James Comey Memos Offer Account of Private Conversations With President Trump
By BLOOMBERG - April 19, 2018
President Donald Trump praised James Comey for his honorable conduct during the 2016 campaign, sought out his loyalty, denied any involvement with prostitutes, and asked if the FBI director could let go of an investigation into his former national security adviser, according to contemporaneous memos Comey made to document those conversations.
These aspects of Comey’s conversations with Trump before he was fired by the president in May 2017 are detailed in memos the Justice Department turned over Thursday to House committees. The memos track broadly with accounts of those conversations Comey has given in public testimony to Congress and his new bestselling book.
Comey has said he wrote the memos for the FBI’s files to document his conversations with Trump because he said he found them troubling. Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Trump asked him in February 2017 to shut down the federal investigation into Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trump’s national security adviser before being ousted.
Trump “said, ‘I hope you can see your way to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,’” Comey wrote to document a Feb. 14, 2017 conversation. “I replied by saying, ‘I agree he is a good guy,’ but said no more.”
In a memo dated March 30, Comey describes Trump complaining to him about how the cloud cast by the Russia investigation was impairing his ability to run the country and that he was eager for the FBI director to make clear publicly that the president isn’t under investigation.
Trump also said that he was going to sue Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who compiled an unverified dossier alleging links between Russia and Trump and his associates, according to Comey’s memos.
Book Factor
The Justice Department agreed to give Congress the Comey memos after House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia threatened to issue a subpoena for them.
The push by Republicans to obtain the memos came after the release this week of Comey’s memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” and interviews in which he portrays the president as a liar and immoral. Some Republicans complain that Comey has been talking about the memos in his book promotion tour even as the Justice Department withheld them from lawmakers.
Some aides to House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary members already had been permitted to read the Comey memos in secure settings.
Comey has said he wrote the memos for the FBI’s files to capture his conversations with Trump. He testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Trump asked him in February 2017 to shut down the federal investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Trump fired Comey in May 2017.
James Comey Says He Was 'Concerned' Trump Would Lie About Their Meetings
During the former FBI Director’s testimony to Congress.
Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Comey’s “contemporaneous memos provide strong corroborating evidence of everything he said about President Trump — that the president wanted his personal loyalty, that he wanted to end the Russia investigation, and that he wanted Michael Flynn to walk.”
Republicans are seeking to spur debate over whether Comey may have violated Justice Department rules by sharing memos with a law school professor, given that department officials had maintained that they hadn’t yet determined whether they contained sensitive or classified material that prevented disclosing them to Congress.
Goodlatte, joined by Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes of California and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, wrote a letter last Friday to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein arguing there was no legal basis to withhold the documents.
Nunes, Gowdy and Goodlatte released a statement on Thursday night saying the memos showed that Comey was inconsistent and overlooked bias inside the FBI.
“As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made,” they said.
Friday, April 20, 2018
Swaziland king changes country's name to Kingdom of eSwatini - Al Jazeera
April 19, 2018
Swaziland king changes country's name to Kingdom of eSwatini
Renaming announced during celebrations marking 50 years of independence from British colonial rule.
The king of Swaziland has announced that his country's name has changed to eSwatini.
The declaration by King Mswati III on Thursday was made during celebrations marking the monarch's birthday as well as 50 years of independence from British colonial rule.
"I would like to announce that Swaziland will now revert to its original name," the king said at a packed sports stadium in Manzini, the country's second city, AFP news agency reported.
"African countries on getting independence reverted to their ancient names before they were colonised. So from now on the country will be officially be known as the Kingdom of eSwatini," he added.
The tiny landlocked nation in southern Africa gained full independence in 1968, after being a British protectorate since the early 1900s. But unlike some countries, it did not change its name.
Meaning "place of the Swazi", eSwatini is the Swazi language name for the country.
The name Swaziland angered some citizens as it is a mix of Swazi and English.
The move has been mooted for several years, with legislators considering the issue in 2015. Mswati III has used the new name in previous official speeches.
Absolute monarchy
The king, who was crowned in 1986 aged 18, rules by decree in a country widely seen as Africa's last absolute monarchy.
Since 1973, Swaziland's monarchy has banned political parties from participating in elections, although they are allowed to exist.
To run for political office, candidates stand as independents and if elected, they must be approved by the king in order to become a member of parliament.
The country, which has a population of about 1.3 million people, suffers the highest HIV rate in the world, with 27 percent of adults infected.
The name change could mean that the country's constitution is re-written, and could bring changes for the Royal Swaziland Police Force, the Swaziland Defence Force and the University of Swaziland.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES
Swaziland king changes country's name to Kingdom of eSwatini
Renaming announced during celebrations marking 50 years of independence from British colonial rule.
The king of Swaziland has announced that his country's name has changed to eSwatini.
The declaration by King Mswati III on Thursday was made during celebrations marking the monarch's birthday as well as 50 years of independence from British colonial rule.
"I would like to announce that Swaziland will now revert to its original name," the king said at a packed sports stadium in Manzini, the country's second city, AFP news agency reported.
"African countries on getting independence reverted to their ancient names before they were colonised. So from now on the country will be officially be known as the Kingdom of eSwatini," he added.
The tiny landlocked nation in southern Africa gained full independence in 1968, after being a British protectorate since the early 1900s. But unlike some countries, it did not change its name.
Meaning "place of the Swazi", eSwatini is the Swazi language name for the country.
The name Swaziland angered some citizens as it is a mix of Swazi and English.
The move has been mooted for several years, with legislators considering the issue in 2015. Mswati III has used the new name in previous official speeches.
Absolute monarchy
The king, who was crowned in 1986 aged 18, rules by decree in a country widely seen as Africa's last absolute monarchy.
Since 1973, Swaziland's monarchy has banned political parties from participating in elections, although they are allowed to exist.
To run for political office, candidates stand as independents and if elected, they must be approved by the king in order to become a member of parliament.
The country, which has a population of about 1.3 million people, suffers the highest HIV rate in the world, with 27 percent of adults infected.
The name change could mean that the country's constitution is re-written, and could bring changes for the Royal Swaziland Police Force, the Swaziland Defence Force and the University of Swaziland.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES
Australia bank inquiry ousts first executive amid fee scandal - BBC News
Australia bank inquiry ousts first executive amid fee scandal
20 April 2018
AMP is a leading financial services firm in Australia
The head of Australia's largest wealth manager has resigned after the company admitted lying to regulators for more than a decade.
AMP chief executive Craig Meller quit after an inquiry heard the business had routinely charged fees to customers for services that were not delivered.
Australia is holding a royal commission - its top form of public inquiry - into misconduct in financial institutions.
Mr Meller is the first executive to be ousted amid the inquiry.
Earlier this week the hearing was told that AMP had repeatedly misled the nation's corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic), over its collection of fees.
AMP has "unreservedly apologised" for the practice.
The royal commission was ordered by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last year following a series of scandals involving financial misconduct.
Why is Australia investigating its banks?
In announcing his resignation, Mr Meller said he was "personally devastated" by what had been exposed.
"I do not condone [the misconduct] or the misleading statements made to Asic," he said.
"However, as they occurred during my tenure as CEO, I believe that stepping down as CEO is an appropriate measure to begin the work that needs to be done to restore public and regulatory trust in AMP."
The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has also admitted to charging fees for undelivered services. On Thursday, the bank said the misconduct had extended to clients it knew were deceased.
Evidence of misconduct presented in public hearings this week has drawn condemnation from the nation's politicians and sparked growing public outrage.
Barnaby Joyce
✔
@Barnaby_Joyce
In the past I argued against a Royal Commission into banking. I was wrong. What I have heard is so far is beyond disturbing.
9:25 PM - Apr 18, 2018
Derryn Hinch
✔
@HumanHeadline
Why didn’t bank execs resign when they first found out their companies were shysters robbing dead people and had lied to ASIC? Not years later when exposed at royal commission?
9:32 AM - Apr 20, 2018
Bill Shorten
✔
@billshortenmp
What we’ve learned so far from the banking royal commission has been shocking and shameful.
7:54 PM - Apr 19, 2018
The government has proposed new 10-year jail terms for bankers and other financial executives who violate misconduct laws.
20 April 2018
AMP is a leading financial services firm in Australia
The head of Australia's largest wealth manager has resigned after the company admitted lying to regulators for more than a decade.
AMP chief executive Craig Meller quit after an inquiry heard the business had routinely charged fees to customers for services that were not delivered.
Australia is holding a royal commission - its top form of public inquiry - into misconduct in financial institutions.
Mr Meller is the first executive to be ousted amid the inquiry.
Earlier this week the hearing was told that AMP had repeatedly misled the nation's corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic), over its collection of fees.
AMP has "unreservedly apologised" for the practice.
The royal commission was ordered by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last year following a series of scandals involving financial misconduct.
Why is Australia investigating its banks?
In announcing his resignation, Mr Meller said he was "personally devastated" by what had been exposed.
"I do not condone [the misconduct] or the misleading statements made to Asic," he said.
"However, as they occurred during my tenure as CEO, I believe that stepping down as CEO is an appropriate measure to begin the work that needs to be done to restore public and regulatory trust in AMP."
The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has also admitted to charging fees for undelivered services. On Thursday, the bank said the misconduct had extended to clients it knew were deceased.
Evidence of misconduct presented in public hearings this week has drawn condemnation from the nation's politicians and sparked growing public outrage.
Barnaby Joyce
✔
@Barnaby_Joyce
In the past I argued against a Royal Commission into banking. I was wrong. What I have heard is so far is beyond disturbing.
9:25 PM - Apr 18, 2018
Derryn Hinch
✔
@HumanHeadline
Why didn’t bank execs resign when they first found out their companies were shysters robbing dead people and had lied to ASIC? Not years later when exposed at royal commission?
9:32 AM - Apr 20, 2018
Bill Shorten
✔
@billshortenmp
What we’ve learned so far from the banking royal commission has been shocking and shameful.
7:54 PM - Apr 19, 2018
The government has proposed new 10-year jail terms for bankers and other financial executives who violate misconduct laws.
Comey memos detailing conversations of Trump meetings published - BBC News
April 20, 2018
Comey memos detailing conversations of Trump meetings published
'No adequate people around Trump to contain him,' Comey says
Memos by ex-FBI director James Comey detailing his conversations with Donald Trump have been published.
The memos cover the president's concerns about a lurid intelligence dossier and also go into his relationship with his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn.
The notes quote the president as saying Mr Flynn had "serious judgment issues".
Mr Trump tweeted that the memos showed there was no "collusion and no obstruction".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?
1:37 PM - Apr 20, 2018
Mr Trump sacked Mr Comey last year while he was leading an FBI investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then the men have been locked into a bitter and public war of words.
Mr Comey has painted Mr Trump as "morally unfit" to be US president, and suggested he may have obstructed justice by trying to pressure him into dropping any investigation into Mr Flynn.
Mr Flynn was forced to resign over charges that he had lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.
Ways Comey could hurt Trump - or himself
Trump's allies trash 'lyin' FBI memoir
Analysis: Is Comey really a liar?
So what is in the memos?
Mr Comey's partially redacted memos were handed to Congress on Thursday.
Details published in Mr Comey's 15 pages of notes are consistent with allegations in his new book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.
In his memos, Mr Comey writes that he was asked by Mr Trump to drop an inquiry into links between Mr Flynn and Russia.
"I hope you can let this go," Mr Trump is reported to have said after a White House meeting. Mr Trump strongly denies Mr Comey's account.
Mr Comey's memos include conversations the pair had had alone
Other conversations documented in the memos include Mr Trump's concerns over salacious allegations in an intelligence dossier.
At a meeting in Trump Tower in New York just days before Mr Trump's inauguration in January 2017, Mr Comey spoke alone with the then president-elect about details of an alleged encounter involving prostitutes in Russia.
Mr Comey writes that he took the allegations seriously, adding that "portions of the material were corroborated by other intelligence".
The allegations claim that Russia has damaging information about Mr Trump's business interests, and that he had been filmed with prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow during the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.
According to the notes, the president told Mr Comey that he "hadn't stayed overnight" at the Ritz-Carlton but that his concern was "if his wife had any doubt about it".
How significant are the memos?
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
The Comey memos have been made public at last. The amount of time they took to reach reporters after being handed over to Congress could be measured in minutes, if not seconds. Now both sides on the great Trump-Comey divide are claiming the documents vindicate their views of the matter.
The memos offer some additional details of the then-FBI director's interactions with the president, but they largely corroborate Mr Comey's account of the key events that have been public for almost a year. The request for loyalty over a private dinner. The Oval Office pull-aside to ask if the director could back off the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
That Mr Comey wrote these memos shortly after the events in question either provides damning substantiation of his claims of possible presidential obstruction of justice and improper pressure or proves the then-director was out to get Mr Trump from the start.
Media captionTrump's love-hate relationship with Comey over a tumultuous year
With this latest move and the Comey book media blitz, the public pretty much has the full breadth of the former director's side of the story - and, quite clearly, what he currently thinks of the president's behaviour.
What we don't know is whether this will take a lasting political toll on Mr Trump or if there's evidence - discovered by Robert Mueller in the investigation that started after Mr Comey's dismissal - that will lead to further criminal charges against Mr Trump's team.
Comey: Six claims about Trump from ex-FBI director
What does Trump think of Comey?
Mr Trump has referred to Mr Comey as "slippery" and a "slimeball" and the "worst FBI director in history".
He continues to attack him over his "many lies" - Mr Trump has even suggested he be jailed over his testimony to Congress.
"Why did he lie to Congress (jail)," Mr Trump tweeted earlier this month, adding: "How come he gave up classified information (jail)."
He has also criticised Mr Comey's new memoir, saying the "badly reviewed book" raises "big questions".
Comey memos detailing conversations of Trump meetings published
'No adequate people around Trump to contain him,' Comey says
Memos by ex-FBI director James Comey detailing his conversations with Donald Trump have been published.
The memos cover the president's concerns about a lurid intelligence dossier and also go into his relationship with his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn.
The notes quote the president as saying Mr Flynn had "serious judgment issues".
Mr Trump tweeted that the memos showed there was no "collusion and no obstruction".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?
1:37 PM - Apr 20, 2018
Mr Trump sacked Mr Comey last year while he was leading an FBI investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then the men have been locked into a bitter and public war of words.
Mr Comey has painted Mr Trump as "morally unfit" to be US president, and suggested he may have obstructed justice by trying to pressure him into dropping any investigation into Mr Flynn.
Mr Flynn was forced to resign over charges that he had lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.
Ways Comey could hurt Trump - or himself
Trump's allies trash 'lyin' FBI memoir
Analysis: Is Comey really a liar?
So what is in the memos?
Mr Comey's partially redacted memos were handed to Congress on Thursday.
Details published in Mr Comey's 15 pages of notes are consistent with allegations in his new book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.
In his memos, Mr Comey writes that he was asked by Mr Trump to drop an inquiry into links between Mr Flynn and Russia.
"I hope you can let this go," Mr Trump is reported to have said after a White House meeting. Mr Trump strongly denies Mr Comey's account.
Mr Comey's memos include conversations the pair had had alone
Other conversations documented in the memos include Mr Trump's concerns over salacious allegations in an intelligence dossier.
At a meeting in Trump Tower in New York just days before Mr Trump's inauguration in January 2017, Mr Comey spoke alone with the then president-elect about details of an alleged encounter involving prostitutes in Russia.
Mr Comey writes that he took the allegations seriously, adding that "portions of the material were corroborated by other intelligence".
The allegations claim that Russia has damaging information about Mr Trump's business interests, and that he had been filmed with prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow during the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.
According to the notes, the president told Mr Comey that he "hadn't stayed overnight" at the Ritz-Carlton but that his concern was "if his wife had any doubt about it".
How significant are the memos?
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
The Comey memos have been made public at last. The amount of time they took to reach reporters after being handed over to Congress could be measured in minutes, if not seconds. Now both sides on the great Trump-Comey divide are claiming the documents vindicate their views of the matter.
The memos offer some additional details of the then-FBI director's interactions with the president, but they largely corroborate Mr Comey's account of the key events that have been public for almost a year. The request for loyalty over a private dinner. The Oval Office pull-aside to ask if the director could back off the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
That Mr Comey wrote these memos shortly after the events in question either provides damning substantiation of his claims of possible presidential obstruction of justice and improper pressure or proves the then-director was out to get Mr Trump from the start.
Media captionTrump's love-hate relationship with Comey over a tumultuous year
With this latest move and the Comey book media blitz, the public pretty much has the full breadth of the former director's side of the story - and, quite clearly, what he currently thinks of the president's behaviour.
What we don't know is whether this will take a lasting political toll on Mr Trump or if there's evidence - discovered by Robert Mueller in the investigation that started after Mr Comey's dismissal - that will lead to further criminal charges against Mr Trump's team.
Comey: Six claims about Trump from ex-FBI director
What does Trump think of Comey?
Mr Trump has referred to Mr Comey as "slippery" and a "slimeball" and the "worst FBI director in history".
He continues to attack him over his "many lies" - Mr Trump has even suggested he be jailed over his testimony to Congress.
"Why did he lie to Congress (jail)," Mr Trump tweeted earlier this month, adding: "How come he gave up classified information (jail)."
He has also criticised Mr Comey's new memoir, saying the "badly reviewed book" raises "big questions".
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Trump declared he's running again. Many Republicans aren't ready to back him. - CNN Politics
Trump declared he's running again. Many Republicans aren't ready to back him.
CNN Digital Expansion DC Manu Raju
By Manu Raju, CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent
Updated 1122 GMT (1922 HKT) April 19, 2018
Some Republicans not ready to back Trump in 2020
Lawmaker: Don't want my kids talking like Trump
Bob Corker's biggest Trump criticisms
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 24: Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) walks to a committee hearing after speaking to members of the press on Capitol Hill about U.S. President Donald Trump October 24, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Corker's hashtag becomes viral hit
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill May 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. Senators from both parties are scrambling to react to President Donald Trump's surprise dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.
Trump wrong on Bob Corker and Iran Deal
Corker
Corker: Leaders know what Trump says is untrue
Trump to McCain: 'I fight back'
Steve Bannon season of war GOP values voters sot_00002129.jpg
Bannon: It's a season of war against GOP
Some Republicans not ready to back Trump in 2020
Here's Trump's 2020 campaign slogan
senator flake 03142018
Sen. Flake calls for a GOP challenger to Trump
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 24: Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill after announcing he will not seek re-election October 24, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Flake slams Trump's tweets, defends Schumer
Trump bipartisan meeting 2-28-18
Trump to GOP senators: You're afraid of the NRA
Flake
Flake: More Republicans will be speaking out
Trump: Flake smart for not seeking re-election
Flake: It's my obligation to be critical
Lawmaker: Don't want my kids talking like Trump
Bob Corker's biggest Trump criticisms
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 24: Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) walks to a committee hearing after speaking to members of the press on Capitol Hill about U.S. President Donald Trump October 24, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Corker's hashtag becomes viral hit
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill May 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. Senators from both parties are scrambling to react to President Donald Trump's surprise dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.
Trump wrong on Bob Corker and Iran Deal
Corker
Corker: Leaders know what Trump says is untrue
Trump to McCain: 'I fight back'
Steve Bannon season of war GOP values voters sot_00002129.jpg
Bannon: It's a season of war against GOP
Some Republicans not ready to back Trump in 2020
Here's Trump's 2020 campaign slogan
senator flake 03142018
Sen. Flake calls for a GOP challenger to Trump
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 24: Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill after announcing he will not seek re-election October 24, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Flake slams Trump's tweets, defends Schumer
Trump bipartisan meeting 2-28-18
Trump to GOP senators: You're afraid of the NRA
Flake
Flake: More Republicans will be speaking out
Trump: Flake smart for not seeking re-election
Flake: It's my obligation to be critical
Washington (CNN)A wide array of House and Senate Republicans are not yet ready to endorse President Donald Trump's bid for a second term, a reflection of the deep uncertainty on Capitol Hill over his political standing amid growing problems at home and abroad.
In interviews with a cross-section of more than two dozen GOP lawmakers, ranging from rank-and-file members, conservatives and party leaders, many refused to say they'd back Trump's re-election bid -- a surprise declaration given that members of Congress are typically quick to endorse sitting presidents of their own party without hesitation. Hardly any would offer a categorical endorsement of the President.
Stormy Daniels' lawyer mulling suing Trump directly for defamation
Stormy Daniels' lawyer mulling suing Trump directly for defamation
"I don't know what the world is going to look like," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, when asked if he'd endorse Trump for re-election. "But let's say it's not something I've given any thought to."
Asked several days later if he had given thought to it, Cornyn demurred.
"I haven't even thought about that election," said Cornyn, No. 2 in the Senate GOP conference. "I'm worried about the midterm election."
He's not alone. Many lawmakers sought to avoid the topic altogether.
"Look, I'm focused on opioids," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, the veteran Republican from Tennessee, referring to efforts in Congress to deal with the drug epidemic. "And I was just reelected myself three years ago. So, I'm focused on that."
And others said they were still uncertain the President would ultimately stand for re-election -- even though the White House and Trump himself have repeatedly said he would do so, as he's hired a campaign manager, has been raising money and holding campaign rallies in anticipation of 2020. Unlike past presidents who have waited to announce their reelection bids, Trump made clear immediately after taking office that he's running again.
Still, many Republicans aren't certain he'll do it.
Trump calls Stormy Daniels composite sketch 'a total con job'
Trump calls Stormy Daniels composite sketch 'a total con job'
"That's a little loaded," said Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan when asked if he'd support Trump for re-election. "One: we need to make sure that he's actually moving forward and wants to go after this -- so when he makes a declaration, then I think that would be a time to determine whether there are others (who) run or not."
The comments highlight the continuing uneasiness many Republicans have over Trump's presidency, and the lingering questions about how the multiple legal battles the President is facing -- from the allegations of hush money to silence an alleged affair with the porn actress Stormy Daniels, the raid of his personal attorney Michael Cohen's properties and special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation -- will eventually shake out. And they also contradict Trump's oft-stated contention that the party has "never" been more united.
White House officials did not provide a comment for this story. Trump, however, may have little concern about whether his party in Washington is fully behind him. Few lawmakers backed his primary bid in 2016, and many abandoned him in the general election after the now-infamous "Access Hollywood" tape emerged showing him talking crudely about groping women.
Come 2020, things may be no different.
The conservative South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, when asked about backing Trump's re-election bid, said: "I'm worried about my own race right now."
And the moderate Adam Kinzinger of Illinois had a similar refrain.
"That's 2020 -- pretty far away," he said when asked if he'd back Trump for re-election.
GOP skeptical Trump would lose to primary challenge
Moreover, Trump could face a primary challenger in 2020, though many Republicans on the Hill don't think it's possible that any viable challenger will emerge. Arizona Sen Jeff Flake, a frequent Trump critic who is retiring at year's end, won't rule out a potential primary challenge against the President. And he contended that Trump's staunch support within the party could weaken by the 2020 primary season.
More than half of Americans think Trump will lose in 2020. But that hasn't doomed past presidents from getting reelected.
More than half of Americans think Trump will lose in 2020. But that hasn't doomed past presidents from getting reelected.
"I wouldn't gauge what support there is a year-and-a-half from now from what support there is now," Flake told CNN. "Certainly, now, this is Donald Trump's party. The base is with him in a big way. Believe me, we all know. But that's not to say that will hold."
It's highly unusual for sitting presidents to face primaries --- much less serious contenders. In 1992, George H.W. Bush fended off a challenge from Pat Buchanan, who ran a populist campaign against the sitting GOP president but didn't win a single primary. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter faced a fierce primary from then-Sen. Ted Kennedy, who eventually conceded after a bitter fight. And in 1976, Ronald Reagan tried to pull off an upset against President Gerald Ford but fell short at the GOP convention. All three sitting presidents lost their reelection bids.
This time around, few Republicans think that potential challengers -- like Flake or Ohio Gov. John Kasich -- would have a chance to win.
If Kasich runs, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman appears likely to side with Trump, whom he said is "very popular in Ohio among Republicans."
Portman said he plans to endorse "our standard-bearer, and I assume that will be Mr. Trump."
But asked if there's a possibility he wouldn't back Trump, Portman added: "I mean I would assume that he'll run for re-election but I don't know. Some would say that he's going to get his work done and move back to the private sector, so who knows, who knows? It's just speculative at this point."
Awaiting the midterms
What puts Republicans on Capitol Hill in an awkward spot is the fact that Trump's approval numbers remain rock-solid among core GOP voters, standing at 85% among Republicans in a recent Quinnipiac poll. But if they side too closely with Trump, they risk alienating the broader electorate, where his poll numbers have been historically low.
It's his shaky standing that could prompt a Democratic wave in this fall's elections, with the GOP at serious risk of losing the House and potentially even the Senate. If that were to happen, some believe, Republicans in the Washington will begin to search for a new GOP candidate come 2020.
"Wait until the midterms," said the outgoing GOP Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate from Pennsylvania. "If we get wiped out, the question is going to be: 'Should we do that again?'" referring to backing Trump for re-election.
What you need to know right now about the 2018 midterm elections
What you need to know right now about the 2018 midterm elections
And even some loyal Trump supporters are cautious about 2020, waiting for the midterms to play out first.
"I've supported the President in the past and support him now but three years from now?" said Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, a freshman Republican. "I think the midterms are a long ways away in terms of politics; I don't get involved that far ahead."
Sen. John Thune, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, asked if he would support Trump in 2020, said: "Well that's a long ways off. I want to get through 2018 first."
But Thune, who called on Trump to drop out in 2016 after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, added a note of optimism for Trump, saying that he expects "most of us would probably be behind him" if "he continues to get things done for the American people."
Others wouldn't go that far, including Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican from the pivotal swing state of Florida, who said "it's premature" to say if he'll endorse Trump's re-election bid.
"I'm focused on working and doing what I do and so to talk about what might happen in that time I think is premature," Diaz-Balart said. "We have one President, he's President until the next election, and I will continue to work with him like I work with everybody else to get things done."
Yet despite Trump's public refrain that the party is more united than ever, he has yet to win over some Republicans who didn't back him in 2016. And some have no plans to back him now -- at least not yet.
"I did not endorse the President for the Republican nomination in 2016," said the moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. "I supported first Jeb Bush and then John Kasich. So, again, I think it is far too early to make a judgment of that type."
CNN Digital Expansion DC Manu Raju
By Manu Raju, CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent
Updated 1122 GMT (1922 HKT) April 19, 2018
Some Republicans not ready to back Trump in 2020
Lawmaker: Don't want my kids talking like Trump
Bob Corker's biggest Trump criticisms
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 24: Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) walks to a committee hearing after speaking to members of the press on Capitol Hill about U.S. President Donald Trump October 24, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Corker's hashtag becomes viral hit
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill May 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. Senators from both parties are scrambling to react to President Donald Trump's surprise dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.
Trump wrong on Bob Corker and Iran Deal
Corker
Corker: Leaders know what Trump says is untrue
Trump to McCain: 'I fight back'
Steve Bannon season of war GOP values voters sot_00002129.jpg
Bannon: It's a season of war against GOP
Some Republicans not ready to back Trump in 2020
Here's Trump's 2020 campaign slogan
senator flake 03142018
Sen. Flake calls for a GOP challenger to Trump
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 24: Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill after announcing he will not seek re-election October 24, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Flake slams Trump's tweets, defends Schumer
Trump bipartisan meeting 2-28-18
Trump to GOP senators: You're afraid of the NRA
Flake
Flake: More Republicans will be speaking out
Trump: Flake smart for not seeking re-election
Flake: It's my obligation to be critical
Lawmaker: Don't want my kids talking like Trump
Bob Corker's biggest Trump criticisms
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 24: Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) walks to a committee hearing after speaking to members of the press on Capitol Hill about U.S. President Donald Trump October 24, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Corker's hashtag becomes viral hit
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill May 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. Senators from both parties are scrambling to react to President Donald Trump's surprise dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.
Trump wrong on Bob Corker and Iran Deal
Corker
Corker: Leaders know what Trump says is untrue
Trump to McCain: 'I fight back'
Steve Bannon season of war GOP values voters sot_00002129.jpg
Bannon: It's a season of war against GOP
Some Republicans not ready to back Trump in 2020
Here's Trump's 2020 campaign slogan
senator flake 03142018
Sen. Flake calls for a GOP challenger to Trump
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 24: Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill after announcing he will not seek re-election October 24, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Flake slams Trump's tweets, defends Schumer
Trump bipartisan meeting 2-28-18
Trump to GOP senators: You're afraid of the NRA
Flake
Flake: More Republicans will be speaking out
Trump: Flake smart for not seeking re-election
Flake: It's my obligation to be critical
Washington (CNN)A wide array of House and Senate Republicans are not yet ready to endorse President Donald Trump's bid for a second term, a reflection of the deep uncertainty on Capitol Hill over his political standing amid growing problems at home and abroad.
In interviews with a cross-section of more than two dozen GOP lawmakers, ranging from rank-and-file members, conservatives and party leaders, many refused to say they'd back Trump's re-election bid -- a surprise declaration given that members of Congress are typically quick to endorse sitting presidents of their own party without hesitation. Hardly any would offer a categorical endorsement of the President.
Stormy Daniels' lawyer mulling suing Trump directly for defamation
Stormy Daniels' lawyer mulling suing Trump directly for defamation
"I don't know what the world is going to look like," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, when asked if he'd endorse Trump for re-election. "But let's say it's not something I've given any thought to."
Asked several days later if he had given thought to it, Cornyn demurred.
"I haven't even thought about that election," said Cornyn, No. 2 in the Senate GOP conference. "I'm worried about the midterm election."
He's not alone. Many lawmakers sought to avoid the topic altogether.
"Look, I'm focused on opioids," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, the veteran Republican from Tennessee, referring to efforts in Congress to deal with the drug epidemic. "And I was just reelected myself three years ago. So, I'm focused on that."
And others said they were still uncertain the President would ultimately stand for re-election -- even though the White House and Trump himself have repeatedly said he would do so, as he's hired a campaign manager, has been raising money and holding campaign rallies in anticipation of 2020. Unlike past presidents who have waited to announce their reelection bids, Trump made clear immediately after taking office that he's running again.
Still, many Republicans aren't certain he'll do it.
Trump calls Stormy Daniels composite sketch 'a total con job'
Trump calls Stormy Daniels composite sketch 'a total con job'
"That's a little loaded," said Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan when asked if he'd support Trump for re-election. "One: we need to make sure that he's actually moving forward and wants to go after this -- so when he makes a declaration, then I think that would be a time to determine whether there are others (who) run or not."
The comments highlight the continuing uneasiness many Republicans have over Trump's presidency, and the lingering questions about how the multiple legal battles the President is facing -- from the allegations of hush money to silence an alleged affair with the porn actress Stormy Daniels, the raid of his personal attorney Michael Cohen's properties and special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation -- will eventually shake out. And they also contradict Trump's oft-stated contention that the party has "never" been more united.
White House officials did not provide a comment for this story. Trump, however, may have little concern about whether his party in Washington is fully behind him. Few lawmakers backed his primary bid in 2016, and many abandoned him in the general election after the now-infamous "Access Hollywood" tape emerged showing him talking crudely about groping women.
Come 2020, things may be no different.
The conservative South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, when asked about backing Trump's re-election bid, said: "I'm worried about my own race right now."
And the moderate Adam Kinzinger of Illinois had a similar refrain.
"That's 2020 -- pretty far away," he said when asked if he'd back Trump for re-election.
GOP skeptical Trump would lose to primary challenge
Moreover, Trump could face a primary challenger in 2020, though many Republicans on the Hill don't think it's possible that any viable challenger will emerge. Arizona Sen Jeff Flake, a frequent Trump critic who is retiring at year's end, won't rule out a potential primary challenge against the President. And he contended that Trump's staunch support within the party could weaken by the 2020 primary season.
More than half of Americans think Trump will lose in 2020. But that hasn't doomed past presidents from getting reelected.
More than half of Americans think Trump will lose in 2020. But that hasn't doomed past presidents from getting reelected.
"I wouldn't gauge what support there is a year-and-a-half from now from what support there is now," Flake told CNN. "Certainly, now, this is Donald Trump's party. The base is with him in a big way. Believe me, we all know. But that's not to say that will hold."
It's highly unusual for sitting presidents to face primaries --- much less serious contenders. In 1992, George H.W. Bush fended off a challenge from Pat Buchanan, who ran a populist campaign against the sitting GOP president but didn't win a single primary. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter faced a fierce primary from then-Sen. Ted Kennedy, who eventually conceded after a bitter fight. And in 1976, Ronald Reagan tried to pull off an upset against President Gerald Ford but fell short at the GOP convention. All three sitting presidents lost their reelection bids.
This time around, few Republicans think that potential challengers -- like Flake or Ohio Gov. John Kasich -- would have a chance to win.
If Kasich runs, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman appears likely to side with Trump, whom he said is "very popular in Ohio among Republicans."
Portman said he plans to endorse "our standard-bearer, and I assume that will be Mr. Trump."
But asked if there's a possibility he wouldn't back Trump, Portman added: "I mean I would assume that he'll run for re-election but I don't know. Some would say that he's going to get his work done and move back to the private sector, so who knows, who knows? It's just speculative at this point."
Awaiting the midterms
What puts Republicans on Capitol Hill in an awkward spot is the fact that Trump's approval numbers remain rock-solid among core GOP voters, standing at 85% among Republicans in a recent Quinnipiac poll. But if they side too closely with Trump, they risk alienating the broader electorate, where his poll numbers have been historically low.
It's his shaky standing that could prompt a Democratic wave in this fall's elections, with the GOP at serious risk of losing the House and potentially even the Senate. If that were to happen, some believe, Republicans in the Washington will begin to search for a new GOP candidate come 2020.
"Wait until the midterms," said the outgoing GOP Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate from Pennsylvania. "If we get wiped out, the question is going to be: 'Should we do that again?'" referring to backing Trump for re-election.
What you need to know right now about the 2018 midterm elections
What you need to know right now about the 2018 midterm elections
And even some loyal Trump supporters are cautious about 2020, waiting for the midterms to play out first.
"I've supported the President in the past and support him now but three years from now?" said Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, a freshman Republican. "I think the midterms are a long ways away in terms of politics; I don't get involved that far ahead."
Sen. John Thune, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, asked if he would support Trump in 2020, said: "Well that's a long ways off. I want to get through 2018 first."
But Thune, who called on Trump to drop out in 2016 after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, added a note of optimism for Trump, saying that he expects "most of us would probably be behind him" if "he continues to get things done for the American people."
Others wouldn't go that far, including Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican from the pivotal swing state of Florida, who said "it's premature" to say if he'll endorse Trump's re-election bid.
"I'm focused on working and doing what I do and so to talk about what might happen in that time I think is premature," Diaz-Balart said. "We have one President, he's President until the next election, and I will continue to work with him like I work with everybody else to get things done."
Yet despite Trump's public refrain that the party is more united than ever, he has yet to win over some Republicans who didn't back him in 2016. And some have no plans to back him now -- at least not yet.
"I did not endorse the President for the Republican nomination in 2016," said the moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. "I supported first Jeb Bush and then John Kasich. So, again, I think it is far too early to make a judgment of that type."
Trump Says He'll Sanction Russia 'As Soon As They Very Much Deserve It' - TIME
April 17, 2018
Trump Says He'll Sanction Russia 'As Soon As They Very Much Deserve It'
U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY STEVEN MNUCHIN SAID RUSSIA SANCTIONS "UNDER CONSIDERATION"
TRUMP SAYS CIA DIRECTOR MIKE POMPEO MET WITH KIM JONG UN IN NORTH KOREA
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS HE'LL PULL THE PLUG ON THE NORTH KOREA SUMMIT IF HE FEELS IT WON'T BE 'FRUITFUL'
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE / AP 8:40 PM EDT
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday that nobody has been tougher on Russia than him and that he’ll hit Moscow with new sanctions “as soon as they very much deserve it.”
He also said building a good relationship with Russia is a “good, not bad” thing.
Trump commented a day after an internal White House quarrel over the timing of potential new punishment for Russia exploded into public view. He blamed the news media for spreading a narrative that he said portrays him as being afraid to stand up to Russia.
“There’s been nobody tougher on Russia than President Donald Trump,” the president said, citing increased U.S. military spending among his examples. “With the media, no matter what I did, it’s never tough enough, because that’s their narrative. But Russia will tell you, there’s been nobody tougher than Donald Trump.
Trump mentioned the joint U.S., French and British military operation last weekend that struck several sites in Syria to punish the Russian-backed government of President Bashar Assad for an apparent chemical attack that killed civilians. Trump said the strike was “absolute precision.”
Trump had largely avoided criticizing Russia, leaving the harsh rhetoric and sanctions announcements to others in the administration. But he began to criticize Russia on Twitter after the apparent chemical attack this month that spawned images of Syrian adults gasping for air and being hosed off.
Still, Trump said he would prefer good relations with Russia and other nations.
“If we can get along with China, and if we can get along with Russia, and if we can get along with Japan and other nations that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Just remember that,” Trump said as he ended a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The leaders had spent the past two days discussing such issues as North Korea and trade — and playing golf.
“If we got along with other nations, that’s good, not bad,” Trump said.
A day earlier, an internal White House quarrel over the timing of new Russia sanctions played out in public after Trump’s new economic adviser suggested U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley suffered from “momentary confusion.”
Haley said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that new sanctions directed at companies associated with Syria’s chemical weapons program would be announced Monday — but they weren’t.
Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, told reporters Tuesday that Haley “got ahead of the curve,” adding, “There might have been some momentary confusion about that.”
Haley retorted with a statement to Fox News saying, “With all due respect, I don’t get confused.”
Kudlow called Haley on Tuesday afternoon to apologize, a White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe private discussions.
Trump Says He'll Sanction Russia 'As Soon As They Very Much Deserve It'
U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY STEVEN MNUCHIN SAID RUSSIA SANCTIONS "UNDER CONSIDERATION"
TRUMP SAYS CIA DIRECTOR MIKE POMPEO MET WITH KIM JONG UN IN NORTH KOREA
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS HE'LL PULL THE PLUG ON THE NORTH KOREA SUMMIT IF HE FEELS IT WON'T BE 'FRUITFUL'
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE / AP 8:40 PM EDT
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday that nobody has been tougher on Russia than him and that he’ll hit Moscow with new sanctions “as soon as they very much deserve it.”
He also said building a good relationship with Russia is a “good, not bad” thing.
Trump commented a day after an internal White House quarrel over the timing of potential new punishment for Russia exploded into public view. He blamed the news media for spreading a narrative that he said portrays him as being afraid to stand up to Russia.
“There’s been nobody tougher on Russia than President Donald Trump,” the president said, citing increased U.S. military spending among his examples. “With the media, no matter what I did, it’s never tough enough, because that’s their narrative. But Russia will tell you, there’s been nobody tougher than Donald Trump.
Trump mentioned the joint U.S., French and British military operation last weekend that struck several sites in Syria to punish the Russian-backed government of President Bashar Assad for an apparent chemical attack that killed civilians. Trump said the strike was “absolute precision.”
Trump had largely avoided criticizing Russia, leaving the harsh rhetoric and sanctions announcements to others in the administration. But he began to criticize Russia on Twitter after the apparent chemical attack this month that spawned images of Syrian adults gasping for air and being hosed off.
Still, Trump said he would prefer good relations with Russia and other nations.
“If we can get along with China, and if we can get along with Russia, and if we can get along with Japan and other nations that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Just remember that,” Trump said as he ended a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The leaders had spent the past two days discussing such issues as North Korea and trade — and playing golf.
“If we got along with other nations, that’s good, not bad,” Trump said.
A day earlier, an internal White House quarrel over the timing of new Russia sanctions played out in public after Trump’s new economic adviser suggested U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley suffered from “momentary confusion.”
Haley said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that new sanctions directed at companies associated with Syria’s chemical weapons program would be announced Monday — but they weren’t.
Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, told reporters Tuesday that Haley “got ahead of the curve,” adding, “There might have been some momentary confusion about that.”
Haley retorted with a statement to Fox News saying, “With all due respect, I don’t get confused.”
Kudlow called Haley on Tuesday afternoon to apologize, a White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe private discussions.
James Comey, A Higher Loyalty, book review: A memoir peppered with brutal asides about Trump, but his version of events rings true - Independent
April 17, 2018
James Comey, A Higher Loyalty, book review: A memoir peppered with brutal asides about Trump, but his version of events rings true
The former FBI director has written a book that is both an earnest, exculpatory confession and a jeremiad against the president
by Alasdair Lees
“I don’t recall seeing him laugh, ever… his apparent inability to do so… is really very sad in a leader, and a little scary in a president,” writes James Comey, the FBI director fired by Donald Trump last May. In his damning new memoir and broadside against the president, he blasts him as a shabby Mafia don who, he thinks, quite possibly cavorted with urinating prostitutes in a Moscow hotel suite in 2013.
The claims made in the book have enraged the 45th incumbent, who, in lurid Sopranos-speak, has branded Comey a lying “slimeball”.
A Higher Loyalty is peppered with bitchy asides about Comey's former boss, whom he paints as an insecure ignoramus baffled by words like “calligrapher” and who conducts important White House receptions like an episode of The Price Is Right.
But Comey, is however, as a A Higher Loyalty demonstrates again and again, at heart a Christian moralist, influenced by theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr. “I can be stubborn, prideful, overconfident and driven by ego,” Comey admits at the start of the book. A Higher Loyalty is at once an earnest, exculpatory confession – justifying his actions in controversies from torture and surveillance programmes under George W Bush to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails during the 2016 election – and a jeremiad against a national leader “untethered to the truth”.
One of Comey’s overriding missions is the long-term safeguarding of the FBI’s independence from being “waist-deep in the shit” of the Washington cross-fire, to rebuild public trust in such institutions. But there’s also an implicit hope that Trump, whom he describes as a “forest fire”, will finally immolate himself for provably obstructing justice.
Trump’s attempts to sway the inquiry into Michael Flynn – the former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying about conversations with the Russian ambassador – are here laid out in disquieting detail. Trump’s impulsive decision to fire Comey unleashed a potentially lethal nemesis in the form of special counsel Robert Mueller, who may finally bring him down. As Comey makes clear, such is Trump’s “unique brand of chaos.”
A lot depends, on reading the book, whether Comey’s versions of various events ring true. Mostly they do, and Comey emerges as a decent, well-meaning and thoughtful public servant willing to reflect on his mistakes. The attributes for ethical leadership he advocates – humility, confidence, a willingness to listen and more – are undeniable.
“Forest fires, as painful as they can be, bring growth,” he writes in the epilogue. Bullied as a child, Comey is disgusted by the dreary capo di tutti capi who squats behind the Resolute desk, an absurd symbol of a “dangerous” and “vicious” era.
If Comey is right, Trump’s reign might be reduced to ashes sooner than we think.
A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership by James Comey is published by Macmillan in hardback, £20
James Comey, A Higher Loyalty, book review: A memoir peppered with brutal asides about Trump, but his version of events rings true
The former FBI director has written a book that is both an earnest, exculpatory confession and a jeremiad against the president
by Alasdair Lees
“I don’t recall seeing him laugh, ever… his apparent inability to do so… is really very sad in a leader, and a little scary in a president,” writes James Comey, the FBI director fired by Donald Trump last May. In his damning new memoir and broadside against the president, he blasts him as a shabby Mafia don who, he thinks, quite possibly cavorted with urinating prostitutes in a Moscow hotel suite in 2013.
The claims made in the book have enraged the 45th incumbent, who, in lurid Sopranos-speak, has branded Comey a lying “slimeball”.
A Higher Loyalty is peppered with bitchy asides about Comey's former boss, whom he paints as an insecure ignoramus baffled by words like “calligrapher” and who conducts important White House receptions like an episode of The Price Is Right.
But Comey, is however, as a A Higher Loyalty demonstrates again and again, at heart a Christian moralist, influenced by theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr. “I can be stubborn, prideful, overconfident and driven by ego,” Comey admits at the start of the book. A Higher Loyalty is at once an earnest, exculpatory confession – justifying his actions in controversies from torture and surveillance programmes under George W Bush to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails during the 2016 election – and a jeremiad against a national leader “untethered to the truth”.
One of Comey’s overriding missions is the long-term safeguarding of the FBI’s independence from being “waist-deep in the shit” of the Washington cross-fire, to rebuild public trust in such institutions. But there’s also an implicit hope that Trump, whom he describes as a “forest fire”, will finally immolate himself for provably obstructing justice.
Trump’s attempts to sway the inquiry into Michael Flynn – the former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying about conversations with the Russian ambassador – are here laid out in disquieting detail. Trump’s impulsive decision to fire Comey unleashed a potentially lethal nemesis in the form of special counsel Robert Mueller, who may finally bring him down. As Comey makes clear, such is Trump’s “unique brand of chaos.”
A lot depends, on reading the book, whether Comey’s versions of various events ring true. Mostly they do, and Comey emerges as a decent, well-meaning and thoughtful public servant willing to reflect on his mistakes. The attributes for ethical leadership he advocates – humility, confidence, a willingness to listen and more – are undeniable.
“Forest fires, as painful as they can be, bring growth,” he writes in the epilogue. Bullied as a child, Comey is disgusted by the dreary capo di tutti capi who squats behind the Resolute desk, an absurd symbol of a “dangerous” and “vicious” era.
If Comey is right, Trump’s reign might be reduced to ashes sooner than we think.
A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership by James Comey is published by Macmillan in hardback, £20
Trump request to review personal lawyer's documents seized in FBI raid rejected by judge - Independent
April 16, 2018
Trump request to review personal lawyer's documents seized in FBI raid rejected by judge
Court considers appointment of independent lawyer who would check for records protected by attorney-client privilege
Tom Embury-Dennis @tomemburyd
President Donald Trump has said a decision over Syria will come 'fairly soon' AP
A judge has rejected Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Michael Cohen's requests to vet documents seized by the FBI, before prosecutors are allowed to see them.
However, officials would not be allowed to immediately view documents seized during raids on Mr Cohen’s office, home and hotel room, Judge Kimba Wood ruled at a federal court in New York.
Instead, she indicated that an independent lawyer could be appointed to check for records protected by attorney-client privilege, possibly with specific regards to Mr Cohen's communications with the US president. .
Colbert can't contain joy as Hannity named as Cohen's mystery client
Sean Hannity named as lawyer Michael Cohen's third, mystery client
Trump wants to review files seized from lawyer before investigators
Prosecutors argued that they will not violate attorney-client privilege, because they have set up a so-called filter team of unrelated investigators to review Mr Cohen’s electronic devices and documents first.
Judge Wood also denied a request made by Mr Trump’s lawyers for a temporary restraining order against the Department of Justice. The order would have prevented prosecutors from reviewing the files at all.
The decision is a blow to the US president, who has called the FBI raids a “total witch hunt” and claimed they show “attorney-client privilege is dead”.
Judge Kimba also forced Mr Cohen to reveal he had Fox News host, Sean Hannity, a well known Trump supporter, as a client.
Mr Hannity has denied he was ever been represented by, or paid for services provided by Mr Cohen, who is the subject of a criminal investigation focused on his private finances and business interests.
Colbert couldn't contain his joy over Sean Hannity being named as Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's mystery client
While Judge Wood has not yet formally ruled on who would get access to the documents pertaining to Mr Trump first, she said she had “faith” in Southern District prosecutors, whose “integrity is unimpeachable”.
The raids were widely seen as a major development for the president and his ongoing legal concerns.
However, they were not conducted as a part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Information leading to the raids was, however, reportedly provided by Mr Mueller's team.
The seized documents reportedly include recordings between Mr Cohen and a lawyer for Stormy Daniels, the former adult actor who was paid $130,000 (£91,000) in 2016 to keep quiet about her alleged affair with the US president.
The warrant signed before the raids indicate federal prosecutors were seeking information related to the Daniels payment, as well as correspondence related to any efforts by Mr Cohen to suppress the disclosure of the alleged affair between Mr Trump and Playboy model Karen McDougal.
The warrant also indicated Mr Cohen is being investigated for bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign finance issues.
Outside the courthouse, Ms Daniels’ lawyer said the disclosure of Mr Hannity's connection to Mr Cohen showed that anyone who has been in contact with the lawyer should be worried.
"I said last Friday and this weekend that Michael Cohen was radioactive, and anybody who has been associated with him in the past 20 years should be very concerned... about what secrets of theirs are in these documents," Michael Avenatti said.
"The president has trusted Mr Cohen as his fixer for years."
Trump request to review personal lawyer's documents seized in FBI raid rejected by judge
Court considers appointment of independent lawyer who would check for records protected by attorney-client privilege
Tom Embury-Dennis @tomemburyd
President Donald Trump has said a decision over Syria will come 'fairly soon' AP
A judge has rejected Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Michael Cohen's requests to vet documents seized by the FBI, before prosecutors are allowed to see them.
However, officials would not be allowed to immediately view documents seized during raids on Mr Cohen’s office, home and hotel room, Judge Kimba Wood ruled at a federal court in New York.
Instead, she indicated that an independent lawyer could be appointed to check for records protected by attorney-client privilege, possibly with specific regards to Mr Cohen's communications with the US president. .
Colbert can't contain joy as Hannity named as Cohen's mystery client
Sean Hannity named as lawyer Michael Cohen's third, mystery client
Trump wants to review files seized from lawyer before investigators
Prosecutors argued that they will not violate attorney-client privilege, because they have set up a so-called filter team of unrelated investigators to review Mr Cohen’s electronic devices and documents first.
Judge Wood also denied a request made by Mr Trump’s lawyers for a temporary restraining order against the Department of Justice. The order would have prevented prosecutors from reviewing the files at all.
The decision is a blow to the US president, who has called the FBI raids a “total witch hunt” and claimed they show “attorney-client privilege is dead”.
Judge Kimba also forced Mr Cohen to reveal he had Fox News host, Sean Hannity, a well known Trump supporter, as a client.
Mr Hannity has denied he was ever been represented by, or paid for services provided by Mr Cohen, who is the subject of a criminal investigation focused on his private finances and business interests.
Colbert couldn't contain his joy over Sean Hannity being named as Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's mystery client
While Judge Wood has not yet formally ruled on who would get access to the documents pertaining to Mr Trump first, she said she had “faith” in Southern District prosecutors, whose “integrity is unimpeachable”.
The raids were widely seen as a major development for the president and his ongoing legal concerns.
However, they were not conducted as a part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Information leading to the raids was, however, reportedly provided by Mr Mueller's team.
The seized documents reportedly include recordings between Mr Cohen and a lawyer for Stormy Daniels, the former adult actor who was paid $130,000 (£91,000) in 2016 to keep quiet about her alleged affair with the US president.
The warrant signed before the raids indicate federal prosecutors were seeking information related to the Daniels payment, as well as correspondence related to any efforts by Mr Cohen to suppress the disclosure of the alleged affair between Mr Trump and Playboy model Karen McDougal.
The warrant also indicated Mr Cohen is being investigated for bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign finance issues.
Outside the courthouse, Ms Daniels’ lawyer said the disclosure of Mr Hannity's connection to Mr Cohen showed that anyone who has been in contact with the lawyer should be worried.
"I said last Friday and this weekend that Michael Cohen was radioactive, and anybody who has been associated with him in the past 20 years should be very concerned... about what secrets of theirs are in these documents," Michael Avenatti said.
"The president has trusted Mr Cohen as his fixer for years."
Merkel Floats Meeting With Putin as Points of Conflict Multiply - Bloomberg
Merkel Floats Meeting With Putin as Points of Conflict Multiply
By Patrick Donahue
April 18, 2018, 12:08 AM GMT+10
No date set as Merkel says it’s ‘necessary’ to talk to Putin
Merkel, Putin discussed Syria, gas pipeline by phone earlier
Angela Merkel shakes hands with Vladimir Putin ahead of a four-way leaders' summit at the Chancellery in Berlin, Germany, on Oct. 19, 2016. Photographer: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she plans to meet with President Vladimir Putin in the “foreseeable future” after military strikes in Syria widened a rift between Russia and the west.
Merkel made the proposal after speaking by phone with Putin earlier Tuesday, when they discussed Syria as well as the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project from Russia to Germany. The chancellor said last week that Nord Stream 2 shouldn’t go forward if it disrupts gas transfers across Ukraine.
“I think the number of issues we have in front of us, from Ukraine to gas to the very big issues over Syria, requires us to have a direct exchange in the foreseeable future,” Merkel told reporters in Berlin. No date has yet been set for a meeting.
Germany’s historical relationship with Russia means there is a substantial lobby in favor of closer ties to Moscow. But Merkel’s always prickly relationship with Putin has been strained close to breaking point after the Russian seizure of Crimea and its intervention in eastern Ukraine, which her government has condemned as a violation of international law.
After sitting out the weekend’s air strikes on Syrian targets, Merkel has stepped up efforts to seek a political settlement to the seven-year civil war. She said that while Russia carries responsibility for its backing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, no political settlement to end the war can take place without a role for Putin’s government.
“It will be necessary to talk to Russia,” Merkel said at a press conference with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in Berlin on Tuesday.
Merkel, a Russian speaker who grew up in communist East Germany, last had a bilateral meeting with Putin in May 2017 in the Black Sea city of Sochi, a tense encounter as the two clashed over Ukraine, human rights and election meddling. They also met at the Group of 20 summit she hosted in Hamburg last July.
By Patrick Donahue
April 18, 2018, 12:08 AM GMT+10
No date set as Merkel says it’s ‘necessary’ to talk to Putin
Merkel, Putin discussed Syria, gas pipeline by phone earlier
Angela Merkel shakes hands with Vladimir Putin ahead of a four-way leaders' summit at the Chancellery in Berlin, Germany, on Oct. 19, 2016. Photographer: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she plans to meet with President Vladimir Putin in the “foreseeable future” after military strikes in Syria widened a rift between Russia and the west.
Merkel made the proposal after speaking by phone with Putin earlier Tuesday, when they discussed Syria as well as the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project from Russia to Germany. The chancellor said last week that Nord Stream 2 shouldn’t go forward if it disrupts gas transfers across Ukraine.
“I think the number of issues we have in front of us, from Ukraine to gas to the very big issues over Syria, requires us to have a direct exchange in the foreseeable future,” Merkel told reporters in Berlin. No date has yet been set for a meeting.
Germany’s historical relationship with Russia means there is a substantial lobby in favor of closer ties to Moscow. But Merkel’s always prickly relationship with Putin has been strained close to breaking point after the Russian seizure of Crimea and its intervention in eastern Ukraine, which her government has condemned as a violation of international law.
After sitting out the weekend’s air strikes on Syrian targets, Merkel has stepped up efforts to seek a political settlement to the seven-year civil war. She said that while Russia carries responsibility for its backing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, no political settlement to end the war can take place without a role for Putin’s government.
“It will be necessary to talk to Russia,” Merkel said at a press conference with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in Berlin on Tuesday.
Merkel, a Russian speaker who grew up in communist East Germany, last had a bilateral meeting with Putin in May 2017 in the Black Sea city of Sochi, a tense encounter as the two clashed over Ukraine, human rights and election meddling. They also met at the Group of 20 summit she hosted in Hamburg last July.
North Korea Talks: Here's What a Pragmatist Could Hope For - Bloomberg
North Korea Talks: Here's What a Pragmatist Could Hope For
One theory is that diplomacy leads to bureaucracy, which leads to stability.
By Tyler Cowen
April 19, 2018, 4:20 AM GMT+10
Hanging out with Dennis Rodman isn't the worst thing Kim Jong Un could do with his time. Source: Kyodo News, via Getty Images
It's been confirmed that CIA Director Mike Pompeo held direct talks with Kim Jong Un in North Korea, and negotiations between Kim and President Donald Trump really do seem in the offing, so we need to ask how such negotiations might actually succeed.
There are indeed reasons to be optimistic, but not because I see high odds of striking a workable deal with the North Korean totalitarian regime to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Instead, the best realistic scenarios would have the North Korean leaders deciding to carve out a more normal existence for their nation. Talks can help create or hasten that outcome.
The case for pessimism is not hard to see. The North Korean regime is notorious for conducting and then stalling negotiations -- and then proceeding to violate agreements -- as a tactic to buy time to build up weapons of mass destruction. There is a very real danger that, two years from now, there will have been plenty of talk but North Korea will have developed high-quality intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of striking Europe or North America accurately.
So if time appears to be on the side of the North Koreans, and America does not seem on the verge of a preemptive attack (nor would I recommend one), what is the cause to be optimistic about the outcome of talks?
First: The North Korean regime has never been bureaucratized in the modern sense of that term. While we don't have comprehensive information, it seems that until recently Kim as leader had not been going abroad, nor had he been receiving many visits from other heads of state. His position and perhaps his mood has been one of extreme isolation, and he is not surrounded by anything resembling the U.S. State Department or even the old-style Soviet bureaucracies that managed foreign policy for the USSR. The rest of his regime is probably poorly informed about the extent of American military superiority, should a conflict come to pass.
By meeting with other foreign leaders, the North Korean regime would be forced to build up its basic processes for dealing with the rest of the world. That in turn creates interest groups and flows of information (some of which invariably leak out). The North Korean populace responds by thinking more about the outside world, making it harder to control by propaganda. In turn the North Korean leadership may decide to continue economic liberalization.
One need not count on an "End of History" story culminating in liberalism and democratization. The more modest hope would be for the North Korean leadership to become more decentralized, more bureaucratic, better informed and harder to marshal behind crazy military measures.
The unspoken goal of engagement would be to encourage North Korea to evolve into a more banal and more predictable form. That is the natural flow of most bureaucratic organizations, so in this regard American negotiators actually have time on their side. The North Koreans are going to change a lot more than the U.S. is likely to.
Second: Kim is only human and has to be thinking some about his own life. Does he want 40 or more years of lining up officials and executing them? These days the headlines are about K-pop in North Korea, such as when the popular girl group Red Velvet performed for Kim and his wife early in April. It turns out that Kim is quite the fan of South Korean popular culture -- long banned for his people, with brutal enforcement.
Another good sign is that Chinese President Xi Jinping has vowed to go to Pyongyang for further talks with Kim. And in addition to these explicitly political contacts, Kim visited China's technology hub Zhongguancun, where he was the recipient of much attention and he tried on virtual-reality headsets.
Perhaps this leader would personally prefer more cultural and economic exchange with South Korea, China and the West.
Given that Kim studied in Switzerland (and perhaps crossed a few borders incognito), he is hardly a stranger to foreign travel and contacts, but this is the first time he is enjoying the perks of being a leader abroad or receiving others. Is that not a superior and indeed more stable existence than ruling the Hermit Kingdom? Let's hope he sees that. Think of any diplomatic talks with North Korea as a big act of theater -- designed not to fool him, but to teach him that theater itself can be fun.
One theory is that diplomacy leads to bureaucracy, which leads to stability.
By Tyler Cowen
April 19, 2018, 4:20 AM GMT+10
Hanging out with Dennis Rodman isn't the worst thing Kim Jong Un could do with his time. Source: Kyodo News, via Getty Images
It's been confirmed that CIA Director Mike Pompeo held direct talks with Kim Jong Un in North Korea, and negotiations between Kim and President Donald Trump really do seem in the offing, so we need to ask how such negotiations might actually succeed.
There are indeed reasons to be optimistic, but not because I see high odds of striking a workable deal with the North Korean totalitarian regime to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Instead, the best realistic scenarios would have the North Korean leaders deciding to carve out a more normal existence for their nation. Talks can help create or hasten that outcome.
The case for pessimism is not hard to see. The North Korean regime is notorious for conducting and then stalling negotiations -- and then proceeding to violate agreements -- as a tactic to buy time to build up weapons of mass destruction. There is a very real danger that, two years from now, there will have been plenty of talk but North Korea will have developed high-quality intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of striking Europe or North America accurately.
So if time appears to be on the side of the North Koreans, and America does not seem on the verge of a preemptive attack (nor would I recommend one), what is the cause to be optimistic about the outcome of talks?
First: The North Korean regime has never been bureaucratized in the modern sense of that term. While we don't have comprehensive information, it seems that until recently Kim as leader had not been going abroad, nor had he been receiving many visits from other heads of state. His position and perhaps his mood has been one of extreme isolation, and he is not surrounded by anything resembling the U.S. State Department or even the old-style Soviet bureaucracies that managed foreign policy for the USSR. The rest of his regime is probably poorly informed about the extent of American military superiority, should a conflict come to pass.
By meeting with other foreign leaders, the North Korean regime would be forced to build up its basic processes for dealing with the rest of the world. That in turn creates interest groups and flows of information (some of which invariably leak out). The North Korean populace responds by thinking more about the outside world, making it harder to control by propaganda. In turn the North Korean leadership may decide to continue economic liberalization.
One need not count on an "End of History" story culminating in liberalism and democratization. The more modest hope would be for the North Korean leadership to become more decentralized, more bureaucratic, better informed and harder to marshal behind crazy military measures.
The unspoken goal of engagement would be to encourage North Korea to evolve into a more banal and more predictable form. That is the natural flow of most bureaucratic organizations, so in this regard American negotiators actually have time on their side. The North Koreans are going to change a lot more than the U.S. is likely to.
Second: Kim is only human and has to be thinking some about his own life. Does he want 40 or more years of lining up officials and executing them? These days the headlines are about K-pop in North Korea, such as when the popular girl group Red Velvet performed for Kim and his wife early in April. It turns out that Kim is quite the fan of South Korean popular culture -- long banned for his people, with brutal enforcement.
Another good sign is that Chinese President Xi Jinping has vowed to go to Pyongyang for further talks with Kim. And in addition to these explicitly political contacts, Kim visited China's technology hub Zhongguancun, where he was the recipient of much attention and he tried on virtual-reality headsets.
Perhaps this leader would personally prefer more cultural and economic exchange with South Korea, China and the West.
Given that Kim studied in Switzerland (and perhaps crossed a few borders incognito), he is hardly a stranger to foreign travel and contacts, but this is the first time he is enjoying the perks of being a leader abroad or receiving others. Is that not a superior and indeed more stable existence than ruling the Hermit Kingdom? Let's hope he sees that. Think of any diplomatic talks with North Korea as a big act of theater -- designed not to fool him, but to teach him that theater itself can be fun.
Citizens deserve more public facts about intelligence judgments used to justify decisions on war and peace. - Bloomberg ( VIEW )
Democracies Should Trust But Verify
Citizens deserve more public facts about intelligence judgments used to justify decisions on war and peace.
By Leonid Bershidsky
April 18, 2018, 12:27 AM GMT+10
On Monday, U.S. and U.K. law enforcement agencies issued a rare joint warning to businesses to keep their routers safe from "Russian state-sponsored actors." Most will take precautions and not question the information. And yet, because live in democracies, it's worth asking the question: How do these agencies know this?
Evidentiary standards for government narratives concerning everything from cybersecurity to Syria have deteriorated so much that Western democracies are giving their citizens almost as little useful information on matters of national security as the Russian regime's notorious propaganda machine gives Russian citizens. That is not only insulting to the public, it's also dangerous in a democracy.
Router botnets have existed for years, exploiting sloppily written firmware and weak passwords on the devices that manage our internet connections. Perhaps the best-known of these was the Mirai botnet, which emerged in 2016 and, at its peak, controlled 2.5 million devices. But Mirai wasn't a Russian creation: Behind it were three college-age men in the U.S. who started out trying to get ahead in Minecraft, the computer game, by crashing the servers of rivals also trying to provide multiplayer access.
Although Russian hackers have been accused of, and arrested for, running other botnets, neither they nor the Russian state has been publicly linked to a major one affecting routers. Maybe they are, but the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the British National Cyber Security Center did not provide any evidence that "Russian state-sponsored actors" were involved in this line of malicious hacking or that they were more dangerous than other router-hacking evildoers.
Monday's warning follows the patterns of the similarly evidence-free attribution to Russian military intelligence of NotPetya, a hard disk-encoding malware epidemic that caused massive damage over last year. And while it is now accepted gospel that hackers sponsored by the Russian government had stolen data from the Democratic National Committee in 2016, the acceptance is based on endless repetition rather than any specific evidence apart from anonymous intelligence leaks and reports by cybersecurity companies interested in bolstering their visibility.
It's not as if proper standards don't exist. Special Counsel Robert Mueller followed them in the indictment of 13 individuals linked to the Internet Research Agency, a notorious St. Petersburg troll factory. The facts, as known to the investigators, are laid out carefully and persuasively. One might argue about the effect those actions had on the U.S. presidential election, but those arguing at least have full access to the same set of facts. That's not the case with the hacking accusations -- and there's a rush to judgment by government agencies before the public, too, can make up its mind based on the facts.
The emerging low evidentiary standard is not limited to cyber matters. Sites controlled by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were hit by the U.S., the U.K. and France last week in retaliation against the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad's troops in Douma earlier this month -- before experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons experts even got a chance to travel to Douma. They are apparently going there on Wednesday, and they should be able to detect whether chemical weapons had been deployed even if a cleanup has been attempted by Russian forces who got advance access.
There's also no publicly available proof to support the conclusion that Russian government agents attempted to poison former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Julia in March.
Russia has killed spies it considered traitors before. The polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko is evidence of that. "Evidence" is not a figure of speech here: In 2016, the U.K. released a detailed, convincing, fact-filled report on the case. It took a long time, as all thorough investigations do. In the Skripal case, the obvious conclusion is also likely the correct one, but, long before that could be firmly established, Theresa May and her cabinet made strong statements to whip up public support for retaliatory action -- and, in the process, made it more difficult for professional investigators to look into other possibilities, no matter how unlikely.
Assad has used chemical weapons before, too. The Joint Investigative Mechanism of the OPCW and the United Nations linked the April 2017 sarin attack on Khan Sheikhoun to the regime. (The JIM, of course, also linked another gas attack, which took place in 2016, to ISIS, so the Assad regime is not the only warring side in Syria to have unleashed chemical weapons). Russia, which does its best to protect Assad, has since refused to extend the JIM's mandate, so in Douma, the OPCW can only establish whether chemical weapons had been used, not apportion blame.
The U.S. and its allies, however, acted before even that could be done. After the missiles flew, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said he was "absolutely confident" that the Syrian regime conducted the chemical attack but didn't specify what evidence he had.
In the absence of convincing evidence, all we, the public and journalists not interested in rushing to judgment, have to go by are our considerations of whom an event benefits. But personal doubts and beliefs about the calculations and interests of various actors are quite distinct from any degree of true knowledge.
Few people read long technical texts like the IRA indictment, the Owen report on Litvinenko, the JIM report on chemical weapons in Syria, the McLaren report on Russian doping in sports. Sometimes even the evidentiary standard of these documents can be insufficient for a court -- some Russian athletes' bans imposed after the McLaren investigation were, for example, struck down by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. But the evidence laid out in such documents is usually enough for informed judgments by politicians, the media and those members of the public who are concerned enough to read some dense prose. It's enough for an informed public debate.
Non-public intelligence can still be legitimate; no government is going to submit to a rule that says any military action must follow what is effectively a public trial of the evidence. But Western governments appear to be leaning toward the other extreme, implying that the public release of evidence is never necessary before judgments are passed and retaliatory measures launched. Democracies must protect their institutions from abuse and show respect for citizens by doing their best to provide factual information. In a world of fake news, governments have to rise to a higher evidentiary bar. Besides, waiting a few weeks or even months before taking drastic action is often a sign of wisdom, not weakness.
Citizens deserve more public facts about intelligence judgments used to justify decisions on war and peace.
By Leonid Bershidsky
April 18, 2018, 12:27 AM GMT+10
On Monday, U.S. and U.K. law enforcement agencies issued a rare joint warning to businesses to keep their routers safe from "Russian state-sponsored actors." Most will take precautions and not question the information. And yet, because live in democracies, it's worth asking the question: How do these agencies know this?
Evidentiary standards for government narratives concerning everything from cybersecurity to Syria have deteriorated so much that Western democracies are giving their citizens almost as little useful information on matters of national security as the Russian regime's notorious propaganda machine gives Russian citizens. That is not only insulting to the public, it's also dangerous in a democracy.
Router botnets have existed for years, exploiting sloppily written firmware and weak passwords on the devices that manage our internet connections. Perhaps the best-known of these was the Mirai botnet, which emerged in 2016 and, at its peak, controlled 2.5 million devices. But Mirai wasn't a Russian creation: Behind it were three college-age men in the U.S. who started out trying to get ahead in Minecraft, the computer game, by crashing the servers of rivals also trying to provide multiplayer access.
Although Russian hackers have been accused of, and arrested for, running other botnets, neither they nor the Russian state has been publicly linked to a major one affecting routers. Maybe they are, but the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the British National Cyber Security Center did not provide any evidence that "Russian state-sponsored actors" were involved in this line of malicious hacking or that they were more dangerous than other router-hacking evildoers.
Monday's warning follows the patterns of the similarly evidence-free attribution to Russian military intelligence of NotPetya, a hard disk-encoding malware epidemic that caused massive damage over last year. And while it is now accepted gospel that hackers sponsored by the Russian government had stolen data from the Democratic National Committee in 2016, the acceptance is based on endless repetition rather than any specific evidence apart from anonymous intelligence leaks and reports by cybersecurity companies interested in bolstering their visibility.
It's not as if proper standards don't exist. Special Counsel Robert Mueller followed them in the indictment of 13 individuals linked to the Internet Research Agency, a notorious St. Petersburg troll factory. The facts, as known to the investigators, are laid out carefully and persuasively. One might argue about the effect those actions had on the U.S. presidential election, but those arguing at least have full access to the same set of facts. That's not the case with the hacking accusations -- and there's a rush to judgment by government agencies before the public, too, can make up its mind based on the facts.
The emerging low evidentiary standard is not limited to cyber matters. Sites controlled by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were hit by the U.S., the U.K. and France last week in retaliation against the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad's troops in Douma earlier this month -- before experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons experts even got a chance to travel to Douma. They are apparently going there on Wednesday, and they should be able to detect whether chemical weapons had been deployed even if a cleanup has been attempted by Russian forces who got advance access.
There's also no publicly available proof to support the conclusion that Russian government agents attempted to poison former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Julia in March.
Russia has killed spies it considered traitors before. The polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko is evidence of that. "Evidence" is not a figure of speech here: In 2016, the U.K. released a detailed, convincing, fact-filled report on the case. It took a long time, as all thorough investigations do. In the Skripal case, the obvious conclusion is also likely the correct one, but, long before that could be firmly established, Theresa May and her cabinet made strong statements to whip up public support for retaliatory action -- and, in the process, made it more difficult for professional investigators to look into other possibilities, no matter how unlikely.
Assad has used chemical weapons before, too. The Joint Investigative Mechanism of the OPCW and the United Nations linked the April 2017 sarin attack on Khan Sheikhoun to the regime. (The JIM, of course, also linked another gas attack, which took place in 2016, to ISIS, so the Assad regime is not the only warring side in Syria to have unleashed chemical weapons). Russia, which does its best to protect Assad, has since refused to extend the JIM's mandate, so in Douma, the OPCW can only establish whether chemical weapons had been used, not apportion blame.
The U.S. and its allies, however, acted before even that could be done. After the missiles flew, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said he was "absolutely confident" that the Syrian regime conducted the chemical attack but didn't specify what evidence he had.
In the absence of convincing evidence, all we, the public and journalists not interested in rushing to judgment, have to go by are our considerations of whom an event benefits. But personal doubts and beliefs about the calculations and interests of various actors are quite distinct from any degree of true knowledge.
Few people read long technical texts like the IRA indictment, the Owen report on Litvinenko, the JIM report on chemical weapons in Syria, the McLaren report on Russian doping in sports. Sometimes even the evidentiary standard of these documents can be insufficient for a court -- some Russian athletes' bans imposed after the McLaren investigation were, for example, struck down by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. But the evidence laid out in such documents is usually enough for informed judgments by politicians, the media and those members of the public who are concerned enough to read some dense prose. It's enough for an informed public debate.
Non-public intelligence can still be legitimate; no government is going to submit to a rule that says any military action must follow what is effectively a public trial of the evidence. But Western governments appear to be leaning toward the other extreme, implying that the public release of evidence is never necessary before judgments are passed and retaliatory measures launched. Democracies must protect their institutions from abuse and show respect for citizens by doing their best to provide factual information. In a world of fake news, governments have to rise to a higher evidentiary bar. Besides, waiting a few weeks or even months before taking drastic action is often a sign of wisdom, not weakness.
Trump Voter Fraud Investigator Kris Kobach Found in Contempt of Court - Bloomberg ( source : Associated Press )
Trump Voter Fraud Investigator Kris Kobach Found in Contempt of Court
By Peter Blumberg
April 19, 2018, 8:55 AM GMT+10
Kris Kobach Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
One of U.S. President Donald Trump’s leading voter-fraud investigators was ruled in contempt of court for flouting a judge’s orders to ensure that voters in his home state weren’t misled ahead of the 2016 general election.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who was vice chairman of the election integrity commission that the Trump administration disbanded in January, was cited Wednesday by the chief federal judge in Kansas for a “history of noncompliance and disrespect” for the court’s decisions.
In May 2016, Kobach lost a challenge to the Kansas Documentary Proof of Citizenship law brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. He then failed to comply with the court’s directive that he tell affected voters that they would be deemed registered and qualified to vote, according to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson.
For now, Kobach is required only to reimburse his adversaries for attorney fees. But Robinson said she may consider further remedial measures when she issues final findings in the case.
Kobach, a Republican running for governor of Kansas, last month represented his office in court defending the state’s voter-registration law and said that it had prevented between 1,000 and 18,000 noncitizens from voting. An ACLU attorney countered that the noncitizens accused by Kobach of illegally registering to vote and stealing elections “are not real,” according to the Associated Press.
By Peter Blumberg
April 19, 2018, 8:55 AM GMT+10
Kris Kobach Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
One of U.S. President Donald Trump’s leading voter-fraud investigators was ruled in contempt of court for flouting a judge’s orders to ensure that voters in his home state weren’t misled ahead of the 2016 general election.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who was vice chairman of the election integrity commission that the Trump administration disbanded in January, was cited Wednesday by the chief federal judge in Kansas for a “history of noncompliance and disrespect” for the court’s decisions.
In May 2016, Kobach lost a challenge to the Kansas Documentary Proof of Citizenship law brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. He then failed to comply with the court’s directive that he tell affected voters that they would be deemed registered and qualified to vote, according to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson.
For now, Kobach is required only to reimburse his adversaries for attorney fees. But Robinson said she may consider further remedial measures when she issues final findings in the case.
Kobach, a Republican running for governor of Kansas, last month represented his office in court defending the state’s voter-registration law and said that it had prevented between 1,000 and 18,000 noncitizens from voting. An ACLU attorney countered that the noncitizens accused by Kobach of illegally registering to vote and stealing elections “are not real,” according to the Associated Press.
Starbucks Is Closing Thousands of Stores for Racial Bias Training. Here’s How Much Money It Could Lose - TIME Business
Starbucks Is Closing Thousands of Stores for Racial Bias Training. Here’s How Much Money It Could Lose
Posted: 17 Apr 2018 11:58 AM PDT
Starbucks is closing over 8,000 company-owned stores for racial bias training during an afternoon in May, the company announced Tuesday.
The news comes as the Seattle, Wash.-based firm is being criticized after two black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks store after asking to use the restroom without making a purchase. The incident has led to protests and boycotts nationwide, while the manager involved in the situation has since left Starbucks’ Philadelphia location where the arrest took place.
“Closing our stores for racial bias training is just one step in a journey that requires dedication from every level of our company and partnerships in our local communities,” said Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson in a statement Tuesday.
Closing thousands of stores could be costly for the company.
Starbucks-owned stores made about $4.7 billion in revenue over the most recent quarter, according to the company’s latest earnings report. Divide that by three, and you get about $1.6 billion per month. Divide again by 30, and you get about $53.3 million every day. Divide again by 24, and you get about $2.2 million every hour. So if you assume each company-owned Starbucks store will close for about four hours over a single afternoon, that’s roughly $8.8 million in revenue the company will potentially miss out on, by this admittedly back-of-the-envelope math.
It’s worth noting a couple of caveats: Not every company-owned Starbucks store will close, so this estimate may be slightly high. Meanwhile, some customers may simply wait until Starbucks re-opens to get their fix on the day of the closures, but as a self-identifying caffeine addict, I’d argue most people will just get their fix at a rival chain or local coffee shop.
But for Starbucks, the price may be worth paying. The company’s stock price and reputation have both suffered in the wake of the Philadelphia Starbucks arrest incident. Shutting down Starbucks stores is the kind of strong response from Johnson that might help restore the shaken trust and confidence between Starbucks, its customers, its employees, and its investors.
Posted: 17 Apr 2018 11:58 AM PDT
Starbucks is closing over 8,000 company-owned stores for racial bias training during an afternoon in May, the company announced Tuesday.
The news comes as the Seattle, Wash.-based firm is being criticized after two black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks store after asking to use the restroom without making a purchase. The incident has led to protests and boycotts nationwide, while the manager involved in the situation has since left Starbucks’ Philadelphia location where the arrest took place.
“Closing our stores for racial bias training is just one step in a journey that requires dedication from every level of our company and partnerships in our local communities,” said Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson in a statement Tuesday.
Closing thousands of stores could be costly for the company.
Starbucks-owned stores made about $4.7 billion in revenue over the most recent quarter, according to the company’s latest earnings report. Divide that by three, and you get about $1.6 billion per month. Divide again by 30, and you get about $53.3 million every day. Divide again by 24, and you get about $2.2 million every hour. So if you assume each company-owned Starbucks store will close for about four hours over a single afternoon, that’s roughly $8.8 million in revenue the company will potentially miss out on, by this admittedly back-of-the-envelope math.
It’s worth noting a couple of caveats: Not every company-owned Starbucks store will close, so this estimate may be slightly high. Meanwhile, some customers may simply wait until Starbucks re-opens to get their fix on the day of the closures, but as a self-identifying caffeine addict, I’d argue most people will just get their fix at a rival chain or local coffee shop.
But for Starbucks, the price may be worth paying. The company’s stock price and reputation have both suffered in the wake of the Philadelphia Starbucks arrest incident. Shutting down Starbucks stores is the kind of strong response from Johnson that might help restore the shaken trust and confidence between Starbucks, its customers, its employees, and its investors.
President Trump’s Tariffs Are ‘Distorting’ Global Trade, E.U. Warns - TIME
President Trump’s Tariffs Are ‘Distorting’ Global Trade, E.U. Warns
Posted: 18 Apr 2018 02:47 AM PDT
(BRUSSELS) — Europe’s top trade official said Wednesday that new U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs are distorting global trade and could damage hopes for economic growth.
Cecilia Malmstrom, the European Union’s trade commissioner, also said the bloc would not offer any concessions in order to be exempt from the U.S. import duties ahead of a May 1 deadline in talks.
“We are a seeing a recovery and a potential growth in trade and global growth but it is threatened by these tariffs,” she told reporters in Strasbourg, France. “We can see already tendencies of distortion of trade that affects the EU as well.”
Last month, U.S. President Donald Trump slapped tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on imported aluminum, but granted the EU a temporary exemption until May 1. He also temporarily exempted big steel producers Canada and Mexico — provided they agree to renegotiate a North American trade deal to his satisfaction.
The EU has drawn up a list of “rebalancing” duties worth some 2.8 billion euros ($3.4 billion) to slap on U.S. products if it is not permanently excluded.
Describing the U.S. tariffs as “pure protectionism,” Malmstrom said the EU would not be strong-armed into giving up any sweeteners in exchange for a permanent exemption, amid rumors that Brussels might be preparing some kind of trade offer.
“We have not offered the U.S. anything. We are not going to offer them anything to get exceptions from tariffs that we consider are not in compliance with the WTO,” she said, referring to global trade’s governing body, the World Trade Organization.
“We expect to be permanently and unconditionally exempted from these measures,” said Malmstrom. She added that talks with Washington are continuing but that the EU has received no guarantees yet.
Malmstrom also expressed concern about trade tensions between the U.S. and China, describing a possible escalation as “something that could be very worrisome for the global economy.”
Her remarks came as the European Commission announced that it had wrapped up negotiations with Japan and Singapore on major trade and investment deals and that it hoped the new pacts can be endorsed by EU countries and enter force by late next year.
EU Commission Vice President Jyrki Katainen hailed them as a victory for rules-based trade and the multilateral system.
“It’s always worrisome if any of our partners are willing to take unilateral action against us, or against any of us,” he said, but he noted that “support for multilateralism has strengthened recently because of unilateral actions.”
Posted: 18 Apr 2018 02:47 AM PDT
(BRUSSELS) — Europe’s top trade official said Wednesday that new U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs are distorting global trade and could damage hopes for economic growth.
Cecilia Malmstrom, the European Union’s trade commissioner, also said the bloc would not offer any concessions in order to be exempt from the U.S. import duties ahead of a May 1 deadline in talks.
“We are a seeing a recovery and a potential growth in trade and global growth but it is threatened by these tariffs,” she told reporters in Strasbourg, France. “We can see already tendencies of distortion of trade that affects the EU as well.”
Last month, U.S. President Donald Trump slapped tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on imported aluminum, but granted the EU a temporary exemption until May 1. He also temporarily exempted big steel producers Canada and Mexico — provided they agree to renegotiate a North American trade deal to his satisfaction.
The EU has drawn up a list of “rebalancing” duties worth some 2.8 billion euros ($3.4 billion) to slap on U.S. products if it is not permanently excluded.
Describing the U.S. tariffs as “pure protectionism,” Malmstrom said the EU would not be strong-armed into giving up any sweeteners in exchange for a permanent exemption, amid rumors that Brussels might be preparing some kind of trade offer.
“We have not offered the U.S. anything. We are not going to offer them anything to get exceptions from tariffs that we consider are not in compliance with the WTO,” she said, referring to global trade’s governing body, the World Trade Organization.
“We expect to be permanently and unconditionally exempted from these measures,” said Malmstrom. She added that talks with Washington are continuing but that the EU has received no guarantees yet.
Malmstrom also expressed concern about trade tensions between the U.S. and China, describing a possible escalation as “something that could be very worrisome for the global economy.”
Her remarks came as the European Commission announced that it had wrapped up negotiations with Japan and Singapore on major trade and investment deals and that it hoped the new pacts can be endorsed by EU countries and enter force by late next year.
EU Commission Vice President Jyrki Katainen hailed them as a victory for rules-based trade and the multilateral system.
“It’s always worrisome if any of our partners are willing to take unilateral action against us, or against any of us,” he said, but he noted that “support for multilateralism has strengthened recently because of unilateral actions.”
Southwest Airlines engine explosion linked to prior accident - BBC News
April 19, 2018
Southwest Airlines engine explosion linked to prior accident
Signs of metal fatigue were found where the fan blade separated from the engine, experts said
A mid-air engine explosion that punctured a passenger jet window has been linked to a similar incident in 2016, US investigations show.
A female passenger died after she was nearly sucked from the cabin of a Southwest Airlines flight travelling from New York to Dallas on Tuesday.
Investigators say there was a fault with the engine's fan blades - the cause of the incident two years ago.
US aviation authorities are to order inspections of similar jet engines.
Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, a Boeing 737 which was carrying 149 people, was forced to make an emergency landing at Philadelphia airport on Tuesday following a fault with one of its CFM56-7B engines.
An initial investigation found evidence of metal fatigue where a fan blade had broken off, according to the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
A similar incident was recorded in 2016 involving a Southwest flight that landed safely in Florida.
Fan blades that have undergone a certain number of flights will have to be given ultrasonic tests, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has said.
It added that the "airworthiness directive", which will require inspections of a large number of CFM56-7B engines, would be issued within the next two weeks.
The FAA
✔
@FAANews
#FAA Statement: Airworthiness Directive (AD) - Required Inspections of Certain CFM56-7B Engines.
10:15 AM - Apr 19, 2018 · Washington, DC
The CFM56-7B engine is in use on more than 8,000 Boeing 737 planes worldwide, the manufacturer says.
Last year, the FAA estimated that some 220 of these engines would require testing, having carried out a certain number of flights.
On Wednesday, other airlines that use planes fitted with the CFM56-7B engine, including United Airlines, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines, said they had begun inspecting some of their aircraft.
What have investigators said?
NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt told reporters that a fan blade had broken off due to metal fatigue and that a second fracture had been recorded about halfway along its length.
He could not say if the incident indicated a fleet-wide issue with the Boeing 737-700.
The airliner made an emergency landing at Philadelphia International Airport
Mr Sumwalt also said a casing on the engine was meant to contain any parts that come loose but, due to the speed, the metal was able to penetrate the shell.
The FAA did not say how many engines would be inspected. It said that any fan blades that failed the inspection would have to be replaced.
In 2016, a Southwest Airlines flight made a safe emergency landing in Florida after a fan blade separated from a similar CFM engine.
Debris ripped a hole more than a foot long in the fuselage of the jet above the left wing, causing cabin decompression. An investigation into that incident also found signs of metal fatigue, according to the NTSB.
So what do we know about the engines?
They were developed by French-US joint venture CFM International, which says it is the "world's leading supplier of jet engines for single-aisle aircraft".
CFM's parent companies are sending 40 technicians to help Southwest inspect engines. French officials have also said they are travelling to the US to assist with the investigation.
In a statement, CFM expressed its condolences to the family of the woman who died.
Who was the victim?
Jennifer Riordan is the first passenger to die in an accident on a US commercial airliner since 2009
Jennifer Riordan was a 43-year-old mother-of-two and executive for Wells Fargo bank in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Shrapnel from the shredded engine smashed the window next to her causing rapid decompression in the cabin that nearly blasted her out of the jet.
Other passengers pulled her back in and tried to revive her but she died from her injuries.
Philadelphia's medical examiner said on Wednesday that Ms Riordan had died of blunt impact trauma to her head, neck and torso.
Seven other passengers were slightly injured.
Ms Riordan was the first passenger to die in an accident on a US commercial airliner since 2009.
Who piloted the aircraft?
Tammie Jo Shults flew fighter jets for the US Navy
Capt Tammie Jo Shults was hailed as a hero by passengers on the stricken flight.
On Wednesday, she and First Officer Darren Ellisor said in a written statement released by the airline: "As captain and first officer of the crew of five who worked to serve our customers aboard Flight 1380 yesterday, we all feel we were simply doing our jobs. Our hearts are heavy."
'American hero' lands stricken airliner
They said they were working with investigators and would not be talking to the media.
Air traffic control: "I'm sorry, you said there is a hole?"
Capt Shults, a New Mexico native, graduated with university degrees in biology and agribusiness before joining the military.
She served in the US Navy for 10 years and flew fighter jets before leaving active service in 1993 after achieving the rank of lieutenant commander.
Her husband, Dean Shults, is also a pilot for Southwest, according to a relative.
On social media, some compared the mother-of-two with Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, who glided a US Airways plane into New York's main waterway in 2009 in what became known as "The Miracle on the Hudson".
How did the drama unfold?
About 20 minutes after the twin-engine Boeing 737 took off, shrapnel pierced the passenger compartment causing the plane to lose pressure and rapidly descend.
With oxygen masks over their mouths, passengers screamed and braced for impact.
For a few seconds, the aircraft rolled to an angle of 41 degrees before levelling out and starting an emergency descent, federal investigators said on Wednesday.
"Southwest 1380, we're single engine," the pilot radioed to air traffic control.
"We have part of the aircraft missing so we're going to need to slow down a bit," she said, adding that some passengers had been hurt.
"Injured passengers, okay, and is your airplane physically on fire?" asks a male voice in the tower, according to a recording released by officials.
"No, it's not on fire, but part of it's missing," Capt Shults replies.
"They said there's a hole, and uh, someone went out," she calmly adds.
Southwest Airlines engine explosion linked to prior accident
Signs of metal fatigue were found where the fan blade separated from the engine, experts said
A mid-air engine explosion that punctured a passenger jet window has been linked to a similar incident in 2016, US investigations show.
A female passenger died after she was nearly sucked from the cabin of a Southwest Airlines flight travelling from New York to Dallas on Tuesday.
Investigators say there was a fault with the engine's fan blades - the cause of the incident two years ago.
US aviation authorities are to order inspections of similar jet engines.
Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, a Boeing 737 which was carrying 149 people, was forced to make an emergency landing at Philadelphia airport on Tuesday following a fault with one of its CFM56-7B engines.
An initial investigation found evidence of metal fatigue where a fan blade had broken off, according to the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
A similar incident was recorded in 2016 involving a Southwest flight that landed safely in Florida.
Fan blades that have undergone a certain number of flights will have to be given ultrasonic tests, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has said.
It added that the "airworthiness directive", which will require inspections of a large number of CFM56-7B engines, would be issued within the next two weeks.
The FAA
✔
@FAANews
#FAA Statement: Airworthiness Directive (AD) - Required Inspections of Certain CFM56-7B Engines.
10:15 AM - Apr 19, 2018 · Washington, DC
The CFM56-7B engine is in use on more than 8,000 Boeing 737 planes worldwide, the manufacturer says.
Last year, the FAA estimated that some 220 of these engines would require testing, having carried out a certain number of flights.
On Wednesday, other airlines that use planes fitted with the CFM56-7B engine, including United Airlines, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines, said they had begun inspecting some of their aircraft.
What have investigators said?
NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt told reporters that a fan blade had broken off due to metal fatigue and that a second fracture had been recorded about halfway along its length.
He could not say if the incident indicated a fleet-wide issue with the Boeing 737-700.
The airliner made an emergency landing at Philadelphia International Airport
Mr Sumwalt also said a casing on the engine was meant to contain any parts that come loose but, due to the speed, the metal was able to penetrate the shell.
The FAA did not say how many engines would be inspected. It said that any fan blades that failed the inspection would have to be replaced.
In 2016, a Southwest Airlines flight made a safe emergency landing in Florida after a fan blade separated from a similar CFM engine.
Debris ripped a hole more than a foot long in the fuselage of the jet above the left wing, causing cabin decompression. An investigation into that incident also found signs of metal fatigue, according to the NTSB.
So what do we know about the engines?
They were developed by French-US joint venture CFM International, which says it is the "world's leading supplier of jet engines for single-aisle aircraft".
CFM's parent companies are sending 40 technicians to help Southwest inspect engines. French officials have also said they are travelling to the US to assist with the investigation.
In a statement, CFM expressed its condolences to the family of the woman who died.
Who was the victim?
Jennifer Riordan is the first passenger to die in an accident on a US commercial airliner since 2009
Jennifer Riordan was a 43-year-old mother-of-two and executive for Wells Fargo bank in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Shrapnel from the shredded engine smashed the window next to her causing rapid decompression in the cabin that nearly blasted her out of the jet.
Other passengers pulled her back in and tried to revive her but she died from her injuries.
Philadelphia's medical examiner said on Wednesday that Ms Riordan had died of blunt impact trauma to her head, neck and torso.
Seven other passengers were slightly injured.
Ms Riordan was the first passenger to die in an accident on a US commercial airliner since 2009.
Who piloted the aircraft?
Tammie Jo Shults flew fighter jets for the US Navy
Capt Tammie Jo Shults was hailed as a hero by passengers on the stricken flight.
On Wednesday, she and First Officer Darren Ellisor said in a written statement released by the airline: "As captain and first officer of the crew of five who worked to serve our customers aboard Flight 1380 yesterday, we all feel we were simply doing our jobs. Our hearts are heavy."
'American hero' lands stricken airliner
They said they were working with investigators and would not be talking to the media.
Air traffic control: "I'm sorry, you said there is a hole?"
Capt Shults, a New Mexico native, graduated with university degrees in biology and agribusiness before joining the military.
She served in the US Navy for 10 years and flew fighter jets before leaving active service in 1993 after achieving the rank of lieutenant commander.
Her husband, Dean Shults, is also a pilot for Southwest, according to a relative.
On social media, some compared the mother-of-two with Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, who glided a US Airways plane into New York's main waterway in 2009 in what became known as "The Miracle on the Hudson".
How did the drama unfold?
About 20 minutes after the twin-engine Boeing 737 took off, shrapnel pierced the passenger compartment causing the plane to lose pressure and rapidly descend.
With oxygen masks over their mouths, passengers screamed and braced for impact.
For a few seconds, the aircraft rolled to an angle of 41 degrees before levelling out and starting an emergency descent, federal investigators said on Wednesday.
"Southwest 1380, we're single engine," the pilot radioed to air traffic control.
"We have part of the aircraft missing so we're going to need to slow down a bit," she said, adding that some passengers had been hurt.
"Injured passengers, okay, and is your airplane physically on fire?" asks a male voice in the tower, according to a recording released by officials.
"No, it's not on fire, but part of it's missing," Capt Shults replies.
"They said there's a hole, and uh, someone went out," she calmly adds.
Donald Trump's double threat to global free trade - BBC News
Donald Trump's double threat to global free trade
By Jonty Bloom
Business correspondent, BBC News, Geneva
19 April 2018
WTO: An organisation under threat?
Sitting grandly on the banks of Switzerland's Lake Geneva is the headquarters of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a free trade factory.
Here the world's nations meet to hammer out trade deals and reduce tariffs - taxes charged on imported goods.
But the system, which has been working in various guises since the 1940s, is under threat from two sides.
The USA has announced tariffs on imports of foreign steel and aluminium on the grounds of national security, and it is refusing to appoint new members to the WTO's appellate body that settles disputes.
These developments come as the WTO is of increasing importance to the UK. At the moment it is represented by the EU, but after Brexit the UK will negotiate on its own account. This should give the UK the ability to negotiate deals more specifically designed to suit it.
The downside is that the UK will no longer belong to the biggest single trading economy in the world - the EU.
Brexit consequences
The first job of the newly increased UK team at the WTO will be to negotiate a "schedule", an extensive list of goods, and the tariffs to be paid on them; ranging from avocados to zips.
The UK assumed it could just inherit the EU's schedule. The trouble is that this requires the consent of other countries, and some of them have said no.
Image caption
After Brexit the UK will negotiate on its own account at the WTO
Take New Zealand, for instance. At the moment it can sell 228,000 tonnes of lamb and mutton to the EU every year, with no tariffs. The UK and the EU decided to split that quota between them, but New Zealand objected.
David Walker, is New Zealand's ambassador to the WTO: "Yes, we and a range of other WTO members made clear that a simple quota split like that is not acceptable to us."
The reason is simple. At the moment New Zealand can sell that lamb anywhere in the EU, so it loses flexibility if it has to sell some in the UK and the rest of the EU.
Lamb exports have been a key part of New Zealand's economy since the late 19th Century
The UK can probably get round such problems, by offering countries like New Zealand a better deal. But there are other clouds on the horizon. For a start, the WTO hasn't managed to negotiate a global cut in tariffs for decades for one simple reason - every single country has a veto.
Ieva Barsauskaite, from the Lithuanian delegation to the WTO, warns me that getting all 164 countries on board is not easy.
"Get 164 friends of yours to one place, decide on a dinner, decide on one dish for all, and include the single mothers, the teenagers, retired veterans and everyone with a dog, and people with allergies - that's how the trade deals are being made here," she says.
Image caption
Getting all the WTO's 164 members to agree on an issue is difficult, says Lithuania's Ieva Barsauskaite
For the UK, which is hoping to breathe new life into the WTO, that is not very encouraging. But there are bigger problems.
Trade war threat
Donald Trump's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium is a game changer, not because this hasn't been done before - it has. But because he has done so on "national security" grounds - the one WTO rule that cannot be challenged.
All countries can take actions to guarantee their national security, but are only expected to do so at times of real crisis, like a real war.
But now in peacetime, President Trump has cited national security as a reason for tariffs. If others follow suit the escalation could be impossible to stop or reverse.
The risk is that a trade war could trigger an economic recession, says WTO boss Roberto Azevedo
No wonder that Roberto Azevedo, the WTO's director-general, is worried: "Just the threat of a trade war is already damaging," he told the BBC.
"But if this escalation goes on, and on, and on, you may have something very, very damaging - even the possibility of a recession. And if you look back in history, you know, in the 1930s, that's exactly where it led.
"That is why I have been saying, 'stick to the rules, do things according to the rules', because if others don't like it, there are mechanisms to take care of that," he says.
No appeal court
But those mechanisms themselves are also now under threat. The WTO's appellate body has been solving problems for more than 20 years, and its decisions have to be accepted by all members of the WTO. There is no veto.
Under President Trump, the US has been blocking appointments to the WTO's appellate body
But the appellate body is rapidly running out of members, as the US is blocking new appointments in an argument over their role. It needs a bare minimum of three members, though six or seven would be much better - at the moment it has just four.
"For over a year, it's not been possible to get a consensus amongst members to initiate the process for filling vacancies," says the WTO's director of legal affairs, John Adank.
"So, if this impasse continues, the risk is that the appellate body won't be in a position to function, because if it gets down to three or fewer members, it could be difficult to hear appeals."
Global Trade
More from the BBC's series taking an international perspective on trade:
Carmakers fear rising trade barriers after Brexit
'Little price impact' from axing EU tariffs
UK to seek exemption from US steel tariffs
We don't want wall with UK - EU's Tusk
Airbus warns of Brexit parts supply risk
The tranquil setting of the WTO, with its well-oiled collegiate atmosphere, has a comforting and comfortable feel to it, but it was based on a post-war consensus that has lasted ever since 1945.
President Trump has helped destroy that consensus - that there is a contract that everyone agrees to - with a few tweets and the threat of a trade war; putting the future purpose of the WTO in its castle on the shores of Lake Geneva in serious doubt.
By Jonty Bloom
Business correspondent, BBC News, Geneva
19 April 2018
WTO: An organisation under threat?
Sitting grandly on the banks of Switzerland's Lake Geneva is the headquarters of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a free trade factory.
Here the world's nations meet to hammer out trade deals and reduce tariffs - taxes charged on imported goods.
But the system, which has been working in various guises since the 1940s, is under threat from two sides.
The USA has announced tariffs on imports of foreign steel and aluminium on the grounds of national security, and it is refusing to appoint new members to the WTO's appellate body that settles disputes.
These developments come as the WTO is of increasing importance to the UK. At the moment it is represented by the EU, but after Brexit the UK will negotiate on its own account. This should give the UK the ability to negotiate deals more specifically designed to suit it.
The downside is that the UK will no longer belong to the biggest single trading economy in the world - the EU.
Brexit consequences
The first job of the newly increased UK team at the WTO will be to negotiate a "schedule", an extensive list of goods, and the tariffs to be paid on them; ranging from avocados to zips.
The UK assumed it could just inherit the EU's schedule. The trouble is that this requires the consent of other countries, and some of them have said no.
Image caption
After Brexit the UK will negotiate on its own account at the WTO
Take New Zealand, for instance. At the moment it can sell 228,000 tonnes of lamb and mutton to the EU every year, with no tariffs. The UK and the EU decided to split that quota between them, but New Zealand objected.
David Walker, is New Zealand's ambassador to the WTO: "Yes, we and a range of other WTO members made clear that a simple quota split like that is not acceptable to us."
The reason is simple. At the moment New Zealand can sell that lamb anywhere in the EU, so it loses flexibility if it has to sell some in the UK and the rest of the EU.
Lamb exports have been a key part of New Zealand's economy since the late 19th Century
The UK can probably get round such problems, by offering countries like New Zealand a better deal. But there are other clouds on the horizon. For a start, the WTO hasn't managed to negotiate a global cut in tariffs for decades for one simple reason - every single country has a veto.
Ieva Barsauskaite, from the Lithuanian delegation to the WTO, warns me that getting all 164 countries on board is not easy.
"Get 164 friends of yours to one place, decide on a dinner, decide on one dish for all, and include the single mothers, the teenagers, retired veterans and everyone with a dog, and people with allergies - that's how the trade deals are being made here," she says.
Image caption
Getting all the WTO's 164 members to agree on an issue is difficult, says Lithuania's Ieva Barsauskaite
For the UK, which is hoping to breathe new life into the WTO, that is not very encouraging. But there are bigger problems.
Trade war threat
Donald Trump's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium is a game changer, not because this hasn't been done before - it has. But because he has done so on "national security" grounds - the one WTO rule that cannot be challenged.
All countries can take actions to guarantee their national security, but are only expected to do so at times of real crisis, like a real war.
But now in peacetime, President Trump has cited national security as a reason for tariffs. If others follow suit the escalation could be impossible to stop or reverse.
The risk is that a trade war could trigger an economic recession, says WTO boss Roberto Azevedo
No wonder that Roberto Azevedo, the WTO's director-general, is worried: "Just the threat of a trade war is already damaging," he told the BBC.
"But if this escalation goes on, and on, and on, you may have something very, very damaging - even the possibility of a recession. And if you look back in history, you know, in the 1930s, that's exactly where it led.
"That is why I have been saying, 'stick to the rules, do things according to the rules', because if others don't like it, there are mechanisms to take care of that," he says.
No appeal court
But those mechanisms themselves are also now under threat. The WTO's appellate body has been solving problems for more than 20 years, and its decisions have to be accepted by all members of the WTO. There is no veto.
Under President Trump, the US has been blocking appointments to the WTO's appellate body
But the appellate body is rapidly running out of members, as the US is blocking new appointments in an argument over their role. It needs a bare minimum of three members, though six or seven would be much better - at the moment it has just four.
"For over a year, it's not been possible to get a consensus amongst members to initiate the process for filling vacancies," says the WTO's director of legal affairs, John Adank.
"So, if this impasse continues, the risk is that the appellate body won't be in a position to function, because if it gets down to three or fewer members, it could be difficult to hear appeals."
Global Trade
More from the BBC's series taking an international perspective on trade:
Carmakers fear rising trade barriers after Brexit
'Little price impact' from axing EU tariffs
UK to seek exemption from US steel tariffs
We don't want wall with UK - EU's Tusk
Airbus warns of Brexit parts supply risk
The tranquil setting of the WTO, with its well-oiled collegiate atmosphere, has a comforting and comfortable feel to it, but it was based on a post-war consensus that has lasted ever since 1945.
President Trump has helped destroy that consensus - that there is a contract that everyone agrees to - with a few tweets and the threat of a trade war; putting the future purpose of the WTO in its castle on the shores of Lake Geneva in serious doubt.
Trump 'will walk out' if North Korea talks not fruitful - BBC News
April 19, 2018
Trump 'will walk out' if North Korea talks not fruitful
Trump on North Korea meeting
US President Donald Trump says that if his planned talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un are not fruitful he will "walk out".
At a joint news conference, he and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe said maximum pressure must be maintained on North Korea over nuclear disarmament.
Mr Abe is at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for talks.
Earlier, Mr Trump confirmed that CIA Director Mike Pompeo had made a secret trip to North Korea to meet Mr Kim.
He said Mr Pompeo had forged a "good relationship" with Mr Kim - whom the US president was last year calling "little rocket man" - and that the meeting had gone "very smoothly".
The visit marked the highest-level contact between the US and North Korea since 2000.
North Korea crisis in 300 words
The political gamble of the 21st Century
Mr Trump is expected to hold a summit with Mr Kim by June. Details, including a location, are still being worked out.
Meanwhile, South Korean president Moon Jae-in is set to meet Mr Kim next week.
Speaking on Thursday, Mr Moon said North Korea had said it was ready for "complete denuclearisation", and called for "bold imagination and creative solutions" to ensure the Koreas summit and the Trump-Kim summit would succeed.
What was said about the Trump-Kim summit?
President Trump said at the joint news conference that if he did not think the meeting would be successful he would not go, and if the meeting went ahead but was not productive, he would walk out.
"Our campaign of maximum pressure will continue until North Korea denuclearises," he added.
How to talk to North Korea
"As I've said before, there is a bright path available to North Korea when it achieves denuclearisation in a complete and verifiable and irreversible way. It would be a great day for them, it would be a great day for the world."
What else was discussed?
On trade, Mr Trump and Mr Abe agreed to start talks on "free, fair and reciprocal trade deals".
Mr Trump said the US remained opposed to rejoining the Trans Pacific Partnership unless Japan and other parties to the trade pact offered "a deal that I can't refuse".
What is the TPP and why does it matter?
The US president did not exempt Japan from punitive steel and aluminium tariffs, as he has done for other US allies.
Turning to North Korea, Mr Abe said he had urged President Trump to help bring about the release of Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s.
Megumi Yokota was 13 when she was kidnapped by North Korean agents on her way home from school
North Korea has admitted to abducting 13 Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 1980s to train its spies in Japanese language and customs. Japan believes the real figure is much higher.
Some of the abductees were eventually returned to Japan. Pyongyang says the others are dead - something Japan does not accept.
The youngest abductee was Megumi Yokota, who was snatched by agents when she was 13.
South Korea says about 500 of its citizens - most of them fishermen - have been abducted by North Korea since the 1950-1953 Korean War. Those kidnapped were reportedly used for propaganda activities or intelligence gathering.
South Korean film director Shin Sang-ok and actress Choe Eun-hui were abducted in the 1970s and forced to make films for Pyongyang, until they escaped.
Actress kidnapped by North Korea dies
Abducted S Korean back from North
North Korea abductee meeting praised
Three US citizens are also being held in North Korea.
Mr Trump said the US would "work very hard" to try to bring the Japanese abductees home.
"We are likewise fighting very diligently to get the three American citizens back," Mr Trump added.
"I think there's a good chance of doing it. We're having very good dialogue."
What do we know about Mike Pompeo's meeting?
The secret trip took place after Mr Pompeo was nominated by President Trump to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.
No details are known about the talks other than that they were to prepare for the forthcoming Trump-Kim summit.
The aim of Mr Pompeo's mission was to pave the way for a Trump-Kim summit
Mr Pompeo is expected to be confirmed as the top US diplomat by the Republican-controlled Senate in the coming weeks, although Democratic opposition to the conservative's candidacy is strong.
Senator Robert Menendez, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he did not think Mr Pompeo's "past sentiments" reflected American values.
The hawkish CIA chief's opposition to same-sex marriage has come under scrutiny and he has also made controversial remarks about Islam.
When and where might a Trump-Kim summit take place?
Mr Trump surprised the international community last month by accepting Pyongyang's suggestion for direct talks. It would be unprecedented for a sitting US president to meet a North Korean leader.
He has said the summit will take place either in early June or "a little before that" and that several sites are under consideration.
Experts have speculated that a location for talks could be the Demilitarised Zone between North and South Korea, another Asian country, or a neutral European country.
North Korea has been isolated for decades because of its human rights abuses and pursuit of nuclear weapons, in defiance of international laws and UN sanctions.
It has carried out six nuclear tests, and has missiles that it says could reach the US.
But South Korea's hosting of the Winter Olympics in February gave an unexpected window for diplomacy, and in the weeks since there have been a flurry of visits to the North from China, South Korea and now the US.
Trump 'will walk out' if North Korea talks not fruitful
Trump on North Korea meeting
US President Donald Trump says that if his planned talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un are not fruitful he will "walk out".
At a joint news conference, he and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe said maximum pressure must be maintained on North Korea over nuclear disarmament.
Mr Abe is at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for talks.
Earlier, Mr Trump confirmed that CIA Director Mike Pompeo had made a secret trip to North Korea to meet Mr Kim.
He said Mr Pompeo had forged a "good relationship" with Mr Kim - whom the US president was last year calling "little rocket man" - and that the meeting had gone "very smoothly".
The visit marked the highest-level contact between the US and North Korea since 2000.
North Korea crisis in 300 words
The political gamble of the 21st Century
Mr Trump is expected to hold a summit with Mr Kim by June. Details, including a location, are still being worked out.
Meanwhile, South Korean president Moon Jae-in is set to meet Mr Kim next week.
Speaking on Thursday, Mr Moon said North Korea had said it was ready for "complete denuclearisation", and called for "bold imagination and creative solutions" to ensure the Koreas summit and the Trump-Kim summit would succeed.
What was said about the Trump-Kim summit?
President Trump said at the joint news conference that if he did not think the meeting would be successful he would not go, and if the meeting went ahead but was not productive, he would walk out.
"Our campaign of maximum pressure will continue until North Korea denuclearises," he added.
How to talk to North Korea
"As I've said before, there is a bright path available to North Korea when it achieves denuclearisation in a complete and verifiable and irreversible way. It would be a great day for them, it would be a great day for the world."
What else was discussed?
On trade, Mr Trump and Mr Abe agreed to start talks on "free, fair and reciprocal trade deals".
Mr Trump said the US remained opposed to rejoining the Trans Pacific Partnership unless Japan and other parties to the trade pact offered "a deal that I can't refuse".
What is the TPP and why does it matter?
The US president did not exempt Japan from punitive steel and aluminium tariffs, as he has done for other US allies.
Turning to North Korea, Mr Abe said he had urged President Trump to help bring about the release of Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s.
Megumi Yokota was 13 when she was kidnapped by North Korean agents on her way home from school
North Korea has admitted to abducting 13 Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 1980s to train its spies in Japanese language and customs. Japan believes the real figure is much higher.
Some of the abductees were eventually returned to Japan. Pyongyang says the others are dead - something Japan does not accept.
The youngest abductee was Megumi Yokota, who was snatched by agents when she was 13.
South Korea says about 500 of its citizens - most of them fishermen - have been abducted by North Korea since the 1950-1953 Korean War. Those kidnapped were reportedly used for propaganda activities or intelligence gathering.
South Korean film director Shin Sang-ok and actress Choe Eun-hui were abducted in the 1970s and forced to make films for Pyongyang, until they escaped.
Actress kidnapped by North Korea dies
Abducted S Korean back from North
North Korea abductee meeting praised
Three US citizens are also being held in North Korea.
Mr Trump said the US would "work very hard" to try to bring the Japanese abductees home.
"We are likewise fighting very diligently to get the three American citizens back," Mr Trump added.
"I think there's a good chance of doing it. We're having very good dialogue."
What do we know about Mike Pompeo's meeting?
The secret trip took place after Mr Pompeo was nominated by President Trump to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.
No details are known about the talks other than that they were to prepare for the forthcoming Trump-Kim summit.
The aim of Mr Pompeo's mission was to pave the way for a Trump-Kim summit
Mr Pompeo is expected to be confirmed as the top US diplomat by the Republican-controlled Senate in the coming weeks, although Democratic opposition to the conservative's candidacy is strong.
Senator Robert Menendez, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he did not think Mr Pompeo's "past sentiments" reflected American values.
The hawkish CIA chief's opposition to same-sex marriage has come under scrutiny and he has also made controversial remarks about Islam.
When and where might a Trump-Kim summit take place?
Mr Trump surprised the international community last month by accepting Pyongyang's suggestion for direct talks. It would be unprecedented for a sitting US president to meet a North Korean leader.
He has said the summit will take place either in early June or "a little before that" and that several sites are under consideration.
Experts have speculated that a location for talks could be the Demilitarised Zone between North and South Korea, another Asian country, or a neutral European country.
North Korea has been isolated for decades because of its human rights abuses and pursuit of nuclear weapons, in defiance of international laws and UN sanctions.
It has carried out six nuclear tests, and has missiles that it says could reach the US.
But South Korea's hosting of the Winter Olympics in February gave an unexpected window for diplomacy, and in the weeks since there have been a flurry of visits to the North from China, South Korea and now the US.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Hannity's attorney-client privilege claim puts Cohen in an ethical bind - MSNBC News
Hannity's attorney-client privilege claim puts Cohen in an ethical bind
It's the classic test on the law school exam: A friend approaches a lawyer at a party and seeks legal advice. Is attorney-client privilege in play?
by Danny Cevallos / Apr.17.2018 / 11:54 PM ET
Legal analysis
Michael Cohen has said he had only three clients in 2017 and 2018: President Donald Trump; Elliott Broidy; the former deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee; and, until yesterday, someone Cohen did not want to identify. But in court on Monday, Cohen's lawyer was forced by the judge to reveal the client's name: Sean Hannity, the Fox News host.
Hannity quickly addressed the news on his radio show, claiming that he never retained Cohen in the "traditional" sense, but that they still had attorney-client privilege.
"Michael never represented me in any matter, I never retained him in the traditional sense as retaining a lawyer, I never received an invoice from Michael, I never paid legal fees to Michael," Hannity said. "We definitely had attorney-client privilege because I asked him for that but, you know, he never sent me a bill or an invoice." Hannity also recalled that he "might have handed him 10 bucks."
Report: Hannity 'basically has a desk' in Trump's White House
Hannity later tweeted that he "assumed" his conversations with Cohen "were confidential, but to be absolutely clear, they never involved any matter between me and a third-party." The conservative Fox host said the discussions were "almost exclusively about real estate."
It's the classic test on the law school professional responsibility exam: A person approaches a friend-attorney at a cocktail party and requests legal advice, without a written retainer agreement or payment of a fee. Does an implied attorney-client relationship arise?
The ethics opinions are similarly full of examples of a would-be client insisting a law firm took his case, while the firm says there were only conversations, not the creation of an attorney-client relationship. The Hannity-Cohen situation is the reverse: The attorney is insisting there was a relationship; the client is minimizing that.
In New York, the formation of the attorney-client relationship focuses upon the client's reasonable belief that he is consulting a lawyer, in his capacity as a lawyer, and his manifest intent to seek professional legal advice. The formality of, say, a written agreement or an invoice, is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney, though the attorney is encouraged to reduce agreements to writing.
The federal court in the Southern District of New York will look at the words used, and the conduct of the attorney and the putative client. Formality is one of several factors considered by the courts, including the existence of a signed fee arrangement, payment of a fee, and whether the attorney actually represented the individual at something like a court hearing or deposition. Another important factor is whether the supposed client reasonably believed that the attorney was representing him.
Hannity downplays relationship, but is someone lying?
But the Southern District has cautioned that a party's one-sided belief that he is represented by counsel does not automatically create an attorney-client relationship unless there is a reasonable basis for that belief by the "client."
Ultimately, to establish an implied attorney-client relationship, the "client" must show that he submitted confidential information to a lawyer with the reasonable belief that the lawyer was acting as his attorney. When that happens, a court should at least enforce the obligation of confidence, irrespective of the absence of a formal attorney-client relationship.
Hannity is right that if he reasonably expected he was seeking and receiving legal advice, an implied attorney-client relationship may be inferred from his interactions with Cohen. That implied relationship, if it existed, at least imposed upon Cohen a duty of confidentiality, and raised the possibility of attorney-client privileged communications.
So why was the federal court able to force Cohen's attorneys to reveal the relationship?
The attorney-client privilege only protects confidential communications between client and attorney for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. The identity of a client, or the fact that someone has become a client, is information that an attorney normally may not refuse to disclose.
Attorney-client privilege is not the same as the attorney's ethical duty of confidentiality. The ethical duty of confidentiality is much broader than information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Indeed, attorneys have risked being held in contempt of court, rather than disclose the identity of their clients. Cohen was caught between Scylla and Charybdis: The privilege did not give him the legal right to refuse to disclose his client's identity. But disclosure potentially violated his ethical obligation of keeping his client's identity secret — especially when the client may have asked Cohen to keep it secret.
Danny Cevallos is an MSNBC legal analyst. Follow @CevallosLaw on Twitter.
It's the classic test on the law school exam: A friend approaches a lawyer at a party and seeks legal advice. Is attorney-client privilege in play?
by Danny Cevallos / Apr.17.2018 / 11:54 PM ET
Legal analysis
Michael Cohen has said he had only three clients in 2017 and 2018: President Donald Trump; Elliott Broidy; the former deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee; and, until yesterday, someone Cohen did not want to identify. But in court on Monday, Cohen's lawyer was forced by the judge to reveal the client's name: Sean Hannity, the Fox News host.
Hannity quickly addressed the news on his radio show, claiming that he never retained Cohen in the "traditional" sense, but that they still had attorney-client privilege.
"Michael never represented me in any matter, I never retained him in the traditional sense as retaining a lawyer, I never received an invoice from Michael, I never paid legal fees to Michael," Hannity said. "We definitely had attorney-client privilege because I asked him for that but, you know, he never sent me a bill or an invoice." Hannity also recalled that he "might have handed him 10 bucks."
Report: Hannity 'basically has a desk' in Trump's White House
Hannity later tweeted that he "assumed" his conversations with Cohen "were confidential, but to be absolutely clear, they never involved any matter between me and a third-party." The conservative Fox host said the discussions were "almost exclusively about real estate."
It's the classic test on the law school professional responsibility exam: A person approaches a friend-attorney at a cocktail party and requests legal advice, without a written retainer agreement or payment of a fee. Does an implied attorney-client relationship arise?
The ethics opinions are similarly full of examples of a would-be client insisting a law firm took his case, while the firm says there were only conversations, not the creation of an attorney-client relationship. The Hannity-Cohen situation is the reverse: The attorney is insisting there was a relationship; the client is minimizing that.
In New York, the formation of the attorney-client relationship focuses upon the client's reasonable belief that he is consulting a lawyer, in his capacity as a lawyer, and his manifest intent to seek professional legal advice. The formality of, say, a written agreement or an invoice, is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney, though the attorney is encouraged to reduce agreements to writing.
The federal court in the Southern District of New York will look at the words used, and the conduct of the attorney and the putative client. Formality is one of several factors considered by the courts, including the existence of a signed fee arrangement, payment of a fee, and whether the attorney actually represented the individual at something like a court hearing or deposition. Another important factor is whether the supposed client reasonably believed that the attorney was representing him.
Hannity downplays relationship, but is someone lying?
But the Southern District has cautioned that a party's one-sided belief that he is represented by counsel does not automatically create an attorney-client relationship unless there is a reasonable basis for that belief by the "client."
Ultimately, to establish an implied attorney-client relationship, the "client" must show that he submitted confidential information to a lawyer with the reasonable belief that the lawyer was acting as his attorney. When that happens, a court should at least enforce the obligation of confidence, irrespective of the absence of a formal attorney-client relationship.
Hannity is right that if he reasonably expected he was seeking and receiving legal advice, an implied attorney-client relationship may be inferred from his interactions with Cohen. That implied relationship, if it existed, at least imposed upon Cohen a duty of confidentiality, and raised the possibility of attorney-client privileged communications.
So why was the federal court able to force Cohen's attorneys to reveal the relationship?
The attorney-client privilege only protects confidential communications between client and attorney for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. The identity of a client, or the fact that someone has become a client, is information that an attorney normally may not refuse to disclose.
Attorney-client privilege is not the same as the attorney's ethical duty of confidentiality. The ethical duty of confidentiality is much broader than information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Indeed, attorneys have risked being held in contempt of court, rather than disclose the identity of their clients. Cohen was caught between Scylla and Charybdis: The privilege did not give him the legal right to refuse to disclose his client's identity. But disclosure potentially violated his ethical obligation of keeping his client's identity secret — especially when the client may have asked Cohen to keep it secret.
Danny Cevallos is an MSNBC legal analyst. Follow @CevallosLaw on Twitter.
Will Trump Make a Bad Deal With North Korea? - TIME
Will Trump Make a Bad Deal With North Korea?
By W.J. HENNIGAN and BRIAN BENNETT April 17, 2018 10:20 PM EDT
As the Trump Administration moves closer to talks with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, fears are mounting from allies and U.S. national security officials on whether President Donald Trump can secure a landmark nuclear deal without giving away too much.
In between meetings with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in the ornate halls of Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, Trump revealed that the U.S. is in direct talks at “extremely high levels” with North Korean officials. The Washington Post reported that Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, outgoing CIA Director Mike Pompeo, met with Kim in North Korea over Easter Weekend.
The stakes are incredibly high. Kim and his predecessors have long wanted formal recognition as a nuclear power and for the 28,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea to leave the Korean peninsula. He has relayed to the Trump Administration that he is willing to discuss denuclearization, but senior U.S. national security officials are wary of entering a protracted negotiation process that might buy Pyongyang time to complete its development of a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach American shores.
Analysts believe Kim’s nuclear weapons program is continuing to advance rapidly and could be within a year of a fully capable nuclear-tipped ballistic missile that can reach the U.S. mainland.
“The big fear is Donald Trump gets in a room with Kim Jong Un and offers to pull all troops from the region in order to get Pyongyang to give up their nukes,” said Joel Wit, a founder of the 38north.org website on North Korea that’s affiliated with Johns Hopkins University.
In particular, Abe has concerns that a possible deal between the U.S. and North Korea could leave Japan vulnerable to attack, Wit said. “But at the end of the day, Trump is going to do what he wants to do.”
Trump said he would like to meet with Kim by “early June” and added that five different potential locations are under consideration. In the meantime, a similar meeting between Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in is scheduled to take place on April 27 at the demilitarized zone between North and South.
Trump remarkably gave his “blessing” to the South Korea and North Korea leaders discussing a formal end to the Korean War, which has continued despite an end to battlefield fighting after the signing of an armistice in 1953, a step that American presidents have long insisted come only after Pyongyang agree to give up its nuclear weapons program.
Trump’s unexpected announcements with Abe sitting next to him in a matching blue and white striped tie, only set in relief how sidelined Japan has been far in the negotiations over Korea, which have mostly been handled out of Seoul and Washington.
North Korea’s string of 23 missile launches last year posed serious national security concerns for Abe. Several of the tested missiles fell in the sea just a couple hundred miles off the coast of Japan, and several of them completely flew over the northern part of the country. Narushige Michishita, a former Japanese Defense Ministry official who teaches at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo, said Abe is aware that dialogue with North Korea is important, but it must be backed by pressure.
“North Korea has used the same combined tactics of brinkmanship and peace overture in the past,” Michishita said. “Abe knows it very well, and he will share his experience with Trump.”
Abe pressed Trump during their private meeting to tell reporters the U.S. would bring up the fate of dozens of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s when Trump meets with Kim. Abe is under tremendous political pressure at home as his ratings tumble in the wake of a widening scandal over the sale of state-owned land and allegations Abe’s administration took steps to over it up. Demanding North Korea come clean over the kidnapping of Japanese citizens has been a central issue in Abe’s political career.
Later, speaking to reporters, Trump obliged Abe and agreed to bring up Japanese abductees with Kim.
“We will bring up the abductees. We’ll bring up many different things. I think it’s a time for talking, it’s a time for solving problems,” Trump said.
For his part, Abe gave Trump credit for a “major change in terms of North Korea’s behavior” since Kim sent a delegation to the Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang.
The world breathed a collective sigh of relief after the games came and went this year without incident. There’s no denying that Trump – by first insulting and then agreeing to meet with Kim — is trying a new approach in a field where traditional ways of approaching diplomacy have failed.
The United Nations Security Council has repeatedly slapped crippling sanctions on Pyongyang since 2006 when the nation carried out its first nuclear test. The measures cut North Korea from much of the world’s economy, but hasn’t stop the steady advances in military technology.
North Korea does appear to have slowed down its overt testing efforts, which may be a result of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, or, a reflection that Pyeongyang has learned what it needed to learn from its missile tests last year and is secretly working on another aspect of the program.
After decades of defying international pressure to hold off on additional weapons development, North Korea has yet to test-launch a missile in 2018. By this time last year, North Korea had carried out five tests of eight missiles.
But the question is can it hold? Can the Trump Administration diplomatically engage the world’s most isolated and despotic regimes from staying nuclear?
“He’s willing to make pronouncements that no American president has been willing to make,” said Jim Walsh, an expert of North Korea at MIT. “Sometimes it is positive, sometimes it is not productive.”
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man...
12:30 AM - Oct 2, 2017
In a sharp contrast to calling Kim “little Rocket Man” on Twitter last fall, Trump seemed to go out of his way to show respect for Kim on Tuesday, saying he is looking forward to meeting with Kim and hopes it will be a success. “I can say this: They do respect us. We are respectful of them. And we’re going to see what happens.”
By W.J. HENNIGAN and BRIAN BENNETT April 17, 2018 10:20 PM EDT
As the Trump Administration moves closer to talks with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, fears are mounting from allies and U.S. national security officials on whether President Donald Trump can secure a landmark nuclear deal without giving away too much.
In between meetings with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in the ornate halls of Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, Trump revealed that the U.S. is in direct talks at “extremely high levels” with North Korean officials. The Washington Post reported that Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, outgoing CIA Director Mike Pompeo, met with Kim in North Korea over Easter Weekend.
The stakes are incredibly high. Kim and his predecessors have long wanted formal recognition as a nuclear power and for the 28,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea to leave the Korean peninsula. He has relayed to the Trump Administration that he is willing to discuss denuclearization, but senior U.S. national security officials are wary of entering a protracted negotiation process that might buy Pyongyang time to complete its development of a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach American shores.
Analysts believe Kim’s nuclear weapons program is continuing to advance rapidly and could be within a year of a fully capable nuclear-tipped ballistic missile that can reach the U.S. mainland.
“The big fear is Donald Trump gets in a room with Kim Jong Un and offers to pull all troops from the region in order to get Pyongyang to give up their nukes,” said Joel Wit, a founder of the 38north.org website on North Korea that’s affiliated with Johns Hopkins University.
In particular, Abe has concerns that a possible deal between the U.S. and North Korea could leave Japan vulnerable to attack, Wit said. “But at the end of the day, Trump is going to do what he wants to do.”
Trump said he would like to meet with Kim by “early June” and added that five different potential locations are under consideration. In the meantime, a similar meeting between Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in is scheduled to take place on April 27 at the demilitarized zone between North and South.
Trump remarkably gave his “blessing” to the South Korea and North Korea leaders discussing a formal end to the Korean War, which has continued despite an end to battlefield fighting after the signing of an armistice in 1953, a step that American presidents have long insisted come only after Pyongyang agree to give up its nuclear weapons program.
Trump’s unexpected announcements with Abe sitting next to him in a matching blue and white striped tie, only set in relief how sidelined Japan has been far in the negotiations over Korea, which have mostly been handled out of Seoul and Washington.
North Korea’s string of 23 missile launches last year posed serious national security concerns for Abe. Several of the tested missiles fell in the sea just a couple hundred miles off the coast of Japan, and several of them completely flew over the northern part of the country. Narushige Michishita, a former Japanese Defense Ministry official who teaches at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo, said Abe is aware that dialogue with North Korea is important, but it must be backed by pressure.
“North Korea has used the same combined tactics of brinkmanship and peace overture in the past,” Michishita said. “Abe knows it very well, and he will share his experience with Trump.”
Abe pressed Trump during their private meeting to tell reporters the U.S. would bring up the fate of dozens of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s when Trump meets with Kim. Abe is under tremendous political pressure at home as his ratings tumble in the wake of a widening scandal over the sale of state-owned land and allegations Abe’s administration took steps to over it up. Demanding North Korea come clean over the kidnapping of Japanese citizens has been a central issue in Abe’s political career.
Later, speaking to reporters, Trump obliged Abe and agreed to bring up Japanese abductees with Kim.
“We will bring up the abductees. We’ll bring up many different things. I think it’s a time for talking, it’s a time for solving problems,” Trump said.
For his part, Abe gave Trump credit for a “major change in terms of North Korea’s behavior” since Kim sent a delegation to the Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang.
The world breathed a collective sigh of relief after the games came and went this year without incident. There’s no denying that Trump – by first insulting and then agreeing to meet with Kim — is trying a new approach in a field where traditional ways of approaching diplomacy have failed.
The United Nations Security Council has repeatedly slapped crippling sanctions on Pyongyang since 2006 when the nation carried out its first nuclear test. The measures cut North Korea from much of the world’s economy, but hasn’t stop the steady advances in military technology.
North Korea does appear to have slowed down its overt testing efforts, which may be a result of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, or, a reflection that Pyeongyang has learned what it needed to learn from its missile tests last year and is secretly working on another aspect of the program.
After decades of defying international pressure to hold off on additional weapons development, North Korea has yet to test-launch a missile in 2018. By this time last year, North Korea had carried out five tests of eight missiles.
But the question is can it hold? Can the Trump Administration diplomatically engage the world’s most isolated and despotic regimes from staying nuclear?
“He’s willing to make pronouncements that no American president has been willing to make,” said Jim Walsh, an expert of North Korea at MIT. “Sometimes it is positive, sometimes it is not productive.”
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man...
12:30 AM - Oct 2, 2017
In a sharp contrast to calling Kim “little Rocket Man” on Twitter last fall, Trump seemed to go out of his way to show respect for Kim on Tuesday, saying he is looking forward to meeting with Kim and hopes it will be a success. “I can say this: They do respect us. We are respectful of them. And we’re going to see what happens.”
After Mike Pompeo's trip to North Korea, this is what we can work out about Trump and Kim Jong-un's upcoming talks - Independent
April 18, 2018
After Mike Pompeo's trip to North Korea, this is what we can work out about Trump and Kim Jong-un's upcoming talks
Where the talks will probably be held, what might be discussed and why less media coverage means more progress
Colin Alexander
The talks between Trump and Kim are scheduled for mid-May AFP/Getty
The revelation that CIA director Mike Pompeo met North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang over the Easter holidays appears to confirm that both sides are eager for talks between the leaders of the two countries to go ahead.
In 2000, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright travelled to North Korea for talks with Kim’s father Kim Jong-il when he was leader, but no official meetings between senior political personnel have occurred since.
So what does Pompeo’s visit mean for the future of talks between Kim and Trump, scheduled for late May or early June this year, considering that it’s been reported Pompeo was laying the groundwork for the logistics surrounding them as recently as two weeks ago?
Kim and his entourage are unlikely to fly or travel by boat to any talks with Trump; his and his predecessors’ preferences have always been to travel by rail. Somewhere in northern China, then, is the most likely venue. The city of Vladivostok on Russia’s Pacific coast is a viable alternative to China, although this option is hampered by both the United States’ ongoing consternation with Vladimir Putin and China’s insistence that it play a key role facilitating and mediating these diplomatic discussions. Nothing has been announced yet but, if I were a betting man, I would say that China is the obvious choice.
Despite Pompeo’s visit to Pyongyang, it remains unlikely that Donald Trump and his team would travel to North Korea and even less likely that Kim Jong-un would go to the United States (despite his love of basketball and the chance to catch up with his old buddy Dennis Rodman). It is also unlikely that the talks will be held either in the contested demilitarised zone on North Korea’s southern border or in South Korea, although this cannot be ruled out.
Technically the North still does not formally recognise the South’s integrity as an independent government and this would make the North’s agreement to holding talks there a tacit acknowledgement of the South’s credibility and usefulness. Moreover, in what has proved to be a tense military scenario since September 2016, when the North tested what appeared to be a nuclear bomb underground, it would be unwise to escalate tensions further by holding talks in the hostile demilitarized zone. The zone is, after all, a potent symbol of ongoing conflict.
CIA Chief Mike Pompeo on threat of North Korea in 2017
Weight was added to the likelihood of a China venue a few weeks ago when Kim Jong-un made his first official trip abroad since becoming leader of North Korea in 2011; he and his wife met with President Xi Jinping of China and his wife Peng Liyuan in Beijing. Kim travelled on his exclusive train from Pyongyang with the meeting only being confirmed once the train had returned safely over the border into North Korea. This continued that long family legacy of train-only travel with strict stipulations.
As supreme leader, Kim Jong-un’s grandfather Kim Il-sung made his longest trip by train in 1974 when he travelled to and from North Korea on a tour of Eastern Europe’s Soviet Socialist Republics. Kim Jong-il, who apparently had a fear of flying, travelled by rail to Russia to meet Vladimir Putin in 2001 and again in August 2011, shortly before dying of a heart attack on his train in December 2011 within North Korea.
Such is the apparent pride that North Korea takes in its former leaders’ passion for the railways that the mausoleums of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang – in which one can view their embalmed bodies at relatively close quarters, as well as peruse attached museums – have grand rooms dedicated solely to their former leaders’ international travels by train. One can even look inside the train carriage in which Kim Jong-il died in December 2011, complete with the old grey anorak that he was often seen wearing in public during winter months still hanging on its peg behind his desk.
This is not to say that the Kims historically always refused to step into a plane. In 1965 President Kim Il-sung, accompanied by his then 24-year-old son and successor Kim Jong-il, travelled by air to Indonesia for the 10th anniversary of the landmark 1955 Bandung Conference on Asia-Africa affairs. However, in later years, as the diplomatic isolation of North Korea increased, the country’s leaders have received fewer invitations and have had less inclination to travel overseas – and they have done so only by rail.
Kim Jong-un was invited to Moscow in 2015 as part of the commemoration events to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union’s contribution to the Allied campaigns in the Second World War. However, after some speculation over his attendance, he opted to stay away. Perhaps it was the thought of the travel time that put him off.
But back to the upcoming talks between him and Donald Trump. One major point of interest is much media presence will be allowed in, and how much the public internationally will be allowed to know about what’s discussed.
The supreme leaders of North Korea rarely meet other heads of state and when they have there has been limited, if any, media coverage. Pompeo’s visit to Pyongyang and Kim’s recent visit to China, revealed after their conclusions, are cases in point, and it may be that we also do not find out about Kim and Trump’s meeting until after it has happened.
This might be a frustration for those of us who are avid followers of North Korea and international diplomacy, and who are keen to see the demeanours of arguably the two most notorious politicians of our time when they meet. However, it is not all bad news.
Political communications theory backed up by historical experience tells us that when diplomacy goes public, it tends to reduce the level of substance within the discussion. Indeed, the interaction may become a mere exercise in public relations rather than a frank discussion and negotiation between leaders and their representatives.
The extent of the media’s access to the likely meeting between Kim and Trump, therefore, will be an indicator of how much substance (versus showmanship) is involved in those talks. A very public meeting, while powerful in its symbolism and offering significant “infotainment” value to the public, may not deliver much in terms of altering the strained power dynamics between the two countries.
Those of us whose primary concern is nuclear disarmament or the de-escalation of the nuclear threat rhetoric will have to accept that the prospect for peace will likely be higher if the two leaders are able to debate privately with an agreed joint communique. It means less access for us, and perhaps only a single photograph of a handshake being released to the world’s media afterwards, but it could quite literally also mean the world.
Colin Alexander is a lecturer in Political Communications at Nottingham Trent University
After Mike Pompeo's trip to North Korea, this is what we can work out about Trump and Kim Jong-un's upcoming talks
Where the talks will probably be held, what might be discussed and why less media coverage means more progress
Colin Alexander
The talks between Trump and Kim are scheduled for mid-May AFP/Getty
The revelation that CIA director Mike Pompeo met North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang over the Easter holidays appears to confirm that both sides are eager for talks between the leaders of the two countries to go ahead.
In 2000, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright travelled to North Korea for talks with Kim’s father Kim Jong-il when he was leader, but no official meetings between senior political personnel have occurred since.
So what does Pompeo’s visit mean for the future of talks between Kim and Trump, scheduled for late May or early June this year, considering that it’s been reported Pompeo was laying the groundwork for the logistics surrounding them as recently as two weeks ago?
Kim and his entourage are unlikely to fly or travel by boat to any talks with Trump; his and his predecessors’ preferences have always been to travel by rail. Somewhere in northern China, then, is the most likely venue. The city of Vladivostok on Russia’s Pacific coast is a viable alternative to China, although this option is hampered by both the United States’ ongoing consternation with Vladimir Putin and China’s insistence that it play a key role facilitating and mediating these diplomatic discussions. Nothing has been announced yet but, if I were a betting man, I would say that China is the obvious choice.
Despite Pompeo’s visit to Pyongyang, it remains unlikely that Donald Trump and his team would travel to North Korea and even less likely that Kim Jong-un would go to the United States (despite his love of basketball and the chance to catch up with his old buddy Dennis Rodman). It is also unlikely that the talks will be held either in the contested demilitarised zone on North Korea’s southern border or in South Korea, although this cannot be ruled out.
Technically the North still does not formally recognise the South’s integrity as an independent government and this would make the North’s agreement to holding talks there a tacit acknowledgement of the South’s credibility and usefulness. Moreover, in what has proved to be a tense military scenario since September 2016, when the North tested what appeared to be a nuclear bomb underground, it would be unwise to escalate tensions further by holding talks in the hostile demilitarized zone. The zone is, after all, a potent symbol of ongoing conflict.
CIA Chief Mike Pompeo on threat of North Korea in 2017
Weight was added to the likelihood of a China venue a few weeks ago when Kim Jong-un made his first official trip abroad since becoming leader of North Korea in 2011; he and his wife met with President Xi Jinping of China and his wife Peng Liyuan in Beijing. Kim travelled on his exclusive train from Pyongyang with the meeting only being confirmed once the train had returned safely over the border into North Korea. This continued that long family legacy of train-only travel with strict stipulations.
As supreme leader, Kim Jong-un’s grandfather Kim Il-sung made his longest trip by train in 1974 when he travelled to and from North Korea on a tour of Eastern Europe’s Soviet Socialist Republics. Kim Jong-il, who apparently had a fear of flying, travelled by rail to Russia to meet Vladimir Putin in 2001 and again in August 2011, shortly before dying of a heart attack on his train in December 2011 within North Korea.
Such is the apparent pride that North Korea takes in its former leaders’ passion for the railways that the mausoleums of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang – in which one can view their embalmed bodies at relatively close quarters, as well as peruse attached museums – have grand rooms dedicated solely to their former leaders’ international travels by train. One can even look inside the train carriage in which Kim Jong-il died in December 2011, complete with the old grey anorak that he was often seen wearing in public during winter months still hanging on its peg behind his desk.
This is not to say that the Kims historically always refused to step into a plane. In 1965 President Kim Il-sung, accompanied by his then 24-year-old son and successor Kim Jong-il, travelled by air to Indonesia for the 10th anniversary of the landmark 1955 Bandung Conference on Asia-Africa affairs. However, in later years, as the diplomatic isolation of North Korea increased, the country’s leaders have received fewer invitations and have had less inclination to travel overseas – and they have done so only by rail.
Kim Jong-un was invited to Moscow in 2015 as part of the commemoration events to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union’s contribution to the Allied campaigns in the Second World War. However, after some speculation over his attendance, he opted to stay away. Perhaps it was the thought of the travel time that put him off.
But back to the upcoming talks between him and Donald Trump. One major point of interest is much media presence will be allowed in, and how much the public internationally will be allowed to know about what’s discussed.
The supreme leaders of North Korea rarely meet other heads of state and when they have there has been limited, if any, media coverage. Pompeo’s visit to Pyongyang and Kim’s recent visit to China, revealed after their conclusions, are cases in point, and it may be that we also do not find out about Kim and Trump’s meeting until after it has happened.
This might be a frustration for those of us who are avid followers of North Korea and international diplomacy, and who are keen to see the demeanours of arguably the two most notorious politicians of our time when they meet. However, it is not all bad news.
Political communications theory backed up by historical experience tells us that when diplomacy goes public, it tends to reduce the level of substance within the discussion. Indeed, the interaction may become a mere exercise in public relations rather than a frank discussion and negotiation between leaders and their representatives.
The extent of the media’s access to the likely meeting between Kim and Trump, therefore, will be an indicator of how much substance (versus showmanship) is involved in those talks. A very public meeting, while powerful in its symbolism and offering significant “infotainment” value to the public, may not deliver much in terms of altering the strained power dynamics between the two countries.
Those of us whose primary concern is nuclear disarmament or the de-escalation of the nuclear threat rhetoric will have to accept that the prospect for peace will likely be higher if the two leaders are able to debate privately with an agreed joint communique. It means less access for us, and perhaps only a single photograph of a handshake being released to the world’s media afterwards, but it could quite literally also mean the world.
Colin Alexander is a lecturer in Political Communications at Nottingham Trent University
South Korea considering peace treaty with North - Guardian
South Korea considering peace treaty with North
Replacing current armistice would be contingent on Pyongyang abandoning its nuclear ambitions, Seoul says
Justin McCurry and agencies in Seoul
Wed 18 Apr 2018 13.26 AEST Last modified on Wed 18 Apr 2018 13.59 AEST
North Korean ruler Kim Jong-un
South Korea may seek to replace its uneasy truce with North Korea with a formal peace treaty, according to officials in Seoul, as the country’s president, Moon Jae-in, prepares to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un next week.
The officials added, however, that negotiating a peace treaty to replace the armistice agreed by the two Koreas at the end of their 1950-53 war would be contingent on Pyongyang abandoning its nuclear ambitions.
North Korea: Mike Pompeo met with Kim Jong-un over Easter, say US officials
Read more
Chung Eui-yong, head of South Korea’s presidential national security office, said Seoul and Washington were exploring several ways in which to reward the North for agreeing to its complete and verifiable denuclearisation.
Among the options are peace treaties with both South Korea and the US.
“We are discussing how we could remove the security concerns held by North Korea,” Chung was quoted as saying by Yonhap news agency.
“We have also held in-depth discussions on how we could guarantee the North’s bright future should the North make the right decision.”
On Tuesday, the US president Donald Trump, gave his blessing to talks aimed at formally ending the Korean war.
“People don’t realize the Korean War has not ended. It’s going on right now. And they are discussing an end to the war,” he said. “Subject to a deal they have my blessing and they do have my blessing to discuss that.”
Raising expectations for a major breakthrough at a series of upcoming summits, Trump said “a great chance to solve a world problem” was within reach on the Korean peninsula.
The countries signed an armistice in 1953. Kim and Moon will meet for the first time on 27 April.
There has been no immediate response from North Korea to the suggestion that a peace treaty may be in the offing, but Kim reportedly told Chung in Pyongyang in early March that the regime would consider giving up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from South Korea and the US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
