April 9, 2018
Kim Jong Un willing to discuss getting rid of North Korea's nukes, US says
By Nicole Darrah | Fox News
North Korea says it's ready to discuss denuclearization
North Korea has told the Trump administration that Kim Jong Un is ready to discuss denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un said he's willing to talk with President Trump about getting rid of North Korea's nuclear weapons as part of a denuclearization across the Korean Peninsula, a Trump administration official confirmed to Fox News on Sunday.
The confirmation came ahead of a meeting between the two leaders, which officials have suggested would take place by May.
NORTH KOREA BEGINS TESTING EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR AT NUCLEAR SITE DESPITE 'DENUCLEARIZATION' TALK
And while Trump tweeted on March 28 that he was looking forward to the meeting, saying, "There is a good chance that Kim Jong Un will do what is right for his people and for humanity," many analysts have expressed skepticism about the secretive regime's intentions.
Meeting between two Koreas slated for April ahead of Trump-Kim summit. Greg Palkot has the latest developments.Video
North and South Korea plan historic meeting at DMZ
"It's possible that Kim Jong Un has a different meaning in mind," Abraham Denmark, a former senior U.S. defense official said, noting that a possible denuclearization offer appears to be contingent on the U.S. creating the right conditions. "So far it sounds like the same old tune."
South Korea, which has shuttled between Pyongyang and Washington to set up the talks, said Kim had expressed willingness to discuss giving up nuclear weapons during his upcoming meetings with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Trump, but North Korea hadn't confirmed such discussions until Sunday.
The rogue nation's abrupt diplomatic outreach in recent months has brought a temporary lull to tensions sparked by its nuclear weapons and missile tests last year that resulted in Kim and Trump exchanging crude insults and threats of war.
DENNIS RODMAN: I HOPE KIM JONG UN WEARS A 'MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN' HAT AFTER MEETING TRUMP
However, increased activity was spotted by satellite at a North Korean nuclear site in February, photos of which suggest the North has begun preliminary testing of an experimental light water reactor and possibly brought another reactor online at its Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center.
Both could be used to produce the fissile materials needed for nuclear bombs.
Fox News' Rich Edson, Katherine Lam and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Monday, April 9, 2018
China blames U.S for trade frictions, says negotiations currently impossible - Reuters
APRIL 9, 2018 / 5:43 PM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO
China blames U.S for trade frictions, says negotiations currently impossible
Kevin Yao, Christian Shepherd
BOAO, China (Reuters) - China stepped up its attacks on the Trump administration on Monday over billions of dollars worth of threatened tariffs, saying Washington is to blame for frictions and repeating that it was impossible to negotiate under “current circumstances”.
A worker works at a furnace at a steel plant of Dalian Special Steel Co Ltd in Dalian, Liaoning province, China April 8, 2018. REUTERS/Stringer
The comments come after U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday predicted China would take down its trade barriers, and expressed optimism that both sides could resolve the issue through talks.
Chinese state researchers and media talked down the likely impact of U.S. trade measures on the world’s second largest economy and described the Trump administration’s posturing on trade as the product of an “anxiety disorder”.
“Under the current circumstances, both sides even more cannot have talks on these issues, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters at a regular news briefing.
“The United States with one hand wields the threat of sanctions, and at the same time says they are willing to talk. I’m not sure who the United States is putting on this act for,” Geng said.
China blames U.S for trade frictions, says negotiations currently impossible
China's premier says need to oppose unilateralism, trade protectionism
China's premier says need to oppose unilateralism, trade protectionism
The trade frictions were “entirely at the provocation of the United States”, he added.
Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Qian Keming said at the Boao Forum for Asia in the southern province of Hainan, that Beijing did not want to fight a trade war, but was not afraid of one.
Focus this week will be on the forum, with President Xi Jinping and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde delivering speeches on Tuesday.
“GREAT WALL OF DENIAL”
The U.S. move last week to threaten China with tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods was aimed at forcing Beijing to address what Washington says is deeply entrenched theft of U.S. intellectual property and forced technology transfer from U.S. companies.
Beijing’s claims that Washington is the aggressor and is spurring global protectionism, though China’s trading partners for years have complained that it abuses World Trade Organization rules, and practices unfair industrial policies at home that lock foreign companies out of crucial sectors with the intent of creating domestic champions.
After repeated pledges to open up sectors such as financial services, Trump has said in speeches that the United States will no longer let China take advantage of it on trade.
“China’s reaction to Mr. Trump’s legitimate defense of the American homeland has been a Great Wall of denial — despite incontrovertible evidence of Beijing’s illicit and protectionist behaviors,” White House trade advisor Peter Navarro said in a commentary in the Financial Times on Monday.
A worker checks aluminium rolls at a warehouse inside an industrial park in Binzhou, Shandong province, China April 7, 2018. China Daily via REUTERS
“Nothing less than the U.S.’s economic future is at risk from China’s assault on American technology and IP, and its mercantilist bid to capture emerging high-tech industries,” he said.
Chinese officials deny such charges, and responded within hours of Trump’s announcement of tariffs with their own proposed commensurate duties. The move prompted Trump to threaten duties on an additional $100 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods.
None of the measures have yet gone into effect.
China’s ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai said in an interview in China’s Securities Daily newspaper that the United States should “adopt a more responsible attitude” on trade or it would harm itself with its own policies.
“Some people in the United States are still accustomed to being the world leader, and haven’t adapted to the change in the global situation,” Cui said.
The Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper described U.S. trade policies as a populist tilt by Trump ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections, but that the steps would ultimately end up hurting U.S. households through higher consumer prices.
“In the world’s perception, the U.S. is overshadowed by an anxiety disorder and is very keen to show its anxiety,” the newspaper said.
“IMPACT WILL BE LIMITED”
A researcher with China’s state planning agency said China’s economy will see little impact from the trade dispute, as the country’s vast domestic market can compensate for any external impact.
“As China’s economy is stable and improving ... the China-U.S. trade friction will impact our economy, but the impact will be limited,” Wang Changlin, a researcher at the National Development and Reform Commission, wrote in a post on the commission’s official microblog account.
Even with the U.S. tariffs, China can still reach its 2018 GDP growth target of around 6.5 percent and the impact on employment will be limited, Wang wrote.
Fan Gang, an influential economist and adviser to China’s central bank, on Sunday flagged the possibility of a U.S. trade war as the U.S. economy faces pressure from China’s rapid development.
Discussion of the trade dispute also touched on the possibility of China leveraging its massive holdings of U.S. government debt, which has been dubbed the “nuclear option”.
Zhang Yuyan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government think-tank, said China was unlikely to sell off its holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds as a tactic in its trade dispute with the United States.
“On whether China will reduce its foreign exchange reserves, how policymakers think, I don’t know. I personally believe this possibility is very small,” Zhang said on Sunday in Boao.
China is evaluating the potential impact of a gradual yuan depreciation as a tool in the trade dispute, Bloomberg News reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter, though it said the analysis doesn’t mean officials will carry out the move.
Reporting by Kevin Yao, Christian Shepherd, Andrew Galbraith and Stella Qiu; Writing by Elias Glenn and Michael Martina; Editing by Sam Holmes
China blames U.S for trade frictions, says negotiations currently impossible
Kevin Yao, Christian Shepherd
BOAO, China (Reuters) - China stepped up its attacks on the Trump administration on Monday over billions of dollars worth of threatened tariffs, saying Washington is to blame for frictions and repeating that it was impossible to negotiate under “current circumstances”.
A worker works at a furnace at a steel plant of Dalian Special Steel Co Ltd in Dalian, Liaoning province, China April 8, 2018. REUTERS/Stringer
The comments come after U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday predicted China would take down its trade barriers, and expressed optimism that both sides could resolve the issue through talks.
Chinese state researchers and media talked down the likely impact of U.S. trade measures on the world’s second largest economy and described the Trump administration’s posturing on trade as the product of an “anxiety disorder”.
“Under the current circumstances, both sides even more cannot have talks on these issues, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters at a regular news briefing.
“The United States with one hand wields the threat of sanctions, and at the same time says they are willing to talk. I’m not sure who the United States is putting on this act for,” Geng said.
China blames U.S for trade frictions, says negotiations currently impossible
China's premier says need to oppose unilateralism, trade protectionism
China's premier says need to oppose unilateralism, trade protectionism
The trade frictions were “entirely at the provocation of the United States”, he added.
Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Qian Keming said at the Boao Forum for Asia in the southern province of Hainan, that Beijing did not want to fight a trade war, but was not afraid of one.
Focus this week will be on the forum, with President Xi Jinping and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde delivering speeches on Tuesday.
“GREAT WALL OF DENIAL”
The U.S. move last week to threaten China with tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods was aimed at forcing Beijing to address what Washington says is deeply entrenched theft of U.S. intellectual property and forced technology transfer from U.S. companies.
Beijing’s claims that Washington is the aggressor and is spurring global protectionism, though China’s trading partners for years have complained that it abuses World Trade Organization rules, and practices unfair industrial policies at home that lock foreign companies out of crucial sectors with the intent of creating domestic champions.
After repeated pledges to open up sectors such as financial services, Trump has said in speeches that the United States will no longer let China take advantage of it on trade.
“China’s reaction to Mr. Trump’s legitimate defense of the American homeland has been a Great Wall of denial — despite incontrovertible evidence of Beijing’s illicit and protectionist behaviors,” White House trade advisor Peter Navarro said in a commentary in the Financial Times on Monday.
A worker checks aluminium rolls at a warehouse inside an industrial park in Binzhou, Shandong province, China April 7, 2018. China Daily via REUTERS
“Nothing less than the U.S.’s economic future is at risk from China’s assault on American technology and IP, and its mercantilist bid to capture emerging high-tech industries,” he said.
Chinese officials deny such charges, and responded within hours of Trump’s announcement of tariffs with their own proposed commensurate duties. The move prompted Trump to threaten duties on an additional $100 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods.
None of the measures have yet gone into effect.
China’s ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai said in an interview in China’s Securities Daily newspaper that the United States should “adopt a more responsible attitude” on trade or it would harm itself with its own policies.
“Some people in the United States are still accustomed to being the world leader, and haven’t adapted to the change in the global situation,” Cui said.
The Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper described U.S. trade policies as a populist tilt by Trump ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections, but that the steps would ultimately end up hurting U.S. households through higher consumer prices.
“In the world’s perception, the U.S. is overshadowed by an anxiety disorder and is very keen to show its anxiety,” the newspaper said.
“IMPACT WILL BE LIMITED”
A researcher with China’s state planning agency said China’s economy will see little impact from the trade dispute, as the country’s vast domestic market can compensate for any external impact.
“As China’s economy is stable and improving ... the China-U.S. trade friction will impact our economy, but the impact will be limited,” Wang Changlin, a researcher at the National Development and Reform Commission, wrote in a post on the commission’s official microblog account.
Even with the U.S. tariffs, China can still reach its 2018 GDP growth target of around 6.5 percent and the impact on employment will be limited, Wang wrote.
Fan Gang, an influential economist and adviser to China’s central bank, on Sunday flagged the possibility of a U.S. trade war as the U.S. economy faces pressure from China’s rapid development.
Discussion of the trade dispute also touched on the possibility of China leveraging its massive holdings of U.S. government debt, which has been dubbed the “nuclear option”.
Zhang Yuyan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government think-tank, said China was unlikely to sell off its holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds as a tactic in its trade dispute with the United States.
“On whether China will reduce its foreign exchange reserves, how policymakers think, I don’t know. I personally believe this possibility is very small,” Zhang said on Sunday in Boao.
China is evaluating the potential impact of a gradual yuan depreciation as a tool in the trade dispute, Bloomberg News reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter, though it said the analysis doesn’t mean officials will carry out the move.
Reporting by Kevin Yao, Christian Shepherd, Andrew Galbraith and Stella Qiu; Writing by Elias Glenn and Michael Martina; Editing by Sam Holmes
Bhutan's 'Shangri-La' caught between two rival superpowers - BBC News
April 9, 2018
Bhutan's 'Shangri-La' caught between two rival superpowers
By Anbarasan Ethirajan
BBC News, Thimphu
Bhutan has beautiful hilltops and monasteries
With its scenic mountains and stunning Buddhist monasteries on hilltops, Bhutan is a traveller's dream and described by some as the last Shangri-La - a mystical beautiful place where everything is perfection.
The country's capital, Thimphu, is a refreshing delight to those who are tired of traffic and pollution in mega cities. The fresh air and the lush green mountains and snow peaks in the distance offer a visual treat.
Men, women and children calmly walk around in the country's traditional attire. It is probably the only country in the world where there are no traffic signals - just traffic police officers giving hand signals.
But beneath the surface, this picture-postcard country has been experiencing an undercurrent of tension and nervousness since last year.
Sandwiched between two Asian giants - China in the north and India in the south - the Himalayan nation, with a population of about 800,000, was anxious when troops from the two military powers squared up to each other over their border dispute.
The flare-up was in a strategic plateau called Doklam - situated in the tri-junction between India, Bhutan and China.
The remote mountainous region of Doklam is disputed. Bhutan and China both claim the area. India supports Bhutan's claim over it.
When China started to expand an unpaved road in June 2017, Indian troops went across and stopped the work, triggering a face-off between the two sides.
Delhi argued that the road had security implications. The fear is that in any future conflict, Chinese troops can use it to seize India's strategically important Siliguri Corridor, known as the Chicken's Neck, which connects the Indian mainland with its north-eastern states.
Some experts said the fears were far-fetched.
Image caption
Namgay Zam: "Most people don't even know where Doklam is"
But many Bhutanese were unaware of the strategic importance of Doklam.
"Doklam was insignificant until it became a controversial issue a few months ago. Most Bhutanese don't even know where Doklam is," says Namgay Zam, a multimedia journalist in Thimphu.
She adds: "It became a matter of contention and discussion only after it blew up as a controversial issue between China and India".
The tense stand-off between Chinese and Indian troops in Doklam raised concerns among many Bhutanese that it could trigger a war between the two Asian giants. Beijing angrily denounced what it described as a "trespass of Indian troops".
After weeks of hectic diplomacy by the Indian and Chinese leadership, the 73-day face-off was brought to an end. Indian troops finally withdrew.
People's Daily,China
✔
@PDChina
Replying to @PDChina
#UPDATE: India has pulled back all border personnel and equipment from the border standoff site at Doklam as of Monday afternoon: Chinese FM
5:49 PM - Aug 28, 2017
The Bhutanese government refuses to publicly discuss the Doklam stand-off, but it issued a cautious statement last August welcoming what it described as "the disengagement by the two sides".
Many in Bhutan say the flare up was a wakeup call.
There was a passionate discussion on social media over whether it was time for Bhutan to settle its border dispute with China and follow an independent foreign policy. Some even argued that Bhutan should come out of India's influence.
Disputes along the long border between China and India remain unresolved in several areas
After Tibet was invaded and annexed by China in the 1950s, Bhutan immediately turned south - towards India - for friendship and security. Since then it has been under India's sphere of influence.
India provides economic, military and technical help to Bhutan. The Himalayan nation is the largest recipient of India's foreign aid. India gave nearly $800 million to Bhutan's last five-year economic plan.
Hundreds of Indian soldiers are stationed inside Bhutan and officials say they offer training to Bhutanese troops. Its military headquarters is in the western town of Haa, about 20km (12 miles) from Doklam.
While many Bhutanese are thankful to India for its assistance over the decades, others, particularly the young, want the country to chart its own course.
Bhutan has a population of just 800,000
Bhutan's foreign policy takes India's security concerns into account because of a special treaty, signed first in 1949. The treaty was revised in 2007 but it gave Bhutan more freedom in areas of foreign policy and military purchases.
Some here feel India's influence has been overbearing and stifling.
"As we mature [as a democracy] we have to get out of India's shadow. India also should not think of Bhutan as what some people refer to as a 'vassal state'. Let Bhutan decide its own political future," argues Gopilal Acharya, a writer and political analyst.
Bhutan and China have disputes over territory in the north and in the west. There is a growing feeling within Bhutan that it is time for the country to reach a settlement with China.
"Bhutan actually needs to resolve this issue with China at the earliest, that's what I feel. After that we may be able to move forward diplomatically or otherwise this [Doklam] problem is going to reoccur," says Karma Tenzin, a political commentator.
"We cannot afford to have two superpowers lock their horns at the doorstep of a peaceful nation like Bhutan."
Several people who I spoke with in Thimphu argue that India could have shown restraint and avoided a face-off with China.
They think India's stance might have an impact in Bhutan's efforts to solve its long-standing border dispute with Beijing.
Gopilal Acharya says Bhutan has to pull itself out from India's shadow
India has been unable to stop the Chinese making inroads into other south Asian countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Bangladesh. Bhutan is the only country in the region which has no formal diplomatic relations with Beijing.
There is also resentment among several Bhutanese who feel that India has been unfairly treating them in exploiting its natural resources. Delhi's "big brother" attitude, they say, could lead to people calling for more trade links with China. They point to Nepal playing the China card vis-à-vis its relations with India.
"For us, our future is with India. But we should forge a new kind of relationship which is equal between India and Bhutan. We have to look for new areas of engagement on equal footing," says Mr Acharya.
While India grapples with the challenge of a rising China, both militarily and economically, it is also in danger of losing its allies if its foreign policy is not based on mutual respect.
Bhutan may be a tiny Himalayan nation but it holds a strategic card. It does not want to be squeezed in India-China rivalry. The last thing they want to see is Chinese and Indian armies squaring up to each other once again near their border.
Bhutan's 'Shangri-La' caught between two rival superpowers
By Anbarasan Ethirajan
BBC News, Thimphu
Bhutan has beautiful hilltops and monasteries
With its scenic mountains and stunning Buddhist monasteries on hilltops, Bhutan is a traveller's dream and described by some as the last Shangri-La - a mystical beautiful place where everything is perfection.
The country's capital, Thimphu, is a refreshing delight to those who are tired of traffic and pollution in mega cities. The fresh air and the lush green mountains and snow peaks in the distance offer a visual treat.
Men, women and children calmly walk around in the country's traditional attire. It is probably the only country in the world where there are no traffic signals - just traffic police officers giving hand signals.
But beneath the surface, this picture-postcard country has been experiencing an undercurrent of tension and nervousness since last year.
Sandwiched between two Asian giants - China in the north and India in the south - the Himalayan nation, with a population of about 800,000, was anxious when troops from the two military powers squared up to each other over their border dispute.
The flare-up was in a strategic plateau called Doklam - situated in the tri-junction between India, Bhutan and China.
The remote mountainous region of Doklam is disputed. Bhutan and China both claim the area. India supports Bhutan's claim over it.
When China started to expand an unpaved road in June 2017, Indian troops went across and stopped the work, triggering a face-off between the two sides.
Delhi argued that the road had security implications. The fear is that in any future conflict, Chinese troops can use it to seize India's strategically important Siliguri Corridor, known as the Chicken's Neck, which connects the Indian mainland with its north-eastern states.
Some experts said the fears were far-fetched.
Image caption
Namgay Zam: "Most people don't even know where Doklam is"
But many Bhutanese were unaware of the strategic importance of Doklam.
"Doklam was insignificant until it became a controversial issue a few months ago. Most Bhutanese don't even know where Doklam is," says Namgay Zam, a multimedia journalist in Thimphu.
She adds: "It became a matter of contention and discussion only after it blew up as a controversial issue between China and India".
The tense stand-off between Chinese and Indian troops in Doklam raised concerns among many Bhutanese that it could trigger a war between the two Asian giants. Beijing angrily denounced what it described as a "trespass of Indian troops".
After weeks of hectic diplomacy by the Indian and Chinese leadership, the 73-day face-off was brought to an end. Indian troops finally withdrew.
People's Daily,China
✔
@PDChina
Replying to @PDChina
#UPDATE: India has pulled back all border personnel and equipment from the border standoff site at Doklam as of Monday afternoon: Chinese FM
5:49 PM - Aug 28, 2017
The Bhutanese government refuses to publicly discuss the Doklam stand-off, but it issued a cautious statement last August welcoming what it described as "the disengagement by the two sides".
Many in Bhutan say the flare up was a wakeup call.
There was a passionate discussion on social media over whether it was time for Bhutan to settle its border dispute with China and follow an independent foreign policy. Some even argued that Bhutan should come out of India's influence.
Disputes along the long border between China and India remain unresolved in several areas
After Tibet was invaded and annexed by China in the 1950s, Bhutan immediately turned south - towards India - for friendship and security. Since then it has been under India's sphere of influence.
India provides economic, military and technical help to Bhutan. The Himalayan nation is the largest recipient of India's foreign aid. India gave nearly $800 million to Bhutan's last five-year economic plan.
Hundreds of Indian soldiers are stationed inside Bhutan and officials say they offer training to Bhutanese troops. Its military headquarters is in the western town of Haa, about 20km (12 miles) from Doklam.
While many Bhutanese are thankful to India for its assistance over the decades, others, particularly the young, want the country to chart its own course.
Bhutan has a population of just 800,000
Bhutan's foreign policy takes India's security concerns into account because of a special treaty, signed first in 1949. The treaty was revised in 2007 but it gave Bhutan more freedom in areas of foreign policy and military purchases.
Some here feel India's influence has been overbearing and stifling.
"As we mature [as a democracy] we have to get out of India's shadow. India also should not think of Bhutan as what some people refer to as a 'vassal state'. Let Bhutan decide its own political future," argues Gopilal Acharya, a writer and political analyst.
Bhutan and China have disputes over territory in the north and in the west. There is a growing feeling within Bhutan that it is time for the country to reach a settlement with China.
"Bhutan actually needs to resolve this issue with China at the earliest, that's what I feel. After that we may be able to move forward diplomatically or otherwise this [Doklam] problem is going to reoccur," says Karma Tenzin, a political commentator.
"We cannot afford to have two superpowers lock their horns at the doorstep of a peaceful nation like Bhutan."
Several people who I spoke with in Thimphu argue that India could have shown restraint and avoided a face-off with China.
They think India's stance might have an impact in Bhutan's efforts to solve its long-standing border dispute with Beijing.
Gopilal Acharya says Bhutan has to pull itself out from India's shadow
India has been unable to stop the Chinese making inroads into other south Asian countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Bangladesh. Bhutan is the only country in the region which has no formal diplomatic relations with Beijing.
There is also resentment among several Bhutanese who feel that India has been unfairly treating them in exploiting its natural resources. Delhi's "big brother" attitude, they say, could lead to people calling for more trade links with China. They point to Nepal playing the China card vis-à-vis its relations with India.
"For us, our future is with India. But we should forge a new kind of relationship which is equal between India and Bhutan. We have to look for new areas of engagement on equal footing," says Mr Acharya.
While India grapples with the challenge of a rising China, both militarily and economically, it is also in danger of losing its allies if its foreign policy is not based on mutual respect.
Bhutan may be a tiny Himalayan nation but it holds a strategic card. It does not want to be squeezed in India-China rivalry. The last thing they want to see is Chinese and Indian armies squaring up to each other once again near their border.
Russia sanctions: Shares in Deripaska-controlled firms crash - BBC News
April 9, 2018
Russia sanctions: Shares in Deripaska-controlled firms crash
The US has accused Oleg Deripaska of operating for the Russian government
Shares in firms controlled by Oleg Deripaska have plunged after the US imposed sanctions on seven Russian oligarchs and their companies on Friday.
Shares in the Russian aluminium giant Rusal nearly halved on the Hong Kong stock exchange on Monday.
EN+, another firm controlled by Mr Deripaska, dived by 25% in London.
The sanctions follow a diplomatic crisis sparked by the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal in Salisbury.
The US has accused Mr Deripaska of operating for the Russian government. Other magnates hit by sanctions include Alexei Miller, director of state-owned energy giant Gazprom.
Russia has vowed that there will be a "tough response" to the new sanctions.
The US sanctions affect the seven oligarchs, 12 companies they own or control, as well as 17 senior Russian government officials.
The Russian individuals and companies were targeted for profiting from a Russian state engaged in "malign activities" around the world.
Russia sanctions: Shares in Deripaska-controlled firms crash
The US has accused Oleg Deripaska of operating for the Russian government
Shares in firms controlled by Oleg Deripaska have plunged after the US imposed sanctions on seven Russian oligarchs and their companies on Friday.
Shares in the Russian aluminium giant Rusal nearly halved on the Hong Kong stock exchange on Monday.
EN+, another firm controlled by Mr Deripaska, dived by 25% in London.
The sanctions follow a diplomatic crisis sparked by the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal in Salisbury.
The US has accused Mr Deripaska of operating for the Russian government. Other magnates hit by sanctions include Alexei Miller, director of state-owned energy giant Gazprom.
Russia has vowed that there will be a "tough response" to the new sanctions.
The US sanctions affect the seven oligarchs, 12 companies they own or control, as well as 17 senior Russian government officials.
The Russian individuals and companies were targeted for profiting from a Russian state engaged in "malign activities" around the world.
Syria conflict: Israel blamed for attack on airfield - BBC News
April 9, 2018
Syria conflict: Israel blamed for attack on airfield
A satellite image showing the T4/Tiyas airbase in central Syria
The Syrian government and its ally Russia have blamed Israel for a deadly attack on a Syrian military airport.
Monday's attack hit the Tiyas airbase, known as T4, near the city of Homs. Observers say 14 people were killed.
Israel, which has previously hit Syrian targets, has not commented. Syria initially blamed the US for the strike.
The incident comes amid international alarm over an alleged chemical attack on a Syrian rebel-held town. The US and France had threatened to respond.
US President Donald Trump said there would be a "big price to pay" for the alleged chemical attack in Douma, in the Eastern Ghouta region, near the capital Damascus. He branded Syria's President Bashar al-Assad an "animal".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price...
11:00 PM - Apr 8, 2018
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
....to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!
11:04 PM - Apr 8, 2018
Meanwhile, the last rebel fighters in Douma have surrendered and are being bussed out of the enclave after reaching a deal with the government, Syria's state TV said.
Could Israel be involved?
Syrian state news agency Sana, quoting a military source, reported that air defences had repelled an Israeli missile attack on T4, saying the missiles were fired by Israeli F15 jets in Lebanese airspace.
Russia's defence ministry said that, of eight missiles, five were shot down and three reached the western part of the aerodrome.
Israel rarely acknowledges carrying out strikes, but has admitted attacking targets in Syria dozens of times since 2012. Its heaviest air strike on Syria, in February this year, included targeting the T4 air base.
That followed an incursion by an Iranian drone into Israel and the shooting down by Syrian air defences of an Israeli F16 fighter jet.
Israel has said it will not allow Iran, its arch-foe, to set up bases in Syria or operate from there, something Israel considers a major threat.
The Israeli military said Iran and its Revolutionary Guards had long been active in the T4 base, and were using it to transfer weapons, including to Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah, an enemy of Israel.
They also said the drone had been launched from the base.
Iran building base in Syria - claim
UK-based monitoring group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said that fighters of various nationalities - meaning Iranians or members of Iranian-backed Shia militias - were among the 14 dead at the base.
Complicated equation
By Jonathan Marcus, BBC Defence and Diplomatic correspondent
This attack could be part of Israel's growing effort to contain Iran's military build-up in Syria and to interrupt the supply of advanced Iranian missiles to its Lebanese Shia ally, Hezbollah.
Any Israeli operation would have been closely monitored by Russian air defence radars in Syria. There is also a telephone hot-line between the Israelis and the Russian headquarters in Syria.
So far Moscow has done nothing to interfere with Israel's air operations.
But the presence of Russia's air defences in Syria certainly complicates the strategic equation as Western governments ponder their response to the recent chemical attack.
Is there a connection to the Douma attack?
Mr Trump and France's President Emmanuel Macron issued a joint statement on Sunday vowing to "co-ordinate a strong, joint response" to the alleged chemical attack.
Suspected Syria chemical attack kills scores
But US officials said America did not launch the overnight strike.
"At this time, the Department of Defense is not conducting air strikes in Syria," the Pentagon said in a statement.
A short guide to the Syrian civil war
"However, we continue to closely watch the situation and support the ongoing diplomatic efforts to hold those who use chemical weapons, in Syria and otherwise, accountable."
France also issued a denial.
Sana initially called the reported missile strike on the Tiyas airfield a "suspected US attack", but later dropped the reference to the US.
In April 2017, the US fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria's Shayrat military airfield in response to a chemical weapons attack on a different rebel-held town, Khan Sheikhoun.
What happened in Douma?
Medical sources say dozens of people were killed on Saturday in the attack on Douma, in the Eastern Ghouta region.
One video, recorded by rescue workers known as the White Helmets, shows a number of men, women and children lying lifeless inside a house, many with foam at their mouths.
However, it has not been possible to verify independently what actually happened, or the actual number of dead.
Media captionUnverified video shows children being treated after the alleged gas attack
The UN Security Council is expected to discuss the crisis on Monday.
Both Syria and Russia deny a chemical attack took place, and have reached an evacuation deal with the Jaish al-Islam rebels who hold Douma.
Moscow said military operations there had been halted. Under the deal, 100 buses are said to be moving 8,000 fighters and 40,000 of their relatives out of the battered town. Hostages who had been held by the rebels are being set free.
The development means pro-government forces have now taken full control of Eastern Ghouta.
Analysts say this is President Assad's biggest military success since the fall of Aleppo in 2016. It follows a weeks-long government offensive in which more than 1,600 people were killed.
Syria conflict: Israel blamed for attack on airfield
A satellite image showing the T4/Tiyas airbase in central Syria
The Syrian government and its ally Russia have blamed Israel for a deadly attack on a Syrian military airport.
Monday's attack hit the Tiyas airbase, known as T4, near the city of Homs. Observers say 14 people were killed.
Israel, which has previously hit Syrian targets, has not commented. Syria initially blamed the US for the strike.
The incident comes amid international alarm over an alleged chemical attack on a Syrian rebel-held town. The US and France had threatened to respond.
US President Donald Trump said there would be a "big price to pay" for the alleged chemical attack in Douma, in the Eastern Ghouta region, near the capital Damascus. He branded Syria's President Bashar al-Assad an "animal".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price...
11:00 PM - Apr 8, 2018
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
....to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!
11:04 PM - Apr 8, 2018
Meanwhile, the last rebel fighters in Douma have surrendered and are being bussed out of the enclave after reaching a deal with the government, Syria's state TV said.
Could Israel be involved?
Syrian state news agency Sana, quoting a military source, reported that air defences had repelled an Israeli missile attack on T4, saying the missiles were fired by Israeli F15 jets in Lebanese airspace.
Russia's defence ministry said that, of eight missiles, five were shot down and three reached the western part of the aerodrome.
Israel rarely acknowledges carrying out strikes, but has admitted attacking targets in Syria dozens of times since 2012. Its heaviest air strike on Syria, in February this year, included targeting the T4 air base.
That followed an incursion by an Iranian drone into Israel and the shooting down by Syrian air defences of an Israeli F16 fighter jet.
Israel has said it will not allow Iran, its arch-foe, to set up bases in Syria or operate from there, something Israel considers a major threat.
The Israeli military said Iran and its Revolutionary Guards had long been active in the T4 base, and were using it to transfer weapons, including to Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah, an enemy of Israel.
They also said the drone had been launched from the base.
Iran building base in Syria - claim
UK-based monitoring group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said that fighters of various nationalities - meaning Iranians or members of Iranian-backed Shia militias - were among the 14 dead at the base.
Complicated equation
By Jonathan Marcus, BBC Defence and Diplomatic correspondent
This attack could be part of Israel's growing effort to contain Iran's military build-up in Syria and to interrupt the supply of advanced Iranian missiles to its Lebanese Shia ally, Hezbollah.
Any Israeli operation would have been closely monitored by Russian air defence radars in Syria. There is also a telephone hot-line between the Israelis and the Russian headquarters in Syria.
So far Moscow has done nothing to interfere with Israel's air operations.
But the presence of Russia's air defences in Syria certainly complicates the strategic equation as Western governments ponder their response to the recent chemical attack.
Is there a connection to the Douma attack?
Mr Trump and France's President Emmanuel Macron issued a joint statement on Sunday vowing to "co-ordinate a strong, joint response" to the alleged chemical attack.
Suspected Syria chemical attack kills scores
But US officials said America did not launch the overnight strike.
"At this time, the Department of Defense is not conducting air strikes in Syria," the Pentagon said in a statement.
A short guide to the Syrian civil war
"However, we continue to closely watch the situation and support the ongoing diplomatic efforts to hold those who use chemical weapons, in Syria and otherwise, accountable."
France also issued a denial.
Sana initially called the reported missile strike on the Tiyas airfield a "suspected US attack", but later dropped the reference to the US.
In April 2017, the US fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria's Shayrat military airfield in response to a chemical weapons attack on a different rebel-held town, Khan Sheikhoun.
What happened in Douma?
Medical sources say dozens of people were killed on Saturday in the attack on Douma, in the Eastern Ghouta region.
One video, recorded by rescue workers known as the White Helmets, shows a number of men, women and children lying lifeless inside a house, many with foam at their mouths.
However, it has not been possible to verify independently what actually happened, or the actual number of dead.
Media captionUnverified video shows children being treated after the alleged gas attack
The UN Security Council is expected to discuss the crisis on Monday.
Both Syria and Russia deny a chemical attack took place, and have reached an evacuation deal with the Jaish al-Islam rebels who hold Douma.
Moscow said military operations there had been halted. Under the deal, 100 buses are said to be moving 8,000 fighters and 40,000 of their relatives out of the battered town. Hostages who had been held by the rebels are being set free.
The development means pro-government forces have now taken full control of Eastern Ghouta.
Analysts say this is President Assad's biggest military success since the fall of Aleppo in 2016. It follows a weeks-long government offensive in which more than 1,600 people were killed.
Sunday, April 8, 2018
Republicans Seize on Impeachment for Edge in 2018 Midterms - New York Times
Republicans Seize on Impeachment for Edge in 2018 Midterms
By JONATHAN MARTINAPRIL 8, 2018
Republican leaders are raising money and energizing conservatives with warnings about congressional Democrats who want to impeach President Trump. The Democratic donor Tom Steyer paid for this billboard in Times Square in December. Credit Justin Lane/European Pressphoto Agency
WASHINGTON — As Republican leaders scramble to stave off a Democratic wave or at least mitigate their party’s losses in November, a strategy is emerging on the right for how to energize conservatives and drive a wedge between the anti-Trump left and moderate voters: warn that Democrats will immediately move to impeach President Trump if they capture the House.
What began last year as blaring political hyperbole on the right — the stuff of bold-lettered direct mail fund-raising pitches from little-known groups warning of a looming American “coup” — is now steadily drifting into the main currents of the 2018 message for Republicans.
The appeals have become a surefire way for candidates to raise small contributions from grass-roots conservatives who are devoted to Mr. Trump, veteran Republican fund-raisers say. But party strategists also believe that floating the possibility of impeachment can also act as a sort of scared-straight motivational tool for turnout. Last week, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas used his re-election kickoff rally to introduce a video featuring a faux news anchor reading would-be headlines were conservatives not to vote in November.
“Senate Majority Leader Schumer announced the impeachment trial of President Trump,” one of the anchors says.
And when Representative Steve Stivers of Ohio, the chairman of the House Republican campaign organization, convened about two dozen party strategists in February for a private dinner at a French bistro here, the attendees were surprised when he raised an issue not included in his formal PowerPoint presentation: the threat of impeachment against Mr. Trump, which he said fired up the party base.
In Texas, Ted Cruz Is Facing an Unusual Challenge: A Formidably Financed Democrat APRIL 3, 2018
CONGRESSIONAL MEMO
Even Republicans Have Used the ‘I’ Word, but Would Firing Mueller Get Trump Impeached? APRIL 1, 2018
A Billionaire Keeps Pushing to Impeach Trump. Democrats Are Rattled. JAN. 23, 2018
Then there is the most prominent Republican to have started invoking the specter of a Democratic-controlled House impeaching Mr. Trump: the president himself. In just the last month, he has used three separate speeches to warn that Representative Maxine Waters, a veteran California Democrat he has casually insulted as a “low-I.Q. individual,” aims to impeach him.
Advisers to the president say they have made clear to him that Republican control of the House is tenuous, and some have encouraged him to more aggressively lay out the stakes for the midterm elections, including who exactly would be in charge of key committees should Democrats retake the chamber.
“Everybody has told him that,” Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, said about the prospect of a Democratic takeover of the House. “The threat of impeachment is something that unifies everybody in the party, even if you’re not a big Trump supporter.”
Democrats are divided on how to respond to the charge. Many top officials in the capital fear it is a political trap that would distract from their core message and possibly even boomerang back to harm them in November. But other more progressive figures see impeachment as a rallying cry of their own to galvanize the left’s anti-Trump base.
“I’ve been urging members to refrain from discussing impeachment,” said Representative Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, adding: “I think we should let these investigations conclude and see what evidence is found.”
The mere thought of impeachment could energize Trump supporters who may otherwise be disinclined to vote in the midterm elections without him on the ballot, supporters of the strategy say.
“I can’t even imagine the Democrats would go there,” said Mark Lundberg, the former chairman of the Sioux County Republican committee in Iowa. “Impeachment for what? For being rude to them? That would be so outrageous.”
And to those voters in the political center who may be uneasy with, or simply exhausted by, his tumultuous administration, the possibility of an even more chaotic 2019 in Washington is unappealing.
Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a member of the House Republican leadership, predicted that the possibility of impeachment would divide the hard left from the broader political mainstream.
“It separates their base from reasonable, rational people that decide elections,” said Mr. McHenry, noting that this bloc of the electorate does not “want to put people in power that are going to create complete chaos and in essence shut down any potential legislative progress.”
But the mere fact that Republicans are talking by early spring about running on an impeachment threat reveals the depth of their challenge going into this fall’s election. The first midterm campaign of a new administration is typically difficult for the president’s party. But the tempestuous Mr. Trump has compounded the Republicans’ difficulties by generating an unending stream of made-for-TV controversies that overshadow their policy achievements and the health of the economy.
There are voices in the Republican Party who believe that it is too soon to sound the alarm, and that doing so will come off as overly panicked. Indeed, what is striking about the politics of impeachment is that both parties are divided over how to navigate the issue in the midterm campaign.
Polls show most voters are not supportive of impeachment at the moment, but if Mr. Trump were to fire the White House special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, the country would become about evenly divided on the question.
Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.
In January, 66 House Democrats, over a third of the caucus, voted to begin impeachment proceedings. That was eight more than the total number who voted for a similar measure in the House a month earlier.
“I think he’s committed impeachable offenses,” said Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, adding that waiting for the special counsel is risky because Mr. Mueller’s inquiry may never “see the light of day.”
The Democratic leadership, though, has sought to tamp down these impulses. They believe Republicans are setting a trap and are irritated that the billionaire donor Tom Steyer, who recently said he wants to host a series of primary debates this year, is trumpeting the issue. These Democrats argue that the party needs to focus on a substantive agenda and assure voters that they will exercise sober and reasonable oversight of Mr. Trump.
On Thursday, the House Democratic campaign organization released a memo based on an internal poll that urged candidates to “express a willingness to work with the president when his agenda might help the district.”
“If impeachment becomes a political tool instead of the end result of a credible investigation, then you are as guilty as Trump, in some ways, of taking a hammer blow to institutions,” said David Axelrod, former President Barack Obama’s onetime chief strategist, adding that it would also create risks in swing districts. “To say I’m for impeachment come hell or high water is to promise chaos.”
And Democratic lawmakers say they are wise to the bait that Mr. Trump is placing before them when he invokes Ms. Waters, an outspoken black woman whose jeremiads against the president conservative media outlets delight in amplifying.
“They’re trying to encourage us to be more out front on impeachment so then they can use that to rev up their base and say, ‘That’s all the Democrats care about,’” said Representative Dina Titus of Nevada, a political-science professor by training.
To some Republican strategists, waving the bloody shirt of impeachment is unwise — at least this early in the election season.
“Republicans should leave that insanity to the left,” said Mike Shields, who worked for former Speaker Newt Gingrich during the Clinton impeachment wars of the 1990s. “We should be talking about the soaring economy, record low unemployment, 90 percent of workers getting tax cuts, defeating ISIS, and peace through strength on the Korean Peninsula.”
But other veteran party officials say what they are doing now is precisely what Democrats should have done to rouse their own voters, and protect their House majority, in the elections leading up to former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998.
“If the Democrats had been smart in ’94 and ’96, this would have been their message,” said Ralph Reed, a longtime Republican strategist, noting that buildup of what he called a “Clinton investigatory complex” made it clear Republicans intended to eventually impeach Mr. Clinton.
The group Mr. Reed runs, the Faith & Freedom Coalition, recently sent out a fund-raising solicitation seeking small contributions that warned about what it called the “Impeachment Election!” “Will you do your part to help stop this coup attempt by the radical anti-Christian left and the media against our duly elected president?” the letter read, with “stop” and “coup” in all capitals.
A direct mail solicitation from the Faith & Freedom Coalition. Credit
Other groups, some even more marginal, have filled the mailboxes of grass-roots conservatives with similar high-decibel appeals.
But what is notable is how this fire-and-brimstone approach is making its way into the party’s mainstream.
Last week, America Rising, a Washington-area candidate-tracking and opposition-research firm that assists Republicans, sent out a fund-raising email that read, “Right now the only thing standing between the president and the Democrats’ underhanded impeachment attempts is the Republican majority in the House fighting to defend our president.”
Or as Representative Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, a Republican, put in last week in a talk radio interview: “Do you think that the far-left Resist movement base of the Democrat Party would accept anything other than impeachment?”
By JONATHAN MARTINAPRIL 8, 2018
Republican leaders are raising money and energizing conservatives with warnings about congressional Democrats who want to impeach President Trump. The Democratic donor Tom Steyer paid for this billboard in Times Square in December. Credit Justin Lane/European Pressphoto Agency
WASHINGTON — As Republican leaders scramble to stave off a Democratic wave or at least mitigate their party’s losses in November, a strategy is emerging on the right for how to energize conservatives and drive a wedge between the anti-Trump left and moderate voters: warn that Democrats will immediately move to impeach President Trump if they capture the House.
What began last year as blaring political hyperbole on the right — the stuff of bold-lettered direct mail fund-raising pitches from little-known groups warning of a looming American “coup” — is now steadily drifting into the main currents of the 2018 message for Republicans.
The appeals have become a surefire way for candidates to raise small contributions from grass-roots conservatives who are devoted to Mr. Trump, veteran Republican fund-raisers say. But party strategists also believe that floating the possibility of impeachment can also act as a sort of scared-straight motivational tool for turnout. Last week, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas used his re-election kickoff rally to introduce a video featuring a faux news anchor reading would-be headlines were conservatives not to vote in November.
“Senate Majority Leader Schumer announced the impeachment trial of President Trump,” one of the anchors says.
And when Representative Steve Stivers of Ohio, the chairman of the House Republican campaign organization, convened about two dozen party strategists in February for a private dinner at a French bistro here, the attendees were surprised when he raised an issue not included in his formal PowerPoint presentation: the threat of impeachment against Mr. Trump, which he said fired up the party base.
In Texas, Ted Cruz Is Facing an Unusual Challenge: A Formidably Financed Democrat APRIL 3, 2018
CONGRESSIONAL MEMO
Even Republicans Have Used the ‘I’ Word, but Would Firing Mueller Get Trump Impeached? APRIL 1, 2018
A Billionaire Keeps Pushing to Impeach Trump. Democrats Are Rattled. JAN. 23, 2018
Then there is the most prominent Republican to have started invoking the specter of a Democratic-controlled House impeaching Mr. Trump: the president himself. In just the last month, he has used three separate speeches to warn that Representative Maxine Waters, a veteran California Democrat he has casually insulted as a “low-I.Q. individual,” aims to impeach him.
Advisers to the president say they have made clear to him that Republican control of the House is tenuous, and some have encouraged him to more aggressively lay out the stakes for the midterm elections, including who exactly would be in charge of key committees should Democrats retake the chamber.
“Everybody has told him that,” Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, said about the prospect of a Democratic takeover of the House. “The threat of impeachment is something that unifies everybody in the party, even if you’re not a big Trump supporter.”
Democrats are divided on how to respond to the charge. Many top officials in the capital fear it is a political trap that would distract from their core message and possibly even boomerang back to harm them in November. But other more progressive figures see impeachment as a rallying cry of their own to galvanize the left’s anti-Trump base.
“I’ve been urging members to refrain from discussing impeachment,” said Representative Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, adding: “I think we should let these investigations conclude and see what evidence is found.”
The mere thought of impeachment could energize Trump supporters who may otherwise be disinclined to vote in the midterm elections without him on the ballot, supporters of the strategy say.
“I can’t even imagine the Democrats would go there,” said Mark Lundberg, the former chairman of the Sioux County Republican committee in Iowa. “Impeachment for what? For being rude to them? That would be so outrageous.”
And to those voters in the political center who may be uneasy with, or simply exhausted by, his tumultuous administration, the possibility of an even more chaotic 2019 in Washington is unappealing.
Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a member of the House Republican leadership, predicted that the possibility of impeachment would divide the hard left from the broader political mainstream.
“It separates their base from reasonable, rational people that decide elections,” said Mr. McHenry, noting that this bloc of the electorate does not “want to put people in power that are going to create complete chaos and in essence shut down any potential legislative progress.”
But the mere fact that Republicans are talking by early spring about running on an impeachment threat reveals the depth of their challenge going into this fall’s election. The first midterm campaign of a new administration is typically difficult for the president’s party. But the tempestuous Mr. Trump has compounded the Republicans’ difficulties by generating an unending stream of made-for-TV controversies that overshadow their policy achievements and the health of the economy.
There are voices in the Republican Party who believe that it is too soon to sound the alarm, and that doing so will come off as overly panicked. Indeed, what is striking about the politics of impeachment is that both parties are divided over how to navigate the issue in the midterm campaign.
Polls show most voters are not supportive of impeachment at the moment, but if Mr. Trump were to fire the White House special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, the country would become about evenly divided on the question.
Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.
In January, 66 House Democrats, over a third of the caucus, voted to begin impeachment proceedings. That was eight more than the total number who voted for a similar measure in the House a month earlier.
“I think he’s committed impeachable offenses,” said Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, adding that waiting for the special counsel is risky because Mr. Mueller’s inquiry may never “see the light of day.”
The Democratic leadership, though, has sought to tamp down these impulses. They believe Republicans are setting a trap and are irritated that the billionaire donor Tom Steyer, who recently said he wants to host a series of primary debates this year, is trumpeting the issue. These Democrats argue that the party needs to focus on a substantive agenda and assure voters that they will exercise sober and reasonable oversight of Mr. Trump.
On Thursday, the House Democratic campaign organization released a memo based on an internal poll that urged candidates to “express a willingness to work with the president when his agenda might help the district.”
“If impeachment becomes a political tool instead of the end result of a credible investigation, then you are as guilty as Trump, in some ways, of taking a hammer blow to institutions,” said David Axelrod, former President Barack Obama’s onetime chief strategist, adding that it would also create risks in swing districts. “To say I’m for impeachment come hell or high water is to promise chaos.”
And Democratic lawmakers say they are wise to the bait that Mr. Trump is placing before them when he invokes Ms. Waters, an outspoken black woman whose jeremiads against the president conservative media outlets delight in amplifying.
“They’re trying to encourage us to be more out front on impeachment so then they can use that to rev up their base and say, ‘That’s all the Democrats care about,’” said Representative Dina Titus of Nevada, a political-science professor by training.
To some Republican strategists, waving the bloody shirt of impeachment is unwise — at least this early in the election season.
“Republicans should leave that insanity to the left,” said Mike Shields, who worked for former Speaker Newt Gingrich during the Clinton impeachment wars of the 1990s. “We should be talking about the soaring economy, record low unemployment, 90 percent of workers getting tax cuts, defeating ISIS, and peace through strength on the Korean Peninsula.”
But other veteran party officials say what they are doing now is precisely what Democrats should have done to rouse their own voters, and protect their House majority, in the elections leading up to former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998.
“If the Democrats had been smart in ’94 and ’96, this would have been their message,” said Ralph Reed, a longtime Republican strategist, noting that buildup of what he called a “Clinton investigatory complex” made it clear Republicans intended to eventually impeach Mr. Clinton.
The group Mr. Reed runs, the Faith & Freedom Coalition, recently sent out a fund-raising solicitation seeking small contributions that warned about what it called the “Impeachment Election!” “Will you do your part to help stop this coup attempt by the radical anti-Christian left and the media against our duly elected president?” the letter read, with “stop” and “coup” in all capitals.
A direct mail solicitation from the Faith & Freedom Coalition. Credit
Other groups, some even more marginal, have filled the mailboxes of grass-roots conservatives with similar high-decibel appeals.
But what is notable is how this fire-and-brimstone approach is making its way into the party’s mainstream.
Last week, America Rising, a Washington-area candidate-tracking and opposition-research firm that assists Republicans, sent out a fund-raising email that read, “Right now the only thing standing between the president and the Democrats’ underhanded impeachment attempts is the Republican majority in the House fighting to defend our president.”
Or as Representative Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, a Republican, put in last week in a talk radio interview: “Do you think that the far-left Resist movement base of the Democrat Party would accept anything other than impeachment?”
An Illinois town just banned assault weapons. The penalty if you keep one? Up to $1,000 a day - CNN
An Illinois town just banned assault weapons. The penalty if you keep one? Up to $1,000 a day
By AJ Willingham, CNN
Updated 2321 GMT (0721 HKT) April 5, 2018
Chicago-area community bans assault weapons
Chicago-area community bans assault weapons 02:12
(CNN)The village of Deerfield in northern Illinois has passed a ban on assault weapons, but it affects much more than sales and manufacturing.
If the 18,000 residents of the Chicago suburb don't forfeit or secure weapons that fall under the ban by June 13th, they will be charged from $200 to $1,000 a day as a penalty.
The Village wants a 'sense of safety'
Sponsor Content
How wellness is wedded to success in Thailand
See how the Thai capital equips itself with the right infrastructure to support and sustain a
growing population.
Promoted By Magnolia Quality Development Corporation
According to the ordinance, which the the Village Board of Trustees unanimously approved Monday night, it is unlawful for a person "to carry, keep, bear, transport or possess an assault weapon in the Village," except if the weapon is "broken down in a non-functioning state," is "not immediately accessible to any person," or is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card."
Law enforcement officers, current and retired, are exempted.
The ordinance makes specific reference to recent mass shootings in Parkland, Florida; Las Vegas; and Sutherland Springs, Texas. "Assault weapons have been increasingly used in an alarming number of notorious mass shooting incidents at public places, public venues, places of worship and places of public accommodation," the ordinance reads.
"I bought an AR-15 in 7 minutes" 02:35
The authors of the legislation claim the law "may increase the public's sense of safety...not withstanding potential objections regarding the availability of alternative weaponry or the enforceability of such a ban."
CNN has reached out to Deerfield's Management Analyst for comment.
Gun advocates call it 'draconian'
Objections, as you might imagine, have come in spades. On Thursday morning the Illinois State Rifle Association announced that they and the Second Amendment Foundation had jointly filed a lawsuit against the Village of Deerfield.
"They are blatantly violating state law and they are violating the Second Amendment," says Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. He told CNN the ISRA has been receiving waves of calls from people upset over the ban and is confident the ISRA's legal challenge will prevail.
"The penalties are just draconian," he says. "A guy -- or a lady -- who owns a large-capacity magazine or anything like that could owe thousands of dollars, and if they cross the thin, almost invisible line between municipalities, they could be considered a criminal."
The NRA is supporting a similar lawsuit filed by the gun advocacy group Guns Save Life.
"Every law-abiding villager of Deerfield has the right to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones with the firearm that best suits their needs," Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's lobbying arm, said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to the NRA for further comment.
GOP lawmaker: Some colleagues open to AR-15 ban 01:18
How the ordinance defines a problematic term
Of course, the term "assault weapon" is in and of itself highly contentious, and no discussion of such a ban would be complete without some clarification.
Since the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, there hasn't been any official definition for the term. It is often dismissed by gun-rights advocates for its imprecision in describing what, exactly, an assault weapon is or isn't.
A common NRA talking point states that an assault weapon should be defined as "any weapon used in an assault," whether it be a gun, a knife, or otherwise.
Deerfield's ordinance sets its own extensive definition of the term. In short, its version of an assault weapon is "a semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine, detachable or otherwise." There are other aspects, including rifle additions and types of magazines.
As defined by the village, the term also includes semiautomatic pistols, semiautomatic shotguns, conversion kits and "any shotgun with a revolving cylinder."
The ban also provides an open-ended list of firearm models. It includes the AR-15 and its variants, which have been used in an overwhelming number of highly publicized mass shootings -- including February's attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
By AJ Willingham, CNN
Updated 2321 GMT (0721 HKT) April 5, 2018
Chicago-area community bans assault weapons
Chicago-area community bans assault weapons 02:12
(CNN)The village of Deerfield in northern Illinois has passed a ban on assault weapons, but it affects much more than sales and manufacturing.
If the 18,000 residents of the Chicago suburb don't forfeit or secure weapons that fall under the ban by June 13th, they will be charged from $200 to $1,000 a day as a penalty.
The Village wants a 'sense of safety'
Sponsor Content
How wellness is wedded to success in Thailand
See how the Thai capital equips itself with the right infrastructure to support and sustain a
growing population.
Promoted By Magnolia Quality Development Corporation
According to the ordinance, which the the Village Board of Trustees unanimously approved Monday night, it is unlawful for a person "to carry, keep, bear, transport or possess an assault weapon in the Village," except if the weapon is "broken down in a non-functioning state," is "not immediately accessible to any person," or is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card."
Law enforcement officers, current and retired, are exempted.
The ordinance makes specific reference to recent mass shootings in Parkland, Florida; Las Vegas; and Sutherland Springs, Texas. "Assault weapons have been increasingly used in an alarming number of notorious mass shooting incidents at public places, public venues, places of worship and places of public accommodation," the ordinance reads.
"I bought an AR-15 in 7 minutes" 02:35
The authors of the legislation claim the law "may increase the public's sense of safety...not withstanding potential objections regarding the availability of alternative weaponry or the enforceability of such a ban."
CNN has reached out to Deerfield's Management Analyst for comment.
Gun advocates call it 'draconian'
Objections, as you might imagine, have come in spades. On Thursday morning the Illinois State Rifle Association announced that they and the Second Amendment Foundation had jointly filed a lawsuit against the Village of Deerfield.
"They are blatantly violating state law and they are violating the Second Amendment," says Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. He told CNN the ISRA has been receiving waves of calls from people upset over the ban and is confident the ISRA's legal challenge will prevail.
"The penalties are just draconian," he says. "A guy -- or a lady -- who owns a large-capacity magazine or anything like that could owe thousands of dollars, and if they cross the thin, almost invisible line between municipalities, they could be considered a criminal."
The NRA is supporting a similar lawsuit filed by the gun advocacy group Guns Save Life.
"Every law-abiding villager of Deerfield has the right to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones with the firearm that best suits their needs," Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's lobbying arm, said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to the NRA for further comment.
GOP lawmaker: Some colleagues open to AR-15 ban 01:18
How the ordinance defines a problematic term
Of course, the term "assault weapon" is in and of itself highly contentious, and no discussion of such a ban would be complete without some clarification.
Since the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, there hasn't been any official definition for the term. It is often dismissed by gun-rights advocates for its imprecision in describing what, exactly, an assault weapon is or isn't.
A common NRA talking point states that an assault weapon should be defined as "any weapon used in an assault," whether it be a gun, a knife, or otherwise.
Deerfield's ordinance sets its own extensive definition of the term. In short, its version of an assault weapon is "a semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine, detachable or otherwise." There are other aspects, including rifle additions and types of magazines.
As defined by the village, the term also includes semiautomatic pistols, semiautomatic shotguns, conversion kits and "any shotgun with a revolving cylinder."
The ban also provides an open-ended list of firearm models. It includes the AR-15 and its variants, which have been used in an overwhelming number of highly publicized mass shootings -- including February's attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
China Seeks EU's Support in Standing Up to U.S. Trade Threat - Bloomberg
China Seeks EU's Support in Standing Up to U.S. Trade Threat
April 6, 2018, 6:43 PM GMT+10
Hamburg University's Flassbeck Says Trump Opened a New Era on Trade
China called on the European Union to aid the Asian nation in rejecting protectionism from the U.S. and upholding the international trade order.
China and the EU “need to stand up together with a clear-cut position against protectionism, and need to work with each other to uphold the rules-based multilateral trade order,” Zhang Ming, the head of the Chinese Mission to the EU, said in an email response to questions from Bloomberg. Recent U.S. actions go “completely against the fundamental principles and values of the World Trade Organization,” he said.
To read more about U.S.-China trade tensions, click here.
China is in the midst of an escalating trade dispute with Washington and said on Wednesday it would levy an additional 25 percent tariff on about $50 billion of U.S. imports including soybeans, automobiles, chemicals and aircraft. That was in response to the release by the U.S. of a list of proposed tariffs a day earlier, covering $50 billion in Chinese products. President Donald Trump on Thursday increased the pressure by threatening additional levies on $100 billion in Chinese goods.
“China and the EU have kept positive, sound and timely communication following the U.S. move,” according to China’s head of mission. China and the EU need to work together to “sustain the sound momentum of global economic growth,” he said.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, has said it’s currently in high-level talks seeking to alleviate the situation.
“The EU believes that measures should always be taken within the WTO framework, which provides numerous tools to effectively deal with trade differences,” Commission Spokesman Daniel Rosario said this week. “We call on the relevant parties to ensure WTO compliance of their trade actions.”
April 6, 2018, 6:43 PM GMT+10
Hamburg University's Flassbeck Says Trump Opened a New Era on Trade
China called on the European Union to aid the Asian nation in rejecting protectionism from the U.S. and upholding the international trade order.
China and the EU “need to stand up together with a clear-cut position against protectionism, and need to work with each other to uphold the rules-based multilateral trade order,” Zhang Ming, the head of the Chinese Mission to the EU, said in an email response to questions from Bloomberg. Recent U.S. actions go “completely against the fundamental principles and values of the World Trade Organization,” he said.
To read more about U.S.-China trade tensions, click here.
China is in the midst of an escalating trade dispute with Washington and said on Wednesday it would levy an additional 25 percent tariff on about $50 billion of U.S. imports including soybeans, automobiles, chemicals and aircraft. That was in response to the release by the U.S. of a list of proposed tariffs a day earlier, covering $50 billion in Chinese products. President Donald Trump on Thursday increased the pressure by threatening additional levies on $100 billion in Chinese goods.
“China and the EU have kept positive, sound and timely communication following the U.S. move,” according to China’s head of mission. China and the EU need to work together to “sustain the sound momentum of global economic growth,” he said.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, has said it’s currently in high-level talks seeking to alleviate the situation.
“The EU believes that measures should always be taken within the WTO framework, which provides numerous tools to effectively deal with trade differences,” Commission Spokesman Daniel Rosario said this week. “We call on the relevant parties to ensure WTO compliance of their trade actions.”
Republican congressman introduces bill which would require all US post offices to hang photos of Trump and Pence - Independent
April 5, 2018
Republican congressman introduces bill which would require all US post offices to hang photos of Trump and Pence
Politician’s proposal comes after president tells him local post office hung photos of Barack Obama and Joe Biden
Maya Oppenheim @mayaoppenheim
A draft of the legislation says it would compel official portraits of whoever is in the positions to be displayed side by side in post offices across the US Reuters
US post offices will be forced to display photos of Donald Trump and Mike Pence if a Republican congressman succeeds in getting his bill passed.
New York Representative Dan Donovan is planning to introduce a piece of legislation that will require the public institutions to exhibit photos of the president and the vice president.
A draft of the legislation said it would require official portraits of whoever is in the positions to be displayed side by side in post offices across the US.
Kimmel on why Trump hates Amazon: "Bezos is actually a billionaire'
Mike Myers returns as Dr Evil to mock Donald Trump's administration
Trump to deploy troops to the Mexican border 'as soon as tonight'
Is Trump right to Amazon is costing the US Post Office billions?
The politician’s proposal comes after a Staten Island resident told Mr Donovan a local post office hung photos of Mr Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden, but chose not to display photos of Mr Trump or Mr Pence.
Mr Trump recently signed legislation stopping federal funds from being used for oil paintings of high-level politicians, the president and the vice president.
The bill came after a 2013 report revealed agencies had forked out more than $100,000 (£81,460) on official portraits since 2010.
Mr Donovan is facing a primary challenge from former Representative Michael Grimm – a businessman who finished an eight-month prison sentence in 2016 after pleading guilty to tax fraud.
Mr Donovan won a special election to fill the seat after Mr Grimm - who once notoriously threatened to throw a political reporter off a balcony - resigned in early 2015.
The battle between the pair has become increasingly acrimonious and aggressive as both politicians have attempt to present themselves as the Trump-like figure of the race.
Republican congressman introduces bill which would require all US post offices to hang photos of Trump and Pence
Politician’s proposal comes after president tells him local post office hung photos of Barack Obama and Joe Biden
Maya Oppenheim @mayaoppenheim
A draft of the legislation says it would compel official portraits of whoever is in the positions to be displayed side by side in post offices across the US Reuters
US post offices will be forced to display photos of Donald Trump and Mike Pence if a Republican congressman succeeds in getting his bill passed.
New York Representative Dan Donovan is planning to introduce a piece of legislation that will require the public institutions to exhibit photos of the president and the vice president.
A draft of the legislation said it would require official portraits of whoever is in the positions to be displayed side by side in post offices across the US.
Kimmel on why Trump hates Amazon: "Bezos is actually a billionaire'
Mike Myers returns as Dr Evil to mock Donald Trump's administration
Trump to deploy troops to the Mexican border 'as soon as tonight'
Is Trump right to Amazon is costing the US Post Office billions?
The politician’s proposal comes after a Staten Island resident told Mr Donovan a local post office hung photos of Mr Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden, but chose not to display photos of Mr Trump or Mr Pence.
Mr Trump recently signed legislation stopping federal funds from being used for oil paintings of high-level politicians, the president and the vice president.
The bill came after a 2013 report revealed agencies had forked out more than $100,000 (£81,460) on official portraits since 2010.
Mr Donovan is facing a primary challenge from former Representative Michael Grimm – a businessman who finished an eight-month prison sentence in 2016 after pleading guilty to tax fraud.
Mr Donovan won a special election to fill the seat after Mr Grimm - who once notoriously threatened to throw a political reporter off a balcony - resigned in early 2015.
The battle between the pair has become increasingly acrimonious and aggressive as both politicians have attempt to present themselves as the Trump-like figure of the race.
US federal judge rules that AR-15s and large capacity magazines are not protected by Second Amendment - Independent
April 7, 2018
US federal judge rules that AR-15s and large capacity magazines are not protected by Second Amendment
Massachusetts sold 10,000 assault-style rifles in 2015, and virtually none a year later
Clark Mindock New York @ClarkMindock
State law prohibits the sale of AR-15s and similar weapons
A federal judge has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a citizen’s right to own an AR-15 rifle and other, similar semi-automatic “military style” rifles and high capacity magazines.
“AR-15s and [large capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment ... and may be banned,” Massachusetts District Court Judge William Young wrote in his ruling.
The year-old case was first brought to court in January 2017 by a group of gun owners, the nonprofit Gun Owner’s Action League, and gun stores in the state.
At least 86 teenagers dead since the Parkland shooting
Those plaintiffs had filed their lawsuit after the state’s attorney general, Maura Healey, announced in the aftermath of the 2016 Orlando, Florida shooting at the Pulse nightclub that the state would begin enforcing its 1998 ban on assault weapons. The Pulse shooting was, at the time, the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.
Following Mr Young’s ruling, Ms Healey issued a statement praising the decision and vowing to push back against the gun lobby that has wielded intense power across the country in recent decades.
“Today’s decision upholding the Assault Weapons Ban vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war and my office’s efforts to enforce the law,“ Ms Healey said in the statement. ”Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools. Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”
Ms Healey’s office has said that sales of the assault-style semi-automatic weapons has virtually ended since she began enforcing the 1998 law. As many as 10,000 of those weapons were sold the year prior.
Son buys AR-15 using mother's tattoo money 'to commit school shooting'
Republican Senate candidate claims he was blocked from Facebook
Worshippers bring AR-15 style rifles to church ceremony in Pennsylania
Doctor describes 'sledgehammer' injuries left by AR-15 in Florida
In writing his decision, Mr Young made reference in large part to the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v Heller, in which Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a majority ruling that largely upheld an individual’s right to own a firearm but noted that there are limitations of the Second Amendment.
Mr Young, in his decision, called Mr Scalia’s 2008 writing a “tour de force” on the Second Amendment and said that many of the features of AR-15 rifles and large capacity magazines are designed with the intent for military use and not for civilian use, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.
“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear Arms,'” Mr Young wrote in his conclusion.
US federal judge rules that AR-15s and large capacity magazines are not protected by Second Amendment
Massachusetts sold 10,000 assault-style rifles in 2015, and virtually none a year later
Clark Mindock New York @ClarkMindock
State law prohibits the sale of AR-15s and similar weapons
A federal judge has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a citizen’s right to own an AR-15 rifle and other, similar semi-automatic “military style” rifles and high capacity magazines.
“AR-15s and [large capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment ... and may be banned,” Massachusetts District Court Judge William Young wrote in his ruling.
The year-old case was first brought to court in January 2017 by a group of gun owners, the nonprofit Gun Owner’s Action League, and gun stores in the state.
At least 86 teenagers dead since the Parkland shooting
Those plaintiffs had filed their lawsuit after the state’s attorney general, Maura Healey, announced in the aftermath of the 2016 Orlando, Florida shooting at the Pulse nightclub that the state would begin enforcing its 1998 ban on assault weapons. The Pulse shooting was, at the time, the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.
Following Mr Young’s ruling, Ms Healey issued a statement praising the decision and vowing to push back against the gun lobby that has wielded intense power across the country in recent decades.
“Today’s decision upholding the Assault Weapons Ban vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war and my office’s efforts to enforce the law,“ Ms Healey said in the statement. ”Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools. Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”
Ms Healey’s office has said that sales of the assault-style semi-automatic weapons has virtually ended since she began enforcing the 1998 law. As many as 10,000 of those weapons were sold the year prior.
Son buys AR-15 using mother's tattoo money 'to commit school shooting'
Republican Senate candidate claims he was blocked from Facebook
Worshippers bring AR-15 style rifles to church ceremony in Pennsylania
Doctor describes 'sledgehammer' injuries left by AR-15 in Florida
In writing his decision, Mr Young made reference in large part to the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v Heller, in which Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a majority ruling that largely upheld an individual’s right to own a firearm but noted that there are limitations of the Second Amendment.
Mr Young, in his decision, called Mr Scalia’s 2008 writing a “tour de force” on the Second Amendment and said that many of the features of AR-15 rifles and large capacity magazines are designed with the intent for military use and not for civilian use, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.
“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear Arms,'” Mr Young wrote in his conclusion.
State Dept. monitoring reports of new chemical attack in Syria - NBC News
State Dept. monitoring reports of new chemical attack in Syria
"These reports, if confirmed, are horrifying and demand an immediate response by the international community," the department spokesperson said.
by Safia Samee Ali / Apr.08.2018 / 2:12 PM ET / Updated 6:56 PM ET
This photo released by the Syrian Civil Defense White Helmets, which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting, shows smoke rising after Syrian government airstrikes hit in the town of Douma, in eastern Ghouta region east of Damascus, Syria, Saturday, April. 7, 2018.AP
The State Department says it is monitoring reports of a possible chemical weapons attack that may have killed dozens of civilians in the Syrian city of Douma.
"We continue to closely follow disturbing reports on April 7 regarding another alleged chemical weapons attack, this time targeting a hospital in Douma, Syria," State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said in a statement.
"Reports from a number of contacts and medical personnel on the ground indicate a potentially high number of casualties, including among families hiding in shelters," she said. "These reports, if confirmed, are horrifying and demand an immediate response by the international community."
The White Helmets, a Syrian civil defense organization, tweeted several photos and videos of alleged victims Saturday night saying "entire families in shelters gassed to death in #Douma #EastGhouta hiding in their cellars, suffocated from the poisonous gas bringing the initial death toll to more than 40."
The claim has not been verified by NBC News.
The Syrian American Medical Society, which has physicians in the country, said a chlorine bomb hit Douma hospital, killing six people, and a second attack with "mixed agents" including nerve agents had hit a nearby building, Reuters reported.
The Syrian government has disputed any reports of gas attacks, saying the allegations are an attempt by rebels to stop the army from advancing, according to Syrian state news agency SANA.
Russia, which supports the Assad regime, also denied the reports in a statement from its Defense Ministry on Sunday morning.
"We strongly reject this information and confirm readiness after Douma is liberated from militants to send Russian specialists in radiation, chemical and biological protection to collect data to confirm that these statements are fabricated," said the statement provided to the TASS news agency.
Russia also accused the West of using the allegations to undermine military operations in the area.
Douma is located in eastern Ghouta, a region that has been subjected to a bombing campaign that intensified in February. Eastern Ghouta was among the first communities to rise up against the government in 2011.
If confirmed, the use of chemical weapons would be another instance of the banned substances alleged to have been used in Syria’s brutal civil war.
Nauert said that the possible chemical attack comes a little more than a year after “Assad’s forces conducted a sarin gas attack on Khan Sheikhoun, which killed approximately 100 Syrians,” referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Nauert said that “The United States continues to use all efforts available to hold those who use chemical weapons, in Syria and otherwise, accountable,” and said Russia "ultimately bears responsibility for these brutal attacks."
The United States calls on Russia to end this unmitigated support immediately and work with the international community to prevent further, barbaric chemical weapons attacks," she said in the statement.
Related
Syria's civil war has been raging for 7 years. What's behind it?
President Donald Trump reluctantly agreed to keep U.S. troops in Syria for an undetermined period of time to defeat Islamic State on Tuesday.
Trump in April of 2017 ordered a cruise missile strike against a Syrian airbase, which he said was in response to a chemical attack that killed dozens of civilians.
The president said on Tuesday that he wanted to get out of Syria and bring U.S. troops back home. The U.S. has around 2,000 forces on the ground fighting the Islamic State.
April 2: President Trump reluctantly agrees to keep U.S. troops in Syria
01:31
A senior administration official told NBC News that Trump reluctantly agreed in a meeting with his national security team Tuesday to keep U.S. troops in Syria for an undetermined period of time to defeat ISIS, but pressured them to end U.S. involvement in the conflict as soon as possible.
"These reports, if confirmed, are horrifying and demand an immediate response by the international community," the department spokesperson said.
by Safia Samee Ali / Apr.08.2018 / 2:12 PM ET / Updated 6:56 PM ET
This photo released by the Syrian Civil Defense White Helmets, which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting, shows smoke rising after Syrian government airstrikes hit in the town of Douma, in eastern Ghouta region east of Damascus, Syria, Saturday, April. 7, 2018.AP
The State Department says it is monitoring reports of a possible chemical weapons attack that may have killed dozens of civilians in the Syrian city of Douma.
"We continue to closely follow disturbing reports on April 7 regarding another alleged chemical weapons attack, this time targeting a hospital in Douma, Syria," State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said in a statement.
"Reports from a number of contacts and medical personnel on the ground indicate a potentially high number of casualties, including among families hiding in shelters," she said. "These reports, if confirmed, are horrifying and demand an immediate response by the international community."
The White Helmets, a Syrian civil defense organization, tweeted several photos and videos of alleged victims Saturday night saying "entire families in shelters gassed to death in #Douma #EastGhouta hiding in their cellars, suffocated from the poisonous gas bringing the initial death toll to more than 40."
The claim has not been verified by NBC News.
The Syrian American Medical Society, which has physicians in the country, said a chlorine bomb hit Douma hospital, killing six people, and a second attack with "mixed agents" including nerve agents had hit a nearby building, Reuters reported.
The Syrian government has disputed any reports of gas attacks, saying the allegations are an attempt by rebels to stop the army from advancing, according to Syrian state news agency SANA.
Russia, which supports the Assad regime, also denied the reports in a statement from its Defense Ministry on Sunday morning.
"We strongly reject this information and confirm readiness after Douma is liberated from militants to send Russian specialists in radiation, chemical and biological protection to collect data to confirm that these statements are fabricated," said the statement provided to the TASS news agency.
Russia also accused the West of using the allegations to undermine military operations in the area.
Douma is located in eastern Ghouta, a region that has been subjected to a bombing campaign that intensified in February. Eastern Ghouta was among the first communities to rise up against the government in 2011.
If confirmed, the use of chemical weapons would be another instance of the banned substances alleged to have been used in Syria’s brutal civil war.
Nauert said that the possible chemical attack comes a little more than a year after “Assad’s forces conducted a sarin gas attack on Khan Sheikhoun, which killed approximately 100 Syrians,” referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Nauert said that “The United States continues to use all efforts available to hold those who use chemical weapons, in Syria and otherwise, accountable,” and said Russia "ultimately bears responsibility for these brutal attacks."
The United States calls on Russia to end this unmitigated support immediately and work with the international community to prevent further, barbaric chemical weapons attacks," she said in the statement.
Related
Syria's civil war has been raging for 7 years. What's behind it?
President Donald Trump reluctantly agreed to keep U.S. troops in Syria for an undetermined period of time to defeat Islamic State on Tuesday.
Trump in April of 2017 ordered a cruise missile strike against a Syrian airbase, which he said was in response to a chemical attack that killed dozens of civilians.
The president said on Tuesday that he wanted to get out of Syria and bring U.S. troops back home. The U.S. has around 2,000 forces on the ground fighting the Islamic State.
April 2: President Trump reluctantly agrees to keep U.S. troops in Syria
01:31
A senior administration official told NBC News that Trump reluctantly agreed in a meeting with his national security team Tuesday to keep U.S. troops in Syria for an undetermined period of time to defeat ISIS, but pressured them to end U.S. involvement in the conflict as soon as possible.
The Real Reason Jeff Bezos Grinds Trump's Gears He’s the opposite of Trump in nearly every dimension - Bloomberg
The Real Reason Jeff Bezos Grinds Trump's Gears
He’s the opposite of Trump in nearly every dimension.
August 18, 2017, 9:00 PM GMT+10
Bully pulp. Photographer: David Ryder/Getty Images, left; Sean Gallup/Getty Images
As if he weren’t in enough trouble already, President Trump took to Twitter Wednesday to attack America’s most trusted brand: “Amazon is doing great damage to tax paying retailers. Towns, cities and states throughout the U.S. are being hurt - many jobs being lost!”
Why would a supposedly jobs-obsessed president denounce a company that’s in the midst of a giant hiring spree — with many of those jobs going to workers (and men!) without college degrees? If he wants to condemn a leading U.S. company, why not pick on Google, which is fast becoming a conservative symbol of politically correct intolerance? That at least would be popular with his base.
In fact, Trump’s irritation isn’t really with Amazon. Rather, he is obsessed with Jeff Bezos, whom he keeps denouncing by name. The guy clearly gets under his skin.
The obvious reason is that Bezos — not Amazon, Mr. President — owns the Washington Post. But Trump’s obsession seems a little too personal to be about the Post alone. After all, he regularly attacks the New York Times without mentioning the Ochs-Sulzberger family or Carlos Slim.
Rather, the very existence of Bezos seems to drive Trump crazy. Trump’s image, to himself and his fans, is that of alpha male — the dominant primate in the room. Simply by going about his business (and largely ignoring Trump), Bezos refutes that claim. He is a far more admired and influential businessman than Trump and, of course, immeasurably richer. (Bezos doesn’t have to hide his financial records to maintain the appearance of wealth.) Yet he’s the opposite of Trump in nearly every dimension. (Bezos and I have mutual friends and, although it’s been years, we’ve seen each other socially on rare occasions.)
Start with appearance. Trump, who likes his staff to have the right “look,” would never cast a wiry guy who doesn’t hide his lack of hair as a big-time businessman. How can someone only five-foot-nine intimidate people into submission? In Trumpworld, intimidation, not value-creation, is what business is all about.
Bezos also has a sense of humor, often at his own expense, and a famously raucous laugh. Trump is humorless. He certainly doesn’t laugh at himself.
Bezos speaks clearly and has amazing message discipline even by the standards of successful CEOs — something that struck me when I first interviewed him way back in 1996. Trump: not so much.
Trump grew up rich, went to private schools, and had an undistinguished college career. Bezos grew up middle-class, went to public schools, and knocked the top out of Princeton, graduating with highest honors and Phi Beta Kappa in electrical engineering and computer science. One had a rich father; the other has brains.
And then there are their families. Bezos is famously close to his. “They are such a normal, close-knit family, it’s almost abnormal,” a friend told Vogue when the magazine profiled his novelist wife MacKenzie in 2013.
Theirs is to all appearances a love match of mutually admiring equals. “I think my wife is resourceful, smart, brainy, and hot, but I had the good fortune of having seen her résumé before I met her, so I knew exactly what her SATs were,” Bezos told Vogue, punctuating the remark with his famous laugh. By contrast, Trump treats his family, and above all his wife, as mere props for his personal glorification.
The biggest difference is that Bezos projects the self-confidence of someone with nothing to prove. “I don’t think he’s a showman,” Amazon board member Patty Stonesifer told Wired in a 1999 profile of Bezos, “but people are drawn to him because he seems unbelievably like a winner. And they want to help him win.”
Trump, by contrast, projects thin-skinned insecurity. And in his zero-sum world there can be only one winner. The question dogging Amazon’s stock price is how much damage the president might do to this American success story in order to serve his personal pique.
He’s the opposite of Trump in nearly every dimension.
August 18, 2017, 9:00 PM GMT+10
Bully pulp. Photographer: David Ryder/Getty Images, left; Sean Gallup/Getty Images
As if he weren’t in enough trouble already, President Trump took to Twitter Wednesday to attack America’s most trusted brand: “Amazon is doing great damage to tax paying retailers. Towns, cities and states throughout the U.S. are being hurt - many jobs being lost!”
Why would a supposedly jobs-obsessed president denounce a company that’s in the midst of a giant hiring spree — with many of those jobs going to workers (and men!) without college degrees? If he wants to condemn a leading U.S. company, why not pick on Google, which is fast becoming a conservative symbol of politically correct intolerance? That at least would be popular with his base.
In fact, Trump’s irritation isn’t really with Amazon. Rather, he is obsessed with Jeff Bezos, whom he keeps denouncing by name. The guy clearly gets under his skin.
The obvious reason is that Bezos — not Amazon, Mr. President — owns the Washington Post. But Trump’s obsession seems a little too personal to be about the Post alone. After all, he regularly attacks the New York Times without mentioning the Ochs-Sulzberger family or Carlos Slim.
Rather, the very existence of Bezos seems to drive Trump crazy. Trump’s image, to himself and his fans, is that of alpha male — the dominant primate in the room. Simply by going about his business (and largely ignoring Trump), Bezos refutes that claim. He is a far more admired and influential businessman than Trump and, of course, immeasurably richer. (Bezos doesn’t have to hide his financial records to maintain the appearance of wealth.) Yet he’s the opposite of Trump in nearly every dimension. (Bezos and I have mutual friends and, although it’s been years, we’ve seen each other socially on rare occasions.)
Start with appearance. Trump, who likes his staff to have the right “look,” would never cast a wiry guy who doesn’t hide his lack of hair as a big-time businessman. How can someone only five-foot-nine intimidate people into submission? In Trumpworld, intimidation, not value-creation, is what business is all about.
Bezos also has a sense of humor, often at his own expense, and a famously raucous laugh. Trump is humorless. He certainly doesn’t laugh at himself.
Bezos speaks clearly and has amazing message discipline even by the standards of successful CEOs — something that struck me when I first interviewed him way back in 1996. Trump: not so much.
Trump grew up rich, went to private schools, and had an undistinguished college career. Bezos grew up middle-class, went to public schools, and knocked the top out of Princeton, graduating with highest honors and Phi Beta Kappa in electrical engineering and computer science. One had a rich father; the other has brains.
And then there are their families. Bezos is famously close to his. “They are such a normal, close-knit family, it’s almost abnormal,” a friend told Vogue when the magazine profiled his novelist wife MacKenzie in 2013.
Theirs is to all appearances a love match of mutually admiring equals. “I think my wife is resourceful, smart, brainy, and hot, but I had the good fortune of having seen her résumé before I met her, so I knew exactly what her SATs were,” Bezos told Vogue, punctuating the remark with his famous laugh. By contrast, Trump treats his family, and above all his wife, as mere props for his personal glorification.
The biggest difference is that Bezos projects the self-confidence of someone with nothing to prove. “I don’t think he’s a showman,” Amazon board member Patty Stonesifer told Wired in a 1999 profile of Bezos, “but people are drawn to him because he seems unbelievably like a winner. And they want to help him win.”
Trump, by contrast, projects thin-skinned insecurity. And in his zero-sum world there can be only one winner. The question dogging Amazon’s stock price is how much damage the president might do to this American success story in order to serve his personal pique.
The FBI Seizes and Shuts Down Backpage.com and Affiliate Websites - TIME
The FBI Seizes and Shuts Down Backpage.com and Affiliate Websites
Posted: 06 Apr 2018 03:56 PM PDT
(PHOENIX) — Federal law enforcement authorities are in the process of seizing Backpage.com and its affiliated websites.
A notice that appeared Friday afternoon at Backpage.com says the websites are being seized as part of an enforcement action by the FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Internal Revenue Service.
The notice doesn’t characterize or provide any details on the nature of the enforcement action.
It says authorities plan to release information about the enforcement action later Friday.
Backpage.com lets users create posts to sell items, seek a roommate, participate in forums, list upcoming events or post job openings.
But Backpage.com also has listings for adult escorts and other sexual services, and authorities say advertising related to those services has been extremely lucrative.
Markets Dive as White House Sends Mixed Signals on Trade Fight - TIME Business
Markets Dive as White House Sends Mixed Signals on Trade Fight
Posted: 06 Apr 2018 11:42 AM PDT
(NEW YORK ) — The trade clash between President Donald Trump and China’s government is escalating, with Beijing pledging to “counterattack with great strength” if Trump follows through on threats to impose tariffs on an additional $100 billion in Chinese goods.
Trump made his out-of-the-blue move when China threatened to retaliate for the first round of tariffs planned by the United States. But for someone who has long fashioned himself as a master negotiator, Trump left it unclear whether he was bluffing or willing to risk a long trade dispute between the world’s two biggest economies, with steep consequences for consumers, businesses and an already shaken stock market.
“They aren’t going to bully him into backing down,” said Stephen Moore, a former Trump campaign adviser who is now a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He said the Chinese “are going to have to make concessions — period.”
The White House sent mixed signals on Friday as financial markets slid from investor concern about a significant trade fight.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC he was “cautiously optimistic” that the U.S. and China could reach an agreement before any tariffs go into place. But, he added, “there is the potential of a trade war.”
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters the U.S. was “not in a trade war,” adding, “China is the problem. Blame China, not Trump.”
Trump’s latest proposal intensified what was already shaping up to be the biggest trade battle for more than a half century. The U.S. bought more than $500 billion in goods from China last year and now is planning or considering penalties on some $150 billion of those imports. The U.S. sold about $130 billion in goods to China in 2017 and faces a potentially devastating hit to its market there if China responds in kind.
Global financial markets have fallen sharply as the world’s two biggest economies squared off — the Dow Jones industrial average sank 572 points Friday.
Trump told advisers Thursday he was unhappy with China’s decision to tax $50 billion in American products, including soybeans and small aircraft, in response to a U.S. move this week to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods.
Rather than waiting weeks for the U.S. tariffs to be implemented, Trump backed a plan by Robert Lighthizer, his trade representative, and was encouraged by Peter Navarro, a top White House trade adviser, to seek the enhanced tariffs.
China said negotiations were impossible under the circumstances. But Trump officials said the president and his team remained in contact with President Xi Jinping and expressed hope to him of resolving the dispute through talks.
In Beijing, a Commerce Ministry spokesman said China doesn’t want a trade war — but isn’t afraid to fight one.
“If the U.S. side announces the list of products for $100 billion in tariffs, the Chinese side has fully prepared and will without hesitation counterattack with great strength,” spokesman Gao Feng said. He gave no indication what measures Beijing might take.
Trump has also pushed for a crackdown on China’s theft of U.S. intellectual property, and he criticized the World Trade Organization, an arbiter of trade disputes, in a tweet Friday for allegedly favoring China. Trump asserted the WTO gives the Asian superpower “tremendous perks and advantages, especially over the U.S.”
U.S. officials have played down the threat of a broader trade dispute, saying a negotiated outcome is still possible. But economists warn that the tit for tat bears the hallmarks of a classic trade rift that could keep growing. Worry is intensifying among Republicans, who traditionally have favored liberalized trade.
“The administration needs to be thinking about the unintended consequences and what are those ripple effects, those domino effects, and what are the retaliatory actions that are likely to be taken,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the Senate’s No. 3 Republican, in an interview with KDLT-TV in Sioux Falls.
The standoff began last month when the U.S. imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. China countered by announcing penalties on $3 billion worth of U.S. products. The next day, the United States proposed the $50 billion in duties on Chinese imports. Beijing responded within hours with a threat of further tariffs of its own.
Further escalation could be in the offing. The U.S. Treasury is working on plans to restrict Chinese technology investments in the United States. And there’s talk that the U.S. could also put limits on visas for Chinese who want to visit or study in this country.
Kudlow told reporters the U.S. may provide a list of suggestions to China “as to what we would like to have come out of this,” and those issues were under discussion.
“Negotiations are better than tariffs,” Kudlow said. “A solution in the next three months would be better than anything. I think that’s eminently doable.” He added: “But Trump is not just using tariffs as a negotiating card. He said that to me.”
For Trump, the dispute runs the risk of blunting the economic benefits of his tax overhaul, which is at the center of congressional Republicans’ case for voters to keep them in power in the 2018 elections. China’s retaliation so far has targeted Midwest farmers, including growers of soybeans, corn and wheat. That could specifically harm core Trump supporters.
“With respect to the Trump administration, its political success will rise and fall with the economy,” Kudlow said. “And the economy is doing rather well now and I expect it to do even better.”
Posted: 06 Apr 2018 11:42 AM PDT
(NEW YORK ) — The trade clash between President Donald Trump and China’s government is escalating, with Beijing pledging to “counterattack with great strength” if Trump follows through on threats to impose tariffs on an additional $100 billion in Chinese goods.
Trump made his out-of-the-blue move when China threatened to retaliate for the first round of tariffs planned by the United States. But for someone who has long fashioned himself as a master negotiator, Trump left it unclear whether he was bluffing or willing to risk a long trade dispute between the world’s two biggest economies, with steep consequences for consumers, businesses and an already shaken stock market.
“They aren’t going to bully him into backing down,” said Stephen Moore, a former Trump campaign adviser who is now a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He said the Chinese “are going to have to make concessions — period.”
The White House sent mixed signals on Friday as financial markets slid from investor concern about a significant trade fight.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC he was “cautiously optimistic” that the U.S. and China could reach an agreement before any tariffs go into place. But, he added, “there is the potential of a trade war.”
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters the U.S. was “not in a trade war,” adding, “China is the problem. Blame China, not Trump.”
Trump’s latest proposal intensified what was already shaping up to be the biggest trade battle for more than a half century. The U.S. bought more than $500 billion in goods from China last year and now is planning or considering penalties on some $150 billion of those imports. The U.S. sold about $130 billion in goods to China in 2017 and faces a potentially devastating hit to its market there if China responds in kind.
Global financial markets have fallen sharply as the world’s two biggest economies squared off — the Dow Jones industrial average sank 572 points Friday.
Trump told advisers Thursday he was unhappy with China’s decision to tax $50 billion in American products, including soybeans and small aircraft, in response to a U.S. move this week to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods.
Rather than waiting weeks for the U.S. tariffs to be implemented, Trump backed a plan by Robert Lighthizer, his trade representative, and was encouraged by Peter Navarro, a top White House trade adviser, to seek the enhanced tariffs.
China said negotiations were impossible under the circumstances. But Trump officials said the president and his team remained in contact with President Xi Jinping and expressed hope to him of resolving the dispute through talks.
In Beijing, a Commerce Ministry spokesman said China doesn’t want a trade war — but isn’t afraid to fight one.
“If the U.S. side announces the list of products for $100 billion in tariffs, the Chinese side has fully prepared and will without hesitation counterattack with great strength,” spokesman Gao Feng said. He gave no indication what measures Beijing might take.
Trump has also pushed for a crackdown on China’s theft of U.S. intellectual property, and he criticized the World Trade Organization, an arbiter of trade disputes, in a tweet Friday for allegedly favoring China. Trump asserted the WTO gives the Asian superpower “tremendous perks and advantages, especially over the U.S.”
U.S. officials have played down the threat of a broader trade dispute, saying a negotiated outcome is still possible. But economists warn that the tit for tat bears the hallmarks of a classic trade rift that could keep growing. Worry is intensifying among Republicans, who traditionally have favored liberalized trade.
“The administration needs to be thinking about the unintended consequences and what are those ripple effects, those domino effects, and what are the retaliatory actions that are likely to be taken,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the Senate’s No. 3 Republican, in an interview with KDLT-TV in Sioux Falls.
The standoff began last month when the U.S. imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. China countered by announcing penalties on $3 billion worth of U.S. products. The next day, the United States proposed the $50 billion in duties on Chinese imports. Beijing responded within hours with a threat of further tariffs of its own.
Further escalation could be in the offing. The U.S. Treasury is working on plans to restrict Chinese technology investments in the United States. And there’s talk that the U.S. could also put limits on visas for Chinese who want to visit or study in this country.
Kudlow told reporters the U.S. may provide a list of suggestions to China “as to what we would like to have come out of this,” and those issues were under discussion.
“Negotiations are better than tariffs,” Kudlow said. “A solution in the next three months would be better than anything. I think that’s eminently doable.” He added: “But Trump is not just using tariffs as a negotiating card. He said that to me.”
For Trump, the dispute runs the risk of blunting the economic benefits of his tax overhaul, which is at the center of congressional Republicans’ case for voters to keep them in power in the 2018 elections. China’s retaliation so far has targeted Midwest farmers, including growers of soybeans, corn and wheat. That could specifically harm core Trump supporters.
“With respect to the Trump administration, its political success will rise and fall with the economy,” Kudlow said. “And the economy is doing rather well now and I expect it to do even better.”
President Trump Keeps Attacking Amazon. See How His Tweets Have Hurt Other Companies - TIME
President Trump Keeps Attacking Amazon. See How His Tweets Have Hurt Other Companies
Posted: 06 Apr 2018 12:31 PM PDT
President Trump is relentlessly attacking retail giant Amazon, saying recently the company has put “many thousands of retailers out of business,” claiming it pays “little or no taxes to state and local governments,” and slamming its arrangement with the United States Postal service as unfair.
Trump’s claims about the roughly $700 billion Seattle, Wash.-based Amazon are mixed in their accuracy.
It’s certainly true that rival retailers large and small have struggled amid Amazon’s growing dominance in the field. But some would say that’s the natural and even desirable result of a more efficient or otherwise smarter firm entering a marketplace.
Trump’s assertions about Amazon’s tax practices and its effect on the USPS, meanwhile, are dubious at best. Amazon indeed pays taxes, though like many corporations (and individuals) it takes steps to minimize its liabilities. And many observers argue Amazon is in fact a lifeline for the USPS, which relies on parcel delivery to make up for the death of other mail in the digital age. (The USPS’ economic struggles stem largely from a law that requires it to pre-fund future retirees’ health benefits.)
But it’s still a unique phenomenon for a sitting President to publicly attack an American company. And Trump could indeed take action against Amazon, if he so chose. Indeed, his assault appears to have investors spooked — Trump’s tweets have repeatedly coincided with falloffs in the company’s stock.
Should Amazon and its CEO, Jeff Bezos, be worried about Trump’s Twitter tirades? Maybe not, if recent history is any judge. Trump has gone after a number of publicly-traded companies in recent months, including Lockheed Martin, Toyota, and more. Even if Trump’s missives caused a dip for those companies’ stocks, the effect was typically temporary, if notable at all.
Below, see how President Trump’s attacks have impacted various companies’ stock prices in recent months. Clicking each company name will show a stock chart for the two weeks prior to and after a Trump tweet critical of that firm. (Of course, many factors can weigh into a company’s stock valuation at any moment.)
Posted: 06 Apr 2018 12:31 PM PDT
President Trump is relentlessly attacking retail giant Amazon, saying recently the company has put “many thousands of retailers out of business,” claiming it pays “little or no taxes to state and local governments,” and slamming its arrangement with the United States Postal service as unfair.
Trump’s claims about the roughly $700 billion Seattle, Wash.-based Amazon are mixed in their accuracy.
It’s certainly true that rival retailers large and small have struggled amid Amazon’s growing dominance in the field. But some would say that’s the natural and even desirable result of a more efficient or otherwise smarter firm entering a marketplace.
Trump’s assertions about Amazon’s tax practices and its effect on the USPS, meanwhile, are dubious at best. Amazon indeed pays taxes, though like many corporations (and individuals) it takes steps to minimize its liabilities. And many observers argue Amazon is in fact a lifeline for the USPS, which relies on parcel delivery to make up for the death of other mail in the digital age. (The USPS’ economic struggles stem largely from a law that requires it to pre-fund future retirees’ health benefits.)
But it’s still a unique phenomenon for a sitting President to publicly attack an American company. And Trump could indeed take action against Amazon, if he so chose. Indeed, his assault appears to have investors spooked — Trump’s tweets have repeatedly coincided with falloffs in the company’s stock.
Should Amazon and its CEO, Jeff Bezos, be worried about Trump’s Twitter tirades? Maybe not, if recent history is any judge. Trump has gone after a number of publicly-traded companies in recent months, including Lockheed Martin, Toyota, and more. Even if Trump’s missives caused a dip for those companies’ stocks, the effect was typically temporary, if notable at all.
Below, see how President Trump’s attacks have impacted various companies’ stock prices in recent months. Clicking each company name will show a stock chart for the two weeks prior to and after a Trump tweet critical of that firm. (Of course, many factors can weigh into a company’s stock valuation at any moment.)
Corbyn is 'Kremlin's useful idiot', says Boris Johnson - BBC News
April 8, 2018
Corbyn is 'Kremlin's useful idiot', says Boris Johnson
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has described Jeremy Corbyn as the "Kremlin's useful idiot" over his response to the Salisbury poisoning.
He said the Labour leader was giving Moscow "propaganda" false credibility by refusing to "unequivocally" back the government's view it was responsible.
Labour said Mr Johnson had "made a fool of himself" by misrepresenting what he was told by chemical weapons experts.
It stressed Mr Corbyn had repeatedly said the evidence pointed to Russia.
'Avalanche of lies'
Moscow has denied the UK government's claim that it was behind the attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, on 4 March.
Writing in the Sunday Times, Mr Johnson said the Kremlin had made a "cynical attempt to bury awkward facts beneath an avalanche of lies and disinformation".
He said the Russian government and state-owned media had invented 29 theories about the attack.
Russian spy: What we know so far
Yulia Skripal 'getting stronger daily'
Ex-spy 'improving rapidly' after poisoning
"There is only one thing that gives the Kremlin succour and lends false credibility to its propaganda onslaught. That is when politicians from the targeted countries join in," Mr Johnson said.
"Sadly, I am driven to the conclusion that Jeremy Corbyn has joined this effort."
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly said the evidence points to Russia being responsible, directly or indirectly, and that the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of evidence."
He added Mr Johnson had "made a fool of himself and undermined the government by seriously misrepresenting what he was told by Porton Down chemical weapons experts.
"These ridiculous insults won't distract attention from the fact that he has clearly misled the public over vital issues of national security."
Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, remain in hospital
Last week Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn also clashed over the Salisbury case.
Mr Corbyn implied the foreign secretary had exaggerated the findings of the UK's defence laboratory Porton Down on the source of the Novichok nerve agent used in the attack.
Mr Johnson, who during the 2017 general election campaign referred to Mr Corbyn as a "mutton-headed, old mugwump", said the Labour leader's remarks were "lamentable".
'Diversionary tactic'
A diplomatic crisis between Russia and the West has followed the attack in Salisbury, with more than 20 countries expelling Russian envoys in solidarity with the UK.
On Saturday, the Foreign Office described a Russian request for a meeting with Mr Johnson on the Salisbury poisoning as a "diversionary tactic".
The Foreign Office said it would respond to the invitation "in due course".
It followed Russian Embassy criticism of the UK government's refusal - on immigration rules - to grant a visa to Ms Skripal's cousin, Viktoria Skripal, to visit Britain.
The embassy says the refusal to allow Viktoria Skripal to visit her cousin and uncle was "disappointing" and "politically motivated".
Mr Skripal was jailed by Russia for spying for Britain, but released as part of a spy swap between the US and Russia in 2010.
Yulia was visiting him in the UK when the attack happened on 4 March. She is now conscious and talking in hospital.
Salisbury District Hospital has said Mr Skripal, is responding well to treatment and "improving rapidly".
Corbyn is 'Kremlin's useful idiot', says Boris Johnson
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has described Jeremy Corbyn as the "Kremlin's useful idiot" over his response to the Salisbury poisoning.
He said the Labour leader was giving Moscow "propaganda" false credibility by refusing to "unequivocally" back the government's view it was responsible.
Labour said Mr Johnson had "made a fool of himself" by misrepresenting what he was told by chemical weapons experts.
It stressed Mr Corbyn had repeatedly said the evidence pointed to Russia.
'Avalanche of lies'
Moscow has denied the UK government's claim that it was behind the attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, on 4 March.
Writing in the Sunday Times, Mr Johnson said the Kremlin had made a "cynical attempt to bury awkward facts beneath an avalanche of lies and disinformation".
He said the Russian government and state-owned media had invented 29 theories about the attack.
Russian spy: What we know so far
Yulia Skripal 'getting stronger daily'
Ex-spy 'improving rapidly' after poisoning
"There is only one thing that gives the Kremlin succour and lends false credibility to its propaganda onslaught. That is when politicians from the targeted countries join in," Mr Johnson said.
"Sadly, I am driven to the conclusion that Jeremy Corbyn has joined this effort."
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly said the evidence points to Russia being responsible, directly or indirectly, and that the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of evidence."
He added Mr Johnson had "made a fool of himself and undermined the government by seriously misrepresenting what he was told by Porton Down chemical weapons experts.
"These ridiculous insults won't distract attention from the fact that he has clearly misled the public over vital issues of national security."
Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, remain in hospital
Last week Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn also clashed over the Salisbury case.
Mr Corbyn implied the foreign secretary had exaggerated the findings of the UK's defence laboratory Porton Down on the source of the Novichok nerve agent used in the attack.
Mr Johnson, who during the 2017 general election campaign referred to Mr Corbyn as a "mutton-headed, old mugwump", said the Labour leader's remarks were "lamentable".
'Diversionary tactic'
A diplomatic crisis between Russia and the West has followed the attack in Salisbury, with more than 20 countries expelling Russian envoys in solidarity with the UK.
On Saturday, the Foreign Office described a Russian request for a meeting with Mr Johnson on the Salisbury poisoning as a "diversionary tactic".
The Foreign Office said it would respond to the invitation "in due course".
It followed Russian Embassy criticism of the UK government's refusal - on immigration rules - to grant a visa to Ms Skripal's cousin, Viktoria Skripal, to visit Britain.
The embassy says the refusal to allow Viktoria Skripal to visit her cousin and uncle was "disappointing" and "politically motivated".
Mr Skripal was jailed by Russia for spying for Britain, but released as part of a spy swap between the US and Russia in 2010.
Yulia was visiting him in the UK when the attack happened on 4 March. She is now conscious and talking in hospital.
Salisbury District Hospital has said Mr Skripal, is responding well to treatment and "improving rapidly".
Trump Tower fire: Man dies in blaze at New York property - BBC News
April 8, 2018
Trump Tower fire: Man dies in blaze at New York property
Trump Tower fire: 'You got to get out'
One man has died and four firefighters have been injured in a blaze at Trump Tower in New York.
The victim was a male resident of the building who died after being taken to hospital, fire officials said.
US President Donald Trump has a home and an office in the building. But Mr Trump, First Lady Melania and their son Barron are currently in Washington DC.
The fire erupted on the 50th floor of the high-rise, which contains apartments and office space.
The cause of the blaze has not yet been released.
FDNY
✔
@FDNY
#FDNY members remain on scene of a 4-alarm fire, 721 5th Ave in Manhattan. There is currently one serious injury to a civilian reported. (Photo credit: @nycoem)
8:56 AM - Apr 8, 2018
Thick black smoke and fire was seen coming from the skyscraper at around 18:00 (2200 GMT).
Around 45 minutes later - before news of the death emerged - the president tweeted that the fire was out. He said it had been "very confined" as the tower is a "well-built building".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Fire at Trump Tower is out. Very confined (well built building). Firemen (and women) did a great job. THANK YOU!
8:42 AM - Apr 8, 2018
Shortly afterwards the Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department, Daniel Nigro, warned that the situation was "still not considered to be under control" due to "a considerable amount of smoke" in the building.
"We found fire on the 50th floor of the building. The apartment was entirely on fire. Members pushed in heroically, they were knocking down the fire and found one occupant of the apartment who is in critical condition," the fire service quoted him as saying.
"This was a very difficult fire. As you can imagine, the apartment is quite large, we are 50 storeys up.
"We had many floors to search, and stairways."
He said that the apartment had no sprinklers. Owners of older residential high-rises such as Trump Tower are not required to install sprinklers unless the building undergoes major renovation, according to the Associated Press.
Streets surrounding the building in Midtown Manhattan were closed off during the fire. Some 200 fire personnel responded to the incident, which the fire department tweeted had been brought under control.
Trump Tower fire: Man dies in blaze at New York property
Trump Tower fire: 'You got to get out'
One man has died and four firefighters have been injured in a blaze at Trump Tower in New York.
The victim was a male resident of the building who died after being taken to hospital, fire officials said.
US President Donald Trump has a home and an office in the building. But Mr Trump, First Lady Melania and their son Barron are currently in Washington DC.
The fire erupted on the 50th floor of the high-rise, which contains apartments and office space.
The cause of the blaze has not yet been released.
FDNY
✔
@FDNY
#FDNY members remain on scene of a 4-alarm fire, 721 5th Ave in Manhattan. There is currently one serious injury to a civilian reported. (Photo credit: @nycoem)
8:56 AM - Apr 8, 2018
Thick black smoke and fire was seen coming from the skyscraper at around 18:00 (2200 GMT).
Around 45 minutes later - before news of the death emerged - the president tweeted that the fire was out. He said it had been "very confined" as the tower is a "well-built building".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Fire at Trump Tower is out. Very confined (well built building). Firemen (and women) did a great job. THANK YOU!
8:42 AM - Apr 8, 2018
Shortly afterwards the Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department, Daniel Nigro, warned that the situation was "still not considered to be under control" due to "a considerable amount of smoke" in the building.
"We found fire on the 50th floor of the building. The apartment was entirely on fire. Members pushed in heroically, they were knocking down the fire and found one occupant of the apartment who is in critical condition," the fire service quoted him as saying.
"This was a very difficult fire. As you can imagine, the apartment is quite large, we are 50 storeys up.
"We had many floors to search, and stairways."
He said that the apartment had no sprinklers. Owners of older residential high-rises such as Trump Tower are not required to install sprinklers unless the building undergoes major renovation, according to the Associated Press.
Streets surrounding the building in Midtown Manhattan were closed off during the fire. Some 200 fire personnel responded to the incident, which the fire department tweeted had been brought under control.
Syria war: At least 70 killed in suspected chemical attack in Douma - BBC News
April 8, 2018
Syria war: At least 70 killed in suspected chemical attack in Douma
Douma children treated after chemical attack
At least 70 people have died in a suspected chemical attack in Douma, the last rebel-held town in Syria's Eastern Ghouta, rescuers and medics say.
Volunteer rescue force the White Helmets tweeted graphic images showing several bodies in basements. It said the deaths were likely to rise.
There has been no independent verification of the reports.
Syria's government has called the allegations of a chemical attack a "fabrication".
The US state department said reports suggested "a potentially high number of casualties", including families in shelters.
It said Russia - with its "unwavering support" for Syria's government - "ultimately bears responsibility" for the alleged attacks.
Syrian warplanes strike rebel enclave
Mattis warns Syria over poison gas use
'We will stay until the end': A doctor's battle in Eastern Ghouta
"The regime's history of using chemical weapons against its own people is not in dispute," it said in a statement.
What do we know about the attack?
Several medical, monitoring and activist groups reported details of a chemical attack, but figures vary and details of what happened are still emerging.
"Seventy people suffocated to death and hundreds are still suffocating," said Raed al-Saleh, head of the White Helmets. An earlier, now deleted tweet, put the number dead at more than 150.
The pro-opposition Ghouta Media Center tweeted that more than 75 people had "suffocated", while a further 1,000 people had suffered the effects of the alleged attack.
It blamed a barrel bomb allegedly dropped by a helicopter which it said contained Sarin, a toxic nerve agent.
The Union of Medical Relief Organizations, a US-based charity that works with Syrian hospitals, told the BBC the Damascus Rural Specialty Hospital had confirmed 70 deaths.
Pro-government forces are fighting to drive rebels out of Douma
A spokeswoman said reports on the ground suggested a much higher number of around 180 dead, but that it was hard to reach victims.
She said there were reports of people being treated for symptoms including convulsions and foaming of the mouth, consistent with nerve or mixed nerve and chlorine gas exposure.
Continued shelling overnight and on Sunday was making it impossible to reach victims.
As the allegations emerged, Syria's state news agency Sana said the reports were invented by the Jaish al-Islam rebels who remain in control in Douma.
"Jaish al-Islam terrorists are in a state of collapse and their media outlets are [making] chemical attack fabrications in an exposed and failed attempt to obstruct advances by the Syrian Arab army," Sana said.
Has the Syrian government used chemical weapons before?
In August 2013, rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were fired at rebel-held areas of the Eastern Ghouta, killing hundreds of people.
A UN mission confirmed the use of Sarin, but it was not asked to state who was responsible. Western powers said only Syrian government forces could have carried out the attack.
In April 2017, more than 80 people died in a Sarin attack on the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, and a joint inquiry by the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) held the Syrian government responsible.
About 80 people died and many more were injured in the attack on Khan Sheikhoun
Activists, medics and the US say Syrian government forces dropped bombs containing toxic chlorine gas on rebel-held towns in early 2018.
The joint UN-OPCW mission is investigating the reports. It previously found that government forces have used chlorine as a weapon at least three times during the seven-year civil war.
Syria government behind 2017 Sarin attack - UN
US President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile attack against Syria following the Khan Sheikhoun attack. It was the first direct US military action against forces commanded by Syria's president.
Last month, the Washington Post newspaper reported that Mr Trump had discussed the possibility of another American attack on Syria with top security officials, but decided not to take action. A spokeswoman for Defence Secretary Jim Mattis has denied any such discussion took place.
What's happening in Douma?
Douma is the last rebel-held town in Syria's Eastern Ghouta region, and is under siege from Russian-backed Syrian government forces.
An intense aerial and ground assault was launched on Friday after talks between Moscow and the rebels broke down.
Before negotiations failed, Jaish al-Islam had been trying to secure a deal that would let its members stay in Douma as a local security force.
'Deal struck' over Syrian rebel bastion
Why is there a war in Syria?
The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group, said government air strikes had killed 40 civilians on Friday, and a further 30 on Saturday.
More were feared to have been killed in new shelling on Sunday - even as the Syrian government said it was ready to start negotiations with Jaish al-islam.
State media said six civilians had also died in rebel shelling of the capital Damascus, with 38 injured. Jaish al-Islam denied it was responsible.
Syrian state media said civilians in the suburbs of Damascus had been killed and injured by rebel mortar fire
Forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad have recaptured almost the entire Eastern Ghouta region through a fierce offensive that started in February.
More than 1,600 people are reported to have been killed and thousands injured.
Syria war: At least 70 killed in suspected chemical attack in Douma
Douma children treated after chemical attack
At least 70 people have died in a suspected chemical attack in Douma, the last rebel-held town in Syria's Eastern Ghouta, rescuers and medics say.
Volunteer rescue force the White Helmets tweeted graphic images showing several bodies in basements. It said the deaths were likely to rise.
There has been no independent verification of the reports.
Syria's government has called the allegations of a chemical attack a "fabrication".
The US state department said reports suggested "a potentially high number of casualties", including families in shelters.
It said Russia - with its "unwavering support" for Syria's government - "ultimately bears responsibility" for the alleged attacks.
Syrian warplanes strike rebel enclave
Mattis warns Syria over poison gas use
'We will stay until the end': A doctor's battle in Eastern Ghouta
"The regime's history of using chemical weapons against its own people is not in dispute," it said in a statement.
What do we know about the attack?
Several medical, monitoring and activist groups reported details of a chemical attack, but figures vary and details of what happened are still emerging.
"Seventy people suffocated to death and hundreds are still suffocating," said Raed al-Saleh, head of the White Helmets. An earlier, now deleted tweet, put the number dead at more than 150.
The pro-opposition Ghouta Media Center tweeted that more than 75 people had "suffocated", while a further 1,000 people had suffered the effects of the alleged attack.
It blamed a barrel bomb allegedly dropped by a helicopter which it said contained Sarin, a toxic nerve agent.
The Union of Medical Relief Organizations, a US-based charity that works with Syrian hospitals, told the BBC the Damascus Rural Specialty Hospital had confirmed 70 deaths.
Pro-government forces are fighting to drive rebels out of Douma
A spokeswoman said reports on the ground suggested a much higher number of around 180 dead, but that it was hard to reach victims.
She said there were reports of people being treated for symptoms including convulsions and foaming of the mouth, consistent with nerve or mixed nerve and chlorine gas exposure.
Continued shelling overnight and on Sunday was making it impossible to reach victims.
As the allegations emerged, Syria's state news agency Sana said the reports were invented by the Jaish al-Islam rebels who remain in control in Douma.
"Jaish al-Islam terrorists are in a state of collapse and their media outlets are [making] chemical attack fabrications in an exposed and failed attempt to obstruct advances by the Syrian Arab army," Sana said.
Has the Syrian government used chemical weapons before?
In August 2013, rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were fired at rebel-held areas of the Eastern Ghouta, killing hundreds of people.
A UN mission confirmed the use of Sarin, but it was not asked to state who was responsible. Western powers said only Syrian government forces could have carried out the attack.
In April 2017, more than 80 people died in a Sarin attack on the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, and a joint inquiry by the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) held the Syrian government responsible.
About 80 people died and many more were injured in the attack on Khan Sheikhoun
Activists, medics and the US say Syrian government forces dropped bombs containing toxic chlorine gas on rebel-held towns in early 2018.
The joint UN-OPCW mission is investigating the reports. It previously found that government forces have used chlorine as a weapon at least three times during the seven-year civil war.
Syria government behind 2017 Sarin attack - UN
US President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile attack against Syria following the Khan Sheikhoun attack. It was the first direct US military action against forces commanded by Syria's president.
Last month, the Washington Post newspaper reported that Mr Trump had discussed the possibility of another American attack on Syria with top security officials, but decided not to take action. A spokeswoman for Defence Secretary Jim Mattis has denied any such discussion took place.
What's happening in Douma?
Douma is the last rebel-held town in Syria's Eastern Ghouta region, and is under siege from Russian-backed Syrian government forces.
An intense aerial and ground assault was launched on Friday after talks between Moscow and the rebels broke down.
Before negotiations failed, Jaish al-Islam had been trying to secure a deal that would let its members stay in Douma as a local security force.
'Deal struck' over Syrian rebel bastion
Why is there a war in Syria?
The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group, said government air strikes had killed 40 civilians on Friday, and a further 30 on Saturday.
More were feared to have been killed in new shelling on Sunday - even as the Syrian government said it was ready to start negotiations with Jaish al-islam.
State media said six civilians had also died in rebel shelling of the capital Damascus, with 38 injured. Jaish al-Islam denied it was responsible.
Syrian state media said civilians in the suburbs of Damascus had been killed and injured by rebel mortar fire
Forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad have recaptured almost the entire Eastern Ghouta region through a fierce offensive that started in February.
More than 1,600 people are reported to have been killed and thousands injured.
Saturday, April 7, 2018
The F-22 and the F-35 were built with communication systems that don’t work together, a problem that’s going to take a lot of money to fix. - Bloomberg
Why America’s Two Top Fighter Jets Can’t Talk to Each Other
The F-22 and the F-35 were built with communication systems that don’t work together, a problem that’s going to take a lot of money to fix.
By
April 2, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+10 Updated on April 3, 2018, 9:30 AM GMT+10
Why America's Most Sophisticated Fighter Jets Can't Talk to Each Other
With the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II, the U.S. has fielded two of the world’s most sophisticated, maneuverable and stealthy fighter jets. They both function as airborne shepherds of America’s flock of older combat aircraft, using their state-of-the-art systems to communicate threats and targets on the ground and in the air.
Unfortunately, they have a difficult time communicating with each other.
The F-22, originally designed as an air superiority fighter, dates to the mid-1980s and was created to dispense near-invisible lethality against Soviet targets before the enemy knew it was there. The plane’s requirements for maximum stealth extended to its communications systems, since they can betray an aircraft’s location. But budget considerations and initial optimism about a post-Cold War world cut short its production. In 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates ended the program.
And that’s where the problem begins. Had the Air Force gotten all the F-22s it wanted—more than double the 183 or so it has—integration of its systems with another fleet of “fifth generation” fighters wouldn’t have been as critical. The F-22’s Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL) is much older than the system used on the newer F-35. While the F-22’s IFDL protocol can receive data from the F-35 and other allied aircraft, such as the F-16 and Eurofighter Typhoon, it can’t transmit the vast array of situational data it collects.
In a recent story on the situation, Air Force Magazine likened U.S. combat communications among the various aircraft to “a kind of Tower of Babel.” And the necessary modifications haven’t been fast in coming. “There’s a lot of improvements that could have been done and should have been done 15 years ago,” said David Rockwell, a senior defense electronics analyst with Teal Group. “The Air Force postponed a lot of things for [the] F-22.”
A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor at the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition on Oct. 16.Photographer: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg
Both the Raptor and Lightning II are known as “fifth-generation” aircraft because of their stealth, sensors and other capabilities. Jets such as the Air Forces’s F-15 and F-16 and the Navy’s F/A-18 are “fourth-generation.” Russia and China also are fielding and refining their fifth-generation fighters, the Su-57 and J-31, respectively.
The U.S. fifth-generation jets are adept at disseminating a more detailed view of the battle space to older aircraft, increasing the former’s “survivability” in combat. The F-35 fleet also has what’s called a multifunction advanced data link (MADL) to gather and share information with other F-35s. This fusion of sensor data—and the ability to distribute it with allied aircraft—allows the F-35 to serve as a “quarterback” during a conflict. “You hear it from the [F-15) Eagles and the Marine Corps,” said Billie Flynn, an F-35 test pilot at Lockheed Martin Corp., which also made the F-22. “We’re keeping our own forces much more engaged and boosting survivability.”
“The thing that’s great about having Link 16 and MADL onboard and the sensor fusion is the amount of situational awareness the pilot has,” Lt. Col. George Watkins, a squadron commander, said in an Air Force statement last year. “I can see the whole war, and where all the other players are, from a god’s-eye view. That makes me a lot more effective.”
“We don’t have data anymore,” said Flynn, a former squadron commander for the Royal Canadian Air Force. “We have knowledge.”
An F-35A at Hill Air Force Base in Utah in 2016.Photographer: George Frey/Bloomberg
When it comes to talking to each other, however, the F-22 and F-35 pilots currently must use secure voice links. This temporary fix has worked in training and simulated combat, Flynn said.
Keeping the F-22 relevant has been a 15-year effort. The Air Force established a modernization program in 2003, with 10 unique upgrades and enhancements. To date, the program has awarded contracts totaling as much as $12.9 billion, according to a Defense Department Inspector General audit on F-22 modernization released last month. The IG criticized the Air Force’s software development and contracting strategies.
“We’re always working on ways to improve connectivity wherever the mission requires additional information sharing,” an Air Force spokesman, Major Ken Scholz, said in an email. “As well, the F-35A and F-22 are very complementary assets, particularly in highly contested areas.”
Still, the Air Force doesn’t plan to begin fixing the communications problem until 2021, when the F-22 fleet is scheduled to have the system upgraded.
China’s J-31 stealth fighter aircraft in 2014.Photographer: Brent Lewin
While these two fighters have a ways to go until they share the same communications and sensor systems, there’s at least one thing they already have in common: they’re budget busters. The Raptor is the most expensive aircraft in the U.S. arsenal, in terms of cost per flight hour; the program ended up costing taxpayers more than $330 million per unit.
Operating and maintenance costs have grown daunting for the F-35 as well. The Air Force may need to cut almost 600 from its planned order of 1,763 if upkeep costs can’t be lowered by more than a third. It also faces annual maintenance costs of almost $4 billion for a fighter fleet that’s likely to top $1 trillion in sustainment through 2070 across the three service branches.
Meanwhile, Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed and others are working on near-term fixes for the F-22’s communications problems. Longer term, the Air Force would like to find a way to extend the existing stealth profile to its upgraded communications and radar systems, Rockwell said. “There could already be a partial classified solution in the short-term,” he said. “This is exactly the sort of thing that goes classified because you don’t want to put out that the F-22 can interact with other things.”
The F-22 and the F-35 were built with communication systems that don’t work together, a problem that’s going to take a lot of money to fix.
By
April 2, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+10 Updated on April 3, 2018, 9:30 AM GMT+10
Why America's Most Sophisticated Fighter Jets Can't Talk to Each Other
With the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II, the U.S. has fielded two of the world’s most sophisticated, maneuverable and stealthy fighter jets. They both function as airborne shepherds of America’s flock of older combat aircraft, using their state-of-the-art systems to communicate threats and targets on the ground and in the air.
Unfortunately, they have a difficult time communicating with each other.
The F-22, originally designed as an air superiority fighter, dates to the mid-1980s and was created to dispense near-invisible lethality against Soviet targets before the enemy knew it was there. The plane’s requirements for maximum stealth extended to its communications systems, since they can betray an aircraft’s location. But budget considerations and initial optimism about a post-Cold War world cut short its production. In 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates ended the program.
And that’s where the problem begins. Had the Air Force gotten all the F-22s it wanted—more than double the 183 or so it has—integration of its systems with another fleet of “fifth generation” fighters wouldn’t have been as critical. The F-22’s Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL) is much older than the system used on the newer F-35. While the F-22’s IFDL protocol can receive data from the F-35 and other allied aircraft, such as the F-16 and Eurofighter Typhoon, it can’t transmit the vast array of situational data it collects.
In a recent story on the situation, Air Force Magazine likened U.S. combat communications among the various aircraft to “a kind of Tower of Babel.” And the necessary modifications haven’t been fast in coming. “There’s a lot of improvements that could have been done and should have been done 15 years ago,” said David Rockwell, a senior defense electronics analyst with Teal Group. “The Air Force postponed a lot of things for [the] F-22.”
A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor at the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition on Oct. 16.Photographer: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg
Both the Raptor and Lightning II are known as “fifth-generation” aircraft because of their stealth, sensors and other capabilities. Jets such as the Air Forces’s F-15 and F-16 and the Navy’s F/A-18 are “fourth-generation.” Russia and China also are fielding and refining their fifth-generation fighters, the Su-57 and J-31, respectively.
The U.S. fifth-generation jets are adept at disseminating a more detailed view of the battle space to older aircraft, increasing the former’s “survivability” in combat. The F-35 fleet also has what’s called a multifunction advanced data link (MADL) to gather and share information with other F-35s. This fusion of sensor data—and the ability to distribute it with allied aircraft—allows the F-35 to serve as a “quarterback” during a conflict. “You hear it from the [F-15) Eagles and the Marine Corps,” said Billie Flynn, an F-35 test pilot at Lockheed Martin Corp., which also made the F-22. “We’re keeping our own forces much more engaged and boosting survivability.”
“The thing that’s great about having Link 16 and MADL onboard and the sensor fusion is the amount of situational awareness the pilot has,” Lt. Col. George Watkins, a squadron commander, said in an Air Force statement last year. “I can see the whole war, and where all the other players are, from a god’s-eye view. That makes me a lot more effective.”
“We don’t have data anymore,” said Flynn, a former squadron commander for the Royal Canadian Air Force. “We have knowledge.”
An F-35A at Hill Air Force Base in Utah in 2016.Photographer: George Frey/Bloomberg
When it comes to talking to each other, however, the F-22 and F-35 pilots currently must use secure voice links. This temporary fix has worked in training and simulated combat, Flynn said.
Keeping the F-22 relevant has been a 15-year effort. The Air Force established a modernization program in 2003, with 10 unique upgrades and enhancements. To date, the program has awarded contracts totaling as much as $12.9 billion, according to a Defense Department Inspector General audit on F-22 modernization released last month. The IG criticized the Air Force’s software development and contracting strategies.
“We’re always working on ways to improve connectivity wherever the mission requires additional information sharing,” an Air Force spokesman, Major Ken Scholz, said in an email. “As well, the F-35A and F-22 are very complementary assets, particularly in highly contested areas.”
Still, the Air Force doesn’t plan to begin fixing the communications problem until 2021, when the F-22 fleet is scheduled to have the system upgraded.
China’s J-31 stealth fighter aircraft in 2014.Photographer: Brent Lewin
While these two fighters have a ways to go until they share the same communications and sensor systems, there’s at least one thing they already have in common: they’re budget busters. The Raptor is the most expensive aircraft in the U.S. arsenal, in terms of cost per flight hour; the program ended up costing taxpayers more than $330 million per unit.
Operating and maintenance costs have grown daunting for the F-35 as well. The Air Force may need to cut almost 600 from its planned order of 1,763 if upkeep costs can’t be lowered by more than a third. It also faces annual maintenance costs of almost $4 billion for a fighter fleet that’s likely to top $1 trillion in sustainment through 2070 across the three service branches.
Meanwhile, Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed and others are working on near-term fixes for the F-22’s communications problems. Longer term, the Air Force would like to find a way to extend the existing stealth profile to its upgraded communications and radar systems, Rockwell said. “There could already be a partial classified solution in the short-term,” he said. “This is exactly the sort of thing that goes classified because you don’t want to put out that the F-22 can interact with other things.”
Almost 80% of U.K. Companies Pay Women Less Than Men - TIMe Business
Almost 80% of U.K. Companies Pay Women Less Than Men
Posted: 05 Apr 2018 09:07 AM PDT
More than 10,000 employers in the United Kingdom publicly reported their gender pay gap data Wednesday as a result of a 2017 regulation aimed at promoting equal pay for equal work. And judging by the results, organizations have a long way to go.
Companies with more than 250 employees in the U.K. are now required to disclose salary data and any gender wage gap publicly online and to the government, thanks to legislation passed last April. More than 78% of U.K. companies paid men more than women, with a median pay gap of 9.7% on average, according to the BBC’s analysis of the data.
The required reporting is intended to shine a light on pay practices and what may stall a woman’s career advancement. In the case of these U.K.-based companies, many found hefty gender wage gaps due to the high number of male executives or leaders filling the highest-paying roles.
The data released this week produced stunning results, with banks, airlines, retailers and British soccer clubs reporting significant differences in the mean salaries between men and women.
Top investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup reported mean hourly rate differences for U.K.-based female and male employees at 55.5% and 48.4% respectively, according to the data. U.K.-run banks like HSBC and Barclays reported women earned a mean hourly rate of 59% and 48%, respectively, less than their male counterparts.
Ryanair, an Irish-based airline, reported a 67% difference in the mean hourly earnings between men and women. EasyJet, a British airline, reported a 51.7% difference. Due to its highly paid male athletes, the Stoke City Football Club reported women earned 92.5% lower in mean hourly earnings than men. The disparity in the median hourly rate between women and men for the club was 30.5%.
This first round of significant reporting — with data all available on the government’s website — includes a number of gender wage gap data, from the proportion of women in the highest or lowest pay groups at a company to the percentage of women and men who have received bonuses.
“Publishing and monitoring pay gaps will help employers understand the reasons for any gap and consider whether they need to develop action plans to tackle the causes,” the government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said.
BREAKING: Over 10,000 employers with 250 or more staff have now published their #GenderPayGap data. Those that haven't now face legal action. https://t.co/JGxKC9eMon pic.twitter.com/FOhibwJCVW
— EHRC (@EHRC) April 5, 2018
Pay transparency, as exhibited by the U.K., is one of the top initiatives pushed by equal pay advocates around the world. In the United States, champions of the cause point to pay transparency as a mechanism that can be used by women to better leverage themselves in salary negotiations and hold leaders at the company accountable for their payroll.
Both the U.K. and the United States have passed versions of an Equal Pay Act decades ago, making it a requirement for women and men to be paid equally for the same work. Disparities in pay still exist despite this, however. In the U.S., women earn around $0.80 on the dollar of their male counterparts, according to the most recent data from the Institute of Women’s Policy Research.
Posted: 05 Apr 2018 09:07 AM PDT
More than 10,000 employers in the United Kingdom publicly reported their gender pay gap data Wednesday as a result of a 2017 regulation aimed at promoting equal pay for equal work. And judging by the results, organizations have a long way to go.
Companies with more than 250 employees in the U.K. are now required to disclose salary data and any gender wage gap publicly online and to the government, thanks to legislation passed last April. More than 78% of U.K. companies paid men more than women, with a median pay gap of 9.7% on average, according to the BBC’s analysis of the data.
The required reporting is intended to shine a light on pay practices and what may stall a woman’s career advancement. In the case of these U.K.-based companies, many found hefty gender wage gaps due to the high number of male executives or leaders filling the highest-paying roles.
The data released this week produced stunning results, with banks, airlines, retailers and British soccer clubs reporting significant differences in the mean salaries between men and women.
Top investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup reported mean hourly rate differences for U.K.-based female and male employees at 55.5% and 48.4% respectively, according to the data. U.K.-run banks like HSBC and Barclays reported women earned a mean hourly rate of 59% and 48%, respectively, less than their male counterparts.
Ryanair, an Irish-based airline, reported a 67% difference in the mean hourly earnings between men and women. EasyJet, a British airline, reported a 51.7% difference. Due to its highly paid male athletes, the Stoke City Football Club reported women earned 92.5% lower in mean hourly earnings than men. The disparity in the median hourly rate between women and men for the club was 30.5%.
This first round of significant reporting — with data all available on the government’s website — includes a number of gender wage gap data, from the proportion of women in the highest or lowest pay groups at a company to the percentage of women and men who have received bonuses.
“Publishing and monitoring pay gaps will help employers understand the reasons for any gap and consider whether they need to develop action plans to tackle the causes,” the government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said.
BREAKING: Over 10,000 employers with 250 or more staff have now published their #GenderPayGap data. Those that haven't now face legal action. https://t.co/JGxKC9eMon pic.twitter.com/FOhibwJCVW
— EHRC (@EHRC) April 5, 2018
Pay transparency, as exhibited by the U.K., is one of the top initiatives pushed by equal pay advocates around the world. In the United States, champions of the cause point to pay transparency as a mechanism that can be used by women to better leverage themselves in salary negotiations and hold leaders at the company accountable for their payroll.
Both the U.K. and the United States have passed versions of an Equal Pay Act decades ago, making it a requirement for women and men to be paid equally for the same work. Disparities in pay still exist despite this, however. In the U.S., women earn around $0.80 on the dollar of their male counterparts, according to the most recent data from the Institute of Women’s Policy Research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
