Bob Woodward: "People better wake up to what's going on" in the Oval Office - CBS News

September 9, 2018, 9:51 AM

Bob Woodward: "People better wake up to what's going on" in the Oval Office

Watergate journalist Bob Woodward made headlines once again this past week, with his new book about the Trump White House, entitled "Fear." This morning, in his first TV interview, Woodward paints a picture for our David Martin of an administration in disarray:

"You look at the operation of this White House and you have to say, 'Let's hope to God we don't have a crisis,'" said Bob Woodward.

For the Washington Post reporter, that is the bottom line to all the jaw-dropping chaos and discord described in his new book, "Fear: Trump in the White House" (published by Simon & Schuster, a division of CBS).

"People who work for him are worried ... that he will sign things or give orders that threaten the national security or the financial security of the country, or of the world," Woodward said.

Aides like then-Chief Economic Adviser Gary Cohn and White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter literally stole documents off the president's desk in the Oval Office, such as a letter terminating a trade agreement with South Korea, so that, Woodward explained, Mr. Trump could not sign them: "Because they realized that this would endanger the country."

Martin asked, "How'd they get away with that?"

"[Trump] doesn't remember. If it's not on his desk, if it's not immediately available for action, it goes away."

Unelected officials like Cohn and Porter intentionally thwarting the actions of the elected president – the exact reverse of what a White House staff is supposed to do.

Going back to Richard Nixon and Watergate, this is the ninth White House Woodward has covered. "In the eight others," he said, "I never heard of people on the staff in the White House engaging in that kind of extreme action."

In Woodward's telling, President Trump does not see America as the indispensable nation; he sees it as an international sucker taken advantage of by allies and trading partners. He complained his advisors "don't know anything about business. All they want to is protect everybody … that we pay for."

According to Woodward, the president is obsessed by the fact that the U.S. pays $3.5 billion a year to station troops in South Korea as a first line of defense against the North. "I don't know why they're there," he said at one meeting. "Let's bring them all home." At another meeting, Secretary of Defense James Mattis starkly why the U.S. has 28,000 troops in Korea: "We're doing this in order to prevent World War III."

"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea." - President Trump at the United Nation, Sept. 19, 2017

The standoff with North Korea has been eased, for the moment, by the Singapore Summit, which brought together two leaders who had been trading nuclear threats and schoolyard insults.

Trump: "'Rocket Man' is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime."

The president later made that "Little Rocket Man" on Twitter, which he told Rob Porter "may be my best ever." When Porter asked if it might provoke Kim, according to Woodward, the president replied, "It's leader versus leader, man versus man, me versus Kim."

The most dangerous moment of the standoff, Woodward says, came when the president went to work on another tweet: "He drafts a tweet saying 'We are going to pull out dependents from South Korea  ... Family members of the 28,000 people there.'"

That tweet was never sent, because of a back channel message from North Korea that it would regard a pullout of dependents as a sign the U.S. was preparing to attack. "At that moment there was a sense of profound alarm in the Pentagon leadership that, 'My God, one tweet and we have reliable information that the North Koreans are going to read this as an attack is imminent,'" Woodward said.

The president surrounded himself with generals – active duty and retired – all of whom had served in Afghanistan. But before he decided on a new Afghan strategy, he insisted on meeting with enlisted men who had served there as well. In a meeting the next day, he lashed out at the generals: "I don't care about you guys," he said to Mattis, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph Dunford, and then-National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. "'The soldiers on the ground could run things much better than you,' he says to Mattis and Dunford, and there is a 25-minute dressing down of the generals and senior officials," said Woodward.

In a recent tweet, the president acknowledged: "I'm tough as hell on people and if I weren't nothing would get done."

When he didn't like a trade deal Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had negotiated with China, the president lit into him at a White House meeting: "It's a terrible deal. We got screwed. ... You're past your prime. You're not a good negotiator anymore. ... you've lost it. I don't trust you."

When Economic Adviser Gary Cohn was upset over the president's reluctance to condemn white supremacists for the violence in Charlottesville he went into the Oval Office to resign. According to Woodward, "Trump said, 'You can't resign. I need you to do tax reform. If you leave, this is treason.' And Trump talked him out of resigning."

Afterwards, Chief of Staff John Kelly, who had been in the room, pulled Cohn aside: "Cohn wrote this down, quote from General Kelly: 'If that was me I would have taken that resignation letter and shoved it up his *** six different times.'"

bob-woodward-interviewed-by-david-martin-620.jpg
Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, interviewed by CBS News' David Martin. CBS NEWS
The president has been bracing for Woodward's book since last month when the two lamented – or at least pretended to lament – that they had not talked.

Woodward recorded the phone conversation, with the president's permission:

Trump: "It's really too bad because nobody told me about it, and I would've loved to have spoken to you. You know I'm very open to you. I think you've always been fair."
Woodward: "It's a tough look at the world and your administration and you."
Trump: "Right. Well, I assume that means it's going to be a negative book. ... That's all right.  Some are good and some are bad.  Sounds like this is going to be a bad one."

Last week, when the contents of "Fear" began to leak ahead of its scheduled publication, the president said it was worse than bad. "The book is a work of fiction," Mr. Trump argued. "If you look back at Woodward's past, he had the same problem with other presidents. He likes to get publicity, sell some books."

Martin said, "He's added 'fake books' to his complaints about 'fake news.' Are you ready for a tweetstorm directed at you?"

"I've been there before," Woodward replied.

In the 1970s Woodward's stories (written with Carl Bernstein) on Richard Nixon and Watergate were repeatedly denounced (Press Secretary Ron Ziegler said, "We respect the free press, I respect the free press; I don't respect the type of journalism, the shabby journalism that is being practiced by the Washington Post"), until the White House was forced to apologize.

Working on this book, Woodward says he went back to the days of his youth when he and Bernstein made late-night visits to the homes of potential sources.

Woodward recalled, "In one case I called somebody at 11 o'clock at night and said I'd like to talk. 'Yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll get to it.' And I said, 'Well, how about now?' And he said, 'Now? It's 11 at night!' And I said, 'I'm four minutes away.' 'Okay, come on over for a while.'"

He doesn't identify his sources, but most readers will conclude he talked to both Gary Cohn and Rob Porter, along with several other White House officials who quit or were fired.

Martin said, "The criticism would be, 'You've talked to the people who have an axe to grind against the president.'"

"Well, that's just not true," he replied. "Look, I talked to dozens and dozens of people, and have notes and documentation on lots of things."

Woodward quotes harsh criticism of the president from some of his closest advisers. Chief of Staff Kelly called his boss an "idiot."  Secretary of Defense Mattis said the commander-in-chief acted like, and had the understanding of, "a fifth- or sixth-grader."  Both men have denied saying such things.

And the president continues to denounce the book at every turn. At a rally Friday night Mr. Trump said, "These guys that write books and they put phony quotes out all over the – totally phony quotes. I mean, totally, like, fraudulent books. They're, like, fraudulent books!"

Martin asked, "He says the quotes are just not the way he speaks and the quotes are fabricated. What do you say to that?"

Woodward said, "He's wrong, and my reporting is meticulous and careful."

In a second interview with CBS' "Sunday Morning," Woodward said he had multiple sources for every claim in the book: "Multiple interviews with key witnesses. One person I interviewed nine times, and the transcripts of those conversations are 700 or 800 pages."

"700-800 pages for one person?"

"Yes, sir."

"How many people did you interview?"

"Over a hundred. I would say that maybe half of those are key people."

The theme of Woodward's book – that aides fear what the president might do if allowed to follow his impulses – received an unusual confirmation last week, when The New York Times published an anonymous article written by a person described as "a senior official in the Trump administration."  "I work for the president, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations," he or she wrote.

When asked if he knows the author's identity, Woodward said, "I have no idea who it is. It's very important, who it is. It's very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated. And quite frankly, if there was a person in the White House or the administration who wanted to tell me what's in that op-ed piece, I would say, 'Okay, name me who was there. What is the specific incident?' As you know, from having read my book, the dates and times and participants [are documented]."

He said that without that detail on the op-ed author's story, "I wouldn't have used it."

"Too vague?" asked Martin.

"Well, too vague, and does not meet the standards of trying to describe specific incidents. Specific incidents are the building blocks of journalism, as you well know."

"Fear: Trump in the White House" is Woodward's 19th book, and he says reporting it took him deeper inside a working White House than he's ever been before.

"This one was in the belly of the beast," he said.

Martin asked, "And what did you conclude about the beast?"

"That people better wake up to what's going on."

Trump cuts $25 million in aid for Palestinians in East Jerusalem hospitals - Reuters

SEPTEMBER 9, 2018 / 2:39 AM / UPDATED 19 HOURS AGO
Trump cuts $25 million in aid for Palestinians in East Jerusalem hospitals


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered that $25 million earmarked for the care of Palestinians in East Jerusalem hospitals be directed elsewhere as part of a review of aid, a State Department official said on Saturday.

Trump called for a review of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians earlier this year to ensure that the funds were being spent in accordance with national interests and were providing value to taxpayers.

“As a result of that review, at the direction of the President, we will be redirecting approximately $25 million originally planned for the East Jerusalem Hospital Network,” the State Department official said. “Those funds will go to high-priority projects elsewhere.”

The aid cut is the latest in a number of actions by the Trump administration that have alienated the Palestinians, including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

That move reversed longtime U.S. policy and led Palestinian leadership to boycott Washington peace efforts led by Jared Kushner, Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law.

Last month, the Trump administration said it would redirect $200 million in Palestinian economic support funds for programs in the West Bank and Gaza.

And at the end of August, the Trump administration halted all funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), a decision that further heightened tensions with the Palestinian leadership.

Palestinian refugees have reacted with dismay to the funding cuts, warning they would lead to more poverty, anger and instability in the Middle East.

A statement from the Palestinian Foreign Ministry said the latest aid cut was part of a U.S. attempt “to liquidate the Palestinian cause” and said it would threaten the lives of thousands of Palestinians and the livelihoods of thousands of hospital employees.

“This dangerous and unjustified American escalation has crossed all red lines and is considered a direct aggression against the Palestinian people,” it said.

At the gates of two of the East Jerusalem hospitals affected, medical staff were aware of the decision but refused to comment.

One of the centers, Al Makassed Islamic Charitable Society Hospital, said in statement the U.S. aid cuts come as the “hospital is going through a suffocating crisis as a result of the lack of flow of financial aid, and the piling up of debts and funds held back by the Palestinian government”.

It said it had received 45 million shekels ($12.5 million) of the U.S. money to treat patients from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. In the statement hospital CEO Dr. Bassam Abu Libdeh “questioned the justification behind mixing political issues with medical and humanitarian issues.”

The last round of U.S.-brokered Palestinian-Israeli peace talks collapsed in 2014.

Reporting by David Brunnstrom in Washington; Additional reporting by Ali Sawafta in Ramallah and Maayan Lubell and Stephen Farrell in Jerusalem; editing by Paul Simao and Jason Neely

Trump Falsely Claims He’s Saving Medicare and Social Security, Which He Says Democrats Are ‘Killing’ - New York Times

Trump Falsely Claims He’s Saving Medicare and Social Security, Which He Says Democrats Are ‘Killing’
President Trump has accused Democrats of trying to “raid,” “rob” or “hurt” Medicare and Social Security, while suggesting he has made both programs “stronger.” Neither claim is true. 
Linda Qiu
By Linda Qiu
Sept. 7, 2018

WHAT WAS SAID

“They're going to hurt your Social Security so badly, and they're killing you on Medicare. Just remember that. I'm going to protect your Social Security. We're going to take care of your Social Security. We’re going to take care of your Social Security. Matt Rosendale is going to make sure we’re not touching your Social Security and your Medicare is only going one way. That’s stronger. They’re going to end up taking it away from you, and you won’t even know what happened.”

— President Trump, at a campaign rally on Thursday in Montana for Mr. Rosendale,  the Republican state auditor who is running for Senate.

“The Democrats will destroy Social Security. We’re saving Medicare. The Democrats want to destroy Medicare. If you look at what they’re doing, they’re going to destroy Medicare. And we will save it. We will keep it going. We’re making it stronger. We’re making Social Security stronger.”

— Mr. Trump, in remarks on Wednesday with the emir of Kuwait

THE FACTS

False.
The president is wrong on both claims: that Democrats plan to deplete Medicare and Social Security and that the two society safety nets are “stronger” under his administration.

First, not only has Mr. Trump failed to strengthen Medicare and Social Security, the financial outlook for both trusts has largely worsened. That’s at least partly the result of Mr. Trump’s tax law that is collecting fewer taxes from Americans and, in turn, investing less money into each program.

In June, the government projected that Medicare funds would be depleted by 2026, three years earlier than estimated in 2017. The report noted that less money will flow into the fund because of low wages and lower taxes.

The 2017 tax law also repealed the individual mandate that was required under the Affordable Care Act. That has led to Medicare needing to pay hospitals more money to reimburse costs of health care for a growing number of uninsured people.

Another government report, also released in June, projected that the Social Security’s fund for old-age benefits will run out in 2034. That is one year earlier than estimated in 2017, though the fund has enough money to pay for reduced Social Security benefits for 75 years.

You have 1 free article remaining.

Subscribe to The Times
According to that report, the fund for retirees will suffer reduced income because of both the tax law and the Trump administration’s move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (The Social Security’s disability fund, however, gained three years of solvency.)

Second, there is no evidence that Democrats are proposing to cut Social Security, and Mr. Trump is distorting their positions on Medicare.

In its 2016 platform, the Democratic Party vowed to protect and expand Social Security. Legislation introduced by Democrats in the House and Senate has proposed to increase benefits — not “raid,” “destroy” or “hurt” the fund, as Mr. Trump claimed.

The conservative American Enterprise Institute criticized the Democratic proposal for imposing higher taxes, but also noted that it would “make a big dent” in the fund’s deficit.

Mr. Trump — echoed by other Republicans — has also argued that “Medicare for all” proposals, championed by left-leaning Democrats, would “rob seniors of their Medicare benefits.”

That would happen if the expansion would be funded solely by existing funds. However, the Democratic proposals call for new taxes to pay for expanded Medicare coverage and benefits.

Nothing in “Medicare for all” bills in the Senate or the House would reduce benefits or cut dollars from the program; in fact, current beneficiaries would receive more coverage for lower costs. For example, under legislation from Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, “Medicare for all” would also cover dental and vision care and hearing aids.

To be sure, it is reasonable to argue that “Medicare for all” would be too costly, or would reduce payments to doctors and hospitals.

“But the claim that it would damage Medicare is nonsense,” said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy and expert on Medicare at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Ironically, Republicans are using this line of attack against ‘Medicare for all’ for the same reason that Democrats are framing their health reform vision as building on Medicare — Medicare is popular,” Mr. Oberlander said.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee called Mr. Trump’s statements “absurd” and accused the president of trying to cut Social Security and Medicare. The White House did not respond to requests for evidence for Mr. Trump’s claims.

Source: 2018 Annual Report from Social Security Trustees, 2018 Annual Report from Medicare Trustees, American Enterprise Institute, Daniel Wessel of the Democratic National Committee, Andrew Briggs of the American Enterprise Institute, Jonathan Oberlander, Gerald Friedman

Sign Up for the Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.

Linda Qiu is a fact-check reporter, based in Washington. She came to the Times in 2017 from the fact-checking service PolitiFact. @ylindaqiu

President Trump Says Apple Can Avoid Tariff Consequences by Opening U.S. Plants - TIME

President Trump Says Apple Can Avoid Tariff Consequences by Opening U.S. Plants

Posted: 08 Sep 2018 12:34 PM PDT

President Donald Trump concedes that some Apple Inc. products may become more expensive if his administration imposes “massive” additional tariffs on Chinese-made goods, but he says the tech company can fix the problem by moving production to the U.S.

“Start building new plants now. Exciting!” Trump said Saturday in a tweet aimed at the Cupertino, California-based company.

This week, Apple said that a proposed new round of $200 billion in additional tariffs on Chinese imports would raise prices on some of its products, including the Apple Watch and the Mac mini.

The company is highly exposed to a trade war between the U.S. and China. It makes many of its products for the U.S. market in China, and it also sells gadgets including the iPhone in China, making them a potential target for Chinese retaliation against the Trump tariffs.
Trump tweeted Saturday that “Apple prices may increase because of the massive Tariffs we may be imposing on China — but there is an easy solution where there would be ZERO tax, and indeed a tax incentive,” if the company made its products in the U.S. instead of China.

Apple prices may increase because of the massive Tariffs we may be imposing on China – but there is an easy solution where there would be ZERO tax, and indeed a tax incentive. Make your products in the United States instead of China. Start building new plants now. Exciting! #MAGA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 8, 2018

Apple didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has not announced plans to move manufacturing from China to the U.S.

In its letter this week to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Apple said that “because all tariffs ultimately show up as a tax on US consumers, they will increase the cost of Apple products that our customers have come to rely on in their daily lives.”

The company said tariffs would hit “a wide range of Apple products,” including computers, watches, adapters, chargers and tools used in its U.S. manufacturing, repair and data centers. Apple said the tariffs would raise the cost of its U.S. operations and put it at a disadvantage to foreign rivals.

The White House has accused China of stealing U.S. intellectual property and forcing American companies to share their technology with Chinese companies. The tariffs would pressure China to stop that behavior, the administration has said. Apple said “it is difficult to see” how tariffs would advance the government’s goal.

The presidential tweet is the latest salvo in a dispute between the Trump administration and companies that fear tariffs will hurt their business.

The Trump administration has imposed tariffs of $50 billion on imports from China, mostly equipment and material used by manufacturers. CEO Tim Cook said in July that those measures had no effect on Apple. The company is concerned, however, about the Trump administration’s proposal to add 25 percent duties on another $200 billion in Chinese goods, including a wider assortment of consumer-related items.

Javid warning to Russian spy poisoning suspects - BBC News

Sept. 9, 2018.

Javid warning to Russian spy poisoning suspects

Sajid Javid says the suspects will "probably never" leave Russia
The two suspects in the Salisbury nerve agent attack will be caught and prosecuted if they ever step out of Russia, the home secretary has warned.

Sajid Javid, however, did acknowledge "the reality is we will probably never see them in the UK".

He told the BBC the pair, thought to be from Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU, were acting on orders from the "highest level" in Moscow.

Ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned in March.

The suspects are understood to have travelled to the UK from Moscow on 2 March on Russian passports, under the aliases Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov.

Two days later, police say they sprayed the nerve agent, Novichok, on the front door of Mr Skripal's home in the Wiltshire city of Salisbury, before travelling home to Russia later that day.

The attack left Mr Skripal, 66, and his 33-year-old daughter hospitalised for weeks.

Speaking on BBC One's Andrew Marr show, Mr Javid called it a "sickening and despicable" attack.

It was "unequivocally, crystal clear this was the act of the Russian state - two Russian nationals sent to Britain with the sole purpose of carrying out a reckless assassination attempt," he said.

"f they ever step out of the Russian Federation, Britain and its allies will get them and we will bring them to prosecution," Mr Javid added.

Last week, the UK secured the support of the US, France, Germany and Canada at a UN Security Council meeting, at which they agreed with the UK's assessment that Russia's government "almost certainly" approved the poisoning.

Russia dismissed the UK's evidence as "lies" and accused it of "disgusting anti-Russian hysteria".

Prosecutors cannot apply to Russia for the men to be extradited because Russia does not have extradition agreements with the UK.

However, a European Arrest Warrant has been obtained, should they travel to the EU.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) believes there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction".

The home secretary says the suspects will "probably" never return to the UK
Russian spy poisoning: What we know so far
Could suspects be returned to the UK?
Mr Javid said the GRU operated on a "very short leash from the Kremlin".

He described it as a "very well-disciplined organisation" which would "only act with orders from the highest level of the Russian government".

Mr Javid stopped short of naming President Vladimir Putin as being behind the orders but said "we all know what's at the top of the Russian government".

He went on to say that the UK had "considerable powers" to respond to Russia.

"We will bring all those powers, both overt and covert, to bear on Russia and what it represents today."

North Korea holds parade without ballistic missiles, reports say - BBC News

Sept. 9, 2018.

North Korea holds parade without ballistic missiles, reports say

The anniversary parade showed off North Korea's military strength
North Korea did not display any intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) at a military parade to mark its 70th anniversary, reports say.

It is also unclear whether leader Kim Jong-un made a speech at the event.

The parade is being scrutinised for clues about North Korea's weapons arsenal and professed commitment to denuclearisation.

Some analysts had predicted that Mr Kim would tone down the display after his summit with US President Donald Trump.

A large display of ICBMs - which can reach the US mainland, potentially carrying a nuclear warhead - would have been seen as provocative.

Kim Jong-un's faith in Trump 'unchanged'
Korean reunions: Families divided by war meet in North
Why North Korea is in no hurry to please the US
N Korea 'making missiles' despite US thaw
In June Mr Kim and Mr Trump signed a vague agreement to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula but it did not include a timeline, details or mechanisms to verify the process.

Kim Jong-un (c) appeared alongside visiting Chinese politican Li Zhanshu
High-level talks and visits have continued but the most recent scheduled trip by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was called off last minute and both sides have blamed each other for the stalling negotiations while insisting they're committed to the progress.

The BBC's Seoul Correspondent Laura Bicker said any show of ICBMs could have put future discussions and any deal to declare an end to the Korean war at risk.

Participants waved flowers as they passed Mr Kim
North Korea was also due to hold its first mass games in five years. The Arirang Mass Games are an elaborate propaganda spectacle with enormous co-ordinated displays.

This year's games, which tell a symbolic story of North Korea's history, are titled The Glorious Country.

Analysis of satellite images from the past two weeks suggest this year's games, which will continue throughout September, are going to be very big.

Jets drew out the number 70 in the sky, to mark the country's 70th anniversary
Past games have featured gigantic stadiums filled with performers, synchronised gymnasts and co-ordinated dance displays.

The colourful displays are likely to be striking but the UN has in the past said that children are forced to take part, or to help in the build-up.

Swedish election: Vote begins amid anti-immigration surge - BBC News

Sept. 9, 2018.

Swedish election: Vote begins amid anti-immigration surge

"Either we stay with a decent democracy or we choose another path," the PM said.
The people of Sweden are voting in a general election - where an anti-immigration party is vying to make large gains.

The nationalist Sweden Democrats (SD), which polls suggest have 20% support, are tipped for second place.

Prime Minister Stefan Lofven called the SD a "racist" party as he cast his ballot in Stockholm.

The SD - which has its roots in neo-Nazism - has rebranded itself and says it is inclusive.

Neither the governing Social Democrats nor the main centre-right party, the Moderates, is likely to win a majority.

Immigration has been a central issue of the campaign. The SD doubled its seats in the 2014 election and it is predicted to double them again in this election.

Sweden Democrats tap into immigration fears
Have online bots affected the campaign?
More than a quarter of Sweden's voters were still undecided in the final week of campaigning, according to national polling company Sifo.

"I'm still hesitating between the Moderates and SD. SD is quite close to the Moderates but they're a little more clear in what they want. They're more direct," Elias, an 18-year-old voting in his first election, told AFP news agency.

Immigration and asylum have been major issues in the campaign
On Saturday, SD leader Jimmie Akesson countered that Sweden had been "an extreme country in many ways, not least when it comes to immigration" and that his plan to take in fewer migrants would be regarded as "normal politics in the rest of Europe".

Other European countries have also seen a surge in support for anti-immigration parties in recent years. The Danish People's Party won 21% in 2015, and the far-right Alternative for Germany won 12.6% in 2017.

Who are the Sweden Democrats?
The SD was linked for years to neo-Nazis and other far-right groups, only entering parliament in 2010.

It has been working to rebrand itself, changing its logo from a flaming torch (similar to the one used by the UK far-right National Front) to a blue-and-yellow daisy, the colours of the Swedish flag.

Jimmie Akesson of the Sweden Democrats after Friday's heated party-leader debate
Traditionally appealing to working-class men, it wants to attract more women and higher-income voters.

Mr Akesson, who became leader in 2005, says there is zero tolerance towards racism in the party and several members have been expelled.

However, the party has still been embroiled in various racism scandals.

One municipal candidate shared a song on Facebook with the lyrics "Swedes are white and the country is ours", according to a report in tabloid Aftonbladet.

Last year, some of its ex-members went on to found the far-right Alternative for Sweden (AfS).

What are the key issues?
Sweden's economy is booming but many voters are concerned that housing, healthcare and welfare services have come under pressure from a wave of immigration during the 2015 migrant crisis.

That year Sweden took in a record 163,000 asylum seekers - the highest such intake in the EU, per head of population.

Sweden's traditional parties have since hardened their tone to reflect concerns about integration.

Many voters are also concerned about violence. The SD links a rise in shootings to increased immigration, although official figures show no correlation.

Is Malmo the 'rape capital' of Europe?
The SD also wants to leave the European Union and has proposed a "Swexit" referendum. However, the powerful centrist parties all oppose such a vote, so it is unlikely to go ahead.

Aside from immigration, climate change is an issue many Swedes care about - particularly after a long, hot summer and severe forest fires.

During the heatwave, around 25,000 hectares of forest burned in wildfires and many farmers were forced to destroy livestock after their pasture land dried up.

Swedish teen's sit-in climate protest
Support for the Green party, which had been struggling after various internal scandals, has crept up across the country.

The Left party is making gains too, from the environmentally concerned and from centre-left voters dissatisfied with the mainstream parties' approach to migration.

Who could be in charge?
Prime Minister Lofven currently heads a minority, centre-left coalition government made up of his Social Democrats and the Green Party.

In recent years there has been a fall in support for the Social Democrats and the largest traditional opposition party, the Moderates.

However, polls suggest that the Social Democrats are narrowly ahead of other parties and may be in a position to lead another minority government.

Both the Social Democrats and the Moderates have said they will not enter a coalition with the SD, however well they perform.