MAY 2, 2018 @ 11:40 AM 5,185 2 Free Issues of Forbes
Donald Trump's Business Is Booming In San Francisco
Chase Peterson-Withorn , FORBES STAFF
By Chase Peterson-Withorn and Dan Alexander
While several of Donald Trump’s properties—particularly those in midtown Manhattan—remain in a retail market-induced slump, things are looking pretty sunny for the president in California, where his San Francisco skyscraper continues to benefit from a strong market for office space.
Occupancy, rents and net operating income all rose in the first quarter of 2018 at 555 California Street, where Trump owns 30% of a three-building complex that includes the 52-story former Bank of America Center and two smaller buildings next door.
Now nearly fully rented, the property’s occupancy rate climbed to 97.8% in the first quarter of 2018, according to a recent filing—the highest it’s been since at least 2010.
For that Trump can thank his partner, billionaire Steven Roth, whose publicly traded REIT Vornado Realty Trust owns the remaining 70% of the property and manages its day-to-day operations. Vornado recently struck a deal with a new tenant: the Blue Shield of California Foundation. In March the charitable arm of health plan provider Blue Shield announced it will take two floors at 315 Montgomery Street, a 16-story building next door to the tower at 555 California Street in the heart of San Francisco’s financial district, beginning in the fall.
The building’s average annual rent jumped by 7%, to $67.59 per square foot, this quarter, suggesting that new tenants are paying more for space than existing tenants. According to Cushman & Wakefield, the average asking rent for Class A office space in the city was $74.55 per square foot in the first quarter.
The building at 315 Montgomery Street is now fully leased, according to the quarterly report. Nearby 345 Montgomery Street, a 64,000-square-foot retail space, remains shuttered while it undergoes a multimillion-dollar renovation. But next door at 555 California Street’s main tower, 97.4% of the skyscraper’s 1.5 million square feet are currently under lease. Tenants include Bank of America ($14 million in estimated annual rent), Goldman Sachs ($6 million), UBS ($4.6 million) and Microsoft ($3.6 million).
Those leases helped the property produce $19.3 million in quarterly net operating income—a key profitability metric in the real estate industry—up 12% from the same period a year ago. Total net operating income over the past 12 months reached $66.8 million, up from $57.8 million in the preceding 12 months.
Vornado and Trump appear to be using some of that cash to pay down the property’s debt. In the first quarter of 2018, the partners reduced their mortgage by $2.5 million; it now stands at about $567 million. When Vornado bought its 70% stake in the property in 2007, the debt totaled $1.1 billion.
Trump was cajoled into purchasing 30% of 555 California Street and 1290 Avenue of the Americas, an office building in Manhattan, in 2006 when the Hong Kong-based majority investors in his troubled Riverside South project decided to sell the property over Trump’s objections. They reinvested the proceeds into the two properties, then quickly sold their 70% stake to Vornado for $1.01 billion plus the assumption of $797 million of debt.
Today Forbes estimates that Trump’s 30% share of the 555 California Street complex, which he did not want to purchase, is worth $347 million net of debt—making it his third most valuable holding.
You can reach me via email (cpeterson-withorn@forbes.com), Twitter, or—anonymously—through tips@forbes.com or our SecureDrop site.
Saturday, May 19, 2018
“Why I Left Goldman Sachs and Wall Street Glory for Crypto” - Billboard News ( source : Entrepreneur )
May 18, 2018
“Why I Left Goldman Sachs and Wall Street Glory for Crypto”
Back in 2008, I had it all, first as a statistical arbitrage trader with Goldman Sachs and then as a senior trader at two of Asia’s top hedge funds, managing upwards of $1.5 billion. I traded equities, foreign exchange, equity derivatives and convertible bonds. I even started my own fund, which raised $20 million in assets in its first year.
Attracting clients came easily, and so did the money. It helped me acquire and rent 22 single-family homes in the southeastern United States, which generated 9 percent in revenue annually. In short, the finance industry was good to me.
Fast-forward a few years, to 2016. The second I learned about blockchain and cryptocurrency, I walked away from my earlier career. Eventually, I became the CEO of a crypto-intelligence platform, CoinFi, and we’ve just completed a $15 million ICO. I work grueling hours for no pay and use my spare time to convince everyone around me that cryptocurrency and the blockchain, together, constitute a legitimate industry that has the same potential as the internet did in the early ’90s.
To be clear, I don’t recommend this path. It’s a risky one to take, and it’s riddled with potholes. But if you’re an entrepreneur worth your salt, you should be paying attention to the crypto space. Failing to do so could be costly.
Crypto? It’s a gold rush out there.
Compared to the equities markets, the crypto markets are the Wild West. This means virtually no regulation, crazy volatility and a rapidly evolving landscape. The risk is extraordinarily high, but for those willing to venture into uncharted territory to stake their claim, it also means opportunity to sell picks and shovels in a digital gold rush.
Of all the people who have written about getting rich during a digital gold rush, few are more qualified than Marc Andreessen. At age 23, Andreessen created the Netscape browser, which was acquired by AOL for $4.2 billion in 1999 at the height of the dot-com boom. He then formed the legendary VC fund Andreessen-Horowitz, which was an early investor in transformative Web 2.0 companies like Facebook, Pinterest and Twitter.
In a 2014 op-ed for the New York Times titled “Why Bitcoin Matters”, Andreessen described a pattern of emergence for mysterious new technology, which, after decades of research and development, appeared seemingly out of nowhere. The Establishment dismissed this technology as impractical, while technologists and entrepreneurs hailed it as revolutionary. They were transfixed.
Then, finally, as mainstream companies began to emerge, the technology seemed poised to become a part of our daily lives. And some people began to look back at the events leading up to that point and wonder how early observers could have been so blind to the technology’s disruptive power.
The technology Andreesen was describing? Actually, he was describing three types of technology, as he clarified in his op ed: “Personal computers in 1975, the internet in 1993 and — I believe [Andreeesen’s words] — Bitcoin in 2014.”
Crypto has a road map.
One truly remarkable aspect of Bitcoin’s particular gold rush is that the history of equities provides valuable insights into the future of the crypto markets; and that history illustrates how great, big windows will open – but only briefly. Just as arbitrage trading — the purchase and sale of equities based on price imbalances — was ripe with reward in early equities markets, crypto is following suit.
In late 2017, I published a video showing how investors could make a profit manually arbitraging trading crypto across exchanges. As of today, pretty much all of those easy arbitrage opportunities have dried up, as crypto funds have consolidated the market. But they’ll be no shortage of future opportunities that will pop.
Crypto is creating new markets and sub-industries.
There are still major hurdles to clear for crypto to be a mainstream asset class, but for entrepreneurs this risk is creating a level of opportunity not seen in decades. Unlike equities, crypto assets are bearer assets. As a result, taking custody of cryptocurrency is all about securely storing and protecting valuable secrets; and the recent news stories surrounding data breaches indicates just how vulnerable those secrets are when they’re accessible via the internet.
Just this one problem creates hundreds of potential security and storage solutions — solutions that have yet to be fully explored and built. The opportunity doesn’t end with security, though. Here are some other areas ripe for development:
Prime services – There is still only a very limited selection of prime services available in the crypto space. They include, for example, credit (borrowing and lending crypto assets) and trading tools and products (shorting, derivatives).
Market intelligence – There is still no single canonical source that provides all of the relevant market intelligence a crypto trader needs to stay on top of the markets, the same way a Bloomberg Terminal does for equities traders.
Portfolio and order management – Investors need more robust solutions; even simple profit and loss tracking broken down by asset isn’t yet available for current portfolio-management systems.
Transactional infrastructure – The crypto market’s unorganized, shallow liquidity pools means institutional investors looking to deploy tens of millions of dollars into the cryptocurrency markets face significant difficulty executing those orders efficiently. The result? Companies like Caspian and Omniex are developing institutional level offerings to address this gap, and Coinbase is rolling out systems to cater to traditional institutional investors.
The point is that opportunity is ubiquitous, and there’s no limit to the number of sub-industries that could spin off of just this one asset class.
Image result for cryptocurrencies
Crypto is disrupting traditional finance.
In the early-to-mid decade of the 2000s, money poured into the hedge fund industry. A single trader with a big idea at a small fund could make millions. Then, after the financial crisis, the industry became more competitive and low interest rates forced institutional investors to play it safer and consolidate funds. The game was no longer about the big idea. Rather, the people who made money were an extremely small subset with inside connections. Ideas became commoditized, opportunities shrank and the market compressed (and continues to compress) to this day.
Yet even as traditional finance becomes more competitive and margins grow thinner, the crypto industry is exploding. Getting started in this industry early means getting in on the ground floor in a market that is still in high growth mode. Doing so will make it a lot easier to succeed than entering a market where the bulk of the profits already have been claimed by a handful of connected insiders.
Don’t miss the boat.
In the end, I didn’t leave Goldman Sachs and hedge fund glory for crypto because I needed the money. I didn’t even leave because I wanted to be my own boss, necessarily. I left because I didn’t want to miss the boat on something so exciting and so revolutionary that it had the potential to reshape the way our world works.
History tends to repeat itself. Right now, it indicates that once the infrastructure needed for institutional investing is built, there will be an inflow of institutional funds into the crypto markets, and that means opportunities like those seen at the dawn of the internet. Whether that map leads to a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow remains to be seen, but when the opportunity of a lifetime presents itself, my opinion is that it’s better to swing and miss than to strike out just observing.
Author: Timothy Tam
Source: Entrepreneur
“Why I Left Goldman Sachs and Wall Street Glory for Crypto”
Back in 2008, I had it all, first as a statistical arbitrage trader with Goldman Sachs and then as a senior trader at two of Asia’s top hedge funds, managing upwards of $1.5 billion. I traded equities, foreign exchange, equity derivatives and convertible bonds. I even started my own fund, which raised $20 million in assets in its first year.
Attracting clients came easily, and so did the money. It helped me acquire and rent 22 single-family homes in the southeastern United States, which generated 9 percent in revenue annually. In short, the finance industry was good to me.
Fast-forward a few years, to 2016. The second I learned about blockchain and cryptocurrency, I walked away from my earlier career. Eventually, I became the CEO of a crypto-intelligence platform, CoinFi, and we’ve just completed a $15 million ICO. I work grueling hours for no pay and use my spare time to convince everyone around me that cryptocurrency and the blockchain, together, constitute a legitimate industry that has the same potential as the internet did in the early ’90s.
To be clear, I don’t recommend this path. It’s a risky one to take, and it’s riddled with potholes. But if you’re an entrepreneur worth your salt, you should be paying attention to the crypto space. Failing to do so could be costly.
Crypto? It’s a gold rush out there.
Compared to the equities markets, the crypto markets are the Wild West. This means virtually no regulation, crazy volatility and a rapidly evolving landscape. The risk is extraordinarily high, but for those willing to venture into uncharted territory to stake their claim, it also means opportunity to sell picks and shovels in a digital gold rush.
Of all the people who have written about getting rich during a digital gold rush, few are more qualified than Marc Andreessen. At age 23, Andreessen created the Netscape browser, which was acquired by AOL for $4.2 billion in 1999 at the height of the dot-com boom. He then formed the legendary VC fund Andreessen-Horowitz, which was an early investor in transformative Web 2.0 companies like Facebook, Pinterest and Twitter.
In a 2014 op-ed for the New York Times titled “Why Bitcoin Matters”, Andreessen described a pattern of emergence for mysterious new technology, which, after decades of research and development, appeared seemingly out of nowhere. The Establishment dismissed this technology as impractical, while technologists and entrepreneurs hailed it as revolutionary. They were transfixed.
Then, finally, as mainstream companies began to emerge, the technology seemed poised to become a part of our daily lives. And some people began to look back at the events leading up to that point and wonder how early observers could have been so blind to the technology’s disruptive power.
The technology Andreesen was describing? Actually, he was describing three types of technology, as he clarified in his op ed: “Personal computers in 1975, the internet in 1993 and — I believe [Andreeesen’s words] — Bitcoin in 2014.”
Crypto has a road map.
One truly remarkable aspect of Bitcoin’s particular gold rush is that the history of equities provides valuable insights into the future of the crypto markets; and that history illustrates how great, big windows will open – but only briefly. Just as arbitrage trading — the purchase and sale of equities based on price imbalances — was ripe with reward in early equities markets, crypto is following suit.
In late 2017, I published a video showing how investors could make a profit manually arbitraging trading crypto across exchanges. As of today, pretty much all of those easy arbitrage opportunities have dried up, as crypto funds have consolidated the market. But they’ll be no shortage of future opportunities that will pop.
Crypto is creating new markets and sub-industries.
There are still major hurdles to clear for crypto to be a mainstream asset class, but for entrepreneurs this risk is creating a level of opportunity not seen in decades. Unlike equities, crypto assets are bearer assets. As a result, taking custody of cryptocurrency is all about securely storing and protecting valuable secrets; and the recent news stories surrounding data breaches indicates just how vulnerable those secrets are when they’re accessible via the internet.
Just this one problem creates hundreds of potential security and storage solutions — solutions that have yet to be fully explored and built. The opportunity doesn’t end with security, though. Here are some other areas ripe for development:
Prime services – There is still only a very limited selection of prime services available in the crypto space. They include, for example, credit (borrowing and lending crypto assets) and trading tools and products (shorting, derivatives).
Market intelligence – There is still no single canonical source that provides all of the relevant market intelligence a crypto trader needs to stay on top of the markets, the same way a Bloomberg Terminal does for equities traders.
Portfolio and order management – Investors need more robust solutions; even simple profit and loss tracking broken down by asset isn’t yet available for current portfolio-management systems.
Transactional infrastructure – The crypto market’s unorganized, shallow liquidity pools means institutional investors looking to deploy tens of millions of dollars into the cryptocurrency markets face significant difficulty executing those orders efficiently. The result? Companies like Caspian and Omniex are developing institutional level offerings to address this gap, and Coinbase is rolling out systems to cater to traditional institutional investors.
The point is that opportunity is ubiquitous, and there’s no limit to the number of sub-industries that could spin off of just this one asset class.
Image result for cryptocurrencies
Crypto is disrupting traditional finance.
In the early-to-mid decade of the 2000s, money poured into the hedge fund industry. A single trader with a big idea at a small fund could make millions. Then, after the financial crisis, the industry became more competitive and low interest rates forced institutional investors to play it safer and consolidate funds. The game was no longer about the big idea. Rather, the people who made money were an extremely small subset with inside connections. Ideas became commoditized, opportunities shrank and the market compressed (and continues to compress) to this day.
Yet even as traditional finance becomes more competitive and margins grow thinner, the crypto industry is exploding. Getting started in this industry early means getting in on the ground floor in a market that is still in high growth mode. Doing so will make it a lot easier to succeed than entering a market where the bulk of the profits already have been claimed by a handful of connected insiders.
Don’t miss the boat.
In the end, I didn’t leave Goldman Sachs and hedge fund glory for crypto because I needed the money. I didn’t even leave because I wanted to be my own boss, necessarily. I left because I didn’t want to miss the boat on something so exciting and so revolutionary that it had the potential to reshape the way our world works.
History tends to repeat itself. Right now, it indicates that once the infrastructure needed for institutional investing is built, there will be an inflow of institutional funds into the crypto markets, and that means opportunities like those seen at the dawn of the internet. Whether that map leads to a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow remains to be seen, but when the opportunity of a lifetime presents itself, my opinion is that it’s better to swing and miss than to strike out just observing.
Author: Timothy Tam
Source: Entrepreneur
Dark factories: labour exploitation in Britain’s garment industry In parts of Leicester, workers are paid as little as £3.50 an hour. Why is no one being held responsible? - Financial Times
Dark factories: labour exploitation in Britain’s garment industry
In parts of Leicester, workers are paid as little as £3.50 an hour. Why is no one being held responsible?
Sarah O’Connor MAY 17, 2018 Print this page206
When Hassan Doshi moved from India to Leicester in 1982, he had good reason to feel optimistic. He had landed in a place that was hungry for sewing skills, a city of factories whose motto was “Leicester clothes the world”. He arrived on a Friday and started work on Monday. “1982 was good timing! I miss that time,” says Doshi, who is now 60 and still makes his own trousers. He remembers 29 days of paid holiday, 12.30 finishes on Fridays, and factory owners poaching him with the promise of higher pay.
These good times ended in 2001. The factory where he had worked for a decade — a supplier to the retailer BHS — closed down because, he says, production moved to Sri Lanka. It had done well to hold out so long. Retailers had already started “chasing the cheap needle round the planet”, as one retail executive puts it, and they have continued to do so.
The garment trade in Leicester, a city in the heart of England that boomed in the industrial age, managed to cling on, fragmented and weakened, in small units in the shells of old factory buildings. Market traders and wholesalers kept sourcing clothes there, as did some high-street brands like New Look when they needed to top up stocks. Doshi spent years bouncing from struggling small factory to factory, “always moving, moving, moving”.
Now, new economic forces have started to blow on the embers of Leicester’s clothing industry. Since the financial crisis, dozens of upstart British online retailers have prospered by catering to what Boohoo, one of the biggest of these brands, calls the “aspirational thrift” of young millennials. This is the Instagram generation that wants to buy today what their favourite celebrity wore yesterday. Fulfilling these desires quickly means sourcing close to home.
“Speed is our main USP and the UK is as quick as you can get,” said Nitin Passi, founder of online retailer Missguided, in 2014. Both Boohoo and Missguided source at least half their clothes in the UK, with hubs in Leicester, Manchester and London supplying a host of brands. I bought two Boohoo dresses for £6 and £7 respectively; both turned out to have been made in Leicester. Trendy, fast and cheap has proved a winning strategy. Boohoo’s market value has more than doubled to about £2.3bn since listing on London’s Aim exchange in 2014.
A £7 Boohoo dress bought by the FT/Sarah O’Connor © Kate Peters
How is it possible to make cheap clothes in a country where the minimum wage for over-25s is £7.83 an hour? Online retailers’ nimbleness and lower overheads allow them to pay more for products while still giving consumers a good price. In addition, there are manufacturers that use technology to make clothes more efficiently. But factory owners in Leicester say some take a different route, one more reminiscent of the 19th century than the 21st. They call these places “dark factories.”
Part of Leicester’s garment industry has become detached from UK employment law, “a country within a country”, as one factory owner puts it, where “£5 an hour is considered the top wage”, even though that is illegal. Doshi (not his real name) says he has worked in places with blocked fire escapes, old machines and no holiday or sick pay. There are garment factories that follow the law, but a “perceived culture of impunity”, as a 2018 government report puts it, has created a bizarre microeconomy where larger factories using machines are outcompeted by smaller rivals using underpaid humans.
And while some retailers blame unethical factory owners, the factories say retail’s relentless push for cheap prices makes it impossible to improve. As a result, what should be a good news story for people like Doshi has become a cautionary tale about how the reshoring of manufacturing jobs can go wrong when the government fails to enforce its own laws.
Perhaps the strangest thing about this labour exploitation is that it is an open secret. Central government knows; local government knows; retailers know. “When I came to the UK and I discovered what was going on in Leicester, it was mind-blowing,” says Anders Kristiansen, who was chief executive of high-street retailer New Look from 2013 until September last year. “This is happening in front of your eyes and nobody’s doing anything?!” he remembers thinking. “How can society accept it — not even society, how can government accept it? It’s so sad, I’ve not spoken about it for a long time because it frustrated me so much.”
Saeed Khilji, the chairman of the Textile Manufacturer Association of Leicestershire, drives around the garment district pointing out old industrial complexes. This part of Leicester is crammed with factories, red-brick terraces, mosques and churches. “This Temple building — one building — there’s 100 factories in there,” he says. “Each with 10 people, 15 people, 20 people.”
Khilji is a sharp dresser, with a groomed black beard. He set up TMAL last year because he felt the local industry needed a collective voice. As we drive, he keeps stopping to shout greetings to people. Then he points out a row of doors on St Saviours Road. “You only see one door but there are three or four factories behind each one.”
When I came to the UK and I discovered what was going on in Leicester, it was mind-blowing
Anders Kristiansen, former chief executive of New Look
Having been inside some, “factory” does not feel like the right word. In its heyday, Leicester garment manufacturer Corah employed more than 6,000 people. Now the average UK garment factory employs fewer than 10, according to University of Leicester research.
In the ones I was allowed into, there were workers at sewing machines listening to the radio, big ironing boards, and tables where people folded and packed clothes. One was doing a run for PrettyLittleThing, an online “fast fashion” brand owned by Boohoo. Another was making trousers for an over-40s catalogue.
Saeed Khilji in his office in Leicester last month © Kate Peters
Khilji parks outside the Imperial Typewriter Building, where Leicester’s famous typewriters were once made. Now the 1930s building is old and dirty. A broken window is patched up with a cardboard box. It too is home to garment factories. Khilji and I only get as far as the stairwell, where a spaghetti of wires dangles from the ceiling. One person who has visited said he was “frightened to be in the building. There’s just so many small units, there’s fabric stacked high.” He worried about potential fire risk. Khilji says many factories are now moving out because they see it as unsafe. “The condition of that building is very bad, but it’s not representative.”
How did the industry get here? When big manufacturers started to leave, some workers spent their redundancy money on buying the machines left behind. They set up small units, but clothing prices kept falling and working conditions worsened as they tried to stay competitive. As successive UK governments pushed up the legal minimum wage, parts of this bit of Leicester seem to have simply moved into a twilight world. It is not the only place where this has happened: New York and Los Angeles have grappled with poor conditions in garment factories as has Prato in Italy.
Today, people in Leicester earning £5 an hour “walk out of factories with their heads held high”, says Mick Cheema, who runs a garment factory called Basic Premier that pays legal wages. He says the average wage in dark factories, as he calls them, is about £4.25 an hour. Factories often under-record hours, so people’s payslips look as if they have been paid the minimum wage. “Say you’re working 40 hours for £4 [an hour], but legally you should get almost £8 — so these people are showing 20 hours at £8 an hour,” explains Khilji.
The Imperial Typewriter Building in Leicester, now home to small garment factories © Kate Peters
Doshi has experienced both the good and the bad when it comes to pay. Once he worked for three weeks without wages, then the factory suddenly shut down, giving him just £100. About 18 months ago, he was working in a factory in Cobden House, a six-storey building with razor wire on its wall, earning the minimum wage. Then the company went bankrupt. “I’m crying now [it’s] closed down.”
He went upstairs where a “fast fashion” factory had vacancies. They said his wage would be £4 an hour. When I went to look for it, it appeared to no longer exist. One manufacturer in Cobden House told me factories don’t always last long. Someone opened in the unit next to him “working all sorts of hours” for online retailers, he says, but then disappeared three months later.
As ever with illegality, pinning down its scale is tough. A study by the University of Leicester in 2015, commissioned by the Ethical Trading Initiative, an alliance of major retailers and unions, concluded the majority of the city’s garment workers were paid less than the minimum wage. When politician Harriet Harman led a group here last year from the joint committee on human rights, she estimated it was between a third and three-quarters. Khilji disagrees. “I should say 99 per cent,” he says. “I’m saying openly, these are the problems and we need to address them.” The root cause, he argues, is the way retailers treat suppliers.
The courtyard at the Imperial Typewriter Building © Kate Peters
Enforcement agencies uncover illegal migrant workers in occasional raids, but life goes on. Cheema remembers people fleeing from a factory on the other side of the street as it was raided. Nearby, he says, was another dark factory. “The boss of that factory was looking out of his door and down the street and letting two people out at a time,” he says. When raids happen, word spreads quickly and the streets fill with people as factories empty out.
Workers do not necessarily have better options, Khilji explains. Many are either from Doshi’s generation and have never learnt good English, or are more recent arrivals from eastern Europe or India. “They don’t have any skill, so manufacturers are actually taking them and training them and giving them something.” Lately, people have been coming from Daman in India on Portuguese passports because the place used to be a colony. “Some of the people is struggling, you know — so, £3? £4? OK,” says Doshi. He knows of a three-bedroom house with three or four families living in it.
Some factory owners say that workers believe they are better off with lower pay and fewer hours on the books, because they will receive more help from the state in tax credits and housing benefit. If that is what workers think — and I did not hear it from any directly — they are mistaken.
Calculations by the Resolution Foundation show that in every scenario it is better to be paid the minimum wage for 40 hours than for 20. But it is certainly true that taxpayers are losing money because workers are illegally underpaid, both because the government has to pay more benefits, and because HMRC loses about £1,000 in tax from the employer per worker.
Trade unions lack a strong presence here. Community organisations do their best but funding has been squeezed. The local Highfields Centre lost all its council funding in 2015. Its chief executive, Priya Thamotheram, who says he took a 65 per cent pay cut at that time, is keen to run an advice service for workers and provide more education programmes, but he cannot do it without money. “It’s got to be about building up their confidence and opening their horizons to other things,” he says. “If you walk the streets in the early mornings in the St Saviours area, you’ll see people . . . who are youngish, well into their sixties, and everything in between . . . It’s sad to see some of them . . . going into these factories, dingy little places, some of them.”
Retailers audit their suppliers in Leicester and say they do not work with any that break the law. But unauthorised subcontracting is a problem and factories can present books that look clean because they under-record hours.
One of the many vacancy signs in Leicester’s garment district © Kate Peters
Dispatches, a Channel 4 programme, sent a worker undercover into various factories in 2010 and again in 2017. Both times they were paid well below the minimum wage. In the most recent one, they were making clothes for New Look, River Island, Boohoo and Missguided. All retailers said their orders had been subcontracted to those factories without their permission or knowledge.
Last year, Kristiansen, while still chief executive of New Look, and Asos’s chief executive Nick Beighton, wrote to parliament’s human rights committee to say they wanted to source more in the UK, and Leicester could be the “driving force” behind the industry’s resurgence, but that “serious underlying concerns . . . could fatally derail any such success story”. They called for better law enforcement.
Manufacturers, meanwhile, are sick of retailers saying everything is their fault. When Khilji called a meeting last year, he says about 300 people turned up, many of them factory owners. They complained retailers offered such low prices per garment that they simply “cannot be manufactured ethically”, according to meeting minutes. “They’re asking cheap, cheap, cheap,” Khilji says. “Where last year they paid £8, now they’re asking £7 for same garment . . . So I don’t think they have any right to shout about ethics.”
Santoshan Sangha, who has spent 30 years working in and running factories in Leicester, says: “I can put the retailers to shame — ‘You know full well this is not a price you’re able to buy for, so how are you looking to buy?’” Many retailers employ ethical trade teams, then a separate team of “buyers” who negotiate orders and prices. Sangha said the former understand the manufacturers’ concerns, “but the buyers just say, ‘We’re under pressure.’” Several suppliers said young buyers often had no idea how to cost material and labour. When asked why they wouldn’t just refuse an order, they said they had to keep their factories busy to cover their costs. If they said no, the person next door would say yes.
Helen Russell, a former senior buyer for high-street retailers who became a lecturer in fashion at De Montfort University, has seen inexperienced buyers “that see it as a little bit of a game to play suppliers off against each other at a very late stage” because of “margin” pressures from managers. She said best practice was to treat suppliers with respect and keep their samples confidential.
[Retailers] are asking cheap, cheap, cheap. If last year they paid £8, now they’re asking £7 for the same garment
Saeed Khilji, chairman of the Textile Manufacturer Association of Leicestershire
Suppliers also say the retailers give them no commitments, forcing them to live from order to order. Because speed is so important, they risk penalties if they deliver late, which can incentivise them to subcontract. Khilji reserves his strongest criticism for the high-street retailers that source in Leicester but who, he says, have “no connection” with factories. Online brands like Boohoo grew out of family-owned wholesaler businesses so they understand the supply base better, he says, and would, for example, help a struggling factory with a loan.
But others say the online brands are particularly aggressive on price. Boohoo holds weekly meetings at its Manchester head office, where suppliers bring samples to the product teams in a single room with 10 to 12 large tables. “It’s like a cattle market,” says one person from a supplier who did not want to be named. “Say I’m the buyer, and [you’ve] just given me the price of this [dress] for £5. I will literally hold it up to the next table and say, ‘How much for that?’ and he’ll tell you £4. It’s ruthless.”
Boohoo said suppliers appreciated having “regular, open contact” and offered private discussions in separate rooms if they preferred. “Buying a garment is a negotiation and Boohoo would never force a supplier into selling something against their wishes,” merchandising director Paul Horsfield said in a statement.
Earlier this year, Jenny Holloway, owner of London factory Fashion Enter, went to Leicester at the request of the council to give a workshop to other owners. Fashion Enter has an ongoing order commitment from Asos and uses technology to monitor tasks and ensure decent wages.
After hearing from the manufacturers, she fired off a letter to Peter McAllister, executive director of the ETI. “Have you been to review the cost prices given to these factories by certain retailers and etailers? Any person in the industry would know that these cost prices are totally unobtainable,” she wrote. “The onshoring of production back to the UK is happening here and now but it’s fragile. The mighty retailers have clout and financial resources and factories don’t . . . [Retailers should] work with carefully selected manufacturers and support them.”
Inside the Basic Premier factory © Kate Peters
To be fair to the ETI, this is the approach it has been advocating in Leicester. “We want to see UK manufacturing thrive, but it mustn’t be based on a 19th-century model of exploitation and poor working conditions, where profit comes at the expense of workers,” McAllister said in a statement. “Clothing brands hold a lot of power over their suppliers and need to recognise that unreasonable demands are likely to drive poor working conditions for the women and men who actually make the clothes. At the same time, suppliers mustn’t use brand-buying practices as an excuse for exploiting their workers and breaking the law. Both are wrong.”
It has got worse. Because nothing has happened, people have seen they can get away with breaking the law
Mick Cheema, general manager of the Leicester-based clothing manufacturer Basic Premier
ETI-member brands such as New Look, River Island and Asos created a forensic auditing system for UK suppliers called Fast Forward several years ago, and have cut the number of Leicester factories they use from about 130 to just 30. New Look alone reduced its UK suppliers by 80 per cent “due to concerns regarding working practices”, a spokesman said. He said working “ethically and sustainably” was “fundamental” to its business, and that it used suppliers’ feedback to “support them whilst ensuring alignment with our ethical requirements”.
Asos currently only uses 16 factories in the UK, seven of which are in Leicester, and says it gives them regular orders. Sourcing director Simon Platts says the sector needs investment in infrastructure and training, as well as enforcement and legislation, all of which require a joint effort. Missguided has recently joined the ETI too and Khilji says it has cut its Leicester-based suppliers. (It declined requests for comment.) The ETI has arranged for a consultant and specialist from Acas, the workplace relations advice service, to help factories set up ways to give workers a voice.
Khilji says that as these brands have partially retreated, more Leicester factory owners are reliant on Boohoo and the host of wholesalers and other brands that do not use Fast Forward. Boohoo confirmed it was not a member of the ETI but said its ethical trade policy was “based on the ETI base code, which sets out worldwide standards of labour practice”. Boohoo’s Paul Horsfield said it used the Sedex Members Ethical Trade Audit to govern relations with suppliers, and that Boohoo also had a sourcing and compliance team based in Leicester which pays “regular unannounced visits” and helps suppliers “work towards best-in-class working conditions”.
But some manufacturers who chose the high road say that, far from being rewarded with more business, they are struggling to survive. Mick Cheema and his wife Rajinder thought they were on to a winner when they opened Basic Premier in 2012 with the idea of appealing to retailers as a compliant factory. The Cheemas knew that to compete with factories paying below the minimum wage they would need to be more productive, so they planned a big operation and bought two £100,000 machines to cut fabric in the most efficient way. The factory is bright and clean, humming to the clatter of the sewing machinists.
Clothing on rails at Basic Premier © Kate Peters
To begin with, workers flocked to them. “My wife and I would get so excited,” says Cheema. After interviewing candidates, he would say, “‘Before you start, just bring over your P45 or a National Insurance number and your right-to-work documentation . . . ’ and you would never see them again.” Eventually they managed to recruit people — though not as many as hoped. The culture was a shock for some. “We need an efficient workforce to be competitive [so we were telling them] when you’re on your machine you can’t be talking on your mobile phone . . . You can’t eat your food on the machine . . . You have to clock in.” The new recruits weren’t used to any of this. “If you’re working in Tesco’s or for an engineering facility outside of this square mile, it’s the norm,” Cheema says. But in the Leicester microeconomy, it was odd, and not everyone stuck it out.
Then there was the problem of securing orders. The factory has successfully passed a slew of audits, including Fast Forward, but it is still seen as one of the most expensive factories in Leicester. “It’s so frustrating,” he says. “Because you’re not on a level playing field. No matter how hard we try to achieve efficiencies . . . you’re still going to be in a place where you’re commercially in no-man’s-land.”
Mick Cheema preparing costings © Kate Peters
I took Cheema four dresses with “made in the UK” labels — the two that cost £6 and £7 from Boohoo, one for £12.99 from TK Maxx and a New Look one for £15.99 — and asked him to cost them. He and a colleague spread them out on a table, rubbing their fingers over the seams, drawing an outline of each and filling out a costing sheet.
Retailers do not disclose their “buying-in margins”, which can vary based on business model, but Cheema says retailers typically charge customers three times what they paid to suppliers. A competitive price to make these dresses would thus be just £2 and £2.33 for the Boohoo dresses, £4.33 for the TK Maxx dress and £5.33 for the New Look.
Cheema and his colleague say that Basic Premier would have to charge Boohoo £6.45 to make the dress it is selling for £6, and £5.65 for the £7 one. They would charge £8.22 for the TK Maxx dress and £5.65 for the New Look one. They said the Boohoo and TK Maxx dresses were out of reach even if they made zero margin themselves.
I gave the costings to Boohoo, which said the dresses had been made by Leicester suppliers but did “not reflect the norm for our business” because they were from a core collection “where we take a view on the cost price and absorb margin loss in order to offer the products at the best price possible”. TK Maxx said it was “committed to operating our business with high standards of ethics” in its vendor code of conduct, which requires its “vendors” and subcontractors to follow all laws and regulations.
Mick Cheema’s costing of the £7 Boohoo dress. He would charge £5.65 to make this item, but suppliers typically get paid one-third of the retail price, ie just £2.33 in this case © Kate Peters
According to Cheema, retailers banging the drum about the importance of ethical production in Leicester have not followed through. “[We thought] we’ll pass the audits and we’ll get orders from all these retailers, [but] we reached that goal years ago and there’s no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. ” Basic Premier does get orders — on one of my visits the workers were making tops for Sainsbury’s — but far fewer than it expected and with no ongoing commitment.
Meanwhile, Cheema says, many competitors carry on breaking the law. “It has got worse. Because nothing has happened, people have physically seen [they] can get away with it.” He and his wife have decided to cut the factory in half to reduce overheads. “It’s a bit scary. Us, the workforce . . . have got so much to lose.”
Santoshan Sangha says his factory committed to Fast Forward for three years, lost £100,000 and went out of business. He says the retailers gave him no commitment in return. “They said, ‘OK, we want to work with you,’ give you a couple of orders, then go back to Turkey or wherever, and six or eight months later they return when the pound’s in their favour and expect to find you’re still here.”
Other manufacturers have taken note. Fast Forward was “made by retailers, for retailers” with “nothing for manufacturers”, says Khilji. David Camp, its founder, responded that it was an “effective” way for manufacturers to “demonstrate they were compliant with the law.
Cheema thinks there is a two-pronged solution: first, retailers should put their money where their mouths are, committing to sourcing a percentage from the good factories. “What’s a couple of thousand garments a week from two or three retailers? These companies sell hundreds of thousands of garments a week.” Second, the government should enforce the law. “[Leicester’s] got its own rules, its own laws, its own ways of doing things,” he says. “We’ve lost faith in the government stepping in.” Workers seem to feel the same way. “The government knows what’s happening in Leicester,” says a friend of Doshi’s, who did not want to be named, “and that’s it. They don’t do anything.”
The enforcement agencies can hardly claim to be unaware of what is happening. Representatives from UK Visas and Immigration, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority all attended a meeting hosted by Leicester mayor Sir Peter Soulsby last October, where the problems were discussed in detail. But a comb through freedom-of-information requests, MPs questions and public records does not reveal a state that has done much to sort this out.
Over the five years to 2016-17, HM Revenue & Customs, which has recently had its enforcement budget doubled, has identified about £33m of arrears for almost 232,000 people who have been paid under minimum wage nationwide. Of that total, it found underpayment in just 19 employers in the textile sector, owing £44,371 to 83 workers. A government spokesperson said: “Short-changing workers is a red line for this government and employers who cross it will have to pay back every penny and could face fines of up to twice the wages owed.”
HSE, meanwhile, was told by the government in 2011 to cut the number of proactive workplace inspections it makes by one-third. In 2012, Chris Grayling, then employment minister, said: “If we try to legislate out all risk, we will lose jobs to other places.” For textiles manufacturing, the enforcement approach has been “principally reactive”. There were 187 inspections of garment and textile factories last year, an increase on 103 inspections five years ago. But there were 136 workplace injuries reported in the sector last year — reportable injuries are those that necessitate more than a week off work or involve damage such as amputations, the crushing of internal organs or burns covering more than 10 per cent of the body. HSE investigated just five.
A spokesperson said the criteria for when HSE would investigate a reported injury included “prima facie evidence of a serious breach of the law”, and that the agency still inspected businesses in “non-higher-risk” sectors if there was evidence of poor health-and-safety risk control.
© Kate Peters
As for Leicester council, it has held meetings and workshops but points out that central, not local, government has jurisdiction to enforce health and safety in factories and the minimum wage. However, it does have a responsibility to enforce building safety, and an FOI request shows the last time it inspected the Imperial Typewriter building was in 2004. The council says it has not received any complaints about the building since then. The Leicestershire fire and rescue service last inspected the building in February 2017 in response to “concern from fire service crew” and the outcome was deemed “satisfactory”.
Last year, the government appointed Sir David Metcalf to a newly created post: director of labour market enforcement. He published his first strategy last week, devoting a page to Leicester’s garment sector. “While some enforcement action has been undertaken in this sector and city over the last few years, this has clearly not had an effective impact on overall compliance,” the report said.
We want to see UK manufacturing thrive, but it mustn’t be based on a 19th-century model of exploitation and poor working conditions
Peter McAllister, executive director of the Ethical Trading Initiative
Metcalf recommended a pilot to test whether “joint working” between enforcement agencies, the council, industry bodies and suppliers “can help change the perceived culture of impunity”. He said this should involve “highly visible targeting of non-compliant garment businesses in Leicester”. Phil Coyne, the council’s director of city development and neighbourhoods, said the problems “relating to ethical practice within the industry are an issue nationally, not just in Leicester”. But he added the council wanted Leicester workers to be “properly paid, well trained, and work in safe environments”, and was “very pleased” with the recommendation.
Metcalf tells me the UK government enforces labour law too lightly overall: “The amazing thing is how many firms comply, because you haven’t got enough enforcement resources and the fines are too low.” He says the average employer can expect an HMRC inspection once every 500 years, based on current statistics. He has recommended higher fines and new “joint responsibility” rules, where companies would be named if they failed to sort out non-compliance in their supply base.
The next step could be to impose “joint liability”. For the British economy, already held back by poor productivity, it makes no sense to allow the good to be undercut by the bad, he adds. “It’s those good firms being more productive which will boost our productivity, not the ones that are very labour-intensive and working fiddles on tax credits.”
This is a moment of opportunity for Leicester. If retailers were able to truly collaborate with manufacturers, they could create decent jobs for a community that needs them while enjoying the benefits of sourcing close to home. But, if anything, they are splitting apart. Some factories are looking for other solutions entirely. Khilji has launched a website, mesheme.com, to help manufacturers sell direct to consumers. This way, he says, they will be able to make reasonable profits and pay their workers properly. Cheema is also planning to sell to smaller operations or direct to consumers.
Windows of the Imperial Typewriter Building © Kate Peters
Retailers are on different paths too. McAllister said the ETI would continue to work with brands and suppliers to tackle Leicester’s problems, but added: “Unfortunately, many of the companies, especially some etailers, who source in larger volumes from Leicester, are not ETI member companies and have failed to engage with this process.”
Boohoo declined to be interviewed but Horsfield’s statement said the company was “delighted” to be supporting the “creation of employment opportunities in the UK”. He said Boohoo recognised its “duty of care to all its stakeholders” and was “putting increasing effort and resource into leading the way in sustainable change for the industry”. Boohoo’s full-year results showed revenues almost doubled to more than £500m with pre-tax profit up 40 per cent to £43m. Co-founder Mahmud Kamani and his family have joined the ranks of UK billionaires, according to last week’s Sunday Times Rich List.
In Leicester, life carries on. Doshi can’t sew any more, as his eyes are bad with cataracts and his back hurts. He applied for jobs at Tesco and Asda but they said his English was too poor. He has been going to college at night to study English but he failed his exam and was told there was no more government money to take it again. He went to see a sandwich factory but it was “all day stand up, it’s very fast, everything cold, cold”.
Finally, the week before we met, a friend told him about a new garment factory that could give him a packing job. He went to the interview and asked about pay. The boss told him they would see how fast he could work. Maximum? £4.50 an hour. And if he was slow? £3.50.
Sarah O’Connor is an FT investigations correspondent
sarah.oconnor@ft.com
EU fights back to neutralize US sanctions against Iran - CNN Money
EU fights back to neutralize US sanctions against Iran
by Alanna Petroff @AlannaPetroff
May 18, 2018: 1:42 PM ET
Bolton: European countries could be sanctioned
Europe is fighting back against President Donald Trump's attempt to isolate Iran with new rules aimed at protecting European companies from US sanctions.
The European Commission said Friday it is planning to shield EU-based companies that continue to trade with Iran despite Trump's decision to quit an international nuclear agreement and reintroduce sanctions.
The move, which has the support of all 28 EU states, is part of an effort by Germany, France and the United Kingdom to salvage the 2015 deal that promised Iran economic benefits in return for a promise that it would limit its nuclear program. If the EU can't guarantee continued trade and investment, Iran has little incentive to play ball.
The EU is also encouraging its member states to explore the possibility of making one-off payments to Iran's central bank to underpin the OPEC country's oil trade, which is vital to its economic prospects.
The most significant measure announced Friday is a "blocking statute." It would protect European companies from US sanctions, but could expose them to European penalties if they choose to cut ties with Iran.
"It's a significant escalation of tensions between the US and the EU," said Judith Lee, an international trade lawyer at Gibson Dunn in Washington, DC. "They're moving really fast... to stake out a position on this."
Iran's deputy foreign minister Abbas Araqchi on Sunday gave France, Germany and the UK 60 days to guarantee that business ties between the countries will continue, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
"I think [today's move is] definitely a signal to the Iranians that the EU will not give up without a fight with the US," said Thomas Gratowski, an Iran expert at the advisory firm Global Counsel.
The European Union exported nearly €11 billion ($13 billion) in goods to Iran in 2017, roughly 100 times larger than US exports to the country.
Related: What is the perfect price for oil?
'Unresolvable conflict'
Friday's announcement puts companies in a difficult spot, creating an "unresolvable conflict of law," said Lee.
They would have a choice: Stop doing business with Iran to comply with US law, but break EU rules. Or continue business with Iran to comply with EU rules, but face harsh US sanctions.
"There's no way you can get around it," Lee added
Large European companies with big US operations will likely feel compelled to break EU rules by winding down their Iranian business. Companies with more limited ties to the US may try to continue trading with Iran, she said.
"I don't think we're going to see uniformity" in corporate reactions, said Lee.
Related: Total halts $2 billion gas project in Iran
'Limited' practical value
Experts are skeptical about how far Europe will ultimately go to enforce such a rule, and therefore how much comfort it will provide to Iran.
France, for example, wouldn't want to issue penalties against a firm such as Renault (RNSDF), since it owns a stake in the company, Gratowski said.
"You might end up shooting yourself in the foot," said Gratowski. "The practical value ... [of this rule] is very limited."
Additionally, the "blocking statute" states that companies that endure financial losses due to US sanctions can later recover damages "from the person causing them."
Gratowski believes it would be next to impossible recover damages from the US.
Big companies react cautiously
France's Total (TOT) said on Wednesday it was unable to proceed with a $2 billion project to develop Iran's giant South Pars gas field due to the reimposition of US sanctions. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday about the EU measures.
Siemens (SI), whose CEO told CNN this week that the company could not accept new Iranian business, told CNN its position had not changed.
"We will ... very carefully analyze the sanction-related steps announced by the US and the EU. We have strictly complied with all relevant export control restrictions in the past and will continue to do so in the future," it said in a statement.
PSA (PUGOY), which sells Peugeot cars, said it would "follow the evolution of this subject, including the official and singular position expressed by the European Union on this issue."
Airbus (EADSY) reiterated on Friday that it would act "in full compliance with sanctions and export control regulations." But the aircraft manufacturer said it would not be able to export commercial planes to Iran without a license from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
CNNMoney (London)
First published May 18, 2018: 1:42 PM ET
by Alanna Petroff @AlannaPetroff
May 18, 2018: 1:42 PM ET
Bolton: European countries could be sanctioned
Europe is fighting back against President Donald Trump's attempt to isolate Iran with new rules aimed at protecting European companies from US sanctions.
The European Commission said Friday it is planning to shield EU-based companies that continue to trade with Iran despite Trump's decision to quit an international nuclear agreement and reintroduce sanctions.
The move, which has the support of all 28 EU states, is part of an effort by Germany, France and the United Kingdom to salvage the 2015 deal that promised Iran economic benefits in return for a promise that it would limit its nuclear program. If the EU can't guarantee continued trade and investment, Iran has little incentive to play ball.
The EU is also encouraging its member states to explore the possibility of making one-off payments to Iran's central bank to underpin the OPEC country's oil trade, which is vital to its economic prospects.
The most significant measure announced Friday is a "blocking statute." It would protect European companies from US sanctions, but could expose them to European penalties if they choose to cut ties with Iran.
"It's a significant escalation of tensions between the US and the EU," said Judith Lee, an international trade lawyer at Gibson Dunn in Washington, DC. "They're moving really fast... to stake out a position on this."
Iran's deputy foreign minister Abbas Araqchi on Sunday gave France, Germany and the UK 60 days to guarantee that business ties between the countries will continue, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
"I think [today's move is] definitely a signal to the Iranians that the EU will not give up without a fight with the US," said Thomas Gratowski, an Iran expert at the advisory firm Global Counsel.
The European Union exported nearly €11 billion ($13 billion) in goods to Iran in 2017, roughly 100 times larger than US exports to the country.
Related: What is the perfect price for oil?
'Unresolvable conflict'
Friday's announcement puts companies in a difficult spot, creating an "unresolvable conflict of law," said Lee.
They would have a choice: Stop doing business with Iran to comply with US law, but break EU rules. Or continue business with Iran to comply with EU rules, but face harsh US sanctions.
"There's no way you can get around it," Lee added
Large European companies with big US operations will likely feel compelled to break EU rules by winding down their Iranian business. Companies with more limited ties to the US may try to continue trading with Iran, she said.
"I don't think we're going to see uniformity" in corporate reactions, said Lee.
Related: Total halts $2 billion gas project in Iran
'Limited' practical value
Experts are skeptical about how far Europe will ultimately go to enforce such a rule, and therefore how much comfort it will provide to Iran.
France, for example, wouldn't want to issue penalties against a firm such as Renault (RNSDF), since it owns a stake in the company, Gratowski said.
"You might end up shooting yourself in the foot," said Gratowski. "The practical value ... [of this rule] is very limited."
Additionally, the "blocking statute" states that companies that endure financial losses due to US sanctions can later recover damages "from the person causing them."
Gratowski believes it would be next to impossible recover damages from the US.
Big companies react cautiously
France's Total (TOT) said on Wednesday it was unable to proceed with a $2 billion project to develop Iran's giant South Pars gas field due to the reimposition of US sanctions. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday about the EU measures.
Siemens (SI), whose CEO told CNN this week that the company could not accept new Iranian business, told CNN its position had not changed.
"We will ... very carefully analyze the sanction-related steps announced by the US and the EU. We have strictly complied with all relevant export control restrictions in the past and will continue to do so in the future," it said in a statement.
PSA (PUGOY), which sells Peugeot cars, said it would "follow the evolution of this subject, including the official and singular position expressed by the European Union on this issue."
Airbus (EADSY) reiterated on Friday that it would act "in full compliance with sanctions and export control regulations." But the aircraft manufacturer said it would not be able to export commercial planes to Iran without a license from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
CNNMoney (London)
First published May 18, 2018: 1:42 PM ET
Trump: Justice Dept. put a 'spy' in campaign to 'frame' him Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers, says the president's legal team has been told that the feds had an informant. - MSNBC News
Trump: Justice Dept. put a 'spy' in campaign to 'frame' him
Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers, says the president's legal team has been told that the feds had an informant. The allegation has not been verified.
by Adam Edelman / May.18.2018 / 9:33 PM ET / Updated May.19.2018 / 12:04 AM ET
President Donald Trump is alleging that the Department of Justice put a "spy" inside his presidential campaign as part of an effort to frame him for crimes he says "didn’t commit."
"'Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn't commit,'" Trump tweeted Friday, quoting Fox Business Network anchor David Asman. "Really bad stuff!"
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
“Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn’t commit.” David Asman @LouDobbs @GreggJarrett Really bad stuff!
8:24 PM - May 18, 2018
Later, the president weighed in again, saying that if the reports are true, it would be the "all time biggest political scandal."
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true - all time biggest political scandal!
11:50 PM - May 18, 2018
Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers, said on Friday that the president's legal team had been told about an informant "off the record," but added that he didn't know if the information was correct.
"I don't know for sure, nor does the president, if there really was one," Giuliani said on CNN. "For a long time we've been told by people that there was some kind of infiltration."
Trump's tweet Friday was the second time in as many days that the president has claimed the government put a "spy" inside his campaign.
On Thursday — the anniversary of the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller — Trump tweeted that then-President Barack Obama had "spied on the Trump campaign," an apparent reference to an allegation by Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and assistant U.S. attorney, made Thursday on Fox News.
"Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI 'SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT,'" Trump tweeted Thursday. "Andrew McCarthy says, 'There's probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.'
"If so, this is bigger than Watergate!" the president added.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI “SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT.” Andrew McCarthy says, “There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.” If so, this is bigger than Watergate!
10:45 PM - May 17, 2018
McCarthy said on Fox News, "I've written a couple of columns in the last week or so pointing out that there's probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign."
In an article in The National Review on May 12, McCarthy questioned whether the FBI had used a "human source" inside the Trump campaign in an attempt to confirm elements of the Steele Dossier, a 35-page document compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele that contained lurid allegations about Trump.
The publication of the dossier, by Buzzfeed in January 2017, helped fuel speculation on Trump's connections to Russia.
Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers, says the president's legal team has been told that the feds had an informant. The allegation has not been verified.
by Adam Edelman / May.18.2018 / 9:33 PM ET / Updated May.19.2018 / 12:04 AM ET
President Donald Trump is alleging that the Department of Justice put a "spy" inside his presidential campaign as part of an effort to frame him for crimes he says "didn’t commit."
"'Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn't commit,'" Trump tweeted Friday, quoting Fox Business Network anchor David Asman. "Really bad stuff!"
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
“Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn’t commit.” David Asman @LouDobbs @GreggJarrett Really bad stuff!
8:24 PM - May 18, 2018
Later, the president weighed in again, saying that if the reports are true, it would be the "all time biggest political scandal."
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true - all time biggest political scandal!
11:50 PM - May 18, 2018
Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers, said on Friday that the president's legal team had been told about an informant "off the record," but added that he didn't know if the information was correct.
"I don't know for sure, nor does the president, if there really was one," Giuliani said on CNN. "For a long time we've been told by people that there was some kind of infiltration."
Trump's tweet Friday was the second time in as many days that the president has claimed the government put a "spy" inside his campaign.
On Thursday — the anniversary of the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller — Trump tweeted that then-President Barack Obama had "spied on the Trump campaign," an apparent reference to an allegation by Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and assistant U.S. attorney, made Thursday on Fox News.
"Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI 'SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT,'" Trump tweeted Thursday. "Andrew McCarthy says, 'There's probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.'
"If so, this is bigger than Watergate!" the president added.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI “SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT.” Andrew McCarthy says, “There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.” If so, this is bigger than Watergate!
10:45 PM - May 17, 2018
McCarthy said on Fox News, "I've written a couple of columns in the last week or so pointing out that there's probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign."
In an article in The National Review on May 12, McCarthy questioned whether the FBI had used a "human source" inside the Trump campaign in an attempt to confirm elements of the Steele Dossier, a 35-page document compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele that contained lurid allegations about Trump.
The publication of the dossier, by Buzzfeed in January 2017, helped fuel speculation on Trump's connections to Russia.
From Wholesale Ice to Ice Skating Rinks: Four of Donald Trump's Oddest Revenue Streams 4 Weird Ways Donald Trump Makes Money - Fortune
From Wholesale Ice to Ice Skating Rinks: Four of Donald Trump's Oddest Revenue Streams
4 Weird Ways Donald Trump Makes Money
Ice skating, anyone?
By CHRIS MORRIS May 18, 2018
For his duties as president, Donald Trump gets paid $400,000 per year—along with another $169,000 for travel, expenses, and entertainment. That’s hardly chump change, but it doesn’t come close to the income of his other business operations.
Trump, of course, owns dozens of hotels and golf courses. And it’s no secret he runs plenty of other businesses as well. But in his financial disclosure form, released earlier this week, he disclosed a few businesses that were rather unexpected.
Here’s a look some of the oddest income sources.
Trump Ice: $280,899
Though Trump did once sell a bottled water called Trump Ice, this company is described as a “water wholesaler.” It’s unclear if this is the same “Trump Natural Spring Water” that is “proudly served at Trump hotels, restaurants, and golf clubs worldwide.”
Screen Actors Guild: $64,840
Trump does get payments from the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists pension, in part because of his time on The Apprentice.
But he picks up a bigger check from SAG’s pension fund. He also picks up nominal royalty payments (between $200 and $1,000 each) for shows that include The Little Rascals and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
Ice Skating Rinks: $9,255,614
Trump reopened Central Park’s Wollman Ice Rink in the mid-1980s, and it has been a cash boon. Wollman Rink Operations, which oversees the rink, is owned by DJT Holdings, a Trump-controlled LLC.
Trump Coffee: $15,001-$50,000
Trump Marks Fine Foods is a holding that has a licensing deal with Two Rivers Coffee. The product is Select by Trump, a light-roasted coffee that’s available for Keurig Brewers. If you want some, get it fast (on Amazon), though. The line was discontinued in January.
4 Weird Ways Donald Trump Makes Money
Ice skating, anyone?
By CHRIS MORRIS May 18, 2018
For his duties as president, Donald Trump gets paid $400,000 per year—along with another $169,000 for travel, expenses, and entertainment. That’s hardly chump change, but it doesn’t come close to the income of his other business operations.
Trump, of course, owns dozens of hotels and golf courses. And it’s no secret he runs plenty of other businesses as well. But in his financial disclosure form, released earlier this week, he disclosed a few businesses that were rather unexpected.
Here’s a look some of the oddest income sources.
Trump Ice: $280,899
Though Trump did once sell a bottled water called Trump Ice, this company is described as a “water wholesaler.” It’s unclear if this is the same “Trump Natural Spring Water” that is “proudly served at Trump hotels, restaurants, and golf clubs worldwide.”
Screen Actors Guild: $64,840
Trump does get payments from the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists pension, in part because of his time on The Apprentice.
But he picks up a bigger check from SAG’s pension fund. He also picks up nominal royalty payments (between $200 and $1,000 each) for shows that include The Little Rascals and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
Ice Skating Rinks: $9,255,614
Trump reopened Central Park’s Wollman Ice Rink in the mid-1980s, and it has been a cash boon. Wollman Rink Operations, which oversees the rink, is owned by DJT Holdings, a Trump-controlled LLC.
Trump Coffee: $15,001-$50,000
Trump Marks Fine Foods is a holding that has a licensing deal with Two Rivers Coffee. The product is Select by Trump, a light-roasted coffee that’s available for Keurig Brewers. If you want some, get it fast (on Amazon), though. The line was discontinued in January.
Trump takes on Planned Parenthood with ban on abortion counseling at federally funded clinics - Fox News
May 18, 2018
Trump takes on Planned Parenthood with ban on abortion counseling at federally funded clinics
Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas | Fox News
Trump to deny federal funds to abortion counseling clinics
Trump administration set to resurrect ban on abortion counseling at federally-funded clinics like Planned Parenthood; Ellison Barber reports from Washington.
The Trump administration on Friday took aim at Planned Parenthood by announcing plans to resurrect a rule banning federally funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with patients.
White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told Fox News that the administration is simply recognizing "that abortion is not family planning. This is family planning money."
An administration official told Fox News that the Department of Health and Human Services officially filed the rule with the Office of Management and Budget on Friday.
Planned Parenthood’s clinics are major recipients of grants for family planning and basic preventive care. During the 2016 election, President Trump campaigned on defunding the organization.
Pro-life groups want Trump administration to direct federal funds away from clinics that do abortions in favor of qualified health clinics that provide medical care but not abortions; reaction from Penny Young Nance, CEO and president of Concerned Women for America, and Dr. Ronnie Floyd, president of the National Day of Prayer.Video
Planned Parenthood targets Trump family planning policy
The policy has been derided as a "gag rule" by Planned Parenthood, and it is likely to trigger lawsuits that could keep it from taking effect.
"The end result would make it impossible for women to come to Planned Parenthood, who are counting on us every day," said the organization's executive vice president, Dawn Laguens.
But the administration said Planned Parenthood can still receive Title X grants if it keeps the family-planning money separate from funds used to pay for abortions.
“This proposal does not necessarily defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they’re willing to disentangle taxpayer funds from abortion as a method of family planning,” an administration official told Fox News.
Known as Title X, the nation's family planning program serves about four million women a year through clinics, at a cost to taxpayers of about $260 million.
An administration official said the proposal is based on, though is not identical to, a Reagan-era rule.
The policy was rescinded under President Bill Clinton, and a new rule went into effect which allowed "nondirective" counseling to include a range of options for women.
According to a Trump administration summary, the new proposal would roll back the Clinton requirement that abortion should be discussed as an option along with prenatal care and adoption.
Doctors' groups and abortion rights supporters say a ban on counseling women trespasses on the doctor-patient relationship. They point out that federal family planning funds cannot currently be used to pay for abortion procedures.
Abortion opponents allege the federal family planning program in effect cross-subsidizes abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood.
The Republican-led Congress has unsuccessfully tried to deny federal funds to Planned Parenthood, and the Trump administration has vowed to religious and social conservatives that it will keep up the effort.
Fox News’ Jennifer Bowman and Gregg Re and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Alex Pappas is a politics reporter at FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexPappas.
Trump takes on Planned Parenthood with ban on abortion counseling at federally funded clinics
Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas | Fox News
Trump to deny federal funds to abortion counseling clinics
Trump administration set to resurrect ban on abortion counseling at federally-funded clinics like Planned Parenthood; Ellison Barber reports from Washington.
The Trump administration on Friday took aim at Planned Parenthood by announcing plans to resurrect a rule banning federally funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with patients.
White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told Fox News that the administration is simply recognizing "that abortion is not family planning. This is family planning money."
An administration official told Fox News that the Department of Health and Human Services officially filed the rule with the Office of Management and Budget on Friday.
Planned Parenthood’s clinics are major recipients of grants for family planning and basic preventive care. During the 2016 election, President Trump campaigned on defunding the organization.
Pro-life groups want Trump administration to direct federal funds away from clinics that do abortions in favor of qualified health clinics that provide medical care but not abortions; reaction from Penny Young Nance, CEO and president of Concerned Women for America, and Dr. Ronnie Floyd, president of the National Day of Prayer.Video
Planned Parenthood targets Trump family planning policy
The policy has been derided as a "gag rule" by Planned Parenthood, and it is likely to trigger lawsuits that could keep it from taking effect.
"The end result would make it impossible for women to come to Planned Parenthood, who are counting on us every day," said the organization's executive vice president, Dawn Laguens.
But the administration said Planned Parenthood can still receive Title X grants if it keeps the family-planning money separate from funds used to pay for abortions.
“This proposal does not necessarily defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they’re willing to disentangle taxpayer funds from abortion as a method of family planning,” an administration official told Fox News.
Known as Title X, the nation's family planning program serves about four million women a year through clinics, at a cost to taxpayers of about $260 million.
An administration official said the proposal is based on, though is not identical to, a Reagan-era rule.
The policy was rescinded under President Bill Clinton, and a new rule went into effect which allowed "nondirective" counseling to include a range of options for women.
According to a Trump administration summary, the new proposal would roll back the Clinton requirement that abortion should be discussed as an option along with prenatal care and adoption.
Doctors' groups and abortion rights supporters say a ban on counseling women trespasses on the doctor-patient relationship. They point out that federal family planning funds cannot currently be used to pay for abortion procedures.
Abortion opponents allege the federal family planning program in effect cross-subsidizes abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood.
The Republican-led Congress has unsuccessfully tried to deny federal funds to Planned Parenthood, and the Trump administration has vowed to religious and social conservatives that it will keep up the effort.
Fox News’ Jennifer Bowman and Gregg Re and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Alex Pappas is a politics reporter at FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexPappas.
This 18 year old gave a stronger reaction to the Texas school shooting than Donald Trump - Independent
May 19, 2018
This 18 year old gave a stronger reaction to the Texas school shooting than Donald Trump
Posted 11 minutes ago by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
On Friday morning the United States, once again, found itself dealing with the aftermath of another school shooting.
A gunman, who police suspect to be 17-year-old Dimitrios Pagourtizis, opened fire at Santa Fe High School in Texas.
The suspect is believed to have entered an art class with a shotgun and .38 revolver, which is said to have belonged to his father.
He was arrested shortly after by officials and is being held on capital murder charges.
Ten people are confirmed to have died as a result of the attack.
The shooting is the 22nd incident of this kind to have happened in the United States in 2018.
Since the Majory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on 14 February, which claimed 17 lives, the discussion of gun control has been prevalent in America.
Donald Trump made headlines at the time when he controversially suggested that giving teachers their own guns in classrooms would prevent shootings.
In contrast, the survivors of the Majory Stoneman Douglas shooting kick-started a campaign to attempt to alter gun laws in their country.
This included the historic March For Our Lives protest and several school walk-outs which galvanised young people across America.
When news of the Santa Fe shooting broke, one of the movement's most prominent voices, Emma Gonzalez, offered a thoughtful and compassionate response on Twitter.
Emma González
✔
@Emma4Change
Santa Fe High, you didn’t deserve this. You deserve peace all your lives, not just after a tombstone saying that is put over you. You deserve more than Thoughts and Prayers, and after supporting us by walking out we will be there to support you by raising up your voices.
1:52 AM - May 19, 2018
Her message was typical of the maturity and empathy that she has displayed in recent months, leading her to become an equally praised and derided figure in the American political spectrum.
In comparison, Donald Trump, the 71-year-old President of the United States of America and former reality TV star, offered this as his first thoughts on the shooting.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
School shooting in Texas. Early reports not looking good. God bless all!
1:05 AM - May 19, 2018
"Early reports not looking good."
That's what the president said after hearing that another ten lives had been needlessly lost in his country.
It's hard to fathom how two people, one of which is the most powerful person in the world and the other who was virtually unknown at the start of the year, could give such opposing statements - but here we are.
Trump did later offer more thoughtful words on what had happened.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
We grieve for the terrible loss of life, and send our support and love to everyone affected by this horrible attack in Texas. To the students, families, teachers and personnel at Santa Fe High School – we are with you in this tragic hour, and we will be with you forever...
2:34 AM - May 19, 2018
56.4K
41.6K people are talking about this
This 18 year old gave a stronger reaction to the Texas school shooting than Donald Trump
Posted 11 minutes ago by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
On Friday morning the United States, once again, found itself dealing with the aftermath of another school shooting.
A gunman, who police suspect to be 17-year-old Dimitrios Pagourtizis, opened fire at Santa Fe High School in Texas.
The suspect is believed to have entered an art class with a shotgun and .38 revolver, which is said to have belonged to his father.
He was arrested shortly after by officials and is being held on capital murder charges.
Ten people are confirmed to have died as a result of the attack.
The shooting is the 22nd incident of this kind to have happened in the United States in 2018.
Since the Majory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on 14 February, which claimed 17 lives, the discussion of gun control has been prevalent in America.
Donald Trump made headlines at the time when he controversially suggested that giving teachers their own guns in classrooms would prevent shootings.
In contrast, the survivors of the Majory Stoneman Douglas shooting kick-started a campaign to attempt to alter gun laws in their country.
This included the historic March For Our Lives protest and several school walk-outs which galvanised young people across America.
When news of the Santa Fe shooting broke, one of the movement's most prominent voices, Emma Gonzalez, offered a thoughtful and compassionate response on Twitter.
Emma González
✔
@Emma4Change
Santa Fe High, you didn’t deserve this. You deserve peace all your lives, not just after a tombstone saying that is put over you. You deserve more than Thoughts and Prayers, and after supporting us by walking out we will be there to support you by raising up your voices.
1:52 AM - May 19, 2018
Her message was typical of the maturity and empathy that she has displayed in recent months, leading her to become an equally praised and derided figure in the American political spectrum.
In comparison, Donald Trump, the 71-year-old President of the United States of America and former reality TV star, offered this as his first thoughts on the shooting.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
School shooting in Texas. Early reports not looking good. God bless all!
1:05 AM - May 19, 2018
"Early reports not looking good."
That's what the president said after hearing that another ten lives had been needlessly lost in his country.
It's hard to fathom how two people, one of which is the most powerful person in the world and the other who was virtually unknown at the start of the year, could give such opposing statements - but here we are.
Trump did later offer more thoughtful words on what had happened.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
We grieve for the terrible loss of life, and send our support and love to everyone affected by this horrible attack in Texas. To the students, families, teachers and personnel at Santa Fe High School – we are with you in this tragic hour, and we will be with you forever...
2:34 AM - May 19, 2018
56.4K
41.6K people are talking about this
Was there really a spy inside the Trump campaign, as the president says? - NBC News
Was there really a spy inside the Trump campaign, as the president says?
The president's claim of a "spy" inside his campaign has been dismissed as absurd, but the FBI has been known to send informants to speak to suspects.
by Ken Dilanian / May.19.2018 / 5:58 AM ET
Trump listens during a meeting with California leaders
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's allegation that the Department of Justice put a "spy" inside his presidential campaign to frame him is being widely dismissed as absurd by current and former law enforcement officials.
But it would not be absurd to think the FBI might have sent informants to speak to suspects in their counterintelligence investigation into whether anyone in the Trump orbit was working with Russia to interfere in the presidential election. In fact, it would have been accepted procedure for the FBI.
"The notion of fully embedded government operatives inside a campaign is hard to imagine under these circumstances," said Frank Figliuzzi, a former head of FBI counterintelligence and an NBC News national security analyst. "What is easier to imagine is the FBI trying to flesh out information on Russian intelligence operatives by making approaches to campaign staffers if the reasonable suspicion was there and the approvals were in place."
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
“Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn’t commit.” David Asman @LouDobbs @GreggJarrett Really bad stuff!
8:24 PM - May 18, 2018
y
The goal, Figliuzzi said, "would be to try to determine the degree to which Russian intelligence services were targeting the campaign, and whether any campaign officials were receptive to that targeting."
Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have reported that the FBI made use of one or more informants in its Russia investigation. The Times says one person working with the FBI met with two Trump aides who were suspected of dealing with Russians: Carter Page, who was under FBI surveillance, and George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
NBC News has not confirmed the use of informants in the Russian interference investigation, which began in July 2016. A right-wing web site, the Daily Caller, first reported that both Page and Papadopoulos met during the campaign with an American professor at Cambridge University in England. One of the men, Papadopoulos, has told associates he now views his encounter with the professor with suspicion, two sources familiar with his story told NBC News.
Papadopoulos is the aide who, according to his plea agreement, was told by an apparent Russian agent that the Russians had access to thousands of hacked Hillary Clinton emails — before the fact that Democratic emails had been hacked had been made public. Papadopoulos was arrested in July 2017, and has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. He did not respond to requests for comment.
The professor who met with both Page and Papadopoulos is Stefan Halper, a former official in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations who has been a paid consultant to an internal Pentagon think tank known as the Office of Net Assessment, consulting on Russia and China issues, according to public records.
No evidence has surfaced publicly indicating that Halper was acting as a government informant. He did not respond to an NBC News request for comment. But the Daily Caller noted that right-wing media personalities have speculated about his role in recent days.
Two sources familiar with Papadopoulos's account told NBC News he has described being summoned to England in September 2016 by Halper, who was offering to pay him to discuss energy issues involving Turkey, Israel and Cyprus, which was his area of expertise.
Papadopoulos told associates that Halper attended the meetings with his assistant, a young Turkish woman. Papadopoulos said he found Halper's demeanor odd, and in retrospect believes Halper was working on behalf of an intelligence or law enforcement agency, the sources said.
In an email to NBC News, Page said he didn't find his encounters with Halper concerning. Page told the Daily Caller he met several times with Halper, including on Halper's farm in Virginia. Halper's father-in-law, Ray Cline, was the chief CIA analyst during the Cuban missile crisis.
"At the time, I never found his actions suspicious," Page told NBC News. "He never offered me one cent. Just 2 foreign policy scholars having some discussions. That's about all that I took it as."
Papadopoulos also told associates he was approached over LinkedIn in July 2016 by Sergei Millian, a Belorussian-American businessman who has claimed business ties to Trump, and who also has been named by The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post as a source for the notorious Christopher Steele dossier.
After Trump won the election, Papadopoulos said, Millian called him and said he assumed Papadopoulos would be working in the White House.
Millian wanted to pay Papadopoulos as a consultant at the same time, according to Papadopoulos, hunting for business opportunities for wealthy Russian clients. Papadopoulos told associates he felt such a relationship would have been illegal, and turned it down.
Millian could not be reached for comment.
Several months later, Papadopoulos was arrested. He has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during a Jan. 27, 2017 interview.
The president's claim of a "spy" inside his campaign has been dismissed as absurd, but the FBI has been known to send informants to speak to suspects.
by Ken Dilanian / May.19.2018 / 5:58 AM ET
Trump listens during a meeting with California leaders
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's allegation that the Department of Justice put a "spy" inside his presidential campaign to frame him is being widely dismissed as absurd by current and former law enforcement officials.
But it would not be absurd to think the FBI might have sent informants to speak to suspects in their counterintelligence investigation into whether anyone in the Trump orbit was working with Russia to interfere in the presidential election. In fact, it would have been accepted procedure for the FBI.
"The notion of fully embedded government operatives inside a campaign is hard to imagine under these circumstances," said Frank Figliuzzi, a former head of FBI counterintelligence and an NBC News national security analyst. "What is easier to imagine is the FBI trying to flesh out information on Russian intelligence operatives by making approaches to campaign staffers if the reasonable suspicion was there and the approvals were in place."
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
“Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn’t commit.” David Asman @LouDobbs @GreggJarrett Really bad stuff!
8:24 PM - May 18, 2018
y
The goal, Figliuzzi said, "would be to try to determine the degree to which Russian intelligence services were targeting the campaign, and whether any campaign officials were receptive to that targeting."
Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have reported that the FBI made use of one or more informants in its Russia investigation. The Times says one person working with the FBI met with two Trump aides who were suspected of dealing with Russians: Carter Page, who was under FBI surveillance, and George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
NBC News has not confirmed the use of informants in the Russian interference investigation, which began in July 2016. A right-wing web site, the Daily Caller, first reported that both Page and Papadopoulos met during the campaign with an American professor at Cambridge University in England. One of the men, Papadopoulos, has told associates he now views his encounter with the professor with suspicion, two sources familiar with his story told NBC News.
Papadopoulos is the aide who, according to his plea agreement, was told by an apparent Russian agent that the Russians had access to thousands of hacked Hillary Clinton emails — before the fact that Democratic emails had been hacked had been made public. Papadopoulos was arrested in July 2017, and has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. He did not respond to requests for comment.
The professor who met with both Page and Papadopoulos is Stefan Halper, a former official in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations who has been a paid consultant to an internal Pentagon think tank known as the Office of Net Assessment, consulting on Russia and China issues, according to public records.
No evidence has surfaced publicly indicating that Halper was acting as a government informant. He did not respond to an NBC News request for comment. But the Daily Caller noted that right-wing media personalities have speculated about his role in recent days.
Two sources familiar with Papadopoulos's account told NBC News he has described being summoned to England in September 2016 by Halper, who was offering to pay him to discuss energy issues involving Turkey, Israel and Cyprus, which was his area of expertise.
Papadopoulos told associates that Halper attended the meetings with his assistant, a young Turkish woman. Papadopoulos said he found Halper's demeanor odd, and in retrospect believes Halper was working on behalf of an intelligence or law enforcement agency, the sources said.
In an email to NBC News, Page said he didn't find his encounters with Halper concerning. Page told the Daily Caller he met several times with Halper, including on Halper's farm in Virginia. Halper's father-in-law, Ray Cline, was the chief CIA analyst during the Cuban missile crisis.
"At the time, I never found his actions suspicious," Page told NBC News. "He never offered me one cent. Just 2 foreign policy scholars having some discussions. That's about all that I took it as."
Papadopoulos also told associates he was approached over LinkedIn in July 2016 by Sergei Millian, a Belorussian-American businessman who has claimed business ties to Trump, and who also has been named by The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post as a source for the notorious Christopher Steele dossier.
After Trump won the election, Papadopoulos said, Millian called him and said he assumed Papadopoulos would be working in the White House.
Millian wanted to pay Papadopoulos as a consultant at the same time, according to Papadopoulos, hunting for business opportunities for wealthy Russian clients. Papadopoulos told associates he felt such a relationship would have been illegal, and turned it down.
Millian could not be reached for comment.
Several months later, Papadopoulos was arrested. He has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during a Jan. 27, 2017 interview.
Everything to Know About Meghan Markle's Wedding Ring - TIME
Everything to Know About Meghan Markle's Wedding Ring
Meghan Markle attends an Anzac Day Service of Commemoration and Thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey on April 25, 2018 in London, England.
By RAISA BRUNER 5:07 AM EDT
It’s official: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are about to be husband and wife, a moment that will be marked by the exchange of rings during their royal wedding ceremony at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle on Saturday, May 19.
Markle has been rocking her diamond engagement ring since Harry proposed back in November, but the wedding ring is, of course, a whole other story. Markle will receive a simple Cleave and Company wedding band. Following in Windsor family tradition, it’s fashioned from a piece rare Welsh gold from the Queen. A practice his great grandmonther, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, kicked off in the early 20th century, royal brides in the family are gifted wedding bands crafted from nuggets of Welsh gold from the now-defunct Clogau St. David’s Gold Mine. Because gold mining is currently inactive in Wales, the gold is especially valuable.
Markle is in good company with her newest accessory: the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Diana and the Queen have all also worn the Welsh gold rings.
The wedding band joins her engagement ring, which also has yellow gold for a band, and features diamonds from a Botswana mine and from Princess Diana’s own collection.
Meghan Markle attends an Anzac Day Service of Commemoration and Thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey on April 25, 2018 in London, England.
By RAISA BRUNER 5:07 AM EDT
It’s official: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are about to be husband and wife, a moment that will be marked by the exchange of rings during their royal wedding ceremony at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle on Saturday, May 19.
Markle has been rocking her diamond engagement ring since Harry proposed back in November, but the wedding ring is, of course, a whole other story. Markle will receive a simple Cleave and Company wedding band. Following in Windsor family tradition, it’s fashioned from a piece rare Welsh gold from the Queen. A practice his great grandmonther, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, kicked off in the early 20th century, royal brides in the family are gifted wedding bands crafted from nuggets of Welsh gold from the now-defunct Clogau St. David’s Gold Mine. Because gold mining is currently inactive in Wales, the gold is especially valuable.
Markle is in good company with her newest accessory: the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Diana and the Queen have all also worn the Welsh gold rings.
The wedding band joins her engagement ring, which also has yellow gold for a band, and features diamonds from a Botswana mine and from Princess Diana’s own collection.
Royal wedding 2018: Order of service - BBC News
May 19, 2018
Royal wedding 2018: Order of service
A chapel fit for a prince: St George's at Windsor
The order of service for the wedding of Prince Henry of Wales and Ms Meghan Markle.
11:25 BST: Members of the Royal Family will arrive at St George's Chapel. The congregation stand as the royals are taken to their seats
11:40: Prince Harry and Prince William arrive at the west door of St George's Chapel
11:45: Ms Markle's mother Doria Ragland arrives at the chapel
11:52: The Queen arrives at the chapel
At the entrance of the bride, all stand.
A fanfare will sound at the bride's arrival.
Introit
Eternal source of light divine,
With double warmth thy beams display,
And with distinguished glory shine,
To add a lustre to this day.
Congregation remain standing.
Dean of Windsor greets congregation
The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you: and also with you.
God is love, and those who live in love live in God and God lives in them.
1 John 4.16
All sit. The Dean of Windsor reads:
In the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we have come together to witness the marriage of Henry Charles Albert David and Rachel Meghan, to pray for God's blessing on them, to share their joy and to celebrate their love.
Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.
The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union and joyful commitment to the end of their lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured and in which each member of the family, in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love.
Marriage is a way of life made holy by God, and blessed by the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ with those celebrating a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Marriage is a sign of unity and loyalty which all should uphold and honour. It enriches society and strengthens community.
No one should enter into it lightly or selfishly but reverently and responsibly in the sight of almighty God. Harry and Meghan are now to enter this way of life. They will each give their consent to the other and make solemn vows, and in token of this they will each give and receive a ring. We pray with them that the Holy Spirit will guide and strengthen them, that they may fulfil God's purposes for the whole of their earthly life together.
All stand.
Hymn
Lord of All Hopefulness
All remain standing as the Archbishop leads:
The declarations
First, I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now.
The Archbishop says to the Couple:
The vows you are about to take are to be made in the presence of God, who is judge of all and knows all the secrets of our hearts; therefore if either of you knows a reason why you may not lawfully marry, you must declare it now.
The Archbishop says to the bridegroom:
Harry, will you take Meghan to be your wife? Will you love her, comfort her, honour and protect her, and, forsaking all others, be faithful to her as long as you both shall live?
He answers:
I will.
The Archbishop says to the bride:
Meghan, will you take Harry to be your husband? Will you love him, comfort him, honour and protect him, and, forsaking all others, be faithful to him as long as you both shall live?
She answers:
I will.
The Archbishop says to the congregation:
Will you, the families and friends of Harry and Meghan, support and uphold them in their marriage now and in the years to come?
All answer:
We will.
The Archbishop invites the people to pray, silence is kept and he says:
The collect
God our Father, from the beginning you have blessed creation with abundant life. Pour out your blessings upon Harry and Meghan, that they may be joined in mutual love and companionship, in holiness and commitment to each other.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son, who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
All sit.
Reading
From the Song of Solomon: read by The Lady Jane Fellowes from the Nave
My beloved speaks and says to me: "Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away; for now the winter is past, the rain is over and gone.
The flowers appear on the earth; the time of singing has come, and the voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land.
The fig tree puts forth its figs, and the vines are in blossom; they give forth fragrance.
Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away."
Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is strong as death, passion fierce as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it.
If one offered for love all the wealth of one's house, it would be utterly scorned.
All remain seated while the Choir of St George's Chapel sing the Motet.
All remain seated
The address
by The Most Reverend Michael Curry
All remain seated.
Karen Gibson and The Kingdom Choir will sing 'Stand By Me' from the West End of The Chapel.
The vows
Harry and Meghan, I now invite you to join hands and make your vows, in the presence of God and his people.
The bride and bridegroom face each other and join hands. The bridegroom says:
I Harry, take you, Meghan, to be my wife, to have and to hold from, this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part; according to God's holy law. In the presence of God I make this vow.
The Bride says:
I Meghan, take you, Harry, to be my husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part; according to God's holy law. In the presence of God I make this vow.
They loose hands.
The giving of the rings
Heavenly Father, by your blessing let these rings be to Harry and Meghan a symbol of unending love and faithfulness, to remind them of the vow and covenant which they have made this day, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The bridegroom places the ring on the fourth finger of the bride's left hand and, holding it there, says:
Meghan, I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage. With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you, within the love of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
They loose hands and the bride places a ring on the fourth finger of the bridegroom's left hand and, holding it there, says:
Harry, I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage. With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you, within the love of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
All remain seated.
The proclamation
The Archbishop addresses the people:
In the presence of God, and before this congregation, Harry and Meghan have given their consent and made their marriage vows to each other. They have declared their marriage by the joining of hands and by the giving and receiving of rings. I therefore proclaim that they are husband and wife.
The Archbishop joins their right hands together and says:
Those whom God has joined together let no-one put asunder.
All remain seated while the Choir of St George's Chapel sing:
The anthem
All remain seated.
The blessing of the marriage
The Archbishop says
Blessed are you, O Lord our God, for you have created joy and gladness, pleasure and delight, love, peace and fellowship. Pour out the abundance of your blessing upon Harry and Meghan in their new life together.
Let their love for each other be a seal upon their hearts and a crown upon their heads. Bless them in their work and in their companionship; awake and asleep, in joy and in sorrow, in life and in death.
Finally, in your mercy, bring them to that banquet where your saints feast for ever in your heavenly home. We ask this through Jesus Christ your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, bless, preserve and keep you; the Lord mercifully grant you the riches of his grace, that you may please him both in body and soul, and, living together in faith and love, may receive the blessings of eternal life. Amen.
All sit or kneel.
The prayers - led by Archbishop Angaelos and The Reverend Prebendary Rose Hudson-Wilkin from the Nave.
Faithful God, holy and eternal, source of life and spring of love, we thank and praise you for bringing Harry and Meghan to this day, and we pray for them.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
May their marriage be life-giving and life-long, enriched by your presence and strengthened by your grace; may they bring comfort and confidence to each other in faithfulness and trust.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
May the hospitality of their home bring refreshment and joy to all around them; may their love overflow to neighbours in need and embrace those in distress.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
May they discern in your word order and purpose for their lives; and may the power of your Holy Spirit lead them in truth and defend them in adversity.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
May they nurture their family with devotion, see their children grow in body, mind and spirit and come at last to the end of their lives with hearts content and in joyful anticipation of heaven.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
Let us pray with confidence as our Saviour has taught us
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom come, your will be done; on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and for ever. Amen.
All stand.
Hymn
Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer
All remain standing as the Dean of Windsor says:
The blessing
God the Holy Trinity make you strong in faith and love, defend you on every side, and guide you in truth and peace; and the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you always. Amen.
All remain standing.
The organ plays as those who are signing the registers move from the Quire to the North Quire Aisle.
All sit at the conclusion of the organ music.
During the Signing of the Register music is played by Mr Sheku Kanneh-Mason and the Orchestra.
All stand as the Bride and Bridegroom return to the Quire.
National Anthem
The procession of the bride and bridegroom
All remain standing during the Procession of the Bride and Bridegroom, until members of their families have left the chapel.
All remain standing as the Ecclesiastical Procession leaves by way of the Organ Screen and the North Quire Aisle.
Thereafter please leave the Chapel as directed by the Lay Stewards.
Those in the Quire should leave by way of the South Door in order to stand on Chapter Grass to view the Carriage procession on Chapel Hill.
Royal wedding 2018: Order of service
A chapel fit for a prince: St George's at Windsor
The order of service for the wedding of Prince Henry of Wales and Ms Meghan Markle.
11:25 BST: Members of the Royal Family will arrive at St George's Chapel. The congregation stand as the royals are taken to their seats
11:40: Prince Harry and Prince William arrive at the west door of St George's Chapel
11:45: Ms Markle's mother Doria Ragland arrives at the chapel
11:52: The Queen arrives at the chapel
At the entrance of the bride, all stand.
A fanfare will sound at the bride's arrival.
Introit
Eternal source of light divine,
With double warmth thy beams display,
And with distinguished glory shine,
To add a lustre to this day.
Congregation remain standing.
Dean of Windsor greets congregation
The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you: and also with you.
God is love, and those who live in love live in God and God lives in them.
1 John 4.16
All sit. The Dean of Windsor reads:
In the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we have come together to witness the marriage of Henry Charles Albert David and Rachel Meghan, to pray for God's blessing on them, to share their joy and to celebrate their love.
Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.
The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union and joyful commitment to the end of their lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured and in which each member of the family, in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love.
Marriage is a way of life made holy by God, and blessed by the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ with those celebrating a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Marriage is a sign of unity and loyalty which all should uphold and honour. It enriches society and strengthens community.
No one should enter into it lightly or selfishly but reverently and responsibly in the sight of almighty God. Harry and Meghan are now to enter this way of life. They will each give their consent to the other and make solemn vows, and in token of this they will each give and receive a ring. We pray with them that the Holy Spirit will guide and strengthen them, that they may fulfil God's purposes for the whole of their earthly life together.
All stand.
Hymn
Lord of All Hopefulness
All remain standing as the Archbishop leads:
The declarations
First, I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now.
The Archbishop says to the Couple:
The vows you are about to take are to be made in the presence of God, who is judge of all and knows all the secrets of our hearts; therefore if either of you knows a reason why you may not lawfully marry, you must declare it now.
The Archbishop says to the bridegroom:
Harry, will you take Meghan to be your wife? Will you love her, comfort her, honour and protect her, and, forsaking all others, be faithful to her as long as you both shall live?
He answers:
I will.
The Archbishop says to the bride:
Meghan, will you take Harry to be your husband? Will you love him, comfort him, honour and protect him, and, forsaking all others, be faithful to him as long as you both shall live?
She answers:
I will.
The Archbishop says to the congregation:
Will you, the families and friends of Harry and Meghan, support and uphold them in their marriage now and in the years to come?
All answer:
We will.
The Archbishop invites the people to pray, silence is kept and he says:
The collect
God our Father, from the beginning you have blessed creation with abundant life. Pour out your blessings upon Harry and Meghan, that they may be joined in mutual love and companionship, in holiness and commitment to each other.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son, who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
All sit.
Reading
From the Song of Solomon: read by The Lady Jane Fellowes from the Nave
My beloved speaks and says to me: "Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away; for now the winter is past, the rain is over and gone.
The flowers appear on the earth; the time of singing has come, and the voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land.
The fig tree puts forth its figs, and the vines are in blossom; they give forth fragrance.
Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away."
Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is strong as death, passion fierce as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it.
If one offered for love all the wealth of one's house, it would be utterly scorned.
All remain seated while the Choir of St George's Chapel sing the Motet.
All remain seated
The address
by The Most Reverend Michael Curry
All remain seated.
Karen Gibson and The Kingdom Choir will sing 'Stand By Me' from the West End of The Chapel.
The vows
Harry and Meghan, I now invite you to join hands and make your vows, in the presence of God and his people.
The bride and bridegroom face each other and join hands. The bridegroom says:
I Harry, take you, Meghan, to be my wife, to have and to hold from, this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part; according to God's holy law. In the presence of God I make this vow.
The Bride says:
I Meghan, take you, Harry, to be my husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part; according to God's holy law. In the presence of God I make this vow.
They loose hands.
The giving of the rings
Heavenly Father, by your blessing let these rings be to Harry and Meghan a symbol of unending love and faithfulness, to remind them of the vow and covenant which they have made this day, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The bridegroom places the ring on the fourth finger of the bride's left hand and, holding it there, says:
Meghan, I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage. With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you, within the love of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
They loose hands and the bride places a ring on the fourth finger of the bridegroom's left hand and, holding it there, says:
Harry, I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage. With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you, within the love of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
All remain seated.
The proclamation
The Archbishop addresses the people:
In the presence of God, and before this congregation, Harry and Meghan have given their consent and made their marriage vows to each other. They have declared their marriage by the joining of hands and by the giving and receiving of rings. I therefore proclaim that they are husband and wife.
The Archbishop joins their right hands together and says:
Those whom God has joined together let no-one put asunder.
All remain seated while the Choir of St George's Chapel sing:
The anthem
All remain seated.
The blessing of the marriage
The Archbishop says
Blessed are you, O Lord our God, for you have created joy and gladness, pleasure and delight, love, peace and fellowship. Pour out the abundance of your blessing upon Harry and Meghan in their new life together.
Let their love for each other be a seal upon their hearts and a crown upon their heads. Bless them in their work and in their companionship; awake and asleep, in joy and in sorrow, in life and in death.
Finally, in your mercy, bring them to that banquet where your saints feast for ever in your heavenly home. We ask this through Jesus Christ your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, bless, preserve and keep you; the Lord mercifully grant you the riches of his grace, that you may please him both in body and soul, and, living together in faith and love, may receive the blessings of eternal life. Amen.
All sit or kneel.
The prayers - led by Archbishop Angaelos and The Reverend Prebendary Rose Hudson-Wilkin from the Nave.
Faithful God, holy and eternal, source of life and spring of love, we thank and praise you for bringing Harry and Meghan to this day, and we pray for them.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
May their marriage be life-giving and life-long, enriched by your presence and strengthened by your grace; may they bring comfort and confidence to each other in faithfulness and trust.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
May the hospitality of their home bring refreshment and joy to all around them; may their love overflow to neighbours in need and embrace those in distress.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
May they discern in your word order and purpose for their lives; and may the power of your Holy Spirit lead them in truth and defend them in adversity.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
May they nurture their family with devotion, see their children grow in body, mind and spirit and come at last to the end of their lives with hearts content and in joyful anticipation of heaven.
Lord of life and love: hear our prayer.
Let us pray with confidence as our Saviour has taught us
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom come, your will be done; on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and for ever. Amen.
All stand.
Hymn
Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer
All remain standing as the Dean of Windsor says:
The blessing
God the Holy Trinity make you strong in faith and love, defend you on every side, and guide you in truth and peace; and the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you always. Amen.
All remain standing.
The organ plays as those who are signing the registers move from the Quire to the North Quire Aisle.
All sit at the conclusion of the organ music.
During the Signing of the Register music is played by Mr Sheku Kanneh-Mason and the Orchestra.
All stand as the Bride and Bridegroom return to the Quire.
National Anthem
The procession of the bride and bridegroom
All remain standing during the Procession of the Bride and Bridegroom, until members of their families have left the chapel.
All remain standing as the Ecclesiastical Procession leaves by way of the Organ Screen and the North Quire Aisle.
Thereafter please leave the Chapel as directed by the Lay Stewards.
Those in the Quire should leave by way of the South Door in order to stand on Chapter Grass to view the Carriage procession on Chapel Hill.
Royal wedding 2018: How to watch the events - BBC News
May 19, 2018
Royal wedding 2018: How to watch the events
Don't despair. Royal weddings are a global phenomenon. And hundreds of millions of people are expected to witness Prince Harry marry Meghan Markle in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle, whether on television or online, or by listening to proceedings on the radio.
The streets of Windsor, Berkshire, will also be lined with thousands of well-wishers hoping to catch a glimpse of the happy couple in person.
So whether you're watching from your sofa, a community street party or a far-flung location, here's how to ensure the perfect view.
All the main UK broadcasters are devoting much of Saturday to the occasion.
While the ceremony doesn't begin until 12:00 BST, there will be several hours of commentary beforehand - and that's even before the guests start to arrive.
Special programmes begin on BBC One and the BBC News Channel and on Sky (on Sky News and Sky One), starting at 09:00 BST. The full coverage on ITV kicks off at 09:25.
The coverage will be streamed live on the BBC News website or on BBC iPlayer.
It is worth noting that cameras inside the chapel will provide the same pictures to all the networks, so once the ceremony starts, the footage will be identical across the channels, although they will keep their separate commentaries.
The BBC has waived the TV licence fee, meaning street parties and other special events can screen the wedding live without buying a licence.
The wedding will also be covered on the BBC News Facebook page, Twitter and Instagram accounts throughout the day.
On radio, Claire Balding will host live commentary from Windsor Castle on BBC Radio 4 from 11:30 BST and Radio 5 live from 10:00 BST.
Outside the UK, BBC America, BBC Canada and BBC World News will be broadcasting coverage.
Or you can tune in on BBC World Service radio.
Where to watch in Windsor?
In Windsor, viewing areas will be created along the procession route. There will be live entertainment in the town centre, which will be decorated with bunting and banners.
Big screens showing live footage of the wedding will be shown on the Long Walk and in Alexandra Gardens in Windsor.
At 13:00 BST, the newlyweds will travel through the town in the Ascot Landau carriage, which is used in official and ceremonial state events.
The carriage will leave Castle Hill, travel through Windsor and then proceed up the Long Walk, all the way back to St George's Hall by Windsor Castle.
Rail bosses advise that trains will be "extremely busy".
Queuing systems will be introduced at several stations - most likely London Waterloo, Slough, Staines and the two stations in Windsor - to avoid overcrowding on platforms.
Services between Windsor and Slough will run every 20 minutes, with trains increased from two carriages to four - the maximum that can operate on the local line.
South Western Railway will double its direct Windsor services from London Waterloo to four per hour and use 10-carriage trains.
Make sure you get there early, though - Thames Valley Police may order trains not to stop at Windsor if visitor numbers become a safety issue, and the wedding route could be closed off to latecomers.
Passengers are also being asked to keep baggage to a minimum as security checks on excess luggage could delay journeys.
People planning to travel by car are being warned by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to book parking in advance, as spaces are limited.
Motorists should also be aware of road closures along the procession route which started at 22:00 BST on Friday.
Royal wedding 2018: How to watch the events
Don't despair. Royal weddings are a global phenomenon. And hundreds of millions of people are expected to witness Prince Harry marry Meghan Markle in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle, whether on television or online, or by listening to proceedings on the radio.
The streets of Windsor, Berkshire, will also be lined with thousands of well-wishers hoping to catch a glimpse of the happy couple in person.
So whether you're watching from your sofa, a community street party or a far-flung location, here's how to ensure the perfect view.
All the main UK broadcasters are devoting much of Saturday to the occasion.
While the ceremony doesn't begin until 12:00 BST, there will be several hours of commentary beforehand - and that's even before the guests start to arrive.
Special programmes begin on BBC One and the BBC News Channel and on Sky (on Sky News and Sky One), starting at 09:00 BST. The full coverage on ITV kicks off at 09:25.
The coverage will be streamed live on the BBC News website or on BBC iPlayer.
It is worth noting that cameras inside the chapel will provide the same pictures to all the networks, so once the ceremony starts, the footage will be identical across the channels, although they will keep their separate commentaries.
The BBC has waived the TV licence fee, meaning street parties and other special events can screen the wedding live without buying a licence.
The wedding will also be covered on the BBC News Facebook page, Twitter and Instagram accounts throughout the day.
On radio, Claire Balding will host live commentary from Windsor Castle on BBC Radio 4 from 11:30 BST and Radio 5 live from 10:00 BST.
Outside the UK, BBC America, BBC Canada and BBC World News will be broadcasting coverage.
Or you can tune in on BBC World Service radio.
Where to watch in Windsor?
In Windsor, viewing areas will be created along the procession route. There will be live entertainment in the town centre, which will be decorated with bunting and banners.
Big screens showing live footage of the wedding will be shown on the Long Walk and in Alexandra Gardens in Windsor.
At 13:00 BST, the newlyweds will travel through the town in the Ascot Landau carriage, which is used in official and ceremonial state events.
The carriage will leave Castle Hill, travel through Windsor and then proceed up the Long Walk, all the way back to St George's Hall by Windsor Castle.
Rail bosses advise that trains will be "extremely busy".
Queuing systems will be introduced at several stations - most likely London Waterloo, Slough, Staines and the two stations in Windsor - to avoid overcrowding on platforms.
Services between Windsor and Slough will run every 20 minutes, with trains increased from two carriages to four - the maximum that can operate on the local line.
South Western Railway will double its direct Windsor services from London Waterloo to four per hour and use 10-carriage trains.
Make sure you get there early, though - Thames Valley Police may order trains not to stop at Windsor if visitor numbers become a safety issue, and the wedding route could be closed off to latecomers.
Passengers are also being asked to keep baggage to a minimum as security checks on excess luggage could delay journeys.
People planning to travel by car are being warned by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to book parking in advance, as spaces are limited.
Motorists should also be aware of road closures along the procession route which started at 22:00 BST on Friday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
