May 4, 2018
Donald Trump has 'a date and location' for meeting with Kim Jong-un
He has said he wants it to be the DMZ
Andrew Buncombe New York @AndrewBuncombe a
Kensington Palace reveals who will walk Meghan Markle down the aisle
Air Canada jet narrowly missed other planes as it came in to land
Trump and Netanyahu could fall into a war with Iran
Man facing drugs charges leaps from courthouse balcony
Donald Trump has said a date and location has been agreed for his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Speaking to reporters as he boarded Marine One at the White House for the journey to Andrews’ Air Force Base, and then Texas, he said his administration had been working very hard on the issue of North Korea.
“We’re having very substantive talks with North Korea and a lot of things have already happened with respect to the hostages. I think you're going to see very good things,” he said.
North Korea 'suspends' missile and nuclear tests
Of his planned meeting with the North Korean leader, he added: “We have a date, we have a place.”
A week ago, during a meeting with German chancellor Angela Merkel, he said the location had been narrowed down to two to three options. It was reported that two of the locations were believed to be Singapore, or Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia.
Mr Trump later tweeted that he would prefer to meet at the Peace House on the border of North and South Korea, the same place where Mr Kim made history last week when he met with South Korean president Moon Jae-in, shaking hands and laughing, before holding private talks that resulted in a joint declaration from the two countries.
“Numerous countries are being considered for the MEETING, but would Peace House/Freedom House, on the Border of North & South Korea, be a more Representative, Important and Lasting site than a third party country,” he wrote. “Just asking!”
In the aftermath of last Friday’s summit during which the 36-year-old became the first North Korean leader to travel south of the border between the two countries, Mr Trump praised the meeting and said he was looking forward to his own.
US 'not reducing troops in S Korea despite talks with Kim'
'A new era of peace': North Korean media hails historic summit
What happens now the Korean summit is over?
“I don’t think he’s playing,” Mr Trump said. “We will, I think, come up with a solution and if we don’t we leave the room with great respect and we just keep it going.”
The White House has said the historic summit with the Asian leader could take place this month, as long as North Korea made certain concessions.
Saturday, May 5, 2018
CBS News Hires Firm to Investigate Sexual Harassment as 27 New Charlie Rose Accusers Come Forward - TIME
CBS News Hires Firm to Investigate Sexual Harassment as 27 New Charlie Rose Accusers Come Forward
Posted: 03 May 2018 08:40 AM PDT
CBS News has hired an outside law firm to investigate sexual harassment and misconduct as 27 new accusers made allegations against former anchor Charlie Rose.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that three CBS News managers were made aware of harassment allegations against Rose, which span more than three decades. The Post reported that 27 women, 14 of whom worked at CBS News, accused Rose of sexual harassment. In 1986, a 22-year-old CBS News employee said she told a senior producer, whom she did not name, that Rose had allegedly made lewd comments. The Post reports that CBS News managers were made aware of other alleged instances of sexual harassment again in 2011 and April 2017.
Rose told the Post: “Your story is unfair and inaccurate.”
Two top executives – including CBS News President David Rhodes – told the Post they didn’t know about accusations against the former CBS This Morning anchor until they were first reported in November 2017.
A CBS News spokesperson said in a statement sent to TIME that the company has “worked to strengthen existing systems to ensure a safe environment,” but said it could not “corroborate or confirm” many allegations in the Post report.
On Thursday, Rhodes, who took over CBS News in 2011, sent an internal note — provided to TIME — in response to the Post article that outlines the steps the network has taken to “ensure a safe and respectful environment.” Rhodes said that the company hired Proskauer Rose LLP, which investigated sexual misconduct allegations at WNYC, to help with its investigation. He also said that the network instituted mandatory sexual misconduct training and created a working group to address the company’s reporting and handling of sexual harassment.
CBS News and PBS both fired Rose in November 2017 after the Post reported that eight women, all of whom worked or hoped to work on his PBS show, accused him of sexual harassment. At the time, Rose said that he “behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.”
Posted: 03 May 2018 08:40 AM PDT
CBS News has hired an outside law firm to investigate sexual harassment and misconduct as 27 new accusers made allegations against former anchor Charlie Rose.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that three CBS News managers were made aware of harassment allegations against Rose, which span more than three decades. The Post reported that 27 women, 14 of whom worked at CBS News, accused Rose of sexual harassment. In 1986, a 22-year-old CBS News employee said she told a senior producer, whom she did not name, that Rose had allegedly made lewd comments. The Post reports that CBS News managers were made aware of other alleged instances of sexual harassment again in 2011 and April 2017.
Rose told the Post: “Your story is unfair and inaccurate.”
Two top executives – including CBS News President David Rhodes – told the Post they didn’t know about accusations against the former CBS This Morning anchor until they were first reported in November 2017.
A CBS News spokesperson said in a statement sent to TIME that the company has “worked to strengthen existing systems to ensure a safe environment,” but said it could not “corroborate or confirm” many allegations in the Post report.
On Thursday, Rhodes, who took over CBS News in 2011, sent an internal note — provided to TIME — in response to the Post article that outlines the steps the network has taken to “ensure a safe and respectful environment.” Rhodes said that the company hired Proskauer Rose LLP, which investigated sexual misconduct allegations at WNYC, to help with its investigation. He also said that the network instituted mandatory sexual misconduct training and created a working group to address the company’s reporting and handling of sexual harassment.
CBS News and PBS both fired Rose in November 2017 after the Post reported that eight women, all of whom worked or hoped to work on his PBS show, accused him of sexual harassment. At the time, Rose said that he “behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.”
Giuliani May Have Exposed Trump to New Legal and Political Perils - New York Times
Giuliani May Have Exposed Trump to New Legal and Political Perils
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR, MATT APUZZO and MAGGIE HABERMAN MAY 3, 2018
Accusations, payoffs and lawsuits: Here’s a guide to the latest White House scandal, which involves a porn star named Stormy Daniels. By DREW JORDAN on Publish Date March 9, 2018. . Watch in
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s new legal team made a chaotic debut as Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was tapped recently to be one of the president’s lawyers, potentially exposed his client to legal and political danger by publicly revealing the existence of secret payments to Michael D. Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer.
After he moved into the White House, the president began paying Mr. Cohen $35,000 a month, Mr. Giuliani said, in part as reimbursement for a $130,000 payment that Mr. Cohen made to a pornographic film actress to keep her from going public about an affair she said she had with Mr. Trump. The president confirmed he made payments to Mr. Cohen in a series of Twitter posts on Thursday morning.
The explosive revelation, which Mr. Giuliani said was intended to prove that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen violated no campaign finance laws, prompted frustration and disbelief among the president’s other legal and political advisers, some of whom said they feared the gambit could backfire.
Legally, the failure to disclose the payments could be a violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which requires that federal officials, including Mr. Trump, report any liabilities of more than $10,000 during the preceding year. Mr. Trump’s last disclosure report, which he signed and filed in June, mentions no debt to Mr. Cohen.
Politically, Mr. Giuliani’s remarks — made in television appearances and interviews — raised questions about the president’s truthfulness and created a firestorm at the White House, where aides were caught off guard and furiously sought to deflect questions they could not answer. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said she had been unaware of the payments before the interviews.
President Trump reshuffled his legal team in recent weeks as he has sought a more aggressive posture in dealing with the investigations into him and his associates. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
“Everyone is wondering, what in the world is he doing?” said George Arzt, a longtime New York Democratic consultant who has known Mr. Giuliani for decades. “I would not have sent out Rudy to talk about the investigation. But Trump likes chaos and Trump just added to the chaos.”
Trump Says Payment to Stormy Daniels Did Not Violate Campaign Laws MAY 3, 2018
Opinion Michelle Goldberg
Does Giuliani Have a Plan, or Is This Just a Freakout? MAY 3, 2018
Giuliani Appears to Veer Off Script. A Furor Follows. MAY 3, 2018
Giuliani Says Trump Repaid Cohen for Stormy Daniels Hush Money MAY 2, 2018
What Giuliani Said About Cohen’s Payment to Stormy Daniels MAY 2, 2018
I'm no legal eagle but Trump seems to be changing his story by the day.A good liar he is not.Mueller must be itching to drop the hammer.
I. Apelo Enriquez 12 hours ago
In a democracy, the least that any president owes us, the American people, is trust. During the election process, we make choices on the...
Mark Hardin 12 hours ago
This information was bound to come out, and now seems like a relatively non damaging time for Trump. I assume this is why Giuliani revealed...
By the end of the day, the president and his advisers had done little to clarify the confusion that Mr. Giuliani had set in motion a night earlier.
Mr. Giuliani did not consult every member of the president’s legal team, or the network of lawyers around Washington whose clients have been entangled in Mr. Trump’s legal disputes, according to several people close to the team. Emmet T. Flood, a lawyer hired by Mr. Trump on Wednesday, was not involved in Mr. Giuliani’s plans to reveal the payments to Mr. Cohen during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, one of the people said.
The abrupt disclosure — which even caught Mr. Hannity, a confidant of the president’s, by surprise — set off a flurry of calls between Mr. Trump’s lawyers as they sought to determine whether Mr. Giuliani meant to reveal the president’s reimbursement. Witnesses and lawyers around Washington scoured transcripts, watched television clips and called each other in an effort to grasp the consequences of what Mr. Giuliani had said.
The president’s other lawyers ultimately determined that Mr. Giuliani had consulted with Mr. Trump, people close to them said, but were left speechless about why he decided to make the disclosure in such a high-profile way and without any strategy to handle the fallout.
Mr. Giuliani recognized the situation was problematic, two people close to him said, because Mr. Trump had previously said on Air Force One that he was unaware of the hush payments to Stephanie Clifford, the actress who performs as Stormy Daniels. However, Mr. Trump and his aides see lying to or misleading the news media as far less troublesome than lying to investigators, they said.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, recently joined Mr. Trump’s legal team. Credit Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
Even some of the president’s advisers said they were skeptical of Mr. Giuliani’s statements that Mr. Cohen entered into a settlement, made payments to a pornographic film actress and was reimbursed by the president all without Mr. Trump’s knowing why.
Mr. Giuliani’s disclosure is a sign of how Mr. Trump’s reshuffled legal team — which now includes a highly paid Washington lawyer, a famous former mayor, a constitutional lawyer who specializes in religious cases and former federal prosecutors — will function in the coming weeks as they sort out who takes the lead on representing the president.
Mr. Giuliani has said he is the lead lawyer dealing with the special counsel’s investigation in Washington. But his statements on Wednesday night related to the continuing investigation in New York that is examining the conduct of Mr. Cohen. People close to the president are concerned that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani may create more problems for themselves if they consult only with each other and leave out the other lawyers who may know more about the nuances of the cases.
Mr. Trump faces a two-front battle with the Justice Department: one investigation in New York into Mr. Cohen and the special counsel investigation in Washington.
Whoever runs the president’s legal defenses will almost certainly adopt a more aggressive strategy than the previous team, which was led by the Washington lawyers John Dowd and Ty Cobb.
Despite the president’s desire to take on the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and the Justice Department, Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb persuaded Mr. Trump to buy into their strategy of cooperation. The more helpful the president was, Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb told him last year, the more likely the investigation would conclude by year’s end.
Michael D. Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer, paid $130,000 in hush money to Ms. Clifford, who says she had an affair with Mr. Trump. Credit Jeenah Moon for The New York Times
Instead, the investigation has intensified, and the president has concluded that approach was a mistake, according to people close to him. Convinced that the investigation is a growing threat to his presidency, he has resorted to his initial inclination to fight.
Mr. Trump appears to hope that Mr. Giuliani, a like-minded political street fighter from New York, will aid his combative approach. Mr. Giuliani’s comments on Wednesday and Thursday were an attempt to do just that.
His aggression carried risks. Besides revealing that the president had reimbursed Mr. Cohen, Mr. Giuliani appeared to admit that the payment to Ms. Clifford just before Election Day in 2016 was made because of concerns about the coming vote. That could be used to argue that it was an illegal campaign contribution.
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
“Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Giuliani said on the Fox News program “Fox & Friends.” “Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”
Violating campaign finance laws can be serious. John Edwards, a former Democratic senator and presidential hopeful, was charged with corruption for his role in trying to hide details of his affair with a videographer during his 2008 bid for the White House. Mr. Edwards’s trial ended in an acquittal on one count with the jury unable to reach a verdict on five others.
Mr. Giuliani’s comments also raised fresh questions about the president’s relationship with Mr. Cohen. As Mr. Giuliani told it, Mr. Cohen entered into a legal agreement with Ms. Clifford and paid her without Mr. Trump’s knowledge. Mr. Giuliani described that as commonplace, saying he performed similar services for his own clients. But legal ethics experts said such an arrangement was highly unusual and would only expose Mr. Cohen to new questions.
The Trump Team’s Conflicting Statements About the Payment to Stormy Daniels
From complete denial to acknowledging involvement, what President Trump and his lawyers said about the $130,000 paid to the pornographic film actress.
Lawyers are required to keep their clients fully informed of their activities and are generally prohibited from advancing money to or on behalf of their clients, said Deborah L. Rhode, a scholar on legal ethics at Stanford Law School. “This is a guy who says he’ll take a bullet for the president,” she said. “And what they’re giving him is the legal ethics equivalent of a bullet.”
“Giuliani thinks he’s serving President Trump’s interest,” she said. “President Trump’s interest is not the same as Michael Cohen’s interest.”
In his tweets on Thursday, Mr. Trump contradicted his earlier statements that he knew of no payment to Ms. Clifford. Mr. Trump said he paid a monthly retainer to Mr. Cohen and suggested that the payment to the actress could not be considered a campaign contribution.
Government watchdog groups warned that willfully violating the financial disclosure laws can be punished by a fine of up to $50,000 and a year in prison. Although federal officials who lie on the forms are also typically charged with other, more serious offenses such as bribery or fraud, more than 20 officials or former officials have been charged in the past 12 years with making false statements to federal officials, a felony offense. An Environmental Protection Agency official who failed to report a source of income on the form, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to probation.
“Mr. Giuliani did his client no favors,” said Norman L. Eisen, the chairman of the good-government group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Mr. Cohen had worked for Mr. Trump for a decade and has said he would “take a bullet” for him. Mr. Trump, however, treated Mr. Cohen poorly over the years, people familiar with their relationship have said.
Ms. Clifford is suing Mr. Cohen to try to be released from the nondisclosure agreement. And Mr. Cohen is under federal investigation into possible bank fraud, raising concerns in the president’s inner circle that Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer will cooperate with the government. Federal agents raided Mr. Cohen’s office and home last month and seized documents that included information about payments to Ms. Clifford.
Mr. Cohen recently invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in Ms. Clifford’s lawsuit.
Michael D. Shear and Matt Apuzzo reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Reporting was contributed by Matt Flegenheimer, Sharon LaFraniere, Jeremy Peters, Michael S. Schmidt and Eileen Sullivan in Washington.
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR, MATT APUZZO and MAGGIE HABERMAN MAY 3, 2018
Accusations, payoffs and lawsuits: Here’s a guide to the latest White House scandal, which involves a porn star named Stormy Daniels. By DREW JORDAN on Publish Date March 9, 2018. . Watch in
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s new legal team made a chaotic debut as Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was tapped recently to be one of the president’s lawyers, potentially exposed his client to legal and political danger by publicly revealing the existence of secret payments to Michael D. Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer.
After he moved into the White House, the president began paying Mr. Cohen $35,000 a month, Mr. Giuliani said, in part as reimbursement for a $130,000 payment that Mr. Cohen made to a pornographic film actress to keep her from going public about an affair she said she had with Mr. Trump. The president confirmed he made payments to Mr. Cohen in a series of Twitter posts on Thursday morning.
The explosive revelation, which Mr. Giuliani said was intended to prove that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen violated no campaign finance laws, prompted frustration and disbelief among the president’s other legal and political advisers, some of whom said they feared the gambit could backfire.
Legally, the failure to disclose the payments could be a violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which requires that federal officials, including Mr. Trump, report any liabilities of more than $10,000 during the preceding year. Mr. Trump’s last disclosure report, which he signed and filed in June, mentions no debt to Mr. Cohen.
Politically, Mr. Giuliani’s remarks — made in television appearances and interviews — raised questions about the president’s truthfulness and created a firestorm at the White House, where aides were caught off guard and furiously sought to deflect questions they could not answer. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said she had been unaware of the payments before the interviews.
President Trump reshuffled his legal team in recent weeks as he has sought a more aggressive posture in dealing with the investigations into him and his associates. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
“Everyone is wondering, what in the world is he doing?” said George Arzt, a longtime New York Democratic consultant who has known Mr. Giuliani for decades. “I would not have sent out Rudy to talk about the investigation. But Trump likes chaos and Trump just added to the chaos.”
Trump Says Payment to Stormy Daniels Did Not Violate Campaign Laws MAY 3, 2018
Opinion Michelle Goldberg
Does Giuliani Have a Plan, or Is This Just a Freakout? MAY 3, 2018
Giuliani Appears to Veer Off Script. A Furor Follows. MAY 3, 2018
Giuliani Says Trump Repaid Cohen for Stormy Daniels Hush Money MAY 2, 2018
What Giuliani Said About Cohen’s Payment to Stormy Daniels MAY 2, 2018
I'm no legal eagle but Trump seems to be changing his story by the day.A good liar he is not.Mueller must be itching to drop the hammer.
I. Apelo Enriquez 12 hours ago
In a democracy, the least that any president owes us, the American people, is trust. During the election process, we make choices on the...
Mark Hardin 12 hours ago
This information was bound to come out, and now seems like a relatively non damaging time for Trump. I assume this is why Giuliani revealed...
By the end of the day, the president and his advisers had done little to clarify the confusion that Mr. Giuliani had set in motion a night earlier.
Mr. Giuliani did not consult every member of the president’s legal team, or the network of lawyers around Washington whose clients have been entangled in Mr. Trump’s legal disputes, according to several people close to the team. Emmet T. Flood, a lawyer hired by Mr. Trump on Wednesday, was not involved in Mr. Giuliani’s plans to reveal the payments to Mr. Cohen during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, one of the people said.
The abrupt disclosure — which even caught Mr. Hannity, a confidant of the president’s, by surprise — set off a flurry of calls between Mr. Trump’s lawyers as they sought to determine whether Mr. Giuliani meant to reveal the president’s reimbursement. Witnesses and lawyers around Washington scoured transcripts, watched television clips and called each other in an effort to grasp the consequences of what Mr. Giuliani had said.
The president’s other lawyers ultimately determined that Mr. Giuliani had consulted with Mr. Trump, people close to them said, but were left speechless about why he decided to make the disclosure in such a high-profile way and without any strategy to handle the fallout.
Mr. Giuliani recognized the situation was problematic, two people close to him said, because Mr. Trump had previously said on Air Force One that he was unaware of the hush payments to Stephanie Clifford, the actress who performs as Stormy Daniels. However, Mr. Trump and his aides see lying to or misleading the news media as far less troublesome than lying to investigators, they said.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, recently joined Mr. Trump’s legal team. Credit Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
Even some of the president’s advisers said they were skeptical of Mr. Giuliani’s statements that Mr. Cohen entered into a settlement, made payments to a pornographic film actress and was reimbursed by the president all without Mr. Trump’s knowing why.
Mr. Giuliani’s disclosure is a sign of how Mr. Trump’s reshuffled legal team — which now includes a highly paid Washington lawyer, a famous former mayor, a constitutional lawyer who specializes in religious cases and former federal prosecutors — will function in the coming weeks as they sort out who takes the lead on representing the president.
Mr. Giuliani has said he is the lead lawyer dealing with the special counsel’s investigation in Washington. But his statements on Wednesday night related to the continuing investigation in New York that is examining the conduct of Mr. Cohen. People close to the president are concerned that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani may create more problems for themselves if they consult only with each other and leave out the other lawyers who may know more about the nuances of the cases.
Mr. Trump faces a two-front battle with the Justice Department: one investigation in New York into Mr. Cohen and the special counsel investigation in Washington.
Whoever runs the president’s legal defenses will almost certainly adopt a more aggressive strategy than the previous team, which was led by the Washington lawyers John Dowd and Ty Cobb.
Despite the president’s desire to take on the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and the Justice Department, Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb persuaded Mr. Trump to buy into their strategy of cooperation. The more helpful the president was, Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb told him last year, the more likely the investigation would conclude by year’s end.
Michael D. Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer, paid $130,000 in hush money to Ms. Clifford, who says she had an affair with Mr. Trump. Credit Jeenah Moon for The New York Times
Instead, the investigation has intensified, and the president has concluded that approach was a mistake, according to people close to him. Convinced that the investigation is a growing threat to his presidency, he has resorted to his initial inclination to fight.
Mr. Trump appears to hope that Mr. Giuliani, a like-minded political street fighter from New York, will aid his combative approach. Mr. Giuliani’s comments on Wednesday and Thursday were an attempt to do just that.
His aggression carried risks. Besides revealing that the president had reimbursed Mr. Cohen, Mr. Giuliani appeared to admit that the payment to Ms. Clifford just before Election Day in 2016 was made because of concerns about the coming vote. That could be used to argue that it was an illegal campaign contribution.
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
“Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Giuliani said on the Fox News program “Fox & Friends.” “Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”
Violating campaign finance laws can be serious. John Edwards, a former Democratic senator and presidential hopeful, was charged with corruption for his role in trying to hide details of his affair with a videographer during his 2008 bid for the White House. Mr. Edwards’s trial ended in an acquittal on one count with the jury unable to reach a verdict on five others.
Mr. Giuliani’s comments also raised fresh questions about the president’s relationship with Mr. Cohen. As Mr. Giuliani told it, Mr. Cohen entered into a legal agreement with Ms. Clifford and paid her without Mr. Trump’s knowledge. Mr. Giuliani described that as commonplace, saying he performed similar services for his own clients. But legal ethics experts said such an arrangement was highly unusual and would only expose Mr. Cohen to new questions.
The Trump Team’s Conflicting Statements About the Payment to Stormy Daniels
From complete denial to acknowledging involvement, what President Trump and his lawyers said about the $130,000 paid to the pornographic film actress.
Lawyers are required to keep their clients fully informed of their activities and are generally prohibited from advancing money to or on behalf of their clients, said Deborah L. Rhode, a scholar on legal ethics at Stanford Law School. “This is a guy who says he’ll take a bullet for the president,” she said. “And what they’re giving him is the legal ethics equivalent of a bullet.”
“Giuliani thinks he’s serving President Trump’s interest,” she said. “President Trump’s interest is not the same as Michael Cohen’s interest.”
In his tweets on Thursday, Mr. Trump contradicted his earlier statements that he knew of no payment to Ms. Clifford. Mr. Trump said he paid a monthly retainer to Mr. Cohen and suggested that the payment to the actress could not be considered a campaign contribution.
Government watchdog groups warned that willfully violating the financial disclosure laws can be punished by a fine of up to $50,000 and a year in prison. Although federal officials who lie on the forms are also typically charged with other, more serious offenses such as bribery or fraud, more than 20 officials or former officials have been charged in the past 12 years with making false statements to federal officials, a felony offense. An Environmental Protection Agency official who failed to report a source of income on the form, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to probation.
“Mr. Giuliani did his client no favors,” said Norman L. Eisen, the chairman of the good-government group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Mr. Cohen had worked for Mr. Trump for a decade and has said he would “take a bullet” for him. Mr. Trump, however, treated Mr. Cohen poorly over the years, people familiar with their relationship have said.
Ms. Clifford is suing Mr. Cohen to try to be released from the nondisclosure agreement. And Mr. Cohen is under federal investigation into possible bank fraud, raising concerns in the president’s inner circle that Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer will cooperate with the government. Federal agents raided Mr. Cohen’s office and home last month and seized documents that included information about payments to Ms. Clifford.
Mr. Cohen recently invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in Ms. Clifford’s lawsuit.
Michael D. Shear and Matt Apuzzo reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Reporting was contributed by Matt Flegenheimer, Sharon LaFraniere, Jeremy Peters, Michael S. Schmidt and Eileen Sullivan in Washington.
Police stop Native American brothers during US college tour - BBC News
Police stop Native American brothers during US college tour
4 May 2018
Loraine Kahneratokwas Gray (L) and Thomas Kanewakeron Gray (R) say the incident was discriminatory
A Colorado university has apologised for two Native American brothers who were removed from a campus tour after a parent called the police.
The brothers' mother, Lorraine Kahneratokwas Gray, said they were taken off the tour because a parent was suspicious of how quiet they were.
Colorado State University (CSU) police searched the brothers, who drove seven hours to attend the admissions tour.
University officials apologised for the incident in a letter to students.
Thomas Kanewakeron Gray, 19, and Lloyd Skanahwati Gray, 17, had borrowed their family van to drive from Santa Cruz, New Mexico to Fort Collins, Colorado, to visit the college on Monday.
The boys got lost in the city and joined the CSU admissions tour about 30 minutes late.
As the tour moved through the gymnasium, they were stopped by campus police who demanded to know why they were on campus.
Does profiling make sense - or is it unfair?
Implicit bias: Is everyone racist?
"Apparently, a parent on the tour called police because they were too quiet. That made them suspicious," Mrs Kahneratokwas Gray told the Denver Post. "They were trying to listen. Why should it be a crime to listen and not engage in a conversation?"
The boys, who are members of the Mohawk tribe, were only released after they provided police with an email showing they had pre-registered for the tour.
The tour continued while the boys were questioned, and they were unable to complete it.
"I think it's pretty discriminatory," Thomas told the Associated Press on Thursday.
"Me and my brother just stayed to ourselves the whole time. I guess that was scaring people; that we were just quiet."
"Our family is shocked and saddened over this incident of racial profiling, and disappointed that the school didn't take a more proactive stand in protecting my boys from being shamed in this hostile way," their mother said.
In a letter to students, officials say that the Office of Admissions, Office of the Vice President for Diversity, Native American Cultural Center and the CSU Police Department will be meeting to discuss how to better handle similar cases in the future.
"The incident is sad and frustrating from nearly every angle, particularly the experience of two students who were here to see if this was a good fit for them as an institution," the letter said.
The statement added that the university had been speaking to the family of the prospective students.
"As a University community, we deeply regret the experience of these students while they were guests on our campus."
Starbucks race row leaves customers a bitter aftertaste
The incident comes amid other high profile cases of racial profiling, including an incident in Philadelphia in which two black men were arrested at a Starbucks while they were waiting for a friend to arrive before placing an order.
4 May 2018
Loraine Kahneratokwas Gray (L) and Thomas Kanewakeron Gray (R) say the incident was discriminatory
A Colorado university has apologised for two Native American brothers who were removed from a campus tour after a parent called the police.
The brothers' mother, Lorraine Kahneratokwas Gray, said they were taken off the tour because a parent was suspicious of how quiet they were.
Colorado State University (CSU) police searched the brothers, who drove seven hours to attend the admissions tour.
University officials apologised for the incident in a letter to students.
Thomas Kanewakeron Gray, 19, and Lloyd Skanahwati Gray, 17, had borrowed their family van to drive from Santa Cruz, New Mexico to Fort Collins, Colorado, to visit the college on Monday.
The boys got lost in the city and joined the CSU admissions tour about 30 minutes late.
As the tour moved through the gymnasium, they were stopped by campus police who demanded to know why they were on campus.
Does profiling make sense - or is it unfair?
Implicit bias: Is everyone racist?
"Apparently, a parent on the tour called police because they were too quiet. That made them suspicious," Mrs Kahneratokwas Gray told the Denver Post. "They were trying to listen. Why should it be a crime to listen and not engage in a conversation?"
The boys, who are members of the Mohawk tribe, were only released after they provided police with an email showing they had pre-registered for the tour.
The tour continued while the boys were questioned, and they were unable to complete it.
"I think it's pretty discriminatory," Thomas told the Associated Press on Thursday.
"Me and my brother just stayed to ourselves the whole time. I guess that was scaring people; that we were just quiet."
"Our family is shocked and saddened over this incident of racial profiling, and disappointed that the school didn't take a more proactive stand in protecting my boys from being shamed in this hostile way," their mother said.
In a letter to students, officials say that the Office of Admissions, Office of the Vice President for Diversity, Native American Cultural Center and the CSU Police Department will be meeting to discuss how to better handle similar cases in the future.
"The incident is sad and frustrating from nearly every angle, particularly the experience of two students who were here to see if this was a good fit for them as an institution," the letter said.
The statement added that the university had been speaking to the family of the prospective students.
"As a University community, we deeply regret the experience of these students while they were guests on our campus."
Starbucks race row leaves customers a bitter aftertaste
The incident comes amid other high profile cases of racial profiling, including an incident in Philadelphia in which two black men were arrested at a Starbucks while they were waiting for a friend to arrive before placing an order.
Apple shares hit all-time high after Buffett raises stake - BBC News
Apple shares hit all-time high after Buffett raises stake
4 May 2018
Warren Buffett enjoys an ice cream during one of Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholder meetings.
Apple shares have hit an all-time high on news that legendary investor Warren Buffett now has a roughly 5% stake in the tech giant.
Shares in Apple, already the world's most valuable company, rose by almost 4% on Friday to more than $183.7 each.
Mr Buffett said his Berkshire Hathaway group bought about 75 million more shares of the iPhone maker in the first three months of the year.
His investment moves are closely watched across the world.
Mr Buffett's company has been buying up shares in Apple since 2016. Berkshire Hathaway claimed a nearly 3.3% stake, or more than 166 million shares, at the end of last year.
At the time, the holding, one of Berkshire's biggest stock market gambits, was worth more than $28bn.
Now, after the additional share purchases and an 8% rise in price since the start of the year, the firm's stake is worth more than $44bn.
Apple's market value now stands at almost $932bn.
"It is an unbelievable company," Mr Buffett said in an interview with CNBC. "If you look at Apple, I think it earns almost twice as much as the second most profitable company in the United States."
Some analysts have worried the technology giant's best days are behind it, as competition in the smart phone market increases and sales growth slows.
But the company has been building up other lines of business, including the services unit that includes the App Store, Apple Music and Apple Pay.
Apple this week reported profit of $13.8bn in the first three months of the year, rising 25% from the same period in 2017.
The company also has a generous share buyback and dividend programme that is expanding.
Apple, citing new US tax cuts, this week said it would buy back $100bn worth of shares and increase its dividend.
The moves, which return money to its shareholders, had been widely anticipated in the aftermath of the new tax law, which lowered the corporate tax rate and reduced the incentives for firms to hoard cash overseas.
Berkshire Hathaway will host its annual meeting for shareholders in Omaha, Nebraska this weekend.
4 May 2018
Warren Buffett enjoys an ice cream during one of Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholder meetings.
Apple shares have hit an all-time high on news that legendary investor Warren Buffett now has a roughly 5% stake in the tech giant.
Shares in Apple, already the world's most valuable company, rose by almost 4% on Friday to more than $183.7 each.
Mr Buffett said his Berkshire Hathaway group bought about 75 million more shares of the iPhone maker in the first three months of the year.
His investment moves are closely watched across the world.
Mr Buffett's company has been buying up shares in Apple since 2016. Berkshire Hathaway claimed a nearly 3.3% stake, or more than 166 million shares, at the end of last year.
At the time, the holding, one of Berkshire's biggest stock market gambits, was worth more than $28bn.
Now, after the additional share purchases and an 8% rise in price since the start of the year, the firm's stake is worth more than $44bn.
Apple's market value now stands at almost $932bn.
"It is an unbelievable company," Mr Buffett said in an interview with CNBC. "If you look at Apple, I think it earns almost twice as much as the second most profitable company in the United States."
Some analysts have worried the technology giant's best days are behind it, as competition in the smart phone market increases and sales growth slows.
But the company has been building up other lines of business, including the services unit that includes the App Store, Apple Music and Apple Pay.
Apple this week reported profit of $13.8bn in the first three months of the year, rising 25% from the same period in 2017.
The company also has a generous share buyback and dividend programme that is expanding.
Apple, citing new US tax cuts, this week said it would buy back $100bn worth of shares and increase its dividend.
The moves, which return money to its shareholders, had been widely anticipated in the aftermath of the new tax law, which lowered the corporate tax rate and reduced the incentives for firms to hoard cash overseas.
Berkshire Hathaway will host its annual meeting for shareholders in Omaha, Nebraska this weekend.
Trump: Knife crime left London hospital 'like a war zone' - BBC News
May 5, 2018
Trump: Knife crime left London hospital 'like a war zone'
Trump: Blood on London hospital floor
US President Donald Trump has criticised the level of knife crime in London, comparing one of the city's hospitals to a "war zone".
His comments came in a speech to the National Rifle Association (NRA), in which he defended US gun laws.
He also told the firearms lobby's conference in Dallas, Texas, that American gun rights were "under siege".
Mr Trump is due to visit the UK this summer, after previously cancelling a trip amid calls for mass protests.
"I recently read a story that in London, which has unbelievably tough gun laws, a once very prestigious hospital right in the middle is like a war zone for horrible stabbing wounds," he said on Friday.
"They don't have guns. They have knives and instead there's blood all over the floors of this hospital.
"They say it's as bad as a military war zone hospital. Knives, knives, knives, knives." He mimed a stabbing motion.
"London hasn't been used to that. They're getting used to it. It's pretty tough."
Has London's murder rate overtaken New York's?
No easy answers to London's killings
Nine charts on rising knife crime in England and Wales
It is unclear where Mr Trump sourced his information. However, leading London trauma surgeon Dr Martin Griffiths told BBC Radio 4 a month ago that his hospital was likened to an Afghan war zone. The interview was the basis for a Daily Mail article.
The surgeon, who works at the Royal London Hospital, responded to Mr Trump on Twitter with an image suggesting the president had missed the point, adding that he was "happy to invite Mr Trump to my prestigious hospital".
Image Copyright @martinpgriff@MARTINPGRIFF
Report
Dr Griffiths had told the BBC last month about treating stabbing victims "on a daily basis".
He said: "Some of my military colleagues have described their practice here as being similar to being at [Helmand province's former Camp] Bastion."
He added: "We routinely have children under our care, 13, 14, 15 years old are daily occurrences, knife and gun wounds.
BBC Radio 4 Today
✔
@BBCr4today
"We're treating children in school uniforms for knife and gun injuries". One London trauma surgeon - Martin Griffiths @NHSBartsHealth, says his practice is like a war zone #r4today
8:48 PM - Apr 5, 2018
At least 38 people in London have lost their lives to knife crime so far this year, the Met Police has said.
It is not the first time Mr Trump, who will visit the UK on 13 July, has remarked on security in the UK capital.
Last year he criticised London Mayor Sadiq Khan for his handling of terrorist attacks in the city.
The Met Police and Mr Khan declined to comment on Mr Trump's latest remarks.
Piers Morgan
✔
@piersmorgan
Guns are more dangerous than knives, Mr President @realDonaldTrump.
That’s why more people died from guns in America TODAY than have been murdered by knives in Britain this YEAR.
8:24 AM - May 5, 2018
Marian Fitzgerald, a criminologist at the University of Kent, said although there had been a spike in knife-related deaths in London, it was a separate issue to gun control.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's just politically convenient, in a speech to the gun rights lobby, to try and make those comparisons and they are totally spurious.
She added: "If he needs reassurance, Donald Trump is going to be much safer in London than he would be at home."
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just returned home to the beautiful White House, from Dallas, where the Arena was packed to the rafters with the great fans and supporters of the @NRA. It was so wonderful to be there!
10:17 AM - May 5, 2018
Mr Trump also claimed that the terror attack in Paris in 2015 - in which 130 people were killed - could have been prevented if more people had been armed.
"The terrorists would have fled or been shot and it would have been a whole different story," he said.
It was Mr Trump's fourth address to the NRA and his second in office. The last president to do so was Ronald Reagan in 1983.
An estimated 80,000 people have attended this year's NRA convention in Dallas.
The lobby supported Mr Trump during his 2016 presidential election, spending more than $11m (£8m) in advertisements for him, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
After a high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, left 17 dead in February, Mr Trump said he would "fight" the NRA on gun control.
At the time, the president appeared to support raising the age limit of purchasing rifles, closing background check loopholes and confiscating firearms from mentally ill individuals.
Media captionHow young conservatives view #NeverAgain
The US president later said there was "not much political support".
Mr Trump instead pushed a proposal to provide firearms training to school employees.
His administration, however, has taken steps to ban bump stocks, which allow a rifle to shoot hundreds of rounds a minute.
Trump: Knife crime left London hospital 'like a war zone'
Trump: Blood on London hospital floor
US President Donald Trump has criticised the level of knife crime in London, comparing one of the city's hospitals to a "war zone".
His comments came in a speech to the National Rifle Association (NRA), in which he defended US gun laws.
He also told the firearms lobby's conference in Dallas, Texas, that American gun rights were "under siege".
Mr Trump is due to visit the UK this summer, after previously cancelling a trip amid calls for mass protests.
"I recently read a story that in London, which has unbelievably tough gun laws, a once very prestigious hospital right in the middle is like a war zone for horrible stabbing wounds," he said on Friday.
"They don't have guns. They have knives and instead there's blood all over the floors of this hospital.
"They say it's as bad as a military war zone hospital. Knives, knives, knives, knives." He mimed a stabbing motion.
"London hasn't been used to that. They're getting used to it. It's pretty tough."
Has London's murder rate overtaken New York's?
No easy answers to London's killings
Nine charts on rising knife crime in England and Wales
It is unclear where Mr Trump sourced his information. However, leading London trauma surgeon Dr Martin Griffiths told BBC Radio 4 a month ago that his hospital was likened to an Afghan war zone. The interview was the basis for a Daily Mail article.
The surgeon, who works at the Royal London Hospital, responded to Mr Trump on Twitter with an image suggesting the president had missed the point, adding that he was "happy to invite Mr Trump to my prestigious hospital".
Image Copyright @martinpgriff@MARTINPGRIFF
Report
Dr Griffiths had told the BBC last month about treating stabbing victims "on a daily basis".
He said: "Some of my military colleagues have described their practice here as being similar to being at [Helmand province's former Camp] Bastion."
He added: "We routinely have children under our care, 13, 14, 15 years old are daily occurrences, knife and gun wounds.
BBC Radio 4 Today
✔
@BBCr4today
"We're treating children in school uniforms for knife and gun injuries". One London trauma surgeon - Martin Griffiths @NHSBartsHealth, says his practice is like a war zone #r4today
8:48 PM - Apr 5, 2018
At least 38 people in London have lost their lives to knife crime so far this year, the Met Police has said.
It is not the first time Mr Trump, who will visit the UK on 13 July, has remarked on security in the UK capital.
Last year he criticised London Mayor Sadiq Khan for his handling of terrorist attacks in the city.
The Met Police and Mr Khan declined to comment on Mr Trump's latest remarks.
Piers Morgan
✔
@piersmorgan
Guns are more dangerous than knives, Mr President @realDonaldTrump.
That’s why more people died from guns in America TODAY than have been murdered by knives in Britain this YEAR.
8:24 AM - May 5, 2018
Marian Fitzgerald, a criminologist at the University of Kent, said although there had been a spike in knife-related deaths in London, it was a separate issue to gun control.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's just politically convenient, in a speech to the gun rights lobby, to try and make those comparisons and they are totally spurious.
She added: "If he needs reassurance, Donald Trump is going to be much safer in London than he would be at home."
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just returned home to the beautiful White House, from Dallas, where the Arena was packed to the rafters with the great fans and supporters of the @NRA. It was so wonderful to be there!
10:17 AM - May 5, 2018
Mr Trump also claimed that the terror attack in Paris in 2015 - in which 130 people were killed - could have been prevented if more people had been armed.
"The terrorists would have fled or been shot and it would have been a whole different story," he said.
It was Mr Trump's fourth address to the NRA and his second in office. The last president to do so was Ronald Reagan in 1983.
An estimated 80,000 people have attended this year's NRA convention in Dallas.
The lobby supported Mr Trump during his 2016 presidential election, spending more than $11m (£8m) in advertisements for him, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
After a high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, left 17 dead in February, Mr Trump said he would "fight" the NRA on gun control.
At the time, the president appeared to support raising the age limit of purchasing rifles, closing background check loopholes and confiscating firearms from mentally ill individuals.
Media captionHow young conservatives view #NeverAgain
The US president later said there was "not much political support".
Mr Trump instead pushed a proposal to provide firearms training to school employees.
His administration, however, has taken steps to ban bump stocks, which allow a rifle to shoot hundreds of rounds a minute.
US Navy resurrects Second Fleet in Atlantic - BBC News
May 5, 2018
US Navy resurrects Second Fleet in Atlantic
The Second Fleet will be based at its former home - Norfolk, Virginia
The US Navy has said it will re-establish its Second Fleet, as Russia becomes more assertive.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm John Richardson said the fleet, disbanded in 2011, would oversee forces on the US East Coast and North Atlantic.
He said the National Defense Strategy, published earlier this year, made it clear that the era of great power competition had returned.
The strategy makes countering Russia and China a priority.
The fleet, which was disbanded for cost-saving and structural reasons, will be based in its previous home - Norfolk, Virginia.
"Our National Defense Strategy makes clear that we're back in an era of great power competition as the security environment continues to grow more challenging and complex," Adm Richardson said.
"That's why today, we're standing up Second Fleet to address these changes, particularly in the north Atlantic."
Norfolk has also been proposed as a host for the new Nato Joint Force Command for the Atlantic.
Nato officials say Russia has increased naval patrols in the Baltic Sea, the North Atlantic and the Arctic, and its submarine activity is at its highest level since the Cold War.
US Navy resurrects Second Fleet in Atlantic
The Second Fleet will be based at its former home - Norfolk, Virginia
The US Navy has said it will re-establish its Second Fleet, as Russia becomes more assertive.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm John Richardson said the fleet, disbanded in 2011, would oversee forces on the US East Coast and North Atlantic.
He said the National Defense Strategy, published earlier this year, made it clear that the era of great power competition had returned.
The strategy makes countering Russia and China a priority.
The fleet, which was disbanded for cost-saving and structural reasons, will be based in its previous home - Norfolk, Virginia.
"Our National Defense Strategy makes clear that we're back in an era of great power competition as the security environment continues to grow more challenging and complex," Adm Richardson said.
"That's why today, we're standing up Second Fleet to address these changes, particularly in the north Atlantic."
Norfolk has also been proposed as a host for the new Nato Joint Force Command for the Atlantic.
Nato officials say Russia has increased naval patrols in the Baltic Sea, the North Atlantic and the Arctic, and its submarine activity is at its highest level since the Cold War.
Friday, May 4, 2018
Steve Vladeck Trump tweeted that he can fire anyone (including Robert Mueller). Here's what the law actually says. - NBC News
Steve Vladeck Trump tweeted that he can fire anyone (including Robert Mueller). Here's what the law actually says.
Trump can't actually fire whoever he wants. But the fact that he thinks he can makes a bill protecting the special counsel feel increasingly necessary.
May.04.2018 / 6:52 AM ET
The president does not, in fact, have the “unfettered power to fire anyone.” Alex Edelman / EPA
With the Washington Post reporting that special counsel Robert Mueller may subpoena him to testify before a grand jury, President Donald Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday morning, invoking “the President’s Article 2 powers under the Constitution to fire any executive branch Employee,” and his “unfettered power to fire anyone.” One small problem: He’s wrong.
The president does not, in fact, have the “unfettered power to fire anyone.” And until and unless the Supreme Court reverses a 30-year-old ruling, he doesn’t even have the power to fire Mueller without good cause. It turns out that running the executive branch really is different from running a business.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
“The questions are an intrusion into the President’s Article 2 powers under the Constitution to fire any Executive Branch Employee...what the President was thinking is an outrageous.....as to the President’s unfettered power to fire anyone...” Joe Digenova, former US Attorney
11:23 PM - May 2, 2018
The Constitution recognizes two categories of executive branch officers: “principal” officers, who must be nominated by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who serve at the president’s pleasure; and “inferior” officers, the appointments of which “Congress may by law vest... in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” The Supreme Court has never drawn a bright line between the two, but the difference usually depends on how much independent authority the officer has. So Cabinet secretaries are principal officers, whereas their deputies and subordinates are inferior officers. But all government officers exercise significant federal authority in their own right.
The overwhelming majority of civilians who work for the executive branch are not officers, however, but simple employees. Again, the line between employees and inferior officers is not self-evident (the Supreme Court heard arguments in April in a case raising the distinction). But for folks who are clearly employees and not officers, most are protected by federal civil service laws, which, among other things, impose limits on when and how they can be terminated.
Even the most zealous advocates of broad executive power over personnel (albeit not Trump) accept that Congress has the authority to insulate non-officer employees from being fired without cause. So right off the bat, Trump is just wrong.
Even the most zealous advocates of executive power over personnel (albeit not Trump) accept that Congress has the authority to insulate non-officer employees from being fired without cause.
At the other end of the spectrum, the president has the most power over principal executive branch officers, such as Cabinet secretaries. Per a 1926 Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice (and former president) William Howard Taft, such officers generally serve at the president’s pleasure. Although President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for violating an act of Congress that attempted to bar him from firing members of his Cabinet, the modern consensus is that Johnson was right — and Congress was wrong — about his constitutional prerogative.
Instead, the real debate among judges and scholars today is with regard to the middle category —inferior executive branch officers. These are individuals who exercise substantial governmental authority, but who tend to be subordinate to principal executive branch officers (common examples are deputy and/or assistant secretaries of Cabinet departments). In its monumental 1988 decision in Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that the Constitution allows Congress to require good cause before the president can remove such an officer — in that case, an independent counsel appointed under the statute created by Congress after and in response to Watergate.
The Morrison decision has been something of a lightning rod among conservative commentators, who gravitate toward Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful (but solo) dissent, and its embrace of the “unitary executive” theory of presidential power. Under this theory the president requires the authority to control all of his officer subordinates in order to properly do his job. And subsequent conservative judges (and justices) have invoked Scalia’s dissent as a reason to read Morrison narrowly — and to not uphold statutes that create additional constraints on the president’s removal power.
But the Morrison precedent itself remains good law, and is reflected in the very regulation that governs Mueller’s appointment, which only allows the attorney general to remove him “for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.”
And legislation that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 14-7 vote last week (with four Republicans joining the Democrats) would codify that standard and provide for judicial review in cases in which a fired special counsel believed the standard had not been met.
Legislation that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee would provide for judicial review in cases in which a fired special counsel believed the standard had not been met.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed not to allow a vote on the bill — the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act — because he believes it’s unnecessary. But some senators, including some of those who voted against it in the Judiciary Committee, have opposed the bill on the ground that it’s unconstitutional, claiming that, per Justice Scalia’s Morrison dissent, the bill interferes with the president’s power to remove subordinates. Of course, if these senators are right, then the existing regulation is itself unconstitutional, since it imposes the same constraint on the president’s power to fire Mueller.
In fact, there are three different problems with this constitutional objection. First, for at least some of these senators, it is quite clearly a pretext — a legal argument that, whether or not they believe it, gives them political cover to oppose alienating Trump. Second, even for the true believers, as Professor Jed Shugerman explained last week, there are compelling reasons to conclude that Chief Justice William Rehnquist got it right for the majority in Morrison — and that Justice Scalia was simply wrong even as a matter of original understanding. Third, and of most practical importance, there’s no good reason to believe that the current Supreme Court would invalidate the bill were it passed, and lots of good reasons to think that it wouldn’t.
All of this goes to say that the president is definitely wrong about his power to fire “everyone” in the executive branch, and is probably wrong with respect to inferior officers.
All of this goes to say that the president is definitely wrong about his power to fire “everyone” in the executive branch, and is probably wrong with respect to inferior officers whose removal Congress says requires “good cause.” But despite what McConnell believes, the fact that Trump believes he does have unlimited firing power makes the Mueller protection bill very necessary indeed. Trump, of course, could veto the bill if it ever somehow makes its way through both houses of Congress. But perhaps its existence would provide enough of a reason for Congress, should that come to pass, to override him.
Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) is a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law whose teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, and national security law. Steve is co-editor-in-chief of the Just Security blog (@just_security) and co-host of the National Security Law Podcast (@nslpodcast).
Trump can't actually fire whoever he wants. But the fact that he thinks he can makes a bill protecting the special counsel feel increasingly necessary.
May.04.2018 / 6:52 AM ET
The president does not, in fact, have the “unfettered power to fire anyone.” Alex Edelman / EPA
With the Washington Post reporting that special counsel Robert Mueller may subpoena him to testify before a grand jury, President Donald Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday morning, invoking “the President’s Article 2 powers under the Constitution to fire any executive branch Employee,” and his “unfettered power to fire anyone.” One small problem: He’s wrong.
The president does not, in fact, have the “unfettered power to fire anyone.” And until and unless the Supreme Court reverses a 30-year-old ruling, he doesn’t even have the power to fire Mueller without good cause. It turns out that running the executive branch really is different from running a business.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
“The questions are an intrusion into the President’s Article 2 powers under the Constitution to fire any Executive Branch Employee...what the President was thinking is an outrageous.....as to the President’s unfettered power to fire anyone...” Joe Digenova, former US Attorney
11:23 PM - May 2, 2018
The Constitution recognizes two categories of executive branch officers: “principal” officers, who must be nominated by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who serve at the president’s pleasure; and “inferior” officers, the appointments of which “Congress may by law vest... in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” The Supreme Court has never drawn a bright line between the two, but the difference usually depends on how much independent authority the officer has. So Cabinet secretaries are principal officers, whereas their deputies and subordinates are inferior officers. But all government officers exercise significant federal authority in their own right.
The overwhelming majority of civilians who work for the executive branch are not officers, however, but simple employees. Again, the line between employees and inferior officers is not self-evident (the Supreme Court heard arguments in April in a case raising the distinction). But for folks who are clearly employees and not officers, most are protected by federal civil service laws, which, among other things, impose limits on when and how they can be terminated.
Even the most zealous advocates of broad executive power over personnel (albeit not Trump) accept that Congress has the authority to insulate non-officer employees from being fired without cause. So right off the bat, Trump is just wrong.
Even the most zealous advocates of executive power over personnel (albeit not Trump) accept that Congress has the authority to insulate non-officer employees from being fired without cause.
At the other end of the spectrum, the president has the most power over principal executive branch officers, such as Cabinet secretaries. Per a 1926 Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice (and former president) William Howard Taft, such officers generally serve at the president’s pleasure. Although President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for violating an act of Congress that attempted to bar him from firing members of his Cabinet, the modern consensus is that Johnson was right — and Congress was wrong — about his constitutional prerogative.
Instead, the real debate among judges and scholars today is with regard to the middle category —inferior executive branch officers. These are individuals who exercise substantial governmental authority, but who tend to be subordinate to principal executive branch officers (common examples are deputy and/or assistant secretaries of Cabinet departments). In its monumental 1988 decision in Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that the Constitution allows Congress to require good cause before the president can remove such an officer — in that case, an independent counsel appointed under the statute created by Congress after and in response to Watergate.
The Morrison decision has been something of a lightning rod among conservative commentators, who gravitate toward Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful (but solo) dissent, and its embrace of the “unitary executive” theory of presidential power. Under this theory the president requires the authority to control all of his officer subordinates in order to properly do his job. And subsequent conservative judges (and justices) have invoked Scalia’s dissent as a reason to read Morrison narrowly — and to not uphold statutes that create additional constraints on the president’s removal power.
But the Morrison precedent itself remains good law, and is reflected in the very regulation that governs Mueller’s appointment, which only allows the attorney general to remove him “for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.”
And legislation that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 14-7 vote last week (with four Republicans joining the Democrats) would codify that standard and provide for judicial review in cases in which a fired special counsel believed the standard had not been met.
Legislation that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee would provide for judicial review in cases in which a fired special counsel believed the standard had not been met.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed not to allow a vote on the bill — the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act — because he believes it’s unnecessary. But some senators, including some of those who voted against it in the Judiciary Committee, have opposed the bill on the ground that it’s unconstitutional, claiming that, per Justice Scalia’s Morrison dissent, the bill interferes with the president’s power to remove subordinates. Of course, if these senators are right, then the existing regulation is itself unconstitutional, since it imposes the same constraint on the president’s power to fire Mueller.
In fact, there are three different problems with this constitutional objection. First, for at least some of these senators, it is quite clearly a pretext — a legal argument that, whether or not they believe it, gives them political cover to oppose alienating Trump. Second, even for the true believers, as Professor Jed Shugerman explained last week, there are compelling reasons to conclude that Chief Justice William Rehnquist got it right for the majority in Morrison — and that Justice Scalia was simply wrong even as a matter of original understanding. Third, and of most practical importance, there’s no good reason to believe that the current Supreme Court would invalidate the bill were it passed, and lots of good reasons to think that it wouldn’t.
All of this goes to say that the president is definitely wrong about his power to fire “everyone” in the executive branch, and is probably wrong with respect to inferior officers.
All of this goes to say that the president is definitely wrong about his power to fire “everyone” in the executive branch, and is probably wrong with respect to inferior officers whose removal Congress says requires “good cause.” But despite what McConnell believes, the fact that Trump believes he does have unlimited firing power makes the Mueller protection bill very necessary indeed. Trump, of course, could veto the bill if it ever somehow makes its way through both houses of Congress. But perhaps its existence would provide enough of a reason for Congress, should that come to pass, to override him.
Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) is a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law whose teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, and national security law. Steve is co-editor-in-chief of the Just Security blog (@just_security) and co-host of the National Security Law Podcast (@nslpodcast).
Chinese President Xi Jinping Says Marxism Still "Totally Correct" For China - NDTV ( India )
Chinese President Xi Jinping Says Marxism Still "Totally Correct" For China
President Xi Jinping said that Writing Marxism onto the flag of the Chinese Communist Party was totally correct.
World | Reuters | Updated: May 04, 2018 14:34 IST
Chinese President Xi Jinping Says Marxism Still 'Totally Correct' For China
Xi Jinping instructed party members to read Marxist theories and understand them (Reuters)
BEIJING: The decision of China's ruling Communist Party to stick with the political theories of Karl Marx remains "totally correct", President Xi Jinping said ahead of the 200th anniversary of the German philosopher's birth on Saturday.
Since coming to power in 2012, Xi, widely seen as the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, has said the party must not forget its socialist roots as it works to attain the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation".
At the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Xi said, "Writing Marxism onto the flag of the Chinese Communist Party was totally correct... Unceasingly promoting the sinification and modernisation of Marxism is totally correct."
Xi also instructed all party members to adopt the reading of Marxist works and the understanding of Marxist theories as a "way of life" and a "spiritual pursuit".
200th birth anniversary of karl marx beijing
An event commemorating the 200th birth anniversary of Karl Marx in Beijing (Reuters)
Xi's speech came near the end of a week-long propaganda blitz by state media, with chat shows saying "Marx was Right" and cartoons of his wild youth aiming to show his theories remain relevant to modern China and the next generation.
Today, China, the largest self-identified socialist country, outwardly displays all the trappings of a modern capitalist society, from rampant consumption to a massive gap between the urban elite and rural poor.
The apparent contradiction between party rhetoric and appearance has prompted many analysts to suggest the party is no longer really motivated by Marxism but puts practical and economic concerns above all else.
However, Xi has wholeheartedly embraced the party's founding ideology and re-introduced study sessions that hark back to the Mao era, as he stresses the need for China to be confident in its revolutionary history and political system.
"Even if it offends our post-communist conventional wisdom, I think we have to begin accepting the notion that Xi Jinping actually believes in Marx and Marxism," said Jude Blanchette, head of China practice for Crumpton Group, a Washington-based advisory firm.
The emphasis on Marx also helps widen the ideological gulf with Western capitalist democracies in the wake of such events as the 2008 global financial crisis and the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, Blanchette said.
"By embracing Marx even tighter, the party is contrasting itself with the 'failing' alternative political-economic model of the United States," he added.
© Thomson Reuters 2018
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
President Xi Jinping said that Writing Marxism onto the flag of the Chinese Communist Party was totally correct.
World | Reuters | Updated: May 04, 2018 14:34 IST
Chinese President Xi Jinping Says Marxism Still 'Totally Correct' For China
Xi Jinping instructed party members to read Marxist theories and understand them (Reuters)
BEIJING: The decision of China's ruling Communist Party to stick with the political theories of Karl Marx remains "totally correct", President Xi Jinping said ahead of the 200th anniversary of the German philosopher's birth on Saturday.
Since coming to power in 2012, Xi, widely seen as the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, has said the party must not forget its socialist roots as it works to attain the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation".
At the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Xi said, "Writing Marxism onto the flag of the Chinese Communist Party was totally correct... Unceasingly promoting the sinification and modernisation of Marxism is totally correct."
Xi also instructed all party members to adopt the reading of Marxist works and the understanding of Marxist theories as a "way of life" and a "spiritual pursuit".
200th birth anniversary of karl marx beijing
An event commemorating the 200th birth anniversary of Karl Marx in Beijing (Reuters)
Xi's speech came near the end of a week-long propaganda blitz by state media, with chat shows saying "Marx was Right" and cartoons of his wild youth aiming to show his theories remain relevant to modern China and the next generation.
Today, China, the largest self-identified socialist country, outwardly displays all the trappings of a modern capitalist society, from rampant consumption to a massive gap between the urban elite and rural poor.
The apparent contradiction between party rhetoric and appearance has prompted many analysts to suggest the party is no longer really motivated by Marxism but puts practical and economic concerns above all else.
However, Xi has wholeheartedly embraced the party's founding ideology and re-introduced study sessions that hark back to the Mao era, as he stresses the need for China to be confident in its revolutionary history and political system.
"Even if it offends our post-communist conventional wisdom, I think we have to begin accepting the notion that Xi Jinping actually believes in Marx and Marxism," said Jude Blanchette, head of China practice for Crumpton Group, a Washington-based advisory firm.
The emphasis on Marx also helps widen the ideological gulf with Western capitalist democracies in the wake of such events as the 2008 global financial crisis and the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, Blanchette said.
"By embracing Marx even tighter, the party is contrasting itself with the 'failing' alternative political-economic model of the United States," he added.
© Thomson Reuters 2018
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Giuliani’s FBI ‘Stormtroopers’ Smear Is the Key to Trump’s Authoritarian Mind-set - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )
May 3, 2018
10:51 am
Giuliani’s FBI ‘Stormtroopers’ Smear Is the Key to Trump’s Authoritarian Mind-set
By Jonathan Chait
Jonathan Chait
@jonathanchait
Rudy Giuliani. Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
In 1995, National Rifle Association president Wayne LaPierre signed his name to a fundraising letter referring to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents as “jack-booted government thugs.” The implicit association of American federal law enforcement with fascists provoked a furor. Former president George H. W. Bush publicly resigned his NRA membership in protest; LaPierre had to apologize.
Last night, in the midst of a long, deeply incriminating interview, Rudy Giuliani called FBI agents “stormtroopers.” Here was the president’s lawyer, not an outside lobbyist, comparing federal law enforcement to Nazis directly, rather than indirectly. The Washington Post’s account of Giuliani’s interview noted the remark in a single sentence, in the 30th paragraph of its story. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Politico accounts of Giuliani’s interview did not even mention the stormtrooper remark at all.
No doubt the flurry of hair-on-fire legal jeopardy unleashed by Giuliani’s remarks helped bury the newsworthiness of his stormtrooper line. Still, the casualness with which the line was uttered and received does indicate something important about the way Republican thinking about law enforcement has evolved. The party’s respect for the rule of law is disintegrating before our eyes, and in its place is forming a Trumpian conviction that the law must be an instrument of reactionary power.
None of the insults lobbed at the FBI by Giuliani should be confused with the long-standing, principled critique of law enforcement. Civil libertarians have spent decades articulating objections to the power of law enforcement and defending them regardless of whether they happened to benefit the right or the left. (The ACLU is famous for its commitment to defend civil liberties for the far right.) Substantial evidence has shown pervasive racial bias in law enforcement.
But conservatives are not arguing for civil liberties in the abstract, or promoting a generalized policy of more lenient treatment of criminal suspects. Indeed, in the same interview, Giuliani called for James Comey to be prosecuted and Hillary Clinton to be thrown in prison, beliefs that, in the Trump era, have become almost banal. Republicans simultaneously advocate total impunity for their presidency from the law coupled with harsh and even extra-legal punishments for their enemies.
The potential for abuse in turning law enforcement into a weapon of the party that controls government is so terrifying that any democracy has to limit it. For decades, federal law enforcement has observed a series of norms, codified after Watergate, designed to wall it off from partisan considerations. The system hasn’t worked perfectly — it broke down in 2016, when James Comey violated FBI policy and announced one of the candidates was under federal investigation. Comey was attempting to placate Republican demands that the Bureau put more pressure on Clinton, and — assuming she would win — tried to head off postelection recriminations. It was a disastrous miscalculation. But many leading Democrats afforded him some measure of absolution for his error because they respected the norm he was attempting, however clumsily, to defend.
Republicans are now engaged in a concerted effort to break down these protections altogether. Trump and his allies in Congress have repeatedly demanded that the Department of Justice ramp up their investigation of Trump’s opponents and ease up or stop the investigation of Trump’s campaign collusion with Russia. Republicans in Congress have made a series of demands that Rod Rosenstein, the acting attorney general, turn over a wide array of documents related to the Russia probe. The Department of Justice has customarily walled off active investigations from congressional involvement, but Rosenstein (like Comey) has been trying to appease Republicans by giving them unusual access to his evidence.
Rosenstein appears to have reached a limit. The New York Times reported yesterday that Rosenstein and some FBI officials “have come to suspect that some lawmakers were using their oversight authority to gain intelligence about that investigation so that it could be shared with the White House.” The Republican document-demanding game is that they either force Rosenstein to compromise the investigation, letting them inside the prosecution so they can help Trump undermine it, or else he refuses their demands, giving them a pretext to fire him and install a more pliable figure. Rosenstein publicly declared the other day the game was up and he wasn’t going to be extorted any more.
The Wall Street Journal, which has served as a reliable mouthpiece for Trump’s legal defense, defends Congress’s right to take control of the investigation. “Congress is acting through its committees as a separate and co-equal branch of government—the branch that funds Justice and has the right and obligation to exercise oversight,” it editorializes. Rather than denying Rosenstein’s charge that his department is being extorted, the editorial confirms it, treating him like a cowering store owner who hasn’t quite got the message. “We don’t want to see Mr. Rosenstein fired or impeached,” the Journal concludes, “but he and the FBI need to recognize Congress’s constitutional authority.” Nice Department you got there, Rosenstein. We’d hate to see something happen to it.
Earlier this week, Vice-President Mike Pence went out of his way to honor former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. The case of Arpaio epitomizes the cutting-edge Republican philosophy about the rule of law. Arpaio has devoted his career to running roughshod over the law, including defying court orders, in order to intimidate immigrant communities who may or may not have run afoul of immigration law. The veneration of Arpaio, including Trump’s pardon of him, expresses their simultaneous belief in the law as something to applied with unrestrained brutality in their own hands, but that can be ignored altogether when they run afoul of it.
The duality of thought is the key to understanding it. Just as Giuliani can call the famously straight-laced Comey “perverted” in the very same interview he casually conceded that his own client habitually pays hush money to porn stars, Republicans can both fear the law as an instrument of terror while coveting it for the same purpose. This duality is how they can toggle between demanding ruthless authoritarian power and then, when describing their own legal predicament, squealing like the most unhinged anti-government radicals, comparing the FBI to Nazis. Trump holds this view with long-standing fervor, and has always combined a, shall we say, casual approach to legal scruples with demands for merciless law enforcement against the other (from Hillary Clinton to the Central Park Five) without any cognitive dissonance.
But Trump is not sui generis; his authoritarian impulses merely represent a more extreme iteration of a growing impulse on the right. At some point, the power of Trump’s government will either break the rule of law, or be broken by it.
A big trade deal 'unlikely to happen' with Trump's team in China: Former government official - CNBC News
May 3, 2018
A big trade deal 'unlikely to happen' with Trump's team in China: Former government official
The best to expect from Trump's team in China this week is "incremental change," says Stefan Selig, former official in the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Obama administration.
Selig points out that relationship building is important for negotiations in China — something that is difficult to do considering Trump and his Cabinet have not been in office for very long.
He says administration officials should focus on eliminating intellectual property theft and creating fair trading practices that allow Western countries to invest in China.
Kellie Ell | @KellieAutumnEll
CNBC.com
Notion of getting deal done in China is ‘unrealistic’ says expert
Incremental change is the best to expect from the trip by President Donald Trump's team to China this week, Stefan Selig, a former undersecretary of commerce for international Trade at the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Obama administration, told CNBC on Thursday.
"Hard problems are hard to solve," Selig, who is now founder and managing partner of BridgePark Advisors, a financial services firm, said on "Power Lunch." "The notion that we're going to be able to do this [negotiation] in one meeting and we're going to send this team over and actually have something, have a big deal get done, is both naive and unrealistic."
"A big deal is unlikely to happen," he said.
The trip, which includes key members of the Trump administration such as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin; Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow; U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer; Trump's chief trade advisor, Peter Navarro; Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross; and U.S. Ambassador to China Terry Branstad, is an attempt to ease trade tensions between the two countries while discussing the proposed $150 billion in U.S. tariffs and China's counter levies on autos, airplanes and soybeans.
The talks, led by Mnuchin and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, began on Thursday. The U.S. officials will depart Friday.
Selig, who headed the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce from 2014 to 2016 and himself has made five trips to China, pointed out that in Asia, relationship building is an important part of negotiations.
In fact, the Trump administration, in general, is made up of people, "who have been in office for a very short amount of time. So they don't know their counterparts."
John Rutledge, chief investment officer and investment committee member at Safanad, an investment firm, said understanding the Chinese way of negotiations is imperative for both countries.
"[America's] first reaction to trade things is always, tribal chest thumping: America good. China bad," Rutledge, who was awarded Beijing's Great Wall Friendship Award in recognition of his role as a trusted advisor to China's top officials and who has spent time in China, said on "Power Lunch."
But, he said, "The real game of trade are made at the individual level."
The United States imported about $479 billion from China in 2016, but exported only $170 billion, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit to China the same year was $385 billion. Trump said tariffs on steel and aluminum would correct what he deems an unfair trade system.
Meanwhile, the stock market continues to oscillate on news surrounding the visit and investor fears. The S&P 500 fell below its 200-day moving average Thursday morning to 2,615. The Dow Jones industrial average also dropped below the 200-day moving average, down nearly 400 points. The Dow reversed course and closed slightly higher, while the S&P pared some of those losses to end down modestly.
"It doesn't seem like there have been a clear set of objectives that have been laid out by the administration that they're going to achieve, other than the deficit reduction target and other than this industrial policy target," Selig said.
In addition to building relationships, Selig said U.S. officials should focus on issues regarding intellectual property theft and creating a level playing field for Western countries to invest in China.
"If we're focusing on this immediate $100 billion bilateral reduction to our deficit and expecting China to move away from their industrial plan, their so-called Made in China 2025," he said, referring to Beijing's program to upgrade China's domestic manufacturing base by way of more advanced products, "that is not going to happen."
A big trade deal 'unlikely to happen' with Trump's team in China: Former government official
The best to expect from Trump's team in China this week is "incremental change," says Stefan Selig, former official in the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Obama administration.
Selig points out that relationship building is important for negotiations in China — something that is difficult to do considering Trump and his Cabinet have not been in office for very long.
He says administration officials should focus on eliminating intellectual property theft and creating fair trading practices that allow Western countries to invest in China.
Kellie Ell | @KellieAutumnEll
CNBC.com
Notion of getting deal done in China is ‘unrealistic’ says expert
Incremental change is the best to expect from the trip by President Donald Trump's team to China this week, Stefan Selig, a former undersecretary of commerce for international Trade at the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Obama administration, told CNBC on Thursday.
"Hard problems are hard to solve," Selig, who is now founder and managing partner of BridgePark Advisors, a financial services firm, said on "Power Lunch." "The notion that we're going to be able to do this [negotiation] in one meeting and we're going to send this team over and actually have something, have a big deal get done, is both naive and unrealistic."
"A big deal is unlikely to happen," he said.
The trip, which includes key members of the Trump administration such as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin; Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow; U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer; Trump's chief trade advisor, Peter Navarro; Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross; and U.S. Ambassador to China Terry Branstad, is an attempt to ease trade tensions between the two countries while discussing the proposed $150 billion in U.S. tariffs and China's counter levies on autos, airplanes and soybeans.
The talks, led by Mnuchin and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, began on Thursday. The U.S. officials will depart Friday.
Selig, who headed the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce from 2014 to 2016 and himself has made five trips to China, pointed out that in Asia, relationship building is an important part of negotiations.
In fact, the Trump administration, in general, is made up of people, "who have been in office for a very short amount of time. So they don't know their counterparts."
John Rutledge, chief investment officer and investment committee member at Safanad, an investment firm, said understanding the Chinese way of negotiations is imperative for both countries.
"[America's] first reaction to trade things is always, tribal chest thumping: America good. China bad," Rutledge, who was awarded Beijing's Great Wall Friendship Award in recognition of his role as a trusted advisor to China's top officials and who has spent time in China, said on "Power Lunch."
But, he said, "The real game of trade are made at the individual level."
The United States imported about $479 billion from China in 2016, but exported only $170 billion, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit to China the same year was $385 billion. Trump said tariffs on steel and aluminum would correct what he deems an unfair trade system.
Meanwhile, the stock market continues to oscillate on news surrounding the visit and investor fears. The S&P 500 fell below its 200-day moving average Thursday morning to 2,615. The Dow Jones industrial average also dropped below the 200-day moving average, down nearly 400 points. The Dow reversed course and closed slightly higher, while the S&P pared some of those losses to end down modestly.
"It doesn't seem like there have been a clear set of objectives that have been laid out by the administration that they're going to achieve, other than the deficit reduction target and other than this industrial policy target," Selig said.
In addition to building relationships, Selig said U.S. officials should focus on issues regarding intellectual property theft and creating a level playing field for Western countries to invest in China.
"If we're focusing on this immediate $100 billion bilateral reduction to our deficit and expecting China to move away from their industrial plan, their so-called Made in China 2025," he said, referring to Beijing's program to upgrade China's domestic manufacturing base by way of more advanced products, "that is not going to happen."
Rudy Giuliani Just Made Trump’s Stormy Daniels Scandal Even Messier - Fortune
Rudy Giuliani Just Made Trump’s Stormy Daniels Scandal Even Messier
By NATASHA BACH May 3, 2018
President Donald Trump reimbursed the $130,000 his lawyer Michael Cohen paid to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
That’s according to Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City and recent addition to Trump’s legal team.
The Fox interview
While speaking to Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday, Giuliani explained that “the money was not campaign money.”
“Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know,” Giuliani said. “It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.”
“They funneled through a law firm, and the president repaid it,” he said.
Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in hush money to stay quiet about her alleged affair with Trump amid the 2016 race. It’s dogged the president in recent weeks—not only because it points to an extramarital affair, but because it could be seen as a campaign contribution by Cohen and the amount exceeds limits on individual donations.
When pressed further on the matter, Giuliani on Wednesday said that a lawyer handling such a settlement without his client knowing the specifics “is a very regular thing for lawyers to do.”
A contradiction?
Despite Giuliani’s insistence that Trump didn’t know the nature of the $130,000 payment when it was made, Giuliani’s comments to Fox News seemed to contradict Trump’s previous assertions that he knew nothing about the Daniels hush money.
As recently as April 6, Trump told reporters that he did not know about the payment. For his part, Cohen has repeatedly asserted that the hush money paid to Daniels was from his own pocket.
So why would Giuliani give a statement seemingly at odds with the president’s?
In short, Giuliani’s primary goal was to demonstrate that Cohen had not committed a campaign finance violation by stating that Trump had repaid Cohen the $130,000 from his personal funds.
(Cohen is being investigated for possible campaign finance violations, as well as bank fraud and wire fraud.)
Still raises legal questions
However, Giuliani did not paint the full picture, and his attempt to explain the payment arrangement may have made things even less clear.
The nature of the payment to Daniels matters a great deal here.
If it was intended to influence the election, Cohen’s payment would have counted as an in-kind contribution and Trump’s purported repayment would have constituted a campaign expenditure. Both would have required disclosures, according to campaign finance laws.
Trump’s campaign did not disclose the reimbursement to Cohen on its reports.
On the other hand, if the payment to Daniels had a more mundane purpose—to hide the affair from Trump’s wife Melania, for instance—it’s essentially a personal matter and would not factor into campaign finance disclosure regulations.
President Trump’s tweets
President Trump on Thursday took to Twitter to assure the American people that the latter instance is in fact case.
“Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA,” the president tweeted. Adding: “Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.”
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....
8:46 PM - May 3, 2018
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......
8:54 PM - May 3, 2018
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.
9:00 PM - May 3, 2018
When Trump was informed about the payment is also of significance, and Giuliani was sketchy on that detail. In general, violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s disclosure provisions are misdemeanors, but “a knowing and willful violation could be a felony,” explains The New York Times.
Asked in a later interview with The Washington Post whether Trump was not aware of the payment when it was made, or if he was still unaware of it when he spoke to reporters about it in April, Giuliani replied, “Both. I think.”
By NATASHA BACH May 3, 2018
President Donald Trump reimbursed the $130,000 his lawyer Michael Cohen paid to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
That’s according to Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City and recent addition to Trump’s legal team.
The Fox interview
While speaking to Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday, Giuliani explained that “the money was not campaign money.”
“Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know,” Giuliani said. “It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.”
“They funneled through a law firm, and the president repaid it,” he said.
Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in hush money to stay quiet about her alleged affair with Trump amid the 2016 race. It’s dogged the president in recent weeks—not only because it points to an extramarital affair, but because it could be seen as a campaign contribution by Cohen and the amount exceeds limits on individual donations.
When pressed further on the matter, Giuliani on Wednesday said that a lawyer handling such a settlement without his client knowing the specifics “is a very regular thing for lawyers to do.”
A contradiction?
Despite Giuliani’s insistence that Trump didn’t know the nature of the $130,000 payment when it was made, Giuliani’s comments to Fox News seemed to contradict Trump’s previous assertions that he knew nothing about the Daniels hush money.
As recently as April 6, Trump told reporters that he did not know about the payment. For his part, Cohen has repeatedly asserted that the hush money paid to Daniels was from his own pocket.
So why would Giuliani give a statement seemingly at odds with the president’s?
In short, Giuliani’s primary goal was to demonstrate that Cohen had not committed a campaign finance violation by stating that Trump had repaid Cohen the $130,000 from his personal funds.
(Cohen is being investigated for possible campaign finance violations, as well as bank fraud and wire fraud.)
Still raises legal questions
However, Giuliani did not paint the full picture, and his attempt to explain the payment arrangement may have made things even less clear.
The nature of the payment to Daniels matters a great deal here.
If it was intended to influence the election, Cohen’s payment would have counted as an in-kind contribution and Trump’s purported repayment would have constituted a campaign expenditure. Both would have required disclosures, according to campaign finance laws.
Trump’s campaign did not disclose the reimbursement to Cohen on its reports.
On the other hand, if the payment to Daniels had a more mundane purpose—to hide the affair from Trump’s wife Melania, for instance—it’s essentially a personal matter and would not factor into campaign finance disclosure regulations.
President Trump’s tweets
President Trump on Thursday took to Twitter to assure the American people that the latter instance is in fact case.
“Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA,” the president tweeted. Adding: “Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.”
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....
8:46 PM - May 3, 2018
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......
8:54 PM - May 3, 2018
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.
9:00 PM - May 3, 2018
When Trump was informed about the payment is also of significance, and Giuliani was sketchy on that detail. In general, violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s disclosure provisions are misdemeanors, but “a knowing and willful violation could be a felony,” explains The New York Times.
Asked in a later interview with The Washington Post whether Trump was not aware of the payment when it was made, or if he was still unaware of it when he spoke to reporters about it in April, Giuliani replied, “Both. I think.”
Months after Parkland shooting, Trump to embrace NRA in rally-like speech - Reuters
MAY 4, 2018 / 8:05 PM / UPDATED 17 MINUTES AGO
Months after Parkland shooting, Trump to embrace NRA in rally-like speech
Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump, who briefly pledged to “fight” the National Rifle Association after a February mass shooting at a Florida high school, is expected to throw his full weight behind the powerful gun rights group on Friday at an event in Dallas.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump participates in the National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 3, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis
In addressing the gun lobbying group’s annual convention, the Republican president will emphasize his support for gun rights in political terms, likely claiming again that Democrats want to take away Americans’ firearms, a White House official said.
This will be Trump’s fourth speech to the powerful NRA and, with control of the U.S. Congress up for grabs in November’s midterm elections and campaigns under way, it is expected to include familiar warnings meant to excite the Republican voter base.
“These things typically are pretty ‘rah, rah Second Amendment’ types of addresses,” the official said, adding that Trump likely will say that Democrats oppose the constitutional amendment that protects gun ownership.
The massacre that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Feb. 14 seemed to mark a turning point in America’s long-running gun debate, sparking a youth-led movement for tighter gun controls.
Days after the shooting, Trump promised action on gun regulation and at a gathering of state officials, said this of the NRA: “We have to fight them every once in a while.”
Since then, no major new federal gun controls have been imposed, although the administration is pursuing a proposed regulatory ban on bump stocks of the sort used in an October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 59 people.
A bump stock allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire like an automatic one. Semi-automatic assault rifles are sold widely in the United States, which has the world’s highest per capita gun ownership rates. The NRA has fiercely defended America’s gun ownership rights for many years, citing the Second Amendment.
RHETORICAL SHIFT
Since Parkland, Trump has largely moved his rhetoric back in line with the NRA, which endorsed him in his 2016 presidential election campaign and gave him its financial backing.
The group’s convention in Texas will attract a strongly pro-Trump crowd, officials said, giving the president room to take some swipes at his opponents, review his record in office and complain about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.
The event was likely to be “reminiscent of rallies past,” a second White House official said.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll found in March 2018 that 54 percent of adults wanted “strong regulations or restrictions” for firearms. That was up from 39 percent in a similar poll from April 2012.
Among Republicans in the poll, 40 percent wanted strong regulations or restrictions in March 2018, up from 22 percent in April 2012.
Trump met with NRA officials privately at the White House twice in February as he mulled policy responses to the shooting. He eventually endorsed an NRA proposal to arm teachers, a step the group said would help prevent mass school shootings. Gun control activists generally oppose that idea.
Trump initially expressed enthusiasm for measures to close loopholes for gun buyers seeking to avoid the background check system, raise the age limit for buying rifles, and find ways to seize guns temporarily from people reported to be dangerous.
He has since endorsed more modest proposals, such as legislation aimed at providing more data for the background check system. He did not endorse closing a loophole in existing law that would require background checks for guns bought at guns shows or sales arranged over the internet.
Reporting by Jeff Mason; Additional reporting by Chris Kahn; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Bill Trott
Months after Parkland shooting, Trump to embrace NRA in rally-like speech
Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump, who briefly pledged to “fight” the National Rifle Association after a February mass shooting at a Florida high school, is expected to throw his full weight behind the powerful gun rights group on Friday at an event in Dallas.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump participates in the National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 3, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis
In addressing the gun lobbying group’s annual convention, the Republican president will emphasize his support for gun rights in political terms, likely claiming again that Democrats want to take away Americans’ firearms, a White House official said.
This will be Trump’s fourth speech to the powerful NRA and, with control of the U.S. Congress up for grabs in November’s midterm elections and campaigns under way, it is expected to include familiar warnings meant to excite the Republican voter base.
“These things typically are pretty ‘rah, rah Second Amendment’ types of addresses,” the official said, adding that Trump likely will say that Democrats oppose the constitutional amendment that protects gun ownership.
The massacre that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Feb. 14 seemed to mark a turning point in America’s long-running gun debate, sparking a youth-led movement for tighter gun controls.
Days after the shooting, Trump promised action on gun regulation and at a gathering of state officials, said this of the NRA: “We have to fight them every once in a while.”
Since then, no major new federal gun controls have been imposed, although the administration is pursuing a proposed regulatory ban on bump stocks of the sort used in an October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 59 people.
A bump stock allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire like an automatic one. Semi-automatic assault rifles are sold widely in the United States, which has the world’s highest per capita gun ownership rates. The NRA has fiercely defended America’s gun ownership rights for many years, citing the Second Amendment.
RHETORICAL SHIFT
Since Parkland, Trump has largely moved his rhetoric back in line with the NRA, which endorsed him in his 2016 presidential election campaign and gave him its financial backing.
The group’s convention in Texas will attract a strongly pro-Trump crowd, officials said, giving the president room to take some swipes at his opponents, review his record in office and complain about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.
The event was likely to be “reminiscent of rallies past,” a second White House official said.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll found in March 2018 that 54 percent of adults wanted “strong regulations or restrictions” for firearms. That was up from 39 percent in a similar poll from April 2012.
Among Republicans in the poll, 40 percent wanted strong regulations or restrictions in March 2018, up from 22 percent in April 2012.
Trump met with NRA officials privately at the White House twice in February as he mulled policy responses to the shooting. He eventually endorsed an NRA proposal to arm teachers, a step the group said would help prevent mass school shootings. Gun control activists generally oppose that idea.
Trump initially expressed enthusiasm for measures to close loopholes for gun buyers seeking to avoid the background check system, raise the age limit for buying rifles, and find ways to seize guns temporarily from people reported to be dangerous.
He has since endorsed more modest proposals, such as legislation aimed at providing more data for the background check system. He did not endorse closing a loophole in existing law that would require background checks for guns bought at guns shows or sales arranged over the internet.
Reporting by Jeff Mason; Additional reporting by Chris Kahn; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Bill Trott
Warren Buffett: Obsessing over iPhone X sales in the near term 'totally misses the point' on Apple's stock - CNBC News
Warren Buffett: Obsessing over iPhone X sales in the near term 'totally misses the point' on Apple's stock
Berkeley Lovelace Jr. | @BerkeleyJr
Published May 3, 2018
CNBC.com
Warren Buffett
David A. Grogan | CNBC
Warren Buffett
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said long-term investors of Apple's stock shouldn't obsess with near-term iPhone sales.
"The idea that you're going to spend loads of time trying to guess how many iPhone X or whatever may be are going to be sold in a 3 month period totally misses the point," the Berkshire Hathaway chairman and CEO said in a "Squawk Box" interview that aired Friday. "It's like worrying about the number of BlackBerrys 10 years ago."
Buffett revealed that Berkshire bought an astounding 75 million shares of Apple during the first quarter That adds to the 165.3 million shares Berkshire already owned at the end of 2017.
Apple has "a wide, wide gap. I mean its an amazing business. I mean here is a company that whatever the earnings are 60 billion or whatever and you can put all of their products on a dining room table," he told CNBC's Becky Quick.
Buffett spoke to CNBC Thursday evening from Omaha, Nebraska, where tens of thousands of Berkshire shareholders will be gathering this weekend for Saturday's annual meeting.
Berkshire first made an investment in Apple in 2016 after a person at the firm bought about 10 million shares. Buffett then looked at the stock and purchased considerably more, the billionaire recalled in August to CNBC . He added he's never sold an Apple share.
Apple reported quarterly earnings this week that beat expectations but sold fewer iPhones than expected. It also increased its quarterly dividend by 16 percent and announced a $100 billion buyback program.
Berkeley Lovelace Jr. | @BerkeleyJr
Published May 3, 2018
CNBC.com
Warren Buffett
David A. Grogan | CNBC
Warren Buffett
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said long-term investors of Apple's stock shouldn't obsess with near-term iPhone sales.
"The idea that you're going to spend loads of time trying to guess how many iPhone X or whatever may be are going to be sold in a 3 month period totally misses the point," the Berkshire Hathaway chairman and CEO said in a "Squawk Box" interview that aired Friday. "It's like worrying about the number of BlackBerrys 10 years ago."
Buffett revealed that Berkshire bought an astounding 75 million shares of Apple during the first quarter That adds to the 165.3 million shares Berkshire already owned at the end of 2017.
Apple has "a wide, wide gap. I mean its an amazing business. I mean here is a company that whatever the earnings are 60 billion or whatever and you can put all of their products on a dining room table," he told CNBC's Becky Quick.
Buffett spoke to CNBC Thursday evening from Omaha, Nebraska, where tens of thousands of Berkshire shareholders will be gathering this weekend for Saturday's annual meeting.
Berkshire first made an investment in Apple in 2016 after a person at the firm bought about 10 million shares. Buffett then looked at the stock and purchased considerably more, the billionaire recalled in August to CNBC . He added he's never sold an Apple share.
Apple reported quarterly earnings this week that beat expectations but sold fewer iPhones than expected. It also increased its quarterly dividend by 16 percent and announced a $100 billion buyback program.
Striking Arizona Teachers Win a 20% Raise, But It's Not a Complete Victory - Fortune
May 4, 2018
Striking Arizona Teachers Win a 20% Raise, But It's Not a Complete Victory
These Oklahoma Teachers Explain the Reason Behind Their Strike
And what they want to see happen.
By NATASHA BACH 4:30 AM EDT
Teachers across Arizona will return to school on Friday, six days after beginning their statewide strike.
The end to the strike follows the signing of new legislation by Gov. Doug Ducey that addresses some, but not all, of their demands. The state House and Senate “pulled an all-nighter” to get the bill to his desk, according to The Hill.
The measure will give teachers a 20% raise by 2020 and provide an additional $371 to education funding over the next five years, restoring in part the funding cut during the recession.
Nevertheless, the legislation did not include provisions for pay increases for other support staff such as librarians and counselors, nor does the increased funding reach the requested $1 billion.
Ralph Quintana, president of the Arizona American Federation of Teachers, told The Wall Street Journal that “even though the economy has recovered, they’re refusing to give us the restoration of our yearly funding. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not going to fix the problem.”
At the peak of the strike, more than 1,000 schools were closed, affecting more than 850,000 students.
Striking Arizona Teachers Win a 20% Raise, But It's Not a Complete Victory
These Oklahoma Teachers Explain the Reason Behind Their Strike
And what they want to see happen.
By NATASHA BACH 4:30 AM EDT
Teachers across Arizona will return to school on Friday, six days after beginning their statewide strike.
The end to the strike follows the signing of new legislation by Gov. Doug Ducey that addresses some, but not all, of their demands. The state House and Senate “pulled an all-nighter” to get the bill to his desk, according to The Hill.
The measure will give teachers a 20% raise by 2020 and provide an additional $371 to education funding over the next five years, restoring in part the funding cut during the recession.
Nevertheless, the legislation did not include provisions for pay increases for other support staff such as librarians and counselors, nor does the increased funding reach the requested $1 billion.
Ralph Quintana, president of the Arizona American Federation of Teachers, told The Wall Street Journal that “even though the economy has recovered, they’re refusing to give us the restoration of our yearly funding. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not going to fix the problem.”
At the peak of the strike, more than 1,000 schools were closed, affecting more than 850,000 students.
Young women are more left wing than men – this is why - Independent
May 4, 2018
Young women are more left wing than men – this is why
Parties often make particular efforts to appeal to 'women voters' when campaigning. However, an analysis shows that there are considerable differences between younger and older women in their voting preferences
Rosalind Shorrocks 1
Left-wing parties need to think about whether their younger women supporters will stick with them as they age Getty
Young women across Western Europe and Canada are more left wing than their male counterparts, according to new research I carried out that also shows among older voters women more likely to be right wing than men.
We already know that younger people are often more likely to vote for left-wing parties than their older peers, but it seems this trend is particularly pronounced among women. Younger women are the most left wing in their voting habits and older women the most right wing when we compared voters by age and gender. This is shown in a study using data on over 40,000 people from the World Values Survey/European Values Study in Western Europe and Canada, 1989-2014.
This trend is summarised in the graph below. Negative numbers indicate more men voting for a left-wing party in a given country. Positive numbers indicate more women voting for a left-wing party. In almost all countries, women born after 1955 are more likely to vote for left-wing parties than men of the same age group. Conversely, in many countries, women born before 1955 are less likely to vote for left-wing parties than their male peers.
how-people-vote.png
(Rosalind Shorrocks)
The research also showed that the gender gap in left-wing voting became larger for each new birth cohort. So, for example, the difference between women and men in left-wing voting was even greater for those born 1975-85 than it was for those born 1965-75. This suggests that over time we should expect women to become more and more left wing relative to men, as younger, more left-wing cohorts of women replace older, more right-wing cohorts in the population.
The analysis shows that the decline of religiosity is crucial to explaining the trend. Older women are more religious and their religiosity is also more important for their vote choice compared to younger women. Religious voters are more likely to hold conservative social values and attachments to religious parties. This means that older women are more likely to vote for parties on the right – especially Christian democrat parties. Similarly, they are less likely to vote for parties on the left.
On the other hand, younger women tend to have a stronger preference for redistribution and see a larger role for the state compared to men. They vote for left-wing parties in line with these preferences. Older women are also more left wing in their economic policy preferences compared to men, but their greater religiosity trumps these preferences when it comes to their vote choice.
Parties often make particular efforts to appeal to “women voters” when campaigning. However, this analysis shows that there are considerable differences between younger and older women in their voting preferences. Appealing to the “women’s vote” might make less sense than, say, appealing to young women or older women.
This is a challenge for both left- and right-wing parties. Conservative and Christian democratic parties have historically had strong support among religious women, who are concentrated in older generations. However, this is now a cause for concern. Although older voters are more likely to turn out to vote than younger voters, the religious older generations are also becoming a smaller proportion of European electorates through generational replacement. Older generations die out and are replaced with new, secular ones. With an ageing support base and a decline in religiosity especially for women, Conservative or Christian democratic parties may no longer be able to rely on their traditional positions or messages.
Left-wing parties, especially Social democratic ones, need to think about whether their younger women supporters will stick with them as they age. If they do, this perhaps offers hope for these parties. As their traditional support base of the working class declines in size, they might find a new one in the form of younger cohorts of women.
However, in the intervening period, these left-wing parties will face a challenge of balancing the different values and priorities of their traditional base – older, working class men – and their new supporters – younger cohorts of women. Both left-wing and right-wing parties may have to start re-examining how they appeal to female voters.
Rosalind Shorrocks is a lecturer in politics at the University of Manchester
This article originally appeared in The Conversation (theconversation.com)
Young women are more left wing than men – this is why
Parties often make particular efforts to appeal to 'women voters' when campaigning. However, an analysis shows that there are considerable differences between younger and older women in their voting preferences
Rosalind Shorrocks 1
Left-wing parties need to think about whether their younger women supporters will stick with them as they age Getty
Young women across Western Europe and Canada are more left wing than their male counterparts, according to new research I carried out that also shows among older voters women more likely to be right wing than men.
We already know that younger people are often more likely to vote for left-wing parties than their older peers, but it seems this trend is particularly pronounced among women. Younger women are the most left wing in their voting habits and older women the most right wing when we compared voters by age and gender. This is shown in a study using data on over 40,000 people from the World Values Survey/European Values Study in Western Europe and Canada, 1989-2014.
This trend is summarised in the graph below. Negative numbers indicate more men voting for a left-wing party in a given country. Positive numbers indicate more women voting for a left-wing party. In almost all countries, women born after 1955 are more likely to vote for left-wing parties than men of the same age group. Conversely, in many countries, women born before 1955 are less likely to vote for left-wing parties than their male peers.
how-people-vote.png
(Rosalind Shorrocks)
The research also showed that the gender gap in left-wing voting became larger for each new birth cohort. So, for example, the difference between women and men in left-wing voting was even greater for those born 1975-85 than it was for those born 1965-75. This suggests that over time we should expect women to become more and more left wing relative to men, as younger, more left-wing cohorts of women replace older, more right-wing cohorts in the population.
The analysis shows that the decline of religiosity is crucial to explaining the trend. Older women are more religious and their religiosity is also more important for their vote choice compared to younger women. Religious voters are more likely to hold conservative social values and attachments to religious parties. This means that older women are more likely to vote for parties on the right – especially Christian democrat parties. Similarly, they are less likely to vote for parties on the left.
On the other hand, younger women tend to have a stronger preference for redistribution and see a larger role for the state compared to men. They vote for left-wing parties in line with these preferences. Older women are also more left wing in their economic policy preferences compared to men, but their greater religiosity trumps these preferences when it comes to their vote choice.
Parties often make particular efforts to appeal to “women voters” when campaigning. However, this analysis shows that there are considerable differences between younger and older women in their voting preferences. Appealing to the “women’s vote” might make less sense than, say, appealing to young women or older women.
This is a challenge for both left- and right-wing parties. Conservative and Christian democratic parties have historically had strong support among religious women, who are concentrated in older generations. However, this is now a cause for concern. Although older voters are more likely to turn out to vote than younger voters, the religious older generations are also becoming a smaller proportion of European electorates through generational replacement. Older generations die out and are replaced with new, secular ones. With an ageing support base and a decline in religiosity especially for women, Conservative or Christian democratic parties may no longer be able to rely on their traditional positions or messages.
Left-wing parties, especially Social democratic ones, need to think about whether their younger women supporters will stick with them as they age. If they do, this perhaps offers hope for these parties. As their traditional support base of the working class declines in size, they might find a new one in the form of younger cohorts of women.
However, in the intervening period, these left-wing parties will face a challenge of balancing the different values and priorities of their traditional base – older, working class men – and their new supporters – younger cohorts of women. Both left-wing and right-wing parties may have to start re-examining how they appeal to female voters.
Rosalind Shorrocks is a lecturer in politics at the University of Manchester
This article originally appeared in The Conversation (theconversation.com)
Why David Goodall, 104, Renowned Australian Scientist, Wants to Die - New York Times
Why David Goodall, 104, Renowned Australian Scientist, Wants to Die
By YONETTE JOSEPHMAY 3, 2018
David Goodall is not terminally ill but says his quality of life has deteriorated so badly that he has no reason to live. Credit Exit International, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
David Goodall, 104, an accomplished Australian scientist, isn’t terminally ill, but he wants to die.
Mr. Goodall says his quality of life has deteriorated so badly that he has no reason to live, and he would like to end his life through assisted suicide. But he can’t do it in his own country, where the practice is banned.
So on Wednesday, he took what was expected to be his last flight, bound for Europe, to accomplish his goal — and his quest has renewed a debate in Australia about the right to end one’s life and what role others should play.
Mr. Goodall left his home in Perth to fly to an assisted-dying agency in Basel, Switzerland, a country where assisted suicide has been allowed for decades.
Though nations like Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (along with some American states and the District of Columbia) permit euthanasia or assisted suicide, Switzerland is the only country with centers that offer assisted-suicide services to foreigners if the person assisting acts unselfishly.
Dutch Law Would Allow Assisted Suicide for Healthy Older People OCT. 13, 2016
At His Own Wake, Celebrating Life and the Gift of Death MAY 25, 2017
MY MOST MEMORABLE INTERVIEW / 2017
Rules for Reporting a Planned Death: No Photos, No Pad, No Pen DEC. 18, 2017
Who May Die? California Patients and Doctors Wrestle With Assisted Suicide JUNE 9, 2016
When Mr. Goodall, a renowned ecologist, turned 104 in April, he told the Australian broadcaster ABC, “I greatly regret having reached that age.”
Asked if he was happy, he responded: “I’m not happy. I want to die. It’s not sad particularly. What is sad is if one is prevented.”
TicToc by Bloomberg
✔
@tictoc
104-yr-old Australian, David Goodall, has flown to Switzerland to end his life #tictocnews
5:47 PM - May 3, 2018
At the airport on Wednesday, Mr. Goodall expressed regret at having to leave Australia to fulfill his wish, telling reporters, “I’m sorry that I have to travel to Switzerland in order to execute it.”
Sitting in a wheelchair, he added: “I’ve lived quite a good life until recently. The last year has been less satisfactory for me because I couldn’t do things.”
Philip Nitschke, a right-to-die activist and author whose organization, Exit International, helped Mr. Goodall pay for his plane ticket in business class through a GoFundMe campaign, said on Twitter: “Australia will not allow him to access the drugs to achieve this, but Switzerland does.”
He added, “The world is changing but Australia lags badly.”
Assisted suicide has been banned in Australia for decades. In 1995, the Northern Territory became the first legislature in the world to pass a law for voluntary euthanasia, but it was overturned by the national Parliament in 1997.
Victoria State passed a bill in 2017 to legalize assisted suicide, but it could not benefit Mr. Goodall. Set to go into effect in June 2019, it will apply only to terminally ill patients who are of sound mind and who have a life expectancy of no more than six months.
Mr. Goodall with his grandson in Perth on Wednesday, as he left for Switzerland. Credit Sophie Moore/EPA, via Shutterstock
The Australian Medical Association is generally strongly opposed to assisted dying. “Doctors are not trained to kill people. It is deep within our ethics, deep within our training that that’s not appropriate,” its president, Dr. Michael Gannon, said during a legislative debate in Victoria last year.
“Not every doctor agrees with that,” he allowed.
Indeed, a survey of the A.M.A. found that four in 10 members supported right-to-die policies, according to the BBC.
Mr. Goodall, who was born in Britain, began his scientific career at Imperial College in London, according to Exit International. At the University of Melbourne, he was a senior lecturer and held positions at what is now the University of Ghana; the University of Reading, England; the University of California; and Utah State University, among other institutions.
Having earned three doctorates, he worked with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, an independent Australian government agency, until his semiretirement in 1979. He was awarded the Order of Australia at age 101.
Mr. Goodall lived alone in his later years, though he has children and several grandchildren. Most of his friends have died. But he did his own shopping, read Shakespeare and presented poetry to a group.
Until 2016, he worked as an honorary research associate at the Center for Ecosystem Management at Edith Cowan University in Perth, taking two buses and a train to get to his office four days a week.
When he was 102 and called Australia’s oldest working scientist, the university stirred up a tempest by asking Mr. Goodall to vacate his office on the grounds that he was too frail and a safety risk to himself. He challenged the decision, but he moved closer to home to continue working.
His world became smaller, however, as he was forced to give up driving and performing in the theater, Carol O’Neill, a friend and a representative of Exit International, told the BBC.
“It was just the beginning of the end,” she said.
Then, last month, he fell in his one-bedroom apartment and was not found for two days. Doctors ordered him not to use public transport or even to cross the road by himself. His physical condition deteriorated.
His daughter, Karen Goodall-Smith, a clinical psychologist, told ABC at his party that his work had probably been keeping him alive. “His work is his hobby, as well as his passion,” she said, “and without his work, I don’t think that there would be a purpose for him any more.”
Ms. Goodall-Smith added, according to Exit: “He has no control over his life, over his body, over his eyesight. He has lived a really good 104 years. Whatever happens, whatever choices are made, they’re up to him.”
Mr. Goodall is adamant. “One should be free to use the rest of one’s life as one chooses,” he has said. “If one chooses to kill oneself, then that’s fair enough. I don’t think anyone else should interfere.”
According to ABC, he is expected to succumb next Thursday.
By YONETTE JOSEPHMAY 3, 2018
David Goodall is not terminally ill but says his quality of life has deteriorated so badly that he has no reason to live. Credit Exit International, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
David Goodall, 104, an accomplished Australian scientist, isn’t terminally ill, but he wants to die.
Mr. Goodall says his quality of life has deteriorated so badly that he has no reason to live, and he would like to end his life through assisted suicide. But he can’t do it in his own country, where the practice is banned.
So on Wednesday, he took what was expected to be his last flight, bound for Europe, to accomplish his goal — and his quest has renewed a debate in Australia about the right to end one’s life and what role others should play.
Mr. Goodall left his home in Perth to fly to an assisted-dying agency in Basel, Switzerland, a country where assisted suicide has been allowed for decades.
Though nations like Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (along with some American states and the District of Columbia) permit euthanasia or assisted suicide, Switzerland is the only country with centers that offer assisted-suicide services to foreigners if the person assisting acts unselfishly.
Dutch Law Would Allow Assisted Suicide for Healthy Older People OCT. 13, 2016
At His Own Wake, Celebrating Life and the Gift of Death MAY 25, 2017
MY MOST MEMORABLE INTERVIEW / 2017
Rules for Reporting a Planned Death: No Photos, No Pad, No Pen DEC. 18, 2017
Who May Die? California Patients and Doctors Wrestle With Assisted Suicide JUNE 9, 2016
When Mr. Goodall, a renowned ecologist, turned 104 in April, he told the Australian broadcaster ABC, “I greatly regret having reached that age.”
Asked if he was happy, he responded: “I’m not happy. I want to die. It’s not sad particularly. What is sad is if one is prevented.”
TicToc by Bloomberg
✔
@tictoc
104-yr-old Australian, David Goodall, has flown to Switzerland to end his life #tictocnews
5:47 PM - May 3, 2018
At the airport on Wednesday, Mr. Goodall expressed regret at having to leave Australia to fulfill his wish, telling reporters, “I’m sorry that I have to travel to Switzerland in order to execute it.”
Sitting in a wheelchair, he added: “I’ve lived quite a good life until recently. The last year has been less satisfactory for me because I couldn’t do things.”
Philip Nitschke, a right-to-die activist and author whose organization, Exit International, helped Mr. Goodall pay for his plane ticket in business class through a GoFundMe campaign, said on Twitter: “Australia will not allow him to access the drugs to achieve this, but Switzerland does.”
He added, “The world is changing but Australia lags badly.”
Assisted suicide has been banned in Australia for decades. In 1995, the Northern Territory became the first legislature in the world to pass a law for voluntary euthanasia, but it was overturned by the national Parliament in 1997.
Victoria State passed a bill in 2017 to legalize assisted suicide, but it could not benefit Mr. Goodall. Set to go into effect in June 2019, it will apply only to terminally ill patients who are of sound mind and who have a life expectancy of no more than six months.
Mr. Goodall with his grandson in Perth on Wednesday, as he left for Switzerland. Credit Sophie Moore/EPA, via Shutterstock
The Australian Medical Association is generally strongly opposed to assisted dying. “Doctors are not trained to kill people. It is deep within our ethics, deep within our training that that’s not appropriate,” its president, Dr. Michael Gannon, said during a legislative debate in Victoria last year.
“Not every doctor agrees with that,” he allowed.
Indeed, a survey of the A.M.A. found that four in 10 members supported right-to-die policies, according to the BBC.
Mr. Goodall, who was born in Britain, began his scientific career at Imperial College in London, according to Exit International. At the University of Melbourne, he was a senior lecturer and held positions at what is now the University of Ghana; the University of Reading, England; the University of California; and Utah State University, among other institutions.
Having earned three doctorates, he worked with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, an independent Australian government agency, until his semiretirement in 1979. He was awarded the Order of Australia at age 101.
Mr. Goodall lived alone in his later years, though he has children and several grandchildren. Most of his friends have died. But he did his own shopping, read Shakespeare and presented poetry to a group.
Until 2016, he worked as an honorary research associate at the Center for Ecosystem Management at Edith Cowan University in Perth, taking two buses and a train to get to his office four days a week.
When he was 102 and called Australia’s oldest working scientist, the university stirred up a tempest by asking Mr. Goodall to vacate his office on the grounds that he was too frail and a safety risk to himself. He challenged the decision, but he moved closer to home to continue working.
His world became smaller, however, as he was forced to give up driving and performing in the theater, Carol O’Neill, a friend and a representative of Exit International, told the BBC.
“It was just the beginning of the end,” she said.
Then, last month, he fell in his one-bedroom apartment and was not found for two days. Doctors ordered him not to use public transport or even to cross the road by himself. His physical condition deteriorated.
His daughter, Karen Goodall-Smith, a clinical psychologist, told ABC at his party that his work had probably been keeping him alive. “His work is his hobby, as well as his passion,” she said, “and without his work, I don’t think that there would be a purpose for him any more.”
Ms. Goodall-Smith added, according to Exit: “He has no control over his life, over his body, over his eyesight. He has lived a really good 104 years. Whatever happens, whatever choices are made, they’re up to him.”
Mr. Goodall is adamant. “One should be free to use the rest of one’s life as one chooses,” he has said. “If one chooses to kill oneself, then that’s fair enough. I don’t think anyone else should interfere.”
According to ABC, he is expected to succumb next Thursday.
Kuala Lumpur-Singapore named busiest international air route - BBC News
May 4, 2018
Kuala Lumpur-Singapore named busiest international air route
A flight linking Singapore and the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur has become the busiest international route in the world, research shows.
Planes made 30,537 trips between the two airports in the year to February 2018, OAG Aviation said.
The route overtook Hong Kong-Taipei in a list dominated by Asian destinations.
Flying between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur takes about an hour, and there are plans to build a high-speed rail link between the two.
The figures mean an average of 84 flights per day plied the route.
The route is operated by a host of budget carriers such as Scoot, Jetstar, Air Asia and Malindo Air as well as the two country's flagship carriers Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines.
In five charts: How Asia aviation took off
OAG's report found that the busiest international route outside of Asia was between New York's LaGuardia airport and Toronto Pearson - a route which saw about 16,956 flights over the period.
In terms of passenger numbers the flight between Hong Kong and the Taiwanese capital remains the busiest with 6.5 million passengers on the route. The second busiest was Singapore-Jakarta (4.7 million people) and Singapore-Kuala Lumpur (4 million).
However even the busiest international routes cannot compete with the most popular domestic air journeys.
The world's busiest flight path is between the South Korean capital, Seoul, and the country's popular holiday island of Jeju. About 65,000 planes flew that route in 2017 according to OAG - the equivalent of almost 180 journeys per day.
Kuala Lumpur-Singapore named busiest international air route
A flight linking Singapore and the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur has become the busiest international route in the world, research shows.
Planes made 30,537 trips between the two airports in the year to February 2018, OAG Aviation said.
The route overtook Hong Kong-Taipei in a list dominated by Asian destinations.
Flying between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur takes about an hour, and there are plans to build a high-speed rail link between the two.
The figures mean an average of 84 flights per day plied the route.
The route is operated by a host of budget carriers such as Scoot, Jetstar, Air Asia and Malindo Air as well as the two country's flagship carriers Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines.
In five charts: How Asia aviation took off
OAG's report found that the busiest international route outside of Asia was between New York's LaGuardia airport and Toronto Pearson - a route which saw about 16,956 flights over the period.
In terms of passenger numbers the flight between Hong Kong and the Taiwanese capital remains the busiest with 6.5 million passengers on the route. The second busiest was Singapore-Jakarta (4.7 million people) and Singapore-Kuala Lumpur (4 million).
However even the busiest international routes cannot compete with the most popular domestic air journeys.
The world's busiest flight path is between the South Korean capital, Seoul, and the country's popular holiday island of Jeju. About 65,000 planes flew that route in 2017 according to OAG - the equivalent of almost 180 journeys per day.
Mount Kilauea: Hawaii emergency declared over volcano eruption - BBC News
May 4, 2018
Mount Kilauea: Hawaii emergency declared over volcano eruption
The Kilauea volcano erupted after a series of earthquakes on the island
Mount Kilauea volcano has erupted near a residential area on Hawaii's largest island, prompting a local state of emergency and the mandatory evacuation of 1,700 residents.
Extremely high levels of dangerous sulphur dioxide gas have been detected in the evacuation area, the Civil Defense Agency tweeted.
Community centres have been opened to provide shelter.
The eruption follows a series of strong earthquakes over recent days.
A volcanic crater vent - known as Puu Oo - collapsed earlier this week, sending lava down the mountain's slopes towards populated areas.
Officials had been warning residents all week they should be prepared to evacuate as an eruption would give little warning.
The volcano's plume of smoke and ash is visible from a great distance
Eyewitness Maija Stenback: 'You could feel the eruption'
We live in Leilani Estates, about six blocks away from the eruption.
We were evacuated a couple of hours ago and we are now with friends. It's me, my daughter, her boyfriend, and their two children, who are six years old and 20 months old. We all got shoved in a car and off we went.
Within about half an hour of the eruption, it went on social media, so me and my daughter went down to look at it. You could hear and feel the eruption a good half a mile away, and the closer you got, the more you could feel it.
It was like when someone plays the bass really heavy, and you can feel the bass - you could really feel the power and the lava - the colour of the lava was unbelievable, and the sound was unbelievable. It sounds very explosive, like something really explosive is coming out of a little hole, it's spitting out as hard as it can. It's not so much what you hear, it's what you feel.
Hawaii's Governor David Ige says he has activated military reservists from the National Guard to help evacuate thousands of people.
Governor David Ige
✔
@GovHawaii
Replying to @GovHawaii
I am in contact with @MayorHarryKim and Hawai‘i County, and the state is actively supporting the county’s emergency response efforts. I have also activated the Hawai‘i National Guard to support county emergency response teams with evacuations and security. #Kilauea #Volcano
4:32 PM - May 4, 2018
Television pictures showed a line of lava fountains from Mount Kilauea bursting up under a road and adjoining gardens.
Close-up footage shot by a drone showed lava emerging from a fissure in a wooded residential neighbourhood and oozing down a road.
Earlier this year, a false alert warning of an incoming ballistic missile caused panic, leading the US state to reassess its alert system.
Mount Kilauea: Hawaii emergency declared over volcano eruption
The Kilauea volcano erupted after a series of earthquakes on the island
Mount Kilauea volcano has erupted near a residential area on Hawaii's largest island, prompting a local state of emergency and the mandatory evacuation of 1,700 residents.
Extremely high levels of dangerous sulphur dioxide gas have been detected in the evacuation area, the Civil Defense Agency tweeted.
Community centres have been opened to provide shelter.
The eruption follows a series of strong earthquakes over recent days.
A volcanic crater vent - known as Puu Oo - collapsed earlier this week, sending lava down the mountain's slopes towards populated areas.
Officials had been warning residents all week they should be prepared to evacuate as an eruption would give little warning.
The volcano's plume of smoke and ash is visible from a great distance
Eyewitness Maija Stenback: 'You could feel the eruption'
We live in Leilani Estates, about six blocks away from the eruption.
We were evacuated a couple of hours ago and we are now with friends. It's me, my daughter, her boyfriend, and their two children, who are six years old and 20 months old. We all got shoved in a car and off we went.
Within about half an hour of the eruption, it went on social media, so me and my daughter went down to look at it. You could hear and feel the eruption a good half a mile away, and the closer you got, the more you could feel it.
It was like when someone plays the bass really heavy, and you can feel the bass - you could really feel the power and the lava - the colour of the lava was unbelievable, and the sound was unbelievable. It sounds very explosive, like something really explosive is coming out of a little hole, it's spitting out as hard as it can. It's not so much what you hear, it's what you feel.
Hawaii's Governor David Ige says he has activated military reservists from the National Guard to help evacuate thousands of people.
Governor David Ige
✔
@GovHawaii
Replying to @GovHawaii
I am in contact with @MayorHarryKim and Hawai‘i County, and the state is actively supporting the county’s emergency response efforts. I have also activated the Hawai‘i National Guard to support county emergency response teams with evacuations and security. #Kilauea #Volcano
4:32 PM - May 4, 2018
Television pictures showed a line of lava fountains from Mount Kilauea bursting up under a road and adjoining gardens.
Close-up footage shot by a drone showed lava emerging from a fissure in a wooded residential neighbourhood and oozing down a road.
Earlier this year, a false alert warning of an incoming ballistic missile caused panic, leading the US state to reassess its alert system.
Nobel Prize for Literature delayed amid Swedish Academy 'sex assault' scandal - BBC News
May 4, 2018
Nobel Prize for Literature delayed amid Swedish Academy 'sex assault' scandal
The academy will now announce the 2018 winner along with the 2019 winner next year
The organisation that decides the Nobel Prize for Literature has said it will not announce an award this year, after it was engulfed in a scandal over sexual assault allegations.
The Swedish Academy has been in crisis over its handling of allegations against the husband of a member.
She has since quit, as have the academy's head and four other members.
The academy says it will now announce the 2018 winner along with the 2019 winner next year.
The scandal is the biggest to hit the prize since it was first awarded in 1901.
Apart from six years during the world wars, there has been only one year when the prize was not awarded. No worthy winner was found in 1935.
This year's other Nobel prizes will go ahead as usual.
What did the academy say?
In a statement on its website, the academy said: "The present decision was arrived at in view of the currently diminished Academy and the reduced public confidence in the Academy."
It said that the academy's "operative practices need to be evolved", including tackling its statutes, conflict-of-interest issues and management of information.
Anders Olsson, the academy's interim permanent secretary, said there needed to be "long-term and robust work" for change
Some academy members had argued that the prize should proceed to protect the tradition, but others said the institution was in no state to present the award.
The #MeToo campaign, which showed the prevalence of sexual assault globally, may have played a part in the academy's decision. It would have been difficult for potential winners to accept the prize with the academy in such turmoil.
What sparked the crisis?
Divisions started to emerge last November when French photographer Jean-Claude Arnault, who ran a cultural project with funding from the Swedish Academy, was accused by 18 women of sexual assault.
Several of the alleged incidents reportedly happened in properties belonging to the academy. Mr Arnault denies the allegations.
The scandal behind the prize
Photographer 'groped' princess at Swedish Academy event
The organisation later voted against removing Mr Arnault's wife, the poet and writer Katarina Frostenson, from its committee.
Image copyrightEPA
Image caption
The academy's permanent secretary, Prof Sara Danius, resigned
This, along with accusations of conflict of interest and the leaking of Nobel winners' names, divided the organisation.
What followed was a wave of resignations, including Ms Frostenson and the head of the academy, Prof Sara Danius.
Only 11 members are now in place. Of those, one, Kerstin Ekman, has been inactive since 1989, when the academy refused to condemn the fatwa issued over Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.
Swedish Academy head quits over probe
Why women fear a #MeToo backlash
The academy's statutes require a quorum of 12 to vote in any new members.
Technically, members are appointed for life to the Swedish Academy and cannot resign, although they can refuse to take part. Academy patron King Carl XVI Gustaf has said he will change the rules to allow them to quit formally.
So what happens next?
The academy said: "Work on the selection of a laureate is at an advanced stage and will continue as usual in the months ahead but the Academy needs time to regain its full complement, engage a larger number of active members and regain confidence in its work, before the next Literature Prize winner is declared."
Two prizes for literature will be announced next year, one for 2018 and one for 2019.
This is not the first time this has happened. On five occasions a prize for one year has been awarded at the same time as the following year's prize. For example, American playwright Eugene O'Neill was given the 1936 award in 1937.
What's the social reaction been?
A number have highlighted the importance of #MeToo, among other theories and opinions, including the neglect of Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong'o...
Skip Twitter post by @B52Malmet
Barbara Malmet
@B52Malmet
#MeToo catches up to #NobelPrize because #TimesUphttps://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/europe/nobel-prize-for-literature-swedish-academy-postponed-intl/index.html …
5:22 PM - May 4, 2018
Nobel Prize for Literature postponed after sex scandal
cnn.com
Nikki Golightly
@looplikesreplay
It's been months since #metoo started and towers are still falling all over the place https://nyti.ms/2HQju9j
6:45 PM - May 4, 2018
The Swedish Academy’s annual meeting in Stockholm in December.
After Sex Scandal, No 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature, Panel Says
The Swedish Academy has been consumed by charges that a man close to it sexually assaulted women, and that the academy mishandled the allegations.
nytimes.com
Wallace Kantai
@wgkantai
The 2018 Nobel Prize for Literature has been cancelled. The conspiracy against Ngugi is now cosmic in scale.
5:20 PM - May 4, 2018
Adam Garrie
@adamgarriereal
The Nobel Prize people have cancelled this year's prize for literature. I'm so disappointed. Now I won't have the opportunity to ignore the achievement of some obscure author I've never heard of.
5:13 PM - May 4, 2018
Niyam Bhushan
@niyambhushan
You know we live in a bizarre world when their won't be a #Nobel prize for literature on 2018, but there will be a Nobel prize for peace awarded to Donald Trump
6:57 PM - May 4, 2018
The Nobel prizes
Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel set up the prizes in his will in 1895
The five were Chemistry, Literature, Peace, Physics and Physiology (Medicine)
The Nobel Prize for Economics was set up in 1968 in memory of Alfred Nobel
The awards are decided by different bodies. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences oversees Physics, Chemistry and Economics. The Nobel Assembly awards Medicine and the Swedish Academy covers Literature. Peace is the only award not decided by a Swedish organisation - the Norwegian Nobel Committee decides it
Literature has been awarded annually since 1901, save for six years during the two world wars and 1935. The winner receives a gold medal, a diploma and a cash sum based on the Nobel Foundation's income for the year. The laureate is invited to give a lecture and there is a banquet and award ceremony on 10 December
Nobel Prize for Literature delayed amid Swedish Academy 'sex assault' scandal
The academy will now announce the 2018 winner along with the 2019 winner next year
The organisation that decides the Nobel Prize for Literature has said it will not announce an award this year, after it was engulfed in a scandal over sexual assault allegations.
The Swedish Academy has been in crisis over its handling of allegations against the husband of a member.
She has since quit, as have the academy's head and four other members.
The academy says it will now announce the 2018 winner along with the 2019 winner next year.
The scandal is the biggest to hit the prize since it was first awarded in 1901.
Apart from six years during the world wars, there has been only one year when the prize was not awarded. No worthy winner was found in 1935.
This year's other Nobel prizes will go ahead as usual.
What did the academy say?
In a statement on its website, the academy said: "The present decision was arrived at in view of the currently diminished Academy and the reduced public confidence in the Academy."
It said that the academy's "operative practices need to be evolved", including tackling its statutes, conflict-of-interest issues and management of information.
Anders Olsson, the academy's interim permanent secretary, said there needed to be "long-term and robust work" for change
Some academy members had argued that the prize should proceed to protect the tradition, but others said the institution was in no state to present the award.
The #MeToo campaign, which showed the prevalence of sexual assault globally, may have played a part in the academy's decision. It would have been difficult for potential winners to accept the prize with the academy in such turmoil.
What sparked the crisis?
Divisions started to emerge last November when French photographer Jean-Claude Arnault, who ran a cultural project with funding from the Swedish Academy, was accused by 18 women of sexual assault.
Several of the alleged incidents reportedly happened in properties belonging to the academy. Mr Arnault denies the allegations.
The scandal behind the prize
Photographer 'groped' princess at Swedish Academy event
The organisation later voted against removing Mr Arnault's wife, the poet and writer Katarina Frostenson, from its committee.
Image copyrightEPA
Image caption
The academy's permanent secretary, Prof Sara Danius, resigned
This, along with accusations of conflict of interest and the leaking of Nobel winners' names, divided the organisation.
What followed was a wave of resignations, including Ms Frostenson and the head of the academy, Prof Sara Danius.
Only 11 members are now in place. Of those, one, Kerstin Ekman, has been inactive since 1989, when the academy refused to condemn the fatwa issued over Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.
Swedish Academy head quits over probe
Why women fear a #MeToo backlash
The academy's statutes require a quorum of 12 to vote in any new members.
Technically, members are appointed for life to the Swedish Academy and cannot resign, although they can refuse to take part. Academy patron King Carl XVI Gustaf has said he will change the rules to allow them to quit formally.
So what happens next?
The academy said: "Work on the selection of a laureate is at an advanced stage and will continue as usual in the months ahead but the Academy needs time to regain its full complement, engage a larger number of active members and regain confidence in its work, before the next Literature Prize winner is declared."
Two prizes for literature will be announced next year, one for 2018 and one for 2019.
This is not the first time this has happened. On five occasions a prize for one year has been awarded at the same time as the following year's prize. For example, American playwright Eugene O'Neill was given the 1936 award in 1937.
What's the social reaction been?
A number have highlighted the importance of #MeToo, among other theories and opinions, including the neglect of Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong'o...
Skip Twitter post by @B52Malmet
Barbara Malmet
@B52Malmet
#MeToo catches up to #NobelPrize because #TimesUphttps://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/europe/nobel-prize-for-literature-swedish-academy-postponed-intl/index.html …
5:22 PM - May 4, 2018
Nobel Prize for Literature postponed after sex scandal
cnn.com
Nikki Golightly
@looplikesreplay
It's been months since #metoo started and towers are still falling all over the place https://nyti.ms/2HQju9j
6:45 PM - May 4, 2018
The Swedish Academy’s annual meeting in Stockholm in December.
After Sex Scandal, No 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature, Panel Says
The Swedish Academy has been consumed by charges that a man close to it sexually assaulted women, and that the academy mishandled the allegations.
nytimes.com
Wallace Kantai
@wgkantai
The 2018 Nobel Prize for Literature has been cancelled. The conspiracy against Ngugi is now cosmic in scale.
5:20 PM - May 4, 2018
Adam Garrie
@adamgarriereal
The Nobel Prize people have cancelled this year's prize for literature. I'm so disappointed. Now I won't have the opportunity to ignore the achievement of some obscure author I've never heard of.
5:13 PM - May 4, 2018
Niyam Bhushan
@niyambhushan
You know we live in a bizarre world when their won't be a #Nobel prize for literature on 2018, but there will be a Nobel prize for peace awarded to Donald Trump
6:57 PM - May 4, 2018
The Nobel prizes
Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel set up the prizes in his will in 1895
The five were Chemistry, Literature, Peace, Physics and Physiology (Medicine)
The Nobel Prize for Economics was set up in 1968 in memory of Alfred Nobel
The awards are decided by different bodies. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences oversees Physics, Chemistry and Economics. The Nobel Assembly awards Medicine and the Swedish Academy covers Literature. Peace is the only award not decided by a Swedish organisation - the Norwegian Nobel Committee decides it
Literature has been awarded annually since 1901, save for six years during the two world wars and 1935. The winner receives a gold medal, a diploma and a cash sum based on the Nobel Foundation's income for the year. The laureate is invited to give a lecture and there is a banquet and award ceremony on 10 December
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
