The FBI, of course, continues to do good work. On April 25, local authorities in Sacramento and the FBI announced the dramatic arrest of the Golden State Killer. That same day it helped bust 39 people in Pennsylvania in a cocaine-trafficking investigation, 14 prison employees in South Carolina in a bribery case and two men in New Jersey in a $5.3 million tax-evasion probe. Assistant FBI Director William F. Sweeney Jr., who runs the New York field office and oversaw the April 9 raid against Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, says his agents’ response to the turmoil has been to “double down and [say], ‘Hey, we’re gonna keep on moving.'”
Some question whether the FBI has gotten too big and has been asked to do too many things. After 9/11, then FBI director Robert Mueller, who is now the special counsel leading the Russia probe, made massive new investments in counterterrorism and intelligence, shifting resources and investigative focus from white collar crime and bank robberies.
Many of the bureau’s woes developed on Comey’s 3½-year watch. They extend beyond the most visible controversies, like the Clinton email and Russia investigations, to his costly confrontation with Apple over unlocking an iPhone used by one of the terrorists in the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting in 2015, and beyond. Critics say Comey’s penchant for high-profile moral fights has, ironically, undermined the bureau’s reputation. Trump himself has used that line of argument to challenge the FBI.
Democrats have questioned the integrity of the bureau as well, with Clinton and her aides claiming Comey and the FBI helped tip the election to Trump. But the biggest difference between past crises and the current one, according to virtually everyone interviewed for this article, is the President. Trump has continually attacked the integrity of the institution and its leaders, alleging not just incompetence but bad faith in the commission of justice. Ronald Hosko, who retired in 2014 after 30 years at the bureau, compares the moment to a wildfire, saying Trump “is either the spark that creates the flames, or he’s standing there with a can of gas to stoke the flames.”
The bureau’s current director, Christopher Wray, recently said his first priority is to “try to bring a sense of calm and stability back to the bureau.” But the FBI is facing one of the greatest tests of its 110 years. In the coming months, it must fix a litany of internal problems, fend off outside attacks on its trustworthiness and pursue investigations touching on a sitting President, at the same time a growing number of Americans are asking themselves: Can we trust the FBI?
Last May, McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, sat down at the table in his seventh-floor office for a meeting with two agents from the inspections division. The agents had some questions about the Clinton Foundation leak just before the election. It was a quick meeting. McCabe, an FBI veteran who rose through the ranks over a 21-year career, told them he had “no idea” where the leak came from. The agents left after just five minutes or so, according to the Inspector General’s April 13 report.
McCabe had offered that same basic assurance months earlier to his boss, then director Comey, investigators said, and had angrily lit into FBI officials under him, suggesting the Clinton leak had come from their offices and telling one senior agent in Washington to “get his house in order.” But as it turned out, McCabe knew exactly where the leak had come from. He personally authorized it, Horowitz’s investigators found, to counter charges that he favored Clinton. (His wife received $467,500 from the PAC of a Clinton ally, then Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, in a failed 2015 bid for state office.)
The McCabe findings have shaken the FBI. The bureau has massive power, and as a result, it has strict rules. Lying to investigators is considered a dire breach in an organization built on trust. The referral to the U.S. Attorney’s office, which emerged a week after the report was released, could result in charges against McCabe of making a false sworn statement. He has challenged the findings, disputing even the most basic elements, like how many people were in the room. The IG said it did not find many of his objections credible, with some elements contradicted by notes taken contemporaneously by an agent. McCabe previously called his firing part of a “war on the FBI” and the Russia investigation. But viewed against the backdrop of other Horowitz reports, McCabe’s alleged rule-breaking looks like part of a much larger problem.
In September, Horowitz found that bureau investigators had allowed employees with dubious polygraph results to keep their top-secret clearances for months or even years, posing “potential risks to U.S. national security.” In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four polygraph tests and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for that. In late 2016, Horowitz found that the FBI was getting information it shouldn’t have had access to when it used controversial parts of the Patriot Act to obtain business records in terrorism and counterintelligence cases.
Just as troubling are recent FBI missteps not yet under the IG’s microscope. At 2:31 p.m. on Jan. 5, the FBI’s round-the-clock tip center in West Virginia received a chilling phone call. The caller gave her name and said she was close to the family of an 18-year-old in Parkland, Fla., named Nikolas Cruz. Over 13 minutes, she said Cruz had posted photos of rifles he owned and animals he mutilated and that he wanted “to kill people.” She listed his Instagram accounts and suggested the FBI check for itself, saying she was worried about the thought of his “getting into a school and just shooting the place up,” according to a transcript of the call.
The FBI specialist checked Cruz’s name against a database and found that another tipster had reported 3½ months earlier that a “Nikolas Cruz” posted a comment on his YouTube channel saying, “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” But neither tip was passed on to the FBI field agents in Miami or local officials in Parkland. After Cruz allegedly killed 17 people with an AR-15 rifle at his old school just six weeks later, the bureau admitted that it had dropped the ball and ordered a full review. “You look at this and say, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,'” says Anderson, the former FBI official.
The Parkland shooting was only the latest in a string of devastating misses. After Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 people at the nightclub Pulse in Orlando in June 2016, the FBI said it had investigated him twice before on terrorism suspicions, but shut the inquiries for lack of evidence. The year before, after Dylann Roof shot to death nine African-American parishioners at a South Carolina church, the FBI acknowledged that lapses in its gun background-check system allowed him to illegally buy the .45-caliber handgun he used in the massacre. And in 2011, the FBI received a tip from Russian intelligence that one of the Boston Marathon bombers had become radicalized and was planning an overseas trip to join radical Islamic groups. The FBI in Boston investigated him but found no “nexus” to terrorism.
FBI agents at the damaged rear wall of the Pulse nightclub, where Omar Mateen killed 49 people in June 2016
FBI agents at the damaged rear wall of the Pulse nightclub, where Omar Mateen killed 49 people in June 2016 Joe Raedle—Getty Images
The Orlando shooting provoked more second-guessing in late March, when the shooter’s widow, Noor Salman, was acquitted on charges of aiding and abetting him and obstructing justice. The jury foreman pointed to inconsistencies in the FBI’s accounts of the disputed admissions that agents said Salman had made, according to the Orlando Sentinel. The judge also scolded the government after an FBI agent contradicted the government’s earlier claims that Salman and Mateen had cased the club.
The concerns about FBI testimony in a major terrorist prosecution underscore a larger question: Are people less likely to believe what the bureau says these days? In January, a federal judge threw out all the criminal charges against renegade Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a supporter who had been in an armed standoff over unpaid grazing fees. Judge Gloria Navarro accused the government of “outrageous” and “flagrant” misconduct, citing failures by both prosecutors and the FBI to produce at least 1,000 pages of required documents. The judge said the FBI misplaced–or “perhaps hid”–a thumb drive revealing the existence of snipers and a surveillance camera at the site of the standoff.
A related case in Oregon, growing out of the 2016 takeover of a wildlife refuge by Bundy’s sons and their followers, has not gone well for the FBI either. An agent at the scene, W. Joseph Astarita, is now charged with five criminal counts after prosecutors say he falsely denied shooting twice at an occupation leader who was fatally shot by police, who said he appeared to be reaching for his handgun during a roadside encounter. The Bundy sons and five supporters who helped in the takeover were found not guilty of conspiracy and weapons charges, in another jarring setback for the government.
Some legal experts and defense advocates see the string of recent not guilty verdicts as a sign that jurors and judges are less inclined to take what the FBI says in court at face value. Data examined by TIME support that conclusion. The number of convictions in FBI-led investigations dropped last year for the fifth consecutive year–from 11,461 in 2012 to 10,232, according to Syracuse University data, which was obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests.
Moreover, TIME’s analysis shows a surprisingly low rate of success for the thousands of cases the FBI investigates and sends to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. Over that same time period, the Justice Department has ultimately won convictions in fewer than half the cases the FBI referred for prosecution, with a conviction rate of 47% last year, the data showed. That fell well below the average of 72% for all agencies. Prosecutors themselves have rejected many of the FBI’s referrals before they ever got to court. The bureau’s low success rate in these cases has remained largely unchanged in recent years.
Federal prosecutors still win the bulk of the thousands of cases they choose to bring based on FBI investigations. Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior says a variety of factors could play into the drop in prosecutions and convictions over the last five years, including “de-emphasizing” some crimes under Obama-era policies and cutbacks in prosecutors in recent years. Prior says that “judging the performance of the FBI based on a minuscule sample of cherry-picked cases” ignores its thousands of annual convictions.
Gina Nichols, a nurse in Minnesota, says she never had strong impressions one way or the other about the FBI until her daughter Maggie Nichols, who was a member of the national gymnastics team, reported three years ago that team physician Larry Nassar had molested her. Gina waited anxiously for the FBI to contact her and interview Maggie. But no one did so for nearly a year as the case languished among different FBI field offices in Indianapolis, Detroit and Los Angeles. Nassar is believed to have molested dozens of additional victims over the course of that year. “It makes you sick,” Gina tells TIME. “I have a child who was sexually abused for 2½ years by an Olympic doctor, and the FBI did nothing.”
The FBI has opened an internal inquiry to determine why the Nassar investigations appear to have dragged on for so long. John Manly, a Southern California lawyer representing many of the women, says he is angry that no one from the FBI has contacted the victims to explain the delay. “Knowing that the best law-enforcement agency in the world knew exactly what he was up to and did nothing–I can’t explain that to them,” Manly says. “You’ve got people who were really hurt here, so fix it,” he says.
Perhaps the easiest problems to address are the internal lapses. Experts say putting assets and management attention back to work on cyber, counterintelligence and traditional crime after Mueller shifted them to counterterrorism would help. “There’s an overextension of the mission,” says Brian Levin, a professor of criminal justice at California State University, San Bernardino, who has worked with the FBI. Most of Horowitz’s reports include measures the FBI can take to address their problems, including stricter rules for investigating polygraph test failures and training to protect whistle-blowers.
A failure of imagination is harder to fix. Mueller’s Russia probe has found that Moscow’s operation against the 2016 election first got under way in 2014, but the FBI failed to grasp the scope and danger of what was unfolding. The bureau missed the significance of the damaging 2015 hack of the DNC database. And when the Russian operation began to heat up in the summer of 2016, the FBI was always a step behind the Russians, struggling to understand intelligence reports they were getting about possible connections between Moscow and Trump aides. The bureau also sat on the disputed “dossier” prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.
A report released on April 27 by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee found that the FBI was slow to confront the election meddling, especially in its failure to notify U.S. victims of Russian hacking quickly enough. The committee also charged that the bureau’s decision to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was influenced by politics. At the same time, the GOP has pointed to text messages between FBI special agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, which were critical of Trump–as well as many Democrats–to argue the bureau is fundamentally biased.
FBI Director Wray says the bureau has started “specific activities” to prevent election meddling by Moscow, but outsiders worry that the U.S. remains vulnerable this fall and beyond.
The most important thing the FBI can do to fix itself? Follow its own rules. In his handling of the Clinton email probe ahead of the 2016 election, Comey acted without telling the Justice Department what he planned to do. Comey is expected to come under fire in the upcoming IG report for breaking with Justice Department rules and norms by assuming authority usually held by prosecutors and speaking in public about a case that did not produce criminal charges, sources with knowledge of the report tell TIME. He will likely also be criticized for weighing in so close to the election in a way that could impact the outcome, sources familiar with the investigation say.
On his book tour, Comey has defended his decisions as the best way out of a bad situation. Facing what he called “a series of no-win decisions,” Comey says he did what he thought was necessary and transparent to protect the integrity of both the FBI and the legal process in such a high-profile case.
As he faces the crises at the FBI, Wray has told his senior aides to “keep calm and tackle hard.” Asked if recent misconduct cases concern Wray, FBI spokeswoman Jacqueline Maguire said the bureau’s 36,000 employees “are held to the highest standards of conduct–but as in any large organization, there may be occasions when an employee exercises poor judgment or engages in misconduct.” While she declined to discuss specific cases, Maguire said claims of misconduct are “taken seriously [and] investigated thoroughly,” leading to discipline when needed.
At FBI headquarters, agents and supervisors say they are keeping their heads down and focusing on their investigations. But the building is literally crumbling around them–Comey kept in his office a slab of concrete that had fallen off the side. Designs for a new complex were scrapped in February. Visible across Pennsylvania Avenue from the main entrance, with J. Edgar Hoover’s tarnished name above it, is the gleaming, gold-plated sign on the newly renovated Trump International Hotel.
Trump’s attacks on the FBI have been filled with inaccuracies and innuendo, wrongly claiming on Twitter, for instance, that McCabe was in charge of the Clinton email investigation. Trump makes a point of praising rank-and-file agents, but his punches have landed inside the FBI and out. Some worry the damage may take years to repair. “I fear Trump’s relentless attacks on the institution are having an effect on the public’s confidence in the FBI,” says Matthew S. Axelrod, a senior Justice Department official in the Obama Administration.
Mueller may play an outsize role in how his old agency gets through the current crisis. If the special counsel finds that Russia did collude with members of the Trump campaign–the central question in his investigation–and any perpetrators are charged and found guilty in court, it would rebut Trump’s charges of a “witch hunt.” If Mueller finds no evidence of collusion, or declines to make it public, it would open the door for Trump and his campaign to paint the FBI as a band of partisan hacks with a reputation, as he has tweeted, “in tatters.”
There may be no immediate way to fix a place with as many missions and masters as the FBI. One official, asked what it would take for the FBI to move past all the controversy, paused and said simply, “Time.” Many hope that the extraordinary confluence of events that drew the FBI into the 2016 election will prove to be, as Comey called it, “a 500-year flood” that won’t repeat itself anytime soon.
Others are doubtful. Jeffrey Danik, a retired FBI agent in Florida who now works with whistle-blowers at the bureau, blames the state of affairs on “a severe lack of leadership” and transparency at headquarters in owning up to recent mistakes. Those damaging failures, he says, “have just about pushed our incredible organization over the brink.” For now, everyone inside and out who cares about the reliability of law enforcement in America is left hoping that the bureau has at least started on the road back.
This appears in the May 14, 2018 issue of TIME.
UN chief says Trump scrapping Iran nuclear deal risks war: 'I see a very dangerous position' - Independent
May 3, 2018
UN chief says Trump scrapping Iran nuclear deal risks war: 'I see a very dangerous position'
Secretary-general fears escalation as US considers withdrawing from 2015 agreement on atomic programme
Tom Barnes
We tried Dominique Ansel's afternoon tea
New Zealand promises to shelter all homeless people before winter
Donald Trump is wrong about knife crime in London
Volcanoes observed erupting from space by Russian satellites Kamchatka
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said Donald Trump risks war by scrapping the Iran nuclear deal, warning the region is in a “very dangerous position”.
Mr Guterres stressed the importance he held in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed in 2015 to curtail the Iranian atomic weapons programme.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the former Portuguese prime minister warned the current agreement should not be torn up without a “good alternative”.
Donald Trump’s Iran deal decision pushes US ‘down the road to war’
Asked whether the Iran situation “would be the next war”, Mr Guterres said: “I think the risks are there, I think we need to do everything to avoid those risks.
“I believe the JCPOA was an important diplomatic victory and I think it would be important to preserve it.
“But I also believe that there are areas in which it will be very important to have a meaningful dialogue because I see the region in a very dangerous position.
“I understand the concerns of some countries in relation to the Iranian influence in other countries in the region, so I think we should separate things.”
sec-gen.jpg
‘I think the risks are there,’ said UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres (Getty)
Mr Trump is reportedly considering withdrawing the US from the agreement, in which Iran pledged to curb its nuclear programme in return for a relaxation of sanctions.
A decision by the US president to scrap the deal could trigger a backlash from Tehran, either in the form of a resumption of its atomic weapons projects or the “punishment” of American allies in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon, diplomats have warned.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed what he claimed was documentary evidence that Iran had not disclosed part of its nuclear arms programme as required under the JCPOA.
UN inspectors say Iran has complied with the deal, while Tehran itself has denied the claims, accusing Israel of attempting to stir up tensions.
Mr Guterres said the Iran deal was an “important achievement”, which needed to be preserved, a sentiment echoed by European allies the UK, France and Germany.
“I think that this agreement is an important achievement; if one day there is a better agreement to replace it, that’s fine,” he added.
“But we should not scrap it unless we have a good alternative.”
Additional reporting by Reuters
UN chief says Trump scrapping Iran nuclear deal risks war: 'I see a very dangerous position'
Secretary-general fears escalation as US considers withdrawing from 2015 agreement on atomic programme
Tom Barnes
We tried Dominique Ansel's afternoon tea
New Zealand promises to shelter all homeless people before winter
Donald Trump is wrong about knife crime in London
Volcanoes observed erupting from space by Russian satellites Kamchatka
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said Donald Trump risks war by scrapping the Iran nuclear deal, warning the region is in a “very dangerous position”.
Mr Guterres stressed the importance he held in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed in 2015 to curtail the Iranian atomic weapons programme.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the former Portuguese prime minister warned the current agreement should not be torn up without a “good alternative”.
Donald Trump’s Iran deal decision pushes US ‘down the road to war’
Asked whether the Iran situation “would be the next war”, Mr Guterres said: “I think the risks are there, I think we need to do everything to avoid those risks.
“I believe the JCPOA was an important diplomatic victory and I think it would be important to preserve it.
“But I also believe that there are areas in which it will be very important to have a meaningful dialogue because I see the region in a very dangerous position.
“I understand the concerns of some countries in relation to the Iranian influence in other countries in the region, so I think we should separate things.”
sec-gen.jpg
‘I think the risks are there,’ said UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres (Getty)
Mr Trump is reportedly considering withdrawing the US from the agreement, in which Iran pledged to curb its nuclear programme in return for a relaxation of sanctions.
A decision by the US president to scrap the deal could trigger a backlash from Tehran, either in the form of a resumption of its atomic weapons projects or the “punishment” of American allies in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon, diplomats have warned.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed what he claimed was documentary evidence that Iran had not disclosed part of its nuclear arms programme as required under the JCPOA.
UN inspectors say Iran has complied with the deal, while Tehran itself has denied the claims, accusing Israel of attempting to stir up tensions.
Mr Guterres said the Iran deal was an “important achievement”, which needed to be preserved, a sentiment echoed by European allies the UK, France and Germany.
“I think that this agreement is an important achievement; if one day there is a better agreement to replace it, that’s fine,” he added.
“But we should not scrap it unless we have a good alternative.”
Additional reporting by Reuters
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Just Posted Its First Loss in 9 Years. Here's Why - Fortune
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Just Posted Its First Loss in 9 Years. Here's Why
By BLOOMBERG May 5, 2018
Warren Buffett has warned about the “ nightmare” tied to new accounting-rule changes. Now it’s beginning.
The rules, which require Berkshire to report unrealized gains or losses in equity investments in net income, helped fuel a $1.14 billion loss at Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in the first quarter, the Omaha, Nebraska-based company said Saturday in a statement. That marked the company’s first net loss since 2009.
The “requirement will produce some truly wild and capricious swings in our GAAP bottom line,” Buffett said in his annual letter to shareholders released in February. The accounting change “will severely distort Berkshire’s net income figures and very often mislead commentators and investors.”
Buffett has said operating results are a better barometer of company performance, in part because Berkshire’s more than $170 billion stock portfolio can fluctuate from quarter to quarter. Operating profit, which doesn’t include those changes, jumped 49 percent to $5.29 billion during the first quarter as insurance underwriting swung to a profit after a difficult 2017.
A 16 percent jump in revenue at auto insurer Geico helped the company turn an underwriting profit, according to a regulatory filing. Geico was helped by rate increases that pushed premiums higher. The railroad business also posted a gain in profit due to increased revenues per car as fuel prices rose.
Berkshire’s cash pile fell to $109 billion at the end of March from the record $116 billion at year-end, the first decline in two years. Buffett has said that deploying that cash into new, large acquisitions is key to increasing earnings over time. The first quarter’s drop was driven in part by spending more than $12 billion on more Apple Inc. shares.
The company reported the value of Apple its stake at $40.7 billion as of March 31, a jump from $28.2 billion at the end of 2017. Buffett said in a CNBC interview that aired Friday that his company bought an additional 75 million shares of the technology company in the first quarter.
Berkshire said the fair value of its investment in Kraft Heinz Co. dropped by more than $5 billion to $20.3 billion in the quarter, as shares slipped almost 20 percent.
Berkshire shareholders are gathering in Omaha for the company’s annual meeting Saturday, where Buffett and his business partner Charles Munger discuss everything from the economy to investing tips and even the pair’s wagers on certain companies.
During the weekend, Buffett also showcases the businesses that Berkshire owns, including Geico and BNSF Railway Co. Berkshire’s railroad, utilities and energy businesses reported a 31 percent increase in profit during the first quarter.
Here’s some other takeaways from Berkshire’s earnings release:
Book value, a measure of assets minus liabilities, declined to $211,184 a share from $211,750 per Class A share at the end of 2017. Underwriting at the insurance businesses generated a gain of $407 million in the first quarter, compared to a loss of $267 million during the same period a year earlier. Investment income at those operations rose 11 percent to $1.01 billion.
By BLOOMBERG May 5, 2018
Warren Buffett has warned about the “ nightmare” tied to new accounting-rule changes. Now it’s beginning.
The rules, which require Berkshire to report unrealized gains or losses in equity investments in net income, helped fuel a $1.14 billion loss at Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in the first quarter, the Omaha, Nebraska-based company said Saturday in a statement. That marked the company’s first net loss since 2009.
The “requirement will produce some truly wild and capricious swings in our GAAP bottom line,” Buffett said in his annual letter to shareholders released in February. The accounting change “will severely distort Berkshire’s net income figures and very often mislead commentators and investors.”
Buffett has said operating results are a better barometer of company performance, in part because Berkshire’s more than $170 billion stock portfolio can fluctuate from quarter to quarter. Operating profit, which doesn’t include those changes, jumped 49 percent to $5.29 billion during the first quarter as insurance underwriting swung to a profit after a difficult 2017.
A 16 percent jump in revenue at auto insurer Geico helped the company turn an underwriting profit, according to a regulatory filing. Geico was helped by rate increases that pushed premiums higher. The railroad business also posted a gain in profit due to increased revenues per car as fuel prices rose.
Berkshire’s cash pile fell to $109 billion at the end of March from the record $116 billion at year-end, the first decline in two years. Buffett has said that deploying that cash into new, large acquisitions is key to increasing earnings over time. The first quarter’s drop was driven in part by spending more than $12 billion on more Apple Inc. shares.
The company reported the value of Apple its stake at $40.7 billion as of March 31, a jump from $28.2 billion at the end of 2017. Buffett said in a CNBC interview that aired Friday that his company bought an additional 75 million shares of the technology company in the first quarter.
Berkshire said the fair value of its investment in Kraft Heinz Co. dropped by more than $5 billion to $20.3 billion in the quarter, as shares slipped almost 20 percent.
Berkshire shareholders are gathering in Omaha for the company’s annual meeting Saturday, where Buffett and his business partner Charles Munger discuss everything from the economy to investing tips and even the pair’s wagers on certain companies.
During the weekend, Buffett also showcases the businesses that Berkshire owns, including Geico and BNSF Railway Co. Berkshire’s railroad, utilities and energy businesses reported a 31 percent increase in profit during the first quarter.
Here’s some other takeaways from Berkshire’s earnings release:
Book value, a measure of assets minus liabilities, declined to $211,184 a share from $211,750 per Class A share at the end of 2017. Underwriting at the insurance businesses generated a gain of $407 million in the first quarter, compared to a loss of $267 million during the same period a year earlier. Investment income at those operations rose 11 percent to $1.01 billion.
Here's why South Korean experts are looking at Kim Jong-un's shoes - Independent
May 6, 2018
Here's why South Korean experts are looking at Kim Jong-un's shoes
Posted by Narjas Zatat in discover
UPVOTE
The historic meeting between the North and South Korean leaders is the subject of intense scrutiny.
Kim Jong Un and his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-In met at the demilitarised zone (DMZ) dividing the two countries in what is being hailed as a landmark summit. It is the first time the leaders of the two warring countries met in over ten years.
Previous footage of Kim was heavily controlled by the state, so when he came to meet with Moon, people all over the world devoured the new photos and videos of the secretive leader.
For one conservative newspaper in South Korea, curiosity for all things North prompted it to go a step further, and hired experts to study Kim's shoes.
The Chosun Ilbo (a newspaper known for its critical coverage of both Kim and the liberal South Korean president), hired no less than seven experts who spent hours looking at all the footage of the two leaders, according to the Washington Post.
Kim is reportedly five foot seven, but his height has been a topic of interest. Kim’s father was five foot two and wore lifts in his shoes to make himself look taller, according to some sources.
What did the experts find?
They found that Kim appeared to be less than an inch shorter than Moon, who is recorded as being a little over 5-foot-6. But they noticed something strange with his shoes: a high slope on the front of the shoe seemed to suggest that Kim was wearing insoles that were pushing his feet upward. One expert suggested that this meant the height difference between the Korean leaders was actually nearly 2 inches and possibly more, making Kim only 5-foot-4
Here's why South Korean experts are looking at Kim Jong-un's shoes
Posted by Narjas Zatat in discover
UPVOTE
The historic meeting between the North and South Korean leaders is the subject of intense scrutiny.
Kim Jong Un and his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-In met at the demilitarised zone (DMZ) dividing the two countries in what is being hailed as a landmark summit. It is the first time the leaders of the two warring countries met in over ten years.
Previous footage of Kim was heavily controlled by the state, so when he came to meet with Moon, people all over the world devoured the new photos and videos of the secretive leader.
For one conservative newspaper in South Korea, curiosity for all things North prompted it to go a step further, and hired experts to study Kim's shoes.
The Chosun Ilbo (a newspaper known for its critical coverage of both Kim and the liberal South Korean president), hired no less than seven experts who spent hours looking at all the footage of the two leaders, according to the Washington Post.
Kim is reportedly five foot seven, but his height has been a topic of interest. Kim’s father was five foot two and wore lifts in his shoes to make himself look taller, according to some sources.
What did the experts find?
They found that Kim appeared to be less than an inch shorter than Moon, who is recorded as being a little over 5-foot-6. But they noticed something strange with his shoes: a high slope on the front of the shoe seemed to suggest that Kim was wearing insoles that were pushing his feet upward. One expert suggested that this meant the height difference between the Korean leaders was actually nearly 2 inches and possibly more, making Kim only 5-foot-4
Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC News
Iran nuclear deal: Key details
13 October 2017
The 2015 nuclear deal struck between Iran and six world powers - the US, UK, Russia, France, China, and Germany - was the signature foreign policy achievement of Barack Obama's presidency.
The initial framework lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to the country's controversial nuclear energy programme, which international powers feared Iran would use to create a nuclear weapon.
But Mr Obama's close association with the deal put it in the crosshairs of his successor, Donald Trump, who has announced that he will not recertify it.
President Trump claimed that the deal was too lenient and that Iran had broken parts of the agreement, including heavy-water limits and access to international inspectors.
He called for new sanctions on Iran, directed against its Revolutionary Guard police force, and referred the deal to Congress for changes to the US terms.
In response, the EU's foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said there had been "no violations" by Iran and insisted that the deal could not be renegotiated, even by the US.
Here are some of the key components of the original framework.
Uranium enrichment
Iran's uranium stockpile will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for 15 years
There are two uranium enrichment facilities in Iran - Natanz and Fordo - where uranium hexafluoride gas is fed into centrifuges to separate out the most fissile isotope U-235. Low-enriched uranium, which has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. But it can also be enriched to the 90% needed to produce nuclear weapons.
In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it will be limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz for 10 years.
Iran's uranium stockpile is set to be reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs) for 15 years. It must also keep its level of enrichment at 3.67%.
By January 2016, Iran had drastically reduced the number of centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo, and shipped tonnes of low-enriched uranium to Russia.
In addition, research and development will take place only at Natanz and be limited for eight years. No enrichment will be permitted at Fordo for 15 years, and the underground facility will be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology centre. The 1,044 centrifuges at the site will produce radioisotopes for use in medicine, agriculture, industry and science.
Plutonium pathway
Iran is redesigning the Arak reactor so it cannot produce any weapons-grade plutonium
Iran had been building a heavy-water nuclear facility near the town of Arak. Spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.
World powers had originally wanted Arak dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in November 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor.
Instead, it agreed to redesign the reactor so it cannot produce any weapons-grade plutonium. All spent fuel will be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor exists.
Most of the 20 tonnes of heavy water the Arak facility was expected to produce will be shipped to the US via a third country, according to Iranian officials. About 6 tonnes will be retained to make medical isotopes.
The JCPOA says Iran will not be permitted to build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water for 15 years.
Iran is required to allow IAEA inspectors to access any site they deem suspicious
At the time of the agreement, the White House expressed confidence that the JCPOA would prevent Iran from building a nuclear programme in secret. Iran, it said, had committed to "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection".
Inspectors from the IAEA, the global nuclear watchdog, continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites and also verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location to build a bomb.
Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which allows inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.
For the 15 years of the agreement, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request. If it refuses, an eight-member Joint Commission - including Iran - will rule on the issue. It can decide on punitive steps, including the reimposition of sanctions. A majority vote by the commission suffices.
'Break-out time'
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will remain in place for up to eight years
Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and nearly 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the White House. US experts estimated then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb, it would take two to three months until it had enough 90%-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called "break-out time".
The White House said the JCPOA would remove the key elements Iran would need to create a bomb and increase its break-out time to one year or more.
Iran also agreed not to engage in activities, including research and development, which could contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb.
In December 2015, the IAEA's board of governors voted to end its decade-long investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme.
The agency's director-general, Yukiya Amano, said the report concluded that until 2003 Iran had conducted "a co-ordinated effort" on "a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". Iran continued with some activities until 2009, but after that there were "no credible indications" of weapons development, he added.
Lifting sanctions
Iran estimated that the fall in oil exports was costing it between $4bn and $8bn each month
Sanctions previously imposed by the UN, US and EU in an attempt to force Iran to halt uranium enrichment crippled its economy, costing the country more than $160bn (£110bn) in oil revenue from 2012 to 2016 alone. According to the deal, Iran stood to gain access to more than $100bn in assets frozen overseas, and was able to resume selling oil on international markets and using the global financial system for trade.
Should Iran violate any aspect of the deal, the UN sanctions will automatically "snap back" into place for 10 years, with the possibility of a five-year extension.
If the Joint Commission cannot resolve a dispute, it will be referred to the UN Security Council.
Iran also agreed to the continuation of the UN arms embargo on the country for up to five years, although it could end earlier if the IAEA is satisfied that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will also remain in place for up to eight years.
13 October 2017
The 2015 nuclear deal struck between Iran and six world powers - the US, UK, Russia, France, China, and Germany - was the signature foreign policy achievement of Barack Obama's presidency.
The initial framework lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to the country's controversial nuclear energy programme, which international powers feared Iran would use to create a nuclear weapon.
But Mr Obama's close association with the deal put it in the crosshairs of his successor, Donald Trump, who has announced that he will not recertify it.
President Trump claimed that the deal was too lenient and that Iran had broken parts of the agreement, including heavy-water limits and access to international inspectors.
He called for new sanctions on Iran, directed against its Revolutionary Guard police force, and referred the deal to Congress for changes to the US terms.
In response, the EU's foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said there had been "no violations" by Iran and insisted that the deal could not be renegotiated, even by the US.
Here are some of the key components of the original framework.
Uranium enrichment
Iran's uranium stockpile will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for 15 years
There are two uranium enrichment facilities in Iran - Natanz and Fordo - where uranium hexafluoride gas is fed into centrifuges to separate out the most fissile isotope U-235. Low-enriched uranium, which has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. But it can also be enriched to the 90% needed to produce nuclear weapons.
In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it will be limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz for 10 years.
Iran's uranium stockpile is set to be reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs) for 15 years. It must also keep its level of enrichment at 3.67%.
By January 2016, Iran had drastically reduced the number of centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo, and shipped tonnes of low-enriched uranium to Russia.
In addition, research and development will take place only at Natanz and be limited for eight years. No enrichment will be permitted at Fordo for 15 years, and the underground facility will be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology centre. The 1,044 centrifuges at the site will produce radioisotopes for use in medicine, agriculture, industry and science.
Plutonium pathway
Iran is redesigning the Arak reactor so it cannot produce any weapons-grade plutonium
Iran had been building a heavy-water nuclear facility near the town of Arak. Spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.
World powers had originally wanted Arak dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in November 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor.
Instead, it agreed to redesign the reactor so it cannot produce any weapons-grade plutonium. All spent fuel will be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor exists.
Most of the 20 tonnes of heavy water the Arak facility was expected to produce will be shipped to the US via a third country, according to Iranian officials. About 6 tonnes will be retained to make medical isotopes.
The JCPOA says Iran will not be permitted to build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water for 15 years.
Iran is required to allow IAEA inspectors to access any site they deem suspicious
At the time of the agreement, the White House expressed confidence that the JCPOA would prevent Iran from building a nuclear programme in secret. Iran, it said, had committed to "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection".
Inspectors from the IAEA, the global nuclear watchdog, continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites and also verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location to build a bomb.
Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which allows inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.
For the 15 years of the agreement, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request. If it refuses, an eight-member Joint Commission - including Iran - will rule on the issue. It can decide on punitive steps, including the reimposition of sanctions. A majority vote by the commission suffices.
'Break-out time'
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will remain in place for up to eight years
Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and nearly 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the White House. US experts estimated then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb, it would take two to three months until it had enough 90%-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called "break-out time".
The White House said the JCPOA would remove the key elements Iran would need to create a bomb and increase its break-out time to one year or more.
Iran also agreed not to engage in activities, including research and development, which could contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb.
In December 2015, the IAEA's board of governors voted to end its decade-long investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme.
The agency's director-general, Yukiya Amano, said the report concluded that until 2003 Iran had conducted "a co-ordinated effort" on "a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". Iran continued with some activities until 2009, but after that there were "no credible indications" of weapons development, he added.
Lifting sanctions
Iran estimated that the fall in oil exports was costing it between $4bn and $8bn each month
Sanctions previously imposed by the UN, US and EU in an attempt to force Iran to halt uranium enrichment crippled its economy, costing the country more than $160bn (£110bn) in oil revenue from 2012 to 2016 alone. According to the deal, Iran stood to gain access to more than $100bn in assets frozen overseas, and was able to resume selling oil on international markets and using the global financial system for trade.
Should Iran violate any aspect of the deal, the UN sanctions will automatically "snap back" into place for 10 years, with the possibility of a five-year extension.
If the Joint Commission cannot resolve a dispute, it will be referred to the UN Security Council.
Iran also agreed to the continuation of the UN arms embargo on the country for up to five years, although it could end earlier if the IAEA is satisfied that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will also remain in place for up to eight years.
French outrage after US President Trump mimics Paris attackers - BBC News
French outrage after US President Trump mimics Paris attackers
5 May 2018
Trump mimics Paris attackers killing victims to underline support for gun ownership
US President Donald Trump has outraged French opinion by suggesting the 2015 attacks on Paris could have been stopped by giving people guns.
He mimicked gunmen summoning and shooting victims one by one, saying "Boom! Come over here!" and using his hand to imitate a gun being fired.
In reality, the attackers sprayed many of their 130 victims with semi-automatic fire and set off bomb belts.
The French foreign ministry called for the victims' memory to be respected.
"France expresses its firm disapproval of the comments by President Trump about the attacks of 13 November 2015 in Paris and asks for the memory of the victims to be respected," the foreign ministry said.
François Hollande, who was French president at the time of the attacks, said Mr Trump's remarks were "shameful". They "said a lot about what he thinks of France and its values", he added.
Manuel Valls, who was France's prime minister in 2015, tweeted: "Indecent and incompetent. What more can I say?"
Manuel Valls
✔
@manuelvalls
Indécent et incompétent.Que dire de plus?
Agence France-Presse
✔
@afpfr
Le président américain Donald Trump affirme que les attentats du 13-Novembre à Paris auraient fait moins de morts si les victimes avaient été armées, dans un discours à la convention de la NRA, le puissant lobby pro-armes #AFP
7:42 PM - May 5, 2018
In the same speech to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Dallas, Texas, the US president criticised the level of knife crime in London, comparing one of the city's hospitals to a "war zone".
A senior London surgeon, Prof Karim Brohi, hit back by saying it was "ridiculous" to suggest guns could help combat knife violence.
Why is US gun lobby NRA so controversial?
US gun lobby breaks fundraising record
What did Trump say exactly?
"Paris, France, has the toughest gun laws in the world..." he told the NRA.
"Nobody has guns in Paris, nobody, and we all remember more than 130 people, plus tremendous numbers of people that were horribly, horribly wounded. Did you notice that nobody ever talks about them?
"They were brutally killed by a small group of terrorists that had guns. They took their time and gunned them down one by one. Boom! Come over here. Boom! Come over here. Boom!
"But if one employee or just one patron had a gun, or if just one person in this room had been there with a gun, aimed at the opposite direction, the terrorists would have fled or been shot."
Why Parkland school shooting is different - the evidence
What happened on 13 November 2015?
In an attack claimed by the Islamic State group, jihadists rampaged across the French capital, initially firing on cafe-goers.
Some of the victims of the Paris attacks
In the deadliest assault, they shot rock fans inside the Bataclan concert hall, killing 89 people.
Attackers either died at the scene or were killed in a subsequent police raid. One suspect, Salah Abdeslam, survived and is now in prison in France.
Paris attacks: Who were the victims?
What happened at the Bataclan?
Who were the Paris attackers?
Has Emmanuel Macron reacted to Trump?
There was no immediate response from the French president who only recently had cordial talks with Mr Trump in Washington.
Trump-Macron bromance in the making?
However, the French foreign ministry made clear its rejection of Mr Trump's allegations.
"Every country freely decides on its own laws on carrying firearms, as in other areas," it said. "France is proud to be a country where acquiring and carrying firearms is strictly regulated."
The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, tweeted that President Trump's depiction of the 2015 attacks was "scornful and unworthy".
Anne Hidalgo
✔
@Anne_Hidalgo
La mise en scène des attentats de 2015 par le Président #Trump est méprisante et indigne. Fluctuat nec mergitur.
11:06 PM - May 5, 2018
5 May 2018
Trump mimics Paris attackers killing victims to underline support for gun ownership
US President Donald Trump has outraged French opinion by suggesting the 2015 attacks on Paris could have been stopped by giving people guns.
He mimicked gunmen summoning and shooting victims one by one, saying "Boom! Come over here!" and using his hand to imitate a gun being fired.
In reality, the attackers sprayed many of their 130 victims with semi-automatic fire and set off bomb belts.
The French foreign ministry called for the victims' memory to be respected.
"France expresses its firm disapproval of the comments by President Trump about the attacks of 13 November 2015 in Paris and asks for the memory of the victims to be respected," the foreign ministry said.
François Hollande, who was French president at the time of the attacks, said Mr Trump's remarks were "shameful". They "said a lot about what he thinks of France and its values", he added.
Manuel Valls, who was France's prime minister in 2015, tweeted: "Indecent and incompetent. What more can I say?"
Manuel Valls
✔
@manuelvalls
Indécent et incompétent.Que dire de plus?
Agence France-Presse
✔
@afpfr
Le président américain Donald Trump affirme que les attentats du 13-Novembre à Paris auraient fait moins de morts si les victimes avaient été armées, dans un discours à la convention de la NRA, le puissant lobby pro-armes #AFP
7:42 PM - May 5, 2018
In the same speech to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Dallas, Texas, the US president criticised the level of knife crime in London, comparing one of the city's hospitals to a "war zone".
A senior London surgeon, Prof Karim Brohi, hit back by saying it was "ridiculous" to suggest guns could help combat knife violence.
Why is US gun lobby NRA so controversial?
US gun lobby breaks fundraising record
What did Trump say exactly?
"Paris, France, has the toughest gun laws in the world..." he told the NRA.
"Nobody has guns in Paris, nobody, and we all remember more than 130 people, plus tremendous numbers of people that were horribly, horribly wounded. Did you notice that nobody ever talks about them?
"They were brutally killed by a small group of terrorists that had guns. They took their time and gunned them down one by one. Boom! Come over here. Boom! Come over here. Boom!
"But if one employee or just one patron had a gun, or if just one person in this room had been there with a gun, aimed at the opposite direction, the terrorists would have fled or been shot."
Why Parkland school shooting is different - the evidence
What happened on 13 November 2015?
In an attack claimed by the Islamic State group, jihadists rampaged across the French capital, initially firing on cafe-goers.
Some of the victims of the Paris attacks
In the deadliest assault, they shot rock fans inside the Bataclan concert hall, killing 89 people.
Attackers either died at the scene or were killed in a subsequent police raid. One suspect, Salah Abdeslam, survived and is now in prison in France.
Paris attacks: Who were the victims?
What happened at the Bataclan?
Who were the Paris attackers?
Has Emmanuel Macron reacted to Trump?
There was no immediate response from the French president who only recently had cordial talks with Mr Trump in Washington.
Trump-Macron bromance in the making?
However, the French foreign ministry made clear its rejection of Mr Trump's allegations.
"Every country freely decides on its own laws on carrying firearms, as in other areas," it said. "France is proud to be a country where acquiring and carrying firearms is strictly regulated."
The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, tweeted that President Trump's depiction of the 2015 attacks was "scornful and unworthy".
Anne Hidalgo
✔
@Anne_Hidalgo
La mise en scène des attentats de 2015 par le Président #Trump est méprisante et indigne. Fluctuat nec mergitur.
11:06 PM - May 5, 2018
Iran's Rouhani warns Trump of 'historic regret' over nuclear deal - BBC News
May 6, 2018
Iran's Rouhani warns Trump of 'historic regret' over nuclear deal
President Rouhani (right) says Iran is ready to "confront" any decision made by President Trump
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has warned that the US will face "historic regret" if Donald Trump scraps the nuclear agreement with Tehran.
Mr Rouhani's comments come as the US president decides whether to pull out of the deal by a 12 May deadline.
Mr Trump has strongly criticised the agreement, calling it "insane".
The 2015 deal - between Iran, the US, China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK - lifted sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.
France, the UK and Germany have been trying persuade the US president that the current deal is the best way to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is travelling to Washington on Sunday to discuss the matter with White House officials.
The UN also warned Mr Trump not to walk away from the deal.
However, he has threatened that the US will "withdraw" from the deal on 12 May - the end of a 120-day review period - unless Congress and European powers fixed its "disastrous flaws".
Media captionWhat is the Iran nuclear deal?
In remarks carried live on Iranian state television on Sunday, President Rouhani said: "If America leaves the nuclear deal, this will entail historic regret for it."
He warned Iran had "a plan to counter any decision Trump may take and we will confront it".
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and says it considers the deal non-renegotiable.
Last week, Israel revealed "secret nuclear files" which it said showed Iran had run a secret nuclear weapons programme, which was reportedly mothballed 15 years ago.
Iran branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a liar and said the documents he produced were a rehash of old allegations already dealt with by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog.
But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the documents were authentic and showed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was "built on lies".
Mr Trump is already unhappy that the current deal only limits Iran's nuclear activities for a fixed period and does not stop the development of ballistic missiles.
He also said it had handed Iran a $100bn (£72bn) windfall that it used "as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression" across the Middle East.
A timeline of what Trump's said about the Iran deal
During two days of talks in Washington, Mr Johnson will meet US Vice-President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton and foreign policy leaders in Congress.
Earlier this month, he said it was important to keep the deal "while building on it in order to take account of the legitimate concerns of the US".
Iran's Rouhani warns Trump of 'historic regret' over nuclear deal
President Rouhani (right) says Iran is ready to "confront" any decision made by President Trump
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has warned that the US will face "historic regret" if Donald Trump scraps the nuclear agreement with Tehran.
Mr Rouhani's comments come as the US president decides whether to pull out of the deal by a 12 May deadline.
Mr Trump has strongly criticised the agreement, calling it "insane".
The 2015 deal - between Iran, the US, China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK - lifted sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.
France, the UK and Germany have been trying persuade the US president that the current deal is the best way to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is travelling to Washington on Sunday to discuss the matter with White House officials.
The UN also warned Mr Trump not to walk away from the deal.
However, he has threatened that the US will "withdraw" from the deal on 12 May - the end of a 120-day review period - unless Congress and European powers fixed its "disastrous flaws".
Media captionWhat is the Iran nuclear deal?
In remarks carried live on Iranian state television on Sunday, President Rouhani said: "If America leaves the nuclear deal, this will entail historic regret for it."
He warned Iran had "a plan to counter any decision Trump may take and we will confront it".
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and says it considers the deal non-renegotiable.
Last week, Israel revealed "secret nuclear files" which it said showed Iran had run a secret nuclear weapons programme, which was reportedly mothballed 15 years ago.
Iran branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a liar and said the documents he produced were a rehash of old allegations already dealt with by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog.
But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the documents were authentic and showed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was "built on lies".
Mr Trump is already unhappy that the current deal only limits Iran's nuclear activities for a fixed period and does not stop the development of ballistic missiles.
He also said it had handed Iran a $100bn (£72bn) windfall that it used "as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression" across the Middle East.
A timeline of what Trump's said about the Iran deal
During two days of talks in Washington, Mr Johnson will meet US Vice-President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton and foreign policy leaders in Congress.
Earlier this month, he said it was important to keep the deal "while building on it in order to take account of the legitimate concerns of the US".
US 'provocation' threatens peace, says North Korea - BBC News
May 6, 2018
US 'provocation' threatens peace, says North Korea
North Korea has made relatively little criticism of the US in recent weeks
North Korea has warned the US about using "pressure and military threats" against it as the two countries prepare for a historic summit.
A Foreign Ministry official said the US was deliberately provoking the North by suggesting sanctions will not be lifted until it gives up nuclear weapons.
US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un are due to meet in the next few weeks.
It will be the first ever meeting between the two countries' leaders.
North and South Korean leaders agreed last month to denuclearise the region, at a border summit which came after months of warlike rhetoric from the North and Mr Trump.
Mr Kim became the first North Korean leader to set foot in South Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953.
N Korea nuclear test site 'to shut in May'
North Korea regularly criticises the US - but there have been few attacks in recent weeks, amid plans for the summit.
This latest statement is a reminder that discussions between the two countries will not be easy, says BBC Asia editor Michael Bristow.
The North Korean official, quoted by state news agency KCNA, said that Washington was "misleading public opinion" by saying the denuclearisation pledge resulted from sanctions and other pressure.
The US was also aggravating the current good atmosphere by deploying military assets on the Korean peninsula, they added.
"The US is deliberately provoking [North Korea] at the time when the situation on the Korean peninsula is moving toward peace and reconciliation thanks to the historic north-south summit and the Panmunjom Declaration," the statement said.
Donald Trump says he will maintain a tough stance on North Korea
"This act cannot be construed otherwise than a dangerous attempt to ruin the hard-won atmosphere of dialogue and bring the situation back to square one.
"It would not be conducive to addressing the issue if the US miscalculates the peace-loving intention of [North Korea] as a sign of 'weakness' and continues to pursue its pressure and military threats against the latter."
Mr Trump has said he will maintain sanctions and other pressure on the North and suggested that his tough stance has helped facilitate reconciliation.
US 'provocation' threatens peace, says North Korea
North Korea has made relatively little criticism of the US in recent weeks
North Korea has warned the US about using "pressure and military threats" against it as the two countries prepare for a historic summit.
A Foreign Ministry official said the US was deliberately provoking the North by suggesting sanctions will not be lifted until it gives up nuclear weapons.
US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un are due to meet in the next few weeks.
It will be the first ever meeting between the two countries' leaders.
North and South Korean leaders agreed last month to denuclearise the region, at a border summit which came after months of warlike rhetoric from the North and Mr Trump.
Mr Kim became the first North Korean leader to set foot in South Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953.
N Korea nuclear test site 'to shut in May'
North Korea regularly criticises the US - but there have been few attacks in recent weeks, amid plans for the summit.
This latest statement is a reminder that discussions between the two countries will not be easy, says BBC Asia editor Michael Bristow.
The North Korean official, quoted by state news agency KCNA, said that Washington was "misleading public opinion" by saying the denuclearisation pledge resulted from sanctions and other pressure.
The US was also aggravating the current good atmosphere by deploying military assets on the Korean peninsula, they added.
"The US is deliberately provoking [North Korea] at the time when the situation on the Korean peninsula is moving toward peace and reconciliation thanks to the historic north-south summit and the Panmunjom Declaration," the statement said.
Donald Trump says he will maintain a tough stance on North Korea
"This act cannot be construed otherwise than a dangerous attempt to ruin the hard-won atmosphere of dialogue and bring the situation back to square one.
"It would not be conducive to addressing the issue if the US miscalculates the peace-loving intention of [North Korea] as a sign of 'weakness' and continues to pursue its pressure and military threats against the latter."
Mr Trump has said he will maintain sanctions and other pressure on the North and suggested that his tough stance has helped facilitate reconciliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
