We need to talk about TED
Benjamin Bratton
Science, philosophy and technology run on the model of American Idol – as embodied by TED talks – is a recipe for civilisational disaster
Mon 30 Dec 2013 20.30 AEDT First published on Mon 30 Dec 2013
TED talks in Edinburgh : Alain de Botton
Alain de Botton speaks during during TEDGlobal 2011, in Edinburgh. Photograph: James Duncan Davidson/TED
In our culture, talking about the future is sometimes a polite way of saying things about the present that would otherwise be rude or risky.
But have you ever wondered why so little of the future promised in TED talks actually happens? So much potential and enthusiasm, and so little actual change. Are the ideas wrong? Or is the idea about what ideas can do all by themselves wrong?
I write about entanglements of technology and culture, how technologies enable the making of certain worlds, and at the same time how culture structures how those technologies will evolve, this way or that. It's where philosophy and design intersect.
So the conceptualization of possibilities is something that I take very seriously. That's why I, and many people, think it's way past time to take a step back and ask some serious questions about the intellectual viability of things like TED.
So my TED talk is not about my work or my new book – the usual spiel – but about TED itself, what it is and why it doesn't work.
The first reason is over-simplification.
To be clear, I think that having smart people who do very smart things explain what they doing in a way that everyone can understand is a good thing. But TED goes way beyond that.
Let me tell you a story. I was at a presentation that a friend, an astrophysicist, gave to a potential donor. I thought the presentation was lucid and compelling (and I'm a professor of visual arts here at UC San Diego so at the end of the day, I know really nothing about astrophysics). After the talk the sponsor said to him, "you know what, I'm gonna pass because I just don't feel inspired ...you should be more like Malcolm Gladwell."
At this point I kind of lost it. Can you imagine?
Think about it: an actual scientist who produces actual knowledge should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights! This is beyond popularisation. This is taking something with value and substance and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing. This is not the solution to our most frightening problems – rather this is one of our most frightening problems.
So I ask the question: does TED epitomize a situation where if a scientist's work (or an artist's or philosopher's or activist's or whoever) is told that their work is not worthy of support, because the public doesn't feel good listening to them?
I submit that astrophysics run on the model of American Idol is a recipe for civilizational disaster.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
What is TED?
Advertisement
So what is TED exactly?
Perhaps it's the proposition that if we talk about world-changing ideas enough, then the world will change. But this is not true, and that's the second problem.
TED of course stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and I'll talk a bit about all three. I Think TED actually stands for: middlebrow megachurch infotainment.
The key rhetorical device for TED talks is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony (an "epiphimony" if you like ) through which the speaker shares a personal journey of insight and realisation, its triumphs and tribulations.
What is it that the TED audience hopes to get from this? A vicarious insight, a fleeting moment of wonder, an inkling that maybe it's all going to work out after all? A spiritual buzz?
I'm sorry but this fails to meet the challenges that we are supposedly here to confront. These are complicated and difficult and are not given to tidy just-so solutions. They don't care about anyone's experience of optimism. Given the stakes, making our best and brightest waste their time – and the audience's time – dancing like infomercial hosts is too high a price. It is cynical.
Also, it just doesn't work.
Recently there was a bit of a dust up when TEDGlobal sent out a note to TEDx organisers asking them not to not book speakers whose work spans the paranormal, the conspiratorial, new age "quantum neuroenergy", etc: what is called woo. Instead of these placebos, TEDx should instead curate talks that are imaginative but grounded in reality. In fairness, they took some heat, so their gesture should be acknowledged. A lot of people take TED very seriously, and might lend credence to specious ideas if stamped with TED credentials. "No" to placebo science and medicine.
But ... the corollaries of placebo science and placebo medicine are placebo politics and placebo innovation. On this point, TED has a long way to go.
Perhaps the pinnacle of placebo politics and innovation was featured at TEDx San Diego in 2011. You're familiar I assume with Kony2012, the social media campaign to stop war crimes in central Africa? So what happened here? Evangelical surfer bro goes to help kids in Africa. He makes a campy video explaining genocide to the cast of Glee. The world finds his public epiphany to be shallow to the point of self-delusion. The complex geopolitics of central Africa are left undisturbed. Kony's still there. The end.
You see, when inspiration becomes manipulation, inspiration becomes obfuscation. If you are not cynical you should be sceptical. You should be as sceptical of placebo politics as you are placebo medicine.
T and Technology
T – E – D. I'll go through them each quickly.
So first technology ...
We hear that not only is change accelerating but that the pace of change is accelerating as well. While this is true of computational carrying-capacity at a planetary level, at the same time – and in fact the two are connected – we are also in a moment of cultural de-acceleration.
We invest our energy in futuristic information technologies, including our cars, but drive them home to kitsch architecture copied from the 18th century. The future on offer is one in which everything changes, so long as everything stays the same. We'll have Google Glass, but still also business casual.
This timidity is our path to the future? No, this is incredibly conservative, and there is no reason to think that more gigaflops will inoculate us.
Because, if a problem is in fact endemic to a system, then the exponential effects of Moore's law also serve to amplify what's broken. It is more computation along the wrong curve, and I doubt this is necessarily a triumph of reason.
Part of my work explores deep technocultural shifts, from post-humanism to the post-anthropocene, but TED's version has too much faith in technology, and not nearly enough commitment to technology. It is placebo technoradicalism, toying with risk so as to reaffirm the comfortable.
So our machines get smarter and we get stupider. But it doesn't have to be like that. Both can be much more intelligent. Another futurism is possible.
E and economics
A better 'E' in TED would stand for economics, and the need for, yes imagining and designing, different systems of valuation, exchange, accounting of transaction externalities, financing of coordinated planning, etc. Because states plus markets, states versus markets, these are insufficient models, and our conversation is stuck in Cold War gear.
Worse is when economics is debated like metaphysics, as if the reality of a system is merely a bad example of the ideal.
Communism in theory is an egalitarian utopia.
Actually existing communism meant ecological devastation, government spying, crappy cars and gulags.
Capitalism in theory is rocket ships, nanomedicine, and Bono saving Africa.
Actually existing capitalism means Walmart jobs, McMansions, people living in the sewers under Las Vegas, Ryan Seacrest … plus – ecological devastation, government spying, crappy public transportation and for-profit prisons.
Our options for change range from basically what we have plus a little more Hayek, to what we have plus a little more Keynes. Why?
The most recent centuries have seen extraordinary accomplishments in improving quality of life. The paradox is that the system we have now –whatever you want to call it – is in the short term what makes the amazing new technologies possible, but in the long run it is also what suppresses their full flowering. Another economic architecture is prerequisite.
D and design
Instead of our designers prototyping the same "change agent for good" projects over and over again, and then wondering why they don't get implemented at scale, perhaps we should resolve that design is not some magic answer. Design matters a lot, but for very different reasons. It's easy to get enthusiastic about design because, like talking about the future, it is more polite than referring to white elephants in the room.
Such as…
Phones, drones and genomes, that's what we do here in San Diego and La Jolla. In addition to the other insanely great things these technologies do, they are the basis of NSA spying, flying robots killing people, and the wholesale privatisation of biological life itself. That's also what we do.
The potential for these technologies are both wonderful and horrifying at the same time, and to make them serve good futures, design as "innovation" just isn't a strong enough idea by itself. We need to talk more about design as "immunisation," actively preventing certain potential "innovations" that we do not want from happening.
And so…
As for one simple take away ... I don't have one simple take away, one magic idea. That's kind of the point. I will say that if and when the key problems facing our species were to be solved, then perhaps many of us in this room would be out of work (and perhaps in jail).
But it's not as though there is a shortage of topics for serious discussion. We need a deeper conversation about the difference between digital cosmopolitanism and cloud feudalism (and toward that, a queer history of computer science and Alan Turing's birthday as holiday!)
I would like new maps of the world, ones not based on settler colonialism, legacy genomes and bronze age myths, but instead on something more … scalable.
TED today is not that.
Problems are not "puzzles" to be solved. That metaphor assumes that all the necessary pieces are already on the table, they just need to be rearranged and reprogrammed. It's not true.
"Innovation" defined as moving the pieces around and adding more processing power is not some Big Idea that will disrupt a broken status quo: that precisely is the broken status quo.
One TED speaker said recently, "If you remove this boundary ... the only boundary left is our imagination". Wrong.
If we really want transformation, we have to slog through the hard stuff (history, economics, philosophy, art, ambiguities, contradictions). Bracketing it off to the side to focus just on technology, or just on innovation, actually prevents transformation.
Instead of dumbing-down the future, we need to raise the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of the systems in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us. This is not about "personal stories of inspiration", it's about the difficult and uncertain work of demystification and reconceptualisation: the hard stuff that really changes how we think. More Copernicus, less Tony Robbins.
At a societal level, the bottom line is if we invest in things that make us feel good but which don't work, and don't invest in things that don't make us feel good but which may solve problems, then our fate is that it will just get harder to feel good about not solving problems.
In this case the placebo is worse than ineffective, it's harmful. It's diverts your interest, enthusiasm and outrage until it's absorbed into this black hole of affectation.
Keep calm and carry on "innovating" ... is that the real message of TED? To me that's not inspirational, it's cynical.
In the US the rightwing has certain media channels that allow it to bracket reality ... other constituencies have TED.
• This article first appeared on Benjamin Bratton's website and is republished with permission. It is the text of a talk given at TEDx San Diego
Monday, July 23, 2018
Why I’d never do a TED talk (and it’s not just because they’re named after a man) Julie Bindel - Guardian
Why I’d never do a TED talk (and it’s not just because they’re named after a man)
Julie Bindel
The rehearsed smugness of the presenters puts me off the content – which is all about making the simple sound profound
@bindelj
Mon 23 Jul 2018 18.59 AEST Last modified on Mon 23 Jul 2018 19.31 AEST
‘They appear to have learnt the art in making the simplest ideas appear complex.’
‘They appear to have learnt the art in making the simplest ideas appear complex.’ Photograph: PR
Picture this. A darkened auditorium, an attentive, cult-like audience staring ahead expectantly, hardly daring to breathe; a huge screen on which there is an image no one can decipher. And then, the person everyone has been waiting for strides confidently on to the spotlit stage, wearing a headset and carrying a PowerPoint remote, dressed immaculately and sporting a brand-new haircut. You can hear a pin drop as the presenter begins, “You think the world is round, but I am going to tell you to begin to believe it is actually square.”
Predictable, false and embarrassing; how I hate talks. And it’s not even because they’re named after a man. What I can’t abide is the way presenters pace around the stage, I hate the gravity with which they deliver their message, and being patronised by a smug, overconfident “thought leader” is pretty intolerable.
I have friends who have done TED talks, and have respectfully watched their efforts. But one minute in, I start to look away, cringing. Why are they so popular? Why do tickets for spectators sell for thousands of dollars? How come some folk clamber to get on the TED circuit, despite not being paid a penny for the privilege?
TED makes some pretty big claims: according , its aim is to “foster the spread of great ideas, [by providing] a platform for thinkers, visionaries and teachers … Core to this goal is a belief that there is no greater force for changing the world than a powerful idea.” It’s difficult to know how it will change the world when style appears to be given a hundred times more thought than content. I imagine speakers rehearsing before the audition, checking hand gestures in the mirror in front of a bemused cat. Why do they all seem to perform identical gesticulations?
Those invited to be potential TED talkers are required to attend several auditions, and, if they are one of the chosen few, a number of rehearsals before they are deemed ready. I know one speaker who flew from London to New York just to audition to do TED, paying his own flight for the sheer privilege of performing a live advertorial and hopefully flogging a few books. The talks are so rehearsed that even the well-placed pauses and casual hair flicks look hideously false. TED-bots strut around the stage, posing, delivering well-crafted smiles and frowns. It’s like amateur dramatics for would-be intellectuals.
Many of the speakers state the blatantly obvious on a loop, sounding as though they have discovered the theory of relativity all over again. The pretentious gestures, rehearsed pauses and speech traits single them out from other public speakers. They appear to have learned the art of making the simplest ideas appear complex.
Let’s have a look at some of the topics tackled in these talks, only lightly paraphrased by me: “Why charity shops should replace posh designer shops”, “Why go fast when slow is better?” “Embracing openness and being yourself” (10,000 versions), “Schools kill creativity”, “Kids should teach themselves”, “How letting yourself be vulnerable, by someone about as vulnerable as Donald Trump, is the way to go”, “We have been tying our shoes wrong – here’s how to tie them right”, and my all-time favourite, “We are depressed because things are shit, therefore if things weren’t shit we wouldn’t be depressed, or need to take medication”.
I often give talks to both small and large audiences, and always feel nervous beforehand. This used to bother me, after decades of public speaking, but I then realised that being nervous is respectful of those who are there to hear me. Why would anyone wish to listen to some overconfident, over-rehearsed guru? Why would I want to subject them to a performance?
I am sure there are some great ideas to come out of some TED talks, but the style puts me off devouring the content. If you really want to tell millions of people why the chicken crossed the road, is it really that difficult to do it standing still with your hands in your pockets? Try it without the rehearsed wry smile, and the PowerPoint, and foregoing the strategically placed pauses. Maybe I could do a TED talk to show how it would work?
• Julie Bindel is a freelance journalist and political activist, and a founder of Justice for Women
Julie Bindel
The rehearsed smugness of the presenters puts me off the content – which is all about making the simple sound profound
@bindelj
Mon 23 Jul 2018 18.59 AEST Last modified on Mon 23 Jul 2018 19.31 AEST
‘They appear to have learnt the art in making the simplest ideas appear complex.’
‘They appear to have learnt the art in making the simplest ideas appear complex.’ Photograph: PR
Picture this. A darkened auditorium, an attentive, cult-like audience staring ahead expectantly, hardly daring to breathe; a huge screen on which there is an image no one can decipher. And then, the person everyone has been waiting for strides confidently on to the spotlit stage, wearing a headset and carrying a PowerPoint remote, dressed immaculately and sporting a brand-new haircut. You can hear a pin drop as the presenter begins, “You think the world is round, but I am going to tell you to begin to believe it is actually square.”
Predictable, false and embarrassing; how I hate talks. And it’s not even because they’re named after a man. What I can’t abide is the way presenters pace around the stage, I hate the gravity with which they deliver their message, and being patronised by a smug, overconfident “thought leader” is pretty intolerable.
I have friends who have done TED talks, and have respectfully watched their efforts. But one minute in, I start to look away, cringing. Why are they so popular? Why do tickets for spectators sell for thousands of dollars? How come some folk clamber to get on the TED circuit, despite not being paid a penny for the privilege?
TED makes some pretty big claims: according , its aim is to “foster the spread of great ideas, [by providing] a platform for thinkers, visionaries and teachers … Core to this goal is a belief that there is no greater force for changing the world than a powerful idea.” It’s difficult to know how it will change the world when style appears to be given a hundred times more thought than content. I imagine speakers rehearsing before the audition, checking hand gestures in the mirror in front of a bemused cat. Why do they all seem to perform identical gesticulations?
Those invited to be potential TED talkers are required to attend several auditions, and, if they are one of the chosen few, a number of rehearsals before they are deemed ready. I know one speaker who flew from London to New York just to audition to do TED, paying his own flight for the sheer privilege of performing a live advertorial and hopefully flogging a few books. The talks are so rehearsed that even the well-placed pauses and casual hair flicks look hideously false. TED-bots strut around the stage, posing, delivering well-crafted smiles and frowns. It’s like amateur dramatics for would-be intellectuals.
Many of the speakers state the blatantly obvious on a loop, sounding as though they have discovered the theory of relativity all over again. The pretentious gestures, rehearsed pauses and speech traits single them out from other public speakers. They appear to have learned the art of making the simplest ideas appear complex.
Let’s have a look at some of the topics tackled in these talks, only lightly paraphrased by me: “Why charity shops should replace posh designer shops”, “Why go fast when slow is better?” “Embracing openness and being yourself” (10,000 versions), “Schools kill creativity”, “Kids should teach themselves”, “How letting yourself be vulnerable, by someone about as vulnerable as Donald Trump, is the way to go”, “We have been tying our shoes wrong – here’s how to tie them right”, and my all-time favourite, “We are depressed because things are shit, therefore if things weren’t shit we wouldn’t be depressed, or need to take medication”.
I often give talks to both small and large audiences, and always feel nervous beforehand. This used to bother me, after decades of public speaking, but I then realised that being nervous is respectful of those who are there to hear me. Why would anyone wish to listen to some overconfident, over-rehearsed guru? Why would I want to subject them to a performance?
I am sure there are some great ideas to come out of some TED talks, but the style puts me off devouring the content. If you really want to tell millions of people why the chicken crossed the road, is it really that difficult to do it standing still with your hands in your pockets? Try it without the rehearsed wry smile, and the PowerPoint, and foregoing the strategically placed pauses. Maybe I could do a TED talk to show how it would work?
• Julie Bindel is a freelance journalist and political activist, and a founder of Justice for Women
Trump warns Iran to 'never, ever threaten' U.S. or suffer consequences - Reuters
JULY 23, 2018
Trump warns Iran to 'never, ever threaten' U.S. or suffer consequences
Brendan O'Brien, Warren Strobel
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump warned Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Sunday not to threaten the United States or face the consequences, hours after Rouhani told Trump that hostile policies toward Tehran could lead to “the mother of all wars.”
In a late night Twitter message directed at Rouhani, Trump wrote: “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”
The escalation in rhetoric came as the Trump administration has launched an offensive of speeches and online communications meant to foment unrest and help pressure Iran to end its nuclear program and its support of militant groups, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
Iran has faced increased U.S. pressure and looming sanctions following Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from a 2015 international deal over Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran has said its nuclear work is just for electricity generation and other peaceful projects.
In a speech late on Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denounced Iran’s leaders as a “mafia” and promised unspecified backing for Iranians unhappy with their government.
Addressing a gathering of Iranian diplomats earlier on Sunday, Rouhani said: “Mr Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret,” according to a report by the state new agency IRNA.
“America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” Rouhani said, leaving open the possibility of peace between the two countries, at odds since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Rouhani also scoffed at Trump’s threat to halt Iranian oil exports and said Iran has a dominant position in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping waterway.
Rouhani’s apparent threat earlier this month to disrupt oil shipments from neighboring countries came in reaction to efforts by Washington to force all countries to stop buying Iranian oil.
Washington initially planned to shut Iran out of global oil markets completely after Trump abandoned the deal that limited Iran’s nuclear ambitions, demanding all other countries stop buying Iranian crude by November.
But the United States has somewhat eased its stance, saying it may grant sanction waivers to some allies that are particularly reliant on Iranian supplies.
Reporting by Brendan O'Brien and Warren Strobel; Additional reporting by Dubai newsroom; Writing by Daniel Wallis; Editing by Nick Macfie
Trump warns Iran to 'never, ever threaten' U.S. or suffer consequences
Brendan O'Brien, Warren Strobel
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump warned Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Sunday not to threaten the United States or face the consequences, hours after Rouhani told Trump that hostile policies toward Tehran could lead to “the mother of all wars.”
In a late night Twitter message directed at Rouhani, Trump wrote: “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”
The escalation in rhetoric came as the Trump administration has launched an offensive of speeches and online communications meant to foment unrest and help pressure Iran to end its nuclear program and its support of militant groups, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
Iran has faced increased U.S. pressure and looming sanctions following Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from a 2015 international deal over Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran has said its nuclear work is just for electricity generation and other peaceful projects.
In a speech late on Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denounced Iran’s leaders as a “mafia” and promised unspecified backing for Iranians unhappy with their government.
Addressing a gathering of Iranian diplomats earlier on Sunday, Rouhani said: “Mr Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret,” according to a report by the state new agency IRNA.
“America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” Rouhani said, leaving open the possibility of peace between the two countries, at odds since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Rouhani also scoffed at Trump’s threat to halt Iranian oil exports and said Iran has a dominant position in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping waterway.
Rouhani’s apparent threat earlier this month to disrupt oil shipments from neighboring countries came in reaction to efforts by Washington to force all countries to stop buying Iranian oil.
Washington initially planned to shut Iran out of global oil markets completely after Trump abandoned the deal that limited Iran’s nuclear ambitions, demanding all other countries stop buying Iranian crude by November.
But the United States has somewhat eased its stance, saying it may grant sanction waivers to some allies that are particularly reliant on Iranian supplies.
Reporting by Brendan O'Brien and Warren Strobel; Additional reporting by Dubai newsroom; Writing by Daniel Wallis; Editing by Nick Macfie
Where special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation stands right now - ABC News
Where special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation stands right now
By ALLISON PECORIN Jul 23, 2018,
The first trial in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is set to begin this week when former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort heads to court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Although Manafort is the first to face trial, the recent indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers could be a sign that Mueller's investigation is heating up.
More than 30 individuals and/or companies have now been charged in Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. It’s also spurred other investigations, including an ongoing probe by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump continues to call for an end to what he repeatedly refers to as a “witch hunt.”
Here’s a quick look at where things stand.
Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, leaves following his plea hearing at the Prettyman Federal Courthouse Dec. 1, 2017 in Washington.more +
(MORE: Where things stand for some key Trump orbit figures in Mueller's universe)
(MORE: Putin blasts 'forces' in the US that want to 'disavow the results' of Trump meeting)
Indictments of Russian intelligence officers
The 12 Russian intelligence officers were indicted July 13 for alleged hacking that led to the leaking of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton and her then-campaign chairman John Podesta.
The indictment targets the Russians for allegedly engaging in a sustained effort to hack networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. All 12 are members of the GRU, Russia's military intelligence service, the indictment alleges.
The indictment aligns with the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion last year that Russian military intelligence officials were partly responsible for the leaks.
Trump sent mixed signals about his stance on Russian meddling during a news conference at last week’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin when he called Putin's denials of Russian involvement "extremely strong.”
He tried to clarify his comments the next day back in Washington, saying he has "full faith” in and accepts the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community about election meddling.
Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at US District Court on June 15, 2018 in Washington, D.C.
(MORE: Mueller evidence list focuses on Manafort's lavish lifestyle)
(MORE: Mueller requests immunity for witnesses in Paul Manafort trial)
The 12 Russians indicted aren’t the only ones. Thirteen other Russian nationals have already been indicted for allegedly meddling in the 2016 election by launching mass social media misinformation campaigns.
Those charges allege that the 13 Russians violated criminal laws with the intent of meddling "with U.S. elections and political processes."
That indictment depicts an elaborate scheme in which some of the Russians are accused of coming to the U.S. with the intention of undermining the American political and electoral process, including the 2016 presidential election.
Guilty pleas in the president’s orbit
While the most recent indictments have been against Russians, several Americans have also been charged by the special counsel.
Most have pleaded guilty and in some cases are now cooperating with Mueller.
(MORE: Roger Stone says he’s the US person mentioned in Mueller indictment)
(MORE: Rudy Giuliani touts Russian hacking indictments as 'good news for all Americans')
The president’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, served just 24 days before resigning amid controversy over whether he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about communications he had with the Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn was later charged with lying to the FBI about contacts he had with the ambassador in December 2016.
He took a plea deal in December 2017 and has been cooperating with the special counsel ever since, his lawyers said when Flynn appeared in court July 10. He has yet to receive a sentencing date.
Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, however, is set to be sentenced in September for a similar crime.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about communications he had with a foreign professor who allegedly told him Russian officials possessed potentially incriminating Hillary Clinton emails. He has been cooperating with prosecutors for months.
In addition to Flynn and Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates has also pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the FBI and conspiracy against the United States.
Gates has admitted to helping Paul Manafort steer tens of millions of dollars in income overseas and failing to pay U.S. taxes on it. The charges against Gates are unrelated to his work for the Trump campaign. He’s cooperating with the special counsel.
The first trial
While Gates pleaded guilty, his longtime business associate and former Trump campaign manager Manafort did not.
Manafort has maintained he’s innocent of the charges levied against him by Mueller’s team both in Washington, D.C., and in Virginia.
(MORE: 12 Russian intel officers indicted for DNC hacking in Mueller investigation)
(MORE: At FBI agent hearing, top Dem displays 'guilty' posters of Mueller convictions)
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller at an installation ceremony at FBI Headquarters in Washington, Oct. 28, 2013.
He pleaded not guilty to money laundering, tax evasion, bank fraud, conspiracy against the United States, failure to register as a foreign agent and lying to the FBI, among other counts.
Manafort’s Virginia trial is set to begin Wednesday, though his legal team has requested a delay. His Washington, D.C., trial is set to begin in September.
He’s being held in an Alexandria, Virginia, jail while he awaits trial.
By ALLISON PECORIN Jul 23, 2018,
The first trial in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is set to begin this week when former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort heads to court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Although Manafort is the first to face trial, the recent indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers could be a sign that Mueller's investigation is heating up.
More than 30 individuals and/or companies have now been charged in Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. It’s also spurred other investigations, including an ongoing probe by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump continues to call for an end to what he repeatedly refers to as a “witch hunt.”
Here’s a quick look at where things stand.
Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, leaves following his plea hearing at the Prettyman Federal Courthouse Dec. 1, 2017 in Washington.more +
(MORE: Where things stand for some key Trump orbit figures in Mueller's universe)
(MORE: Putin blasts 'forces' in the US that want to 'disavow the results' of Trump meeting)
Indictments of Russian intelligence officers
The 12 Russian intelligence officers were indicted July 13 for alleged hacking that led to the leaking of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton and her then-campaign chairman John Podesta.
The indictment targets the Russians for allegedly engaging in a sustained effort to hack networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. All 12 are members of the GRU, Russia's military intelligence service, the indictment alleges.
The indictment aligns with the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion last year that Russian military intelligence officials were partly responsible for the leaks.
Trump sent mixed signals about his stance on Russian meddling during a news conference at last week’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin when he called Putin's denials of Russian involvement "extremely strong.”
He tried to clarify his comments the next day back in Washington, saying he has "full faith” in and accepts the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community about election meddling.
Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at US District Court on June 15, 2018 in Washington, D.C.
(MORE: Mueller evidence list focuses on Manafort's lavish lifestyle)
(MORE: Mueller requests immunity for witnesses in Paul Manafort trial)
The 12 Russians indicted aren’t the only ones. Thirteen other Russian nationals have already been indicted for allegedly meddling in the 2016 election by launching mass social media misinformation campaigns.
Those charges allege that the 13 Russians violated criminal laws with the intent of meddling "with U.S. elections and political processes."
That indictment depicts an elaborate scheme in which some of the Russians are accused of coming to the U.S. with the intention of undermining the American political and electoral process, including the 2016 presidential election.
Guilty pleas in the president’s orbit
While the most recent indictments have been against Russians, several Americans have also been charged by the special counsel.
Most have pleaded guilty and in some cases are now cooperating with Mueller.
(MORE: Roger Stone says he’s the US person mentioned in Mueller indictment)
(MORE: Rudy Giuliani touts Russian hacking indictments as 'good news for all Americans')
The president’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, served just 24 days before resigning amid controversy over whether he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about communications he had with the Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn was later charged with lying to the FBI about contacts he had with the ambassador in December 2016.
He took a plea deal in December 2017 and has been cooperating with the special counsel ever since, his lawyers said when Flynn appeared in court July 10. He has yet to receive a sentencing date.
Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, however, is set to be sentenced in September for a similar crime.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about communications he had with a foreign professor who allegedly told him Russian officials possessed potentially incriminating Hillary Clinton emails. He has been cooperating with prosecutors for months.
In addition to Flynn and Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates has also pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the FBI and conspiracy against the United States.
Gates has admitted to helping Paul Manafort steer tens of millions of dollars in income overseas and failing to pay U.S. taxes on it. The charges against Gates are unrelated to his work for the Trump campaign. He’s cooperating with the special counsel.
The first trial
While Gates pleaded guilty, his longtime business associate and former Trump campaign manager Manafort did not.
Manafort has maintained he’s innocent of the charges levied against him by Mueller’s team both in Washington, D.C., and in Virginia.
(MORE: 12 Russian intel officers indicted for DNC hacking in Mueller investigation)
(MORE: At FBI agent hearing, top Dem displays 'guilty' posters of Mueller convictions)
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller at an installation ceremony at FBI Headquarters in Washington, Oct. 28, 2013.
He pleaded not guilty to money laundering, tax evasion, bank fraud, conspiracy against the United States, failure to register as a foreign agent and lying to the FBI, among other counts.
Manafort’s Virginia trial is set to begin Wednesday, though his legal team has requested a delay. His Washington, D.C., trial is set to begin in September.
He’s being held in an Alexandria, Virginia, jail while he awaits trial.
Inside Trump's isolated days amid Russia fallout - CBS News
July 21, 2018, 2:57 PM
Inside Trump's isolated days amid Russia fallout
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Facing condemnation from allies and foes alike on Capitol Hill, President Donald Trump was outnumbered even in the Oval Office. Top aides gathered to convince the president to issue a rare walk-back of the comments he'd made raising doubts about U.S. intelligence conclusions of Russian election interference as he stood alongside Vladimir Putin.
Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton and chief of staff John Kelly stood united in the West Wing on Tuesday in their contention that the commander in chief had some cleanup to do. They brought with them words of alarm from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as from a host of congressional leaders and supporters of the president for whom Mr. Trump's public praise of Putin proved to be a bridge too far.
Even for Mr. Trump, a leader who has increasingly come to cast off the constraints and guidance of aides, the him-against-the-world position proved untenable. Mr. Trump may like doing things his way, eschewing advice and precedent like no president before, but he never likes being alone.
Walking off stage with Putin following their joint press conference in Helsinki, Mr. Trump was riding high after his second summit with an adversarial leader in as many months. The highly choreographed affairs had been sought out by the U.S. leader as a way to boost his credibility abroad and his favorability at home, and he believed the latest one had accomplished the task.
But as Air Force One took off into Finland's endless sunlight on Monday night, Mr. Trump's mood darkened.
Poll: Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of Putin summit
Putin declares summit a success
He told confidants in the days that followed that he was pleased with how his summit with Putin went, believing he had taken the measure of the man and opened the door to deals down the road on a number of thorny issues. He even said he thought it had gone well publicly.
But that was not how it was being portrayed back home.
On the long flight back to Washington, the president began dialing around to allies and aides and started to stew about negative media coverage, even from usually friendly Fox News, according to five outside allies and Republicans close to the White House not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.
The reviews he received were muted — Mr. Trump rarely takes kindly to direct confrontation — but it was a taste of what awaited him on his return in Washington, where stalwart allies like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich were speaking out.
By the time he arrived home, the parade of critical statements had become a stampede, leaving Mr. Trump the most isolated he'd been in the White House since last year's controversy over white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville. Some in the president's circle saw parallels in the response to that incident, when the president walked back his August comments critical of "both sides" for protests in the Virginia city, only to later revert to his initial position — that both white supremacists and their detractors shared blame for the violence.
Mr. Trump waited 27 hours, sent five tweets and sat for two television interviews after his initial comments in Helsinki before claiming he'd used a confusing "double negative" and meant "would" instead of "wouldn't" in a key sentence at his press conference about who was responsible for election meddling.
"The sentence should have been: I don't see any reason why I wouldn't -- or why it wouldn't be Russia," the president said Tuesday before a meeting with Republican members of Congress.
The next day brought a fresh challenge. Mr. Trump appeared to answer "no" to a reporter's question asking whether Russia was still targeting the U.S. Hours later, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders emerged to say Trump had merely tried to put a stop to the questioning by saying "no," although he continued discussing Russia after that.
And Sanders created a fresh headache for the administration when she said the White House was still reviewing a proposal from Putin to allow access by Russian law enforcement officials to Americans whom the Kremlin accuses of unspecified crimes in return for U.S. access to interrogations of Russian agents indicted for their alleged roles in interfering in the 2016 election. The State Department, by contrast, rejected the proposal — which Mr. Trump days earlier had called an "incredible offer — as "absurd."
Many in the White House did not immediately see fault in Sanders' comments that the West Wing was merely considering the Kremlin offer, but it provided fresh tinder for the bipartisan firestorm.
As each White House effort to clean up the situation failed to stem the growing bipartisan backlash, Mr. Trump's mood worsened, according to confidants. He groused about his staff for not better managing the fallout. He was angry at the two American reporters, including one from The Associated Press, who asked questions at the Helsinki news conference. And he seethed at the lack of support he believed he received from congressional Republicans.
Also a target of the president's ire was Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who issued a rare statement rebutting the president's Monday comments. But it was Coats' televised interview Thursday at a security conference in Aspen, Colo., that set off the president anew, as the intelligence director questioned the wisdom of the Putin meeting and said he had hoped Mr. Trump wouldn't meet alone with the Russian leader.
It all left White House staffers in a fresh state of resignation about their jobs.
"I saw the screaming headline on cable TV that there is malaise in the West Wing and I look forward to meeting her," quipped presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway. "I don't see that."
___
Lemire reported from New York. Associated Press writer Ken Thomas contributed to this report from Washington.
Inside Trump's isolated days amid Russia fallout
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Facing condemnation from allies and foes alike on Capitol Hill, President Donald Trump was outnumbered even in the Oval Office. Top aides gathered to convince the president to issue a rare walk-back of the comments he'd made raising doubts about U.S. intelligence conclusions of Russian election interference as he stood alongside Vladimir Putin.
Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton and chief of staff John Kelly stood united in the West Wing on Tuesday in their contention that the commander in chief had some cleanup to do. They brought with them words of alarm from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as from a host of congressional leaders and supporters of the president for whom Mr. Trump's public praise of Putin proved to be a bridge too far.
Even for Mr. Trump, a leader who has increasingly come to cast off the constraints and guidance of aides, the him-against-the-world position proved untenable. Mr. Trump may like doing things his way, eschewing advice and precedent like no president before, but he never likes being alone.
Walking off stage with Putin following their joint press conference in Helsinki, Mr. Trump was riding high after his second summit with an adversarial leader in as many months. The highly choreographed affairs had been sought out by the U.S. leader as a way to boost his credibility abroad and his favorability at home, and he believed the latest one had accomplished the task.
But as Air Force One took off into Finland's endless sunlight on Monday night, Mr. Trump's mood darkened.
Poll: Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of Putin summit
Putin declares summit a success
He told confidants in the days that followed that he was pleased with how his summit with Putin went, believing he had taken the measure of the man and opened the door to deals down the road on a number of thorny issues. He even said he thought it had gone well publicly.
But that was not how it was being portrayed back home.
On the long flight back to Washington, the president began dialing around to allies and aides and started to stew about negative media coverage, even from usually friendly Fox News, according to five outside allies and Republicans close to the White House not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.
The reviews he received were muted — Mr. Trump rarely takes kindly to direct confrontation — but it was a taste of what awaited him on his return in Washington, where stalwart allies like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich were speaking out.
By the time he arrived home, the parade of critical statements had become a stampede, leaving Mr. Trump the most isolated he'd been in the White House since last year's controversy over white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville. Some in the president's circle saw parallels in the response to that incident, when the president walked back his August comments critical of "both sides" for protests in the Virginia city, only to later revert to his initial position — that both white supremacists and their detractors shared blame for the violence.
Mr. Trump waited 27 hours, sent five tweets and sat for two television interviews after his initial comments in Helsinki before claiming he'd used a confusing "double negative" and meant "would" instead of "wouldn't" in a key sentence at his press conference about who was responsible for election meddling.
"The sentence should have been: I don't see any reason why I wouldn't -- or why it wouldn't be Russia," the president said Tuesday before a meeting with Republican members of Congress.
The next day brought a fresh challenge. Mr. Trump appeared to answer "no" to a reporter's question asking whether Russia was still targeting the U.S. Hours later, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders emerged to say Trump had merely tried to put a stop to the questioning by saying "no," although he continued discussing Russia after that.
And Sanders created a fresh headache for the administration when she said the White House was still reviewing a proposal from Putin to allow access by Russian law enforcement officials to Americans whom the Kremlin accuses of unspecified crimes in return for U.S. access to interrogations of Russian agents indicted for their alleged roles in interfering in the 2016 election. The State Department, by contrast, rejected the proposal — which Mr. Trump days earlier had called an "incredible offer — as "absurd."
Many in the White House did not immediately see fault in Sanders' comments that the West Wing was merely considering the Kremlin offer, but it provided fresh tinder for the bipartisan firestorm.
As each White House effort to clean up the situation failed to stem the growing bipartisan backlash, Mr. Trump's mood worsened, according to confidants. He groused about his staff for not better managing the fallout. He was angry at the two American reporters, including one from The Associated Press, who asked questions at the Helsinki news conference. And he seethed at the lack of support he believed he received from congressional Republicans.
Also a target of the president's ire was Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who issued a rare statement rebutting the president's Monday comments. But it was Coats' televised interview Thursday at a security conference in Aspen, Colo., that set off the president anew, as the intelligence director questioned the wisdom of the Putin meeting and said he had hoped Mr. Trump wouldn't meet alone with the Russian leader.
It all left White House staffers in a fresh state of resignation about their jobs.
"I saw the screaming headline on cable TV that there is malaise in the West Wing and I look forward to meeting her," quipped presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway. "I don't see that."
___
Lemire reported from New York. Associated Press writer Ken Thomas contributed to this report from Washington.
Trump and Iran's Rouhani trade angry threats - BBC News
July 23, 2018
Trump and Iran's Rouhani trade angry threats
Donald Trump fired off a capitalised tweet warning Iran's President Rouhani to "BE CAUTIOUS!"
US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have traded hostile warnings, amid rising tensions between the two countries.
Mr Trump tweeted Iran would "suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before" if it threatened the US.
Mr Rouhani earlier said that war with Iran would be "the mother of all wars".
In May, the US left a deal which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of international sanctions.
Iran faces up to its options
Who are the winners and losers?
Washington is now re-imposing the sanctions, despite objections from the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany, who all signed the 2015 agreement.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
1:24 PM - Jul 23, 2018
President Rouhani's comments, made to Iranian diplomats, did leave open the possibility of future good relations with the US.
"America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars," he said, according to Iran's state news agency Irna.
Mr Trump's angry rhetoric has echoes of his Twitter barrages against North Korea's Kim Jong-un, whom he branded a "madman" who "will be tested like never before", before engaging in a testy exchange over whose nuclear button was bigger.
Their verbal hostilities nonetheless evolved into ongoing diplomatic talks.
On Monday, a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards suggested the US president's statements were part of a broader strategy.
"The remarks Trump makes against Iran are psychological warfare and he would be mistaken should he seek to take action against Iran," Gholamhossein Gheybparvar said, quoted by the Iranian Students News Agency.
'Resembles the mafia'
On Sunday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he wanted to try to stop countries importing Iranian oil by November as part of continued pressure on Tehran.
Addressing a group of Iranian Americans in California, he said the Iranian regime "resembles the mafia more than a government".
Mr Pompeo called Mr Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who negotiated the nuclear deal, "merely polished front men for the ayatollahs' international con artistry".
Is there a Plan B?
Why Trump ditched the deal
The gathering was the first time a top US official had directly addressed such a large number of Iranian Americans, says BBC state department correspondent Barbara Plett Usher. It is being seen as part of the administration's strategy to increase pressure on Iran's leadership.
What do the US and Iran disagree on?
Mr Trump has consistently opposed the 2015 nuclear deal, which saw the US release billions of dollars of frozen assets in exchange for curbs on Iran's nuclear programme
The Trump administration regards Iran as a destabilising force in the Middle East, arguing the nuclear deal enabled Iran to pursue a more assertive regional policy. Iran has sent hundreds of troops and thousands of volunteer militiamen to Syria, and has strengthened its military presence there
Gulf states have accused Iran of backing Yemen's Houthi rebels with both money and weapons, though Iran has denied this. Saudi Arabia, a key US ally, is a major adversary of Iran and has repeatedly warned about Iran's intentions
Washington initially attempted to force all of its allies to stop buying Iranian oil, though it has now said it may grant sanction waivers to those especially reliant on Iranian supplies. President Rouhani has allegedly threatened to disrupt oil shipments from neighbouring countries if Iran's sales are stopped
Why did the US withdraw from the deal?
In May, Mr Trump called the nuclear accord - or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as it is formally known - a "horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made".
He alleged that the deal did not restrict Iran's "destabilising activities" in the region enough, and could not detect or prevent any breaking of its terms.
Analysts also cited the influence of White House Iran hawks including Mr Pompeo and US National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Mr Trump's tendency to target legacy achievements of his predecessor President Obama.
People in the Iran-aligned suburbs of Beirut give their reaction to US withdrawal from the nuclear deal
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, and its compliance with the deal has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has said Iran is honouring its commitments.
What is the nuclear accord?
Pain for some of Europe's biggest companies
Has Iran's economy been better off under the deal?
The IAEA has said its inspectors were granted access to all locations they needed to visit in 2017, but that they did not seek to enter any military sites, which Iranian officials declared off-limits - a move the US said raised doubts over Tehran's compliance.
What does the US want instead?
In May, Mr Pompeo outlined 12 conditions for any "new deal" between the US and Iran, including the withdrawal of its forces from Syria and an end to its support for rebels in Yemen.
The US Treasury has said there will be wind-down periods of 90 and 180 days before sanctions are implemented.
The first deadline, on 6 August, will affect the purchase of US dollars, trade in gold and certain other metals, as well as aviation and the car industry.
The next, on 4 November, will target Iran's financial and oil institutions.
Iran is one of the world's largest oil producers, with exports worth billions of dollars each year. Nonetheless, it is already feeling economic pressures, and has seen large-scale protests over rising prices and a decline in the value of its currency, the rial.
Trump and Iran's Rouhani trade angry threats
Donald Trump fired off a capitalised tweet warning Iran's President Rouhani to "BE CAUTIOUS!"
US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have traded hostile warnings, amid rising tensions between the two countries.
Mr Trump tweeted Iran would "suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before" if it threatened the US.
Mr Rouhani earlier said that war with Iran would be "the mother of all wars".
In May, the US left a deal which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of international sanctions.
Iran faces up to its options
Who are the winners and losers?
Washington is now re-imposing the sanctions, despite objections from the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany, who all signed the 2015 agreement.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
1:24 PM - Jul 23, 2018
President Rouhani's comments, made to Iranian diplomats, did leave open the possibility of future good relations with the US.
"America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars," he said, according to Iran's state news agency Irna.
Mr Trump's angry rhetoric has echoes of his Twitter barrages against North Korea's Kim Jong-un, whom he branded a "madman" who "will be tested like never before", before engaging in a testy exchange over whose nuclear button was bigger.
Their verbal hostilities nonetheless evolved into ongoing diplomatic talks.
On Monday, a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards suggested the US president's statements were part of a broader strategy.
"The remarks Trump makes against Iran are psychological warfare and he would be mistaken should he seek to take action against Iran," Gholamhossein Gheybparvar said, quoted by the Iranian Students News Agency.
'Resembles the mafia'
On Sunday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he wanted to try to stop countries importing Iranian oil by November as part of continued pressure on Tehran.
Addressing a group of Iranian Americans in California, he said the Iranian regime "resembles the mafia more than a government".
Mr Pompeo called Mr Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who negotiated the nuclear deal, "merely polished front men for the ayatollahs' international con artistry".
Is there a Plan B?
Why Trump ditched the deal
The gathering was the first time a top US official had directly addressed such a large number of Iranian Americans, says BBC state department correspondent Barbara Plett Usher. It is being seen as part of the administration's strategy to increase pressure on Iran's leadership.
What do the US and Iran disagree on?
Mr Trump has consistently opposed the 2015 nuclear deal, which saw the US release billions of dollars of frozen assets in exchange for curbs on Iran's nuclear programme
The Trump administration regards Iran as a destabilising force in the Middle East, arguing the nuclear deal enabled Iran to pursue a more assertive regional policy. Iran has sent hundreds of troops and thousands of volunteer militiamen to Syria, and has strengthened its military presence there
Gulf states have accused Iran of backing Yemen's Houthi rebels with both money and weapons, though Iran has denied this. Saudi Arabia, a key US ally, is a major adversary of Iran and has repeatedly warned about Iran's intentions
Washington initially attempted to force all of its allies to stop buying Iranian oil, though it has now said it may grant sanction waivers to those especially reliant on Iranian supplies. President Rouhani has allegedly threatened to disrupt oil shipments from neighbouring countries if Iran's sales are stopped
Why did the US withdraw from the deal?
In May, Mr Trump called the nuclear accord - or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as it is formally known - a "horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made".
He alleged that the deal did not restrict Iran's "destabilising activities" in the region enough, and could not detect or prevent any breaking of its terms.
Analysts also cited the influence of White House Iran hawks including Mr Pompeo and US National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Mr Trump's tendency to target legacy achievements of his predecessor President Obama.
People in the Iran-aligned suburbs of Beirut give their reaction to US withdrawal from the nuclear deal
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, and its compliance with the deal has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has said Iran is honouring its commitments.
What is the nuclear accord?
Pain for some of Europe's biggest companies
Has Iran's economy been better off under the deal?
The IAEA has said its inspectors were granted access to all locations they needed to visit in 2017, but that they did not seek to enter any military sites, which Iranian officials declared off-limits - a move the US said raised doubts over Tehran's compliance.
What does the US want instead?
In May, Mr Pompeo outlined 12 conditions for any "new deal" between the US and Iran, including the withdrawal of its forces from Syria and an end to its support for rebels in Yemen.
The US Treasury has said there will be wind-down periods of 90 and 180 days before sanctions are implemented.
The first deadline, on 6 August, will affect the purchase of US dollars, trade in gold and certain other metals, as well as aviation and the car industry.
The next, on 4 November, will target Iran's financial and oil institutions.
Iran is one of the world's largest oil producers, with exports worth billions of dollars each year. Nonetheless, it is already feeling economic pressures, and has seen large-scale protests over rising prices and a decline in the value of its currency, the rial.
Bitter pill: China vaccine scandal sparks online fury, roils markets - Reuters
JULY 23, 2018
Bitter pill: China vaccine scandal sparks online fury, roils markets
Adam Jourdan, John Ruwitch
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - A vaccine scandal in China, which has prompted angry reactions from leaders and citizens fed up with safety scares in the country, is sending ripples across the local drug market and threatening Chinese ambitions to play a larger global role.
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang speaks at the China-EU Business Roundtable held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Monday, July 16, 2018. Ng Han Guan/Pool via Reuters
Shares in Chinese vaccine makers and biotech firms fell across the board on Monday after Premier Li Keqiang slammed Changsheng Biotechnology Co for having crossed a moral red line and called for swift action.
Changsheng has been found to have faked production documents related to a rabies vaccine that is given to babies as young as three months, underscoring the difficulties China faces in cleaning up the image of what is the world’s No.2 drug industry as it aims to promote locally made vaccines globally.
While there have been no apparent reports of people being harmed by the vaccine, the regulator ordered Changsheng to halt production and recall the product after the scandal emerged earlier this month.
The case has gone viral in China, where sensitivity over food and drug safety is extremely high after a slew of scandals over the last decade. It was among the most hotly discussed topics on microblogging website Sina Weibo on Monday.
In a statement posted on the government’s website late on Sunday, Premier Li called for an immediate investigation and urged severe punishment for the companies and people implicated. He added the public needed clear information.
“We will resolutely crack down on illegal and criminal acts that endanger the safety of peoples’ lives, resolutely punish lawbreakers according to the law, and resolutely and severely criticize dereliction of duty in supervision,” he said.
The China Food and Drug Administration said in a statement that its investigation had found that Changsheng fabricated production records and product inspection records, and arbitrarily changed process parameters and equipment, in “serious violations” of the law.
PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS
Changsheng apologized in a regulatory filing and said the suspension of its vaccine would have a significant impact on its finances. It added some regional disease control agencies had suspended some of its other vaccines.
It also flagged on Monday that the firm may face the risk of having to delist due to an investigation by China’s securities regulator into suspected violations of information disclosure.
This is, however, not Changsheng’s first brush with quality issues. Last year, it sold 252,600 substandard DPT vaccines to inoculate children against diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus, a regulator in the northeastern Jilin said on Friday.
China’s pharmaceutical industry has been plagued with such scandals, with another company Wuhan Institute of Biological Products also being implicated in the DPT vaccine issue last year and the police busting a gang for selling around $90 million worth of illegal vaccines on the black market in 2016.
Changsheng shares, which resumed trading on Monday afternoon session after being suspended in the morning, were down 10 percent. They have slumped 47 percent since mid July.
The wider CSI 300 healthcare index was down about 5 percent.
The China Daily warned earlier in an editorial that the latest Changsheng case could become a public health crisis if it is not handled “in a reasonable and transparent manner”.
The government needs to let the public know it “will punish any wrongdoers without mercy”, the official newspaper wrote.
Late on Sunday, state news agency Xinhua ran an editorial calling for strict punishment for any violations, big or small, in the vaccine industry and for regulators to close loopholes and tighten oversight of the industry.
The state-run Global Times also weighed in, saying the case had “sparked nationwide outrage, (and) could pose serious challenges for a domestic industry that has seen rapid growth in recent years but experienced a series of scandals”.
($1 = 6.7659 Chinese yuan)
Reporting by John Ruwitch and Adam Jourdan; Editing by Himani Sarkar
Bitter pill: China vaccine scandal sparks online fury, roils markets
Adam Jourdan, John Ruwitch
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - A vaccine scandal in China, which has prompted angry reactions from leaders and citizens fed up with safety scares in the country, is sending ripples across the local drug market and threatening Chinese ambitions to play a larger global role.
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang speaks at the China-EU Business Roundtable held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Monday, July 16, 2018. Ng Han Guan/Pool via Reuters
Shares in Chinese vaccine makers and biotech firms fell across the board on Monday after Premier Li Keqiang slammed Changsheng Biotechnology Co for having crossed a moral red line and called for swift action.
Changsheng has been found to have faked production documents related to a rabies vaccine that is given to babies as young as three months, underscoring the difficulties China faces in cleaning up the image of what is the world’s No.2 drug industry as it aims to promote locally made vaccines globally.
While there have been no apparent reports of people being harmed by the vaccine, the regulator ordered Changsheng to halt production and recall the product after the scandal emerged earlier this month.
The case has gone viral in China, where sensitivity over food and drug safety is extremely high after a slew of scandals over the last decade. It was among the most hotly discussed topics on microblogging website Sina Weibo on Monday.
In a statement posted on the government’s website late on Sunday, Premier Li called for an immediate investigation and urged severe punishment for the companies and people implicated. He added the public needed clear information.
“We will resolutely crack down on illegal and criminal acts that endanger the safety of peoples’ lives, resolutely punish lawbreakers according to the law, and resolutely and severely criticize dereliction of duty in supervision,” he said.
The China Food and Drug Administration said in a statement that its investigation had found that Changsheng fabricated production records and product inspection records, and arbitrarily changed process parameters and equipment, in “serious violations” of the law.
PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS
Changsheng apologized in a regulatory filing and said the suspension of its vaccine would have a significant impact on its finances. It added some regional disease control agencies had suspended some of its other vaccines.
It also flagged on Monday that the firm may face the risk of having to delist due to an investigation by China’s securities regulator into suspected violations of information disclosure.
This is, however, not Changsheng’s first brush with quality issues. Last year, it sold 252,600 substandard DPT vaccines to inoculate children against diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus, a regulator in the northeastern Jilin said on Friday.
China’s pharmaceutical industry has been plagued with such scandals, with another company Wuhan Institute of Biological Products also being implicated in the DPT vaccine issue last year and the police busting a gang for selling around $90 million worth of illegal vaccines on the black market in 2016.
Changsheng shares, which resumed trading on Monday afternoon session after being suspended in the morning, were down 10 percent. They have slumped 47 percent since mid July.
The wider CSI 300 healthcare index was down about 5 percent.
The China Daily warned earlier in an editorial that the latest Changsheng case could become a public health crisis if it is not handled “in a reasonable and transparent manner”.
The government needs to let the public know it “will punish any wrongdoers without mercy”, the official newspaper wrote.
Late on Sunday, state news agency Xinhua ran an editorial calling for strict punishment for any violations, big or small, in the vaccine industry and for regulators to close loopholes and tighten oversight of the industry.
The state-run Global Times also weighed in, saying the case had “sparked nationwide outrage, (and) could pose serious challenges for a domestic industry that has seen rapid growth in recent years but experienced a series of scandals”.
($1 = 6.7659 Chinese yuan)
Reporting by John Ruwitch and Adam Jourdan; Editing by Himani Sarkar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
