Friday, June 9, 2017

US senator Bernie Sanders on socialism and Donald Trump - Financial Times

US senator Bernie Sanders on socialism and Donald Trump

Over cakes in Dublin, he talks about the GOP, the left, and why Trump is ‘actually quite smart’
A Sunday quiet reigns at the Irish president’s vast white mansion in Dublin’s Phoenix Park. Outside the pad, where British viceroys once lived, a couple of presidential aides, beautifully dressed soldiers and I stand waiting for US Senator Bernie Sanders to arrive. There is gentle Irish banter. Cows watch from the meadow opposite. It’s relaxing. Since my taxi motored through the presidential gates, nobody has asked me for ID or put me through a scanner or even patted me down.

Sanders’ car pulls up (brilliantly, his Irish driver is called Bernie Saunders) and the senator clambers out, his shoulders hunched, his suit crumpled, his strands of white hair unkempt, not the standard American politician with Botox and a hair transplant. Today he is tieless, too: he has been assured that Irish president Michael D Higgins won’t mind. The tiny Higgins appears, dispensing handshakes and hugs.

Sanders is the most popular current politician in the US, according to a Harvard-Harris survey in April for American political website The Hill. Many polls suggest that the 75-year-old independent leftwing Senator from Vermont would have beaten Donald Trump in last year’s US election, if only he had got past Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. For all the talk about rightwing populism, “Bernie” has become the cult hero of an equally surprising new-old international movement: socialism. Dublin, where he will kick off the Dalkey Book Festival, is the last leg of a European tour where he has been speaking to (or yelling at) packed crowds.

Inside Higgins’ mansion, Sanders settles into a sofa from Versailles (a gift from some French president), and listens to a group of locals lecture him on Ireland’s oligarchy, income divides and corporate-controlled media. “These issues, they are in all countries,” he observes.

Afterwards Higgins comes out to wave us off like a kindly grandfather. But traffic into central Dublin is terrible. It is decided that our two cars need an official escort. A chatty policeman shows up on a motorbike, turns on his sirens, and zigzags us through traffic jams, imperiously waving away stray cars. It’s magic. I sit alone on the back seat of my car, watching Dubliners at bus stops, British stag and hen parties, and a priest in a dog collar scrutinise me, wondering who this superstar might be. It’s a taste of Sanders’ new life.

****

On arrival at the Westbury Hotel, though, a packed lobby ignores Sanders. Chinese tourists have clearly not yet “felt the Bern”, and I see only one local turn in half-recognition. Sanders drops his bags in his room, then joins me in the hotel restaurant, Wilde, where we have a table at the back shielded by curtains. A log fire is burning — a bit much for June, even in a country without a summer.

“Tea would be wonderful,” Sanders tells the waiter. He means the drink, not the meal. Eating doesn’t seem to have occurred to him so, to jolly things along, I order us plates of cakes and fruit. I have been warned that Sanders hates anything so trivial as talking about himself, or looking back, or discussing whether he will run for president in 2020, aged 79. What he likes is talking policy. So I plunge in.

He said after last year’s election that if Trump was sincere about his campaign promises to help the working class, Sanders was willing to work with him. Is it now clear that Trump wasn’t — ?

“Yes, I think it is very clear,” interrupts that famous throwback Brooklyn accent, product of cramped, rent-controlled apartment 2C on East 26th Street. “During his campaign, Trump said some very interesting things. Unfortunately his policies have been diametrically in opposition to what he said. I think essentially he lied on almost every major issue. And the clearest examples are the two major proposals in the last month, the healthcare proposal and, even worse, the budget.”

Staring into the middle distance, he recites the litany: the Republican healthcare plan, already passed by the US House of Representatives, would throw 23m people off health insurance. Trump’s proposed budget, says Sanders, “is the most outrageous transfer of wealth from working people to the top 1 per cent that we have ever seen. It’s a budget that’s not going to go anyplace.”

Sanders considers the Republican party the creature of billionaire donors such as the industrialist Koch brothers. Does he think Trump is an ignoramus who simply wandered into that set-up?

“No, I think Trump is actually quite smart — in his own way and for his own reasons. He may not know a lot about foreign policy or healthcare, but he is not a dumb man by any means. I think what Trump is doing is filling the agenda of people like the Koch brothers: essentially doing away with every major programme passed since Franklin D Roosevelt that would help working people, the elderly, children, the sick and the poor, and at the same time providing massive tax breaks to the rich and large corporations. In this budget, Trump did not propose cuts to social security [the American retirement programme], but I have zero doubt that will be coming down the pike.”

Sanders considers today’s Republicans an “extreme right” party. In the past, he says, “centre-right” Republicans such as Dwight D Eisenhower competed with conservative Republicans. “What you have now are, in a sense, rightwing Republicans competing with extreme rightwing Republicans.” Still, he adds: “A lot of Republicans in the House and Senate are not indecent human beings.”

Such as who?

“I don’t want to get into names. I’ll get them into trouble. You see people like John McCain speaking out on this or that issue.”

When I mention that many Europeans see Trump’s US as a rogue state, Sanders gets so excited that he spills his tea. Mopping distractedly, he cautions: “What I would say to our European friends is not to confuse Donald Trump with the people of the United States.” And here Sanders gets to the essence of his self-understanding: that he himself, far from being a radical leftist, speaks for the American silent majority. He believes his socialism is mainstream.

“Here’s what I think is going on. If you were to tell Americans that if you are 70 and the doctor diagnoses you with cancer, that there should not be a healthcare programme to protect you, 90 per cent of people say, ‘You’re out of your mind, you want to get rid of Medicare? What are you talking about? You want to get rid of federal aid to education? That’s nonsense.’ ” He thinks Republicans can win elections only through massive spending on campaigns that highlight personality rather than issues.

His own campaign was different: “We started off with no political organisation. None. I don’t believe I knew one person in the state of Iowa.” When I remark that the notion of a self-described socialist winning the White House initially seemed insane, he cuts me off: “It was not insane.”

Was there a moment when he thought he might actually win? “Well, you go and you speak to 25,000, 30,000 people and you think it’s real. One of the beautiful things is we would literally read in the newspapers about rallies and events and activities taking place in the state that we had zero to do with. I wish I could tell you it was a brilliant campaign organising all this. It wasn’t. It was a lot of spontaneous activities, which was, in retrospect, quite extraordinary.”

Sanders gets to Europe regularly. His 82-year-old brother Larry has lived in Oxford since the 1960s and this week stood, with Sanders’ endorsement, as a Green candidate in the UK’s parliamentary elections. When I suggest that Europe has done better than the US at providing his desired welfare state, Sanders agrees: “One of the reasons I’m here is, America has an extraordinary history and there’s a whole lot that we do that is very good. I’m proud of that. But in essence . . . ”

Just then two waiters arrive laden with cakes and fruit. “Oh my God, you think that’s enough food?” marvels Sanders. “As long as the Financial Times is paying! Simon, do you want some of this? Jam and butter and . . . ”

I say the presidential campaign was disgusting, tawdry and stupid. Sanders is delighted: ‘Take what you said, give it to me and put quotes around it’
Then he almost instantly forgets the food, and resumes talking nonstop. “Many Americans simply do not know that the social welfare system in America is so much weaker than in Europe. It has to do a lot with corporate media, has a lot to do with a two-party system which doesn’t really ask hard questions. Do you know how much it costs to go to university here, where we sit right now? It’s free. Do you think people in the US know that? People will be going, ‘Oh, Bernie, you’re radical.’ No. Much of what I propose is already in existence in many countries.”

So Europe helped shape his beliefs? “Yes. Europe and my belief that every person is entitled to basic human rights.”

I place the cake platter in front of him, in vain: the revolution doesn’t stop for tea. Despite Trump, Sanders describes the US moving his way: the millions on the streets protesting against the president, the California state senate voting last week for a single-payer universal healthcare system, New York’s decision to scrap tuition fees for less well-off students at state universities, and the overwhelming support he got from America’s under-40s in the Democratic primaries. “The younger generation in America is the least prejudiced in terms of race, gender, homophobia. It is a very open generation, a bright generation, a generation that I believe is prepared to think big and not just nibble around the edges.” It feels trivial to interrupt by asking him to pass the jam, so I pick off bits of plain scone with my left hand while fixing my gaze on him.

Sanders wants the “clearly failing” Democratic party to move left in response to the popular mood. The trend is international, he adds. He sees the British and French socialists Jeremy Corbyn and Jean-Luc Mélenchon (not to mention Pope Francis) as soulmates.

He is aching to run off but before I release him, I ask him why — as someone who’s been running for office for 40 years and must have a healthy ego — he’s so reluctant to talk about himself. “Year after year after year, there is more discussion about what I call political gossip, or personality. You know, ‘Let’s talk about Donald Trump and his life, about Hillary Clinton and her life’, rather than, ‘Gee, why are we the only major country not to have healthcare for all?’ I’m not running for dictator. I have ideas and I want to disseminate those ideas.”

I say the presidential campaign was mostly disgusting, tawdry and stupid. Sanders is delighted: “Take what you said, give it to me and put quotes around it.” He continues: “This is not a personality contest. Give you an example. George W Bush, who I did not know well, bumped into him now and then in the nature of things, happens to be a very nice guy. He’s funny, I don’t think he’s mean-spirited. His wife is I think a very decent person. Very nice daughters. He was one of the worst presidents in the history of America.

“Sometimes nice people do terrible, terrible things. And sometimes people who are not so nice — LBJ [President Lyndon B Johnson], my God, he was brutish in many ways, right? Yet he was one of the most progressive presidents in history.”



The waiters remove our delicious food almost untouched. Then Sanders and I cross the lobby to a room where two Irish genealogists are waiting with his ancestral chart, something the festival organisers used to lure his wife Jane (and thus Sanders himself) to Ireland. I tease him: “This is when you find out you’re not Jewish.” He guffaws: “This could be the moment of a lifetime.” His father was a Polish-Jewish paint salesman, his mother a Jewish New Yorker, their marriage often tense over lack of money. We walk in as a genealogist hands Jane (born O’Meara) an ancient donkey’s shoe unearthed on her ancestral Irish farmstead. Sanders beams: he knows what this means to her. Now it’s his turn. He sits down at the table where the mammoth chart is spread out. Instantly he points to the photograph identified as his mother and objects: “This is my mother’s sister.”

Jane intervenes: “No, it’s your mom.”

Sanders compromises: “She is very beautiful. I have not seen that photograph. This may be something I didn’t see.”

He scans the other pictures: “Uncle Sol — Uncle Willie we called him — lived in the same house that I did. Max — the only one in the family who actually made some money.”

He studies a photo of the large ancestral house in Slopnice, Poland, and a picture of the SS Lapland, the ship in which his father Eli sailed from Belgium to the US in 1921. The genealogist recites the fate of the relatives who stayed in Slopnice: “The Nazis came and your father’s half-brother was shot in the town square, in 1941.”

“Yep,” says Sanders.

The genealogist continues: “And his 11-year-old daughter Elena was killed as well.” He trails off awkwardly: “So every family has its story to tell.”

Sanders tells us that he and his brother went to meet the mayor of Slopnice, whose father remembered being at school with Elena. “The father said, ‘She was a beautiful little girl and she didn’t look Jewish. But they took her anyway.’ ”

Sanders rejects the American tradition in which every candidate must recount (or make up) some mawkish autobiographical creation myth, but here is his, unbidden. Born the year his father’s family was murdered, he grew up knowing that government mattered. Mentally, he never inhabited the consumerist postwar US in which Trump grew up. By 1963, Sanders was being dragged off by police after demonstrating against school segregation in Chicago. (Despite this, during the Democratic primaries some Clinton supporters accused him of not caring enough about black rights.)

His sense of purpose can make him exhausting company, Jane tells me later. “During the campaign, every three weeks he took a day off. Possibly. Or at least half a day. He’ll walk in after a long day and the grandkids will say, ‘Grandpa, can we play baseball?’ He’ll say, ‘Give me a minute’, and it will be literally a minute and he will be out playing baseball for over an hour.”

That evening Sanders speaks at a Dublin theatre. Here is a reversal of history: a wealthy Irish crowd, many of whose forebears emigrated to the US to escape poverty, has come to hear about poor Americans without health insurance. The 2,200 tickets sold out online in two minutes. For two hours, Sanders bellows facts about rich and poor. The standing ovations keep coming. Afterwards, at a late dinner, he interrogates his hosts about the Irish university funding system.

Simon Kuper is an FT columnist.

Who is Christopher Wray? Trump’s F.B.I. Pick - New York Times


Who is Christopher Wray? Trump’s F.B.I. Pick

WASHINGTON — Christopher A. Wray was the government’s top criminal prosecutor in 2004 when the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and the deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, threatened to quit the Bush administration over a controversial surveillance program. He offered to join their protest.

Now, with President Trump’s selection of Mr. Wray on Wednesday to be the director of the F.B.I., all three men will be central figures in the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election that has rocked the Trump administration. Mr. Mueller is leading the investigation into Russian influence — and the inquiry led Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Comey.

In choosing Mr. Wray, the president is calling on a veteran Washington lawyer who is more low key and deliberative than either Mr. Mueller or Mr. Comey but will remain independent, friends and former colleagues say.

“He’s not flashy. He’s not showy. He’s understated,” said J. Michael Luttig, a former judge who hired Mr. Wray as a law clerk in 1992. Mr. Luttig, who said he counted Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller as friends, said Mr. Wray would bring a more subtle management style to the F.B.I.

Continue reading the main story
Calling Mr. Wray a “man of impeccable credentials,” Mr. Trump revealed his choice in an early-morning tweet on the eve of a congressional hearing in which Mr. Comey was to testify about what he interpreted as improper attempts by Mr. Trump to pressure him.

Mr. Wray is a safe, mainstream pick from a president who at one point was considering politicians for a job that has historically been kept outside partisanship. A former assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush, Mr. Wray is likely to assuage the fears of F.B.I. agents who worried that Mr. Trump would try to weaken or politicize the agency.

Those who know Mr. Wray say his willingness to quit the Justice Department more than a decade ago as a matter of principle showed he would brush back attempts at political interference and try to protect the bureau’s independence.

Questions on that willingness are certain to come up at his Senate confirmation hearing. Mr. Trump has repeatedly interjected himself into criminal justice matters in ways that previous presidents have avoided. His dismissal of Mr. Comey has been criticized as an effort to obstruct the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s campaign and possible collusion with Russia.

Mr. Mueller is now acting as the Justice Department’s special counsel overseeing the investigation. He and Mr. Wray respect each other, Mr. Luttig said, predicting they would work well together.

If confirmed, Mr. Wray will have to balance fighting terrorism with trying to root out public corruption and confronting Russian and Chinese espionage at the nation’s top law enforcement organization, which has evolved into a major part of the national security apparatus. He would lead about 35,000 people at an agency where many are seeking a calming presence after nearly a year of turmoil.

“He’ll have a strong emphasis on creating and nurturing the trust of every F.B.I. agent,” said Joe D. Whitley, a former senior Justice Department official who has known Mr. Wray for years.

Mr. Wray is a familiar figure in Washington; he took a top job with the Justice Department in the spring of 2001, playing a pivotal role in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by overseeing operations.

Mr. Wray is likely to face questions at his confirmation hearing about what he knew about C.I.A. abuses in the years after the attacks and how the Justice Department responded to them.




According to government documents since made public, he was made aware in February 2004 of the death of a C.I.A. detainee in Iraq that had been ruled a homicide and whose case was referred to the Justice Department.

Months later, Mr. Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had learned about the death from media reports and was not aware of a criminal referral from the Pentagon or the F.B.I., but did not say whether he knew of one from the C.I.A. That prompted Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat, to accuse Mr. Wray of giving “less than a complete and truthful answer.”

Mr. Wray went on to serve as head of the criminal division from 2003 to 2005, directing efforts to deal with corporate fraud scandals and political investigations. Chris Swecker, the former head of the F.B.I. criminal investigations division, said Mr. Wray was unafraid to pursue sensitive corruption cases that included prosecutions of the disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the former Representatives Randy Cunningham and William J. Jefferson.

After leaving for private practice at the law firm King & Spalding, Mr. Wray represented Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a former Justice Department colleague, in the so-called Bridgegate scandal over a politically motivated scheme to cause traffic jams. Two former aides to Mr. Christie, an ally of Mr. Trump, were found guilty and sentenced to prison; the governor was not charged.

That Mr. Wray’s political skills were honed in the crucible of scandal gave him an edge over the other finalist, John S. Pistole, a former deputy director of the F.B.I. and head of the Transportation Security Administration, administration officials said. Mr. Wray had managed to soothe and counsel the volatile Mr. Christie.

The American Civil Liberties Union voiced concerns on Wednesday about Mr. Wray’s nomination, citing his oversight role after the Sept. 11 attacks and his work for Mr. Christie, which “makes us question his ability to lead the F.B.I. with the independence, evenhanded judgment and commitment to the rule of law that the agency deserves,” the organization said in a statement.

The A.C.L.U. also called on senators to vigorously question Mr. Wray about what he knew, as the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, about abuses of detainees in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay.

Mr. Wray graduated in 1989 from Yale University, where he met his future wife, Helen, in his freshman dormitory. Her family once owned the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Mr. Wray rowed crew in high school and college, said Andrew C. Hruska, his law partner and friend since childhood.

“His willingness to put in a tremendous amount of effort toward a team goal really personifies Chris,” Mr. Hruska said.

He earned his law degree in 1992 from Yale Law School. After clerking for Mr. Luttig, Mr. Wray moved to Atlanta and joined the office of the United States attorney there.

While Mr. Wray does not have a reputation as a partisan operative, he has donated consistently to Republican candidates. Over the past decade, he has contributed at least $35,000 to Republican candidates or committees, according to Federal Election Commission data. He did not do so during the 2016 election, but he has donated to Republican presidential nominees, including $2,300 to support Senator John McCain of Arizona in 2008 and $7,500 to Mitt Romney in 2012.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a Democrat who serves on the Judiciary Committee, said he was approaching Mr. Wray’s choice with caution.

“Above all, he will need to show his commitment to protecting the bureau’s independence,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

Mr. Wray will not tolerate meddling, his friends say.

“He certainly understands the appropriate norms that exist between the Justice Department, F.B.I. and White House,” said John C. Richter, a fellow lawyer at King & Spalding who was a former federal prosecutor in Atlanta.

Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed reporting from Washington, and Glenn Thrush from Cincinnati.

Everything Sony Told Us About the Future of PlayStation - TIME


Posted: 05 Jun 2017 06:00 AM PDT

Pull your gaze from Nintendo’s bedazzling Switch for a moment and consider Sony’s now widespread PlayStation 4. Console sales have in general outperformed the most buoyant analyst and pundit prognostications. Not merely because of Nintendo’s overnight dark horse, or its scarce as hen’s teeth NES Classic. Sony’s PlayStation 4 is having some belt-notching moments of its own.
Sony now says its flagship games platform has sold-through—meaning to buyers and not just stores—close to 60 million units worldwide since its launch in November 2013. That, according to Sony global game development boss Shawn Layden, is the fastest pace set by any PlayStation, life-to-date, including the all-time industry record holder PlayStation 2.

“As you’ll recall, last year we performed the daredevil stunt of launching three new pieces of hardware in 60 days. Probably won’t do that again,” quips Layden during a sit-down with TIME. He’s talking about the $399 PlayStation 4 Pro (a souped up PlayStation 4 that outputs way snazzier graphics), PlayStation VR (a $399 virtual reality headset that couples with the PlayStation 4 for wraparound alt-reality experiences) and a slimmer, sleeker $299 version of the baseline PlayStation 4. All three arrived last fall, and Sony says sales have been booming.
PlayStation VR now boasts more than one million units sold worldwide, up from about 900,000 in February 2017. According to Sony, it’s been sold out from day one. “We don’t see it as a fad, it’s a brand new medium, not only for gaming entertainment, but non-gaming entertainment,” says Layden. And of every five PlayStation 4s Sony sells, Layden says one is a PlayStation 4 Pro, a laudable achievement given its $100 price premium, enthusiast target demographic and the nascency of the 4K television market (where it’s real allure lies).
“It is way ahead of our expectations,” adds Sony global sales chief Jim Ryan. “As with PSVR, and I suppose in forecasting these things we haven’t done a very good job, the product is in desperately short supply. So that’s one-in-five under severe constraint.”
“All of the rumors of the demise of the console are very much premature,” says Layden. “In fact if you’re watching [sales tracker] NPD for PS4 and Xbox One sales, you put those together and console gaming has never been as big and vibrant as it is right now. And that’s just here in the States.” Zip across the pond, and the story tilts further in Sony’s favor. “It’s been pleasing that in North America, we’ve been 2-to-1 against Xbox,” says Ryan. “But in Europe, it’s really been fortress PlayStation by at least 3-to-1 in unit sales.”
“It’s also the breadth of type of games,” he continues. “And once you get up in the heady heights of 100 million units, you’re talking of a different audience altogether, where having this range of stuff like Detroit: Become Human and FIFA and Call of Duty and Star Wars, it makes the job a whole lot easier.”
Layden says the Japanese publishers are also coming back, listing off recent games like Resident Evil 7, Nioh, Nier: Automata, Persona 5 and Final Fantasy XV as examples. “That’s super important for us,” he says. “I think a lot of Japanese developers lost their way chasing the mobile games yen, if you will, but they’re coming back to console in a major way. And speaking of, we’ll have some big announcements at E3 in that precise vein.”
This notion of mid-console refreshes—an enthusiast-angled limbering act you could argue Nintendo pioneered with its perennial Game Boy, DS and 3DS revamps—has a flip side. The PS4 Pro’s power has been effectively slaved to the baseline PlayStation 4. Games on the PS4 Pro, while graphically sharper and lusher, must be functionally identical to the experience as had on the standard model. It’s a leave-no-consumer-behind mentality that’s so far been echoed by the competition: Microsoft’s revved up PS4 Pro rival, codenamed Project Scorpio and due later this year, will likewise observe gameplay parity with the Xbox One.
“Because the games need to play on both Pro and standard PS4, there can’t be a radical departure between the two experiences,” says Layden. “But I think we’ve hit a happy medium by enriching the visual experience, and developers enjoy having that extra oomph while knowing they’re making games that play well on all 60 million PlayStation 4s. I guess we’re trying to have our cake and eat it too.”
Would Sony back away from that requirement if sales leveled off down the line? “Today, my answer is that we’re going to stay the course,” says Layden. “There’s still a lot of juice to squeeze out of the PlayStation 4 platform, full stop. So ensuring PlayStation 4 games play on both consoles is our winning formula right now.”
Another winning-so-far formula few saw coming is Nintendo’s notion of a games console you can play anywhere you like, shifting from your hands to your TV in seconds. In 2005, Sony began its own foray into handheld gaming with a device it dubbed the PlayStation Portable. The PSP sold in excess of 80 million units, and in 2012, a followup dubbed the PS Vita arrived—a contemporaneously mighty mobile, but one that sold a fraction as many units. In light of what Nintendo seems to be illustrating, that there is appetite for a consumer device that preserves the higher-end console experience on the go, would Sony ever revisit a once formidable bailiwick?
Layden calls the Switch “a great success for Nintendo” and admits that “it’s definitely what that fanbase has been waiting for.” But he sees the system as less a rival than a complementary traveler, claiming that Switch sales have had no discernible impact on the sell-through for PlayStation 4. “When you look at our numbers, I think it shows that a lot of gamers are a two-console family,” he adds. “And quite often those two consoles are PlayStation and Nintendo sitting side-by-side.”
Layden says Sony still views the Vita as a viable development platform: Though new Western releases have slowed to a trickle, he notes games are still being made for it in Japan. But for now, a Vita successor isn’t in the cards. “To be honest, the Vita just didn’t reach critical mass in the U.S. or Western Europe,” he says. “I don’t know if it was that it was more technology people had to carry around, or more things to charge, or whether their phone or tablet were taking care of that. But once the content slowed in that pipeline, it became hard to keep the Vita as a going concern.”
Another concern occasionally raised by PlayStation devotees involves the company’s once-ubiquitous PlayStation 2. While Sony has in recent years devoted resources to bringing a handful of popular older titles to the PlayStation 4, the better part of that library is lost to time. For now, it seems that’s where it’ll remain. “When we’ve dabbled with backwards compatibility, I can say it is one of those features that is much requested, but not actually used much,” says Ryan. “That, and I was at a Gran Turismo event recently where they had PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games, and the PS1 and the PS2 games, they looked ancient, like why would anybody play this?”
By contrast, the company says it intends to double down on things people do want to play, namely the explosive eSports phenomenon. “It’s a subject that is occupying us quite a lot these days, and something we’re looking at very carefully,” says Ryan. “We’re trying to find precisely what the role of the platform holder is in that value chain. Seeing how we can actually make the whole eSports thing bigger, better, different and bespoke to PlayStation is something you’re going to be hearing quite a lot about in the next year or two.”
Speaking of broadening its messaging to a growing competitive elite, Sony says it’s aware some have made noises about a boutique version of the company’s acclaimed DualShock 4 controller in the vein of Microsoft’s own Xbox One Elite gamepad. “The idea of a premium interface in exactly the same manner as we now have a premium console has a lot of logic to it, and there are such products already available in the market from third parties,” says Ryan. “But it’s definitely something we continue to look at.”
To questions about where other technologies like PlayStation VR go from here, Layden stresses virtual reality’s non-gaming possibilities. “We have Hollywood luminaries and TV show runners, places like the Smithsonian and [NASA’s] Jet Propulsion Laboratory looking into what the technology can do for them. And recently you may have seen Vince Gilligan, the show runner for Breaking Bad, has leaked some information that we’re working together, which we are, in bringing a Breaking Bad experience to virtual reality.” What exactly is that going to be? “I have no idea, but Vince has shown that he can deliver,” says Layden.
Sony doubtless intends to push its phase one VR ideas as far as the market will bear, but the pressure to iterate is fierce. “Technology cycles are shortening, and there’s no reason to expect VR to be any exception to that,” says Ryan. “If we have aspirations to take this into a mass market space, clearly things will need to happen to the form factor, whether it’s wireless or a lighter headset or all of these things.”
“The key is advancing the technology without stepping off the platform,” adds Layden. “We want to make sure we have a target platform developers can grow against. We’ll find ways to bump it up, whether that’s through the physical design of the product, which needs tweaks, of course, as everything does. But we also want to make sure we’re firmly grounded in PlayStation 4, so people don’t think they need something else to drive the experience.”
As for the experience awaiting PlayStation buffs when the curtain lifts on Sony’s E3 media event, live streaming from the Shrine Auditorium & Expo Hall (online as well as in select theaters) next Monday, June 12, Layden says to think of it less as a press conference than a software showcase.
“The crowd will only have to suffer I think in aggregate 90 seconds of me,” he jokes. “And in the middle will be all the games.”

Are You Popular at Work? Research Says It Matters - TIME Business

Posted: 06 Jun 2017 09:00 AM PDT

We may think we left the mores of high school behind us, but popularity is still very much a part of the adult playground. It is that one factor that no one really talks about, yet it makes a big difference in our lives. Popularity dynamics affect our careers, our success in meeting our goals, our personal and professional relationships, and ultimately our happiness.
The ongoing importance of popularity in adulthood was a surprise even to me, until I learned a lesson from my own students.
In August 2001, something strange was taking place on the campus of Yale University. I had recently been hired as a professor in the department of psychology, and I was about to give my first lecture for a course I had developed about popularity among children and adolescents. Yale didn’t have a preregistration system, so anyone who showed up the first day of class was welcome to enroll. The course had been assigned a small classroom on the central campus—about thirty-five students were expected to attend.

But as I approached the building, I noticed a crowd had gathered at the south side of the lecture hall. I assumed a fire drill was being conducted, so I hung around for a while and started to chat with the students. But I soon realized that no alarm had been sounded—they were waiting for my class. All of them!
I made my way through the throng outside the building, standing wall to wall down the hallway, and stretching up the entire staircase until I finally reached the tiny classroom. The whole way I was still questioning: was everyone really there to learn about popularity? By the next session, the registrar reassigned the course to the Yale Law School auditorium, the largest available space on campus, and by the end of the first week, one out of every ten undergraduates had enrolled—over 550 students. During the course of the semester, I was contacted by university administrators, scientific advisors for national youth organizations, and ABC News. The word was out: “popularity” was popular. But why?
At first, most people reacted to the huge enrollment in the class in similar ways. More than one of my colleagues said to me something along the lines of, “Of course it’s crowded—this is Yale. These are the students who were terrorized by high school bullies, and they are all in your class to learn better social skills.”
But it turned out that this explanation wasn’t true at all. The class had a huge range of students. Certainly, some had been rejected as kids, but others were extremely popular. Some were the children of American senators and national advisors; others were top collegiate athletes. One student was a movie star, a few were musical prodigies who had already traveled the world, and others were summer aides at the White House. The group included future doctors and lawyers, scientists and politicians, economists and Fortune 500 CEOs. One became a bestselling author and another a Rhodes Scholar.
“What are you all doing here?” I asked the students as the semester progressed.
They told me that although they had long since departed the playground and the school cafeteria, they never left the world where popularity matters. During their summer internships, they saw it continue to play out in boardrooms, operating rooms, and class- rooms. The basketball players witnessed it on the court, and the legal aides told me how it made a difference on juries. Even congressional interns perceived how popularity affected our government’s legislative decisions. But mostly, they saw it in themselves—knowing that whatever degree of popularity they enjoyed or endured as kids would probably come back to haunt them again. In a very real manner, our experiences with popularity are always occupying our minds. We never really left high school at all.
Years later, I was curious to learn whether popularity still mattered in the adult lives of my students in that first popularity course I taught back in New Haven. I knew just who to call.
Even with hundreds of students in the class, Daniel Clemens stood out as the one everyone knew, respected, and liked. Just mentioning his name seemed to bring a smile to the face of any professor or student on campus. A nationally ranked All-American tennis player and star student in high school, he had arrived on campus as brilliant as everyone else at Yale. But there was something that made him distinctive even in this impressive group. He was unusually kind, extremely respectful, always positive and energetic, and yet among his peers he was also regarded as incomparably cool. He was the most popular student in my popularity class. By the end of his senior year, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship.
Today Daniel is in his thirties, and he’s turned out exactly as you might have expected—caring, energetic, modest, and likable. In the past decade or so, Daniel has founded and sold several multimillion-dollar businesses. If you have ever used Google Docs, Daniel is one of the people you can thank, as his was one of the companies that helped create the live-collaboration capability of the application. After years working on strategic initiatives at Google, he’s now a sought-after investor and board contributor to many of the most successful CEOs and entrepreneurs around the globe. He’s also a frequent keynote speaker at business schools and an advisor to entrepreneurs throughout the country, and he counts former US presidents, members of Congress, prime ministers, and CEOs of some of the most well-known global brands like Google and Apple as his close personal friends.
Daniel believes that popularity is very much a part of the adult playground, affecting the innovation and productivity of corporations all over the world. He perceives something very adolescent in the workplace that reminds him of my class almost every day, he tells me. It’s a dynamic that plays out in every meeting and influences how every decision is made.
“Here’s what happens,” Daniel explains. “After a meeting, everyone gets together in twos and threes around the watercooler, and then you hear what people really thought. And it’s all the stuff that didn’t get talked about at the meeting at all. I’m always amazed at the big difference, and I wonder, why the delta?”
Daniel’s theory is that efficient decision-making in business has become hampered by popularity, or rather the fear of losing it. “People don’t want to lose status or have people dislike them,” he says. “There’s a lot of norming in a company, people going with the herd, following others. People are afraid to say what they think. I find it really interesting how much we overestimate how secure those around us are, and how much this still plays out for people in their thirties, forties, and fifties. They still need that validation from their peers. They really want people to like them, and when they think others don’t, it stings them for days, or months.”
Daniel also believes that popularity has a lot to do with our happiness. “We did a study at Google,” he recalled. The results boiled down to two findings. More than raises, or promotions, or perks, there were two things that predicted who was happy and who was not. One had to do with the frequency of constructive feedback employees got from their managers. But the second was simply how much people felt they had someone—anyone—who liked them. “It’s the small things, the human things, that make organizations flourish and make people happy,” Daniel says.
“It’s funny,” he explains. “We teach writing and arithmetic. We expect folks to do very well in science and reading from a very early age. But the ability to establish great relationships with others seems to be every bit as important to success if not more, yet it’s not taught in a formal way. We usually learn about relationships by trial and error—how to get along with peers and how to be popular. For those who can do it, great. But for others, it is a lifetime of struggling, never understanding why their peers have issues with them.”
Popularity is a part of life that we experience every day, in every type of social situation. And the way that we experience popularity in one context tends to be related to the way we connect to others in all parts of our lives.
But there’s a catch: most people don’t realize that there are two different types of popularity—one that helps us, and one that can potentially harm us, leaving us stranded in adolescence. And ever since high school, we have never come to terms with which kind we want.
From Popular: The Power of Likability in a Status Obsessed World by Mitch Prinstein, published on June 6th by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. Copyright © 2017 by Mitchell Prinstein.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Trump, Comey and Obstruction of Justice: A Primer - New York Times

Trump, Comey and Obstruction of Justice: A Primer

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
JUNE 8, 2017
WASHINGTON — The testimony by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey that, before firing him last month, President Trump demanded loyalty, urged him to drop the investigation into his former national security adviser and pressed him to “lift the cloud” of the Russia inquiry is fueling accusations that the president obstructed justice.
Mr. Comey’s prepared testimony, which the Senate Intelligence Committee released on Wednesday, corroborates prior reports by The New York Times about how Mr. Comey’s strained relationship with the president evolved, which had already prompted Democrats to raise the specter of the obstruction crime.
Moreover, Mr. Trump himself told NBC News last month that when he fired Mr. Comey, he had been thinking about the F.B.I.’s investigation into whether his associates coordinated with Russia in its interference in the 2016 election. The Times has reported that the day after the firing, Mr. Trump told Russian diplomats in the Oval Office that firing Mr. Comey had relieved “great pressure because of Russia.”
In a statement last month after The Times’ report about the conversation over Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, the White House said, “The president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn.”
“The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations,” the White House statement said. “This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.”

What is obstruction of justice?
Several federal statutes criminalize actions that impede official investigations. While some examples of illegal ways to thwart the justice system are specific — like killing a witness or destroying evidence — the law also includes broad, catchall prohibitions. For example, Sections 1503, 1505 and 1512 of Title 18 have variants of language making it a crime if someone corruptly “obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding.”
Could that cover asking the F.B.I. director to drop part of an investigation, and later firing him?
In theory, yes. Such statutes were broadly drafted. Julie O’Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches white-collar criminal law at Georgetown University, says the power relationship between a president and the F.B.I. director could elevate a request to shut down a case into an act that amounts to impeding an official investigation.
“He really needs a lawyer,” Ms. O’Sullivan said of Mr. Trump in May. “He is building a beautiful case against himself.”
Did Trump have lawful authority to fire Comey?
Yes. But courts have ruled that otherwise lawful acts can constitute obstruction of justice if done with corrupt intentions. In a 1998 case, for example, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of a lawyer who had filed legal complaints and related motions against a government agent who was investigating an illegal gambling operation. The court ruled that the defendant’s “nominally litigation-related conduct” was unlawful because his real motive was “to safeguard his personal financial interests” in the corrupt enterprise.
What would such a case entail, in theory?
Obstruction of justice cases often come down to whether prosecutors can prove defendants’ mental state when they committed the act, legal specialists said. It is not enough to show that a defendant knew the act would have a side consequence of impeding an investigation; achieving that obstruction has to have been the specific intention.
Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s Enron task force and now teaches criminal law at Duke University, was initially skeptical about whether the mere firing of Mr. Comey could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump had an improper mental state. But subsequent revelations, he said, made the evidence much more robust.

“The evidence of improper purpose has gotten much stronger since the day of Comey’s firing,” Mr. Buell said. “Trump has made admissions about that. And we now have evidence that he may have indicated an improper purpose previously in his communications with Comey about the Russia investigation.”
What impediments would there be to charging Trump?
Ms. O’Sullivan said it was not realistic to expect the Justice Department to charge the sitting president.
What about impeachment?
“Asking FBI to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice,” Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, wrote on Twitter on after the initial report of the Oval Office conversation about Mr. Flynn. “Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.”
Both American presidents who were subjected to impeachment proceedings in the last century — Bill Clinton in 1998 and Richard M. Nixon in 1974 — were accused of obstruction of justice.
While it can be a murky task in court to interpret the obstruction statutes, said David Sklansky, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at Stanford, impeachment proceedings are different. They are a “quasi-judicial, quasi-political process,” he noted; the House and the Senate determine for themselves whether the standards are met.
In other words, as a practical matter, the Constitution’s standards for impeachment and removal of a president — if he has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” — are met by anything that a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate are willing to vote for.

That makes prognostication an exercise in vote counting, not legal analysis.
Follow Charlie Savage on Twitter at @charlie_savage.




Senate intelligence committee hearing of former FBI Director James Comey - CNN

Washington (CNN) - The Senate intelligence committee hearing of former FBI Director James Comey was already going to be a blockbuster before it even started -- with Comey stating in pre-written testimony Wednesday that President Donald Trump urged him to drop his investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
But while it may seem that Comey's decision to release his testimony a day early actually upstages his own appearance, in reality he gave senators a running start to come up with more pointed, probing questions for him when they all take the national stage Thursday morning.
Here are five things to watch for Thursday:
1. The former FBI director will testify under oath that the President asked him to drop an investigation into one of his top allies
It's impossible to lose sight of the most important items to emerge from the Russia investigations thus far: Trump asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn.
If you're a Democrat, that sounds like obstruction of justice (and possible grounds for impeachment.) If you're a Republican, it may sound like a political novice asking his aide to help one of his friends. But it is one of the most important, and prominent, developments in the sprawling web of the Russia investigations.
And Comey is poised Thursday to take that fact out of the realm of anonymous (and accurate) reporting and formally place it in the record publicly, under threat of perjury if it's not true.
Comey, in detail, relays how Trump asked all of his top advisers to leave a February 14 meeting in the Oval Office -- one by one -- until he was alone with Comey. After explaining that he wanted to talk about Flynn, Trump said he wanted Comey to "let this go."
Comey writes, "He then said, 'I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.'"
2. But is it obstruction of justice?
Watch for a battle between Democrats and Republicans over how to characterize Trump's request of Comey -- as well as Trump's other requests, like his repeatedly asking Comey for his loyalty.
Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee were mum Tuesday, as they left a classified briefing after Comey's testimony went public. But their counterparts on the House Russia investigation clearly thought the testimony could prove obstruction of justice by Trump.
Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee were mum Tuesday, as they left a classified briefing after Comey's testimony went public. But their counterparts on the House Russia investigation clearly thought the testimony could prove obstruction of justice by Trump.
"Congress must now determine whether the Director's refusal to do either -- or any other motivation to interfere with or obstruct any part of the Russia investigation -- led ultimately to Comey's firing," Schiff said in a statement.
Senate intelligence committee Chairman Richad Burr, who has taken a firm and methodical stance leading the Russia investigation, said Tuesday that his quick reading of Comey's testimony showed no wrongdoing, but that could change.
"I don't think from what I've read there's any evidence of wrongdoing," Burr told reporters. "I will match that against his verbal testimony and weigh that against the evidence to date."
3. 'Trump was right'
That was the comment from the Republican National Committee after Comey's testimony was released and, for one very key point, it is dead on: Trump is correct that Comey told him multiple times the FBI was not investigating him personally.
The first (and only) comment from Trump's newly appointed spokesman and lawyer on all things involving Russia, Marc Kasowitz, hammered home that they feel "totally vindicated."
"The President is pleased that Mr. Comey has finally publicly confirmed his private reports that the President was not under investigation in any Russian probe. The President feels completely and totally vindicated. He is eager to continue to move forward with his agenda," Kasowitz said in a statement.
That fact is only one tree in a Siberian forest that is filled with bad news for Trump. But it's still a glimmer of good news in the story that has cast an omnipresent cloud over Trump's administration.
4. Can senators extract more from Comey in public?
Comey is a veteran at testifying before Congress -- having filled the role now held by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein more than a decade ago and testified regularly as the FBI director. He has frequently offered up important nuggets -- but also has a plethora of ways to say, ever so politely, that he will not answer a question.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a veteran member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and former chairwoman of the panel, hinted at this in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash Tuesday.
"It's seven pages of very fine print and what it describes is a professional law enforcement person, who is Jim Comey, who comes up against a president who knows no limits in terms of a proper relationship," Feinstein said Tuesday of Comey's testimony. "It was really pretty remarkable that he put this in writing (the night before the hearing.) We will see how much he's prepared to do verbally."
Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the committee, meanwhile was scheduled to spend Wednesday afternoon and early evening preparing his questions for Comey.
5. Other Comey surprises
Comey's recent hearings on the Hill -- before he was fired -- had offered some very stunning revelations.
On March 20, he revealed publicly that the FBI had been investigating the Trump campaign since last July -- in a House hearing which prefaced the House investigation almost spiraling out of control.
And just a week before he was fired -- Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he decided to publicly announce his findings in the Clinton email investigation after watching Bill Clinton board a plane with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch. (However, later reporting revealed that Comey actually acted based on Russian misinformation alleging collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Obama Justice Department.)
In short: Comey's public hearings tend to be explosive news-fests.

CNN News

North Korea blasts Trump as 'silly,' 'ignorant' over Paris Accord withdrawal - ABC News

North Korea blasts Trump as 'silly,' 'ignorant' over Paris Accord withdrawal
  • By CONOR FINNEGAN 
Jun 7, 2017, 7:17 PM ET
WATCH How will withdrawing from the Paris Accord affect Trump?
Short-sighted, silly, selfish, and dangerous.
That's how President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord is being described -- but not by the European leaders who urged Trump to stay in the agreement or the Pacific island nationsthat are demanding action as rising sea levels threaten their coastlines.

Those are the words of North Korea.
The regime in Pyongyang issued a scorching statement through its official news agency KCNA on Tuesday, blasting Trump's decision that, it said, comes "at the cost of the entire planet."
"The selfish act of the U.S. does not only have grave consequences for the international efforts to protect the environment, but poses great danger to other areas as well," said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The statement goes on to criticize Trump's "America first" foreign policy, and calls the withdrawal, "the height of egoism and moral vacuum seeking only their own well-being ... a short-sighted and silly decision ignorant of the fact that the protection of the global environment is in their own interests."
While the White House has refused to say whether or not Trump believes that climate change is real, Kim Jong Un's regime makes clear its position.

"Global warming is one of the gravest challenges the humankind is facing today," it said.

North Korea signed the historic accord, and in withdrawing, the U.S. joins only two other countries who stand outside it -- Nicaragua, which refused because it believed the agreement did not go far enough, and the only country that may be more isolated diplomatically than North Korea: Syria.