New York Is No Longer the Top City for the Ultra-Rich
This Is Where the Ultra-Rich Live
Ultra-rich means you have $30 million.
By BLOOMBERG September 6, 2018
New York has lost its crown as home to the most ultra-rich people, beaten out by the rising tide of extreme wealth in Asia.
Hong Kong surpassed the Big Apple as the city with the highest population of people worth at least $30 million, according to a new report. The former British colony saw its number of ultra-wealthy increase 31% last year, to about 10,000, research firm Wealth-X found, higher than the nearly 9,000-strong population of the U.S.’s largest city. Tokyo came third, while Paris beat out London to take the European crown as Brexit weighed down the U.K. capital.
The number of ultra-rich worldwide rose 13% last year, according to Wealth-X, totaling about 256,000 people with combined assets of $31.5 trillion. Asia saw the fastest growth, driven by mainland China and Hong Kong, the study’s authors wrote. Reflecting the region’s rise, its share of the global population of people with at least $30 million rose to just over one-fourth, up from around 18% a decade ago.
“Asia-Pacific is forecast to close the ultra-wealth gap with other regions over the next five years, but is expected to remain behind Europe, the Middle East and Africa in absolute terms,” the report’s authors wrote. The number of ultra-wealthy in Asia-Pacific is expected to rise at a compound rate of 8.3% a year, they said.
Women accounted for about 35,000 of the ultra-rich last year, a record-high share of nearly 14%, the study found.
While Hong Kong topped the city rankings, nowhere in mainland China made the top 10, despite the country being third in the list of nations. That’s because China’s wealthy are widely dispersed, illustrated by the fact it was home to 26 of the 30 fastest-growing cities for the ultra-rich.
“The dynamism of wealth creation across China’s vast landscape is nevertheless staggering,” the authors wrote.
Hong Kong’s rise was also a reflection of China’s improving fortunes, with its position at the top of the global list “supported by enhanced trade and investment links with mainland China,” according to the authors.
The relative struggles of commodity markets was a factor in the Middle East posting the weakest global growth in both assets and individuals, rising 4.8% and 4.4%, respectively.
Every region saw gains, however, thanks to last year’s benign markets, the report’s authors wrote.
“Having experienced a roller-coaster ride the previous year, economic and financial markets almost without exception surprised on the upside in 2017,” they said. “On an annual basis, world real GDP expanded at its fastest pace since 2011.”
Still, the ultra-rich held more of their wealth — 35% — in liquid assets such as cash than anything else, the study found. Private holdings accounted for about 32%, while public holdings were 26%. Alternative investments such as real estate, art and yachts made up 6.6% of total assets.
The U.K.’s looming departure from the EU factored into last year’s trends, the study found. Paris’s rise over London — the City of Lights saw a 17% increase in its ultra-wealthy numbers to more than 3,900 individuals — was because London was “hampered in part by Brexit-related uncertainty in U.K. financial markets and across the wider economy,” the authors wrote.
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Former Border Force chief to face Senate grilling over Dutton au pair claims - The Age
Former Border Force chief to face Senate grilling over Dutton au pair claims
David Wroe
By David Wroe
7 September 2018 — 5:36pm
Sacked border security chief Roman Quaedvlieg will be asked to appear before a Senate inquiry to expand on his hotly disputed claim that he was asked to help resolve an au pair visa problem on behalf of a "mate" of Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton.
Mr Quaedvlieg on Friday doubled down on his evidence against Mr Dutton by providing a further written statement to the inquiry to address doubts cast on his original testimony.
The Australian Border Force commissioner - who was sacked in March for helping to get his girlfriend a job on the force - refused to say what additional information he had provided "other than to state unequivocally that the effective substance of my original submission stands".
Mr Quaedvlieg said in written evidence this week that Mr Dutton’s chief of staff Craig Maclachlan phoned him in mid-June 2015 asking for help in freeing from immigration detention a young woman who was going to work as an au pair for "the boss's mate in Brisbane".
But Mr Dutton excoriated this claim as "a fabrication" and "impossible" because Mr Maclachlan did not start working for him until October 7 of that year and therefore could not have made the phone call.
Mr Quaedvlieg has since acknowledged "an anomaly … with the date of the events".
Fairfax Media understands that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee - which is due to report by Tuesday - will ask the Senate for an extension and will hold an additional public hearing to which Mr Quaedvlieg will be invited.
The controversy centres on Mr Dutton’s use of ministerial discretion powers that allow him to overturn decisions by his department if he believes it is in the national interest.
He has acknowledged using those powers to let two women into the country after they were detained at airports on suspicion of planning to work as au pairs in breach of their visa conditions but maintained he was not motivated by any personal connection to the women or the families with whom they would be staying.
In the June 2015 case, the young Italian woman detained at the airport, Michela Marchisio, was going to stay with the family of Queensland policeman Russell Keag, with whom Mr Dutton worked in the 1990s but says he has not spoken to for about 20 years.
Mr Quaedvlieg’s claim that Mr Maclachlan described the intervention as being on behalf of "the boss's mate" appeared to contradict this.
But Mr Quaedvlieg’s position is now complicated by the fact that his original evidence stated that the case he was asked to help with was definitely Ms Marchisio’s. She arrived and was detained on June 17, 2015, making it difficult to explain how the anomaly can be resolved by a simple correction of dates.
Mr Dutton has said Mr Quaedvlieg has motivated by "bitterness" over his sacking and even suggested the former border chief may need mental health treatment.
Mr Quaedvlieg remains under investigation by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
Labor senator Murray Watt, who sits on the committee, acknowledged on ABC radio that Mr Quaedvlieg may have given false evidence but that could only be resolved by further investigation.
"I guess that’s possible but that’s the point of this Senate inquiry and we would really appreciate greater participation by both Mr Quaedvlieg and Mr Dutton in that inquiry," he said. "We have found it impossible to get answers from Mr Dutton’s department to very basic questions about the chain of events that led to these au pairs being released and many other matters."
The other au pair case involved a young French woman who was going to stay with the family of a relative of AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan’s. Mr McLachlan, who is unrelated to Craig Maclachlan, passed on a request for help to Mr Dutton, who intervened and allowed the woman to enter Australia.
David Wroe
By David Wroe
7 September 2018 — 5:36pm
Sacked border security chief Roman Quaedvlieg will be asked to appear before a Senate inquiry to expand on his hotly disputed claim that he was asked to help resolve an au pair visa problem on behalf of a "mate" of Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton.
Mr Quaedvlieg on Friday doubled down on his evidence against Mr Dutton by providing a further written statement to the inquiry to address doubts cast on his original testimony.
The Australian Border Force commissioner - who was sacked in March for helping to get his girlfriend a job on the force - refused to say what additional information he had provided "other than to state unequivocally that the effective substance of my original submission stands".
Mr Quaedvlieg said in written evidence this week that Mr Dutton’s chief of staff Craig Maclachlan phoned him in mid-June 2015 asking for help in freeing from immigration detention a young woman who was going to work as an au pair for "the boss's mate in Brisbane".
But Mr Dutton excoriated this claim as "a fabrication" and "impossible" because Mr Maclachlan did not start working for him until October 7 of that year and therefore could not have made the phone call.
Mr Quaedvlieg has since acknowledged "an anomaly … with the date of the events".
Fairfax Media understands that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee - which is due to report by Tuesday - will ask the Senate for an extension and will hold an additional public hearing to which Mr Quaedvlieg will be invited.
The controversy centres on Mr Dutton’s use of ministerial discretion powers that allow him to overturn decisions by his department if he believes it is in the national interest.
He has acknowledged using those powers to let two women into the country after they were detained at airports on suspicion of planning to work as au pairs in breach of their visa conditions but maintained he was not motivated by any personal connection to the women or the families with whom they would be staying.
In the June 2015 case, the young Italian woman detained at the airport, Michela Marchisio, was going to stay with the family of Queensland policeman Russell Keag, with whom Mr Dutton worked in the 1990s but says he has not spoken to for about 20 years.
Mr Quaedvlieg’s claim that Mr Maclachlan described the intervention as being on behalf of "the boss's mate" appeared to contradict this.
But Mr Quaedvlieg’s position is now complicated by the fact that his original evidence stated that the case he was asked to help with was definitely Ms Marchisio’s. She arrived and was detained on June 17, 2015, making it difficult to explain how the anomaly can be resolved by a simple correction of dates.
Mr Dutton has said Mr Quaedvlieg has motivated by "bitterness" over his sacking and even suggested the former border chief may need mental health treatment.
Mr Quaedvlieg remains under investigation by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
Labor senator Murray Watt, who sits on the committee, acknowledged on ABC radio that Mr Quaedvlieg may have given false evidence but that could only be resolved by further investigation.
"I guess that’s possible but that’s the point of this Senate inquiry and we would really appreciate greater participation by both Mr Quaedvlieg and Mr Dutton in that inquiry," he said. "We have found it impossible to get answers from Mr Dutton’s department to very basic questions about the chain of events that led to these au pairs being released and many other matters."
The other au pair case involved a young French woman who was going to stay with the family of a relative of AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan’s. Mr McLachlan, who is unrelated to Craig Maclachlan, passed on a request for help to Mr Dutton, who intervened and allowed the woman to enter Australia.
Elon Musk Smokes Marijuana in His First Appearance Since Tweet About Taking Tesla Public - TIME
Elon Musk Smokes Marijuana in His First Appearance Since Tweet About Taking Tesla Public
Posted: 07 Sep 2018 04:12 AM PDT
Elon Musk sipped whiskey and smoked marijuana during a 2 1/2-hour podcast with California comedian Joe Rogan that touched upon everything from flame throwers and artificial intelligence to the end of the universe.
“I’m not a regular smoker of weed,” the Tesla Inc. chief executive officer said late Thursday on the podcast, which was shown live on the internet. Musk, 47, took one drag from what Rogan described as a joint containing tobacco mixed with marijuana, which is legal in California.
A Tesla spokesperson in Germany wasn’t immediately available to comment. Shares of the carmaker fell 1.4 percent in trading before U.S. exchanges opened.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk smoked weed during a live interview with comedian Joe Rogan https://t.co/Dim9ecYctj pic.twitter.com/PhnvRK9cru
— TicToc by Bloomberg (@tictoc) September 7, 2018
The spot on one of the most popular podcasts in the U.S. marks Musk’s first appearance in a public forum since he stunned the financial world last month with his short-lived effort to take Tesla private. Just 17 days after tweeting that he had the funding and investor support secured to buy out some stockholders at $420 a share, the billionaire scrapped the idea without having made a formal proposal to the board.
Along the way, Musk drew a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which already had been scrutinizing the public pronouncements he’s made regarding manufacturing goals and sales targets. Tesla and its CEO are now also facing a litany of lawsuits claiming market manipulation, including one filed Thursday by Andrew Left, the founder of Citron Research and prominent short seller.
The episode also raised concern about Musk’s health. The chairman and CEO of both Tesla and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., among other companies, gave an emotional interview to the New York Times in which he said friends were worried about exhaustion. The newspaper said two people familiar with the electric-car maker’s board expressed concern about his workload and use of the prescription sleeping drug Ambien.
Good times with @JoeRogan …https://t.co/8uZUsEJoq1
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 7, 2018
The bewildering incidents have played out during a critical period for Tesla. The Palo Alto, California-based company faces concerns about its limited cash balance, maturing debt and struggle to steadily build high volumes of the Model 3 sedan, the first electric vehicle that Musk has attempted to mass-manufacture.
Musk told Rogan that running Tesla is the hardest of his several endeavors. “It’s very difficult to keep a car company alive,” Musk said.
Musk is also the founder of the tunneling startup Boring Co., plus Neuralink, which is developing brain-machine interfaces to connect humans and computers. Neuralink may have something interesting to announce in a few months, Musk told Rogan.
Trump says has tariffs ready for further $267 billion worth of Chinese imports - Reuters
SEPTEMBER 8, 2018 / 2:31 AM / UPDATED 17 HOURS AGO
Trump says has tariffs ready for further $267 billion worth of Chinese imports
ABORAD AIR FORCE ONE (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that he has tariffs ready to go on a further $267 billion worth of Chinese imports, as the world awaits his decision on imposing levies on $200 billion worth of the Asian nation’s goods.
“The $200 billion we are talking about could take place very soon depending on what happens with them. To a certain extent its going to be up to China, Trump said. “And I hate to say this, but behind that is another $267 billion ready to go on short notice if I want. That changes the equation.”
Earlier on Friday White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Trump will not make any decisions on his threatened tariffs on another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods before officials evaluate public comments on them. The U.S. Trade Representative’s office received nearly 6,000 comments during the public comment period on the proposed levies, which ended Thursday night.
Trump threatens tariffs on nearly all China imports
Reporting by Steve Holland; Writing by Lisa Lambert; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama
Trump says has tariffs ready for further $267 billion worth of Chinese imports
ABORAD AIR FORCE ONE (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that he has tariffs ready to go on a further $267 billion worth of Chinese imports, as the world awaits his decision on imposing levies on $200 billion worth of the Asian nation’s goods.
“The $200 billion we are talking about could take place very soon depending on what happens with them. To a certain extent its going to be up to China, Trump said. “And I hate to say this, but behind that is another $267 billion ready to go on short notice if I want. That changes the equation.”
Earlier on Friday White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Trump will not make any decisions on his threatened tariffs on another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods before officials evaluate public comments on them. The U.S. Trade Representative’s office received nearly 6,000 comments during the public comment period on the proposed levies, which ended Thursday night.
Trump threatens tariffs on nearly all China imports
Reporting by Steve Holland; Writing by Lisa Lambert; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama
China's August trade surplus with U.S. widens to record $31 billion - Reuters
SEPTEMBER 8, 2018 / 3:17 PM / UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO
China's August trade surplus with U.S. widens to record $31 billion
BEIJING (Reuters) - China’s politically charged trade surplus with the United States widened to a record $31.05 billion in August, compared with $28.09 billion in July, customs data showed on Saturday.
The August surplus with the U.S. was larger than China’s overall surplus of $27.91 billion for the month.
For January-August, China’s trade surplus with the United States was $192.64 billion, compared with about $167.94 billion in the same period last year.
China’s large trade surplus with the United States has long been a sore point in relations and is at the center of an increasing bitter dispute between the world’s two biggest economies.
Beijing and Washington have slapped each other with tit-for-tat tariffs in recent months and threatened more duties on each other’s goods. Talks aimed at easing tensions have yielded no major breakthroughs and both sides look to be digging in for a long fight that could weigh on global growth.
Reporting by Elias Glenn and Xu Jing
China's August trade surplus with U.S. widens to record $31 billion
BEIJING (Reuters) - China’s politically charged trade surplus with the United States widened to a record $31.05 billion in August, compared with $28.09 billion in July, customs data showed on Saturday.
The August surplus with the U.S. was larger than China’s overall surplus of $27.91 billion for the month.
For January-August, China’s trade surplus with the United States was $192.64 billion, compared with about $167.94 billion in the same period last year.
China’s large trade surplus with the United States has long been a sore point in relations and is at the center of an increasing bitter dispute between the world’s two biggest economies.
Beijing and Washington have slapped each other with tit-for-tat tariffs in recent months and threatened more duties on each other’s goods. Talks aimed at easing tensions have yielded no major breakthroughs and both sides look to be digging in for a long fight that could weigh on global growth.
Reporting by Elias Glenn and Xu Jing
Trump Administration Discussed Coup Plans With Rebel Venezuelan Officers - New York Times
Trump Administration Discussed Coup Plans With Rebel Venezuelan Officers
President Nicolás Maduro at a ceremony in Caracas. The White House declined to answer detailed questions about talks with rebellious officers.CreditCreditJuan Barreto/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
By Ernesto Londoño and Nicholas Casey
Sept. 8, 2018
The Trump administration held secret meetings with rebellious military officers from Venezuela over the last year to discuss their plans to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro, according to American officials and a former Venezuelan military commander who participated in the talks.
Establishing a clandestine channel with coup plotters in Venezuela was a big gamble for Washington, given its long history of covert intervention across Latin America. Many in the region still deeply resent the United States for backing previous rebellions, coups and plots in countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil and Chile, and for turning a blind eye to the abuses military regimes committed during the Cold War.
The White House, which declined to answer detailed questions about the talks, said in a statement that it was important to engage in “dialogue with all Venezuelans who demonstrate a desire for democracy” in order to “bring positive change to a country that has suffered so much under Maduro.”
But one of the Venezuelan military commanders involved in the secret talks was hardly an ideal figure to help restore democracy: He is on the American government’s own sanctions list of corrupt officials in Venezuela.
He and other members of the Venezuelan security apparatus have been accused by Washington of a wide range of serious crimes, including torturing critics, jailing hundreds of political prisoners, wounding thousands of civilians, trafficking drugs and collaborating with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States.
American officials eventually decided not to help the plotters, and the coup plans stalled. But the Trump administration’s willingness to meet several times with mutinous officers intent on toppling a president in the hemisphere could backfire politically.
You have 2 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
Most Latin American leaders agree that Venezuela’s president, Mr. Maduro, is an increasingly authoritarian ruler who has effectively ruined his country’s economy, leading to extreme shortages of food and medicine. The collapse has set off an exodus of desperate Venezuelans who are spilling over borders, overwhelming their neighbors.
Even so, Mr. Maduro has long justified his grip on Venezuela by claiming that Washington imperialists are actively trying to depose him, and the secret talks could provide him with ammunition to chip away at the region’s nearly united stance against him.
“This is going to land like a bomb” in the region, said Mari Carmen Aponte, who served as the top diplomat overseeing Latin American affairs in the final months of the Obama administration.
Image
Mr. Maduro at a meeting with ministers in Caracas this month. Most Latin American leaders agree that he is an increasingly authoritarian ruler who has effectively ruined his country’s economy.CreditMiraflores Palace
Beyond the coup plot, Mr. Maduro’s government has already fended off several small-scale attacks, including salvos from a helicopter last year and exploding drones as he gave a speech in August. The attacks have added to the sense that the president is vulnerable.
Venezuelan military officials sought direct access to the American government during Barack Obama’s presidency, only to be rebuffed, officials said.
Then in August of last year, President Trump declared that the United States had a “military option” for Venezuela — a declaration that drew condemnation from American allies in the region but encouraged rebellious Venezuelan military officers to reach out to Washington once again.
“It was the commander in chief saying this now,” the former Venezuelan commander on the sanctions list said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals by the Venezuelan government. “I’m not going to doubt it when this was the messenger.”
In a series of covert meetings abroad, which began last fall and continued this year, the military officers told the American government that they represented a few hundred members of the armed forces who had soured on Mr. Maduro’s authoritarianism.
The officers asked the United States to supply them with encrypted radios, citing the need to communicate securely, as they developed a plan to install a transitional government to run the country until elections could be held.
American officials did not provide material support, and the plans unraveled after a recent crackdown that led to the arrest of dozens of the plotters.
Relations between the United States and Venezuela have been strained for years. The two have not exchanged ambassadors since 2010. After Mr. Trump took office, his administration increased sanctions against top Venezuelan officials, including Mr. Maduro himself, his vice president and other top officials in the government.
The account of the clandestine meetings and the policy debates preceding them is drawn from interviews with 11 current and former American officials, as well as the former Venezuelan commander. He said at least three distinct groups within the Venezuelan military had been plotting against the Maduro government.
One established contact with the American government by approaching the United States Embassy in a European capital. When this was reported back to Washington, officials at the White House were intrigued but apprehensive. They worried that the meeting request could be a ploy to surreptitiously record an American official appearing to conspire against the Venezuelan government, officials said.
Venezuelans waiting to buy government-subsidized food in Caracas in May. The country is experiencing extreme shortages of food and medicine.CreditMeridith Kohut for The New York Times
But as the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela worsened last year, American officials felt that having a clearer picture of the plans and the men who aspired to oust Mr. Maduro was worth the risk.
“After a lot of discussion, we agreed we should listen to what they had to say,” said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak about the secret talks.
The administration initially considered dispatching Juan Cruz, a veteran Central Intelligence Agency official who recently stepped down as the White House’s top Latin America policymaker. But White House lawyers said it would be more prudent to send a career diplomat instead.
The American envoy was instructed to attend the meetings “purely on listening mode,” and was not authorized to negotiate anything of substance on the spot, according to the senior administration official.
After the first meeting, which took place in the fall of 2017, the diplomat reported that the Venezuelans didn’t appear to have a detailed plan and had showed up at the encounter hoping the Americans would offer guidance or ideas, officials said.
The former Venezuelan commander said that the rebellious officers never asked for an American military intervention. “I never agreed, nor did they propose, to do a joint operation,” he said.
He claimed that he and his comrades considered striking last summer, when the government suspended the powers of the legislature and installed a new national assembly loyal to Mr. Maduro. But he said they aborted the plan, fearing it would lead to bloodshed.
They later planned to take power in March, the former officer said, but that plan leaked. Finally, the dissidents looked to the May 20 election, during which Mr. Maduro was re-elected, as a new target date. But again, word got out and the plotters held their fire.
It is unclear how many of these details the coup planners shared with the Americans. But there is no indication that Mr. Maduro knew the mutinous officers were talking to the Americans at all.
For any of the plots to have worked, the former commander said, he and his comrades believed they needed to detain Mr. Maduro and other top government figures simultaneously. To do that, he added, the rebel officers needed a way to communicate securely. They made their request during their second meeting with the American diplomat, which took place last year.
Lawmakers in Caracas last month. The plotters considered striking last summer, when the government suspended the powers of the legislature and installed a new assembly loyal to Mr. Maduro.CreditCristian Hernandez/EPA, via Shutterstock
The American diplomat relayed the request to Washington, where senior officials turned it down, American officials said.
“We were frustrated,” said the former Venezuelan commander. “There was a lack of follow-through. They left me waiting.”
The American diplomat then met the coup plotters a third time early this year, but the discussions did not result in a promise of material aid or even a clear signal that Washington endorsed the rebels’ plans, according to the Venezuelan commander and several American officials.
Still, the Venezuelan plotters could view the meetings as tacit approval of their plans, argued Peter Kornbluh, a historian at the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
“The United States always has an interest in gathering intelligence on potential changes of leadership in governments,” Mr. Kornbluh said. “But the mere presence of a U.S. official at such a meeting would likely be perceived as encouragement.”
In its statement, the White House called the situation in Venezuela “a threat to regional security and democracy” and said that the Trump administration would continue to strengthen a coalition of “like-minded, and right-minded, partners from Europe to Asia to the Americas to pressure the Maduro regime to restore democracy in Venezuela.”
American officials have openly discussed the possibility that Venezuela’s military could take action.
On Feb. 1, Rex W. Tillerson, who was secretary of state at the time, delivered a speech in which he said the United States had not “advocated for regime change or removal of President Maduro.” Yet, responding to a question afterward, Mr. Tillerson raised the potential for a military coup.
“When things are so bad that the military leadership realizes that it just can’t serve the citizens anymore, they will manage a peaceful transition,” he said.
Days later, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who has sought to shape the Trump administration’s approach toward Latin America, wrote a series of Twitter posts that encouraged dissident members of the Venezuelan armed forces to topple their commander in chief.
Venezuelans waiting to register with the Brazilian immigration authorities in April. The economic collapse has set off an exodus of desperate Venezuelans.CreditMeridith Kohut for The New York Times
“Soldiers eat out of garbage cans & their families go hungry in Venezuela while Maduro & friends live like kings & block humanitarian aid,” Mr. Rubio wrote. He then added: “The world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator.”
In a speech in April, when he was still White House policy chief for Latin America, Mr. Cruz issued a message to the Venezuelan military. Referring to Mr. Maduro as a “madman,” Mr. Cruz said all Venezuelans should “urge the military to respect the oath they took to perform their functions. Honor your oath.”
As the crisis in Venezuela worsened in recent years, American officials debated the pros and cons of opening lines of dialogue with rebellious factions of the military.
“There were differences of opinion,” said Ms. Aponte, the former top Latin America diplomat under Mr. Obama. “There were people who had a lot of faith in the idea that they could bring about stability, help distribute food, work on practical stuff.”
But others — including Ms. Aponte — saw considerable risk in building bridges with leaders of a military that, in Washington’s assessment, has become a pillar of the cocaine trade and human rights abuses.
Roberta Jacobson, a former ambassador to Mexico who preceded Ms. Aponte as the top State Department official for Latin America policy, said that while Washington has long regarded the Venezuelan military as “widely corrupt, deeply involved in narcotics trafficking and very unsavory,” she saw merit in establishing a back channel with some of them.
“Given the broader breakdown in institutions in Venezuela, there was a feeling that — while they were not necessarily the answer — any kind of democratic resolution would have had to have the military on board,” said Ms. Jacobson, who retired from the State Department this year. “The idea of hearing from actors in those places, no matter how unsavory they may be, is integral to diplomacy.”
But whatever the rationale, holding discussions with coup plotters could set off alarms in a region with a list of infamous interventions: the Central Intelligence Agency’s failed Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro as leader of Cuba in 1961; the American-supported coup in Chile in 1973, which led to the long military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet; and the Reagan administration’s covert support of right-wing rebels known as the contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
In Venezuela, a coup in 2002 briefly deposed Mr. Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez. The United States knew a plot was being hatched but warned against it, according to a classified document that was later made public. The coup took place anyway and the George W. Bush administration opened a channel to the new leader. Officials then backed away from the new government after popular anger rose against the coup and countries in the region loudly denounced it. Mr. Chávez was reinstated as president.
In the latest coup plot, the number of military figures connected to the plan dwindled from a high of about 300 to 400 last year to about half that after a crackdown this year by Mr. Maduro’s government.
The former Venezuelan military officer worries that the 150 or so comrades who have been detained are probably being tortured. He lamented that the United States did not supply the mutineers with radios, which he believes could have changed the country’s history.
“I’m disappointed,” he said. “But I’m the least affected. I’m not a prisoner.”
President Nicolás Maduro at a ceremony in Caracas. The White House declined to answer detailed questions about talks with rebellious officers.CreditCreditJuan Barreto/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
By Ernesto Londoño and Nicholas Casey
Sept. 8, 2018
The Trump administration held secret meetings with rebellious military officers from Venezuela over the last year to discuss their plans to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro, according to American officials and a former Venezuelan military commander who participated in the talks.
Establishing a clandestine channel with coup plotters in Venezuela was a big gamble for Washington, given its long history of covert intervention across Latin America. Many in the region still deeply resent the United States for backing previous rebellions, coups and plots in countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil and Chile, and for turning a blind eye to the abuses military regimes committed during the Cold War.
The White House, which declined to answer detailed questions about the talks, said in a statement that it was important to engage in “dialogue with all Venezuelans who demonstrate a desire for democracy” in order to “bring positive change to a country that has suffered so much under Maduro.”
But one of the Venezuelan military commanders involved in the secret talks was hardly an ideal figure to help restore democracy: He is on the American government’s own sanctions list of corrupt officials in Venezuela.
He and other members of the Venezuelan security apparatus have been accused by Washington of a wide range of serious crimes, including torturing critics, jailing hundreds of political prisoners, wounding thousands of civilians, trafficking drugs and collaborating with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States.
American officials eventually decided not to help the plotters, and the coup plans stalled. But the Trump administration’s willingness to meet several times with mutinous officers intent on toppling a president in the hemisphere could backfire politically.
You have 2 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
Most Latin American leaders agree that Venezuela’s president, Mr. Maduro, is an increasingly authoritarian ruler who has effectively ruined his country’s economy, leading to extreme shortages of food and medicine. The collapse has set off an exodus of desperate Venezuelans who are spilling over borders, overwhelming their neighbors.
Even so, Mr. Maduro has long justified his grip on Venezuela by claiming that Washington imperialists are actively trying to depose him, and the secret talks could provide him with ammunition to chip away at the region’s nearly united stance against him.
“This is going to land like a bomb” in the region, said Mari Carmen Aponte, who served as the top diplomat overseeing Latin American affairs in the final months of the Obama administration.
Image
Mr. Maduro at a meeting with ministers in Caracas this month. Most Latin American leaders agree that he is an increasingly authoritarian ruler who has effectively ruined his country’s economy.CreditMiraflores Palace
Beyond the coup plot, Mr. Maduro’s government has already fended off several small-scale attacks, including salvos from a helicopter last year and exploding drones as he gave a speech in August. The attacks have added to the sense that the president is vulnerable.
Venezuelan military officials sought direct access to the American government during Barack Obama’s presidency, only to be rebuffed, officials said.
Then in August of last year, President Trump declared that the United States had a “military option” for Venezuela — a declaration that drew condemnation from American allies in the region but encouraged rebellious Venezuelan military officers to reach out to Washington once again.
“It was the commander in chief saying this now,” the former Venezuelan commander on the sanctions list said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals by the Venezuelan government. “I’m not going to doubt it when this was the messenger.”
In a series of covert meetings abroad, which began last fall and continued this year, the military officers told the American government that they represented a few hundred members of the armed forces who had soured on Mr. Maduro’s authoritarianism.
The officers asked the United States to supply them with encrypted radios, citing the need to communicate securely, as they developed a plan to install a transitional government to run the country until elections could be held.
American officials did not provide material support, and the plans unraveled after a recent crackdown that led to the arrest of dozens of the plotters.
Relations between the United States and Venezuela have been strained for years. The two have not exchanged ambassadors since 2010. After Mr. Trump took office, his administration increased sanctions against top Venezuelan officials, including Mr. Maduro himself, his vice president and other top officials in the government.
The account of the clandestine meetings and the policy debates preceding them is drawn from interviews with 11 current and former American officials, as well as the former Venezuelan commander. He said at least three distinct groups within the Venezuelan military had been plotting against the Maduro government.
One established contact with the American government by approaching the United States Embassy in a European capital. When this was reported back to Washington, officials at the White House were intrigued but apprehensive. They worried that the meeting request could be a ploy to surreptitiously record an American official appearing to conspire against the Venezuelan government, officials said.
Venezuelans waiting to buy government-subsidized food in Caracas in May. The country is experiencing extreme shortages of food and medicine.CreditMeridith Kohut for The New York Times
But as the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela worsened last year, American officials felt that having a clearer picture of the plans and the men who aspired to oust Mr. Maduro was worth the risk.
“After a lot of discussion, we agreed we should listen to what they had to say,” said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak about the secret talks.
The administration initially considered dispatching Juan Cruz, a veteran Central Intelligence Agency official who recently stepped down as the White House’s top Latin America policymaker. But White House lawyers said it would be more prudent to send a career diplomat instead.
The American envoy was instructed to attend the meetings “purely on listening mode,” and was not authorized to negotiate anything of substance on the spot, according to the senior administration official.
After the first meeting, which took place in the fall of 2017, the diplomat reported that the Venezuelans didn’t appear to have a detailed plan and had showed up at the encounter hoping the Americans would offer guidance or ideas, officials said.
The former Venezuelan commander said that the rebellious officers never asked for an American military intervention. “I never agreed, nor did they propose, to do a joint operation,” he said.
He claimed that he and his comrades considered striking last summer, when the government suspended the powers of the legislature and installed a new national assembly loyal to Mr. Maduro. But he said they aborted the plan, fearing it would lead to bloodshed.
They later planned to take power in March, the former officer said, but that plan leaked. Finally, the dissidents looked to the May 20 election, during which Mr. Maduro was re-elected, as a new target date. But again, word got out and the plotters held their fire.
It is unclear how many of these details the coup planners shared with the Americans. But there is no indication that Mr. Maduro knew the mutinous officers were talking to the Americans at all.
For any of the plots to have worked, the former commander said, he and his comrades believed they needed to detain Mr. Maduro and other top government figures simultaneously. To do that, he added, the rebel officers needed a way to communicate securely. They made their request during their second meeting with the American diplomat, which took place last year.
Lawmakers in Caracas last month. The plotters considered striking last summer, when the government suspended the powers of the legislature and installed a new assembly loyal to Mr. Maduro.CreditCristian Hernandez/EPA, via Shutterstock
The American diplomat relayed the request to Washington, where senior officials turned it down, American officials said.
“We were frustrated,” said the former Venezuelan commander. “There was a lack of follow-through. They left me waiting.”
The American diplomat then met the coup plotters a third time early this year, but the discussions did not result in a promise of material aid or even a clear signal that Washington endorsed the rebels’ plans, according to the Venezuelan commander and several American officials.
Still, the Venezuelan plotters could view the meetings as tacit approval of their plans, argued Peter Kornbluh, a historian at the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
“The United States always has an interest in gathering intelligence on potential changes of leadership in governments,” Mr. Kornbluh said. “But the mere presence of a U.S. official at such a meeting would likely be perceived as encouragement.”
In its statement, the White House called the situation in Venezuela “a threat to regional security and democracy” and said that the Trump administration would continue to strengthen a coalition of “like-minded, and right-minded, partners from Europe to Asia to the Americas to pressure the Maduro regime to restore democracy in Venezuela.”
American officials have openly discussed the possibility that Venezuela’s military could take action.
On Feb. 1, Rex W. Tillerson, who was secretary of state at the time, delivered a speech in which he said the United States had not “advocated for regime change or removal of President Maduro.” Yet, responding to a question afterward, Mr. Tillerson raised the potential for a military coup.
“When things are so bad that the military leadership realizes that it just can’t serve the citizens anymore, they will manage a peaceful transition,” he said.
Days later, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who has sought to shape the Trump administration’s approach toward Latin America, wrote a series of Twitter posts that encouraged dissident members of the Venezuelan armed forces to topple their commander in chief.
Venezuelans waiting to register with the Brazilian immigration authorities in April. The economic collapse has set off an exodus of desperate Venezuelans.CreditMeridith Kohut for The New York Times
“Soldiers eat out of garbage cans & their families go hungry in Venezuela while Maduro & friends live like kings & block humanitarian aid,” Mr. Rubio wrote. He then added: “The world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator.”
In a speech in April, when he was still White House policy chief for Latin America, Mr. Cruz issued a message to the Venezuelan military. Referring to Mr. Maduro as a “madman,” Mr. Cruz said all Venezuelans should “urge the military to respect the oath they took to perform their functions. Honor your oath.”
As the crisis in Venezuela worsened in recent years, American officials debated the pros and cons of opening lines of dialogue with rebellious factions of the military.
“There were differences of opinion,” said Ms. Aponte, the former top Latin America diplomat under Mr. Obama. “There were people who had a lot of faith in the idea that they could bring about stability, help distribute food, work on practical stuff.”
But others — including Ms. Aponte — saw considerable risk in building bridges with leaders of a military that, in Washington’s assessment, has become a pillar of the cocaine trade and human rights abuses.
Roberta Jacobson, a former ambassador to Mexico who preceded Ms. Aponte as the top State Department official for Latin America policy, said that while Washington has long regarded the Venezuelan military as “widely corrupt, deeply involved in narcotics trafficking and very unsavory,” she saw merit in establishing a back channel with some of them.
“Given the broader breakdown in institutions in Venezuela, there was a feeling that — while they were not necessarily the answer — any kind of democratic resolution would have had to have the military on board,” said Ms. Jacobson, who retired from the State Department this year. “The idea of hearing from actors in those places, no matter how unsavory they may be, is integral to diplomacy.”
But whatever the rationale, holding discussions with coup plotters could set off alarms in a region with a list of infamous interventions: the Central Intelligence Agency’s failed Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro as leader of Cuba in 1961; the American-supported coup in Chile in 1973, which led to the long military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet; and the Reagan administration’s covert support of right-wing rebels known as the contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
In Venezuela, a coup in 2002 briefly deposed Mr. Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez. The United States knew a plot was being hatched but warned against it, according to a classified document that was later made public. The coup took place anyway and the George W. Bush administration opened a channel to the new leader. Officials then backed away from the new government after popular anger rose against the coup and countries in the region loudly denounced it. Mr. Chávez was reinstated as president.
In the latest coup plot, the number of military figures connected to the plan dwindled from a high of about 300 to 400 last year to about half that after a crackdown this year by Mr. Maduro’s government.
The former Venezuelan military officer worries that the 150 or so comrades who have been detained are probably being tortured. He lamented that the United States did not supply the mutineers with radios, which he believes could have changed the country’s history.
“I’m disappointed,” he said. “But I’m the least affected. I’m not a prisoner.”
Facebook's former security chief: US elections at risk of being 'World Cup of information warfare' - CNN Tech
Facebook's former security chief: US elections at risk of being 'World Cup of information warfare'
by Laurie Segall @LaurieSegallCNN
September 4, 2018: 9:27 AM ET
Ex-Facebook security boss: U.S. elections risk becoming 'World Cup of information warfare'
After three years in the trenches of Facebook's war against disinformation, Alex Stamos brings bad news from the front: US elections are at risk of becoming the "World Cup of information warfare."
"That campaign to drive wedges into American society has not stopped. If anything, it has intensified," Stamos told CNN recently.
Stamos is not an alarmist. He has spent the better part of the past two decades in the digital security business, most recently as the head of information security at Facebook. Before that, he spent a few years at Yahoo — where, among other things, he warned US lawmakers about the impact of online advertising on data security and privacy. He has over the years earned a reputation for speaking his mind, and at one point challenged Michael Rogers, head of the National Security Agency at the time, on the finer points of data encryption.
His warning comes as Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and other tech leaders are set to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The panel, led by Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Mark Warner, wants to know just what Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others are doing to safeguard November's midterm elections against the sort of disinformation campaigns that peppered their platforms in 2016.
Stamos recently left Facebook, reportedly because he felt the company should be more forthcoming in disclosing Russia's efforts to use the platform to disseminate disinformation. Despite his departure, he told CNN that he gives Facebook and other tech companies credit for moving aggressively to address the problem.
"Facebook has done all of the reasonable steps possible to stop what happened in 2016," he told CNN, referring to the fake accounts and pages that littered the platform. But he warned that it would be difficult to predict how miscreants might use social media to sow discord ahead of the 2018 and 2020 elections. And he said that although most of the attention remains focused on Russia, "dozens" of US adversaries possess cyber warfare capabilities.
That point was underscored earlier this month when Facebook announced the removal of 652 pages, accounts and groups it identified as part of coordinated misinformation campaigns that originated in Iran. The tally included 254 Facebook pages and 116 Instagram accounts that, taken together, amassed more than 1 million followers.
That same day, Twitter said it had removed 284 accounts, many of them also traced to Tehran.
Stamos told CNN he believes that the government has failed to adequately address the problem. America, he said, is under attack, and must respond accordingly.
"Two years after Pearl Harbor, the United States had quadrupled the size of our Navy. We were already on an unstoppable path to the Japanese home islands in the Pacific theater," he said. "Two years on from the election and people are still arguing whether we were even attacked and I find that amazing."
The US intelligence community has agreed that the Russian government actively used social media platforms to influence the 2016 election. In February, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office indicted 13 Russian nationals who allegedly did just that, charging them with conspiracy to defraud the United States. The Russians had engaged in a campaign of "information warfare against the United States," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said at the time.
Another indictment, handed down in July, outlined how Russian military intelligence officials allegedly obtained through hacking and then disseminated emails belonging to the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Looking back, Stamos told CNN, he was disappointed that the government seemed less interested in the scope of the problem when initially approached in the spring of 2017.
"Considering how much things blew up later in the year, there was a lot less interest from Congress than I would've expected," he said, adding that it seemed most Republicans weren't interested in revisiting what happened in 2016 and that on the Democratic side, it appeared there was less interest because Facebook wasn't pointing to activity directed by the Trump campaign.
Stamos said he believes politics are getting in the way of handling the growing threat of attacks made through social media platforms.
"The political polarization on election hacking is a horrible, horrible problem for the country," he told CNN. "It's the reason why we are in not much better shape in 2018 than we were in 2016."
Stamos told CNN that the government must move more aggressively to safeguard the nation's elections. He has among other things called on Congress to pass legislation addressing online disinformation and create a cybersecurity agency dedicated to protecting US elections and voting infrastructure. He also believes each US state must take more assertive steps to ensure the integrity of elections.
"We have the risk of turning our elections into the World Cup of information warfare, where everybody wants to have a piece in it, because we have not demonstrated that we will punish countries that do this to us and we have not addressed the fundamental issues that caused us to get here in the first place," he said.
Companies like Facebook and Twitter are under close watch as they struggle with the role of cracking down on content in a politically charged environment. Stamos offered a view into the dilemma Facebook and other companies face.
"If there's anything I've learned over the last three years it's that you can't win, right? Any content decision we make, any step we take to try to do something that sounds not controversial like protecting election will be portrayed by somebody else as being a partisan decision," he explained.
by Laurie Segall @LaurieSegallCNN
September 4, 2018: 9:27 AM ET
Ex-Facebook security boss: U.S. elections risk becoming 'World Cup of information warfare'
After three years in the trenches of Facebook's war against disinformation, Alex Stamos brings bad news from the front: US elections are at risk of becoming the "World Cup of information warfare."
"That campaign to drive wedges into American society has not stopped. If anything, it has intensified," Stamos told CNN recently.
Stamos is not an alarmist. He has spent the better part of the past two decades in the digital security business, most recently as the head of information security at Facebook. Before that, he spent a few years at Yahoo — where, among other things, he warned US lawmakers about the impact of online advertising on data security and privacy. He has over the years earned a reputation for speaking his mind, and at one point challenged Michael Rogers, head of the National Security Agency at the time, on the finer points of data encryption.
His warning comes as Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and other tech leaders are set to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The panel, led by Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Mark Warner, wants to know just what Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others are doing to safeguard November's midterm elections against the sort of disinformation campaigns that peppered their platforms in 2016.
Stamos recently left Facebook, reportedly because he felt the company should be more forthcoming in disclosing Russia's efforts to use the platform to disseminate disinformation. Despite his departure, he told CNN that he gives Facebook and other tech companies credit for moving aggressively to address the problem.
"Facebook has done all of the reasonable steps possible to stop what happened in 2016," he told CNN, referring to the fake accounts and pages that littered the platform. But he warned that it would be difficult to predict how miscreants might use social media to sow discord ahead of the 2018 and 2020 elections. And he said that although most of the attention remains focused on Russia, "dozens" of US adversaries possess cyber warfare capabilities.
That point was underscored earlier this month when Facebook announced the removal of 652 pages, accounts and groups it identified as part of coordinated misinformation campaigns that originated in Iran. The tally included 254 Facebook pages and 116 Instagram accounts that, taken together, amassed more than 1 million followers.
That same day, Twitter said it had removed 284 accounts, many of them also traced to Tehran.
Stamos told CNN he believes that the government has failed to adequately address the problem. America, he said, is under attack, and must respond accordingly.
"Two years after Pearl Harbor, the United States had quadrupled the size of our Navy. We were already on an unstoppable path to the Japanese home islands in the Pacific theater," he said. "Two years on from the election and people are still arguing whether we were even attacked and I find that amazing."
The US intelligence community has agreed that the Russian government actively used social media platforms to influence the 2016 election. In February, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office indicted 13 Russian nationals who allegedly did just that, charging them with conspiracy to defraud the United States. The Russians had engaged in a campaign of "information warfare against the United States," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said at the time.
Another indictment, handed down in July, outlined how Russian military intelligence officials allegedly obtained through hacking and then disseminated emails belonging to the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Looking back, Stamos told CNN, he was disappointed that the government seemed less interested in the scope of the problem when initially approached in the spring of 2017.
"Considering how much things blew up later in the year, there was a lot less interest from Congress than I would've expected," he said, adding that it seemed most Republicans weren't interested in revisiting what happened in 2016 and that on the Democratic side, it appeared there was less interest because Facebook wasn't pointing to activity directed by the Trump campaign.
Stamos said he believes politics are getting in the way of handling the growing threat of attacks made through social media platforms.
"The political polarization on election hacking is a horrible, horrible problem for the country," he told CNN. "It's the reason why we are in not much better shape in 2018 than we were in 2016."
Stamos told CNN that the government must move more aggressively to safeguard the nation's elections. He has among other things called on Congress to pass legislation addressing online disinformation and create a cybersecurity agency dedicated to protecting US elections and voting infrastructure. He also believes each US state must take more assertive steps to ensure the integrity of elections.
"We have the risk of turning our elections into the World Cup of information warfare, where everybody wants to have a piece in it, because we have not demonstrated that we will punish countries that do this to us and we have not addressed the fundamental issues that caused us to get here in the first place," he said.
Companies like Facebook and Twitter are under close watch as they struggle with the role of cracking down on content in a politically charged environment. Stamos offered a view into the dilemma Facebook and other companies face.
"If there's anything I've learned over the last three years it's that you can't win, right? Any content decision we make, any step we take to try to do something that sounds not controversial like protecting election will be portrayed by somebody else as being a partisan decision," he explained.
Alibaba's Jack Ma 'to step down and focus on philanthropy'- BBC News
Sept. 8, 2018.
Alibaba's Jack Ma 'to step down and focus on philanthropy'
Jack Ma has a net personal wealth of $40bn
One of China's richest men, Jack Ma, is to step down as executive chairman of the Alibaba e-commerce empire on Monday, the New York Times reported.
He will remain on Alibaba's board of directors but focus on philanthropy in education, the newspaper said.
Mr Ma co-founded Alibaba in 1999 and has seen it become one of the world's biggest internet companies.
With a market value of more than $400bn (£309bn), it includes online selling, film production and cloud computing.
In an interview with the Times, former English teacher Mr Ma said retirement would not be the end of an era but "the beginning of an era", adding: "I love education".
Alibaba's sales surge continues
Mr Ma, who will be 54 on Monday, has a net personal wealth of $40bn, making him the third richest person in China, according to the 2017 Forbes' China rich list.
Earlier this week, Mr Ma told Bloomberg TV that he wanted to create a personal foundation, following in the footsteps of Microsoft's Bill Gates.
"There's a lot of things I can learn from Bill Gates," he said.
"I can never be as rich, but one thing I can do better is to retire earlier. I think some day, and soon, I'll go back to teaching. This is something I think I can do much better than being CEO of Alibaba."
Mr Ma began his professional life teaching English at a university in the Chinese city of Hangzhou, in eastern Zhejiang province. He started Alibaba from his flat in Hangzhou with a group of friends.
Alibaba's Jack Ma 'to step down and focus on philanthropy'
Jack Ma has a net personal wealth of $40bn
One of China's richest men, Jack Ma, is to step down as executive chairman of the Alibaba e-commerce empire on Monday, the New York Times reported.
He will remain on Alibaba's board of directors but focus on philanthropy in education, the newspaper said.
Mr Ma co-founded Alibaba in 1999 and has seen it become one of the world's biggest internet companies.
With a market value of more than $400bn (£309bn), it includes online selling, film production and cloud computing.
In an interview with the Times, former English teacher Mr Ma said retirement would not be the end of an era but "the beginning of an era", adding: "I love education".
Alibaba's sales surge continues
Mr Ma, who will be 54 on Monday, has a net personal wealth of $40bn, making him the third richest person in China, according to the 2017 Forbes' China rich list.
Earlier this week, Mr Ma told Bloomberg TV that he wanted to create a personal foundation, following in the footsteps of Microsoft's Bill Gates.
"There's a lot of things I can learn from Bill Gates," he said.
"I can never be as rich, but one thing I can do better is to retire earlier. I think some day, and soon, I'll go back to teaching. This is something I think I can do much better than being CEO of Alibaba."
Mr Ma began his professional life teaching English at a university in the Chinese city of Hangzhou, in eastern Zhejiang province. He started Alibaba from his flat in Hangzhou with a group of friends.
George Papadopoulos: Ex-Trump adviser jailed in Russia inquiry - BBC News
Sept. 8, 2018.
George Papadopoulos: Ex-Trump adviser jailed in Russia inquiry
George Papadopoulos and his wife Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos arrive at US District Court for his sentencing
The former Trump adviser whose remarks in a London pub sparked the US inquiry into possible collusion with Russia has been sentenced to 14 days in jail.
George Papadopoulos, 31, told the court in Washington DC he was a "patriotic American" who made a mistake by lying.
He pleaded guilty last October to lying to the FBI about the timing of meetings with alleged go-betweens for Moscow.
He was the first former Trump aide arrested in the probe into an alleged Kremlin plot to sway the 2016 US vote.
US President Donald Trump reacted by taking an apparent swipe at the cost of the investigation into the former aide.
Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
14 days for $28 MILLION - $2 MILLION a day, No Collusion. A great day for America!
7:39 AM - Sep 8, 2018
Who's who in the Russia-Trump inquiry?
How Trump's Russia trouble unfolded
In Friday's sentencing, Papadopoulos was also handed 12 months of supervised release, 200 hours of community service, and a fine of $9,500 (£7,350).
He said in court that his "entire life has been turned upside down" and he hoped "for a second chance to redeem myself".
Papadopoulos concluded by saying "this investigation has global implications, and the truth matters".
Who is George Papadopoulos?
The Chicago native was a London-based petroleum analyst before he joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 as a volunteer foreign policy adviser.
Will Trump remain bulletproof?
Papadopoulos mistaken for Papadopoulos
Papadopoulos soon made contact with a mysterious Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud.
The professor told Papadopoulos the Russians had "dirt" on Mr Trump's Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails".
In the following months, thousands of emails linked to the Clinton campaign were published by Wikileaks.
What did Papadopoulo say he told Donald Trump?
The young political operative told Mr Trump, then a Republican presidential candidate, and other members of the campaign's national security team that he could set up a meeting with President Vladimir Putin ahead of the 2016 election.
Papadopoulos says he was told the Russians possessed "dirt" on Hillary Clinton
A pre-sentencing statement last week read: "While some in the room rebuffed George's offer, Mr Trump nodded with approval and deferred to Mr Sessions, who appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into it."
Papadopoulos told CNN in an interview aired on Friday that Mr Trump "gave me a sort of a nod" and "wasn't committed either way" about the idea of a meeting with the Russian leader.
But he said then-senator and now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions "was actually enthusiastic". Last November, Mr Sessions testified to Congress that he had "pushed back" against Papadopoulos' offer.
How did this come out?
American authorities were alerted in mid-2016 after Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat during a drinking session in a London pub about his meetings with Professor Mifsud.
The envoy told US investigators, shortly after the emails hacked from the Democratic Party were leaked.
When the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos in January 2017, he falsely claimed he had met two individuals with Russian ties before he joined the president's team in March 2016.
He had actually met them after joining Mr Trump's campaign.
One individual was a Russian woman who Papadopoulos believed had connections to the Russian government.
In July 2018, the US Department of Justice charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking Democratic officials.
What affect did the lies have?
Prosecutors said Papadopoulos's lack of cooperation with investigators meant they were unable to effectively question or detain Mr Mifsud. The professor has since left the United States.
No connection between Mr Misfud and the hacked emails has been proven.
The mystery professor behind Trump Russia inquiry
The Democratic National Committee, which is suing Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the alleged election interference in the 2016, filed a court document on Friday, saying Mr Mifsud "was missing and may be deceased", without any further explanation, according to Bloomberg News.
It referred to him as a key figure to have evaded the Mueller inquiry.
What did Papadopoulos say?
"I made a dreadful mistake, but I am a good man who is eager for redemption," Papadopoulos said.
He said he lied not to impede investigation but "to preserve a perhaps misguided loyalty to his master".
Judge Randolph Moss said he took the "genuine remorse" into consideration for the sentencing.
The only other person to be sentenced in the investigation - lawyer Alex Van Der Zwaan - received 30 days in prison. His judge referred to his regret as "muted".
Outside court on Friday, Papadopoulos' lawyer, Thomas Breen, said his client was a "fool" and had acted "stupidly" in lying to the FBI.
But the attorney said "the president of the United States hindered this investigation more than Papadopoulos ever could".
He said Mr Trump had hampered the inquiry by calling it a "witch hunt" and "fake news".
George Papadopoulos: Ex-Trump adviser jailed in Russia inquiry
George Papadopoulos and his wife Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos arrive at US District Court for his sentencing
The former Trump adviser whose remarks in a London pub sparked the US inquiry into possible collusion with Russia has been sentenced to 14 days in jail.
George Papadopoulos, 31, told the court in Washington DC he was a "patriotic American" who made a mistake by lying.
He pleaded guilty last October to lying to the FBI about the timing of meetings with alleged go-betweens for Moscow.
He was the first former Trump aide arrested in the probe into an alleged Kremlin plot to sway the 2016 US vote.
US President Donald Trump reacted by taking an apparent swipe at the cost of the investigation into the former aide.
Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
14 days for $28 MILLION - $2 MILLION a day, No Collusion. A great day for America!
7:39 AM - Sep 8, 2018
Who's who in the Russia-Trump inquiry?
How Trump's Russia trouble unfolded
In Friday's sentencing, Papadopoulos was also handed 12 months of supervised release, 200 hours of community service, and a fine of $9,500 (£7,350).
He said in court that his "entire life has been turned upside down" and he hoped "for a second chance to redeem myself".
Papadopoulos concluded by saying "this investigation has global implications, and the truth matters".
Who is George Papadopoulos?
The Chicago native was a London-based petroleum analyst before he joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 as a volunteer foreign policy adviser.
Will Trump remain bulletproof?
Papadopoulos mistaken for Papadopoulos
Papadopoulos soon made contact with a mysterious Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud.
The professor told Papadopoulos the Russians had "dirt" on Mr Trump's Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails".
In the following months, thousands of emails linked to the Clinton campaign were published by Wikileaks.
What did Papadopoulo say he told Donald Trump?
The young political operative told Mr Trump, then a Republican presidential candidate, and other members of the campaign's national security team that he could set up a meeting with President Vladimir Putin ahead of the 2016 election.
Papadopoulos says he was told the Russians possessed "dirt" on Hillary Clinton
A pre-sentencing statement last week read: "While some in the room rebuffed George's offer, Mr Trump nodded with approval and deferred to Mr Sessions, who appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into it."
Papadopoulos told CNN in an interview aired on Friday that Mr Trump "gave me a sort of a nod" and "wasn't committed either way" about the idea of a meeting with the Russian leader.
But he said then-senator and now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions "was actually enthusiastic". Last November, Mr Sessions testified to Congress that he had "pushed back" against Papadopoulos' offer.
How did this come out?
American authorities were alerted in mid-2016 after Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat during a drinking session in a London pub about his meetings with Professor Mifsud.
The envoy told US investigators, shortly after the emails hacked from the Democratic Party were leaked.
When the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos in January 2017, he falsely claimed he had met two individuals with Russian ties before he joined the president's team in March 2016.
He had actually met them after joining Mr Trump's campaign.
One individual was a Russian woman who Papadopoulos believed had connections to the Russian government.
In July 2018, the US Department of Justice charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking Democratic officials.
What affect did the lies have?
Prosecutors said Papadopoulos's lack of cooperation with investigators meant they were unable to effectively question or detain Mr Mifsud. The professor has since left the United States.
No connection between Mr Misfud and the hacked emails has been proven.
The mystery professor behind Trump Russia inquiry
The Democratic National Committee, which is suing Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the alleged election interference in the 2016, filed a court document on Friday, saying Mr Mifsud "was missing and may be deceased", without any further explanation, according to Bloomberg News.
It referred to him as a key figure to have evaded the Mueller inquiry.
What did Papadopoulos say?
"I made a dreadful mistake, but I am a good man who is eager for redemption," Papadopoulos said.
He said he lied not to impede investigation but "to preserve a perhaps misguided loyalty to his master".
Judge Randolph Moss said he took the "genuine remorse" into consideration for the sentencing.
The only other person to be sentenced in the investigation - lawyer Alex Van Der Zwaan - received 30 days in prison. His judge referred to his regret as "muted".
Outside court on Friday, Papadopoulos' lawyer, Thomas Breen, said his client was a "fool" and had acted "stupidly" in lying to the FBI.
But the attorney said "the president of the United States hindered this investigation more than Papadopoulos ever could".
He said Mr Trump had hampered the inquiry by calling it a "witch hunt" and "fake news".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
