Friday, December 23, 2016

Harvard professor says there are 'grave concerns' about Donald Trump's mental stability - Independent


'An apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality leads us to question his fitness for the immense responsibilities of the office'
Three leading professors of psychiatry have written to Barack Obama to express their “grave concern” over Donald Trump’s mental stability.
In the letter addressed to the US president, doctors from Harvard Medical School and the University of California have urged him to order a “full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation” before the President-elect takes office in January.
The group said it could not speculate on a diagnosis, but Mr Trump’s “grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to criticism” led them to believe he was unfit for office.
Donald Trump says China should keep the seized US Navy drone
Thousands urge electoral college to block Trump at Monday vote
Putin was 'really clear' with Obama when confronted over hacking
Michelle Obama gives stark summary of national mood
“Professional standards do not permit us to venture a diagnosis for a public figure whom we have not evaluated personally,” the letter signed by Judith Herman, Nanette Gartrell and Dee Mosbacher, and published by the Huffington Post, reads.
“Nevertheless, his widely reported symptoms of mental instability — including grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to slights or criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality — lead us to question his fitness for the immense responsibilities of the office.”
In August, President Obama questioned Mr Trump's judgement and temperament and called him “unfit to serve as president.”
Michael Moore calls for protests and civil disobedience to stop Donald Trump before Electoral College votes
“I said so last week and he keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that had made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn’t appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia means that he’s woefully unprepared to do this job,” he said.
“There has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world because a lot of people depend on the White House getting stuff right.”
According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), there are nine criteria for “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” - with a diagnosis being offered if an individual has five or more of the listed qualities.
The APA summarise the condition as: “A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts.”
This is not the first time mental health professionals have weighed in on Mr Trump’s suitability for office.
In June, Atlantic published a psychologist’s findings that Mr Trump suffered from "narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity".
Mr Trump's well-documented "no-holds-barred" approach to the US presidency has led many to question his diplomatic suitability.
Will Russia’s 'act of war' against US democracy bring Trump down?
The real-estate mogul regularly takes to Twitter to post provocative statements aimed at his rivals, often breaking with long-established foreign policy protocol.
On Saturday, he accused China of “stealing” in a tweet that caused an immediate backlash from Beijing.
Initially misspelling "unprecedented," Mr Trump tweeted: "China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters - rips it out of water and takes it to China in unpresidented act."
He later deleted and then reposted the tweet to correct the spelling.
China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters - rips it out of water and takes it to China in unprecedented act.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 17, 2016
In response, China accused Washington of "hyping up" the issue.
APA protocol means medical professionals should not diagnose individuals they have not personally treated.
The so-called "Goldwater Rule" was brought in after Barry Goldwater, a Republican presidential candidate in the 1960’s sued Fact magazine for libel after it asked 12,000 psychiatrists whether he was “psychologically fit” to be president - 1,189 answered “no”.

Why Millennials Need to Save Twice as Much as Boomers Did - TIME


Posted: 21 Dec 2016 07:47 AM PST

Don’t be fooled by the stock market’s recent gains—or even its long impressive recovery from the financial crisis. We have been in a low-return environment since the Internet bubble popped at the turn of the century, and there is little reason to believe that will change anytime soon.
Retirement savers cannot count on the markets to do the heavy lifting for them. They must save more—a lot more, according to a report from BlackRock, an asset manager. The old rule was saving 10% to 15% of pay. But Millennials will need to save 25% of pay for 40 years to get the same result that was available to boomers saving half that much, BlackRock concludes.

“Our hope is that people take action now to get the benefit of compounding over time,” says Anne Ackerley, head of BlackRock’s U.S. and Canada defined contribution group. The BlackRock estimate echoes an analysis from Nerdwallet that found Millennials must save 22% of pay to afford a comfortable retirement.
These are big numbers. Young workers currently save about 6% of pay. Taking that up to 22% to 25%, including an employer match, is probably out of the question in the near future. Young people tend to have outsized housing costs and many student loans.
That’s okay, Ackerley says. The 25% isn’t set in stone; it’s just a math result that came from looking at past results and estimating future returns. These lofty required savings rates also spring from an assumption that there will be no Social Security, which probably is not the case. Still, the point is a good one: boomers lived through an unusually robust period for market gains that likely will not recur during Millennials’ saving years. Young adults need to save twice as much to get a similar result.
If you have a short memory you may wonder what the heck Blackrock is taking about. The Standard & Poor’s 500 is up 6% since the election and has more than tripled from the financial crisis low. But since the end of a long bull market in 2000 the S&P 500 including dividends is up just an average annual 4.3%, or 2.2% after inflation. BlackRock foresees those kinds of average returns as far as the eye can see.
Why? The working-age population is slowing in the developed world, which leads to less demand for things, BlackRock found. Economies around the world are slowing, which weighs on corporate profits. And technology is disrupting established industries, slowing expenditures on equipment, labor, real estate and tangible assets.
Since 1978, when boomers first started investing in 401(k) plans, a mix of 60% stocks and 40% bonds has risen 6.3% a year—a favorable period that allowed boomers who bothered to start saving (many did not) a golden opportunity to prepare for retirement. The 90-year average annual return has been just 5.1%, pointing up the favorable environment boomers enjoyed.
Here’s what young adults are up against: BlackRock estimates average annual portfolio growth of just 2.9% going forward. Inflation will also be lower, but not nearly low enough to offset the difficulty of building a nest egg in such an environment. One percentage point of additional returns each year would translate into 25% more total savings over 40 years for a typical Millennial, the firm found. A nest egg would be 58% larger at age 65 with an additional 2 percentage points of yearly return.
The projections underscore the need for young people to start saving early, take some risk with stocks, and escalate contributions every year until they are saving at least 15% of pay. Planning to work longer is also a good idea but isn’t always possible.
The findings also put pressure on plan administrators to make saving simpler to understand and more difficult for workers to avoid. Among plan changes BlackRock suggests: higher default rates for employee contributions, requiring employees to contribute more to get the full match, auto enrolling older workers in “catch-up” programs that allow them to save more tax deferred, and making loans and early withdrawals more difficult.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Where will the disaffected voters go once they become convinced that the likes of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin have betrayed them? - Independent

If you thought 2016 was a good year for the right, wait until you see 2017
Where will the disaffected voters go once they become convinced that the likes of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin have betrayed them?

Sean O’Grady An awful lot of economics boils down to demographics – the affordability of a modern welfare state being a prominent example – but a surprising amount of politics can also be linked to well-observed demographic trends. An ageing population, of the kind typically found in the West, and especially in Western Europe, is more likely to shift to the right and be more susceptible to the charms of nationalism than one that is young and, often as not, more ethnically mixed and recently arrived on the shores of the “host” nation. Thus it was that the middle aged and older voters – also invariably more prosperous and inclined to vote than their children and grandchildren – won it for Brexit, Trump and a whole car boot sale of radical rightists in elections throughout the Free world this year. With important elections scheduled next year in Italy, the Netherlands, France and Germany, 2016 should be remembered as the year the radical right, tinged sometimes with red or green strains of populism, started to mobilise in earnest.
If anything, it is the young, with smaller savings, renting their flats and looking forward to a tougher economic world of casualised employment, stagnating wages and living standards who have far more to lose from globalisation, leastways in the short term, than their grey-haired fellow citizens. And yet, voting for Remain in Britain, for Hillary in the US and for mainstream social democratic or conservative parties in Europe, they have supported an internationalism the old have grown weary of.
The generation of baby-boomers who enjoyed the best of economic growth after the Second World War, free higher education, rising property values and a generous welfare state and final-salary company pensions are the gloomiest about the state of their nations and the direction they are taking. The French are exceptionally glum, with hardly any rating their country as the best in the world in opinion polls, and overwhelmingly believing that it is going in the wrong direction.
Something, clearly, has gone wrong with the dynamics of democratic politics. It is for another essay another time to survey the wreckage of the social democratic left, especially in Europe, virtually irrelevant in so many places where it was, not so long ago, the natural party of government. Jeremy Corbyn, Francois Hollande and Peer Steinbrueck have led the march out of relevance.
At first glance, the prospects for the right in 2017 – a varied bag at the best of times – are not as rosy as they might be. In Austria the far-right Freedom Party candidate was prevented from becoming the nation’s ceremonial figurehead president, beaten by an avuncular environmentalist. In France all the signs are that Marine Le Pen and the Front National will be stopped by a grand alliance between the mainstream Socialists and Republicans uniting behind a single candidate for the presidency, most probably Francois Fillon or the centrist Emmanuel Macron. In the Netherlands,
Geert Wilders was recently convicted of a race hate crime and leads the most popular party in the country, though it has no chance of governing on its own in the Dutch splintered party system. Alternative fur Deutschland will no doubt make much political capital out of the terror attack in Berlin, but Angela Merkel is most likely to end the year where she began it, leading Germany, Europe and the West towards a safer, more liberal future.
So there will be many sighs of relief in Europe in 2017 as the right is, apparently, beaten back. Yet, hydra-like, the radical right is unlikely to give up and is capable of evolving to capitalise on popular worries about globalisation, economic change, de-industrialisation, sudden waves of migration and the fear of terror – always exaggerated in the minds of worried citizens. In fact, the astonishingly striking thing is how much progress the radical right has made in political life. Groups that a few years ago would be dismissed, as David Cameron once derided Ukip, as a motley crew of fruitcakes and closet racists have become mainstream. They seem authentic. They reflect back voters’ bar-room prejudices and simplicities. They are happy to blame others, especially outsiders and foreign powers, for their nations’ problems.
There is a pattern among so many leaders in democratic or semi-democratic states who have already come to power, or close to it, on a nationalistic agenda to “make their country great again”. The list is long, and in its way impressive: Donald Trump, soon, in the US; Narendra Modi in India; Vladimir Putin in Russia; Viktor Orban in Hungary; Recep Erdogan in Turkey; even Beata Szydło and her Law and Justice Party in Poland. One might even add Nicola Sturgeon and her own soft brand of nationalism in Scotland, as well as all the other separatist movements across the world gradually breaking up old nation states and federations. Even Theresa May had a wobbly moment in her conference speech when she patronised foreigners in Britain as “citizens of nowhere” (angering especially the governor of the Bank of England, an urbane Canadian). All have some degree of nationalism at their core, through it is fair to say that ethnic and religious identity is not always a strong feature of their platforms.
Elsewhere in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and across much of the rest of the world, leaders are happy to make the most of the patriotism, religious fervour and pride of people for their own agendas. ‘Twas always thus, but not so often in the past in such an unpromising economic environment as today.
If May takes a Thatcherite stance on strikes she will regret it
Generation easyJet might just solve the EU's identity crisis
Theresa May, strikers are “ordinary people” too
Christmukkah is the perfect antidote to the divisiveness of 2016
The worry for the longer term must be – where will the disaffected voters go once they become convinced that the likes of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin have betrayed them? Will they then reject democracy as a system? When so much ordure is poured over “corrupt” democratic politicians making unsavoury deals in the “swamp”, one should not be so surprised when the voters give up on the whole game. In the UK the resentments over the MPs’ expenses scandals – “duck houses” and the like – are still raw, and eroding faith in politics, almost a decade on from the revelations.
The pattern, then, is of mainstream parties in democracies giving ground, appeasing or losing power to parties of a populist, usually rightist and nationalistic stripe. In undemocratic states, from little Cuba and North Korea to mighty China and Iran, the same impetus is there, the panto villains usually being the Yankees (who may soon once again live up to the neo-imperialist stereotype). Even if the Five Star Movement in Italy (led by a former comedian), Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders don’t win their elections outright, their voices will be loud enough to distort and reshape conventional politics, and in particular attitudes to the EU, immigration and free trade. None can be counted as forces for good in the world; none can be counted out just because they didn’t win power outright in 2016 or 2017; none should be underestimated.
A world where it can be considered a mercy if a neo-fascistic party “only” wins 30 per cent or 48 per cent of the vote is not a world safe for peace and prosperity. If 2016 proved anything it is that the voters are getting tired and weary of old parties and old solutions. Dangerous stuff.

Volkswagen’s Latest Settlement With the EPA Gives Some Diesel Car Owners a Buyback Option - TIME Business

Posted: 20 Dec 2016 09:35 PM PST

(SAN FRANCISCO) — Volkswagen reached a deal that will give at least some owners of the remaining 80,000 diesel vehicles caught in the company’s emissions cheating scandal the option of a buyback and provide compensation to all of them on top of any repurchase or repairs, U.S. regulators and a federal judge said Tuesday.
The $1 billion settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will give owners of 20,000 3-liter diesel cars the choice of a buyback. The figure does not include additional payments to owners.
Volkswagen believes it can bring the other 60,000 vehicles into compliance with pollution regulations and will not offer a buyback if that’s the case, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in San Francisco.
The deal includes $225 million the German automaker will contribute to an environmental fund to offset the cars’ excess pollution, Cynthia Giles of the EPA said in a conference call with reporters.
Additional compensation for car owners will be substantial, according to the judge, but he did not provide a figure and said the sides still had more work to do.
“I am optimistic the parties will resolve the remaining issues,” Breyer said, without elaborating on what was left to be done.
Read More: Consumer Reports Says Volkswagen Should Pay Diesel Owners More
The settlement was a major step toward rectifying lawsuits stemming from the global scandal that erupted last year, damaging Volkswagen’s reputation and hurting its sales. The company previously reached a nearly $15 billion deal for 475,000 2-liter diesel cars also programmed to cheat on emissions tests.
Hinrich J. Woebcken, president and CEO of Volkswagen Group of America Inc., said the agreement announced Tuesday was part of Volkswagen’s “efforts to make things right” for its customers.
“We are committed to earning back the trust of all our stakeholders and thank our customers and dealers in the United States for their patience as the process moves forward,” he said in a statement.
The deal protects the environment “by removing the cars from road and by offsetting harmful emissions that resulted from their cheating,” said Giles with the EPA.
It requires the company to buy back or terminate leases on 2009-2012 Volkswagen Touareg and Audi Q7 diesels. The EPA says it’s unlikely those can be fixed to meet clean-air standards.
For newer 3-liter vehicles — such as the 2013-2016 Volkswagen Touareg, 2013-2015 Audi Q7, 2013-2016 Porsche Cayenne, and 2014-2016 Audi A6 quattro, A7 quattro, A8, A8L and Q5 — a fix is possible, so buybacks won’t be offered.
Giles said the fix should be submitted soon.
The new settlement appears to mirror the terms for the cars with smaller engines. The previous deal gives 2-liter owners the option to have the automaker buy back their vehicle or pay for repairs.
Volkswagen also will pay those owners $5,100 to $10,000 each.
The company has agreed to spend up to $10 billion compensating those consumers. That settlement also includes $2.7 billion for unspecified environmental mitigation and $2 billion to promote zero-emissions vehicles.
Read More: Volkswagen’s Former CEO “Knew About Defeat Device in Early 2014”
The settlements emerged out of lawsuits from car owners and the U.S. Department of Justice after the EPA said Volkswagen had fitted many of its cars with software to fool emissions tests.
The software recognized when the cars were being tested on a treadmill and turned on pollution controls. The controls were turned off when the cars returned to the road. The EPA alleged the scheme let the cars spew up to 40 times the allowable limit of nitrogen oxide, which can cause respiratory problems in humans.
The company has reached a separate $1.2 billion deal with its U.S. dealers and is still facing potentially billions more in fines and penalties and possible criminal charges.
___
AP Auto Writer Tom Krisher contributed from Detroit.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Andrea Bocelli 'backs out' of singing at Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony - Independent

Andrea Bocelli 'backs out' of singing at Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony
Bocelli was reportedly approached by Trump in person
Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli has reportedly stepped down from a performance at Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony, leaving a fresh opening for another artist.
Bocelli was said to have been approached by Trump, who is a huge fan of his work, in person after a show at Madison Square Garden in New York.
In 2010, Trump booked Bocelli to perform at a private party at his club in Florida, and has attended at least one of his concerts.
No one wants to play Donald Trump's inauguration
Beyoncé drops stand-alone video for Lemonade track 'All Night'
While Bocelli did not confirm or deny that he would perform at the President-elect's ceremony, the news that Trump had asked him prompted a backlash from fans, who told him he would be "selling his soul to the devil".
The New York Post's gossip column Page Six reported on Monday evening that a source had told them Bocelli said there was "no way" he would take the gig.
"He was getting too much heat and he said 'no'," the source said.
However another source reportedly told Page Six that Trump himself had suggested that Bocelli should not particpate to protect him from the inevitable backlash.
Women to march on Washington to protest Trump’s inauguration
Trump has been struggling to find high-profile artists who are willing to perform at his inauguration ceremony, which takes place on 20 January.
When Barack Obama was elected as US President, Beyonce and Aretha Franklin performed, while indie band The National played during his campaign for re-election.
So far Trump's staff have confirmed that Jackie Evancho, a runner-up from America's Got Talent, will perform.

Christine Lagarde Will Remain as the IMF’s Chief Despite Her Conviction by a French Court - Associated Press

Posted: 19 Dec 2016 06:59 PM PST

(WASHINGTON) — Christine Lagarde will remain head of the International Monetary Fund despite her conviction Monday of negligence in a case dating to her tenure as France’s finance minister.
The IMF’s executive board quickly met after the court’s decision and expressed “full confidence” in Lagarde’s ability to carry out her duties at the head of the Washington-based international lending agency. In a statement, the board cited her “outstanding leadership” and the respect and trust she has worldwide.
After a weeklong trial, France’s Court of Justice of the Republic found Lagarde guilty of one count of negligence but spared her jail time and a criminal record.

The 60-year-old IMF leader had potentially faced a year of imprisonment and a fine for not seeking to block a fraudulent 2008 arbitration award to a politically connected tycoon when she was finance minister.
Lagarde thanked the board for the vote of confidence “in my ability to do my job.” She said she would not appeal the French court’s decision.
“I am not satisfied with it, but there’s a point in time when one must stop, turn the page and move on,” she said.
Lagarde, a lawyer, became France’s first female finance minister in 2007, overseeing the country’s response to the financial crisis that rocked the global economy from 2008. She is also the first woman to head the IMF.
The troubling verdict comes as the IMF is weighing its role in multiple global crises, including a bailout for Greece.
“She is a strong leader,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a statement after the board’s decision. “And we have every confidence in her ability to guide the fund at a critical time for the global economy.”
The Court of Justice of the Republic is a special tribunal to hear cases of alleged criminality by ministers in office and is made up of three judges and 12 parliamentarians. It ruled that Lagarde’s negligence in her management of a long-running arbitration case involving tycoon Bernard Tapie helped open the door for the fraudulent misappropriation of public funds. Lagarde herself was not accused of fraud.
The case revolves around a 403 million-euro ($425 million) arbitration award given to Tapie in 2008 over the botched sale of sportswear giant Adidas in the 1990s. Civil courts have since quashed the unusually generous award, declared the arbitration process and deal fraudulent and ordered Tapie to refund the money.
The special court’s presiding judge, in reading the verdict, said Lagarde should have asked her aides and others for more information about the “shocking arbitration award,” which included a tax-free payment of 45 million euros in damages to Tapie, which the court described as fraudulent.
Had Lagarde contested the award, an appeal against it might have succeeded and would have strengthened the negotiating position of those who were fighting Tapie’s demands for compensation over the sale of his majority stake in Adidas, the court ruled.
In deciding not to sentence Lagarde, the court noted that the award to Tapie has since been annulled, sparing damage to the public purse. It also noted that Lagarde was busy at the time with the global economic crisis.
Lagarde’s “personality and national and international reputation” also counted in her favor in the decision not to punish her, the court ruled.
Lagarde, who was not present for the verdict, maintained her innocence through the trial. The prosecutor had asked for an acquittal in the case, which began in 2011.
The special court acquitted Lagarde of negligence in her original decision to put the Tapie case to arbitration. But it found her guilty in a subsequent decision not to contest the amount of the arbitration award.
The legal battle between Tapie and Credit Lyonnais over the public bank’s sale of his Adidas stake was still unresolved when Lagarde took over at the Finance Ministry in 2007.
Lagarde ordered that the dispute be settled through a private arbitration panel, instead of regular courts — against the advice of her own services. The massive award raised questions about whether Tapie benefited from his political connections, including with then-President Nicolas Sarkozy, Lagarde’s boss when she was his finance minister.
Soon after the award, investigators suspected the whole process was rigged in favor of the magnate.
In 2013, Tapie, his lawyer, one of the arbitrators and Lagarde’s chief of staff at the ministry, Stephane Richard, now the CEO of the telecom company Orange, were charged with gang-related fraud. Lagarde’s Paris home was searched by police. However, that case is separate from Lagarde’s legal woes.
Tapie was handed another charge of misappropriation of funds. But in 2015, a court quashed the arbitration deal and ordered Tapie to repay the money. Last June, the top French court ruled that the arbitration was fraudulent.
___
Associated Press writer Paul Wiseman reported this story in Washington and AP writer John Leicester reported from Paris. AP writers Elaine Ganley in Paris and Marcy Gordon in Washington contributed to this report.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Khizr Khan on being vilified by Trump: 'The far right feels that their voice has been heard' - Guardian

Khizr Khan on being vilified by Trump: 'The far right feels that their voice has been heard'
Jon Swaine
@jonswaine
Wednesday 21 December 2016 00.00 AEDT

As you look out from Khizr Khan’s home in Virginia, the Blue Ridge mountains sweep magnificently to one side. Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s idyllic estate, is a few miles in the other direction. And in between, still spiked into his neighbour Richard’s front lawn, is a plastic campaign sign that says “TRUMP”.

“Maybe he’s going to leave it up for the next four years,” says Khan, with a smile that turns into a sigh. Shaking his head, he takes a sip of tea and reaches for a small box of chocolates.

It is a month since the man who taunted Khan and his wife Ghazala following their headline-making appearance at the Democratic convention was elected to the world’s most powerful office, and reminders of Trump’s victory are everywhere.

But around the Khans’ living room, so too are mementos of having lived through much worse. Their late son Humayun stares down from one wall, handsome and steadfast in his army portrait. His posthumous Bronze Star and Purple Heart awards are nearby. Humayun, a captain who was killed defending his unit from a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004, would have turned 40 this year. “We miss him so very much,” says Khan.

Still, Khan is shaken by Trump’s win and a subsequent spike in hate crimes across the US. Muslim friends say their children are being bullied. A doctor from Long Island told him a new patient refused to be treated by her when he saw her headscarf. Hostility toward Muslims is more intense than at any time since Khan arrived in America in 1980, he says.

“The far right feels that their voice has been heard and they have a licence to commit these crimes,” he says. “I have seen the fear of immigrants heighten after turmoil in the past. But never to this degree.”

Khan has taken advice from the police about securing his home. He advises women in his family not to travel alone. He is furious at Trump for not doing more to help. “These are your people, who you have encouraged to commit these crimes,” he says. “You have a responsibility as a leader to end it.”

Rather than move to calm the anti-Muslim fervour, Trump has made one of its most prominent advocates his national security adviser. Mike Flynn, a retired army lieutenant general who described Islam as “a vicious cancer” and said “fear of Muslims is rational”, will help Trump direct US military policy. Suggesting that Flynn is “ill, mentally”, Khan is deeply concerned about the implications for foreign relations.

Not that the appointment should be surprising. Having dismissed Mexican migrants as rapists and criminals in his first campaign speech, Trump told voters rattled by terrorist attacks in California and Paris that he would ban all Muslims from entering the US. He later proposed barring only those from countries compromised by extremism.

Khan doesn’t expect Trump to actually implement the ban, nor a new “registry” of Muslims he also floated. These were more likely cynical ploys “to get votes from the simple-minded people that fell for it”, he says. But damage has still been done.

It was Trump’s announcement of the Muslim ban last year that led a reporter to call Khan, who was quoted hailing his son’s patriotism and sharply criticising Trump. “Muslims are American, Muslims are citizens,” he said. An aide to Hillary Clinton saw the article, and invited Khan to appear at July’s convention in Philadelphia. His six-minute speech, with Ghazala at his side, caused a sensation.

Khan holds up the US constitution at Democratic national convention.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Khan holds up the US constitution at Democratic national convention. Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty Images
“You have sacrificed nothing and no one,” he told Trump, who avoided serving in Vietnam because of alleged bone spurs on his feet. Waving a miniature US constitution that he’d pulled from his jacket pocket, Khan asked Trump if he’d even read the document. “I will gladly lend you my copy,” he said, to thundering applause. Khan keeps a stack of the booklets on a table beneath Humayun’s portrait. Visitors struggle to leave without one.

Incapable of letting a slight go unanswered, Trump called Khan “very emotional” and suggested he didn’t allow Ghazala to speak because of their religion. He moaned on Twitter: “Mr Khan, who does not know me, viciously attacked me from the stage of the DNC and is now all over TV doing the same – Nice!”

Horrified Republicans disowned Trump. Khan said he had a “black soul”. The dispute was pencilled in as a chapter in the political obituary Trump seemed to be writing for himself.

Things turned out differently. As the results rolled in last month, the Khans were VIP guests at Clinton’s election night event in Manhattan, where Ghazala was treated as a rockstar by actual rockstars. “A lady comes to Mrs Khan and says: ‘Mrs Khan, can I take a picture with you?’,” he recalls. “She pulled the hood on her hoodie down … and it was Cher.” Katy Perry and Lady Gaga did the same, he said.

But then, “it all got quieter”. Tearful supporters, who had been dancing in the aisles, traipsed out of the hall as the outcome became clear.

Khan, 66 and on a break from work as a legal consultant, has tried to stay upbeat by stepping up a speaking tour that grew out of his convention appearance. He has been preaching tolerance and pluralism to schoolchildren across the US. “Never be disheartened,” he tells them.

The packed schedule has exhausted him. Sniffing and coughing, he visibly drains over the course of our two-hour conversation. He is posing for photographs with a team of Japanese journalists as I arrive; an evening function beckons after I leave.

But he is energised by encounters while traversing the country as a recognisable face. Sitting in the eighth row on a recent flight home from Ohio, he was approached by two men sitting in first class. They shook his hand and offered him their seats. “We voted for Trump, but we want to thank you,” they told him. He politely declined.

As we speak, Ghazala, 65, is busy with one of their four grandchildren, who are between eight months and five years old. She and Khan were born in Pakistan and met at university in Lahore. They came to the US after a spell in Dubai, and live in a smart but unflashy four-bedroom house on a tranquil bluff a few miles outside Charlottesville. They have two adult sons, who advised them against getting involved in politics.

Sinking slowly into his sofa, Khan says the volume of abusive emails he received following the convention has declined, but he still deals with a couple of racist messages each day. He won’t show the worst, saying he erases them. In one new arrival on his iPhone, though, a man named Scott Glover felt the need to gleefully remind Khan: “Trump won the election and you, Hillary and the rest of the deplorable libs lost.”

Rightwing websites including Breitbart News, run until recently by Trump’s top adviser, went after the Khans with undisguised venom following the convention. One spurious story, based on a 33-year-old essay Khan wrote, claimed he championed sharia law. Another accused him of taking money from the Clintons. It was actually another lawyer named Khan.

Such was the vitriol that Clinton, who knows a bit about brutal media coverage, asked him when they met at a rally in New Hampshire: “Oh my God, how are you putting up with all this?” He told her it was worth it, and she assured him: “You’re doing something good.” He has no regrets about entering the political warzone: “There comes a time when one has to take a stand.”

Khan at his son’s grave.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Khan at his son’s grave. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
And much of the response has been cheering. Their dining room table is covered in fanmail from across the world. Letters addressed with only their names and Charlottesville now find their way to the house. Khan is particularly proud of one letter, which he pulls from an A4 brown envelope. “Mayor of London,” the header says.

“As Salaamu Alaikum,” meaning “peace be unto you”, the two-page handwritten letter from Sadiq Khan begins. Saying that he was “deeply moved” by the convention speech, London’s first Muslim mayor tells Khan it demonstrated the power of “diversity, tolerance and liberty”.

“These great American values are also Islamic values,” the mayor writes, “and your determination to live by these values has inspired many Londoners of all faiths and backgrounds.”

A bitter argument has broken out among Democrats since Clinton’s defeat about whether she spent too much time on these issues of identity and not enough appealing to struggling white males of the rust belt. Khan sides with those who dismiss this as a false dichotomy.

“I am biased,” he says, “but sometimes a moral stand has to be taken, and it’s worth the cost. I am glad that she spoke up. I believe in equal dignity. We all have equal rights regardless of our gender or our preferences.”

Nonetheless, Khan, a political independent who voted for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, does think Hillary also failed to stress the dangers of Trump’s wild economic threats against China for the farmers and factory workers of the midwest.

“You will not be able to sell your soybeans if we have a trade war with China,” he says. “They will rot right here, and we will have the same people who voted Trump in standing outside the White House trying to throw him out.”

He makes the case better than Clinton did, but has no interest in running for office. He reveals Terry McAuliffe, Virginia’s governor and a close ally of the Clintons, asked him to. “But it would limit me,” he says. “Just let me speak.” He is also, he notes, still not a Democrat.

It may be the tiredness talking, or the practised search for optimism of a parent who has lived through the worst possible grief. But Khan veers from despair about Trump’s election to predictions that maybe it won’t be as bad as it seems. “We just have to hang in there a little longer,” he says. “When he moves to Washington, things will surely be different.”

One thing he’s sure about, though, is “Trump needs to come off Twitter”. Khan stays away from social media, having seen its perils. In his legal career, Khan specialises in electronic evidence discovery. In one case he worked on, a driver involved in a deadly 2007 vehicle crash was told by his lawyer to erase a Facebook photo showing him holding a beer and wearing a T-shirt that read “I ♥ Hot Moms”. But the other side had already downloaded it. The lawyer is now serving a five-year suspension.

“Nobody is telling Trump the damage it can do,” says Khan. He does not, however, offer his services as a consultant to the president-elect.

At a loss for many more words of his own, Khan unfolds a printout he shows his student audiences. It is a quotation by Elie Wiesel, the writer and Auschwitz survivor, who died in July. It is what he believes.



“We must always take sides,” Wiesel said. “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.”

'Is a Tweet policy?' State Department officials ponder - Reuters

By Arshad Mohammed | WASHINGTON
When is a tweet just a tweet?
A debate is percolating in the U.S. State Department, where diplomats measure their words with demitasse spoons, on how to handle Donald Trump's Twitter commentary if he continues to tweet after he becomes U.S. president on Jan. 20.
By tradition, anything the president says is regarded as U.S. policy and can be repeated to foreign officials without fear of contradiction, at least from the White House.
But Trump has questioned bedrock planks of U.S. policy, such as whether Taiwan is part of "one China" or whether Washington would defend NATO allies, causing consternation at home and abroad.
"I have never hesitated to take anything that POTUS said in speeches, press conferences, and other remarks as anything but policy," a midlevel diplomat who has served on four continents wrote Dec. 7 on an internal State Department discussion board, in reference to the President of the United States (POTUS).
"But what about tweets?" he asked.
"Given the president-elect's penchant for using (Twitter) in a much more spontaneous context than most other USG officials, how should FSOs regard those statements?" he added, referring to U.S. government (USG) foreign service officers (FSOs).
"In theory, we all should have a firm grasp of what is hyberbole (sic) and what is not, but in practice we should not be so sure. I for one am done making assumptions in this area for at least the next four years," the diplomat added.
He then appealed to the State Department's Bureau of Public Affairs to issue an ALDAC, or formal message to "All Diplomatic and Consular Posts," clarifying matters.
The post, titled "Is a Tweet policy?" on "The Sounding Board," a forum on the State Department's intranet, prompted thoughtful, though equally perplexed, comments.
Another official wrote that he was confident President Barack Obama's comments are to be taken "seriously and literally", Trump may want his tweets to be taken both "seriously and figuratively," he wrote.
"Assuming there is a strategy here, it would seem that it would be to create a sense of ambiguity around issues previously thought to be settled for the purpose of leveraging a better deal to advance USG interests," he added. "Miscommunication may be the very purpose of the President Elect's tweets."
A spokesman for the State Department said it would have no comment on how the next administration and president may use social media.
Obama has tweeted since 2015 from the account @POTUS.
Rather than suggesting specific policies, Obama used the handle to encourage Americans to vote, to cheerlead for Hillary Clinton, Trump's election opponent, and to remember the recently deceased, including writer Elie Wiesel and golfer Arnold Palmer.
Trump wins U.S. Electoral College vote; a few electors break ranks
Trump nominates trading firm founder Viola as Army secretary
From his Twitter account, @realdonaldtrump, Trump has mocked Clinton as "Crooked Hillary," attacked a former Miss Universe and sniped at the parents of a Muslim American U.S. Army captain who died in Iraq after the soldier's father spoke against him.
On Nov. 27, he tweeted "I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally" but provided no evidence for the claim, which electoral officials have denied. Trump lost the popular vote by close to three million votes.
The president-elect has not said definitively whether he will continue tweeting after Jan. 20. Trump's transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A third official said the entire government would need to deal with the issue to "limit the amount of miscommunication a specific POTUS tweet could engender."
"As the great Bette Davis line goes, 'Fasten your seatbelt, it's going to be a bumpy ride,'" he wrote.
(Reporting by Arshad Mohammed, additional reporting by Timothy Gardner, Steve Holland and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Andrew Hay)