Thursday, July 19, 2018

Zuckerberg in Holocaust denial row - BBC News

Zuckerberg in Holocaust denial row
19 July 2018

Mark Zuckerberg has said Holocaust deniers should be given a voice on Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg has once again found himself at the centre of a row, after saying posts from Holocaust deniers should be allowed on Facebook.

In an interview with technology website Recode, Mr Zuckerberg said that he did not believe such people should be removed from the site.

They were not, he said, "intentionally" getting their facts wrong.

The comments caused a backlash and Mr Zuckerberg later issued a clarification.

The original comments, given in a wide-ranging interview with Recode, were made in response to questions about what Facebook was doing to combat fake news and sites, such as InfoWars, that promoted conspiracy theories.

In Myanmar, also known as Burma, Facebook has been accused by UN investigators of facilitating violence against Rohingya Muslims by allowing anti-Muslim hate speech and fake news.

The social network has now said that it will begin removing misinformation that could lead to people being physically harmed.

When asked about its policy on fake news, Mr Zuckerberg offered, without prompting, the example of Holocaust deniers.

"I'm Jewish and there's a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened," he told reporter Kara Swisher.

"I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don't think that they're intentionally getting it wrong.

"Everyone gets things wrong and if we were taking down people's accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that."

The comments caused a storm of protest.

Editor of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight Gerry Gable told the BBC: "Zuckerberg could kill much of this dangerous material getting worldwide distribution - but he is a like a spoilt teenager."

"Because of his financial powers, he just does a bit of tinkering without understanding how this material could inspire crazy people to firebomb synagogues, mosques or churches."

NBC News reporter Benjy Sarlin tweeted asking whether Mr Zuckerberg thought the debate over whether the Holocaust had happened was in "good faith".

Skip Twitter post by @BenjySarlin
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Benjy Sarlin

@BenjySarlin
 So apparently Mark Zuckerberg is under the impression there's some good faith debate going on over whether the Holocaust happened? https://www.recode.net/2018/7/18/17575156/mark-zuckerberg-interview-facebook-recode-kara-swisher …

2:27 AM - Jul 19, 2018

And Matt Ford, a reporter at The Atlantic, pointed out that Mr Zuckerberg had not even been asked about the Holocaust - "he just said he'd keep it on Facebook on his own".

After the comments drew fire from many, Mr Zuckerberg issued a clarification.

"I enjoyed our conversation yesterday," he said in an email to the reporter, published on the Recode site.

"But there's one thing I want to clear up. I personally find Holocaust denial deeply offensive and I absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that."

Facebook has faced criticism over the way the platform can amplify false reports and has been engaged in an advertising campaign both on and offline declaring: "Fake news is not your friend."

But it has faced questions about why it continues to allow sites such as InfoWars - which has called the Sandy Hook massacre a hoax - to remain on the platform.

Trump says looks forward to second Putin meeting - Reuters

JULY 19, 2018 / 11:39 PM
Trump says looks forward to second Putin meeting
Reuters Staff

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed forces within the United States on Thursday for marring what they called the success of their first summit, with Trump saying he looked forward to their second meeting.

U.S. President Donald Trump walks from Marine One as he arrives on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., July 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Trump, who has struggled to quiet a political uproar over his failure at Monday’s summit in Helsinki to confront Putin over Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, renewed his fierce criticism of one of his favorite targets, the news media.

The Republican president accused the media of distorting comments in which he gave credence to Putin’s denials of election interference despite the conclusions of the American intelligence community about Moscow’s conduct.

“The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

“I look forward to our second meeting so that we can start implementing some of the many things discussed, including stopping terrorism, security for Israel, nuclear proliferation, cyber attacks, trade, Ukraine, Middle East peace, North Korea and more,” Trump said.


Trump drew a barrage of criticism in the United States, including from lawmakers in both parties, after he refused to blame Putin for the election meddling. Putin has denied such interference.

The Republican president later said he had misspoken and accused “some people” of hating the fact that he got along with Putin.

In Moscow, Putin accused forces in the United States of trying to undermine the success of his meeting with Trump, but said the two leaders had begun to improve U.S.-Russia ties anyway.

Putin, speaking to Russian diplomats from around the world, said the Helsinki summit had been successful.

“It was successful overall and led to some useful agreements. Of course, let’s see how events will develop further,” he said, without disclosing the nature of the agreements he referred to.

Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington, Andrew Osborn and Olesya Astakhova in Moscow; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama

Trump slams EU over $5 billion fine on Google - Reuters

BUSINESS NEWSJULY 19, 2018 / 11:30 PM / UPDATED 10 MINUTES AGO
Trump slams EU over $5 billion fine on Google
Reuters Staff

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday criticized the European Union and said the bloc was taking advantage of the United States, pointing to the record $5 billion fine European antitrust regulators imposed on Google.

U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, U.S., July 18, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis
EU officials on Wednesday also ordered Google to stop using its popular Android mobile operating system to block its rivals, adding to trade tensions between Washington and Brussels.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House next Wednesday to discuss trade and other issues.

Alphabet Inc
1204.36
GOOGL.ONASDAQ
-8.55(-0.70%)
GOOGL.O
GOOGL.O
“I told you so! The European Union just slapped a Five Billion Dollar fine on one of our great companies, Google. They truly have taken advantage of the U.S., but not for long!” Trump said in a post on Twitter.

Google said it would appeal the EU decision. The 4.34 billion euro ($5 billion) fine is nearly double the previous penalty that the company was ordered to pay last year, but it represents a little more than two weeks of revenue for its parent company, Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O).

Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Susan Thomas

The E.U. Looks to China to Shield Itself From the Fallout of Trump’s Trade War - TIME

July 19, 2018

The E.U. Looks to China to Shield Itself From the Fallout of Trump’s Trade War

Posted:


When asked by CBS News on July 15 to name America’s greatest foe, the first name past the lips of President Trump was the European Union, given “what they do to us in trade,” followed by Russia and then China. By launching steep tariffs on a swath of Chinese and E.U. imports, Trump has given Beijing and Brussels unprecedented incentive to work together–as we saw at the unusually sunny E.U.-China summit on July 16. Unfortunately for China, it’s going to take more than Trump to push Europe wholeheartedly into China’s trade embrace.

The China part of the equation is easy. The E.U. is already China’s biggest trading partner and its second-largest export market. Chinese foreign direct investment into Europe hit $12 billion in the first half of 2018, while Chinese investment into the U.S. fell 92% over the same period, to just $2 billion.
And so where last year’s summit failed to produce even a joint statement, this year both China and the E.U. agreed to deepen their partnership–and even threw in a separate addendum on climate issues for good measure. Previously, the relationship had been chilled by European fears about China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a series of infrastructure projects around the world intended to boost both trade and political influence globally. China’s highly leveraged infrastructure loans have left certain countries in Asia and Africa heavily indebted to Beijing, something the E.U. wants to avoid in the smaller economies of Central and Eastern Europe. But the Chinese have now seemingly agreed to play by the E.U.’s rules and standards.

And Trump’s continued blasting of Beijing over its trade practices, for the ostensible benefit of U.S. producers, spells a huge opportunity for the Europeans.

Take the automotive sector, for example. China has pledged to remove foreign-ownership caps in the auto sector by 2022, and even earlier for electric and other new-energy vehicles. But it will withhold many of the opportunities to U.S. firms so long as Trump continues his tariff strategy, leaving European automakers to reap the rewards. It’s a good reminder to Trump that trade wars often have unintended consequences–especially when they are being fought on multiple fronts.

But the E.U.’s shift still looks more like a tactical move than a wholesale change of strategy. One day after the China summit, the bloc completed its largest trade deal ever, with Japan–an agreement that makes far more sense for Brussels. It is easier for Europeans to cast their lot with a liberal democracy that wants to preserve the current global system than with a state-capitalist government looking to fundamentally change that system to fit its own needs. And Brussels is quietly making its own efforts to restrict Chinese investment in sensitive sectors, just as Washington has cracked down on Beijing’s efforts to acquire intellectual property in cutting-edge fields.

For the time being, this is a relationship of mutual convenience. Brussels is clearly attuned to the fact that the Chinese leadership’s approach to trade is extremely opportunistic–and no doubt will closely monitor investments in eastern and southern Europe to ensure that China isn’t laying debt traps for the E.U.’s smaller members. But for now, Trump’s pre-eminent “foe” is making plans to weather the trade war–while counting down the days until the 2020 presidential election.


This appears in the July 30, 2018 issue of TIME.

The Tory vision for a post-Brexit economy is a dead-end – but there is an alternative - Independent

The Tory vision for a post-Brexit economy is a dead-end – but there is an alternative
Effective industrial strategy requires a clear understanding of Britain’s place in the world economy now, and a clear set of goals for where we want it to be in the future

Chi Onwurah

Trump says he holds Putin personally responsible for election meddling
Bear attacks 71-year-old woman after breaking into her home
Florida man describes shark attack in just two feet of water
Woman mocked for budgeting to afford a house on a £69,500 salary
Last week’s resignations of Brexit big beasts David Davis and Boris Johnson demonstrates once again that the customs union is the beating heart of the Tory Brexit breach. The nature of our future trading relationship with the European Union straddles so many Tory totems from the role of business to the European Court of Justice to the border with Ireland. As a consequence an internal party “deal” that took two years to put together fell apart within two days and now we are once more the laughing stock of Europe with only a matter of months before we leave.

Reforging 40 years of economic, political and societal links in a constructive, inclusive and forward-looking way would be a challenge for any government but is clearly far beyond the capacity of this one. As a government in waiting, it is Labour’s job not only to hold the government to account but to set out what our approach would be. This is the work that Keir Starmer and Labour’s Brexit team has undertaken, exemplified by the amendments our party tabled to the Great Repeal Bill. But it is also my job as shadow minister for industrial strategy to consider what Brexit means for our economic future and to place decisions in that context. And that has to mean an economic future that includes everyone, and does not merely carry over the regional and social divides that helped deliver the referendum result in the first place.

To achieve this we need to look back even as we look forward. And to look outwards to the world even as we consider how best to maintain a close relationship with the European Union.

Ex-minister becomes first senior Tory to call for second Brexit vote
The industrial landscape of Britain today is the product of a succession of industrial strategies or non-strategies, each of which was ultimately unable to deal with the reality of the larger world economy. Britain entered the 20th century hoping to maintain its position as the supplier of manufactured goods to the largest empire the world had ever known, a strategy that could not be sustained given the scale of US industry and the understandable desire of the rest of the Empire to build its own industrial base. By the 1960s, British industry was increasingly focused on our domestic market, but even that more limited “strategy” proved untenable in the face of more efficient and larger scale foreign competition from the United States, Japan, Germany, Korea and ultimately China.

In response, the Tories under Margaret Thatcher and her successors, and to a lesser extent the 1997 Labour government, pursued a kind of “anti-industrial strategy”. This substituted first North Sea oil and then City of London financial services for industrial competitiveness. North Sea oil was a finite national asset that delivered the expected temporary economic boost. The impact of our burgeoning financial sector was more complex. It brought substantial benefits in jobs, revenues and social capital, particularly to London. It also drove the “financialisation” of our economy.

Financialisation – the anti-industrial strategy

The way in which financialisation proved to be an anti-industrial strategy is admirably set out in leading economist Mariana Mazzucato’s new book The Value of Everything. In it she describes the “two faces of financialisation”.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez brilliantly taunts Republicans for being 'terrified' of her
Harvard researcher apologises for asking neighbour with biracial daughter if they lived in ‘affordable units’
Robot chemist could revolutionise study of new molecules through machine learning
by Taboola
The first of these is the way in which the financial sector has stopped resourcing the real economy – instead of investing in companies that produce “stuff”, finance is financing finance. Why lend money to a manufacturer that may fail when you can make a bet on some options hedged with other options that virtually guarantee a return in a few weeks? The owner of a medium-sized manufacturing business gave me a striking example of this recently. His high-street bank was initially supportive when he requested a loan for new manufacturing equipment, which would significantly boost productivity. Once the bank realised that the equipment would not be something they could sell on should he go bankrupt, their interest drained away entirely. It was willing to lend based on liquidation value, but was not willing to take a risk on a living business. In a financialised economy, capital tends to flow towards standardised securities rather than actual operating businesses that present bespoke risks.

But it is not only financial capital that is diverted from the real economy. Human capital is sucked in too. When I graduated from Imperial College in 1987, I would estimate that only about 10 per cent of my electrical engineering cohort went into industry. The majority went into management consultancy and finance, which paid better as well as having clearer career paths. Recently the dean of an engineering department told me that was still the case and asked how I could expect engineers to go into engineering when finance paid so much better and was quite honestly the only way a graduate engineer could ever hope to buy a home in London.

I responded that they should come to Newcastle where not only could they buy a lovely home on an engineer’s salary, but also be within a few minutes of some of the most beautiful countryside in the world and at the heart of a concentration of culture that rivals far bigger cities. I recognise the dean’s point – with so much financial engineering demanding money and people, real engineering doesn’t stand a chance. But it is real engineering that drives industrial productivity.

Financialisation is not just a problem because it drains resources away from industry. In a financialised economy, investors with short-term horizons tend to have more control over firms. This results in less reinvestment of profits and rising burdens of debt that, in a vicious cycle, makes industry even more driven by short-term considerations. In effect, this kind of finance is not neutral but changes the nature of what it finances.

This was seen just recently with the GKN takeover by “turnaround company” Melrose. An estimated 20 to 25 per cent of the shares in GKN were in the hands of hedge funds, many of which were expected to back the takeover – with the firm Elliott Advisors, owning 3.8 per cent of the company, explicitly doing so. The bid was won by 52 per cent to 48 per cent. And Melrose itself is not run in any long-term interest other than maximising shareholder value: it has a long history of operating as a “turnaround firm” and almost a third of its own shares are held by hedge funds. The vote was essentially a referendum about the time horizons of British industry, and Britain lost.

So when bankers and chancellors talk of having learned the lessons of the financial crisis they are wrong both at the macro and micro level. With UK national debt twice what it was in 2007 and household debt to disposable income at a record high, 10 years after the crash of the global economy, finance is once again at the heart of an existential threat to our way of life.

Financialisation and inequality

Even before the crash, this “anti-industrial strategy” drove social and geographic inequalities. Levels of income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient reached a pre-crash peak of 0.35 in the 1990s and, while improving slightly, remained high in comparison to the Sixties throughout the 2000s. Regional inequality was also a significant feature of the pre-crash economy, with data from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research showing a gradual rise throughout the 2000s in the difference in gross household income between regions. In 2005, average household income in the North East was 14 per cent below the UK average, while in London it was 20 per cent higher.

The Tories were either indifferent to these inequalities or at best felt they were an acceptable price to pay. Labour, under previous leaderships, believed that redistributive policies could make it all come out right in the end, and flagship programmes such as Sure Start and working tax credits certainly helped. But both approaches were fundamentally mistaken. Financialisation turned out to be a house built on sand – unable to generate enough wealth to compensate for the abandonment of the rest of the economy, and vulnerable to boom and bust cycles. Ultimately, the financial crisis of 2008 and the global economic crisis it spawned showed that the ideology of finance – that financial markets and institutions, left to themselves and the profit motive, would efficiently allocate capital – was a pernicious fantasy.

British industry—creating real value in the real economy

But that was not the whole story. While metropolitan London came to comprise 40 per cent of the British economy – and a 40 per cent heavily dependent on finance and professional services – something else was happening in the rest of the country. Britain’s entry into the European Union, and the survival in parts of Britain of a culture favourable to engineering and manufacturing, fostered the growth of certain sectors of British industry as part of a larger integrated European industrial base. The supply chains of large European firms such as Airbus, Boeing and BMW are substantially British. Nissan’s Sunderland plant is the final destination for parts manufactured across Europe and produces more cars per worker than any other factory in the European Union. And GKN, itself one of the world’s oldest engineering firms, is a key supplier to international aerospace and automotive firms – including European giant Airbus, which warned against the Melrose takeover. Factories engaged in producing components and sub-assemblies and assembling components from elsewhere in Europe are now critical to the prosperity of much of Britain. Figure 1 shows just one of BMW’s many supply chains.

BMW supply chain starts in France, where the cast of the raw crankshaft is made. From there, it is shipped to BMW’s Hams Hall plant in Warwickshire, where it is drilled and milled into shape, then sent to Munich to be inserted into the engine. The engine is then ’married’ with the car at the Mini plant in Oxford
Such integration requires frictionless borders but also agreed standards to define everything from the acceptable frequency of electromagnetic radiation to the atomic composition of a given chemical. Leaving the European Union will not mean less regulation simply more duplication. As they scramble to recreate existing EU agencies and regulations, businesses and government departments are realising that far from Brussels bureaucracy being imposed upon Britain, the European Union was effectively based on the “shared back office services” model that Whitehall now champions for local government.

In many ways, British agriculture has followed a similar trajectory to British car manufacturing, where British farmers have been able to successfully compete on both quality and price in markets defined by EU food safety rules. For example, British farmers export far more wheat flour to the EU – approximately 250,000 tonnes last year – than they do to non-EU countries – approximately 6,000 tonnes. The same goes for other agricultural products such as barley (one million tonnes versus 50,000 tonnes) and oats (16,000 tonnes versus 4,000 tonnes).

The EU is the largest importer and exporter of food in the world. As an EU member state, our farmers have benefited from preferential access to this market through exemptions from the tariffs and quotas imposed on non-member countries. And with 85 per cent of seasonal agricultural workers in the UK coming from Bulgaria and Romania, agriculture is one of the UK sectors most heavily dependent on freedom of movement.

Food and drink is Britain’s largest manufacturing sector and Europe’s complex rules of origin guidelines could lead to a “hidden hard Brexit” requiring the restructuring of food manufacturing supply chains even if we secure preferential access. Agriculture and manufacturing are both more important outside of London and particularly around the very market towns that have been most “left behind” by the new economy.

As Britain contemplates how to engage with the world before, during and after Brexit, we need to understand the trade policy choices we make will drive the shape of our economy and are therefore also industrial policy choices, choices that will shape the very nature of what work we do, the health of our communities and the way we live for decades to come.  

The benefits of a customs union

The Labour Party is united in supporting a customs union with Europe. We believe it will bolster our current industrial strengths and offer the possibility of continued industrial revival in certain sectors. We should not be complacent about this approach. Our place in the larger European manufacturing economy will still depend on our ability to innovate and to invest, so that British firms successfully manage and not just participate in supply chains. And this will depend on our learning the lessons of the financial crisis so that our financial markets and institutions actually invest in productive sectors.

Unfortunately, the government continues to act as if the only issues in financial regulation are safety, soundness and fraud. While these are obviously important issues, they completely miss the question of whether our financial system is effectively channelling capital to productive and innovative investment. And this is the whole point of a financial system. A financial system that simply parks money in risk-free assets or honestly gambles on sporting events, would meet the characteristics the Tories have established but would still be a total failure. As Mazzucato argues, the traditional policies we have seen create a “healthy financial sector (bailed out, ring-fenced, and restructured) in a deeply sick economy”.

Implications for industrial strategy of the alternatives

Last week’s visit by President Trump to Britain revealed that he thinks the UK-US relationship is “the highest level of special”. Arch Brexiteers argue that he offers an alternative to a customs union with Europe: a free trade agreement with the United States, which, as a consequence of Nafta would really be a free trade agreement with all of North America. But while the US economy is of comparable size to the EU in GDP terms, $19 trillion (£14 trillion) compared to $17 trillion, they have different sectoral compositions and regulatory standards. Going in this direction would lead to substantial changes in the structure of the British economy.

Earlier this year, trade experts at Harvard University published a report that included a candid assessment of obstacles to a US-UK free trade agreement. Its authors, including former shadow chancellor Ed Balls, reached the conclusion that it is “highly unlikely that a free trade deal between the US and the UK will be secured in the near term” and, in addition, “the likely potential benefits for British businesses are less than often suggested”.

The report focused on likely US demands for access to British food markets and likely British demands for access for British firms to US financial and professional services markets. These demands map the likely direction a US-UK free trade agreement would take both countries. Britain is attractive to the US as a market for agricultural products and for goods manufactured through US-controlled supply chains. Britain is also seen by some as a source of relatively low cost financial and professional services. Without an EU customs union, American business does not see Britain as a manufacturing platform – British wages are too high given the distance to the North American market. Labour costs per hour in manufacturing are on average £27 in the US and £23 in the UK – a £4 difference that does not compensate for transport costs.

In a UK detached from the European market, the role of British industry in European supply chains will therefore not be replaced by similar roles in US-based supply chains. This is the critical point for UK manufacturing – we cannot replace European supply chain integration with North American supply chain integration.

In addition, if British food safety rules are relaxed as part of a trade deal with the US, it is likely that cheap American agricultural products will significantly displace British agriculture. So we will eat chlorinated chicken from Arkansas, bake with GM flour from Dakota and barbecue antibiotic drenched beef from Illinois. US farming is largely in the hands of mega industrial organisations. Agriculture is a much greater proportion of US GDP than it is of UK GDP. There are farms in Texas that are bigger than major UK counties – 500 square miles, for example. We cannot compete with agriculture on that scale without harming our landscape and biodiversity, especially given that we already use substantially more of our land in percentage terms on agriculture than does the US. If our markets are opened up to US agricultural products, UK farming will either adapt to US food safety practices and scale or our agriculture will diminish greatly. If we were to follow the bidding of the arch-Brexiteers and take the US as our model partner it would be the end of our landscape and biodiversity as we currently know it.

In the place of agriculture and industry, there will be a US market for British financial services and other professional services such as law, accountancy and management consulting. However, just as we have seen the integration of British manufacturing into European firms, we will likely see a wave of mergers and acquisitions in services as British firms are acquired by US firms seeking to serve the US market with British professionals. As a consequence, while manufacturing and agriculture would suffer, services and finance might not remain in British hands, especially given the current takeover regime that substantially limits the scope for government protection of UK businesses.

A Britain without a customs union with the EU and with a free trade agreement with the US would have less industry, less agriculture, but more finance and more service sector jobs. It would likely be a Britain of growing regional and social disparities, and a Britain more vulnerable to financial instability. After all, it was the high concentration of financial services in the UK economy that meant we were hit particularly hard by the last financial crisis. If the UK economy consolidates further around finance, then we will become even more vulnerable.

The Commonwealth

Turning from North America some look to the Commonwealth as an alternative future that harks to our past. We have strong ties to English-speaking Commonwealth countries around the world – economic ties as well as ties of language, immigration and history. In a digital world, we have the possibility of building networks of innovation that could contribute both to our own industrial competitiveness as well as the competitiveness of our partners.

Countries as diverse as Nigeria, Australia and India are all racing to be centres of technological innovation and to solve pressing problems in areas such as energy and education. In a sense, if we are open to our former colonies as partners, and generous with access to our own centres of innovation, we could perhaps create alternative pathways to competitiveness for our industry.

But those same countries have requested access to the UK through preferential visa arrangements as part of any free trade agreement. India has requested an increase in the number of visas issued to skilled Indian workers and allow students to stay for longer after graduating, but so far government has refused calls to relax visa rules even within the current framework. Australia and other Commonwealth countries want their citizens to be granted the same rights as Europeans: to live and work in the UK after Brexit.

Building a competitive commonwealth innovation network effectively requires the opposite of our current attitudes towards the Global South. Commonwealth leaders have criticised the government’s – reported – characterisation of post-Brexit trade as ‘Empire 2.0’. This was reflected in our treatment of the Windrush generation, which, in a sense, like our approach to Brexit, threatens to close critical doors to a better future for British industry and for Britain as a whole.

Whether we look to North America or the Commonwealth, into our past or forward to the type of economy we want to become, the arguments bring us back to a customs union with the EU and an industrial strategy that will help rebalance the economy and provide the directed investment to get it growing again. The billions poured by the Bank of England into quantitative easing have signally failed to do this.

A Labour government would invest £250bn over 10 years through our National Transformation Fund, and set up a National Investment Bank, as well as a network of regional development banks to channel investment into productive enterprises across the country, unlocking productivity and creating growth.


We need to understand as we approach critical decision points around our trade policy and our financial regulatory policy that these are choices that will shape not just our relations with the outside world but Britain itself – that choices labelled trade policy or immigration policy or financial regulatory policy are in fact industrial policy, agricultural policy and economic policy.

The Tory party ideologues are in no state to set out a vision for our future economy, far less to rationally assess the policies needed to make it a reality. Financialisation has proven to be an economic dead-end, creating wealth for the few at the expense of social equality, regional balance and long-term productivity growth.

To build a more competitive and equal Britain post-Brexit we need a deal that strengthens our productive sectors such as manufacturing rather than one that deepens financialisation and risks our long-term prosperity. We also need a real industrial strategy based on our regional strengths that enables investment in the productive economy, delivering jobs in our towns as well as our cities that creates value regionally and nationally that can be shared by all.

Warren Buffett may soon join the stock buyback party - CNN Money

Warren Buffett may soon join the stock buyback party
by Paul R. La Monica   @lamonicabuzz
July 18, 2018: 4:50 PM ET

Buffett not worried about a trade war
Big US companies have been binging on their own stock. But Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway hasn't been taking part in the bonanza. That soon may change.
Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) announced late Tuesday that the company loosened an old company rule and can now buy back stock whenever Buffett and Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger "believe that the repurchase price is below Berkshire's intrinsic value, conservatively determined."

In other words, Buffett and Munger can pretty much decide to buy stock whenever the heck they feel like it.

Berkshire Hathaway stock had its best day in almost seven years after the change was announced.

Stock buybacks have been one factor helping fuel the market run to record highs in 2018.

Companies bought back $436.6 billion of their own stock in just the second quarter -- a new record, according to data from research firm TrimTabs. Companies have now repurchased nearly $670 billion of their own shares so far this year.

Buybacks are considered a bullish sign for several reasons.

For one, a company may be signaling it thinks its stock is a bargain. Buybacks also lower a company's overall share count, which in turn boosts earnings per share.

But the last time that Berkshire -- an industrial empire that owns Geico, railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Dairy Queen and numerous other businesses -- bought its own stock was in December 2012.

One reason Berkshire has stayed on the sidelines of buybacks is because of the company's old rule, which stated that Berkshire could not pay more than 20% above Berkshire's book value per share -- a key measure of a company's financial health.

As of the end of the first quarter, the book value for one class A Berkshire share (BRKA) was $211,184. But the price of one Berkshire A share currently trades for nearly $300,000. That's 40% higher than book value, which means Berkshire was prohibited from buying the stock under the old rule.

Berkshire also has more affordable B shares that trade at a price of about $200. Shares of both the A and B classes of Berkshire stock rose more than 5% Wednesday, their best showing since September 2011.

Whether or not Berkshire actually does buy back some of its own stock remains to be seen.

The company said late Tuesday that it would not buy back any shares until after it reports its second quarter earnings following the market close on Friday August 3 -- at the earliest.

Berkshire also said would keep a rule that prohibits the company from buying back stock if the purchases reduce the amount of cash it has to below $20 billion.

That shouldn't be a problem. Berkshire had more than $108 billion in cash and short-term Treasury holdings on its balance sheet as of the end of March. Berkshire, like many large American companies, has been hoarding money lately.

The company had $96.5 billion in cash at the end of the first quarter of 2017. That's why some have been pushing Berkshire to use the cash on stock buybacks, investments and acquisitions.

Its last major acquisition was the purchase of aerospace parts maker Precision Castparts for $37 billion in 2015.

Berkshire-backed Kraft Heinz (KHC) tried to buy Unilever (UL) last year but walked away from the deal after Unilever decided it wasn't interested.

Related: CEOs dumping stock even as companies buy it back

Even though Berkshire hasn't done a buyback of its own in more than five years, many companies that Berkshire has invested in, including Apple (AAPL), Coca-Cola (KO) and IBM (IBM), have frequently repurchased shares during the past few years.

Buffett has praised buybacks too. He defended the practice in last year's shareholder letter.

"Some people have come close to calling [buybacks] un-American -- characterizing them as corporate misdeeds that divert funds needed for productive endeavors. That simply isn't the case: Both American corporations and private investors are today awash in funds looking to be sensibly deployed," he wrote.

So don't be surprised if Berkshire -- which is clearly "awash in funds" -- soon decides to deploy some of them on a stock buyback.

Israel adopts divisive Jewish nation-state law - Reuters

JULY 19, 2018 / 10:35 AM
Israel adopts divisive Jewish nation-state law
Maayan Lubell

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel passed a law on Thursday to declare that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country, something members of the Arab minority called racist and verging on apartheid.

The “nation-state” law, backed by the right-wing government, passed by a vote of 62-55 and two abstentions in the 120-member parliament after months of political argument. Some Arab lawmakers shouted and ripped up papers after the vote.

“This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the history of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset after the vote.

Largely symbolic, the law was enacted just after the 70th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel. It stipulates that “Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it”.

The bill also strips Arabic of its designation as an official language alongside Hebrew, downgrading it to a “special status” that enables its continued use within Israeli institutions.

Israel’s Arabs number some 1.8 million, about 20 percent of the 9 million population.

Early drafts of the legislation went further in what critics at home and abroad saw as discrimination toward Israel’s Arabs, who have long said they are treated as second-class citizens.

Clauses that were dropped in last-minute political wrangling - and after objections by Israel’s president and attorney-general - would have enshrined in law the establishment of Jewish-only communities, and instructed courts to rule according to Jewish ritual law when there were no relevant legal precedents.

Instead, a more vaguely-worded version was approved, which says: “The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment.”

Even after the changes, critics said the new law will deepen a sense of alienation within the Arab minority.

“I announce with shock and sorrow the death of democracy,” Ahmed Tibi, an Arab lawmaker, told reporters.

Netanyahu has defended the law. “We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides,” he said last week.

“An absolute majority wants to ensure our state’s Jewish character for generations to come.”

Israel’s Arab population is comprised mainly of descendants of the Palestinians who remained on their land during the conflict between Arabs and Jews that culminated in the war of 1948 surrounding the creation of the modern state of Israel. Hundreds of thousands were forced to leave their homes or fled.

Those who remained have full equal rights under the law but say they face constant discrimination, citing inferior services and unfair allocations for education, health and housing.

In Ma’alot-Tarshiha, a municipality in northern Israel which was created by linking the Jewish town of Ma’alot and the Arab town of Tarshiha, there was anger among Arab residents.

“I think this is racist legislation by a radical right-wing government that is creating radical laws, and is planting the seeds to create an apartheid state,” said physician Bassam Bisharah, 71.

“The purpose of this law is discrimination. They want to get rid of the Arabs totally,” said Yousef Faraj, 53, from the nearby Druze village of Yanuh. “The Israelis want to destroy all the religions of the Arabs.”

Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, called the law a bid to advance “ethnic superiority by promoting racist policies”.

Israeli population: tmsnrt.rs/2L1pzkt

Salisbury poisoning: Police 'identify Novichok suspects' - BBC News

July 19, 2018

Salisbury poisoning: Police 'identify Novichok suspects'

Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, were poisoned in March, but both survived
Police believe they have identified the suspected perpetrators of the Novichok attack on a Russian ex-spy and his daughter in Salisbury in March.

Several Russians were involved in the attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, according to the Press Association.

They have reportedly been identified through CCTV.

Earlier this month, Dawn Sturgess, 44, died after being poisoned by the same nerve agent, in Amesbury.

Her partner Charlie Rowley, 45, was also contaminated on 30 June and remains seriously ill in hospital.

Police believe the incidents are linked. The UK government has blamed Russia, but the country's authorities deny any involvement.

Mr Skripal, 66, and his daughter, 33, who were discovered slumped on a bench in Salisbury on 4 March, have been discharged from hospital and moved to secure locations.

"Investigators believe they have identified the suspected perpetrators of the Novichok attack through CCTV and have cross-checked this with records of people who entered the country around that time," a source with knowledge of the investigation told the Press Association.

"They (the investigators) are sure they (the suspects) are Russian."

The Met Police, who are leading the investigation, have declined to comment.

Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley touched a contaminated item with their hands
An inquest into the death of Dawn Sturgess is due to open on Thursday.

Counter-terrorism detectives have revealed they found a small bottle containing Novichok at Mr Rowley's home in Muggleton Road, Amesbury.

They are trying to establish where the container, thought to be a bottle of perfume, originated from, and how Mr Rowley and Ms Sturgess first encountered it.

On Wednesday, international chemical weapons experts completed their investigations in Amesbury, where they sought to identify whether the substance which poisoned the couple was from the same batch used against the Skripals.

Media captionThe BBC's Gordon Corera considers how likely is it Russia poisoned Sergei Skripal and his daughter
The risk to the public remains low, according to Public Health England.

Mike Wade, deputy director for health protection in the South West, said: "The advice remains - if you didn't drop it, then don't pick it up."

Australia overtaking UK for overseas students - BBC News

July 19, 2018

Australia overtaking UK for overseas students
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News education and family correspondent

Students arriving in Melbourne - ranked this year as one of the world's best student cities
Australia is overtaking the UK as the world's second biggest destination for international students, says research from University College London.

Researchers at UCL's Centre for Global Higher Education say the UK is being pushed into third place behind the United States and Australia.

Australia has been rapidly expanding its international student numbers.

The British Council says it shows the UK needs to "look again" at its policies towards overseas students.

An analysis this year found that overseas students added £20bn to the UK's economy - and universities in the UK have warned that immigration rules after Brexit will need to be more welcoming for students.

Catching up
The UCL study has tracked the latest movements in international students and report author Professor Simon Marginson says Australia is moving ahead of the UK.

He warns that Canada is also catching up in taking a growing slice of the lucrative overseas student market.

Overseas students starting in Melbourne this year were invited to a welcome party and dance
Three years ago the UK was recruiting around 130,000 more overseas students than Australia, says Prof Marginson, who is also co-chair of the Higher Education Commission's current inquiry into international students.

But he says successive years of Australia having increases of 12% to 14% in overseas students have seen it catch up and overtake the UK, which has been growing much more slowly.

Official student figures for 2018 from the UN's education agency, Unesco, will not be published until after the end of this year.

But the UCL researchers are "certain" that Australia is on the verge of moving ahead of the UK in overseas students and this "may have already happened".

Best student cities
"UK higher education is still highly valued internationally, but the government has held down the growth of international student numbers for five years, by limiting new student numbers and post-study work visas," says Prof Marginson.

"Meanwhile, competitor nations are strongly promoting their international education."

Overseas students add £20bn to the economy
Door kept open to EU students after Brexit
London ranked best city for students
Trump's biggest fans? Canadian universities
Australia has been marketing itself as an English-speaking country with high-performing universities, with an attractive climate and a welcoming culture for overseas students.

This year's Best Student Cities rankings put Melbourne and Sydney in the top 10 - although London was the highest ranked of all.

Australia has succeeded in attracting students from outside Europe, particularly from China.

The research from UCL warns that the UK's future intake of international students will depend on keeping its appeal for European students.

Post-Brexit plans
Last week, the government set out post-Brexit plans that would keep open the door to visa-free travel for European Union students coming to UK universities.

But there was no detail on whether EU students would have to pay full international fees.

Universities in the UK have been campaigning for overseas students to be taken out of net migration figures.

A spokeswoman for the British Council said that international students are "an immense source of long-term influence and soft power for the UK".

She said the UK was competing with countries with "welcoming visa policies" and "comprehensive international education strategies".

With the approach of Brexit, she said "it has never been more important to reinforce and open up international channels for the UK".

White House insists Trump believes Russia still a threat - BBC News

White House insists Trump believes Russia still a threat
18 July 2018

President Trump was bombarded by questions as reporters were asked to leave
The White House has insisted it believes Russia still poses a threat to the US amid confusion over comments made by President Donald Trump.

Mr Trump appeared to disagree with US intelligence when he responded "no" to a question about whether Russia was still targeting American elections.

Later, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Mr Trump was saying "no" to answering more questions.

It comes amid a flurry of criticism over his recent comments about Russia.

"The president and his administration are working very hard to make sure that Russia is unable to meddle in our elections as they have done in the past," Mrs Sanders said at a news briefing on Wednesday.

What's the latest confusion?
Hours earlier, ABC News reporter Cecilia Vega asked the president whether Russia would still target American elections.

After he shook his head and replied, "Thank you very much, no", she again asked: "No? You don't believe that to be the case?"

He appeared to respond again: "No".

But Mrs Sanders rejected that interpretation later in a news briefing, telling reporters the White House was taking action to prevent any future meddling.

"We wouldn't actually spend as much time and effort as we are if we didn't believe that [Russia is] still looking at us," she said.

Later, Ms Vega tweeted that the president had been looking directly at her when he answered.

Cecilia Vega

@CeciliaVega
 Getting a lot of questions about my exchange with @realDonaldTrump today.
Yes, he was looking directly at me when he spoke.
Yes, I believe he heard me clearly. He answered two of my questions.
Here’s the full exchange:

5:54 AM - Jul 19, 2018

NBC News' White House correspondent Hallie Jackson responded to Mrs Sander's explanation on Wednesday on Twitter, saying she had "never heard the president say 'no' in order to get us to stop".

Skip Twitter post by @HallieJackson

Hallie Jackson

@HallieJackson
 Here's the thing about what the @PressSec said about @POTUS "no" response: in the countless time I've been in the Oval or Cabinet Room or wherever trying to shout questions, I've never heard the president say "no' in order to get us to stop.

5:26 AM - Jul 19, 2018

The apparent response would put him at odds with US intelligence on claims of Russian interference in US elections for the second time since he met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on Monday.

On Tuesday, Mr Trump said he misspoke during Monday's summit when he appeared to side with Mr Putin over claims of Kremlin meddling in US elections.

US intelligence chief Dan Coats said on Monday that Russia was involved in "ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy".

He told a congressional committee in February he had already seen evidence that Russia was targeting the upcoming mid-term elections in November.

What has Trump said?
During an interview with CBS News' Jeff Glor on Wednesday afternoon, Mr Trump said that he would consider Mr Putin personally responsible for any Russian interference.

"Just like I consider myself to be responsible for things that happen in this country," he said. "So certainly as the leader of a country you would have to hold him responsible, yes."

Mr Trump added that he was "very strong on the fact that we can't have meddling" in his conversation with Russia's leader.

On Wednesday morning Mr Trump lashed out at "haters" who condemned his meeting with Russia's president, saying his critics were suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 So many people at the higher ends of intelligence loved my press conference performance in Helsinki. Putin and I discussed many important subjects at our earlier meeting. We got along well which truly bothered many haters who wanted to see a boxing match. Big results will come!

7:53 PM - Jul 18, 2018

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia. They would rather go to war than see this. It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome!

9:27 PM - Jul 18, 2018

Despite the controversy, Republican voters seem to be sticking by Mr Trump.

'He is not a politician': US voters on the aftermath of the Trump-Putin summit
A Reuters/Ipsos poll this week found that despite a firestorm of media criticism, Mr Trump's Finland summit had no real impact on his overall approval ratings.

In the survey, 42% of all registered voters approved of his job performance, which is consistent with averages thus far.

Your toolkit to help understand the story
Trump's 'most serious mistake'
Montenegro hits back at 'stupid' Trump
Some 71% of Republicans polled approved of his response to Russia, while only 14% of Democrats were in favour.

What now?
US lawmakers are calling for a court demand to be issued for the notes of the US translator who accompanied Mr Trump to his two-hour meeting with Mr Putin.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is due to testify before the Senate next week about the summit.

Trump says he "misspoke" at Putin summit, but is it too late? Anthony Zurcher explains
Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, tried on Tuesday to stage a symbolic vote to support the findings of Russian interference, but was blocked by Republicans.

Senators Jeff Flake and Chris Coons, an Arizona Republican and a Delaware Democrat, are reportedly working on a nonbinding resolution to endorse the intelligence committee's findings.

But Texas Republican John Cornyn said the Senate should focus on "additional sanctions instead of just some messaging exercise".

What did Trump say at the summit?
During a news conference after Monday's summit, Mr Trump was asked about alleged Russian meddling in the US election.

According to a transcript posted by the White House, he said: "My people came to me... they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be."

The summit comments sparked a barrage of criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum, with many calling on him to correct himself.

On Tuesday, Mr Trump said he had reviewed the transcript and realised he needed to clarify.

"The sentence should have been: 'I don't see any reason why I wouldn't' or 'why it wouldn't be Russia'. Sort of a double negative."

The ways Trump and Putin see eye to eye
Mr Trump said that the interference had had no impact on the election, in which he defeated Hillary Clinton.

However, he did not respond when reporters asked him if he would condemn Mr Putin.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 While the NATO meeting in Brussels was an acknowledged triumph, with billions of dollars more being put up by member countries at a faster pace, the meeting with Russia may prove to be, in the long run, an even greater success. Many positive things will come out of that meeting..

8:08 PM - Jul 18, 2018

President Trump Tries a Tougher Stance on Russia Amid Putin Summit Backlash - TIME ( source : Associated Press )

July 19, 2018

President Trump Tries a Tougher Stance on Russia Amid Putin Summit Backlash

BOTH TRUMP AND PUTIN JUST DENIED RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION. HERE'S WHAT THEY SAID
By ZEKE MILLER, KEN THOMAS, AND LISA MASCARO / AP 4:37 AM EDT
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump spent a second day managing the political fallout from his widely criticized meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, shifting stances and mopping up what the White House said were misstatements.

His toughness with the longtime American foe in question, Trump said Wednesday he told the Russian president face-to-face during Monday’s summit to stay out of America’s elections “and that’s the way it’s going to be.”

That rhetoric marked a turnabout from Trump’s first, upbeat description of his sit-down with Putin. Still, Trump backtracked on whether Russia is currently targeting U.S. elections. When asked the question Wednesday, he answered “no,” a reply that put him sharply at odds with recent public warnings from his own intelligence chief.

Hours later, the White House stepped in to say Trump’s answer wasn’t what it appeared.

The zigzagging laid bare the White House’s search for a path out of trouble that has dogged the administration’s discussions of Russia from the start, but spiraled after Trump’s trip to Helsinki. After days of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, Trump — a politician who celebrates his brash political incorrectness — has appeared more sensitive than usual to outside opprobrium.

The White House says President Donald Trump believes Russia would target U.S. elections again, saying the “threat still exists.” That comes hours after Trump appeared to deny Russia was still targeting the United States.

The scale of the bipartisan outcry at Trump’s stance toward Putin has only been rivaled by his 2017 waffling over condemning white supremacist demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia.

“I let him know we can’t have this,” Trump told CBS News of his conversations with Putin. “We’re not going to have it, and that’s the way it’s going to be.”

Would he hold Putin personally responsible for further election interference? “I would, because he’s in charge of the country.”

The CBS interview came at the end of two days of shifting statements.

On Monday, Trump appeared to question the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

His reservations, expressed 18 months into his presidency and as he stood standing next to Putin on foreign soil, prompted blistering criticism at home, even from prominent fellow Republicans.

On Tuesday, he delivered a scripted statement to “clarify” — his word — his remarks Monday. He said he misspoke by one word when he said he saw no reason to believe Russia had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

On Wednesday, he was asked during a Cabinet meeting if Russia was still targeting the U.S., and he answered “no” without elaborating. That came just days after National Intelligence Director Dan Coats sounded an alarm, comparing the cyberthreat today to the way U.S. officials said before 9/11 that intelligence channels were “blinking red” with warning signs that a terror attack was imminent.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said later Wednesday that Trump actually was saying “no” to answering additional questions — even though he subsequently went on to address Russia.

“The president is wrong,” GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said of Trump’s one-word response. Told that Sanders had since clarified, she responded: “There’s a walk-back of the walk-back of the walk-back of the walk-back? This is dizzying.”

Trump has refined and sharpened his presentation in the two days since Helsinki.

At the news conference with Putin, he was asked if he would denounce what happened in 2016 and warn Putin never to do it again, and he did not directly answer. Instead, he went into a rambling response, including demands for investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and his description of Putin’s “extremely strong and powerful” denial of meddling.

Trump asserted Wednesday at the White House that no other American president has been as tough on Russia. He cited U.S. sanctions and the expulsion of alleged Russian spies from the U.S., telling reporters that Putin “understands it, and he’s not happy about it.”

The muddied waters have deepened critics’ concerns that Trump is not taking threats to the U.S. electoral system seriously enough. Pressed on why Trump has repeatedly passed on opportunities to publicly condemn Putin’s actions, Sanders suggested Trump was working to make the most of an “opportunity” for the two leaders to work together on shared interests.


One such opportunity is what Trump termed an “incredible offer” from Putin to allow the U.S. access to Russians accused of election hacking and other interference. In exchange, Putin wants Russian interviews of Americans accused by the Kremlin of unspecified crimes.

Sanders said Trump was still weighing the offer with his team, adding, “We’ve committed to nothing.” Russian officials have said they want to interview Kremlin critics Bill Browder and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.

McFaul tweeted Wednesday that he hoped the White House would denounce “this ridiculous request from Putin.”

Lawmakers have urged Trump to reject the deal.

“We’re going to make sure that Congress does everything it can to protect this country,” said Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., who heads up the GOP’s campaign arm.

A number of senators are swiftly signing on to a bipartisan bill from Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., that would slap new sanctions on Russia or any other country caught posting ads, running fake news or otherwise interfering with election infrastructure.

Sanders called the legislation “hypothetical” and declined to say whether the president would back it.

Van Hollen said Trump “isn’t willing to protect the integrity of our democracy in the United States, so Congress has to act.”

Two other lawmakers, Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Chris Coons, D-Del., will try to force a vote Thursday on a resolution backing the intelligence community’s findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and must be held accountable. A similar House vote Tuesday failed on a party-line vote.

The Republican chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Richard Burr of South Carolina, said if Trump doubts that Russia would again try to intervene, “He needs to read the intelligence.”

At the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington last Friday, Coats said, “We are not yet seeing the kind of electoral interference in specific states and voter data bases that we experienced in 2016; however, we fully realize that we are just one click on a keyboard away from a similar situation repeating itself.”

His comments came the same day the Justice Department unveiled an indictment against 12 Russian military intelligence officers for their role in hacking Democratic groups during the 2016 campaign.

“The president was flat out wrong,” Michael Morell, former deputy and acting director of the CIA said about Trump’s remarks after the Cabinet meeting. “The Russians continue to interfere in our democracy. In fact, they never stopped.”

Contrary to the U.S. government’s fears leading up to the 2016 president election, hacking the nation’s election infrastructure appeared to take a back seat to stealing and leaking salacious documents from the Democratic National Committee and House Democrats’ campaign arm.

The success of the apparent dress rehearsal does not bode well for the upcoming election cycles in 2018 and 2020, as intelligence leaders have noted the ongoing and increasing threat by Russian hackers.

Federal officials ultimately determined that at least 18 states had their election systems targeted in some fashion, and possibly up to 21 found scanning of their networks for possible vulnerabilities, according to a report issued by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in May.