Thursday, September 20, 2018
How the Financial Crisis Undermined America’s Place Atop the Global Order - TIME Business
How the Financial Crisis Undermined America’s Place Atop the Global Order
Posted: ( will be posted in October isue of TIME )
Ten years on, the reverberations from the global financial crisis are still shaking up the world order. While the catastrophe led to movements toward nationalism in several countries, it also accelerated America’s departure from its position as leader of the world–and in the void, a new power has begun to rise.
Confidence that the U.S. is a force for international stability began eroding well before Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. U.S. policymakers had presided over a downsizing of the nation’s role in the world in advance of the 2008 crash, and Americans elected increasingly isolationist Presidents. Widespread opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq marked a crucial post–Cold War turning point by aligning the views of a majority of America’s European allies with Russia.
The financial crisis and all that followed sharply exacerbated these negative attitudes by calling into question the long-term viability of Western capitalism. (If the U.S. can’t properly regulate its own banks, how can it serve as a model for developing countries?) The search for an alternative model took on new urgency.
A decade ago, China wasn’t yet ready to offer one. But the U.S.-based meltdown presented Beijing with an unprecedented opportunity to showcase the virtues of state-driven economic development. The country’s political leaders demonstrated their ability to respond to the crisis with fast and effective emergency measures. In 2008, China’s economy was smaller than Japan’s. Today it’s more than twice as large–and about equal to the combined total of the 19 countries that use the euro. As China’s economy expanded, so did its influence.
Stability had rarely been more appealing. A sovereign debt crisis created existential threats for the euro zone. A collapse in commodity prices–in late 2008, oil fell from $147 per barrel to about $30 per barrel in less than five months–helped create conditions for the wave of unrest that toppled governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya; set the Saudis on edge; and shoved Syria and Yemen into civil war. Waves of desperate migrants fleeing this upheaval made their way north, further irritating Europe’s precarious politics and inspiring pressure for tighter borders and new attitudes toward immigration.
These pressures certainly boosted support for Brexit and Trump. They also led voters to turn from traditional parties of center right and center left in France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere toward new voices and political parties promising new kinds of change. But this was not just a U.S.-European trend. Voters in Mexico and Pakistan pushed aside establishment parties and political dynasties in search of a new direction. Voters in Brazil may well follow suit in October.
Today, the global balance of power is no longer clear. Trump says the U.S. can win a trade war with China, but his political vulnerability has only emboldened Chinese President Xi Jinping. In the realm of cyberspace, meanwhile, conflicts are even more dangerous because unlike nuclear missiles, these weapons can actually be used to test an adversary’s strength.
China also now offers an increasingly credible alternative to both multiparty democracy and free-market capitalism, one with real appeal for governments, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, that want to maintain a tight grip on power. As China’s investments expand in every region of the world, it becomes ever more obvious that U.S. power isn’t as persuasive as it used to be.
Additionally, the U.S. has not responded to the 2008 crisis by investing in the future. It’s one thing to bail out industry and banks. It’s another to address the country’s growing inequality that leaves many people feeling as if they have no future. There is no credible plan to help those who lose jobs as the workplace automates. And Americans still invest for short-term gain rather than long-term productivity. That’s why the stock market is rising while infrastructure crumbles. Ten years on, these important lessons have still not been learned.
As a result, America’s longevity at the top is now very much in doubt. China, North Korea and Iran have reason to believe they can wait Trump out. And given that the U.S.’s influence has been eroding so quickly and for so long, it’s clear that for the foreseeable future, its leaders will need to continue to grapple with the limits of a superpower’s power.
This appears in the October 01, 2018 issue of TIME.
Ex-Malaysia PM Najib hit with 25 charges of money laundering and abuse of power - BBC News
Sept. 20, 2018.
Ex-Malaysia PM Najib hit with 25 charges of money laundering and abuse of power
Mr Najib has pleaded not guilty to all 25 charges
Malaysia's former prime minister, Najib Razak, has been charged with 21 counts of money laundering, in a case linked to a multi-million dollar corruption scandal.
He was charged in court on Thursday in relation to the alleged transfer of $556m (£421m) from state fund 1MDB into his personal bank account.
He was also charged with four counts of abuse of power.
Mr Najib has pleaded not guilty to all 25 charges.
The latest charges come on top of three counts of money laundering levelled against him in August.
Mr Najib, members of his family and several allies are accused of embezzling huge sums allegedly used to buy everything from artwork to high-end real estate around the globe.
Corruption, money and Malaysia's election
Najib Razak: Malaysia's PM defeated by his mentor
1MDB: The case that has riveted Malaysia
The allegations played a central role in his defeat in an election that was eventually won by his former mentor and long-time PM, 93-year old Mahathir Mohamad.
Demonstrators took to the streets in the run-up to Mr Razak's electoral defeat
1MDB, set up by Mr Najib in 2009, was meant to turn the capital, Kuala Lumpur, into a financial hub and boost the economy through strategic investments.
Instead, it started to attract negative attention in early 2015 after it missed payments for some of the $11bn it owed to banks and bondholders.
Then the Wall Street Journal reported it had seen a paper trail that allegedly traced close to $700m from the fund to Mr Najib's personal bank accounts.
Billions of dollars are still unaccounted for.
Ex-Malaysia PM Najib hit with 25 charges of money laundering and abuse of power
Mr Najib has pleaded not guilty to all 25 charges
Malaysia's former prime minister, Najib Razak, has been charged with 21 counts of money laundering, in a case linked to a multi-million dollar corruption scandal.
He was charged in court on Thursday in relation to the alleged transfer of $556m (£421m) from state fund 1MDB into his personal bank account.
He was also charged with four counts of abuse of power.
Mr Najib has pleaded not guilty to all 25 charges.
The latest charges come on top of three counts of money laundering levelled against him in August.
Mr Najib, members of his family and several allies are accused of embezzling huge sums allegedly used to buy everything from artwork to high-end real estate around the globe.
Corruption, money and Malaysia's election
Najib Razak: Malaysia's PM defeated by his mentor
1MDB: The case that has riveted Malaysia
The allegations played a central role in his defeat in an election that was eventually won by his former mentor and long-time PM, 93-year old Mahathir Mohamad.
Demonstrators took to the streets in the run-up to Mr Razak's electoral defeat
1MDB, set up by Mr Najib in 2009, was meant to turn the capital, Kuala Lumpur, into a financial hub and boost the economy through strategic investments.
Instead, it started to attract negative attention in early 2015 after it missed payments for some of the $11bn it owed to banks and bondholders.
Then the Wall Street Journal reported it had seen a paper trail that allegedly traced close to $700m from the fund to Mr Najib's personal bank accounts.
Billions of dollars are still unaccounted for.
Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Confirmation Is Now the Ultimate Test of Political Power in 2018 - TIME Politics
Sept. 20, 2018.
Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Confirmation Is Now the Ultimate Test of Political Power in 2018
Kavanaugh is sworn in for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 4.
By MOLLY BALL 6:06 AM EDT
From the beginning, the women were determined to be disruptive. There sat Brett Kavanaugh, looking every bit the world’s most decent man, with his even demeanor and sparkling résumé, ready to go through the motions and receive the benediction of the Senators before him.
Since the day of his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kavanaugh had portrayed himself as a champion of women. Introducing himself to the nation, he emphasized the women he cherished, saying his mother, a judge, was his ultimate role model, talking about his daughters and the “majority” of female law clerks he’d hired. Members of the girls’ basketball teams he’s coached sat in the front rows behind him at his Senate confirmation hearing. Earlier, he had recited the names of his daughter’s teammates: “Anna, Quinn, Kelsey, Ceane, Chloe, Alex, Ava, Sophia and Margaret,” he said. “I love helping the girls grow into confident players.”
He had spent a lifetime pushing all the right buttons, and now nothing seemed to stand between the conservative federal judge and a seat on the nation’s highest court. But one after another, women interrupted. Protesters popped up in the back of the room, yelling and waving signs before being hustled out by police. Women Senators spoke out of turn: “Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized,” pleaded Democrat Kamala Harris of California, to no avail. Kavanaugh sat quietly in the middle of it all, a cherubic smile on his face.
TIME photo-illustration; Thomas: J. David Ake–Getty Images; Kavanaugh: Chip Somodevilla–Getty Images
But the women, it turned out, weren’t done disrupting him. Just when the end seemed in sight–his confirmation vote less than a week away after a hearing that had turned up no more than the usual partisan angst–Christine Blasey Ford, a California college professor, decided to put her name to a devastating accusation, charging that, some 36 years prior, when they were both in high school, Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her.
It was a hazy accusation: hesitantly lodged, short on detail and curiously timed. But Ford’s charge shattered Kavanaugh’s carefully crafted tableau, calling into doubt the image he projected. The row of young girls, legs bare in their private-school skirts, looked different now. In the ensuing scramble, Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote was postponed, and he and Ford were invited to testify before the committee on Sept. 24. The prospect of such an extraordinary public hearing conjured obvious parallels to Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Twenty-seven years later, another professor with misgivings about coming forward had leveled allegations against a conservative Supreme Court nominee on the eve of his confirmation. And what had seemed a done deal became a fraught and fitting modern morality play.
But while the political spectacle may be similar, this battle will unfold in a different era. Every week brings new variations on the theme of women, racked with pain and rage, rising up in protest after too many years of trauma and terrified silence. Every week, too, has brought fresh reminders of the extent to which our whole reality is the product of the privilege and prejudices of entitled men. They decided what the story was, who got ahead, what the laws were and to whom they applied. Who lived and who died, from prisoners on death row to the fetus in the womb. Who was believed and who was destroyed. The men handled the disruptions quickly and quietly, with lawyers and payments and handshakes, with the grip of a policeman’s fist and a gavel pounded on a desk. Until suddenly there were too many to be contained.
Kavanaugh rejects the charge made against him. “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” he said in response. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” The White House has stood behind him, and his supporters say he is determined to surmount this last-minute obstacle. “What is being attempted here is a smear campaign to destroy his reputation as a decent man, and he’s not going to allow that to happen,” says a source involved in the confirmation process who speaks to Kavanaugh regularly. “He’s steadfast in his resolve to see it through and to tell the truth and to clear his name.”
His opponents say this must be the time when the scales tip in the other direction. “Now is our moment,” says Ilyse Hogue, head of the abortion-rights group NARAL. “We’ve had enough. We’re not going to take any more. Women are determined to make this a turning point in this country.”
With just a few weeks to go until the first national election of the Trump era, one in which all signs point to a tsunami of female rage as the decisive factor, a dramatic face-off between Kavanaugh and his accuser may be on the horizon–a showdown between two individuals and their memories of what did or didn’t happen so many years ago. But the stakes go beyond that, to who is believed and who decides the truth at this turbulent moment in America. Decisions–a high schooler’s, a judge’s, a middle-aged professor’s–have consequences. How the Kavanaugh drama plays out could be the ultimate test of today’s struggle for political and cultural power.
Kavanaugh answers questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings.
Kavanaugh answers questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings. Mark Peterson—Redux
It was 1982 or thereabouts: “Eye of the Tiger,” Reaganomics, E.T. Christine Blasey, approximately 15, lived in an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C., and attended an elite all-girls private school in Bethesda, Md. One summer night, perhaps after a day at the country-club pool, she went to a party at someone’s house. She was wearing her one-piece bathing suit under her clothes.
She drank beer in the family room, along with some boys she didn’t know well. They were from Georgetown Prep, the all-boys private school a few miles away. The boys at Georgetown Prep had fathers who were lobbyists and businessmen and government officials. They were being groomed to perpetuate the prosperity and status into which they’d been born.
In Ford’s account, Kavanaugh pushed her into a bedroom as she came up the stairs. Loud music was playing. His friend Mark Judge, across the room, was laughing, Ford recalled, as a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her down and tried to get under her clothes to her teenage body.
Ford wasn’t laughing. She was terrified. What if I die? she thought. She tried to scream, but he covered her mouth with his hand. He fumbled, frustrated, with her swimsuit. Finally, after Judge jumped on them, she wriggled free, locked herself in a bathroom and, when she’d heard the boys leave the room, ran out of the house, she said in an interview with the Washington Post.
About a decade later, as Ford moved through young adulthood to her academic career, a different man, Clarence Thomas, was nominated to the Supreme Court. Anita Hill, a woman who’d worked with him, came forward to accuse him of a prolonged campaign of sexual harassment. She faced a wall of male Senators from both parties, who needled and disbelieved her, and voted through the nominee, after he called the hearing a “high-tech lynching.” A year later there was an election, and women mobbed the polls, vastly expanding their numbers in Congress. Hill had lost her confrontation with the forces of power, but she’d helped propel a decades-long shift in the way women perceived their place in society.
Many more years would pass before Christine Blasey Ford confronted what she said happened when she was a teenager. Thirty years after the alleged incident, a 51-year-old married mother of two working as a research psychologist at a university in Northern California, it still weighed on her. She’d never told anyone the details of the incident until, in 2012, she related the story to her therapist and her husband. Notes from that session largely corroborate her account, according to the Post story, but if Ford said the boy’s name, the therapist didn’t write it down.
By July 2018, the boy she remembered was mentioned on the short list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court. The last thing she wanted was to be caught in the middle of that–she had a quiet life, was politically liberal but hardly an activist, had suffered enough already. But it didn’t feel right not to say anything. So she sent a letter to her Congresswoman and left an anonymous message on a newspaper tip line. She figured they would find a way to do something about it; she figured she could keep her name out of it.
The Congresswoman and the newspaper didn’t know what to do with the anonymous accusation. The boy was on course to replace his former boss, retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, potentially changing the face of American law by cementing a conservative majority for a generation. On July 30, Ford wrote a letter to California Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, saying Kavanaugh had assaulted her but requesting anonymity. Feinstein said nothing publicly until mid-September, when, with Kavanaugh on the cusp of his confirmation vote, she announced that she had referred an unspecified matter to the FBI.
Ford had hired a lawyer and taken a lie-detector test, but as rumors circulated and reporters started showing up at her door, she concluded she would have to put her name behind the allegation. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation,” she told the Washington Post in a detailed account that is the only public statement she has made. Ford’s lawyer didn’t respond to an interview request for this article.
For his part, Kavanaugh stood by his blanket denial. “This is a completely false allegation,” he said. “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes–to her or to anyone.”
The reaction was swift and furious. The Senate delayed a Sept. 20 committee vote on Kavanaugh, and Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley scheduled a hearing for Monday, Sept. 24. Ford had said she was willing to give her testimony to the Senate, but on Sept. 18 her lawyer announced that Ford wanted a proper investigation first. Democrats insisted more time was needed for the FBI to probe the matter; by midweek it wasn’t clear whether the planned hearing would go forward.
Ford’s fears about going public have been validated. Furious partisans bombarded her with threats and abuse, forcing her to hire security and move out of her home temporarily, her lawyer said. Ford also received an outpouring of support, the lawyer added. The White House of Donald Trump–a President who has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 19 women, has been caught on tape boasting about sexual assault and has admitted to paying off women who claim to have had affairs with him–was measured in its response. Senior counselor Kellyanne Conway said Ford “should not be insulted and should not be ignored.” Trump, who has called all his accusers liars and frequently expressed sympathy for men accused of sexual misconduct, lamented the accusation but said it merited a delay in the process.
At the same time, Republicans geared up to defend Kavanaugh. A conservative group announced it would spend $1.5 million to air an ad featuring a longtime female friend attesting to his character. Advocates released supportive statements from two of his former girlfriends. The suite of offices on the fourth floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building that served as the nerve center for Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings once again bustled with activity. Kavanaugh huddled with White House counsel Don McGahn, who is shepherding his nomination, and repeated his blanket denials, a White House official said. He made calls to lawmakers and spent hours in mock cross-examination about the allegation, his conduct and his character.
Because he has explicitly denied ever behaving in the manner Ford described, any evidence that supports her account would shatter his credibility. “He emphatically denied that the allegations were true,” said Senator Susan Collins, the moderate Maine Republican who is considered a key swing vote, after discussing the allegations with Kavanaugh in an hourlong phone conversation. “He said that he had never acted that way, not only with this unnamed accuser but with any woman. He was absolutely emphatic about that.” Collins added, “Obviously, if Judge Kavanaugh has lied about what happened, that would be disqualifying.”
At the same time, the details missing from Ford’s story make it equally possible that evidence will emerge to undermine it. She says she is not sure when the alleged incident occurred, who hosted the party or how she got to the party. The source involved in the process expects new revelations to fill what he called the “gaps” in Ford’s story. “An individual who puts an allegation out with some serious gaps invites that kind of gap filling,” the source says. “Sometimes that gap filling helps corroborate what’s already there, and sometimes it completely blows the story out of the water.”
The same moderate Republicans and red-state Democrats to whom Kavanaugh’s squeaky-clean introduction was targeted are now jittery and hesitant about his confirmation prospects. Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski, another Republican who supports abortion rights, were among the first to call for hearings. Democrats Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill and Joe Manchin, all of whom are up for re-election in states Trump won handily and were considered possible votes for Kavanaugh, also called for further investigation. The GOP’s one-vote majority means that without any Democratic votes, it can afford only one defection to get the nomination through.
All this comes against the backdrop of an election season that was already shaping up as a referendum on male impunity and female empowerment. Before Ford came forward, the major issues in Kavanaugh’s hearings were how he might rule on cases related to abortion and Trump’s susceptibility to prosecution–two issues that relate directly to the same questions of power and autonomy. Both parties have every incentive to fight to the finish: Democrats see an opportunity to galvanize their already furious base, while Republicans, who’d hoped to put a big election-eve win on the board, fear discouraging theirs.
Into this storm will step two people, a man and a woman, who were once a boy and a girl, who may or may not have collided on a hot suburban night so many years ago. What happens next will answer the central question: Decisions have consequences–but for whom?
With reporting by Charlotte Alter and Alana Abramson/New York; Philip Elliot/Tampa; and Brian Bennet, Tessa Berenson, Abby Vesoulis and Justin Worland/Washington
Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Confirmation Is Now the Ultimate Test of Political Power in 2018
Kavanaugh is sworn in for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 4.
By MOLLY BALL 6:06 AM EDT
From the beginning, the women were determined to be disruptive. There sat Brett Kavanaugh, looking every bit the world’s most decent man, with his even demeanor and sparkling résumé, ready to go through the motions and receive the benediction of the Senators before him.
Since the day of his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kavanaugh had portrayed himself as a champion of women. Introducing himself to the nation, he emphasized the women he cherished, saying his mother, a judge, was his ultimate role model, talking about his daughters and the “majority” of female law clerks he’d hired. Members of the girls’ basketball teams he’s coached sat in the front rows behind him at his Senate confirmation hearing. Earlier, he had recited the names of his daughter’s teammates: “Anna, Quinn, Kelsey, Ceane, Chloe, Alex, Ava, Sophia and Margaret,” he said. “I love helping the girls grow into confident players.”
He had spent a lifetime pushing all the right buttons, and now nothing seemed to stand between the conservative federal judge and a seat on the nation’s highest court. But one after another, women interrupted. Protesters popped up in the back of the room, yelling and waving signs before being hustled out by police. Women Senators spoke out of turn: “Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized,” pleaded Democrat Kamala Harris of California, to no avail. Kavanaugh sat quietly in the middle of it all, a cherubic smile on his face.
TIME photo-illustration; Thomas: J. David Ake–Getty Images; Kavanaugh: Chip Somodevilla–Getty Images
But the women, it turned out, weren’t done disrupting him. Just when the end seemed in sight–his confirmation vote less than a week away after a hearing that had turned up no more than the usual partisan angst–Christine Blasey Ford, a California college professor, decided to put her name to a devastating accusation, charging that, some 36 years prior, when they were both in high school, Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her.
It was a hazy accusation: hesitantly lodged, short on detail and curiously timed. But Ford’s charge shattered Kavanaugh’s carefully crafted tableau, calling into doubt the image he projected. The row of young girls, legs bare in their private-school skirts, looked different now. In the ensuing scramble, Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote was postponed, and he and Ford were invited to testify before the committee on Sept. 24. The prospect of such an extraordinary public hearing conjured obvious parallels to Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Twenty-seven years later, another professor with misgivings about coming forward had leveled allegations against a conservative Supreme Court nominee on the eve of his confirmation. And what had seemed a done deal became a fraught and fitting modern morality play.
But while the political spectacle may be similar, this battle will unfold in a different era. Every week brings new variations on the theme of women, racked with pain and rage, rising up in protest after too many years of trauma and terrified silence. Every week, too, has brought fresh reminders of the extent to which our whole reality is the product of the privilege and prejudices of entitled men. They decided what the story was, who got ahead, what the laws were and to whom they applied. Who lived and who died, from prisoners on death row to the fetus in the womb. Who was believed and who was destroyed. The men handled the disruptions quickly and quietly, with lawyers and payments and handshakes, with the grip of a policeman’s fist and a gavel pounded on a desk. Until suddenly there were too many to be contained.
Kavanaugh rejects the charge made against him. “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” he said in response. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” The White House has stood behind him, and his supporters say he is determined to surmount this last-minute obstacle. “What is being attempted here is a smear campaign to destroy his reputation as a decent man, and he’s not going to allow that to happen,” says a source involved in the confirmation process who speaks to Kavanaugh regularly. “He’s steadfast in his resolve to see it through and to tell the truth and to clear his name.”
His opponents say this must be the time when the scales tip in the other direction. “Now is our moment,” says Ilyse Hogue, head of the abortion-rights group NARAL. “We’ve had enough. We’re not going to take any more. Women are determined to make this a turning point in this country.”
With just a few weeks to go until the first national election of the Trump era, one in which all signs point to a tsunami of female rage as the decisive factor, a dramatic face-off between Kavanaugh and his accuser may be on the horizon–a showdown between two individuals and their memories of what did or didn’t happen so many years ago. But the stakes go beyond that, to who is believed and who decides the truth at this turbulent moment in America. Decisions–a high schooler’s, a judge’s, a middle-aged professor’s–have consequences. How the Kavanaugh drama plays out could be the ultimate test of today’s struggle for political and cultural power.
Kavanaugh answers questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings.
Kavanaugh answers questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings. Mark Peterson—Redux
It was 1982 or thereabouts: “Eye of the Tiger,” Reaganomics, E.T. Christine Blasey, approximately 15, lived in an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C., and attended an elite all-girls private school in Bethesda, Md. One summer night, perhaps after a day at the country-club pool, she went to a party at someone’s house. She was wearing her one-piece bathing suit under her clothes.
She drank beer in the family room, along with some boys she didn’t know well. They were from Georgetown Prep, the all-boys private school a few miles away. The boys at Georgetown Prep had fathers who were lobbyists and businessmen and government officials. They were being groomed to perpetuate the prosperity and status into which they’d been born.
In Ford’s account, Kavanaugh pushed her into a bedroom as she came up the stairs. Loud music was playing. His friend Mark Judge, across the room, was laughing, Ford recalled, as a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her down and tried to get under her clothes to her teenage body.
Ford wasn’t laughing. She was terrified. What if I die? she thought. She tried to scream, but he covered her mouth with his hand. He fumbled, frustrated, with her swimsuit. Finally, after Judge jumped on them, she wriggled free, locked herself in a bathroom and, when she’d heard the boys leave the room, ran out of the house, she said in an interview with the Washington Post.
About a decade later, as Ford moved through young adulthood to her academic career, a different man, Clarence Thomas, was nominated to the Supreme Court. Anita Hill, a woman who’d worked with him, came forward to accuse him of a prolonged campaign of sexual harassment. She faced a wall of male Senators from both parties, who needled and disbelieved her, and voted through the nominee, after he called the hearing a “high-tech lynching.” A year later there was an election, and women mobbed the polls, vastly expanding their numbers in Congress. Hill had lost her confrontation with the forces of power, but she’d helped propel a decades-long shift in the way women perceived their place in society.
Many more years would pass before Christine Blasey Ford confronted what she said happened when she was a teenager. Thirty years after the alleged incident, a 51-year-old married mother of two working as a research psychologist at a university in Northern California, it still weighed on her. She’d never told anyone the details of the incident until, in 2012, she related the story to her therapist and her husband. Notes from that session largely corroborate her account, according to the Post story, but if Ford said the boy’s name, the therapist didn’t write it down.
By July 2018, the boy she remembered was mentioned on the short list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court. The last thing she wanted was to be caught in the middle of that–she had a quiet life, was politically liberal but hardly an activist, had suffered enough already. But it didn’t feel right not to say anything. So she sent a letter to her Congresswoman and left an anonymous message on a newspaper tip line. She figured they would find a way to do something about it; she figured she could keep her name out of it.
The Congresswoman and the newspaper didn’t know what to do with the anonymous accusation. The boy was on course to replace his former boss, retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, potentially changing the face of American law by cementing a conservative majority for a generation. On July 30, Ford wrote a letter to California Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, saying Kavanaugh had assaulted her but requesting anonymity. Feinstein said nothing publicly until mid-September, when, with Kavanaugh on the cusp of his confirmation vote, she announced that she had referred an unspecified matter to the FBI.
Ford had hired a lawyer and taken a lie-detector test, but as rumors circulated and reporters started showing up at her door, she concluded she would have to put her name behind the allegation. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation,” she told the Washington Post in a detailed account that is the only public statement she has made. Ford’s lawyer didn’t respond to an interview request for this article.
For his part, Kavanaugh stood by his blanket denial. “This is a completely false allegation,” he said. “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes–to her or to anyone.”
The reaction was swift and furious. The Senate delayed a Sept. 20 committee vote on Kavanaugh, and Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley scheduled a hearing for Monday, Sept. 24. Ford had said she was willing to give her testimony to the Senate, but on Sept. 18 her lawyer announced that Ford wanted a proper investigation first. Democrats insisted more time was needed for the FBI to probe the matter; by midweek it wasn’t clear whether the planned hearing would go forward.
Ford’s fears about going public have been validated. Furious partisans bombarded her with threats and abuse, forcing her to hire security and move out of her home temporarily, her lawyer said. Ford also received an outpouring of support, the lawyer added. The White House of Donald Trump–a President who has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 19 women, has been caught on tape boasting about sexual assault and has admitted to paying off women who claim to have had affairs with him–was measured in its response. Senior counselor Kellyanne Conway said Ford “should not be insulted and should not be ignored.” Trump, who has called all his accusers liars and frequently expressed sympathy for men accused of sexual misconduct, lamented the accusation but said it merited a delay in the process.
At the same time, Republicans geared up to defend Kavanaugh. A conservative group announced it would spend $1.5 million to air an ad featuring a longtime female friend attesting to his character. Advocates released supportive statements from two of his former girlfriends. The suite of offices on the fourth floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building that served as the nerve center for Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings once again bustled with activity. Kavanaugh huddled with White House counsel Don McGahn, who is shepherding his nomination, and repeated his blanket denials, a White House official said. He made calls to lawmakers and spent hours in mock cross-examination about the allegation, his conduct and his character.
Because he has explicitly denied ever behaving in the manner Ford described, any evidence that supports her account would shatter his credibility. “He emphatically denied that the allegations were true,” said Senator Susan Collins, the moderate Maine Republican who is considered a key swing vote, after discussing the allegations with Kavanaugh in an hourlong phone conversation. “He said that he had never acted that way, not only with this unnamed accuser but with any woman. He was absolutely emphatic about that.” Collins added, “Obviously, if Judge Kavanaugh has lied about what happened, that would be disqualifying.”
At the same time, the details missing from Ford’s story make it equally possible that evidence will emerge to undermine it. She says she is not sure when the alleged incident occurred, who hosted the party or how she got to the party. The source involved in the process expects new revelations to fill what he called the “gaps” in Ford’s story. “An individual who puts an allegation out with some serious gaps invites that kind of gap filling,” the source says. “Sometimes that gap filling helps corroborate what’s already there, and sometimes it completely blows the story out of the water.”
The same moderate Republicans and red-state Democrats to whom Kavanaugh’s squeaky-clean introduction was targeted are now jittery and hesitant about his confirmation prospects. Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski, another Republican who supports abortion rights, were among the first to call for hearings. Democrats Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill and Joe Manchin, all of whom are up for re-election in states Trump won handily and were considered possible votes for Kavanaugh, also called for further investigation. The GOP’s one-vote majority means that without any Democratic votes, it can afford only one defection to get the nomination through.
All this comes against the backdrop of an election season that was already shaping up as a referendum on male impunity and female empowerment. Before Ford came forward, the major issues in Kavanaugh’s hearings were how he might rule on cases related to abortion and Trump’s susceptibility to prosecution–two issues that relate directly to the same questions of power and autonomy. Both parties have every incentive to fight to the finish: Democrats see an opportunity to galvanize their already furious base, while Republicans, who’d hoped to put a big election-eve win on the board, fear discouraging theirs.
Into this storm will step two people, a man and a woman, who were once a boy and a girl, who may or may not have collided on a hot suburban night so many years ago. What happens next will answer the central question: Decisions have consequences–but for whom?
With reporting by Charlotte Alter and Alana Abramson/New York; Philip Elliot/Tampa; and Brian Bennet, Tessa Berenson, Abby Vesoulis and Justin Worland/Washington
China Raises Tariffs on $60 Billion of U.S. Goods in Technology Fight - TIME
China Raises Tariffs on $60 Billion of U.S. Goods in Technology Fight
Posted: 18 Sep 2018
(BEIJING) — China on Tuesday announced a tariff hike on $60 billion of U.S. products in response to President Donald Trump’s latest duty increase in a dispute over Beijing’s technology policy.
The announcement followed a warning by an American business group that a “downward spiral” in their conflict appeared certain following Trump’s penalties on $200 billion of Chinese goods.
The Finance Ministry said it was going ahead with plans announced in August for the increases of 10 percent and 5 percent on 5,207 types of U.S. goods. A list released last month included coffee, honey and industrial chemicals.
The increase is aimed at curbing “trade friction” and the “unilateralism and protectionism of the United States,” the ministry said on its website. It appealed for “pragmatic dialogue” to “jointly safeguard the principle of free trade and the multilateral trading system.”
The Trump administration announced the tariffs on some 5,000 Chinese-made goods will start at 10 percent, beginning Monday. They are to rise to 25 percent on Jan. 1.
A Commerce Ministry statement earlier said Trump’s increase “brings new uncertainty to the consultations” but there was no word on whether Beijing would back out of talks proposed last week by Washington.
The United States complains Chinese industry development plans including “Made in China 2025,” which calls for creating global champions in robotics and other fields, are based on stolen technology, violate Beijing’s market-opening commitments and might erode American industrial leadership.
American companies and trading partners including the European Union and Japan have longstanding complaints about Chinese market barriers and industrial policy. But they object to Trump’s tactics and warn the dispute could chill global economic growth and undermine international trade regulation.
The American Chamber of Commerce in China warned Washington is underestimating Beijing’s determination to fight back.
“The downward spiral that we have previously warned about now seems certain to materialize,” the chamber chairman, William Zarit, said in a statement.
Trump imposed 25 percent duties on $50 billion of Chinese products in July. Beijing retaliated with similar penalties on the same amount of American goods.
The U.S. duties targeted Chinese goods Washington says have benefited from improper industrial policies. Beijing’s penalties hit soybeans and other farm goods from states that voted for Trump in 2016.
Trump threatened Monday to add a further $267 billion in Chinese imports to the target list if China retaliates for the latest U.S. duties. That would raise the total affected by U.S. penalties to $517 billion — covering nearly everything China sells the United States.
“Contrary to views in Washington, China can — and will — dig its heels in and we are not optimistic about the prospect for a resolution in the short term,” said Zarit of the American Chamber of Commerce. “No one will emerge victorious from this counter-productive cycle.”
The chamber appealed to both governments for “results-oriented negotiations.”
As Beijing runs out of U.S. goods for retaliation, American companies say regulators are starting to disrupt their operations.
Last week, the American Chambers of Commerce in China and in Shanghai reported 52 percent of more than 430 companies that responded to a survey said they have faced slower customs clearance and increased inspections and bureaucratic procedures.
The U.S. government withdrew some items from its preliminary list of $200 billion in Chinese imports to be taxed, including child-safety products such as bicycle helmets. And in a victory for Apple Inc., the administration removed smart watches and some other consumer electronics products.
“China has had many opportunities to fully address our concerns,” Trump said in a statement. “I urge China’s leaders to take swift action to end their country’s unfair trade practices.”
Trump has also complained about America’s gaping trade deficit — $336 billion last year — with China, its biggest trading partner.
In May, in fact, it looked briefly as if Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He had brokered a truce built around a Chinese offer to buy enough American farm products and liquefied natural gas to put a dent in the trade deficit. But Trump quickly backed away from the truce.
In the first two rounds of tariffs, the Trump administration took care to try to spare American consumers from the direct impact of the import taxes. The tariffs focused on industrial products, not on things Americans buy at the mall or via Amazon.
By expanding the list to $200 billion of Chinese products, Trump may spread the pain to ordinary households. The administration is targeting a bewildering variety of goods — from sockeye salmon to baseball gloves to bamboo mats — forcing U.S. companies to scramble for suppliers outside China, absorb the import taxes or pass along the cost to their customers.
Sohn said the Trump administration is pursuing a legitimate goal of getting China to stop violating international trade rules but that it should have enlisted support from other trading partners, such as the European Union, Canada and Mexico, and presented Beijing with a united front.
Trump has strained relations with potential allies including the European Union, Canada and Mexico by raising tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. He demanded Canada and Mexico renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement to make it more favorable to the United States.
Posted: 18 Sep 2018
(BEIJING) — China on Tuesday announced a tariff hike on $60 billion of U.S. products in response to President Donald Trump’s latest duty increase in a dispute over Beijing’s technology policy.
The announcement followed a warning by an American business group that a “downward spiral” in their conflict appeared certain following Trump’s penalties on $200 billion of Chinese goods.
The Finance Ministry said it was going ahead with plans announced in August for the increases of 10 percent and 5 percent on 5,207 types of U.S. goods. A list released last month included coffee, honey and industrial chemicals.
The increase is aimed at curbing “trade friction” and the “unilateralism and protectionism of the United States,” the ministry said on its website. It appealed for “pragmatic dialogue” to “jointly safeguard the principle of free trade and the multilateral trading system.”
The Trump administration announced the tariffs on some 5,000 Chinese-made goods will start at 10 percent, beginning Monday. They are to rise to 25 percent on Jan. 1.
A Commerce Ministry statement earlier said Trump’s increase “brings new uncertainty to the consultations” but there was no word on whether Beijing would back out of talks proposed last week by Washington.
The United States complains Chinese industry development plans including “Made in China 2025,” which calls for creating global champions in robotics and other fields, are based on stolen technology, violate Beijing’s market-opening commitments and might erode American industrial leadership.
American companies and trading partners including the European Union and Japan have longstanding complaints about Chinese market barriers and industrial policy. But they object to Trump’s tactics and warn the dispute could chill global economic growth and undermine international trade regulation.
The American Chamber of Commerce in China warned Washington is underestimating Beijing’s determination to fight back.
“The downward spiral that we have previously warned about now seems certain to materialize,” the chamber chairman, William Zarit, said in a statement.
Trump imposed 25 percent duties on $50 billion of Chinese products in July. Beijing retaliated with similar penalties on the same amount of American goods.
The U.S. duties targeted Chinese goods Washington says have benefited from improper industrial policies. Beijing’s penalties hit soybeans and other farm goods from states that voted for Trump in 2016.
Trump threatened Monday to add a further $267 billion in Chinese imports to the target list if China retaliates for the latest U.S. duties. That would raise the total affected by U.S. penalties to $517 billion — covering nearly everything China sells the United States.
“Contrary to views in Washington, China can — and will — dig its heels in and we are not optimistic about the prospect for a resolution in the short term,” said Zarit of the American Chamber of Commerce. “No one will emerge victorious from this counter-productive cycle.”
The chamber appealed to both governments for “results-oriented negotiations.”
As Beijing runs out of U.S. goods for retaliation, American companies say regulators are starting to disrupt their operations.
Last week, the American Chambers of Commerce in China and in Shanghai reported 52 percent of more than 430 companies that responded to a survey said they have faced slower customs clearance and increased inspections and bureaucratic procedures.
The U.S. government withdrew some items from its preliminary list of $200 billion in Chinese imports to be taxed, including child-safety products such as bicycle helmets. And in a victory for Apple Inc., the administration removed smart watches and some other consumer electronics products.
“China has had many opportunities to fully address our concerns,” Trump said in a statement. “I urge China’s leaders to take swift action to end their country’s unfair trade practices.”
Trump has also complained about America’s gaping trade deficit — $336 billion last year — with China, its biggest trading partner.
In May, in fact, it looked briefly as if Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He had brokered a truce built around a Chinese offer to buy enough American farm products and liquefied natural gas to put a dent in the trade deficit. But Trump quickly backed away from the truce.
In the first two rounds of tariffs, the Trump administration took care to try to spare American consumers from the direct impact of the import taxes. The tariffs focused on industrial products, not on things Americans buy at the mall or via Amazon.
By expanding the list to $200 billion of Chinese products, Trump may spread the pain to ordinary households. The administration is targeting a bewildering variety of goods — from sockeye salmon to baseball gloves to bamboo mats — forcing U.S. companies to scramble for suppliers outside China, absorb the import taxes or pass along the cost to their customers.
Sohn said the Trump administration is pursuing a legitimate goal of getting China to stop violating international trade rules but that it should have enlisted support from other trading partners, such as the European Union, Canada and Mexico, and presented Beijing with a united front.
Trump has strained relations with potential allies including the European Union, Canada and Mexico by raising tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. He demanded Canada and Mexico renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement to make it more favorable to the United States.
Tesla Says It Has Turned Over Documents to the Justice Department -
Tesla Says It Has Turned Over Documents to the Justice Department
Posted: 18 Sep 2018 01:34 PM PDT
(DETROIT) — Tesla Inc. has turned over documents to the U.S. Justice Department after statements by CEO Elon Musk about taking the company private, the electric car maker confirmed Tuesday.
The Palo Alto, California, company cooperated with the request and believes the matter should be resolved quickly once federal prosecutors review information they have received, according to a company statement.
News of a potential criminal investigation pushed Tesla stock down 5 percent in morning trading Tuesday, but the decline subsided a bit by early afternoon to 3.4 percent, at $284.89.
“We have not received a subpoena, a request for testimony, or any other formal process,” Tesla’s statement said.
Bloomberg News reported Tuesday morning that the Justice Department is running a criminal probe parallel to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The news service cited two people familiar with the matter that it did not identify.
The Justice Department generally does not confirm or deny investigations, spokeswoman Nicole Navas Oxman in Washington said. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco took the same stance.
Tesla said it was contacted by prosecutors after Musk tweeted last month while driving to the airport that funding was secured to take the company private. The announcement raised the stock price 11 percent in one day, but it has since fallen.
Later the company admitted that funding wasn’t lined up and eventually Musk abandoned the idea.
Short-sellers, who bet against the stock appreciating, complained that Musk’s announcement was done to manipulate the stock price and cost them money.
Stephen Crimmins, a former deputy chief of litigation for the SEC, said prosecutors probably are looking at Musk’s tweets to be cautious. “It automatically becomes so high profile that the government enforcers have to be particularly conscientious in taking a look at things,” he said.
Crimmins said Musk “speaks loosely,” but his conduct probably doesn’t rise to the criminal level. Prosecutors would have to prove Musk lied in order to move the stock price, which would be difficult, Crimmins said. Any loss to short-sellers would be for a short period and wouldn’t be worth the risk of Musk intentionally manipulating the stock price, Crimmins said.
The SEC likely would pursue a civil remedy that would include a provision that someone at Tesla review Musk’s tweets on corporate matters before they are sent out, he said.
'Least impressive sex I ever had': Stormy Daniels tells all about Trump in bombshell book The book, titled "Full Disclosure, -
'Least impressive sex I ever had': Stormy Daniels tells all about Trump in bombshell book
The book, titled "Full Disclosure," was obtained ahead of its Oct. 2 release by The Guardian newspaper.
by Adam Edelman / Sep.18.2018
Adult film actress/director Stormy Daniels attends the 2018 Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas.Gabe Ginsberg / Getty Images file
Adult film star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with President Donald Trump more than a decade ago and is suing the president, described sex with the future commander in chief as "the least impressive sex I’d ever had" in a new book.
The book, titled "Full Disclosure," was obtained ahead of its Oct. 2 release by The Guardian newspaper. NBC News has not obtained the book.
"It may have been the least impressive sex I'd ever had, but clearly, he didn't share that opinion," she wrote, according to The Guardian.
Daniels had lingering remorse over the experience for years, writing that any time she'd see Trump on television, she'd think: "I had sex with that, I’d say to myself. Eech."
The White House had no immediate comment about the new book.
Victory for Stormy Daniels as Trump, Cohen give up on hush deal
SEP.11.201802:51
After the tryst with Daniels, Trump promised to put her on his "The Apprentice" reality show, Daniels writes in the book, according to The Guardian, and even indicated he would fix the results in her favor to have her last on the show.
"We'll figure out a way to get you the challenges beforehand," Daniels quoted Trump has having told her. "And we can devise your technique."
"He was going to have me cheat, and it was 100 percent his idea," she wrote, according to The Guardian.
Brett Kavanaugh's accuser Christine Blasey Ford is changing how society deals with sexual assault accusations
Russia, China embrace uneasily, aim for 'desirable world order'
Years later, when Trump would decide to run for president, Daniels repeatedly dismissed the idea he could win — until, of course, he eventually did.
"It will never happen, I would say," Daniels wrote. "He doesn’t even want to be president."
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, also describes Trump’s sex organs in graphic detail.
Daniels has suggested she had a one-time sexual encounter with Trump in a hotel room. She alleged in a civil lawsuit that she and Trump had an "intimate relationship" that lasted from summer 2006 "well into the year 2007" and which included meetings in Lake Tahoe and at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The White House denies Trump had an affair with her.
But Trump's private attorney, Michael Cohen, admitted in February he had paid her $130,000 — which she says was to buy her silence over the "intimate relationship." NBC News reported in April that Daniels is cooperating with federal investigators as part of their criminal investigation into Cohen.
In May, Trump said Daniels was paid to stop "false and extortionist accusations" she made about a sexual encounter with him. Trump has forcefully denied the affair. Daniels has filed two lawsuits against Trump, one to get out of a nondisclosure agreement she signed in October 2016 ahead of the November presidential election in exchange for the $130,000, and another for defamation.
Important news headlines - September 20, 2018 - NBC News
September 20, 2018
Important news headlines
Good Thursday morning. Here are some of the stories making news in Washington and politics today.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing this month in Washington.
• The woman who accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault rejected the idea of a Senate hearing, saying it would not be a “good faith investigation.” [Read the story]
• Here’s the story of Christine Blasey Ford, the researcher and statistician who was reluctant to come forward with her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh. [Read the story]
• The accusation against the judge has scrambled the political calculations for 10 Democratic senators running for re-election in states won by President Trump. [Read the story]
• Mr. Trump’s pugilistic approach to trade and China could rupture relations for years to come. [Read the story]
• Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, agreed to “permanently dismantle” key nuclear facilities in a bid to ease tensions with South Korea, but his offers stop short of denuclearization. [Read the story]
• President Andrzej Duda of Poland offered to host an American military base as a bulwark against Russia and even name it Fort Trump. Mr. Trump said Warsaw would have to pay billions to use his name.
• Mr. Trump excoriated his attorney general, the F.B.I., the special counsel and members of the intelligence community, citing conspiracy theories. [Read the story]
• While other presidents have treated natural disaster tours as dignified, even grave affairs, Mr. Trump has deployed humor and enthusiasm. [Read the story]
• A progressive group in Utah filed a federal complaint against Representative Mia Love, a Republican, over alleged campaign finance violations. [Read the story]
• A State Department report said that terrorist attacks and deaths declined in 2017 after a concerted push against the Islamic State, but that Al Qaeda and militant groups linked to Iran remain deadly.
Important news headlines
Good Thursday morning. Here are some of the stories making news in Washington and politics today.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing this month in Washington.
• The woman who accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault rejected the idea of a Senate hearing, saying it would not be a “good faith investigation.” [Read the story]
• Here’s the story of Christine Blasey Ford, the researcher and statistician who was reluctant to come forward with her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh. [Read the story]
• The accusation against the judge has scrambled the political calculations for 10 Democratic senators running for re-election in states won by President Trump. [Read the story]
• Mr. Trump’s pugilistic approach to trade and China could rupture relations for years to come. [Read the story]
• Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, agreed to “permanently dismantle” key nuclear facilities in a bid to ease tensions with South Korea, but his offers stop short of denuclearization. [Read the story]
• President Andrzej Duda of Poland offered to host an American military base as a bulwark against Russia and even name it Fort Trump. Mr. Trump said Warsaw would have to pay billions to use his name.
• Mr. Trump excoriated his attorney general, the F.B.I., the special counsel and members of the intelligence community, citing conspiracy theories. [Read the story]
• While other presidents have treated natural disaster tours as dignified, even grave affairs, Mr. Trump has deployed humor and enthusiasm. [Read the story]
• A progressive group in Utah filed a federal complaint against Representative Mia Love, a Republican, over alleged campaign finance violations. [Read the story]
• A State Department report said that terrorist attacks and deaths declined in 2017 after a concerted push against the Islamic State, but that Al Qaeda and militant groups linked to Iran remain deadly.
Kim Jong Un hugs Moon Jae-in at start of Korean summit - MSNBC MNews
Kim Jong Un hugs Moon Jae-in at start of Korean summit
Moon Jae-in said he intends to push for "irreversible, permanent peace" and for better dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington.
by Associated Press / Sep.18.2018
Hugs, praise and high expectations as Korean leaders meet in Pyongyang
SEP.18.201801:17
PYONGYANG, North Korea — South Korean President Moon Jae-in arrived in North Korea on Tuesday for his third and possibly most challenging summit yet with leader Kim Jong Un.
Moon hopes to break an impasse in talks with the United States over the North's denuclearization and breathe energy into his own efforts to expand and improve relations between the Koreas.
In what are by now familiar images of the two Korean leaders hugging and exchanging warm smiles, Kim greeted Moon at Pyongyang's airport. They have met twice this year at the border village of Panmunjom, but Moon's visit is the first by a South Korean leader to the North Korean capital in 11 years.
WORLD NEWS
Behind the scenes, Trump’s team is about to get tough with North Korea
Traveling with Moon are business tycoons including Samsung scion Lee Jae-yong, underscoring Moon's hopes to expand cross-border business projects. Currently, all major joint projects between the Koreas are stalled because of U.S.-led sanctions.
Moon was expected to have talks with Kim on Tuesday and Wednesday, according to Moon's chief of staff. Moon and Kim were also expected to jointly announce the results of their talks on Wednesday if things go smoothly. Moon is to return to Seoul on Thursday.
Moon and his wife, Kim Jung-sook, were greeted by Kim and his wife, Ri Sol Ju. The North Korean leader then led his guests to meet some of his senior officials, and they exchanged mutual greetings with Moon's delegation.
Image: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his wife Ri Sol Ju greet South Korean President Moon Jae-in and First Lady Kim Jung-sookNorth Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his wife Ri Sol Ju greet South Korean President Moon Jae-in and first lady Kim Jung-sook at Pyongyang Sunan International Airport on Tuesday.Pyeongyang press corps
Thousands of North Koreans cheered and waved flower bouquets and national and unification flags. North Korean soldiers and naval troops quick-marched into position to welcome Moon, and the two leaders inspected the honor guard, according to South Korean media pool footage from the site. A signboard said, "We ardently welcome President Moon Jae-in."
As Moon arrived, the North's main newspaper said the United States was responsible for the lack of progress in denuclearization talks.
"The U.S. is totally to blame for the deadlocked DPRK-U.S. negotiations," the Rodong Sinmun said in an editorial. It said Washington is "stubbornly insisting" the North dismantle its nuclear weapons first, an approach "which was rejected in the past DPRK-U.S. dialogues," while failing to show its will for confidence-building "including the declaration of the end of war which it had already pledged."
State-run media reported Moon was to begin a visit, but gave few details. Security was tight all morning. Requests by The Associated Press to go to the airport or to drive around the city were denied.
Moon is under intense pressure from Washington to advance the denuclearization process. Before his departure he said he intends to push for "irreversible, permanent peace" and for better dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington
Kavanaugh allegations add yet another crisis to a besieged White House
"This summit would be very meaningful if it yielded a resumption of North Korea-U.S. talks," Moon said Tuesday morning just before his departure. "It's very important for South and North Korea to meet frequently, and we are turning to a phase where we can meet anytime we want."
But his chief of staff tried to lower expectations of major progress on the future of Kim's nuclear arsenal.
Kim, meanwhile, is seemingly riding a wave of success.
North Korea holds major military parade to mark 70th anniversary
SEP.09.201802:46
The North just completed an elaborate celebration replete with a military parade and huge rallies across the country to mark North Korea's 70th anniversary. China, signaling its support for Kim's recent diplomatic moves, sent its third-highest party official to those festivities. That's important because China is the North's biggest economic partner and is an important political counterbalance to the United States.
WORLD NEWS
China jumpstarts trade with North Korea, undercutting the Trump admin
North Korea maintains that it has developed its nuclear weapons to the point that it can now defend itself against a potential U.S. attack, and can now shift its focus to economic development and improved ties with the South. While signaling his willingness to talk with Washington, Kim's strategy has been to try to elbow the U.S. away from Seoul so that the two Koreas can take the lead in deciding how to bring peace and stability to their peninsula.
Talks between the United States and North Korea, which Moon brokered through his April and May summits with Kim, have stalled since Kim's meeting with President Donald Trump in Singapore in June.
NBC News exclusive: North Korea producing new nuclear weapons
SEP.11.201801:15
North Korea has taken some steps, like dismantling its nuclear and rocket-engine testing sites, but U.S. officials have said it must take more serious disarmament steps before receiving outside concessions. Trump has indicated he may be open to holding another summit to resuscitate the talks, however.
To keep expectations from getting too high, Moon's chief of staff, Im Jong-seok, said it's "difficult to have any optimistic outlook" for progress on denuclearization during the summit.
But he said he still expects the summit to produce meaningful agreements that "fundamentally remove the danger of armed clashes and ease fears of war" between the two Koreas.
UNITED NATIONS
Amb. Haley attacks Russia for undermining sanctions on North Korea
South Korea last week opened a liaison office in the North's city of Kaesong, near the Demilitarized Zone. Another possible area of progress could be on a formal agreement ending the Korean War, which was halted in 1953 by what was intended to be a temporary armistice. Military officials have discussed possibly disarming a jointly controlled area at the Koreas' shared border village, removing front-line guard posts and halting hostile acts along their sea boundary.
Moon is the third South Korean leader to visit North Korea's capital for summits. Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun went to Pyongyang in 2000 and 2007 respectively to meet Kim's father, Kim Jong Il. Those trips produced a slew of inter-Korean rapprochement projects, which were suspended after conservatives took power in Seoul.
Moon Jae-in said he intends to push for "irreversible, permanent peace" and for better dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington.
by Associated Press / Sep.18.2018
Hugs, praise and high expectations as Korean leaders meet in Pyongyang
SEP.18.201801:17
PYONGYANG, North Korea — South Korean President Moon Jae-in arrived in North Korea on Tuesday for his third and possibly most challenging summit yet with leader Kim Jong Un.
Moon hopes to break an impasse in talks with the United States over the North's denuclearization and breathe energy into his own efforts to expand and improve relations between the Koreas.
In what are by now familiar images of the two Korean leaders hugging and exchanging warm smiles, Kim greeted Moon at Pyongyang's airport. They have met twice this year at the border village of Panmunjom, but Moon's visit is the first by a South Korean leader to the North Korean capital in 11 years.
WORLD NEWS
Behind the scenes, Trump’s team is about to get tough with North Korea
Traveling with Moon are business tycoons including Samsung scion Lee Jae-yong, underscoring Moon's hopes to expand cross-border business projects. Currently, all major joint projects between the Koreas are stalled because of U.S.-led sanctions.
Moon was expected to have talks with Kim on Tuesday and Wednesday, according to Moon's chief of staff. Moon and Kim were also expected to jointly announce the results of their talks on Wednesday if things go smoothly. Moon is to return to Seoul on Thursday.
Moon and his wife, Kim Jung-sook, were greeted by Kim and his wife, Ri Sol Ju. The North Korean leader then led his guests to meet some of his senior officials, and they exchanged mutual greetings with Moon's delegation.
Image: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his wife Ri Sol Ju greet South Korean President Moon Jae-in and First Lady Kim Jung-sookNorth Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his wife Ri Sol Ju greet South Korean President Moon Jae-in and first lady Kim Jung-sook at Pyongyang Sunan International Airport on Tuesday.Pyeongyang press corps
Thousands of North Koreans cheered and waved flower bouquets and national and unification flags. North Korean soldiers and naval troops quick-marched into position to welcome Moon, and the two leaders inspected the honor guard, according to South Korean media pool footage from the site. A signboard said, "We ardently welcome President Moon Jae-in."
As Moon arrived, the North's main newspaper said the United States was responsible for the lack of progress in denuclearization talks.
"The U.S. is totally to blame for the deadlocked DPRK-U.S. negotiations," the Rodong Sinmun said in an editorial. It said Washington is "stubbornly insisting" the North dismantle its nuclear weapons first, an approach "which was rejected in the past DPRK-U.S. dialogues," while failing to show its will for confidence-building "including the declaration of the end of war which it had already pledged."
State-run media reported Moon was to begin a visit, but gave few details. Security was tight all morning. Requests by The Associated Press to go to the airport or to drive around the city were denied.
Moon is under intense pressure from Washington to advance the denuclearization process. Before his departure he said he intends to push for "irreversible, permanent peace" and for better dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington
Kavanaugh allegations add yet another crisis to a besieged White House
"This summit would be very meaningful if it yielded a resumption of North Korea-U.S. talks," Moon said Tuesday morning just before his departure. "It's very important for South and North Korea to meet frequently, and we are turning to a phase where we can meet anytime we want."
But his chief of staff tried to lower expectations of major progress on the future of Kim's nuclear arsenal.
Kim, meanwhile, is seemingly riding a wave of success.
North Korea holds major military parade to mark 70th anniversary
SEP.09.201802:46
The North just completed an elaborate celebration replete with a military parade and huge rallies across the country to mark North Korea's 70th anniversary. China, signaling its support for Kim's recent diplomatic moves, sent its third-highest party official to those festivities. That's important because China is the North's biggest economic partner and is an important political counterbalance to the United States.
WORLD NEWS
China jumpstarts trade with North Korea, undercutting the Trump admin
North Korea maintains that it has developed its nuclear weapons to the point that it can now defend itself against a potential U.S. attack, and can now shift its focus to economic development and improved ties with the South. While signaling his willingness to talk with Washington, Kim's strategy has been to try to elbow the U.S. away from Seoul so that the two Koreas can take the lead in deciding how to bring peace and stability to their peninsula.
Talks between the United States and North Korea, which Moon brokered through his April and May summits with Kim, have stalled since Kim's meeting with President Donald Trump in Singapore in June.
NBC News exclusive: North Korea producing new nuclear weapons
SEP.11.201801:15
North Korea has taken some steps, like dismantling its nuclear and rocket-engine testing sites, but U.S. officials have said it must take more serious disarmament steps before receiving outside concessions. Trump has indicated he may be open to holding another summit to resuscitate the talks, however.
To keep expectations from getting too high, Moon's chief of staff, Im Jong-seok, said it's "difficult to have any optimistic outlook" for progress on denuclearization during the summit.
But he said he still expects the summit to produce meaningful agreements that "fundamentally remove the danger of armed clashes and ease fears of war" between the two Koreas.
UNITED NATIONS
Amb. Haley attacks Russia for undermining sanctions on North Korea
South Korea last week opened a liaison office in the North's city of Kaesong, near the Demilitarized Zone. Another possible area of progress could be on a formal agreement ending the Korean War, which was halted in 1953 by what was intended to be a temporary armistice. Military officials have discussed possibly disarming a jointly controlled area at the Koreas' shared border village, removing front-line guard posts and halting hostile acts along their sea boundary.
Moon is the third South Korean leader to visit North Korea's capital for summits. Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun went to Pyongyang in 2000 and 2007 respectively to meet Kim's father, Kim Jong Il. Those trips produced a slew of inter-Korean rapprochement projects, which were suspended after conservatives took power in Seoul.
Elizabeth Warren's New Argument: Corruption Drives Inequality - TIME
Elizabeth Warren's New Argument: Corruption Drives Inequality
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks at the George J. Kostas Research Institute for Homeland Security in Burlington, MA on April 9, 2018.
By ABBY VESOULIS September 18, 2018
President Donald Trump pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., but his Administration has been beset by ethics scandals both big and small.
Now, one of his potential opponents in 2020 has put together a detailed legislative proposal to tackle a wide range of issues involving lobbying and self-dealing in Washington, some of which seem aimed directly at Trump’s indiscretions.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act would institute a lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, federal judges and Cabinet secretaries; require the president and vice president to place certain assets, such as real estate, into a blind trust; mandate the IRS release eight years’ worth of tax returns for all presidential and vice presidential candidates and create a new independent U.S. Office of Public Integrity to enforce ethics laws — among other things.
In an interview with TIME, the Massachusetts Democrat, who polls show is cruising to re-election in this year’s midterms, said that the bill would help Washington work more ethically and help the working class.
Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to “drain the swamp,” how is your bill different than his attempts?
He hasn’t made any attempts since he became president. In fact, he’s been loading up the swamp. I have a comprehensive set of policy solutions that would fundamentally change the way Washington does business and restore the American public’s faith in democracy.
Your bill includes a lifetime ban on lobbying for [certain senior officials]. Some have argued that could be [challenged] on First Amendment grounds. Do you have a response to that?
I disagree. There are conditions on different jobs all the time. I believe that members of Congress ought to be willing to say, “My job as a Senator or Representative is that and nothing else. And I not only promise that I am not looking over the edge at my next, more lucrative job, I will back that up with a law that prohibits me from doing that.”
You have long campaigned on leveling the playing field economically for working-class Americans. How does an anti-corruption bill tie into that goal?
The reason this government works so well for the wealthy and well-connected is corruption. People with money and power have figured out that they can flood Washington with cash in dozens of different places and get the government to tilt in their favor over and over and over. The only way we will get a level playing field is if government once again works for the people, and that means rooting out corruption. I can even put it the way my daddy would: “ending corruption root and branch” — that’s how he would have described it.
The bill would restrict Democrats as well as Republicans from owning stock and lobbying. How would you convince members of your own party who would end up forgoing money from this to back it?
If the American people demand it, elected officials will enact it.
What role do you think stricter regulations on lobbying and ethics should play in the 2020 presidential campaign?
I think the fundamental question in the 2020 campaign will be who government works for. Corruption in Washington is right in the heart of that question.
Is this bill a sign that you’re considering running for president in 2020?
No. This bill is a sign that we need to make Washington work for the people, and I’ve got an idea of how to do that. I’ll be out there fighting for this bill every single day.
You said in earlier interviews that this bill was a common sense solution to corruption. Why do you think it has taken so long for this kind of legislation to be considered?
The current system is too comfortable for too many people. No one wants to rock the boat. I think it’s time to rock the boat, to make Washington work for the people.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks at the George J. Kostas Research Institute for Homeland Security in Burlington, MA on April 9, 2018.
By ABBY VESOULIS September 18, 2018
President Donald Trump pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., but his Administration has been beset by ethics scandals both big and small.
Now, one of his potential opponents in 2020 has put together a detailed legislative proposal to tackle a wide range of issues involving lobbying and self-dealing in Washington, some of which seem aimed directly at Trump’s indiscretions.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act would institute a lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, federal judges and Cabinet secretaries; require the president and vice president to place certain assets, such as real estate, into a blind trust; mandate the IRS release eight years’ worth of tax returns for all presidential and vice presidential candidates and create a new independent U.S. Office of Public Integrity to enforce ethics laws — among other things.
In an interview with TIME, the Massachusetts Democrat, who polls show is cruising to re-election in this year’s midterms, said that the bill would help Washington work more ethically and help the working class.
Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to “drain the swamp,” how is your bill different than his attempts?
He hasn’t made any attempts since he became president. In fact, he’s been loading up the swamp. I have a comprehensive set of policy solutions that would fundamentally change the way Washington does business and restore the American public’s faith in democracy.
Your bill includes a lifetime ban on lobbying for [certain senior officials]. Some have argued that could be [challenged] on First Amendment grounds. Do you have a response to that?
I disagree. There are conditions on different jobs all the time. I believe that members of Congress ought to be willing to say, “My job as a Senator or Representative is that and nothing else. And I not only promise that I am not looking over the edge at my next, more lucrative job, I will back that up with a law that prohibits me from doing that.”
You have long campaigned on leveling the playing field economically for working-class Americans. How does an anti-corruption bill tie into that goal?
The reason this government works so well for the wealthy and well-connected is corruption. People with money and power have figured out that they can flood Washington with cash in dozens of different places and get the government to tilt in their favor over and over and over. The only way we will get a level playing field is if government once again works for the people, and that means rooting out corruption. I can even put it the way my daddy would: “ending corruption root and branch” — that’s how he would have described it.
The bill would restrict Democrats as well as Republicans from owning stock and lobbying. How would you convince members of your own party who would end up forgoing money from this to back it?
If the American people demand it, elected officials will enact it.
What role do you think stricter regulations on lobbying and ethics should play in the 2020 presidential campaign?
I think the fundamental question in the 2020 campaign will be who government works for. Corruption in Washington is right in the heart of that question.
Is this bill a sign that you’re considering running for president in 2020?
No. This bill is a sign that we need to make Washington work for the people, and I’ve got an idea of how to do that. I’ll be out there fighting for this bill every single day.
You said in earlier interviews that this bill was a common sense solution to corruption. Why do you think it has taken so long for this kind of legislation to be considered?
The current system is too comfortable for too many people. No one wants to rock the boat. I think it’s time to rock the boat, to make Washington work for the people.
Faced with a president who places a premium on loyalty, the FBI is gently asserting its independence - Bloomberg Politics
Sept, 20, 2018.
Faced with a president who places a premium on loyalty, the FBI is gently asserting its independence.
Donald Trump is seeking to pull the bureau into two of the most heated political controversies of his tenure: The probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and the sexual assault allegations that have jeopardized Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination.
But FBI officials aren’t acquiescing to Trump’s demand for the “immediate declassification” of some materials related to the Russia investigation and are likely to push for redactions. And the agency is willing to probe the claims against Kavanaugh — despite Trump’s assertions to the contrary — but it can’t do so without a formal White House request, Chris Strohm reports.
The tensions add to an already fraught relationship between the president and the law enforcement agencies he oversees and who he and his allies have accused of political bias. Trump reportedly unsuccessfully sought a loyalty pledge from former FBI Director James Comey, who he later fired. He has also repeatedly attacked Attorney General Jeff Sessions for failing to quash the Russia investigation.
Trump’s actions are testing the meddle of FBI Director Christopher Wray, who has vowed to defend the agency’s work from political manipulation.
— Kathleen Hunter
Faced with a president who places a premium on loyalty, the FBI is gently asserting its independence.
Donald Trump is seeking to pull the bureau into two of the most heated political controversies of his tenure: The probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and the sexual assault allegations that have jeopardized Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination.
But FBI officials aren’t acquiescing to Trump’s demand for the “immediate declassification” of some materials related to the Russia investigation and are likely to push for redactions. And the agency is willing to probe the claims against Kavanaugh — despite Trump’s assertions to the contrary — but it can’t do so without a formal White House request, Chris Strohm reports.
The tensions add to an already fraught relationship between the president and the law enforcement agencies he oversees and who he and his allies have accused of political bias. Trump reportedly unsuccessfully sought a loyalty pledge from former FBI Director James Comey, who he later fired. He has also repeatedly attacked Attorney General Jeff Sessions for failing to quash the Russia investigation.
Trump’s actions are testing the meddle of FBI Director Christopher Wray, who has vowed to defend the agency’s work from political manipulation.
— Kathleen Hunter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
