Saturday, July 21, 2018
Microsoft Says It Stopped Cyberattacks on Three 2018 Congressional Candidates - TIME
Microsoft Says It Stopped Cyberattacks on Three 2018 Congressional Candidates
Posted: 19 Jul 2018 12:53 PM PDT
(Bloomberg) — Microsoft Corp. said it identified and stopped attempts to launch cyberattacks on three 2018 congressional candidates using a phony version of its website.
The targets, who it didn’t identify, were “all people who because of their positions might have been interesting from an espionage standpoint, as well as an election disruption standpoint,” Tom Burt, Microsoft’s corporate vice president for customer security and trust, said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado on Thursday.
Burt said the attackers tried to use a phony Microsoft web page to make “phishing” attacks on the candidates. Working with the government, Burt said the company removed the internet domain and prevented the attacks from succeeding.
He said that Microsoft saw the same tactic attempted during the 2016 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia, at which the company provided protection.
A Facebook Inc. executive on the same panel at the Aspen conference said that in April, the company removed a few hundred pages on the service controlled by the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which has been indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for an alleged social media campaign aimed at interfering in the 2016 U.S. election.
Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of product policy and counterterrorism, said the accounts were spreading Russian language advertisements in Russian-speaking countries.
Michael Cohen Secretly Taped Trump Discussing Payment to Playboy Model - New York Times
Michael Cohen Secretly Taped Trump Discussing Payment to Playboy Model
The Justice Department is investigating the involvement of President Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.CreditJeenah Moon/Reuters
By Matt Apuzzo, Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt
July 20, 2018
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, secretly recorded a conversation with Mr. Trump two months before the presidential election in which they discussed payments to a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, according to lawyers and others familiar with the recording.
The F.B.I. seized the recording this year during a raid on Mr. Cohen’s office. The Justice Department is investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Prosecutors want to know whether that violated federal campaign finance laws, and any conversation with Mr. Trump about those payments would be of keen interest to them.
The recording’s existence appears to undercut the Trump campaign’s denial of any knowledge of payments to the model. It further draws Mr. Trump into questions about tactics he and his associates used to keep aspects of his personal and business life a secret. And it highlights the potential legal and political danger that Mr. Cohen represents to Mr. Trump. Once the keeper of many of Mr. Trump’s secrets, Mr. Cohen is now seen as increasingly willing to consider cooperating with prosecutors.
The former model, Karen McDougal, says she began a nearly yearlong affair with Mr. Trump in 2006, shortly after Mr. Trump’s wife, Melania, gave birth to their son, Barron. Ms. McDougal sold her story for $150,000 to The National Enquirer, which was supportive of Mr. Trump, during the final months of the presidential campaign, but the tabloid sat on the story, which kept it from becoming public. The practice, known as “catch and kill,” effectively silenced Ms. McDougal for the remainder of the campaign.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, confirmed in a telephone conversation on Friday that Mr. Trump had discussed payments to Ms. McDougal with Mr. Cohen in person on the recording. He said that it was less than two minutes long and that Mr. Trump did not know he was being recorded, and he claimed that the president had done nothing wrong.
Mr. Giuliani said there was no indication on the tape that Mr. Trump knew before the conversation about the payment from the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., to Ms. McDougal.
This is your last free article.
Subscribe to The Times
“Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance,” Mr. Giuliani said. The recording cuts off, according to three people familiar with it, and it is not clear how the discussion ended.
Mr. Giuliani initially indicated the men discussed a payment from Mr. Trump to Ms. McDougal — separate from the Enquirer’s payment — to buy her story. Later, he said Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen had actually discussed buying the rights to Ms. McDougal’s story from the Enquirer. Such a move would have effectively reimbursed the newspaper for its payments to her, though Mr. Giuliani disputed that characterization.
That payment was never made, Mr. Giuliani said, adding that Mr. Trump had told Mr. Cohen that if he were to make a payment related to Ms. McDougal, to write a check rather than send cash, so it could be properly documented.
A person close to Mr. Cohen disputed Mr. Giuliani’s description of the discussion over how to pay A.M.I. for the rights to Ms. McDougal’s story and suggested the tape would back up Mr. Cohen.
Neither of Mr. Giuliani’s descriptions of the conversations explains why, when The Wall Street Journal revealed the existence of the A.M.I. payment days before the election, Mr. Trump’s campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said, “We have no knowledge of any of this.” She said Ms. McDougal’s claim of an affair was “totally untrue.”
Mr. Cohen’s lawyers discovered the recording as part of their review of the seized materials and shared it with Mr. Trump’s lawyers, according to the three people briefed on the matter.
“Obviously, there is an ongoing investigation, and we are sensitive to that,” Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny J. Davis, said in a statement. “But suffice it to say that when the recording is heard, it will not hurt Mr. Cohen. Any attempt at spin cannot change what is on the tape.”
Mr. Cohen rejected repeated requests for comment. Mr. Trump ignored shouted questions about it from reporters as he left the White House on Friday afternoon and departed for a weekend at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.
David J. Pecker, the chairman of A.M.I., is a friend of Mr. Trump’s, and Ms. McDougal has accused Mr. Cohen of secretly taking part in the deal — an allegation that is now part of the F.B.I. investigation.
“It can’t be more than a minute and a half,” Mr. Giuliani said, referring to the length of the conversation. “Twice someone walks in — someone brings soda in for them. It’s not some secret conversation.”
He added: “Neither one seems to be concerned anyone would hear it. It went off on irrelevant subjects that have nothing to do with this. It’s a very professional conversation between a client and a lawyer and the client saying, ‘Do it right.’”
Because the tape showed Mr. Trump learning about the A.M.I. payment, it actually helps Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani argued. “In the big scheme of things, it’s powerful exculpatory evidence,” he said. The person close to Mr. Cohen disputed that claim but would not elaborate.
The recording is potential evidence in the campaign finance investigation, but became tied up in a legal fight over what materials are protected by attorney-client privilege and thus off limits to prosecutors. It is not clear whether a federal judge has ruled on whether prosecutors can listen to the recording.
For a decade, Mr. Cohen served as one of Mr. Trump’s most trusted fixers, aggressively taking on journalists, opposing lawyers and business adversaries. He frequently taped his conversations, unbeknown to the people with whom he was speaking. New York law allows one party to a conversation to tape conversations without the other knowing.
Mr. Cohen used to say he would take a bullet for Mr. Trump, but the relationship soured in the aftermath of the F.B.I. raids in April. In one conversation, Mr. Cohen’s lawyers inquired whether Mr. Trump planned to pardon him, but Mr. Trump’s lawyers gave no indication that the president would do so, according to two people familiar with the discussion.
Mr. Cohen has publicly and privately discussed the idea of cooperating with the F.B.I. In an interview with ABC News this month, Mr. Cohen seemed to openly invite prosecutors to talk to him.
“My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will,” Mr. Cohen said. “I put family and country first.” The words got Mr. Trump’s attention, and he asked people if they thought Mr. Cohen was trying to send a message, either to him or the Justice Department.
The Cohen investigation began with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating the Trump campaign’s links to Russia. But as the Cohen case became increasingly focused on Mr. Cohen’s personal business dealings and his campaign activities unrelated to Russia, Mr. Mueller referred it to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, who are now leading the investigation.
The wide-ranging search warrants served on Mr. Cohen this spring show that prosecutors are investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in payments to silence women about their relationships with Mr. Trump. In addition to Ms. McDougal’s arrangement, prosecutors also sought evidence of payments to the adult film star Stephanie Clifford, who is better known as Stormy Daniels.
Mr. Trump has denied knowing about those payments, though people familiar with the arrangement have said he was aware of them. But his denial helped suppress public allegations of an affair during the final months of the campaign.
Such payments, depending on how and why they were made, could represent campaign finance violations — a case that harks back to the failed prosecution of the former Democratic senator John Edwards, who tried to hide a pregnant mistress during his presidential campaign.
Mr. Cohen’s case is unusual because the payment to Ms. McDougal was made by American Media Inc. In August 2016, A.M.I. bought the rights to her story about Mr. Trump for $150,000 and a commitment to use its magazines to promote her career as a fitness specialist.
Among the matters prosecutors are investigating is whether A.M.I. considered selling or reassigning Ms. McDougal’s contract to a third party, a person with knowledge of the matter said.
Federal agents are also scrutinizing Mr. Cohen’s personal financial dealings and whether he committed fraud by lying about his assets on bank forms. In particular, the authorities are scrutinizing taxi medallions that Mr. Cohen owned, and whether he accurately accounted for their value, according to several people close to the case.
The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise.
Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting from New York.
The Justice Department is investigating the involvement of President Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.CreditJeenah Moon/Reuters
By Matt Apuzzo, Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt
July 20, 2018
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, secretly recorded a conversation with Mr. Trump two months before the presidential election in which they discussed payments to a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, according to lawyers and others familiar with the recording.
The F.B.I. seized the recording this year during a raid on Mr. Cohen’s office. The Justice Department is investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Prosecutors want to know whether that violated federal campaign finance laws, and any conversation with Mr. Trump about those payments would be of keen interest to them.
The recording’s existence appears to undercut the Trump campaign’s denial of any knowledge of payments to the model. It further draws Mr. Trump into questions about tactics he and his associates used to keep aspects of his personal and business life a secret. And it highlights the potential legal and political danger that Mr. Cohen represents to Mr. Trump. Once the keeper of many of Mr. Trump’s secrets, Mr. Cohen is now seen as increasingly willing to consider cooperating with prosecutors.
The former model, Karen McDougal, says she began a nearly yearlong affair with Mr. Trump in 2006, shortly after Mr. Trump’s wife, Melania, gave birth to their son, Barron. Ms. McDougal sold her story for $150,000 to The National Enquirer, which was supportive of Mr. Trump, during the final months of the presidential campaign, but the tabloid sat on the story, which kept it from becoming public. The practice, known as “catch and kill,” effectively silenced Ms. McDougal for the remainder of the campaign.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, confirmed in a telephone conversation on Friday that Mr. Trump had discussed payments to Ms. McDougal with Mr. Cohen in person on the recording. He said that it was less than two minutes long and that Mr. Trump did not know he was being recorded, and he claimed that the president had done nothing wrong.
Mr. Giuliani said there was no indication on the tape that Mr. Trump knew before the conversation about the payment from the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., to Ms. McDougal.
This is your last free article.
Subscribe to The Times
“Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance,” Mr. Giuliani said. The recording cuts off, according to three people familiar with it, and it is not clear how the discussion ended.
Mr. Giuliani initially indicated the men discussed a payment from Mr. Trump to Ms. McDougal — separate from the Enquirer’s payment — to buy her story. Later, he said Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen had actually discussed buying the rights to Ms. McDougal’s story from the Enquirer. Such a move would have effectively reimbursed the newspaper for its payments to her, though Mr. Giuliani disputed that characterization.
That payment was never made, Mr. Giuliani said, adding that Mr. Trump had told Mr. Cohen that if he were to make a payment related to Ms. McDougal, to write a check rather than send cash, so it could be properly documented.
A person close to Mr. Cohen disputed Mr. Giuliani’s description of the discussion over how to pay A.M.I. for the rights to Ms. McDougal’s story and suggested the tape would back up Mr. Cohen.
Neither of Mr. Giuliani’s descriptions of the conversations explains why, when The Wall Street Journal revealed the existence of the A.M.I. payment days before the election, Mr. Trump’s campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said, “We have no knowledge of any of this.” She said Ms. McDougal’s claim of an affair was “totally untrue.”
Mr. Cohen’s lawyers discovered the recording as part of their review of the seized materials and shared it with Mr. Trump’s lawyers, according to the three people briefed on the matter.
“Obviously, there is an ongoing investigation, and we are sensitive to that,” Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny J. Davis, said in a statement. “But suffice it to say that when the recording is heard, it will not hurt Mr. Cohen. Any attempt at spin cannot change what is on the tape.”
Mr. Cohen rejected repeated requests for comment. Mr. Trump ignored shouted questions about it from reporters as he left the White House on Friday afternoon and departed for a weekend at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.
David J. Pecker, the chairman of A.M.I., is a friend of Mr. Trump’s, and Ms. McDougal has accused Mr. Cohen of secretly taking part in the deal — an allegation that is now part of the F.B.I. investigation.
“It can’t be more than a minute and a half,” Mr. Giuliani said, referring to the length of the conversation. “Twice someone walks in — someone brings soda in for them. It’s not some secret conversation.”
He added: “Neither one seems to be concerned anyone would hear it. It went off on irrelevant subjects that have nothing to do with this. It’s a very professional conversation between a client and a lawyer and the client saying, ‘Do it right.’”
Because the tape showed Mr. Trump learning about the A.M.I. payment, it actually helps Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani argued. “In the big scheme of things, it’s powerful exculpatory evidence,” he said. The person close to Mr. Cohen disputed that claim but would not elaborate.
The recording is potential evidence in the campaign finance investigation, but became tied up in a legal fight over what materials are protected by attorney-client privilege and thus off limits to prosecutors. It is not clear whether a federal judge has ruled on whether prosecutors can listen to the recording.
For a decade, Mr. Cohen served as one of Mr. Trump’s most trusted fixers, aggressively taking on journalists, opposing lawyers and business adversaries. He frequently taped his conversations, unbeknown to the people with whom he was speaking. New York law allows one party to a conversation to tape conversations without the other knowing.
Mr. Cohen used to say he would take a bullet for Mr. Trump, but the relationship soured in the aftermath of the F.B.I. raids in April. In one conversation, Mr. Cohen’s lawyers inquired whether Mr. Trump planned to pardon him, but Mr. Trump’s lawyers gave no indication that the president would do so, according to two people familiar with the discussion.
Mr. Cohen has publicly and privately discussed the idea of cooperating with the F.B.I. In an interview with ABC News this month, Mr. Cohen seemed to openly invite prosecutors to talk to him.
“My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will,” Mr. Cohen said. “I put family and country first.” The words got Mr. Trump’s attention, and he asked people if they thought Mr. Cohen was trying to send a message, either to him or the Justice Department.
The Cohen investigation began with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating the Trump campaign’s links to Russia. But as the Cohen case became increasingly focused on Mr. Cohen’s personal business dealings and his campaign activities unrelated to Russia, Mr. Mueller referred it to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, who are now leading the investigation.
The wide-ranging search warrants served on Mr. Cohen this spring show that prosecutors are investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in payments to silence women about their relationships with Mr. Trump. In addition to Ms. McDougal’s arrangement, prosecutors also sought evidence of payments to the adult film star Stephanie Clifford, who is better known as Stormy Daniels.
Mr. Trump has denied knowing about those payments, though people familiar with the arrangement have said he was aware of them. But his denial helped suppress public allegations of an affair during the final months of the campaign.
Such payments, depending on how and why they were made, could represent campaign finance violations — a case that harks back to the failed prosecution of the former Democratic senator John Edwards, who tried to hide a pregnant mistress during his presidential campaign.
Mr. Cohen’s case is unusual because the payment to Ms. McDougal was made by American Media Inc. In August 2016, A.M.I. bought the rights to her story about Mr. Trump for $150,000 and a commitment to use its magazines to promote her career as a fitness specialist.
Among the matters prosecutors are investigating is whether A.M.I. considered selling or reassigning Ms. McDougal’s contract to a third party, a person with knowledge of the matter said.
Federal agents are also scrutinizing Mr. Cohen’s personal financial dealings and whether he committed fraud by lying about his assets on bank forms. In particular, the authorities are scrutinizing taxi medallions that Mr. Cohen owned, and whether he accurately accounted for their value, according to several people close to the case.
The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise.
Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting from New York.
Moments before vote, McConnell withdraws Trump judicial nominee - CBS News ( source ; AssociatedPress )
AP July 20, 2018, 9:23 AM
Moments before vote, McConnell withdraws Trump judicial nominee
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, talks to the media following the Republicans' weekly policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington Dec. 12, 2017. REUTERS/YURI GRIPAS
Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday abruptly withdrew one of President Trump's appellate court nominees when it became apparent he did not have enough support to pass.
The decision came just minutes before the confirmation vote and after senators voiced concerns about his college writings.
McConnell indicated that the administration would be withdrawing the nomination of Ryan Bounds, an assistant U.S. attorney in Oregon, to serve on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Republicans have been able to use their thin majority to push several of Mr. Trump's nominees over the finish line despite overwhelming Democratic opposition. Arizona Sen. John McCain's absence has given the GOP even less cushion, with Republicans holding a 50-49 voting edge.
That edge evaporated when Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said he needed more information about Bounds.
"After talking with the nominee last night and meeting with him today, I had unanswered questions that led to me being unable to support him," Scott said.
A person familiar with Scott's thinking said he had concerns about some of Bounds' writings. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because Scott was not detailing his concerns publicly.
Scott said he felt like he needed "more information," and other Republicans joined him in asking for that. He said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was one of those senators.
McConnell is doing his part to remake the judiciary
Commentary: The real reason conservatives will bet big on Kavanaugh
The two senators from Bounds' home state, Democrats Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, had objected to the nomination, saying the Trump administration hadn't consulted them about it. They highlighted writings from Bounds' years at Stanford University that they said revealed alarming views on race, workers' rights and the gay community. They also complained that Bounds did not provide his Stanford Review opinion columns to a judicial selection committee in Oregon that makes recommendations for federal judges.
Bounds, 45, was asked about the writings during the confirmation hearing and in questionnaires submitted by senators, and he apologized. In one column titled "Lo! A Pestilence Stalks Us," he appeared to mock LGBT students as being too sensitive when a group of intoxicated athletes vandalized a statue celebrating gay pride. In the same column, he seemed to mock Latino students for being too sensitive when they complained about the termination of a Latino administrator.
Bounds said the article didn't show sufficient respect for the concerns of the students involved. "I apologize for that; it is not in keeping with how I have lived my life," Bounds said.
Bounds also told senators that he did not believe he needed to submit pre-law school writings to the judicial selection committee.
"Senator Wyden's office explicitly told me the committee sought to review materials going back only 'as far as law school,' and so I identified and (to the extent practicable) produced all such materials without regard to whether they were potentially controversial," Bounds said.
While Democrats objected to Bounds' writings and the process used to advance him, Republican senators focused on his work as a lawyer.
"Fairness, impartiality, intellectual rigor. To sum it up, in the words of one legal peer, quote, 'Ryan has all of this, and more,'" McConnell said Thursday morning, hours before pulling the nomination. "So, I look forward to voting to confirm this excellent nominee, and I urge all my colleagues to join me."
Democrats were incensed that Republicans were moving ahead despite the objections of both home-state senators, saying the GOP was discarding Senate courtesy and tradition.
The Senate gives lawmakers a chance to weigh in on a judicial nominee from their home state by submitting a blue-colored form called the "blue slip." A positive blue slip signals the Senate can move forward with the nomination process. The blue slip is designed to generate consultation between the executive branch and Congress. The two Oregon senators signaled their objections by not returning blue slips, which would generally stall a nomination.
This time, Republicans opted to move forward anyway, which meant that if Bounds had been confirmed, it would have been the first time since at least 1956 and possibly much longer that a nominee had been confirmed without positive blue slips from both home-state senators.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee from California, called Bounds "a deeply flawed nominee who concealed his views during the nominations process, which is why I strongly opposed him in committee."
Merkley and Wyden said they had spoken in detail with colleagues in recent days about Bounds but were afraid the issue was getting lost.
"I'm still somewhat surprised that we had a successful outcome," Merkley said. "I do not feel this individual was the right person to serve on the bench, but I'm very pleased my colleagues had a long discussion about it over lunch and decided to take the course you saw them take by asking the president to withdraw the nomination."
Moments before vote, McConnell withdraws Trump judicial nominee
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, talks to the media following the Republicans' weekly policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington Dec. 12, 2017. REUTERS/YURI GRIPAS
Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday abruptly withdrew one of President Trump's appellate court nominees when it became apparent he did not have enough support to pass.
The decision came just minutes before the confirmation vote and after senators voiced concerns about his college writings.
McConnell indicated that the administration would be withdrawing the nomination of Ryan Bounds, an assistant U.S. attorney in Oregon, to serve on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Republicans have been able to use their thin majority to push several of Mr. Trump's nominees over the finish line despite overwhelming Democratic opposition. Arizona Sen. John McCain's absence has given the GOP even less cushion, with Republicans holding a 50-49 voting edge.
That edge evaporated when Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said he needed more information about Bounds.
"After talking with the nominee last night and meeting with him today, I had unanswered questions that led to me being unable to support him," Scott said.
A person familiar with Scott's thinking said he had concerns about some of Bounds' writings. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because Scott was not detailing his concerns publicly.
Scott said he felt like he needed "more information," and other Republicans joined him in asking for that. He said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was one of those senators.
McConnell is doing his part to remake the judiciary
Commentary: The real reason conservatives will bet big on Kavanaugh
The two senators from Bounds' home state, Democrats Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, had objected to the nomination, saying the Trump administration hadn't consulted them about it. They highlighted writings from Bounds' years at Stanford University that they said revealed alarming views on race, workers' rights and the gay community. They also complained that Bounds did not provide his Stanford Review opinion columns to a judicial selection committee in Oregon that makes recommendations for federal judges.
Bounds, 45, was asked about the writings during the confirmation hearing and in questionnaires submitted by senators, and he apologized. In one column titled "Lo! A Pestilence Stalks Us," he appeared to mock LGBT students as being too sensitive when a group of intoxicated athletes vandalized a statue celebrating gay pride. In the same column, he seemed to mock Latino students for being too sensitive when they complained about the termination of a Latino administrator.
Bounds said the article didn't show sufficient respect for the concerns of the students involved. "I apologize for that; it is not in keeping with how I have lived my life," Bounds said.
Bounds also told senators that he did not believe he needed to submit pre-law school writings to the judicial selection committee.
"Senator Wyden's office explicitly told me the committee sought to review materials going back only 'as far as law school,' and so I identified and (to the extent practicable) produced all such materials without regard to whether they were potentially controversial," Bounds said.
While Democrats objected to Bounds' writings and the process used to advance him, Republican senators focused on his work as a lawyer.
"Fairness, impartiality, intellectual rigor. To sum it up, in the words of one legal peer, quote, 'Ryan has all of this, and more,'" McConnell said Thursday morning, hours before pulling the nomination. "So, I look forward to voting to confirm this excellent nominee, and I urge all my colleagues to join me."
Democrats were incensed that Republicans were moving ahead despite the objections of both home-state senators, saying the GOP was discarding Senate courtesy and tradition.
The Senate gives lawmakers a chance to weigh in on a judicial nominee from their home state by submitting a blue-colored form called the "blue slip." A positive blue slip signals the Senate can move forward with the nomination process. The blue slip is designed to generate consultation between the executive branch and Congress. The two Oregon senators signaled their objections by not returning blue slips, which would generally stall a nomination.
This time, Republicans opted to move forward anyway, which meant that if Bounds had been confirmed, it would have been the first time since at least 1956 and possibly much longer that a nominee had been confirmed without positive blue slips from both home-state senators.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee from California, called Bounds "a deeply flawed nominee who concealed his views during the nominations process, which is why I strongly opposed him in committee."
Merkley and Wyden said they had spoken in detail with colleagues in recent days about Bounds but were afraid the issue was getting lost.
"I'm still somewhat surprised that we had a successful outcome," Merkley said. "I do not feel this individual was the right person to serve on the bench, but I'm very pleased my colleagues had a long discussion about it over lunch and decided to take the course you saw them take by asking the president to withdraw the nomination."
Trump Putin: Incredulity as Russian leader is invited to visit US - BBC News
Trump Putin: Incredulity as Russian leader is invited to visit US
20 July 2018
"That's going to be special" - US Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats learns of the Putin visit while at an event
President Donald Trump has invited Russian leader Vladimir Putin to visit the US, in a move that drew startled laughter from a US intelligence chief.
"That's going to be special!" said Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, when he was told about the invitation during a live interview.
The political fallout is continuing from Mr Trump's first summit with Mr Putin in Finland on Monday.
Democrats are demanding the notes from the two leaders' private talks.
Your toolkit to help understand the story
Trump's 'most serious mistake'
"Until we know what happened at that two-hour meeting in Helsinki, the president should have no more one-on-one interactions with Putin," said Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. "In the United States, in Russia, or anywhere else."
CNBC
✔
@CNBC
Trump on Putin: "I'll be his worst nightmare" if things don't work out, "but I don't think it'll be that way." https://cnb.cx/2uPcWOC
10:40 PM - Jul 20, 2018
The Republican president's 18 months in office have been dogged by investigations into whether any of his aides colluded with alleged Russian attempts to sway the 2016 election in his favour. Mr Trump and Mr Putin have poured scorn on the claims.
In a CNBC interview televised on Friday, Mr Trump said he and Mr Putin "get along well", even if they did not always see eye to eye.
"It wasn't always conciliatory in that meeting," Mr Trump said. "We discussed lots of great things for both countries, frankly."
He did not offer further details.
Mr Trump also vowed to be the Russian leader's "worst nightmare" if their relationship ever turns sour, and said former President Barack Obama had been Mr Putin's "total patsy".
Trump prepares a sequel
By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
Donald Trump has tweeted that the summit with Mr Putin was a "great success" and people at "higher ends of intelligence" loved his Helsinki news conference. As if to underline that point, plans are already under way for a sequel - this time in Washington DC.
Never mind that the White House has spent three days trying to clean up the political fallout from the summit amid bipartisan criticism, or that the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in 2016 continues apace.
Trump says he "misspoke" at Putin summit, but is it too late? Anthony Zurcher explains
Mr Trump may have been encouraged by recent opinion polling showing that while the public at large is uneasy with Mr Trump's Russia policies, his Republican base - by a sizeable majority - is fine with his performance.
The president campaigned on closer ties with Russia, a goal that had been thwarted during his first year in office. With his base still behind him, Mr Trump appears ready to press on with his efforts.
What do we know of the plan for a Putin visit?
Mr Putin, in power in Russia since 2000, last visited the US in 2015, when he met President Barack Obama, Mr Trump's predecessor, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York to discuss the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.
Mr Putin said he would meet the US "halfway" over access to indictees
On Thursday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted that discussions about a visit by Mr Putin to Washington DC this autumn were already under way.
Russia's ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, could not confirm whether an invitation had already been issued.
He told the BBC: "The problem is there's so much talk today, so much fake news, so much distortion, about what happened at this summit.
"Such negativity for some reason - I don't understand why the Western media think it's bad that two presidents are meeting. What's bad about it?"
Has US intelligence chief 'gone rogue'?
The announcement of a second summit appeared to come as a surprise to Mr Trump's director of national intelligence.
"Say that again," Mr Coats said when an NBC News presenter broke the news to him during a live interview at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.
He said he did not yet know what Mr Trump and Mr Putin had discussed during their meeting, at which only the pair and their interpreters were present.
The White House is said to be furious about the director of national intelligence's remarks.
"Coats has gone rogue," one senior official told the Washington Post.
What was Putin's 'incredible offer'?
At the post-summit news conference in Helsinki, Mr Putin offered access to 12 Russians indicted in absentia by the US authorities for allegedly hacking Democratic Party computers, on condition Moscow authorities could question 12 Americans over other matters.
Mr Trump first praised the suggestion as an "incredible offer", but White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later said the president disagreed with it.
No extradition treaty exists between the two countries.
Mr Putin singled out US-born financier Bill Browder, accusing him of massive tax fraud, which he denies.
Mr Browder was instrumental in the US imposing sanctions in 2012 on top Russian officials accused of corruption in the Magnitsky affair.
"I'm thankful that Donald Trump has no intention of handing me over to Vladimir Putin to have me killed in a Russian prison," Mr Browder told the BBC on Thursday.
One of the other Americans on Russia's list was a former US ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul.
Media captionRussian ambassadors react to Trump remarks at Helsinki summit
The idea of allowing Russia to quiz US citizens sparked outrage and the US Senate voted 98-0 against it. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it was "not going to happen".
Mr McFaul tweeted his gratitude to senators.
Michael McFaul
✔
@McFaul
98-0. Bipartisanship is not dead yet in the US Senate. Thank you all for your support.
5:26 AM - Jul 20, 2018
20 July 2018
"That's going to be special" - US Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats learns of the Putin visit while at an event
President Donald Trump has invited Russian leader Vladimir Putin to visit the US, in a move that drew startled laughter from a US intelligence chief.
"That's going to be special!" said Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, when he was told about the invitation during a live interview.
The political fallout is continuing from Mr Trump's first summit with Mr Putin in Finland on Monday.
Democrats are demanding the notes from the two leaders' private talks.
Your toolkit to help understand the story
Trump's 'most serious mistake'
"Until we know what happened at that two-hour meeting in Helsinki, the president should have no more one-on-one interactions with Putin," said Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. "In the United States, in Russia, or anywhere else."
CNBC
✔
@CNBC
Trump on Putin: "I'll be his worst nightmare" if things don't work out, "but I don't think it'll be that way." https://cnb.cx/2uPcWOC
10:40 PM - Jul 20, 2018
The Republican president's 18 months in office have been dogged by investigations into whether any of his aides colluded with alleged Russian attempts to sway the 2016 election in his favour. Mr Trump and Mr Putin have poured scorn on the claims.
In a CNBC interview televised on Friday, Mr Trump said he and Mr Putin "get along well", even if they did not always see eye to eye.
"It wasn't always conciliatory in that meeting," Mr Trump said. "We discussed lots of great things for both countries, frankly."
He did not offer further details.
Mr Trump also vowed to be the Russian leader's "worst nightmare" if their relationship ever turns sour, and said former President Barack Obama had been Mr Putin's "total patsy".
Trump prepares a sequel
By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
Donald Trump has tweeted that the summit with Mr Putin was a "great success" and people at "higher ends of intelligence" loved his Helsinki news conference. As if to underline that point, plans are already under way for a sequel - this time in Washington DC.
Never mind that the White House has spent three days trying to clean up the political fallout from the summit amid bipartisan criticism, or that the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in 2016 continues apace.
Trump says he "misspoke" at Putin summit, but is it too late? Anthony Zurcher explains
Mr Trump may have been encouraged by recent opinion polling showing that while the public at large is uneasy with Mr Trump's Russia policies, his Republican base - by a sizeable majority - is fine with his performance.
The president campaigned on closer ties with Russia, a goal that had been thwarted during his first year in office. With his base still behind him, Mr Trump appears ready to press on with his efforts.
What do we know of the plan for a Putin visit?
Mr Putin, in power in Russia since 2000, last visited the US in 2015, when he met President Barack Obama, Mr Trump's predecessor, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York to discuss the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.
Mr Putin said he would meet the US "halfway" over access to indictees
On Thursday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted that discussions about a visit by Mr Putin to Washington DC this autumn were already under way.
Russia's ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, could not confirm whether an invitation had already been issued.
He told the BBC: "The problem is there's so much talk today, so much fake news, so much distortion, about what happened at this summit.
"Such negativity for some reason - I don't understand why the Western media think it's bad that two presidents are meeting. What's bad about it?"
Has US intelligence chief 'gone rogue'?
The announcement of a second summit appeared to come as a surprise to Mr Trump's director of national intelligence.
"Say that again," Mr Coats said when an NBC News presenter broke the news to him during a live interview at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.
He said he did not yet know what Mr Trump and Mr Putin had discussed during their meeting, at which only the pair and their interpreters were present.
The White House is said to be furious about the director of national intelligence's remarks.
"Coats has gone rogue," one senior official told the Washington Post.
What was Putin's 'incredible offer'?
At the post-summit news conference in Helsinki, Mr Putin offered access to 12 Russians indicted in absentia by the US authorities for allegedly hacking Democratic Party computers, on condition Moscow authorities could question 12 Americans over other matters.
Mr Trump first praised the suggestion as an "incredible offer", but White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later said the president disagreed with it.
No extradition treaty exists between the two countries.
Mr Putin singled out US-born financier Bill Browder, accusing him of massive tax fraud, which he denies.
Mr Browder was instrumental in the US imposing sanctions in 2012 on top Russian officials accused of corruption in the Magnitsky affair.
"I'm thankful that Donald Trump has no intention of handing me over to Vladimir Putin to have me killed in a Russian prison," Mr Browder told the BBC on Thursday.
One of the other Americans on Russia's list was a former US ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul.
Media captionRussian ambassadors react to Trump remarks at Helsinki summit
The idea of allowing Russia to quiz US citizens sparked outrage and the US Senate voted 98-0 against it. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it was "not going to happen".
Mr McFaul tweeted his gratitude to senators.
Michael McFaul
✔
@McFaul
98-0. Bipartisanship is not dead yet in the US Senate. Thank you all for your support.
5:26 AM - Jul 20, 2018
Friday, July 20, 2018
How Putin's GRU spy network casts a shadowy web of covert operations across globe - Daily Mail
July 20, 2018
How Putin's GRU spy network casts a shadowy web of covert operations across globe
GRU was founded in 1918 after the Bolshevik Revolution
The GRU is believed by British intelligence to have been behind the Novichok attack on Sergei Skripal, who was a former colonel Russia's military intelligence until he defected to Britain.
The agency, whose best known emblem is a bat hovering above a globe, was founded as the Registration Directorate in 1918 after the Bolshevik Revolution.
Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin insisted on its independence from other secret services and until the fall of the Soviet Union it was subordinate to the more famous and feared KGB, the notorious internal security service.
The KGB was ultimately succeeded by the FSB - the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation run by Vladimir Putin, who a KGB officer for 16 years and later briefly the head of the FSB.
According to Yuri Shvets, a one-time KGB agent, GRU officers were referred to as 'boots' - tough but unsophisticated killers.
'The GRU took its officers from the trenches,' he said, while the KGB picked its agents - including Putin - from the USSR's best universities.
The GRU trains agents and then sends them abroad as military attaches in foreign embassies, according to experts.
But once a member of the GRU, it is believed to be exceptionally difficult to leave. And those who do so to join foreign agencies are punished savagely.
Viktor Suvorov, a GRU officer who defected to Britain in 1978, said new recruits were shown a video of a traitor from the agency being burned alive in a furnace as a warning.
It is believed that GRU members are still staffing Russian embassies and using their diplomatic posts as cover to spy on host countries.
That is why the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats as retaliation against the hacking of the Democratic Party just weeks before leaving office.
It is also why the British government expelled 23 diplomats on March 23 following the outrage in Salisbury. The US expelled 60.
The nerve agent was hidden in a perfume bottle, suggesting one of the assassins may have been a woman, and that Ms Sturgess sprayed the deadly substance onto her wrists after finding it in a park.
Her partner Charlie Rowley, 45, was left fighting for his life after also being contaminated by the chemical weapon.
It comes as an inquest opens today into the death of Dawn Sturgess (pictured), who died this month after apparently coming into contact with the same batch of Novichok +20
It comes as an inquest opens today into the death of Dawn Sturgess (pictured), who died this month after apparently coming into contact with the same batch of Novichok
It is understood mother-of-three Ms Sturgess was exposed to at least 10 times the amount of nerve agent the Skripals came into contact with.
Mr Rowley says that after finding the bottle, Ms Sturgess sprayed Novichok straight on to both of her wrists, the source said.
Investigators are working to the theory that the substance was in a discarded perfume bottle found by the couple in a park or somewhere in Salisbury city centre, most likely the park now being searched.
The Metropolitan Police, who are leading the investigation, have declined to comment on the latest claims.
But a source with knowledge of the investigation told the Press Association: 'Investigators believe they have identified the suspected perpetrators of the Novichok attack through CCTV and have cross-checked this with records of people who entered the country around that time.
'They (the investigators) are sure they (the suspects) are Russian.'
According to reports from US security officials, police have recovered grainy CCTV images of persons who inadvertently killed Dawn.
Counter-terror cops are closing in on identifying the suspects, thought to be from Mr Skripal's former employers, Russia's military intelligence service the GRU.
Police outside Mr Rowley's home in Amesbury, Wiltshire, on July 5 after he and Ms Sturgess picked up a perfume bottle containing the chemical weapon Novichok +20
Police outside Mr Rowley's home in Amesbury, Wiltshire, on July 5 after he and Ms Sturgess picked up a perfume bottle containing the chemical weapon Novichok
A police officer stands guard over a cordoned off rubbish bin after Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley fell ill in Amesbury +20
A police officer stands guard over a cordoned off rubbish bin after Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley fell ill in Amesbury
Both Mr Skripal and his daughter, as well as Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, of Wiltshire Police, made miraculous recoveries after being on the brink of death.
All three were treated at Salisbury General Hospital, where Charlie is now being cared for.
The perfume bottle could support the theory that a woman was involved in the initial hit by up to six people against Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury on March 4.
Ms Sturgess' inquest will be opened today in Salisbury and the hearing is expected to be adjourned to allow police inquiries to continue.
On Wednesday, a fingertip search of Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury was carried out.
The park and other locations in Salisbury and nearby Amesbury were cordoned off last month after the exposure of the couple to the nerve agent.
Searches of properties could last months after 400 items were recovered, officers warned, while waste and litter will be removed as part of the sweep of public areas.
Last week counter-terrorism detectives revealed they had found a small bottle containing Novichok at Mr Rowley's home in Muggleton Road, Amesbury.
They are trying to establish where the container came from, and how it came to be in his house.
A team of international experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was called in to independently verify this.
They have finished collecting samples which will now be analysed at two OPCW labs before the results are reported back to the UK.
Public Health England said the risk to the public remains low but it continued to 'strongly advise' not to pick up any unknown 'strange items' such as syringes, needles, cosmetics or similar objects made of materials such as metal, plastic or glass.
A timeline of the key developments in the Salisbury poisoning case
2010 - Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer jailed for spying for Britain, is released and flown to the UK as part of a swap with Russian agents caught in the United States. He settles in Salisbury.
March 3, 2018 - Yulia Skripal arrives at Heathrow Airport from Russia to visit her father in England.
March 4, 9.15am - Sergei Skripal's burgundy BMW is seen in suburban Salisbury, near a cemetery, where his wife and son are commemorated.
March 4, 1.30pm - The BMW is seen driving toward central Salisbury.
March 4, 1.40pm - The BMW is parked at a lot in central Salisbury.
A police officer stands guard outside the Zizzi restaurant where Sergei and Yulia had lunch before they collapsed in a nearby park +20
A police officer stands guard outside the Zizzi restaurant where Sergei and Yulia had lunch before they collapsed in a nearby park
March 4, afternoon - Sergei and Yulia Skripal visit the Bishops Mill pub.
March 4, 2.20pm to 3.35pm - Sergei and Yulia Skripal have lunch at the Zizzi restaurant.
March 4, 4.15pm - Emergency services are called by a passer-by concerned about a man and a woman in Salisbury city centre.
Officers find the Skripals unconscious on a bench. They are taken to Salisbury District Hospital, where they remain in critical condition.
March 5, morning - Police say two people in Salisbury are being treated for suspected exposure to an unknown substance.
Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey was among the first police officers on the scene and was himself hospitalised +20
Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey was among the first police officers on the scene and was himself hospitalised
March 5, afternoon - Wiltshire Police, along with Public Health England, declare a 'major incident'
March 7 - Police announce that the Skripals were likely poisoned with a nerve agent in a targeted murder attempt.
They disclose that a police officer who responded to the incident is in serious condition in a hospital.
March 8 - Home Secretary Amber Rudd describes the use of a nerve agent on UK soil was a 'brazen and reckless act' of attempted murder
March 9 - About 180 troops trained in chemical warfare and decontamination are deployed to Salisbury to help with the police investigation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says Moscow might be willing to assist with the investigation but expresses resentment at suggestions the Kremlin was behind the attack.
March 11 - Public health officials tell people who visited the Zizzi restaurant or Bishops Mill pub in Salisbury on the day of the attack or the next day to wash their clothes as a precaution.
March 12, morning- Prime Minister Theresa May tells the House of Commons that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
March 12, afternoon - Public Health England ask everyone who visited Salisbury town centre on the day of the attack to wash all of their clothes and belongings.
Officers wearing chemical protection suits secure the forensic tent over the bench where Sergei and Yulia fell ill +20
Officers wearing chemical protection suits secure the forensic tent over the bench where Sergei and Yulia fell ill
March 14 - The PM announces the expulsion of 23 suspected Russian spies from the country's UK Embassy.
March 22 - Nick Bailey, the police officer injured in the attack, is released from hospital.
March 26 - The United States and 22 other countries join Britain in expelling scores of Russian spies from capitals across the globe.
March 29 - Doctors say Yulia Skripal is 'improving rapidly' in hospital.
April 3 - The chief of the Porton Down defence laboratory said it could not verify the 'precise source' of the nerve agent.
April 5, morning - Yulia Skripal's cousin Viktoria says she has received a call from Yulia saying she plans to leave hospital soon.
Dawn Sturgess died in hospital on July 8 +20
Dawn Sturgess died in hospital on July 8
April 5, afternoon - A statement on behalf of Yulia is released by Metropolitan Police, in which she says her strength is 'growing daily' and that 'daddy is fine'.
April 9 - Ms Skripal is released from hospital and moved to a secure location.
May 18 - Sergei Skripal is released from hospital 11 weeks after he was poisoned.
June 30 - Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley fall ill at a property in Amesbury, which is eight miles from Salisbury, and are rushed to hospital.
July 4 - Police declare a major incident after Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley are exposed to an 'unknown substance', later revealed to be Novichok.
July 5 - Sajid Javid demands an explanation over the two poisonings as he accuses the Russian state of using Britain as a 'dumping ground for poison'.
July 8 - Mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess, 44, dies in hospital due to coming into contact with Novichok.
July 10 - Mr Rowley regains consciousness at hospital, and later tells his brother that Dawn had sprayed the Novichok onto her wrists.
July 19 - Police are believed to have identified the perpetrators of the attack.
How Putin's GRU spy network casts a shadowy web of covert operations across globe
GRU was founded in 1918 after the Bolshevik Revolution
The GRU is believed by British intelligence to have been behind the Novichok attack on Sergei Skripal, who was a former colonel Russia's military intelligence until he defected to Britain.
The agency, whose best known emblem is a bat hovering above a globe, was founded as the Registration Directorate in 1918 after the Bolshevik Revolution.
Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin insisted on its independence from other secret services and until the fall of the Soviet Union it was subordinate to the more famous and feared KGB, the notorious internal security service.
The KGB was ultimately succeeded by the FSB - the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation run by Vladimir Putin, who a KGB officer for 16 years and later briefly the head of the FSB.
According to Yuri Shvets, a one-time KGB agent, GRU officers were referred to as 'boots' - tough but unsophisticated killers.
'The GRU took its officers from the trenches,' he said, while the KGB picked its agents - including Putin - from the USSR's best universities.
The GRU trains agents and then sends them abroad as military attaches in foreign embassies, according to experts.
But once a member of the GRU, it is believed to be exceptionally difficult to leave. And those who do so to join foreign agencies are punished savagely.
Viktor Suvorov, a GRU officer who defected to Britain in 1978, said new recruits were shown a video of a traitor from the agency being burned alive in a furnace as a warning.
It is believed that GRU members are still staffing Russian embassies and using their diplomatic posts as cover to spy on host countries.
That is why the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats as retaliation against the hacking of the Democratic Party just weeks before leaving office.
It is also why the British government expelled 23 diplomats on March 23 following the outrage in Salisbury. The US expelled 60.
The nerve agent was hidden in a perfume bottle, suggesting one of the assassins may have been a woman, and that Ms Sturgess sprayed the deadly substance onto her wrists after finding it in a park.
Her partner Charlie Rowley, 45, was left fighting for his life after also being contaminated by the chemical weapon.
It comes as an inquest opens today into the death of Dawn Sturgess (pictured), who died this month after apparently coming into contact with the same batch of Novichok +20
It comes as an inquest opens today into the death of Dawn Sturgess (pictured), who died this month after apparently coming into contact with the same batch of Novichok
It is understood mother-of-three Ms Sturgess was exposed to at least 10 times the amount of nerve agent the Skripals came into contact with.
Mr Rowley says that after finding the bottle, Ms Sturgess sprayed Novichok straight on to both of her wrists, the source said.
Investigators are working to the theory that the substance was in a discarded perfume bottle found by the couple in a park or somewhere in Salisbury city centre, most likely the park now being searched.
The Metropolitan Police, who are leading the investigation, have declined to comment on the latest claims.
But a source with knowledge of the investigation told the Press Association: 'Investigators believe they have identified the suspected perpetrators of the Novichok attack through CCTV and have cross-checked this with records of people who entered the country around that time.
'They (the investigators) are sure they (the suspects) are Russian.'
According to reports from US security officials, police have recovered grainy CCTV images of persons who inadvertently killed Dawn.
Counter-terror cops are closing in on identifying the suspects, thought to be from Mr Skripal's former employers, Russia's military intelligence service the GRU.
Police outside Mr Rowley's home in Amesbury, Wiltshire, on July 5 after he and Ms Sturgess picked up a perfume bottle containing the chemical weapon Novichok +20
Police outside Mr Rowley's home in Amesbury, Wiltshire, on July 5 after he and Ms Sturgess picked up a perfume bottle containing the chemical weapon Novichok
A police officer stands guard over a cordoned off rubbish bin after Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley fell ill in Amesbury +20
A police officer stands guard over a cordoned off rubbish bin after Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley fell ill in Amesbury
Both Mr Skripal and his daughter, as well as Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, of Wiltshire Police, made miraculous recoveries after being on the brink of death.
All three were treated at Salisbury General Hospital, where Charlie is now being cared for.
The perfume bottle could support the theory that a woman was involved in the initial hit by up to six people against Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury on March 4.
Ms Sturgess' inquest will be opened today in Salisbury and the hearing is expected to be adjourned to allow police inquiries to continue.
On Wednesday, a fingertip search of Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury was carried out.
The park and other locations in Salisbury and nearby Amesbury were cordoned off last month after the exposure of the couple to the nerve agent.
Searches of properties could last months after 400 items were recovered, officers warned, while waste and litter will be removed as part of the sweep of public areas.
Last week counter-terrorism detectives revealed they had found a small bottle containing Novichok at Mr Rowley's home in Muggleton Road, Amesbury.
They are trying to establish where the container came from, and how it came to be in his house.
A team of international experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was called in to independently verify this.
They have finished collecting samples which will now be analysed at two OPCW labs before the results are reported back to the UK.
Public Health England said the risk to the public remains low but it continued to 'strongly advise' not to pick up any unknown 'strange items' such as syringes, needles, cosmetics or similar objects made of materials such as metal, plastic or glass.
A timeline of the key developments in the Salisbury poisoning case
2010 - Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer jailed for spying for Britain, is released and flown to the UK as part of a swap with Russian agents caught in the United States. He settles in Salisbury.
March 3, 2018 - Yulia Skripal arrives at Heathrow Airport from Russia to visit her father in England.
March 4, 9.15am - Sergei Skripal's burgundy BMW is seen in suburban Salisbury, near a cemetery, where his wife and son are commemorated.
March 4, 1.30pm - The BMW is seen driving toward central Salisbury.
March 4, 1.40pm - The BMW is parked at a lot in central Salisbury.
A police officer stands guard outside the Zizzi restaurant where Sergei and Yulia had lunch before they collapsed in a nearby park +20
A police officer stands guard outside the Zizzi restaurant where Sergei and Yulia had lunch before they collapsed in a nearby park
March 4, afternoon - Sergei and Yulia Skripal visit the Bishops Mill pub.
March 4, 2.20pm to 3.35pm - Sergei and Yulia Skripal have lunch at the Zizzi restaurant.
March 4, 4.15pm - Emergency services are called by a passer-by concerned about a man and a woman in Salisbury city centre.
Officers find the Skripals unconscious on a bench. They are taken to Salisbury District Hospital, where they remain in critical condition.
March 5, morning - Police say two people in Salisbury are being treated for suspected exposure to an unknown substance.
Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey was among the first police officers on the scene and was himself hospitalised +20
Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey was among the first police officers on the scene and was himself hospitalised
March 5, afternoon - Wiltshire Police, along with Public Health England, declare a 'major incident'
March 7 - Police announce that the Skripals were likely poisoned with a nerve agent in a targeted murder attempt.
They disclose that a police officer who responded to the incident is in serious condition in a hospital.
March 8 - Home Secretary Amber Rudd describes the use of a nerve agent on UK soil was a 'brazen and reckless act' of attempted murder
March 9 - About 180 troops trained in chemical warfare and decontamination are deployed to Salisbury to help with the police investigation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says Moscow might be willing to assist with the investigation but expresses resentment at suggestions the Kremlin was behind the attack.
March 11 - Public health officials tell people who visited the Zizzi restaurant or Bishops Mill pub in Salisbury on the day of the attack or the next day to wash their clothes as a precaution.
March 12, morning- Prime Minister Theresa May tells the House of Commons that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
March 12, afternoon - Public Health England ask everyone who visited Salisbury town centre on the day of the attack to wash all of their clothes and belongings.
Officers wearing chemical protection suits secure the forensic tent over the bench where Sergei and Yulia fell ill +20
Officers wearing chemical protection suits secure the forensic tent over the bench where Sergei and Yulia fell ill
March 14 - The PM announces the expulsion of 23 suspected Russian spies from the country's UK Embassy.
March 22 - Nick Bailey, the police officer injured in the attack, is released from hospital.
March 26 - The United States and 22 other countries join Britain in expelling scores of Russian spies from capitals across the globe.
March 29 - Doctors say Yulia Skripal is 'improving rapidly' in hospital.
April 3 - The chief of the Porton Down defence laboratory said it could not verify the 'precise source' of the nerve agent.
April 5, morning - Yulia Skripal's cousin Viktoria says she has received a call from Yulia saying she plans to leave hospital soon.
Dawn Sturgess died in hospital on July 8 +20
Dawn Sturgess died in hospital on July 8
April 5, afternoon - A statement on behalf of Yulia is released by Metropolitan Police, in which she says her strength is 'growing daily' and that 'daddy is fine'.
April 9 - Ms Skripal is released from hospital and moved to a secure location.
May 18 - Sergei Skripal is released from hospital 11 weeks after he was poisoned.
June 30 - Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley fall ill at a property in Amesbury, which is eight miles from Salisbury, and are rushed to hospital.
July 4 - Police declare a major incident after Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley are exposed to an 'unknown substance', later revealed to be Novichok.
July 5 - Sajid Javid demands an explanation over the two poisonings as he accuses the Russian state of using Britain as a 'dumping ground for poison'.
July 8 - Mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess, 44, dies in hospital due to coming into contact with Novichok.
July 10 - Mr Rowley regains consciousness at hospital, and later tells his brother that Dawn had sprayed the Novichok onto her wrists.
July 19 - Police are believed to have identified the perpetrators of the attack.
Ex-South Korean President Sentenced To 8 More Years In Prison - NDTV
Ex-South Korean President Sentenced To 8 More Years In Prison
South Korean President Guen-hye guilty of charges of illegal recieval of funds from the country's spy agency involving 8 years of imprisonment
World | AFP | Updated: July 20, 2018 14:48
Ex-South Korean President Sentenced To 8 More Years In Prison
Ex South Korean president Park Geun-hye convicted of charges of illegally receiving funds
SEOUL: Disgraced former South Korean president Park Geun-hye was convicted of charges including illegally receiving funds from the country's spy agency today and given eight more years in prison, on top of her current term.
Park, the South's first female president, was impeached last year after huge street protests over a sprawling scandal, and was jailed for 24 years for corruption and abuse of power in April.
Today's penalty - issued in her absence after she refused to attend the Seoul Central District Court - came after a separate trial for pocketing money from the National Intelligence Service (NIS) and improperly intervening in 2016 in the selection of her ruling party's parliamentary candidates.
The Seoul Central District Court gave Park six years for taking 3.3 billion won (USD 2.9 million) from the spy agency, and two years for the electoral offence. The penalties apply consecutively, meaning the 66-year-old now faces a total of 32 years in prison.
"The accused received some three billion won over three years from the three NIS chiefs. Through this crime, the accused incurred a considerable amount of loss to the state treasury," said senior judge Seong Chang-ho.
Three former NIS chiefs testified they had funnelled the funds to Park on her orders, the court said. The judge rebuked Park, who denied the charges, for being "un-cooperative" throughout the court hearing and questioning by prosecutors.
Park allegedly squandered the taxpayer money on maintaining her private house, financing a boutique where her secret confidante Choi Soon-sil - the central figure in the corruption scandal - had Park's clothes made and other private purposes, including massage treatment.
Choi was found to have taken advantage of her "long private ties" with Park to extort bribes worth millions of dollars from businesses including telecommunications giant Samsung and retail conglomerate Lotte.
She is serving a 20-year sentence for abuse of power, bribery and meddling in state affairs. Earlier today, prosecutors asked an appeals court to extend Park's sentence for her corruption and abuse of power conviction to 30 years, arguing the original penalty was too lenient.
They also asked for her fine to be multiplied sixfold to 118.5 billion won.
"The accused has never repented or made any sincere apology before the people," prosecutors said in a statement. "And since October 2017, she has never made any appearance at court."
Park's own lawyers asked for her conviction to be overturned, saying she made no gains herself when businesses "donated" funds to foundations controlled by Choi, and that her impeachment and ouster meant she had already taken "political responsibility" for the case. The Seoul High Court will issue its decision on August 24.
At her first trial, Park was convicted of receiving or demanding more than USD 20 million from conglomerates, sharing secret state documents, "blacklisting" artists critical of her policies, and firing officials who resisted her abuses of power.
Park is the eldest daughter of late dictator Park Chung-hee, who oversaw human rights abuses but is also credited with driving the country's economic development in the 1960s and 1970s.
After her father was assassinated in 1979 by his spy chief, Park isolated herself and was befriended by Choi, the daughter of a shady religious figure, who went on to act as a secret mentor throughout her political career. (AFP) MRJ
South Korean President Guen-hye guilty of charges of illegal recieval of funds from the country's spy agency involving 8 years of imprisonment
World | AFP | Updated: July 20, 2018 14:48
Ex-South Korean President Sentenced To 8 More Years In Prison
Ex South Korean president Park Geun-hye convicted of charges of illegally receiving funds
SEOUL: Disgraced former South Korean president Park Geun-hye was convicted of charges including illegally receiving funds from the country's spy agency today and given eight more years in prison, on top of her current term.
Park, the South's first female president, was impeached last year after huge street protests over a sprawling scandal, and was jailed for 24 years for corruption and abuse of power in April.
Today's penalty - issued in her absence after she refused to attend the Seoul Central District Court - came after a separate trial for pocketing money from the National Intelligence Service (NIS) and improperly intervening in 2016 in the selection of her ruling party's parliamentary candidates.
The Seoul Central District Court gave Park six years for taking 3.3 billion won (USD 2.9 million) from the spy agency, and two years for the electoral offence. The penalties apply consecutively, meaning the 66-year-old now faces a total of 32 years in prison.
"The accused received some three billion won over three years from the three NIS chiefs. Through this crime, the accused incurred a considerable amount of loss to the state treasury," said senior judge Seong Chang-ho.
Three former NIS chiefs testified they had funnelled the funds to Park on her orders, the court said. The judge rebuked Park, who denied the charges, for being "un-cooperative" throughout the court hearing and questioning by prosecutors.
Park allegedly squandered the taxpayer money on maintaining her private house, financing a boutique where her secret confidante Choi Soon-sil - the central figure in the corruption scandal - had Park's clothes made and other private purposes, including massage treatment.
Choi was found to have taken advantage of her "long private ties" with Park to extort bribes worth millions of dollars from businesses including telecommunications giant Samsung and retail conglomerate Lotte.
She is serving a 20-year sentence for abuse of power, bribery and meddling in state affairs. Earlier today, prosecutors asked an appeals court to extend Park's sentence for her corruption and abuse of power conviction to 30 years, arguing the original penalty was too lenient.
They also asked for her fine to be multiplied sixfold to 118.5 billion won.
"The accused has never repented or made any sincere apology before the people," prosecutors said in a statement. "And since October 2017, she has never made any appearance at court."
Park's own lawyers asked for her conviction to be overturned, saying she made no gains herself when businesses "donated" funds to foundations controlled by Choi, and that her impeachment and ouster meant she had already taken "political responsibility" for the case. The Seoul High Court will issue its decision on August 24.
At her first trial, Park was convicted of receiving or demanding more than USD 20 million from conglomerates, sharing secret state documents, "blacklisting" artists critical of her policies, and firing officials who resisted her abuses of power.
Park is the eldest daughter of late dictator Park Chung-hee, who oversaw human rights abuses but is also credited with driving the country's economic development in the 1960s and 1970s.
After her father was assassinated in 1979 by his spy chief, Park isolated herself and was befriended by Choi, the daughter of a shady religious figure, who went on to act as a secret mentor throughout her political career. (AFP) MRJ
Jimmy Kimmel asked Americans to name any country on a map, and the results were terrifying - Independent
Jimmy Kimmel asked Americans to name any country on a map, and the results were terrifying
Posted July 17, 2018 by Jake Hall in news
UPVOTE
American talk show host Jimmy Kimmel is no stranger to a viral video.
Week after week, his team scour the streets of America to ask strangers deceptively easy questions – usually with hilarious repercussions.
His most recent test was devised in response to Trump’s European visit: “It’s important that America has strong relationships with, and knowledge about people in other lands, and that responsibility extends to all of us, not just the president,” he emphasised.
In order to measure this knowledge, his team went out with a map and a simple request: name any country.
Jimmy Kimmel
✔
@jimmykimmel
We asked pedestrians to name ANY country on a map. It didn't go well...
12:41 AM - Jul 14, 2018
Unsurprisingly, the majority of respondents failed spectacularly. Plenty failed to realise that Africa was in fact a continent, not a country; when prompted to specify, one man correctly named South Africa, but inexplicably thought it was located in North West Africa. Seriously – the clue’s in the name.
One woman laughed, exclaiming:
My geography is so horrible, I can’t name anything!
She then pointed to South America and asked if it was South Africa. When her mistake was clarified, she failed to name a single country; the interviewer, bewildered, asked, “Did you go to school, college?”
Smiling, she clarified that she had before exclaiming soberly:
Yes, that’s the sad part!
Another man confidently pointed to Alaska, incorrectly stating it was “Greenland, or Iceland or something.” Others failed to even attempt to name any; one woman, when asked to pinpoint an African country, seemed shocked: “Who knows stuff like that?”
Luckily, a young boy in a baseball cap emerged at the tail-end of the video to list an impressive number of countries. Scrolling seamlessly through countries in South America, he then went on to identify others including Papua New Guinea, Greenland and New Zealand.
Maybe Michael Jackson was right – maybe children really are the future.
Posted July 17, 2018 by Jake Hall in news
UPVOTE
American talk show host Jimmy Kimmel is no stranger to a viral video.
Week after week, his team scour the streets of America to ask strangers deceptively easy questions – usually with hilarious repercussions.
His most recent test was devised in response to Trump’s European visit: “It’s important that America has strong relationships with, and knowledge about people in other lands, and that responsibility extends to all of us, not just the president,” he emphasised.
In order to measure this knowledge, his team went out with a map and a simple request: name any country.
Jimmy Kimmel
✔
@jimmykimmel
We asked pedestrians to name ANY country on a map. It didn't go well...
12:41 AM - Jul 14, 2018
Unsurprisingly, the majority of respondents failed spectacularly. Plenty failed to realise that Africa was in fact a continent, not a country; when prompted to specify, one man correctly named South Africa, but inexplicably thought it was located in North West Africa. Seriously – the clue’s in the name.
One woman laughed, exclaiming:
My geography is so horrible, I can’t name anything!
She then pointed to South America and asked if it was South Africa. When her mistake was clarified, she failed to name a single country; the interviewer, bewildered, asked, “Did you go to school, college?”
Smiling, she clarified that she had before exclaiming soberly:
Yes, that’s the sad part!
Another man confidently pointed to Alaska, incorrectly stating it was “Greenland, or Iceland or something.” Others failed to even attempt to name any; one woman, when asked to pinpoint an African country, seemed shocked: “Who knows stuff like that?”
Luckily, a young boy in a baseball cap emerged at the tail-end of the video to list an impressive number of countries. Scrolling seamlessly through countries in South America, he then went on to identify others including Papua New Guinea, Greenland and New Zealand.
Maybe Michael Jackson was right – maybe children really are the future.
North Korea has the largest number of SLAVES in the world, with one in ten people subjected to forced labour - including children - Daily Mail
North Korea has the largest number of SLAVES in the world, with one in ten people subjected to forced labour - including children
North Korean children are sent to plant crops, pick fruits, or even collect coal
Global Slavery Index interviewed 50 defectors and found all but one described servitude either as children or adults, or both
Children risk expulsion if they refuse and money earned goes to their school
By ARTHUR MARTIN FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 00:38 AEST, 20 July 2018 | UPDATED: 00:38 AEST, 20 July 2018
One out of every 10 North Korean citizens are forced into slavery at some point in their lives, a report found today.
The oppression of 2.6 million subjects in the regime includes the abuse of schoolchildren who are coerced into exhausting manual work from a young age.
The Global Slavery Index, which conducted a worldwide investigation into human slavery and forced marriage, found that child labour is an integral part of North Korean society.
Pupils of primary school age are ordered to carry out arduous manual labour for two-month stints.
North Korean pupils of primary school age are sent away to plant crops, pick fruits, or collect coal by railway tracks for two-month stints. Pictured: Kim Jong Un with schoolchildren +3
North Korean pupils of primary school age are sent away to plant crops, pick fruits, or collect coal by railway tracks for two-month stints. Pictured: Kim Jong Un with schoolchildren
The GSI interviewed 50 defectors from the regime and all but one described servitude either as children or adults, or in some cases both (pictured: soldiers marching on Kim Il-Sung square during a military parade in 2017) +3
The GSI interviewed 50 defectors from the regime and all but one described servitude either as children or adults, or in some cases both (pictured: soldiers marching on Kim Il-Sung square during a military parade in 2017)
Some are sent to farmers to plant crops and pick fruits, while others are told to collect coal by railway tracks.
The children do not get paid for the work - the money goes to their school instead. Any student refusing to participate risks punishment or even expulsion.
Details of widespread slavery comes amid ongoing negotiations between North Korea and the United States which have focused on denuclearisation and military matters rather than human rights issues such as slavery.
The GSI interviewed 50 defectors from the regime and all but one described servitude either as children or adults, or in some cases both.
Trump says there is 'no time limit' for ending Kim Jong-Un's...
Kim gets shirty during visit: ‘Extremely enraged’ Jong-un...
One male defector said: 'I constantly did farm work until the sixth year in elementary school. We did everything by hand, or with hand hoes and buckets.
'In the spring, we had to work for about one month in the summer, when we did weeding. We finished with our classes in the morning and then we spent the afternoon working.
'In the autumn we worked longer, for about two months, as there was a lot of work associated with the harvest.' Another female defector described how, as a teenager, she was ordered to help building a highway in Pyongyang for six months.
The servitude continues into adulthood, when citizens are coerced into forced labour and threatened with detention in labour camps if they refuse.
One defector said: 'You cannot refuse. If the work unit leader orders you to go to work, you have to do it. If you don't, then your food rations are cut off' (pictured: Kim Jong Un) +3
One defector said: 'You cannot refuse. If the work unit leader orders you to go to work, you have to do it. If you don't, then your food rations are cut off' (pictured: Kim Jong Un)
Communal tasks could include a morning shift of road paving, or more sporadic projects including the construction of statues or reinforcing flooded river banks. Workers are instructed to bring their own tools or use their hands.
Another defector said: 'You cannot refuse. If the work unit leader orders you to go to work, you have to do it. If you don't, then your food rations are cut off.' Dr Jang Jin-sung, who defected in 2004 and who is now a GSI panellist, said citizens do not realise they are slaves because they have been indoctrinated by Kim Jong Un's regime from an early age.
Dr Jang, who rose to become the equivalent of poet laureate to Kim Jong-il, the current ruler's father, did not escape enforced work even though he belonged to the elite.
'I didn't know it [was slavery] when I was in the country, but looking back it was,' he said. 'As a child I had to do farm work in the summer. I didn't think of it as forced labour but as a righteous duty to the state. This is just life, this is how life works. You just get on with it.' Citizens were conditioned to see their obligations as moral and good, he added.
Fiona David, GSI's head of research, said she had found the pervasive system of social control 'deeply shocking'.
Her research found that some exploited workers are actually paying to have a job to avoid detention.
'To avoid being sent to a labour camp you need to have a job number and to have a job number you have to pay for it,' she said. '[This] means that you're technically employed but it doesn't mean that you get paid.' In 2014, the UN released a report that found North Korea 'does not have any parallel in the contemporary world' in regard to the scale of its human rights violations.
The report highlighted North Korea's political prison camp system which holds up to 130,000 people in four camps for alleged 'political crimes'.
North Korean children are sent to plant crops, pick fruits, or even collect coal
Global Slavery Index interviewed 50 defectors and found all but one described servitude either as children or adults, or both
Children risk expulsion if they refuse and money earned goes to their school
By ARTHUR MARTIN FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 00:38 AEST, 20 July 2018 | UPDATED: 00:38 AEST, 20 July 2018
One out of every 10 North Korean citizens are forced into slavery at some point in their lives, a report found today.
The oppression of 2.6 million subjects in the regime includes the abuse of schoolchildren who are coerced into exhausting manual work from a young age.
The Global Slavery Index, which conducted a worldwide investigation into human slavery and forced marriage, found that child labour is an integral part of North Korean society.
Pupils of primary school age are ordered to carry out arduous manual labour for two-month stints.
North Korean pupils of primary school age are sent away to plant crops, pick fruits, or collect coal by railway tracks for two-month stints. Pictured: Kim Jong Un with schoolchildren +3
North Korean pupils of primary school age are sent away to plant crops, pick fruits, or collect coal by railway tracks for two-month stints. Pictured: Kim Jong Un with schoolchildren
The GSI interviewed 50 defectors from the regime and all but one described servitude either as children or adults, or in some cases both (pictured: soldiers marching on Kim Il-Sung square during a military parade in 2017) +3
The GSI interviewed 50 defectors from the regime and all but one described servitude either as children or adults, or in some cases both (pictured: soldiers marching on Kim Il-Sung square during a military parade in 2017)
Some are sent to farmers to plant crops and pick fruits, while others are told to collect coal by railway tracks.
The children do not get paid for the work - the money goes to their school instead. Any student refusing to participate risks punishment or even expulsion.
Details of widespread slavery comes amid ongoing negotiations between North Korea and the United States which have focused on denuclearisation and military matters rather than human rights issues such as slavery.
The GSI interviewed 50 defectors from the regime and all but one described servitude either as children or adults, or in some cases both.
Trump says there is 'no time limit' for ending Kim Jong-Un's...
Kim gets shirty during visit: ‘Extremely enraged’ Jong-un...
One male defector said: 'I constantly did farm work until the sixth year in elementary school. We did everything by hand, or with hand hoes and buckets.
'In the spring, we had to work for about one month in the summer, when we did weeding. We finished with our classes in the morning and then we spent the afternoon working.
'In the autumn we worked longer, for about two months, as there was a lot of work associated with the harvest.' Another female defector described how, as a teenager, she was ordered to help building a highway in Pyongyang for six months.
The servitude continues into adulthood, when citizens are coerced into forced labour and threatened with detention in labour camps if they refuse.
One defector said: 'You cannot refuse. If the work unit leader orders you to go to work, you have to do it. If you don't, then your food rations are cut off' (pictured: Kim Jong Un) +3
One defector said: 'You cannot refuse. If the work unit leader orders you to go to work, you have to do it. If you don't, then your food rations are cut off' (pictured: Kim Jong Un)
Communal tasks could include a morning shift of road paving, or more sporadic projects including the construction of statues or reinforcing flooded river banks. Workers are instructed to bring their own tools or use their hands.
Another defector said: 'You cannot refuse. If the work unit leader orders you to go to work, you have to do it. If you don't, then your food rations are cut off.' Dr Jang Jin-sung, who defected in 2004 and who is now a GSI panellist, said citizens do not realise they are slaves because they have been indoctrinated by Kim Jong Un's regime from an early age.
Dr Jang, who rose to become the equivalent of poet laureate to Kim Jong-il, the current ruler's father, did not escape enforced work even though he belonged to the elite.
'I didn't know it [was slavery] when I was in the country, but looking back it was,' he said. 'As a child I had to do farm work in the summer. I didn't think of it as forced labour but as a righteous duty to the state. This is just life, this is how life works. You just get on with it.' Citizens were conditioned to see their obligations as moral and good, he added.
Fiona David, GSI's head of research, said she had found the pervasive system of social control 'deeply shocking'.
Her research found that some exploited workers are actually paying to have a job to avoid detention.
'To avoid being sent to a labour camp you need to have a job number and to have a job number you have to pay for it,' she said. '[This] means that you're technically employed but it doesn't mean that you get paid.' In 2014, the UN released a report that found North Korea 'does not have any parallel in the contemporary world' in regard to the scale of its human rights violations.
The report highlighted North Korea's political prison camp system which holds up to 130,000 people in four camps for alleged 'political crimes'.
Nearly 70% of Republicans approve of Trump's handling of Helsinki summit, CBS poll finds - USA Today
Nearly 70% of Republicans approve of Trump's handling of Helsinki summit, CBS poll finds
William Cummings, USA TODAY Published 10:46 p.m. ET July 19, 2018
facebook sharetwitter shareemail shareemail share
During President Donald Trump's visit to Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, comments made by both world leaders caused controversy leading to accusations of treasonous actions. USA TODAY
Less than a third of Americans approve of how President Donald Trump handled his summit Monday in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but almost 70 percent of Republicans think he did a good job, a new poll found.
Overall, 55 percent of the people surveyed were unhappy with Trump's performance at the summit while about a third — 32 percent — approved, according to the CBS News poll published Thursday.
Most of the displeasure with Trump's showing in Helsinki was related to a joint press conference the president held with Putin after the pair met privately for two hours. When asked about Russian election meddling, Trump appeared to reject the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community and to accept Putin's denial that Russia's hands were clean.
While 83 percent of Democrats disapproved of Trump's handling of the summit – and only 8 percent approved – 68 percent of Republicans approved of the president's showing and 21 percent said they disapproved. Among independents, 53 percent were not happy with how Trump handled the summit and 29 percent approved.
The Bubble: Trump disgraced the U.S. with his 'Surrender Summit' in Helsinki, liberals say
More: President Trump continues to blame media for avalanche of criticism over his Vladimir Putin summit
There was also a sharp party split over the issue of Russian meddling in American elections. Almost nine in 10 Democrats said they believed U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, while only about half of Republicans accepted that conclusion.
Moving forward, 89 percent of Democrats said they feared that Russia will meddle in the 2018 midterm elections, in contrast with 61 percent of Republicans who said they were not concerned.
When it comes to Trump's handling of Russia in general, 46 percent of respondents thought Trump's approach is "too friendly," up from 35 percent in April 2017.
More than 1,000 people were surveyed by telephone from July 17-18 for the poll, according to CBS News. The margin of error was plus or minus four percent.
William Cummings, USA TODAY Published 10:46 p.m. ET July 19, 2018
facebook sharetwitter shareemail shareemail share
During President Donald Trump's visit to Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, comments made by both world leaders caused controversy leading to accusations of treasonous actions. USA TODAY
Less than a third of Americans approve of how President Donald Trump handled his summit Monday in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but almost 70 percent of Republicans think he did a good job, a new poll found.
Overall, 55 percent of the people surveyed were unhappy with Trump's performance at the summit while about a third — 32 percent — approved, according to the CBS News poll published Thursday.
Most of the displeasure with Trump's showing in Helsinki was related to a joint press conference the president held with Putin after the pair met privately for two hours. When asked about Russian election meddling, Trump appeared to reject the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community and to accept Putin's denial that Russia's hands were clean.
While 83 percent of Democrats disapproved of Trump's handling of the summit – and only 8 percent approved – 68 percent of Republicans approved of the president's showing and 21 percent said they disapproved. Among independents, 53 percent were not happy with how Trump handled the summit and 29 percent approved.
The Bubble: Trump disgraced the U.S. with his 'Surrender Summit' in Helsinki, liberals say
More: President Trump continues to blame media for avalanche of criticism over his Vladimir Putin summit
There was also a sharp party split over the issue of Russian meddling in American elections. Almost nine in 10 Democrats said they believed U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, while only about half of Republicans accepted that conclusion.
Moving forward, 89 percent of Democrats said they feared that Russia will meddle in the 2018 midterm elections, in contrast with 61 percent of Republicans who said they were not concerned.
When it comes to Trump's handling of Russia in general, 46 percent of respondents thought Trump's approach is "too friendly," up from 35 percent in April 2017.
More than 1,000 people were surveyed by telephone from July 17-18 for the poll, according to CBS News. The margin of error was plus or minus four percent.
Trump Putin: Incredulity as Russian leader is invited to visit US - BBC News
July 20, 2018
Trump Putin: Incredulity as Russian leader is invited to visit US
"That's going to be special" - US Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats learns of the Putin visit while at an event
President Donald Trump has invited Russian leader Vladimir Putin to visit America, in a move that drew startled laughter from a US intelligence chief.
"That's gonna be special!" said Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, when he was told about the invitation during a live interview.
A row is continuing over Mr Trump's first summit with Mr Putin, in Helsinki, where they talked privately.
Opposition Democrats say there should be no more one-to-one talks.
Your toolkit to help understand the story
Trump's 'most serious mistake'
"Until we know what happened at that two-hour meeting in Helsinki, the president should have no more one-on-one interactions with Putin," said the top Democratic senator, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. "In the United States, in Russia, or anywhere else."
Mr Trump's presidency has been clouded by allegations that Russian hackers meddled in the 2016 US presidential election in his favour. The Kremlin denies the allegations.
In Helsinki, Mr Putin offered access to 12 Russians indicted in absentia by the US authorities over the alleged interference, on condition the Russian authorities could question 12 Americans over a different case. Mr Trump first praised the suggestion as "incredible" but later rejected it.
Since his return from Finland, he or the White House have had to correct or clarify other comments regarding Russia, creating confusion and prompting the Democrats to demand details of his private talks with Mr Putin.
Trump prepares a sequel
By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
Donald Trump has tweeted that the summit with Mr Putin was a "great success" and people at "higher ends of intelligence" loved his Helsinki news conference. As if to underline that point, plans are already under way for a sequel - this time in Washington DC.
Never mind that the White House has spent three days trying to clean up the political fallout from the summit amid bipartisan criticism, or that the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in 2016 continues apace.
Media captionTrump says he "misspoke" at Putin summit, but is it too late? Anthony Zurcher explains
Mr Trump may have been encouraged by recent opinion polling showing that while the public at large is uneasy with Mr Trump's Russia policies, his Republican base - by a sizeable majority - is fine with his performance.
The president campaigned on closer ties with Russia, a goal that had been thwarted during his first year in office. With his base still behind him, Mr Trump appears ready to press on with his efforts.
What do we know about Putin's potential visit?
Mr Putin, in power in Russia since 2000, last visited the US in 2015, when he met President Barack Obama, Mr Trump's predecessor, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York to discuss the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.
Mr Putin said he would meet the US "halfway" over access to indictees
On Thursday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted that discussions about a visit by Mr Putin to Washington DC this autumn were already under way. There was no immediate word from Russia.
The announcement appeared to come as a surprise to US intelligence chief Mr Coats, who was told about it during a live interview at the Aspen Security Forum in the state of Colorado.
He added that he did not yet know what Mr Trump and Mr Putin had discussed during their meeting, at which only their interpreters were also present.
What was Putin's 'incredible offer'?
Asked at the post-summit news conference in Helsinki whether he would extradite 12 Russian intelligence agents indicted in the US for hacking Democratic Party computers, Mr Putin said he would meet the US government "halfway".
He said Russia wanted, in turn, to question US citizens in a case against financier Bill Browder, who was instrumental in the US imposing sanctions in 2012 on top Russian officials accused of corruption.
Russian ambassadors react to Trump remarks at Helsinki summit
At the same news conference, Mr Trump said: "He [Mr Putin] offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigations with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer."
However, now he says he "disagrees" with the proposal.
The idea of allowing a foreign power to quiz US citizens sparked outrage and the US Senate voted 98-0 against it. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it was "not going to happen".
Mr Browder has told the BBC he is glad Mr Trump "isn't going to hand me over to President Putin".
President Trump has also clarified remarks at the news conference in which he said he saw no reason for Russia to have meddled in the 2016 US election - despite US intelligence concluding just that.
Trump on Putin: "As the leader of a country, you would have to hold him responsible, yes"
Speaking to CBS News on Wednesday, Mr Trump said he held Mr Putin personally responsible for interfering in the election, and that he was "very strong on the fact that we can't have meddling".
Mr Putin has also described the summit as "successful" but warned "there are forces in the United States that are prepared to casually sacrifice Russian-US relations".
Trump Putin: Incredulity as Russian leader is invited to visit US
"That's going to be special" - US Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats learns of the Putin visit while at an event
President Donald Trump has invited Russian leader Vladimir Putin to visit America, in a move that drew startled laughter from a US intelligence chief.
"That's gonna be special!" said Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, when he was told about the invitation during a live interview.
A row is continuing over Mr Trump's first summit with Mr Putin, in Helsinki, where they talked privately.
Opposition Democrats say there should be no more one-to-one talks.
Your toolkit to help understand the story
Trump's 'most serious mistake'
"Until we know what happened at that two-hour meeting in Helsinki, the president should have no more one-on-one interactions with Putin," said the top Democratic senator, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. "In the United States, in Russia, or anywhere else."
Mr Trump's presidency has been clouded by allegations that Russian hackers meddled in the 2016 US presidential election in his favour. The Kremlin denies the allegations.
In Helsinki, Mr Putin offered access to 12 Russians indicted in absentia by the US authorities over the alleged interference, on condition the Russian authorities could question 12 Americans over a different case. Mr Trump first praised the suggestion as "incredible" but later rejected it.
Since his return from Finland, he or the White House have had to correct or clarify other comments regarding Russia, creating confusion and prompting the Democrats to demand details of his private talks with Mr Putin.
Trump prepares a sequel
By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
Donald Trump has tweeted that the summit with Mr Putin was a "great success" and people at "higher ends of intelligence" loved his Helsinki news conference. As if to underline that point, plans are already under way for a sequel - this time in Washington DC.
Never mind that the White House has spent three days trying to clean up the political fallout from the summit amid bipartisan criticism, or that the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in 2016 continues apace.
Media captionTrump says he "misspoke" at Putin summit, but is it too late? Anthony Zurcher explains
Mr Trump may have been encouraged by recent opinion polling showing that while the public at large is uneasy with Mr Trump's Russia policies, his Republican base - by a sizeable majority - is fine with his performance.
The president campaigned on closer ties with Russia, a goal that had been thwarted during his first year in office. With his base still behind him, Mr Trump appears ready to press on with his efforts.
What do we know about Putin's potential visit?
Mr Putin, in power in Russia since 2000, last visited the US in 2015, when he met President Barack Obama, Mr Trump's predecessor, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York to discuss the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.
Mr Putin said he would meet the US "halfway" over access to indictees
On Thursday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted that discussions about a visit by Mr Putin to Washington DC this autumn were already under way. There was no immediate word from Russia.
The announcement appeared to come as a surprise to US intelligence chief Mr Coats, who was told about it during a live interview at the Aspen Security Forum in the state of Colorado.
He added that he did not yet know what Mr Trump and Mr Putin had discussed during their meeting, at which only their interpreters were also present.
What was Putin's 'incredible offer'?
Asked at the post-summit news conference in Helsinki whether he would extradite 12 Russian intelligence agents indicted in the US for hacking Democratic Party computers, Mr Putin said he would meet the US government "halfway".
He said Russia wanted, in turn, to question US citizens in a case against financier Bill Browder, who was instrumental in the US imposing sanctions in 2012 on top Russian officials accused of corruption.
Russian ambassadors react to Trump remarks at Helsinki summit
At the same news conference, Mr Trump said: "He [Mr Putin] offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigations with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer."
However, now he says he "disagrees" with the proposal.
The idea of allowing a foreign power to quiz US citizens sparked outrage and the US Senate voted 98-0 against it. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it was "not going to happen".
Mr Browder has told the BBC he is glad Mr Trump "isn't going to hand me over to President Putin".
President Trump has also clarified remarks at the news conference in which he said he saw no reason for Russia to have meddled in the 2016 US election - despite US intelligence concluding just that.
Trump on Putin: "As the leader of a country, you would have to hold him responsible, yes"
Speaking to CBS News on Wednesday, Mr Trump said he held Mr Putin personally responsible for interfering in the election, and that he was "very strong on the fact that we can't have meddling".
Mr Putin has also described the summit as "successful" but warned "there are forces in the United States that are prepared to casually sacrifice Russian-US relations".
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Zuckerberg in Holocaust denial row - BBC News
Zuckerberg in Holocaust denial row
19 July 2018
Mark Zuckerberg has said Holocaust deniers should be given a voice on Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg has once again found himself at the centre of a row, after saying posts from Holocaust deniers should be allowed on Facebook.
In an interview with technology website Recode, Mr Zuckerberg said that he did not believe such people should be removed from the site.
They were not, he said, "intentionally" getting their facts wrong.
The comments caused a backlash and Mr Zuckerberg later issued a clarification.
The original comments, given in a wide-ranging interview with Recode, were made in response to questions about what Facebook was doing to combat fake news and sites, such as InfoWars, that promoted conspiracy theories.
In Myanmar, also known as Burma, Facebook has been accused by UN investigators of facilitating violence against Rohingya Muslims by allowing anti-Muslim hate speech and fake news.
The social network has now said that it will begin removing misinformation that could lead to people being physically harmed.
When asked about its policy on fake news, Mr Zuckerberg offered, without prompting, the example of Holocaust deniers.
"I'm Jewish and there's a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened," he told reporter Kara Swisher.
"I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don't think that they're intentionally getting it wrong.
"Everyone gets things wrong and if we were taking down people's accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that."
The comments caused a storm of protest.
Editor of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight Gerry Gable told the BBC: "Zuckerberg could kill much of this dangerous material getting worldwide distribution - but he is a like a spoilt teenager."
"Because of his financial powers, he just does a bit of tinkering without understanding how this material could inspire crazy people to firebomb synagogues, mosques or churches."
NBC News reporter Benjy Sarlin tweeted asking whether Mr Zuckerberg thought the debate over whether the Holocaust had happened was in "good faith".
Skip Twitter post by @BenjySarlin
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Benjy Sarlin
✔
@BenjySarlin
So apparently Mark Zuckerberg is under the impression there's some good faith debate going on over whether the Holocaust happened? https://www.recode.net/2018/7/18/17575156/mark-zuckerberg-interview-facebook-recode-kara-swisher …
2:27 AM - Jul 19, 2018
And Matt Ford, a reporter at The Atlantic, pointed out that Mr Zuckerberg had not even been asked about the Holocaust - "he just said he'd keep it on Facebook on his own".
After the comments drew fire from many, Mr Zuckerberg issued a clarification.
"I enjoyed our conversation yesterday," he said in an email to the reporter, published on the Recode site.
"But there's one thing I want to clear up. I personally find Holocaust denial deeply offensive and I absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that."
Facebook has faced criticism over the way the platform can amplify false reports and has been engaged in an advertising campaign both on and offline declaring: "Fake news is not your friend."
But it has faced questions about why it continues to allow sites such as InfoWars - which has called the Sandy Hook massacre a hoax - to remain on the platform.
19 July 2018
Mark Zuckerberg has said Holocaust deniers should be given a voice on Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg has once again found himself at the centre of a row, after saying posts from Holocaust deniers should be allowed on Facebook.
In an interview with technology website Recode, Mr Zuckerberg said that he did not believe such people should be removed from the site.
They were not, he said, "intentionally" getting their facts wrong.
The comments caused a backlash and Mr Zuckerberg later issued a clarification.
The original comments, given in a wide-ranging interview with Recode, were made in response to questions about what Facebook was doing to combat fake news and sites, such as InfoWars, that promoted conspiracy theories.
In Myanmar, also known as Burma, Facebook has been accused by UN investigators of facilitating violence against Rohingya Muslims by allowing anti-Muslim hate speech and fake news.
The social network has now said that it will begin removing misinformation that could lead to people being physically harmed.
When asked about its policy on fake news, Mr Zuckerberg offered, without prompting, the example of Holocaust deniers.
"I'm Jewish and there's a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened," he told reporter Kara Swisher.
"I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don't think that they're intentionally getting it wrong.
"Everyone gets things wrong and if we were taking down people's accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that."
The comments caused a storm of protest.
Editor of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight Gerry Gable told the BBC: "Zuckerberg could kill much of this dangerous material getting worldwide distribution - but he is a like a spoilt teenager."
"Because of his financial powers, he just does a bit of tinkering without understanding how this material could inspire crazy people to firebomb synagogues, mosques or churches."
NBC News reporter Benjy Sarlin tweeted asking whether Mr Zuckerberg thought the debate over whether the Holocaust had happened was in "good faith".
Skip Twitter post by @BenjySarlin
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Benjy Sarlin
✔
@BenjySarlin
So apparently Mark Zuckerberg is under the impression there's some good faith debate going on over whether the Holocaust happened? https://www.recode.net/2018/7/18/17575156/mark-zuckerberg-interview-facebook-recode-kara-swisher …
2:27 AM - Jul 19, 2018
And Matt Ford, a reporter at The Atlantic, pointed out that Mr Zuckerberg had not even been asked about the Holocaust - "he just said he'd keep it on Facebook on his own".
After the comments drew fire from many, Mr Zuckerberg issued a clarification.
"I enjoyed our conversation yesterday," he said in an email to the reporter, published on the Recode site.
"But there's one thing I want to clear up. I personally find Holocaust denial deeply offensive and I absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that."
Facebook has faced criticism over the way the platform can amplify false reports and has been engaged in an advertising campaign both on and offline declaring: "Fake news is not your friend."
But it has faced questions about why it continues to allow sites such as InfoWars - which has called the Sandy Hook massacre a hoax - to remain on the platform.
Trump says looks forward to second Putin meeting - Reuters
JULY 19, 2018 / 11:39 PM
Trump says looks forward to second Putin meeting
Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed forces within the United States on Thursday for marring what they called the success of their first summit, with Trump saying he looked forward to their second meeting.
U.S. President Donald Trump walks from Marine One as he arrives on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., July 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Trump, who has struggled to quiet a political uproar over his failure at Monday’s summit in Helsinki to confront Putin over Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, renewed his fierce criticism of one of his favorite targets, the news media.
The Republican president accused the media of distorting comments in which he gave credence to Putin’s denials of election interference despite the conclusions of the American intelligence community about Moscow’s conduct.
“The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media,” Trump wrote on Twitter.
“I look forward to our second meeting so that we can start implementing some of the many things discussed, including stopping terrorism, security for Israel, nuclear proliferation, cyber attacks, trade, Ukraine, Middle East peace, North Korea and more,” Trump said.
Trump drew a barrage of criticism in the United States, including from lawmakers in both parties, after he refused to blame Putin for the election meddling. Putin has denied such interference.
The Republican president later said he had misspoken and accused “some people” of hating the fact that he got along with Putin.
In Moscow, Putin accused forces in the United States of trying to undermine the success of his meeting with Trump, but said the two leaders had begun to improve U.S.-Russia ties anyway.
Putin, speaking to Russian diplomats from around the world, said the Helsinki summit had been successful.
“It was successful overall and led to some useful agreements. Of course, let’s see how events will develop further,” he said, without disclosing the nature of the agreements he referred to.
Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington, Andrew Osborn and Olesya Astakhova in Moscow; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama
Trump says looks forward to second Putin meeting
Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed forces within the United States on Thursday for marring what they called the success of their first summit, with Trump saying he looked forward to their second meeting.
U.S. President Donald Trump walks from Marine One as he arrives on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., July 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Trump, who has struggled to quiet a political uproar over his failure at Monday’s summit in Helsinki to confront Putin over Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, renewed his fierce criticism of one of his favorite targets, the news media.
The Republican president accused the media of distorting comments in which he gave credence to Putin’s denials of election interference despite the conclusions of the American intelligence community about Moscow’s conduct.
“The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media,” Trump wrote on Twitter.
“I look forward to our second meeting so that we can start implementing some of the many things discussed, including stopping terrorism, security for Israel, nuclear proliferation, cyber attacks, trade, Ukraine, Middle East peace, North Korea and more,” Trump said.
Trump drew a barrage of criticism in the United States, including from lawmakers in both parties, after he refused to blame Putin for the election meddling. Putin has denied such interference.
The Republican president later said he had misspoken and accused “some people” of hating the fact that he got along with Putin.
In Moscow, Putin accused forces in the United States of trying to undermine the success of his meeting with Trump, but said the two leaders had begun to improve U.S.-Russia ties anyway.
Putin, speaking to Russian diplomats from around the world, said the Helsinki summit had been successful.
“It was successful overall and led to some useful agreements. Of course, let’s see how events will develop further,” he said, without disclosing the nature of the agreements he referred to.
Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington, Andrew Osborn and Olesya Astakhova in Moscow; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama
Trump slams EU over $5 billion fine on Google - Reuters
BUSINESS NEWSJULY 19, 2018 / 11:30 PM / UPDATED 10 MINUTES AGO
Trump slams EU over $5 billion fine on Google
Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday criticized the European Union and said the bloc was taking advantage of the United States, pointing to the record $5 billion fine European antitrust regulators imposed on Google.
U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, U.S., July 18, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis
EU officials on Wednesday also ordered Google to stop using its popular Android mobile operating system to block its rivals, adding to trade tensions between Washington and Brussels.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House next Wednesday to discuss trade and other issues.
Alphabet Inc
1204.36
GOOGL.ONASDAQ
-8.55(-0.70%)
GOOGL.O
GOOGL.O
“I told you so! The European Union just slapped a Five Billion Dollar fine on one of our great companies, Google. They truly have taken advantage of the U.S., but not for long!” Trump said in a post on Twitter.
Google said it would appeal the EU decision. The 4.34 billion euro ($5 billion) fine is nearly double the previous penalty that the company was ordered to pay last year, but it represents a little more than two weeks of revenue for its parent company, Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O).
Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Susan Thomas
Trump slams EU over $5 billion fine on Google
Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday criticized the European Union and said the bloc was taking advantage of the United States, pointing to the record $5 billion fine European antitrust regulators imposed on Google.
U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, U.S., July 18, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis
EU officials on Wednesday also ordered Google to stop using its popular Android mobile operating system to block its rivals, adding to trade tensions between Washington and Brussels.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House next Wednesday to discuss trade and other issues.
Alphabet Inc
1204.36
GOOGL.ONASDAQ
-8.55(-0.70%)
GOOGL.O
GOOGL.O
“I told you so! The European Union just slapped a Five Billion Dollar fine on one of our great companies, Google. They truly have taken advantage of the U.S., but not for long!” Trump said in a post on Twitter.
Google said it would appeal the EU decision. The 4.34 billion euro ($5 billion) fine is nearly double the previous penalty that the company was ordered to pay last year, but it represents a little more than two weeks of revenue for its parent company, Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O).
Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Susan Thomas
The E.U. Looks to China to Shield Itself From the Fallout of Trump’s Trade War - TIME
July 19, 2018
The E.U. Looks to China to Shield Itself From the Fallout of Trump’s Trade War
Posted:
When asked by CBS News on July 15 to name America’s greatest foe, the first name past the lips of President Trump was the European Union, given “what they do to us in trade,” followed by Russia and then China. By launching steep tariffs on a swath of Chinese and E.U. imports, Trump has given Beijing and Brussels unprecedented incentive to work together–as we saw at the unusually sunny E.U.-China summit on July 16. Unfortunately for China, it’s going to take more than Trump to push Europe wholeheartedly into China’s trade embrace.
The China part of the equation is easy. The E.U. is already China’s biggest trading partner and its second-largest export market. Chinese foreign direct investment into Europe hit $12 billion in the first half of 2018, while Chinese investment into the U.S. fell 92% over the same period, to just $2 billion.
And so where last year’s summit failed to produce even a joint statement, this year both China and the E.U. agreed to deepen their partnership–and even threw in a separate addendum on climate issues for good measure. Previously, the relationship had been chilled by European fears about China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a series of infrastructure projects around the world intended to boost both trade and political influence globally. China’s highly leveraged infrastructure loans have left certain countries in Asia and Africa heavily indebted to Beijing, something the E.U. wants to avoid in the smaller economies of Central and Eastern Europe. But the Chinese have now seemingly agreed to play by the E.U.’s rules and standards.
And Trump’s continued blasting of Beijing over its trade practices, for the ostensible benefit of U.S. producers, spells a huge opportunity for the Europeans.
Take the automotive sector, for example. China has pledged to remove foreign-ownership caps in the auto sector by 2022, and even earlier for electric and other new-energy vehicles. But it will withhold many of the opportunities to U.S. firms so long as Trump continues his tariff strategy, leaving European automakers to reap the rewards. It’s a good reminder to Trump that trade wars often have unintended consequences–especially when they are being fought on multiple fronts.
But the E.U.’s shift still looks more like a tactical move than a wholesale change of strategy. One day after the China summit, the bloc completed its largest trade deal ever, with Japan–an agreement that makes far more sense for Brussels. It is easier for Europeans to cast their lot with a liberal democracy that wants to preserve the current global system than with a state-capitalist government looking to fundamentally change that system to fit its own needs. And Brussels is quietly making its own efforts to restrict Chinese investment in sensitive sectors, just as Washington has cracked down on Beijing’s efforts to acquire intellectual property in cutting-edge fields.
For the time being, this is a relationship of mutual convenience. Brussels is clearly attuned to the fact that the Chinese leadership’s approach to trade is extremely opportunistic–and no doubt will closely monitor investments in eastern and southern Europe to ensure that China isn’t laying debt traps for the E.U.’s smaller members. But for now, Trump’s pre-eminent “foe” is making plans to weather the trade war–while counting down the days until the 2020 presidential election.
This appears in the July 30, 2018 issue of TIME.
The E.U. Looks to China to Shield Itself From the Fallout of Trump’s Trade War
Posted:
When asked by CBS News on July 15 to name America’s greatest foe, the first name past the lips of President Trump was the European Union, given “what they do to us in trade,” followed by Russia and then China. By launching steep tariffs on a swath of Chinese and E.U. imports, Trump has given Beijing and Brussels unprecedented incentive to work together–as we saw at the unusually sunny E.U.-China summit on July 16. Unfortunately for China, it’s going to take more than Trump to push Europe wholeheartedly into China’s trade embrace.
The China part of the equation is easy. The E.U. is already China’s biggest trading partner and its second-largest export market. Chinese foreign direct investment into Europe hit $12 billion in the first half of 2018, while Chinese investment into the U.S. fell 92% over the same period, to just $2 billion.
And so where last year’s summit failed to produce even a joint statement, this year both China and the E.U. agreed to deepen their partnership–and even threw in a separate addendum on climate issues for good measure. Previously, the relationship had been chilled by European fears about China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a series of infrastructure projects around the world intended to boost both trade and political influence globally. China’s highly leveraged infrastructure loans have left certain countries in Asia and Africa heavily indebted to Beijing, something the E.U. wants to avoid in the smaller economies of Central and Eastern Europe. But the Chinese have now seemingly agreed to play by the E.U.’s rules and standards.
And Trump’s continued blasting of Beijing over its trade practices, for the ostensible benefit of U.S. producers, spells a huge opportunity for the Europeans.
Take the automotive sector, for example. China has pledged to remove foreign-ownership caps in the auto sector by 2022, and even earlier for electric and other new-energy vehicles. But it will withhold many of the opportunities to U.S. firms so long as Trump continues his tariff strategy, leaving European automakers to reap the rewards. It’s a good reminder to Trump that trade wars often have unintended consequences–especially when they are being fought on multiple fronts.
But the E.U.’s shift still looks more like a tactical move than a wholesale change of strategy. One day after the China summit, the bloc completed its largest trade deal ever, with Japan–an agreement that makes far more sense for Brussels. It is easier for Europeans to cast their lot with a liberal democracy that wants to preserve the current global system than with a state-capitalist government looking to fundamentally change that system to fit its own needs. And Brussels is quietly making its own efforts to restrict Chinese investment in sensitive sectors, just as Washington has cracked down on Beijing’s efforts to acquire intellectual property in cutting-edge fields.
For the time being, this is a relationship of mutual convenience. Brussels is clearly attuned to the fact that the Chinese leadership’s approach to trade is extremely opportunistic–and no doubt will closely monitor investments in eastern and southern Europe to ensure that China isn’t laying debt traps for the E.U.’s smaller members. But for now, Trump’s pre-eminent “foe” is making plans to weather the trade war–while counting down the days until the 2020 presidential election.
This appears in the July 30, 2018 issue of TIME.
The Tory vision for a post-Brexit economy is a dead-end – but there is an alternative - Independent
The Tory vision for a post-Brexit economy is a dead-end – but there is an alternative
Effective industrial strategy requires a clear understanding of Britain’s place in the world economy now, and a clear set of goals for where we want it to be in the future
Chi Onwurah
Trump says he holds Putin personally responsible for election meddling
Bear attacks 71-year-old woman after breaking into her home
Florida man describes shark attack in just two feet of water
Woman mocked for budgeting to afford a house on a £69,500 salary
Last week’s resignations of Brexit big beasts David Davis and Boris Johnson demonstrates once again that the customs union is the beating heart of the Tory Brexit breach. The nature of our future trading relationship with the European Union straddles so many Tory totems from the role of business to the European Court of Justice to the border with Ireland. As a consequence an internal party “deal” that took two years to put together fell apart within two days and now we are once more the laughing stock of Europe with only a matter of months before we leave.
Reforging 40 years of economic, political and societal links in a constructive, inclusive and forward-looking way would be a challenge for any government but is clearly far beyond the capacity of this one. As a government in waiting, it is Labour’s job not only to hold the government to account but to set out what our approach would be. This is the work that Keir Starmer and Labour’s Brexit team has undertaken, exemplified by the amendments our party tabled to the Great Repeal Bill. But it is also my job as shadow minister for industrial strategy to consider what Brexit means for our economic future and to place decisions in that context. And that has to mean an economic future that includes everyone, and does not merely carry over the regional and social divides that helped deliver the referendum result in the first place.
To achieve this we need to look back even as we look forward. And to look outwards to the world even as we consider how best to maintain a close relationship with the European Union.
Ex-minister becomes first senior Tory to call for second Brexit vote
The industrial landscape of Britain today is the product of a succession of industrial strategies or non-strategies, each of which was ultimately unable to deal with the reality of the larger world economy. Britain entered the 20th century hoping to maintain its position as the supplier of manufactured goods to the largest empire the world had ever known, a strategy that could not be sustained given the scale of US industry and the understandable desire of the rest of the Empire to build its own industrial base. By the 1960s, British industry was increasingly focused on our domestic market, but even that more limited “strategy” proved untenable in the face of more efficient and larger scale foreign competition from the United States, Japan, Germany, Korea and ultimately China.
In response, the Tories under Margaret Thatcher and her successors, and to a lesser extent the 1997 Labour government, pursued a kind of “anti-industrial strategy”. This substituted first North Sea oil and then City of London financial services for industrial competitiveness. North Sea oil was a finite national asset that delivered the expected temporary economic boost. The impact of our burgeoning financial sector was more complex. It brought substantial benefits in jobs, revenues and social capital, particularly to London. It also drove the “financialisation” of our economy.
Financialisation – the anti-industrial strategy
The way in which financialisation proved to be an anti-industrial strategy is admirably set out in leading economist Mariana Mazzucato’s new book The Value of Everything. In it she describes the “two faces of financialisation”.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez brilliantly taunts Republicans for being 'terrified' of her
Harvard researcher apologises for asking neighbour with biracial daughter if they lived in ‘affordable units’
Robot chemist could revolutionise study of new molecules through machine learning
by Taboola
The first of these is the way in which the financial sector has stopped resourcing the real economy – instead of investing in companies that produce “stuff”, finance is financing finance. Why lend money to a manufacturer that may fail when you can make a bet on some options hedged with other options that virtually guarantee a return in a few weeks? The owner of a medium-sized manufacturing business gave me a striking example of this recently. His high-street bank was initially supportive when he requested a loan for new manufacturing equipment, which would significantly boost productivity. Once the bank realised that the equipment would not be something they could sell on should he go bankrupt, their interest drained away entirely. It was willing to lend based on liquidation value, but was not willing to take a risk on a living business. In a financialised economy, capital tends to flow towards standardised securities rather than actual operating businesses that present bespoke risks.
But it is not only financial capital that is diverted from the real economy. Human capital is sucked in too. When I graduated from Imperial College in 1987, I would estimate that only about 10 per cent of my electrical engineering cohort went into industry. The majority went into management consultancy and finance, which paid better as well as having clearer career paths. Recently the dean of an engineering department told me that was still the case and asked how I could expect engineers to go into engineering when finance paid so much better and was quite honestly the only way a graduate engineer could ever hope to buy a home in London.
I responded that they should come to Newcastle where not only could they buy a lovely home on an engineer’s salary, but also be within a few minutes of some of the most beautiful countryside in the world and at the heart of a concentration of culture that rivals far bigger cities. I recognise the dean’s point – with so much financial engineering demanding money and people, real engineering doesn’t stand a chance. But it is real engineering that drives industrial productivity.
Financialisation is not just a problem because it drains resources away from industry. In a financialised economy, investors with short-term horizons tend to have more control over firms. This results in less reinvestment of profits and rising burdens of debt that, in a vicious cycle, makes industry even more driven by short-term considerations. In effect, this kind of finance is not neutral but changes the nature of what it finances.
This was seen just recently with the GKN takeover by “turnaround company” Melrose. An estimated 20 to 25 per cent of the shares in GKN were in the hands of hedge funds, many of which were expected to back the takeover – with the firm Elliott Advisors, owning 3.8 per cent of the company, explicitly doing so. The bid was won by 52 per cent to 48 per cent. And Melrose itself is not run in any long-term interest other than maximising shareholder value: it has a long history of operating as a “turnaround firm” and almost a third of its own shares are held by hedge funds. The vote was essentially a referendum about the time horizons of British industry, and Britain lost.
So when bankers and chancellors talk of having learned the lessons of the financial crisis they are wrong both at the macro and micro level. With UK national debt twice what it was in 2007 and household debt to disposable income at a record high, 10 years after the crash of the global economy, finance is once again at the heart of an existential threat to our way of life.
Financialisation and inequality
Even before the crash, this “anti-industrial strategy” drove social and geographic inequalities. Levels of income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient reached a pre-crash peak of 0.35 in the 1990s and, while improving slightly, remained high in comparison to the Sixties throughout the 2000s. Regional inequality was also a significant feature of the pre-crash economy, with data from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research showing a gradual rise throughout the 2000s in the difference in gross household income between regions. In 2005, average household income in the North East was 14 per cent below the UK average, while in London it was 20 per cent higher.
The Tories were either indifferent to these inequalities or at best felt they were an acceptable price to pay. Labour, under previous leaderships, believed that redistributive policies could make it all come out right in the end, and flagship programmes such as Sure Start and working tax credits certainly helped. But both approaches were fundamentally mistaken. Financialisation turned out to be a house built on sand – unable to generate enough wealth to compensate for the abandonment of the rest of the economy, and vulnerable to boom and bust cycles. Ultimately, the financial crisis of 2008 and the global economic crisis it spawned showed that the ideology of finance – that financial markets and institutions, left to themselves and the profit motive, would efficiently allocate capital – was a pernicious fantasy.
British industry—creating real value in the real economy
But that was not the whole story. While metropolitan London came to comprise 40 per cent of the British economy – and a 40 per cent heavily dependent on finance and professional services – something else was happening in the rest of the country. Britain’s entry into the European Union, and the survival in parts of Britain of a culture favourable to engineering and manufacturing, fostered the growth of certain sectors of British industry as part of a larger integrated European industrial base. The supply chains of large European firms such as Airbus, Boeing and BMW are substantially British. Nissan’s Sunderland plant is the final destination for parts manufactured across Europe and produces more cars per worker than any other factory in the European Union. And GKN, itself one of the world’s oldest engineering firms, is a key supplier to international aerospace and automotive firms – including European giant Airbus, which warned against the Melrose takeover. Factories engaged in producing components and sub-assemblies and assembling components from elsewhere in Europe are now critical to the prosperity of much of Britain. Figure 1 shows just one of BMW’s many supply chains.
BMW supply chain starts in France, where the cast of the raw crankshaft is made. From there, it is shipped to BMW’s Hams Hall plant in Warwickshire, where it is drilled and milled into shape, then sent to Munich to be inserted into the engine. The engine is then ’married’ with the car at the Mini plant in Oxford
Such integration requires frictionless borders but also agreed standards to define everything from the acceptable frequency of electromagnetic radiation to the atomic composition of a given chemical. Leaving the European Union will not mean less regulation simply more duplication. As they scramble to recreate existing EU agencies and regulations, businesses and government departments are realising that far from Brussels bureaucracy being imposed upon Britain, the European Union was effectively based on the “shared back office services” model that Whitehall now champions for local government.
In many ways, British agriculture has followed a similar trajectory to British car manufacturing, where British farmers have been able to successfully compete on both quality and price in markets defined by EU food safety rules. For example, British farmers export far more wheat flour to the EU – approximately 250,000 tonnes last year – than they do to non-EU countries – approximately 6,000 tonnes. The same goes for other agricultural products such as barley (one million tonnes versus 50,000 tonnes) and oats (16,000 tonnes versus 4,000 tonnes).
The EU is the largest importer and exporter of food in the world. As an EU member state, our farmers have benefited from preferential access to this market through exemptions from the tariffs and quotas imposed on non-member countries. And with 85 per cent of seasonal agricultural workers in the UK coming from Bulgaria and Romania, agriculture is one of the UK sectors most heavily dependent on freedom of movement.
Food and drink is Britain’s largest manufacturing sector and Europe’s complex rules of origin guidelines could lead to a “hidden hard Brexit” requiring the restructuring of food manufacturing supply chains even if we secure preferential access. Agriculture and manufacturing are both more important outside of London and particularly around the very market towns that have been most “left behind” by the new economy.
As Britain contemplates how to engage with the world before, during and after Brexit, we need to understand the trade policy choices we make will drive the shape of our economy and are therefore also industrial policy choices, choices that will shape the very nature of what work we do, the health of our communities and the way we live for decades to come.
The benefits of a customs union
The Labour Party is united in supporting a customs union with Europe. We believe it will bolster our current industrial strengths and offer the possibility of continued industrial revival in certain sectors. We should not be complacent about this approach. Our place in the larger European manufacturing economy will still depend on our ability to innovate and to invest, so that British firms successfully manage and not just participate in supply chains. And this will depend on our learning the lessons of the financial crisis so that our financial markets and institutions actually invest in productive sectors.
Unfortunately, the government continues to act as if the only issues in financial regulation are safety, soundness and fraud. While these are obviously important issues, they completely miss the question of whether our financial system is effectively channelling capital to productive and innovative investment. And this is the whole point of a financial system. A financial system that simply parks money in risk-free assets or honestly gambles on sporting events, would meet the characteristics the Tories have established but would still be a total failure. As Mazzucato argues, the traditional policies we have seen create a “healthy financial sector (bailed out, ring-fenced, and restructured) in a deeply sick economy”.
Implications for industrial strategy of the alternatives
Last week’s visit by President Trump to Britain revealed that he thinks the UK-US relationship is “the highest level of special”. Arch Brexiteers argue that he offers an alternative to a customs union with Europe: a free trade agreement with the United States, which, as a consequence of Nafta would really be a free trade agreement with all of North America. But while the US economy is of comparable size to the EU in GDP terms, $19 trillion (£14 trillion) compared to $17 trillion, they have different sectoral compositions and regulatory standards. Going in this direction would lead to substantial changes in the structure of the British economy.
Earlier this year, trade experts at Harvard University published a report that included a candid assessment of obstacles to a US-UK free trade agreement. Its authors, including former shadow chancellor Ed Balls, reached the conclusion that it is “highly unlikely that a free trade deal between the US and the UK will be secured in the near term” and, in addition, “the likely potential benefits for British businesses are less than often suggested”.
The report focused on likely US demands for access to British food markets and likely British demands for access for British firms to US financial and professional services markets. These demands map the likely direction a US-UK free trade agreement would take both countries. Britain is attractive to the US as a market for agricultural products and for goods manufactured through US-controlled supply chains. Britain is also seen by some as a source of relatively low cost financial and professional services. Without an EU customs union, American business does not see Britain as a manufacturing platform – British wages are too high given the distance to the North American market. Labour costs per hour in manufacturing are on average £27 in the US and £23 in the UK – a £4 difference that does not compensate for transport costs.
In a UK detached from the European market, the role of British industry in European supply chains will therefore not be replaced by similar roles in US-based supply chains. This is the critical point for UK manufacturing – we cannot replace European supply chain integration with North American supply chain integration.
In addition, if British food safety rules are relaxed as part of a trade deal with the US, it is likely that cheap American agricultural products will significantly displace British agriculture. So we will eat chlorinated chicken from Arkansas, bake with GM flour from Dakota and barbecue antibiotic drenched beef from Illinois. US farming is largely in the hands of mega industrial organisations. Agriculture is a much greater proportion of US GDP than it is of UK GDP. There are farms in Texas that are bigger than major UK counties – 500 square miles, for example. We cannot compete with agriculture on that scale without harming our landscape and biodiversity, especially given that we already use substantially more of our land in percentage terms on agriculture than does the US. If our markets are opened up to US agricultural products, UK farming will either adapt to US food safety practices and scale or our agriculture will diminish greatly. If we were to follow the bidding of the arch-Brexiteers and take the US as our model partner it would be the end of our landscape and biodiversity as we currently know it.
In the place of agriculture and industry, there will be a US market for British financial services and other professional services such as law, accountancy and management consulting. However, just as we have seen the integration of British manufacturing into European firms, we will likely see a wave of mergers and acquisitions in services as British firms are acquired by US firms seeking to serve the US market with British professionals. As a consequence, while manufacturing and agriculture would suffer, services and finance might not remain in British hands, especially given the current takeover regime that substantially limits the scope for government protection of UK businesses.
A Britain without a customs union with the EU and with a free trade agreement with the US would have less industry, less agriculture, but more finance and more service sector jobs. It would likely be a Britain of growing regional and social disparities, and a Britain more vulnerable to financial instability. After all, it was the high concentration of financial services in the UK economy that meant we were hit particularly hard by the last financial crisis. If the UK economy consolidates further around finance, then we will become even more vulnerable.
The Commonwealth
Turning from North America some look to the Commonwealth as an alternative future that harks to our past. We have strong ties to English-speaking Commonwealth countries around the world – economic ties as well as ties of language, immigration and history. In a digital world, we have the possibility of building networks of innovation that could contribute both to our own industrial competitiveness as well as the competitiveness of our partners.
Countries as diverse as Nigeria, Australia and India are all racing to be centres of technological innovation and to solve pressing problems in areas such as energy and education. In a sense, if we are open to our former colonies as partners, and generous with access to our own centres of innovation, we could perhaps create alternative pathways to competitiveness for our industry.
But those same countries have requested access to the UK through preferential visa arrangements as part of any free trade agreement. India has requested an increase in the number of visas issued to skilled Indian workers and allow students to stay for longer after graduating, but so far government has refused calls to relax visa rules even within the current framework. Australia and other Commonwealth countries want their citizens to be granted the same rights as Europeans: to live and work in the UK after Brexit.
Building a competitive commonwealth innovation network effectively requires the opposite of our current attitudes towards the Global South. Commonwealth leaders have criticised the government’s – reported – characterisation of post-Brexit trade as ‘Empire 2.0’. This was reflected in our treatment of the Windrush generation, which, in a sense, like our approach to Brexit, threatens to close critical doors to a better future for British industry and for Britain as a whole.
Whether we look to North America or the Commonwealth, into our past or forward to the type of economy we want to become, the arguments bring us back to a customs union with the EU and an industrial strategy that will help rebalance the economy and provide the directed investment to get it growing again. The billions poured by the Bank of England into quantitative easing have signally failed to do this.
A Labour government would invest £250bn over 10 years through our National Transformation Fund, and set up a National Investment Bank, as well as a network of regional development banks to channel investment into productive enterprises across the country, unlocking productivity and creating growth.
We need to understand as we approach critical decision points around our trade policy and our financial regulatory policy that these are choices that will shape not just our relations with the outside world but Britain itself – that choices labelled trade policy or immigration policy or financial regulatory policy are in fact industrial policy, agricultural policy and economic policy.
The Tory party ideologues are in no state to set out a vision for our future economy, far less to rationally assess the policies needed to make it a reality. Financialisation has proven to be an economic dead-end, creating wealth for the few at the expense of social equality, regional balance and long-term productivity growth.
To build a more competitive and equal Britain post-Brexit we need a deal that strengthens our productive sectors such as manufacturing rather than one that deepens financialisation and risks our long-term prosperity. We also need a real industrial strategy based on our regional strengths that enables investment in the productive economy, delivering jobs in our towns as well as our cities that creates value regionally and nationally that can be shared by all.
Effective industrial strategy requires a clear understanding of Britain’s place in the world economy now, and a clear set of goals for where we want it to be in the future
Chi Onwurah
Trump says he holds Putin personally responsible for election meddling
Bear attacks 71-year-old woman after breaking into her home
Florida man describes shark attack in just two feet of water
Woman mocked for budgeting to afford a house on a £69,500 salary
Last week’s resignations of Brexit big beasts David Davis and Boris Johnson demonstrates once again that the customs union is the beating heart of the Tory Brexit breach. The nature of our future trading relationship with the European Union straddles so many Tory totems from the role of business to the European Court of Justice to the border with Ireland. As a consequence an internal party “deal” that took two years to put together fell apart within two days and now we are once more the laughing stock of Europe with only a matter of months before we leave.
Reforging 40 years of economic, political and societal links in a constructive, inclusive and forward-looking way would be a challenge for any government but is clearly far beyond the capacity of this one. As a government in waiting, it is Labour’s job not only to hold the government to account but to set out what our approach would be. This is the work that Keir Starmer and Labour’s Brexit team has undertaken, exemplified by the amendments our party tabled to the Great Repeal Bill. But it is also my job as shadow minister for industrial strategy to consider what Brexit means for our economic future and to place decisions in that context. And that has to mean an economic future that includes everyone, and does not merely carry over the regional and social divides that helped deliver the referendum result in the first place.
To achieve this we need to look back even as we look forward. And to look outwards to the world even as we consider how best to maintain a close relationship with the European Union.
Ex-minister becomes first senior Tory to call for second Brexit vote
The industrial landscape of Britain today is the product of a succession of industrial strategies or non-strategies, each of which was ultimately unable to deal with the reality of the larger world economy. Britain entered the 20th century hoping to maintain its position as the supplier of manufactured goods to the largest empire the world had ever known, a strategy that could not be sustained given the scale of US industry and the understandable desire of the rest of the Empire to build its own industrial base. By the 1960s, British industry was increasingly focused on our domestic market, but even that more limited “strategy” proved untenable in the face of more efficient and larger scale foreign competition from the United States, Japan, Germany, Korea and ultimately China.
In response, the Tories under Margaret Thatcher and her successors, and to a lesser extent the 1997 Labour government, pursued a kind of “anti-industrial strategy”. This substituted first North Sea oil and then City of London financial services for industrial competitiveness. North Sea oil was a finite national asset that delivered the expected temporary economic boost. The impact of our burgeoning financial sector was more complex. It brought substantial benefits in jobs, revenues and social capital, particularly to London. It also drove the “financialisation” of our economy.
Financialisation – the anti-industrial strategy
The way in which financialisation proved to be an anti-industrial strategy is admirably set out in leading economist Mariana Mazzucato’s new book The Value of Everything. In it she describes the “two faces of financialisation”.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez brilliantly taunts Republicans for being 'terrified' of her
Harvard researcher apologises for asking neighbour with biracial daughter if they lived in ‘affordable units’
Robot chemist could revolutionise study of new molecules through machine learning
by Taboola
The first of these is the way in which the financial sector has stopped resourcing the real economy – instead of investing in companies that produce “stuff”, finance is financing finance. Why lend money to a manufacturer that may fail when you can make a bet on some options hedged with other options that virtually guarantee a return in a few weeks? The owner of a medium-sized manufacturing business gave me a striking example of this recently. His high-street bank was initially supportive when he requested a loan for new manufacturing equipment, which would significantly boost productivity. Once the bank realised that the equipment would not be something they could sell on should he go bankrupt, their interest drained away entirely. It was willing to lend based on liquidation value, but was not willing to take a risk on a living business. In a financialised economy, capital tends to flow towards standardised securities rather than actual operating businesses that present bespoke risks.
But it is not only financial capital that is diverted from the real economy. Human capital is sucked in too. When I graduated from Imperial College in 1987, I would estimate that only about 10 per cent of my electrical engineering cohort went into industry. The majority went into management consultancy and finance, which paid better as well as having clearer career paths. Recently the dean of an engineering department told me that was still the case and asked how I could expect engineers to go into engineering when finance paid so much better and was quite honestly the only way a graduate engineer could ever hope to buy a home in London.
I responded that they should come to Newcastle where not only could they buy a lovely home on an engineer’s salary, but also be within a few minutes of some of the most beautiful countryside in the world and at the heart of a concentration of culture that rivals far bigger cities. I recognise the dean’s point – with so much financial engineering demanding money and people, real engineering doesn’t stand a chance. But it is real engineering that drives industrial productivity.
Financialisation is not just a problem because it drains resources away from industry. In a financialised economy, investors with short-term horizons tend to have more control over firms. This results in less reinvestment of profits and rising burdens of debt that, in a vicious cycle, makes industry even more driven by short-term considerations. In effect, this kind of finance is not neutral but changes the nature of what it finances.
This was seen just recently with the GKN takeover by “turnaround company” Melrose. An estimated 20 to 25 per cent of the shares in GKN were in the hands of hedge funds, many of which were expected to back the takeover – with the firm Elliott Advisors, owning 3.8 per cent of the company, explicitly doing so. The bid was won by 52 per cent to 48 per cent. And Melrose itself is not run in any long-term interest other than maximising shareholder value: it has a long history of operating as a “turnaround firm” and almost a third of its own shares are held by hedge funds. The vote was essentially a referendum about the time horizons of British industry, and Britain lost.
So when bankers and chancellors talk of having learned the lessons of the financial crisis they are wrong both at the macro and micro level. With UK national debt twice what it was in 2007 and household debt to disposable income at a record high, 10 years after the crash of the global economy, finance is once again at the heart of an existential threat to our way of life.
Financialisation and inequality
Even before the crash, this “anti-industrial strategy” drove social and geographic inequalities. Levels of income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient reached a pre-crash peak of 0.35 in the 1990s and, while improving slightly, remained high in comparison to the Sixties throughout the 2000s. Regional inequality was also a significant feature of the pre-crash economy, with data from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research showing a gradual rise throughout the 2000s in the difference in gross household income between regions. In 2005, average household income in the North East was 14 per cent below the UK average, while in London it was 20 per cent higher.
The Tories were either indifferent to these inequalities or at best felt they were an acceptable price to pay. Labour, under previous leaderships, believed that redistributive policies could make it all come out right in the end, and flagship programmes such as Sure Start and working tax credits certainly helped. But both approaches were fundamentally mistaken. Financialisation turned out to be a house built on sand – unable to generate enough wealth to compensate for the abandonment of the rest of the economy, and vulnerable to boom and bust cycles. Ultimately, the financial crisis of 2008 and the global economic crisis it spawned showed that the ideology of finance – that financial markets and institutions, left to themselves and the profit motive, would efficiently allocate capital – was a pernicious fantasy.
British industry—creating real value in the real economy
But that was not the whole story. While metropolitan London came to comprise 40 per cent of the British economy – and a 40 per cent heavily dependent on finance and professional services – something else was happening in the rest of the country. Britain’s entry into the European Union, and the survival in parts of Britain of a culture favourable to engineering and manufacturing, fostered the growth of certain sectors of British industry as part of a larger integrated European industrial base. The supply chains of large European firms such as Airbus, Boeing and BMW are substantially British. Nissan’s Sunderland plant is the final destination for parts manufactured across Europe and produces more cars per worker than any other factory in the European Union. And GKN, itself one of the world’s oldest engineering firms, is a key supplier to international aerospace and automotive firms – including European giant Airbus, which warned against the Melrose takeover. Factories engaged in producing components and sub-assemblies and assembling components from elsewhere in Europe are now critical to the prosperity of much of Britain. Figure 1 shows just one of BMW’s many supply chains.
BMW supply chain starts in France, where the cast of the raw crankshaft is made. From there, it is shipped to BMW’s Hams Hall plant in Warwickshire, where it is drilled and milled into shape, then sent to Munich to be inserted into the engine. The engine is then ’married’ with the car at the Mini plant in Oxford
Such integration requires frictionless borders but also agreed standards to define everything from the acceptable frequency of electromagnetic radiation to the atomic composition of a given chemical. Leaving the European Union will not mean less regulation simply more duplication. As they scramble to recreate existing EU agencies and regulations, businesses and government departments are realising that far from Brussels bureaucracy being imposed upon Britain, the European Union was effectively based on the “shared back office services” model that Whitehall now champions for local government.
In many ways, British agriculture has followed a similar trajectory to British car manufacturing, where British farmers have been able to successfully compete on both quality and price in markets defined by EU food safety rules. For example, British farmers export far more wheat flour to the EU – approximately 250,000 tonnes last year – than they do to non-EU countries – approximately 6,000 tonnes. The same goes for other agricultural products such as barley (one million tonnes versus 50,000 tonnes) and oats (16,000 tonnes versus 4,000 tonnes).
The EU is the largest importer and exporter of food in the world. As an EU member state, our farmers have benefited from preferential access to this market through exemptions from the tariffs and quotas imposed on non-member countries. And with 85 per cent of seasonal agricultural workers in the UK coming from Bulgaria and Romania, agriculture is one of the UK sectors most heavily dependent on freedom of movement.
Food and drink is Britain’s largest manufacturing sector and Europe’s complex rules of origin guidelines could lead to a “hidden hard Brexit” requiring the restructuring of food manufacturing supply chains even if we secure preferential access. Agriculture and manufacturing are both more important outside of London and particularly around the very market towns that have been most “left behind” by the new economy.
As Britain contemplates how to engage with the world before, during and after Brexit, we need to understand the trade policy choices we make will drive the shape of our economy and are therefore also industrial policy choices, choices that will shape the very nature of what work we do, the health of our communities and the way we live for decades to come.
The benefits of a customs union
The Labour Party is united in supporting a customs union with Europe. We believe it will bolster our current industrial strengths and offer the possibility of continued industrial revival in certain sectors. We should not be complacent about this approach. Our place in the larger European manufacturing economy will still depend on our ability to innovate and to invest, so that British firms successfully manage and not just participate in supply chains. And this will depend on our learning the lessons of the financial crisis so that our financial markets and institutions actually invest in productive sectors.
Unfortunately, the government continues to act as if the only issues in financial regulation are safety, soundness and fraud. While these are obviously important issues, they completely miss the question of whether our financial system is effectively channelling capital to productive and innovative investment. And this is the whole point of a financial system. A financial system that simply parks money in risk-free assets or honestly gambles on sporting events, would meet the characteristics the Tories have established but would still be a total failure. As Mazzucato argues, the traditional policies we have seen create a “healthy financial sector (bailed out, ring-fenced, and restructured) in a deeply sick economy”.
Implications for industrial strategy of the alternatives
Last week’s visit by President Trump to Britain revealed that he thinks the UK-US relationship is “the highest level of special”. Arch Brexiteers argue that he offers an alternative to a customs union with Europe: a free trade agreement with the United States, which, as a consequence of Nafta would really be a free trade agreement with all of North America. But while the US economy is of comparable size to the EU in GDP terms, $19 trillion (£14 trillion) compared to $17 trillion, they have different sectoral compositions and regulatory standards. Going in this direction would lead to substantial changes in the structure of the British economy.
Earlier this year, trade experts at Harvard University published a report that included a candid assessment of obstacles to a US-UK free trade agreement. Its authors, including former shadow chancellor Ed Balls, reached the conclusion that it is “highly unlikely that a free trade deal between the US and the UK will be secured in the near term” and, in addition, “the likely potential benefits for British businesses are less than often suggested”.
The report focused on likely US demands for access to British food markets and likely British demands for access for British firms to US financial and professional services markets. These demands map the likely direction a US-UK free trade agreement would take both countries. Britain is attractive to the US as a market for agricultural products and for goods manufactured through US-controlled supply chains. Britain is also seen by some as a source of relatively low cost financial and professional services. Without an EU customs union, American business does not see Britain as a manufacturing platform – British wages are too high given the distance to the North American market. Labour costs per hour in manufacturing are on average £27 in the US and £23 in the UK – a £4 difference that does not compensate for transport costs.
In a UK detached from the European market, the role of British industry in European supply chains will therefore not be replaced by similar roles in US-based supply chains. This is the critical point for UK manufacturing – we cannot replace European supply chain integration with North American supply chain integration.
In addition, if British food safety rules are relaxed as part of a trade deal with the US, it is likely that cheap American agricultural products will significantly displace British agriculture. So we will eat chlorinated chicken from Arkansas, bake with GM flour from Dakota and barbecue antibiotic drenched beef from Illinois. US farming is largely in the hands of mega industrial organisations. Agriculture is a much greater proportion of US GDP than it is of UK GDP. There are farms in Texas that are bigger than major UK counties – 500 square miles, for example. We cannot compete with agriculture on that scale without harming our landscape and biodiversity, especially given that we already use substantially more of our land in percentage terms on agriculture than does the US. If our markets are opened up to US agricultural products, UK farming will either adapt to US food safety practices and scale or our agriculture will diminish greatly. If we were to follow the bidding of the arch-Brexiteers and take the US as our model partner it would be the end of our landscape and biodiversity as we currently know it.
In the place of agriculture and industry, there will be a US market for British financial services and other professional services such as law, accountancy and management consulting. However, just as we have seen the integration of British manufacturing into European firms, we will likely see a wave of mergers and acquisitions in services as British firms are acquired by US firms seeking to serve the US market with British professionals. As a consequence, while manufacturing and agriculture would suffer, services and finance might not remain in British hands, especially given the current takeover regime that substantially limits the scope for government protection of UK businesses.
A Britain without a customs union with the EU and with a free trade agreement with the US would have less industry, less agriculture, but more finance and more service sector jobs. It would likely be a Britain of growing regional and social disparities, and a Britain more vulnerable to financial instability. After all, it was the high concentration of financial services in the UK economy that meant we were hit particularly hard by the last financial crisis. If the UK economy consolidates further around finance, then we will become even more vulnerable.
The Commonwealth
Turning from North America some look to the Commonwealth as an alternative future that harks to our past. We have strong ties to English-speaking Commonwealth countries around the world – economic ties as well as ties of language, immigration and history. In a digital world, we have the possibility of building networks of innovation that could contribute both to our own industrial competitiveness as well as the competitiveness of our partners.
Countries as diverse as Nigeria, Australia and India are all racing to be centres of technological innovation and to solve pressing problems in areas such as energy and education. In a sense, if we are open to our former colonies as partners, and generous with access to our own centres of innovation, we could perhaps create alternative pathways to competitiveness for our industry.
But those same countries have requested access to the UK through preferential visa arrangements as part of any free trade agreement. India has requested an increase in the number of visas issued to skilled Indian workers and allow students to stay for longer after graduating, but so far government has refused calls to relax visa rules even within the current framework. Australia and other Commonwealth countries want their citizens to be granted the same rights as Europeans: to live and work in the UK after Brexit.
Building a competitive commonwealth innovation network effectively requires the opposite of our current attitudes towards the Global South. Commonwealth leaders have criticised the government’s – reported – characterisation of post-Brexit trade as ‘Empire 2.0’. This was reflected in our treatment of the Windrush generation, which, in a sense, like our approach to Brexit, threatens to close critical doors to a better future for British industry and for Britain as a whole.
Whether we look to North America or the Commonwealth, into our past or forward to the type of economy we want to become, the arguments bring us back to a customs union with the EU and an industrial strategy that will help rebalance the economy and provide the directed investment to get it growing again. The billions poured by the Bank of England into quantitative easing have signally failed to do this.
A Labour government would invest £250bn over 10 years through our National Transformation Fund, and set up a National Investment Bank, as well as a network of regional development banks to channel investment into productive enterprises across the country, unlocking productivity and creating growth.
We need to understand as we approach critical decision points around our trade policy and our financial regulatory policy that these are choices that will shape not just our relations with the outside world but Britain itself – that choices labelled trade policy or immigration policy or financial regulatory policy are in fact industrial policy, agricultural policy and economic policy.
The Tory party ideologues are in no state to set out a vision for our future economy, far less to rationally assess the policies needed to make it a reality. Financialisation has proven to be an economic dead-end, creating wealth for the few at the expense of social equality, regional balance and long-term productivity growth.
To build a more competitive and equal Britain post-Brexit we need a deal that strengthens our productive sectors such as manufacturing rather than one that deepens financialisation and risks our long-term prosperity. We also need a real industrial strategy based on our regional strengths that enables investment in the productive economy, delivering jobs in our towns as well as our cities that creates value regionally and nationally that can be shared by all.
Warren Buffett may soon join the stock buyback party - CNN Money
Warren Buffett may soon join the stock buyback party
by Paul R. La Monica @lamonicabuzz
July 18, 2018: 4:50 PM ET
Buffett not worried about a trade war
Big US companies have been binging on their own stock. But Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway hasn't been taking part in the bonanza. That soon may change.
Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) announced late Tuesday that the company loosened an old company rule and can now buy back stock whenever Buffett and Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger "believe that the repurchase price is below Berkshire's intrinsic value, conservatively determined."
In other words, Buffett and Munger can pretty much decide to buy stock whenever the heck they feel like it.
Berkshire Hathaway stock had its best day in almost seven years after the change was announced.
Stock buybacks have been one factor helping fuel the market run to record highs in 2018.
Companies bought back $436.6 billion of their own stock in just the second quarter -- a new record, according to data from research firm TrimTabs. Companies have now repurchased nearly $670 billion of their own shares so far this year.
Buybacks are considered a bullish sign for several reasons.
For one, a company may be signaling it thinks its stock is a bargain. Buybacks also lower a company's overall share count, which in turn boosts earnings per share.
But the last time that Berkshire -- an industrial empire that owns Geico, railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Dairy Queen and numerous other businesses -- bought its own stock was in December 2012.
One reason Berkshire has stayed on the sidelines of buybacks is because of the company's old rule, which stated that Berkshire could not pay more than 20% above Berkshire's book value per share -- a key measure of a company's financial health.
As of the end of the first quarter, the book value for one class A Berkshire share (BRKA) was $211,184. But the price of one Berkshire A share currently trades for nearly $300,000. That's 40% higher than book value, which means Berkshire was prohibited from buying the stock under the old rule.
Berkshire also has more affordable B shares that trade at a price of about $200. Shares of both the A and B classes of Berkshire stock rose more than 5% Wednesday, their best showing since September 2011.
Whether or not Berkshire actually does buy back some of its own stock remains to be seen.
The company said late Tuesday that it would not buy back any shares until after it reports its second quarter earnings following the market close on Friday August 3 -- at the earliest.
Berkshire also said would keep a rule that prohibits the company from buying back stock if the purchases reduce the amount of cash it has to below $20 billion.
That shouldn't be a problem. Berkshire had more than $108 billion in cash and short-term Treasury holdings on its balance sheet as of the end of March. Berkshire, like many large American companies, has been hoarding money lately.
The company had $96.5 billion in cash at the end of the first quarter of 2017. That's why some have been pushing Berkshire to use the cash on stock buybacks, investments and acquisitions.
Its last major acquisition was the purchase of aerospace parts maker Precision Castparts for $37 billion in 2015.
Berkshire-backed Kraft Heinz (KHC) tried to buy Unilever (UL) last year but walked away from the deal after Unilever decided it wasn't interested.
Related: CEOs dumping stock even as companies buy it back
Even though Berkshire hasn't done a buyback of its own in more than five years, many companies that Berkshire has invested in, including Apple (AAPL), Coca-Cola (KO) and IBM (IBM), have frequently repurchased shares during the past few years.
Buffett has praised buybacks too. He defended the practice in last year's shareholder letter.
"Some people have come close to calling [buybacks] un-American -- characterizing them as corporate misdeeds that divert funds needed for productive endeavors. That simply isn't the case: Both American corporations and private investors are today awash in funds looking to be sensibly deployed," he wrote.
So don't be surprised if Berkshire -- which is clearly "awash in funds" -- soon decides to deploy some of them on a stock buyback.
by Paul R. La Monica @lamonicabuzz
July 18, 2018: 4:50 PM ET
Buffett not worried about a trade war
Big US companies have been binging on their own stock. But Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway hasn't been taking part in the bonanza. That soon may change.
Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) announced late Tuesday that the company loosened an old company rule and can now buy back stock whenever Buffett and Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger "believe that the repurchase price is below Berkshire's intrinsic value, conservatively determined."
In other words, Buffett and Munger can pretty much decide to buy stock whenever the heck they feel like it.
Berkshire Hathaway stock had its best day in almost seven years after the change was announced.
Stock buybacks have been one factor helping fuel the market run to record highs in 2018.
Companies bought back $436.6 billion of their own stock in just the second quarter -- a new record, according to data from research firm TrimTabs. Companies have now repurchased nearly $670 billion of their own shares so far this year.
Buybacks are considered a bullish sign for several reasons.
For one, a company may be signaling it thinks its stock is a bargain. Buybacks also lower a company's overall share count, which in turn boosts earnings per share.
But the last time that Berkshire -- an industrial empire that owns Geico, railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Dairy Queen and numerous other businesses -- bought its own stock was in December 2012.
One reason Berkshire has stayed on the sidelines of buybacks is because of the company's old rule, which stated that Berkshire could not pay more than 20% above Berkshire's book value per share -- a key measure of a company's financial health.
As of the end of the first quarter, the book value for one class A Berkshire share (BRKA) was $211,184. But the price of one Berkshire A share currently trades for nearly $300,000. That's 40% higher than book value, which means Berkshire was prohibited from buying the stock under the old rule.
Berkshire also has more affordable B shares that trade at a price of about $200. Shares of both the A and B classes of Berkshire stock rose more than 5% Wednesday, their best showing since September 2011.
Whether or not Berkshire actually does buy back some of its own stock remains to be seen.
The company said late Tuesday that it would not buy back any shares until after it reports its second quarter earnings following the market close on Friday August 3 -- at the earliest.
Berkshire also said would keep a rule that prohibits the company from buying back stock if the purchases reduce the amount of cash it has to below $20 billion.
That shouldn't be a problem. Berkshire had more than $108 billion in cash and short-term Treasury holdings on its balance sheet as of the end of March. Berkshire, like many large American companies, has been hoarding money lately.
The company had $96.5 billion in cash at the end of the first quarter of 2017. That's why some have been pushing Berkshire to use the cash on stock buybacks, investments and acquisitions.
Its last major acquisition was the purchase of aerospace parts maker Precision Castparts for $37 billion in 2015.
Berkshire-backed Kraft Heinz (KHC) tried to buy Unilever (UL) last year but walked away from the deal after Unilever decided it wasn't interested.
Related: CEOs dumping stock even as companies buy it back
Even though Berkshire hasn't done a buyback of its own in more than five years, many companies that Berkshire has invested in, including Apple (AAPL), Coca-Cola (KO) and IBM (IBM), have frequently repurchased shares during the past few years.
Buffett has praised buybacks too. He defended the practice in last year's shareholder letter.
"Some people have come close to calling [buybacks] un-American -- characterizing them as corporate misdeeds that divert funds needed for productive endeavors. That simply isn't the case: Both American corporations and private investors are today awash in funds looking to be sensibly deployed," he wrote.
So don't be surprised if Berkshire -- which is clearly "awash in funds" -- soon decides to deploy some of them on a stock buyback.
Israel adopts divisive Jewish nation-state law - Reuters
JULY 19, 2018 / 10:35 AM
Israel adopts divisive Jewish nation-state law
Maayan Lubell
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel passed a law on Thursday to declare that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country, something members of the Arab minority called racist and verging on apartheid.
The “nation-state” law, backed by the right-wing government, passed by a vote of 62-55 and two abstentions in the 120-member parliament after months of political argument. Some Arab lawmakers shouted and ripped up papers after the vote.
“This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the history of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset after the vote.
Largely symbolic, the law was enacted just after the 70th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel. It stipulates that “Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it”.
The bill also strips Arabic of its designation as an official language alongside Hebrew, downgrading it to a “special status” that enables its continued use within Israeli institutions.
Israel’s Arabs number some 1.8 million, about 20 percent of the 9 million population.
Early drafts of the legislation went further in what critics at home and abroad saw as discrimination toward Israel’s Arabs, who have long said they are treated as second-class citizens.
Clauses that were dropped in last-minute political wrangling - and after objections by Israel’s president and attorney-general - would have enshrined in law the establishment of Jewish-only communities, and instructed courts to rule according to Jewish ritual law when there were no relevant legal precedents.
Instead, a more vaguely-worded version was approved, which says: “The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment.”
Even after the changes, critics said the new law will deepen a sense of alienation within the Arab minority.
“I announce with shock and sorrow the death of democracy,” Ahmed Tibi, an Arab lawmaker, told reporters.
Netanyahu has defended the law. “We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides,” he said last week.
“An absolute majority wants to ensure our state’s Jewish character for generations to come.”
Israel’s Arab population is comprised mainly of descendants of the Palestinians who remained on their land during the conflict between Arabs and Jews that culminated in the war of 1948 surrounding the creation of the modern state of Israel. Hundreds of thousands were forced to leave their homes or fled.
Those who remained have full equal rights under the law but say they face constant discrimination, citing inferior services and unfair allocations for education, health and housing.
In Ma’alot-Tarshiha, a municipality in northern Israel which was created by linking the Jewish town of Ma’alot and the Arab town of Tarshiha, there was anger among Arab residents.
“I think this is racist legislation by a radical right-wing government that is creating radical laws, and is planting the seeds to create an apartheid state,” said physician Bassam Bisharah, 71.
“The purpose of this law is discrimination. They want to get rid of the Arabs totally,” said Yousef Faraj, 53, from the nearby Druze village of Yanuh. “The Israelis want to destroy all the religions of the Arabs.”
Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, called the law a bid to advance “ethnic superiority by promoting racist policies”.
Israeli population: tmsnrt.rs/2L1pzkt
Israel adopts divisive Jewish nation-state law
Maayan Lubell
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel passed a law on Thursday to declare that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country, something members of the Arab minority called racist and verging on apartheid.
The “nation-state” law, backed by the right-wing government, passed by a vote of 62-55 and two abstentions in the 120-member parliament after months of political argument. Some Arab lawmakers shouted and ripped up papers after the vote.
“This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the history of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset after the vote.
Largely symbolic, the law was enacted just after the 70th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel. It stipulates that “Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it”.
The bill also strips Arabic of its designation as an official language alongside Hebrew, downgrading it to a “special status” that enables its continued use within Israeli institutions.
Israel’s Arabs number some 1.8 million, about 20 percent of the 9 million population.
Early drafts of the legislation went further in what critics at home and abroad saw as discrimination toward Israel’s Arabs, who have long said they are treated as second-class citizens.
Clauses that were dropped in last-minute political wrangling - and after objections by Israel’s president and attorney-general - would have enshrined in law the establishment of Jewish-only communities, and instructed courts to rule according to Jewish ritual law when there were no relevant legal precedents.
Instead, a more vaguely-worded version was approved, which says: “The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment.”
Even after the changes, critics said the new law will deepen a sense of alienation within the Arab minority.
“I announce with shock and sorrow the death of democracy,” Ahmed Tibi, an Arab lawmaker, told reporters.
Netanyahu has defended the law. “We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides,” he said last week.
“An absolute majority wants to ensure our state’s Jewish character for generations to come.”
Israel’s Arab population is comprised mainly of descendants of the Palestinians who remained on their land during the conflict between Arabs and Jews that culminated in the war of 1948 surrounding the creation of the modern state of Israel. Hundreds of thousands were forced to leave their homes or fled.
Those who remained have full equal rights under the law but say they face constant discrimination, citing inferior services and unfair allocations for education, health and housing.
In Ma’alot-Tarshiha, a municipality in northern Israel which was created by linking the Jewish town of Ma’alot and the Arab town of Tarshiha, there was anger among Arab residents.
“I think this is racist legislation by a radical right-wing government that is creating radical laws, and is planting the seeds to create an apartheid state,” said physician Bassam Bisharah, 71.
“The purpose of this law is discrimination. They want to get rid of the Arabs totally,” said Yousef Faraj, 53, from the nearby Druze village of Yanuh. “The Israelis want to destroy all the religions of the Arabs.”
Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, called the law a bid to advance “ethnic superiority by promoting racist policies”.
Israeli population: tmsnrt.rs/2L1pzkt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
