July 5, 2018
Thailand cave: Rescuers in race against weather as rains close in
Rescue workers are concerned about what might happen when monsoon rains hit
Rescuers are racing against the rains to free 12 boys and their football coach, who are trapped in a flooded cave in northern Thailand.
A deluge is expected to hit in a matter of days that could force the water level up, threatening to flood the pocket where the group took refuge.
The teenage boys and their 25-year-old coach have been trapped for 12 days.
They were found on Monday night by rescue divers, on a rock shelf about 4km (2.5 miles) from the cave mouth.
The boys have now received food, foil blankets, and medical attention, and rescuers are trying to run cables through the cave tunnel so they can speak to their families.
When are the rains coming?
The region of Chiang Rai where the boys are trapped has for the past few days experienced a dry spell, and rescuers have taken advantage of this to pump water out of the cave complex.
About 128 million litres of water had been pumped out by Thursday, with the water levels coming down at an average rate of 1.5cm per hour. Rescue workers are now able to walk through a 1.5km (0.9 mile) stretch from the entrance to what's being called the third chamber.
Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Water is being pumped out of the cave complex around the clock
But heavy monsoon rains are forecast for Sunday. Chiang Rai Governor Narongsak Osotthanakorn said they were "racing against water".
"We are calculating how much time we have it if rains, how many hours and days," he said.
The Tham Luang cave complex is regularly flooded during the rainy season until September or October, raising fears that a delay could leave the boys trapped in the cave for months.
What is being done to rescue the boys?
There is hope that enough water can be pumped out of the cave tunnels for the boys to be able to wade - or be floated - out.
But rescuers are also planning for other eventualities.
A team are exploring the forested mountain land above the cave complex to see if they can find a chimney down to the cavern sheltering the boys. They have enlisted the help of bird-watchers, who are specialists in finding hidden holes, the AFP news agency reports.
Media captionBill Whitehouse from the British Cave Rescue Council explains how the boys and their coach might be rescued
Thai Navy Seal divers are also teaching the boys the basics of diving, with a view to guiding them out through flooded waters if necessary.
But such a rescue would be fraught with risk, say experts. Many of the boys cannot swim or dive, and there is a high risk they might panic in the dark, murky, narrow waterways.
The journey for the group to travel up to the cave entrance would take around five hours, rescue divers say.
The Thai military has previously said that if the boys can't dive out, the group may have to wait for up to four months for flooding to recede before they can leave.
Food and other supplies are being put in place for that eventuality.
What are the rescue options?
'The boys are my brothers'
Helier Cheung, BBC News, Tham Luang cave
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Teams of volunteers are each playing their part in the rescue effort
Rescue teams are working in extremely difficult conditions. The heat has been sweltering and unrelenting, at over 30C, while much of the site is submerged in squelchy mud that is several inches thick in places and extremely slippery.
But the work has continued at an unrelenting pace. Everyone is aware that once the monsoon rains start, rescue efforts will be much more difficult.
Meanwhile, hundreds of workers are helping to keep the site in order, with road engineers laying gravel to try and secure the mud, workers for the Thai royal kitchen providing hot food for everyone, and volunteers handing out water bottles and ice lollies to those on site.
One local civil servant, who had volunteered to help hand out supplies, said he did not know the boys personally but had decided to help because "I consider the boys in the caves as my brothers".
Community of hope springs up outside cave
How are the boys coping?
Video from Thai Navy special forces on Monday showed the boys looking emaciated but smiling and at times laughing.
The arrival of food, foil blankets and the prospect of speaking to their loved ones will have buoyed their spirits.
But concern is mounting for both their physical and mental health after 12 days below ground - and it is not clear how they would be helped to survive months more in the cave.
Media captionChilean miner sends message to Thai boys
Video shows Thai cave boys in good health
The Brits behind the Thai cave boys search
How will the boys cope underground?
The boys and their coach had gone on their bikes up to the caves on Saturday 23 June after football practice. It was one boy's 16th birthday, and the team had taken a picnic.
They knew the caves, and some reports suggest they had wanted to explore deeper than on previous occasions.
They entered the cave when it was dry but sudden heavy rains quickly flooded the exit and rushed through the narrow passages, clogging them with mud and debris.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
Trump’s Supreme Court Pageant Could Come Down to Looks - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )
July 4, 2018
Trump’s Supreme Court Pageant Could Come Down to Looks
By
Margaret Hartmann
@MargHartmann
He’s a Supreme Court justice, and he could play one on TV. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Trump has made no secret of how important appearance is to his hiring process. Trump has often remarked that his nominees just look right for their respective roles, and he’s fond of the phrase “central casting.” When considering Mitt Romney for Secretary of State, he said he “looks the part of a top diplomat right out of ‘central casting.’” In a speech to the National Governors Association he said of Vice President Mike Pence, “He’s a real talent, a real guy. And he is central casting, do we agree? Central casting.” He even used the phrase when referring to military leaders at a post-inauguration lunch, adding, “If I’m doing a movie, I’d pick you General, General Mattis.”
Therefore, it’s unsurprising to hear that as Republican officials consider which potential Supreme Court nominees will face an easier confirmation battle in the Senate, poring over their legal writings, Trump is thinking about more superficial matters.
“Beyond the qualifications, what really matters is, does this nominee fit a central casting image for a Supreme Court nominee, as well as his or her spouse,” a Republican close to the White House told Politico. “That’s a big deal. Do they fit the role?”
While nominating someone to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy might be the most consequential pick of Trump’s time in office, most of the the hard work was already done months ago by the Federalist Society. Since Trump is selecting from their list of 25 conservative justices, there’s no risk of him picking a judge who’s great-looking but ideologically horrifying to his base.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump’s short list has been whittled even further, and is now focused on three U.S. appeals court judges: Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Raymond Kethledge. The paper says a “central tension” in the process is whether to base the decision primarily on their work, or on their biography and personal chemistry with Trump.
Kavanaugh is seen as the frontrunner. He’s a former Kennedy clerk with a long record of judicial rulings. One person also noted to Politico that the photo of him being sworn in to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit “looks all-American” — which seems like a not very subtle way of expressing why Amul Thapar, Mitch McConnell’s favorite candidate and the only minority on Trump’s list, didn’t make the final cut.
Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to be a judge to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Trump reportedly asked Marie Louise Gorsuch to stand next to her husband during his nominating speech, and was delighted by the couple’s appealing image. But there’s a problem with the telegenic white people in the Kavanaugh picture: One of them is President George W. Bush. Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley, is close to the Bush family, having served as W.’s personal secretary for years. Brett Kavanaugh is also a protégé of Ken Starr; he wrote much of the graphic report on Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky and led the investigation into the death of Vince Foster. Trump’s hatred of the Clintons might triumph over his hatred of the Bushes.
Barrett is a more controversial pick, as she’s a clearer threat to Roe v. Wade, but that might make her more appealing to Trump. The Catholic judge had a previous run-in with Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, who remarked during her confirmation hearing that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” Feinstein was accused of applying a religious test, and the incident could help fire up the base.
As the Washington Post noted she’s also “young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings.” But that might not be good enough for Trump. A source tells Politico she performed poorly in her interview. Also, the president is said to be looking for someone with a degree from Harvard or Yale, and Barrett went to Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School.
If personal chemistry with Trump winds up being the determining factor, the nomination could go to Kethledge, the dark horse pick. A source said Kethledge and Trump hit it off during their interview, and the president “loved” him. While he does not hail from the Ivy League, he went to the University of Michigan, one of the most well-respected public schools, for his undergraduate and law degrees.
While there is little publicly available commentary on the attractiveness of Kethledge and his family compared to the other contestants, he has other qualities that seem appealing to Trump: a Midwestern background, a passion for hunting and fishing, and a book on leadership co-authored with West Point graduate and veteran Michael Erwin. Here’s a quote from an interview in which Kethledge describes how they came to write a book about the importance of solitude:
Maybe a month later, Mike and I were having beers in an Irish pub in Ann Arbor. He mentioned a speech that Bill Deresiewicz had given at West Point about solitude and leadership. I talked about my barn office in northern Michigan, in a forested area overlooking Lake Huron. I have no internet connection, the HVAC is a wood stove, and my workspace is a simple pine desk. I told Mike that I get an extra 20 IQ points from being in that office.
He was in the office when he learned he was on Trump’s list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees:
I was up in my barn office, actually working on a chapter for this book. The landline phone rang. It was my wife, calling from the gym, where she was on a treadmill. She said, “I just saw you on TV! You’re on Trump’s list!”
That was how I heard the news. It was distracting. I really had to get that chapter done in the short time I had up there. So I thanked my wife for letting me know, and went back to work. Fortunately my cellphone doesn’t work up there.
That’s exactly the kind of anecdote Trump would love to share at Monday’s dramatic nomination ceremony.
Though, Steve Bannon claims the media has it all wrong. He suggests that Trump, the former reality-show and beauty pageant host, is making his Supreme Court picks based on a rigorous study of their judicial temperament, while the stodgy lawyers and politicians who previously occupied the Oval Office went mainly by personality.
“I think President Trump is conducting a search built on the principles he established during his first Supreme Court selection — written opinions and the thinking behind them matter most,” the fired White House chief strategist told the Journal. “Past Republican presidents focused on biography and interviews.”
Trump’s Supreme Court Pageant Could Come Down to Looks
By
Margaret Hartmann
@MargHartmann
He’s a Supreme Court justice, and he could play one on TV. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Trump has made no secret of how important appearance is to his hiring process. Trump has often remarked that his nominees just look right for their respective roles, and he’s fond of the phrase “central casting.” When considering Mitt Romney for Secretary of State, he said he “looks the part of a top diplomat right out of ‘central casting.’” In a speech to the National Governors Association he said of Vice President Mike Pence, “He’s a real talent, a real guy. And he is central casting, do we agree? Central casting.” He even used the phrase when referring to military leaders at a post-inauguration lunch, adding, “If I’m doing a movie, I’d pick you General, General Mattis.”
Therefore, it’s unsurprising to hear that as Republican officials consider which potential Supreme Court nominees will face an easier confirmation battle in the Senate, poring over their legal writings, Trump is thinking about more superficial matters.
“Beyond the qualifications, what really matters is, does this nominee fit a central casting image for a Supreme Court nominee, as well as his or her spouse,” a Republican close to the White House told Politico. “That’s a big deal. Do they fit the role?”
While nominating someone to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy might be the most consequential pick of Trump’s time in office, most of the the hard work was already done months ago by the Federalist Society. Since Trump is selecting from their list of 25 conservative justices, there’s no risk of him picking a judge who’s great-looking but ideologically horrifying to his base.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump’s short list has been whittled even further, and is now focused on three U.S. appeals court judges: Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Raymond Kethledge. The paper says a “central tension” in the process is whether to base the decision primarily on their work, or on their biography and personal chemistry with Trump.
Kavanaugh is seen as the frontrunner. He’s a former Kennedy clerk with a long record of judicial rulings. One person also noted to Politico that the photo of him being sworn in to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit “looks all-American” — which seems like a not very subtle way of expressing why Amul Thapar, Mitch McConnell’s favorite candidate and the only minority on Trump’s list, didn’t make the final cut.
Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to be a judge to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Trump reportedly asked Marie Louise Gorsuch to stand next to her husband during his nominating speech, and was delighted by the couple’s appealing image. But there’s a problem with the telegenic white people in the Kavanaugh picture: One of them is President George W. Bush. Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley, is close to the Bush family, having served as W.’s personal secretary for years. Brett Kavanaugh is also a protégé of Ken Starr; he wrote much of the graphic report on Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky and led the investigation into the death of Vince Foster. Trump’s hatred of the Clintons might triumph over his hatred of the Bushes.
Barrett is a more controversial pick, as she’s a clearer threat to Roe v. Wade, but that might make her more appealing to Trump. The Catholic judge had a previous run-in with Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, who remarked during her confirmation hearing that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” Feinstein was accused of applying a religious test, and the incident could help fire up the base.
As the Washington Post noted she’s also “young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings.” But that might not be good enough for Trump. A source tells Politico she performed poorly in her interview. Also, the president is said to be looking for someone with a degree from Harvard or Yale, and Barrett went to Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School.
If personal chemistry with Trump winds up being the determining factor, the nomination could go to Kethledge, the dark horse pick. A source said Kethledge and Trump hit it off during their interview, and the president “loved” him. While he does not hail from the Ivy League, he went to the University of Michigan, one of the most well-respected public schools, for his undergraduate and law degrees.
While there is little publicly available commentary on the attractiveness of Kethledge and his family compared to the other contestants, he has other qualities that seem appealing to Trump: a Midwestern background, a passion for hunting and fishing, and a book on leadership co-authored with West Point graduate and veteran Michael Erwin. Here’s a quote from an interview in which Kethledge describes how they came to write a book about the importance of solitude:
Maybe a month later, Mike and I were having beers in an Irish pub in Ann Arbor. He mentioned a speech that Bill Deresiewicz had given at West Point about solitude and leadership. I talked about my barn office in northern Michigan, in a forested area overlooking Lake Huron. I have no internet connection, the HVAC is a wood stove, and my workspace is a simple pine desk. I told Mike that I get an extra 20 IQ points from being in that office.
He was in the office when he learned he was on Trump’s list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees:
I was up in my barn office, actually working on a chapter for this book. The landline phone rang. It was my wife, calling from the gym, where she was on a treadmill. She said, “I just saw you on TV! You’re on Trump’s list!”
That was how I heard the news. It was distracting. I really had to get that chapter done in the short time I had up there. So I thanked my wife for letting me know, and went back to work. Fortunately my cellphone doesn’t work up there.
That’s exactly the kind of anecdote Trump would love to share at Monday’s dramatic nomination ceremony.
Though, Steve Bannon claims the media has it all wrong. He suggests that Trump, the former reality-show and beauty pageant host, is making his Supreme Court picks based on a rigorous study of their judicial temperament, while the stodgy lawyers and politicians who previously occupied the Oval Office went mainly by personality.
“I think President Trump is conducting a search built on the principles he established during his first Supreme Court selection — written opinions and the thinking behind them matter most,” the fired White House chief strategist told the Journal. “Past Republican presidents focused on biography and interviews.”
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
President Trump Pressed Aides About an Invasion of Venezuela, Says a U.S. Official - TIME
President Trump Pressed Aides About an Invasion of Venezuela, Says a U.S. Official
By JOSHUA GOODMAN / AP 5:34 AM EDT
(BOGOTA) — As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?
The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.
In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.
The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.
The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.
But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.
Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.
The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.” Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.
Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.
Taken together, the behind-the-scenes talks, the extent and details of which have not been previously reported, highlight how Venezuela’s political and economic crisis has received top attention under Trump in a way that was unimaginable in the Obama administration. But critics say it also underscores how his “America First” foreign policy at times can seem outright reckless, providing ammunition to America’s adversaries.
The White House declined to comment on the private conversations. But a National Security Council spokesman reiterated that the U.S. will consider all options at its disposal to help restore Venezuela’s democracy and bring stability. Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S., Canada and European Union have levied sanctions on dozens of top Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself, over allegations of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights abuses. The U.S. has also distributed more than $30 million to help Venezuela’s neighbors absorb an influx of more than 1 million migrants who have fled the country.
For Maduro, who has long claimed that the U.S. has military designs on Venezuela and its vast oil reserves, Trump’s bellicose talk provided the unpopular leader with an immediate if short-lived boost as he was trying to escape blame for widespread food shortages and hyperinflation. Within days of the president’s talk of a military option, Maduro filled the streets of Caracas with loyalists to condemn “Emperor” Trump’s belligerence, ordered up nationwide military exercises and threatened with arrest opponents he said were plotting his overthrow with the U.S.
“Mind your own business and solve your own problems, Mr. Trump!” thundered Nicolas Maduro, the president’s son, at the government-stacked constituent assembly. “If Venezuela were attacked, the rifles will arrive in New York, Mr. Trump,” the younger Maduro said. “We will take the White House.”
Even some of the staunchest U.S. allies were begrudgingly forced to side with Maduro in condemning Trump’s saber rattling. Santos, a big backer of U.S. attempts to isolate Maduro, said an invasion would have zero support in the region. The Mercosur trade bloc, which includes Brazil and Argentina, issued a statement saying “the only acceptable means of promoting democracy are dialogue and diplomacy” and repudiating “any option that implies the use of force.”
But among Venezuela’s beleaguered opposition movement, hostility to the idea of a military intervention has slowly eased.
A few weeks after Trump’s public comments, Harvard economics professor Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, wrote a syndicated column titled “D Day Venezuela,” in which he called for a “coalition of the willing” made up of regional powers and the U.S. to step in and support militarily a government appointed by the opposition-led national assembly.
Mark Feierstein, who oversaw Latin America on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said that strident U.S. action on Venezuela, however commendable, won’t loosen Maduro’s grip on power if it’s not accompanied by pressure from the streets. However, he thinks Venezuelans have largely been demoralized after a crackdown on protests last year triggered dozens of deaths, and the threat of more repression has forced dozens of opposition leaders into exile.
“People inside and outside the administration know they can ignore plenty of what Trump says,” Feierstein, who is now a senior adviser at the Albright Stonebridge Group, said of Trump’s talk of military invasion of Venezuela. “The concern is that it raised expectations among Venezuelans, many of whom are waiting for an external actor to save them.”
By JOSHUA GOODMAN / AP 5:34 AM EDT
(BOGOTA) — As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?
The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.
In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.
The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.
The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.
But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.
Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.
The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.” Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.
Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.
Taken together, the behind-the-scenes talks, the extent and details of which have not been previously reported, highlight how Venezuela’s political and economic crisis has received top attention under Trump in a way that was unimaginable in the Obama administration. But critics say it also underscores how his “America First” foreign policy at times can seem outright reckless, providing ammunition to America’s adversaries.
The White House declined to comment on the private conversations. But a National Security Council spokesman reiterated that the U.S. will consider all options at its disposal to help restore Venezuela’s democracy and bring stability. Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S., Canada and European Union have levied sanctions on dozens of top Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself, over allegations of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights abuses. The U.S. has also distributed more than $30 million to help Venezuela’s neighbors absorb an influx of more than 1 million migrants who have fled the country.
For Maduro, who has long claimed that the U.S. has military designs on Venezuela and its vast oil reserves, Trump’s bellicose talk provided the unpopular leader with an immediate if short-lived boost as he was trying to escape blame for widespread food shortages and hyperinflation. Within days of the president’s talk of a military option, Maduro filled the streets of Caracas with loyalists to condemn “Emperor” Trump’s belligerence, ordered up nationwide military exercises and threatened with arrest opponents he said were plotting his overthrow with the U.S.
“Mind your own business and solve your own problems, Mr. Trump!” thundered Nicolas Maduro, the president’s son, at the government-stacked constituent assembly. “If Venezuela were attacked, the rifles will arrive in New York, Mr. Trump,” the younger Maduro said. “We will take the White House.”
Even some of the staunchest U.S. allies were begrudgingly forced to side with Maduro in condemning Trump’s saber rattling. Santos, a big backer of U.S. attempts to isolate Maduro, said an invasion would have zero support in the region. The Mercosur trade bloc, which includes Brazil and Argentina, issued a statement saying “the only acceptable means of promoting democracy are dialogue and diplomacy” and repudiating “any option that implies the use of force.”
But among Venezuela’s beleaguered opposition movement, hostility to the idea of a military intervention has slowly eased.
A few weeks after Trump’s public comments, Harvard economics professor Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, wrote a syndicated column titled “D Day Venezuela,” in which he called for a “coalition of the willing” made up of regional powers and the U.S. to step in and support militarily a government appointed by the opposition-led national assembly.
Mark Feierstein, who oversaw Latin America on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said that strident U.S. action on Venezuela, however commendable, won’t loosen Maduro’s grip on power if it’s not accompanied by pressure from the streets. However, he thinks Venezuelans have largely been demoralized after a crackdown on protests last year triggered dozens of deaths, and the threat of more repression has forced dozens of opposition leaders into exile.
“People inside and outside the administration know they can ignore plenty of what Trump says,” Feierstein, who is now a senior adviser at the Albright Stonebridge Group, said of Trump’s talk of military invasion of Venezuela. “The concern is that it raised expectations among Venezuelans, many of whom are waiting for an external actor to save them.”
China to impose $34bn tariffs before the US as trade dispute escalates - Guardian
China to impose $34bn tariffs before the US as trade dispute escalates
Both sides made 6 July tariff threat but 12-hour time difference gives Chinese edge
Julia Kollewe
Wed 4 Jul 2018 19.37 AEST
A Chinese flag in front of containers at the Yangshan Deep-Water Port
There had been hopes that the US and China might step away from the measures but neither side has backed down. Photograph: Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images
China is poised to fire the opening salvo in an escalating trade dispute with the US by bringing in 25% tariffs on $34bn of US goods a day earlier than Washington.
Both sides have threatened to impose similarly sized tariffs on 6 July but because of the 12-hour time difference, the Chinese tariffs on US imports ranging from soybean to stainless steel pipes will take effect earlier.
Chinese officials are preparing to implement them from midnight Beijing time on 6 July, Reuters reported. That is noon on Thursday in Washington and 5pm UK time.
The US will implement a 25% tariff on $34bn of Chinese imports – on 818 product lines ranging from cars to vaporisers and “smart home” devices – on Friday.
There had been hopes that the US and China might step away from the measures but neither side has backed down. Economists have warned that the tariffs will damage economic growth and cost jobs, and could escalate into a full-blow trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
Last month the Mercedes-Benz maker Daimler became the first major company to issue a profit warning on the back of the trade dispute. The German firm makes Mercedes SUVs in the US and ships them to China, its biggest market.
Donald Trump has threatened to escalate the conflict by imposing further tariffs on up to $200bn of Chinese goods, if Beijing retaliates on Friday.
China’s stock market fell sharply on Wednesday as traders worried about the escalating trade dispute. The benchmark Shanghai Composite index dropped 1% to finish the day at 2,759 points, its lowest closing point since March 2016.
US markets are closed for Independence Day following a move lower on Tuesday.
Michael Hewson, the chief market analyst at CMC Markets UK, said: “In a holiday shortened US session before the 4 July holiday, US equity markets finished lower on the day as trade concerns kept investors cautious.
“Sharp moves in the Chinese currency prompted speculation that Chinese authorities were manipulating the rate in order to offset some of the worst effects of US tariffs.”
Both sides made 6 July tariff threat but 12-hour time difference gives Chinese edge
Julia Kollewe
Wed 4 Jul 2018 19.37 AEST
A Chinese flag in front of containers at the Yangshan Deep-Water Port
There had been hopes that the US and China might step away from the measures but neither side has backed down. Photograph: Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images
China is poised to fire the opening salvo in an escalating trade dispute with the US by bringing in 25% tariffs on $34bn of US goods a day earlier than Washington.
Both sides have threatened to impose similarly sized tariffs on 6 July but because of the 12-hour time difference, the Chinese tariffs on US imports ranging from soybean to stainless steel pipes will take effect earlier.
Chinese officials are preparing to implement them from midnight Beijing time on 6 July, Reuters reported. That is noon on Thursday in Washington and 5pm UK time.
The US will implement a 25% tariff on $34bn of Chinese imports – on 818 product lines ranging from cars to vaporisers and “smart home” devices – on Friday.
There had been hopes that the US and China might step away from the measures but neither side has backed down. Economists have warned that the tariffs will damage economic growth and cost jobs, and could escalate into a full-blow trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
Last month the Mercedes-Benz maker Daimler became the first major company to issue a profit warning on the back of the trade dispute. The German firm makes Mercedes SUVs in the US and ships them to China, its biggest market.
Donald Trump has threatened to escalate the conflict by imposing further tariffs on up to $200bn of Chinese goods, if Beijing retaliates on Friday.
China’s stock market fell sharply on Wednesday as traders worried about the escalating trade dispute. The benchmark Shanghai Composite index dropped 1% to finish the day at 2,759 points, its lowest closing point since March 2016.
US markets are closed for Independence Day following a move lower on Tuesday.
Michael Hewson, the chief market analyst at CMC Markets UK, said: “In a holiday shortened US session before the 4 July holiday, US equity markets finished lower on the day as trade concerns kept investors cautious.
“Sharp moves in the Chinese currency prompted speculation that Chinese authorities were manipulating the rate in order to offset some of the worst effects of US tariffs.”
Is North Korea secretly continuing its nuclear programme? - BBC News
Is North Korea secretly continuing its nuclear programme?
By Andreas Illmer
BBC News
2 July 2018
Reports that North Korea is continuing its weapons programme, despite pledges to denuclearise, have cast doubt on its sincerity in peace talks.
The recent reports, based on US intelligence leaks, suggest the country is still upgrading its nuclear enrichment sites, among other activities. So what's actually going on?
What are the allegations?
Here's what has been reported across US media:
North Korea's only official nuclear enrichment site at Yongbyon is being upgraded.
The country is stepping up enrichment at two or more secret sites besides Yongbyon.
Pyongyang continues to produce more mobile launch vehicles for its ballistic missiles.
It has also expanded missile production of solid fuel engines which are more mobile and easier to launch.
How reliable are these reports? They are "only" reports but they are deemed accurate by respected North Korea watchers.
The information is based on multiple unnamed sources from the US intelligence community as well as the 38 North study of satellite images of the Yongbyon site.
Skip Twitter post by @nktpnd
Ankit Panda
✔
@nktpnd
In summary: centrifuges spin at Yongbyon, Kangson, and another facility; KN15 TELs continue to roll out; the Hamhung solid-fuel shop expands considerably.
We shouldn't be surprised; these are in line with Kim's New Year's Day directive on warhead/ballistic missile production.
10:29 AM - Jul 2, 2018
How serious are they?
"None of that activity is in violation of any agreements made at the Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un," explains Vipin Narang, MIT professor for political science and specialist on nuclear proliferation.
In the declaration wrapping up that summit, Pyongyang merely agreed to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, something it sees as a phased process.
Details of the process still remain to be worked out by the two sides.
"This was never going to be unilateral and immediate," says Mr Narang. "So Kim Jong-un is free to continue operating the existing sites."
To trust or not to trust, that is the question
Yet the reports that the North is continuing its nuclear activity is still seen as undermining the spirit of the summit and casts doubt on Pyongyang's sincerity to denuclearise.
"The bigger picture here is that North Korea's nuclear programme continues as directed by Kim Jong-un in his speech in January, where he urged the continued production of warheads and ballistic missiles," explains Ankit Panda, editor at The Diplomat magazine.
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
North Korean propaganda changes its tune
N Korea still poses major threat - Trump
What is the biggest news?
Solid fuel engines are more mobile and hence a big step for Pyongyang. Together with the mobile launchers, it means that North Korea can fire missiles from sites that can be quickly set up and not be detected ahead of time by South Korea or the US.
Yet the biggest revelation has been the details about North Korea's secret enrichment sites. So far, Pyongyang has only ever admitted to one enrichment site: Yongbyon.
Solid fuel and mobile launchers would be a major step for Pyongyang
It's been a longstanding suspicion though that there are more, secret sites. An exclusive NBC report based on US intelligence sources confirmed and named one such site and says there is at least one more secret enrichment site.
"You can imagine a North Korean strategy where - without a full disclosure of all their facilities - they can offer to shut down some of the known sites in order to get sanctions relief," explains Mr Narang.
"At the same time they would clandestinely push ahead at the secret sites."
A sacred mountain and other ideologies
On board the train to Korea's music festival for peace
Inside the North Korean place that ‘doesn’t exist’
Why is timing important?
The information coming from the US intelligence sources is presumably something they have known for quite some time. Mr Trump is likely to have been briefed about that very information in the run-up to the Singapore summit.
So why is it now being leaked to the media?
"The sheer number of leaks on nuclear activity makes it look like an authorised attempt to get that intel out into the public sphere," says Mr Abrahamian.
Experts believe there are two reasons why the US intelligence community might have chosen to disclose its information at this point in time.
Scenario one would be "to counter the narrative coming from the White House that it's 'mission accomplished' and that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat," explains Mr Narang.
It may therefore "constrain Trump a bit so he can't claim successes that have not yet be reached", agrees Mr Abrahamian. "It gets the foreign policy community riled up and increases pressure on Trump not to be soft on the [North] Koreans."
The other scenario would be that it's in fact co-ordinated by the Trump administration to generate leverage. By revealing the extent of US intel, Washington can put pressure on North Korea to admit to its secret sites and operations.
The leaked intel could be a way to say 'Mr Kim, we're watching you'
"The assumption was always that we would let the North Koreans disclose their own sites and check that against the list the US intelligence community maintains," explains Mr Panda. "Immediately you would have a sense of whether or not the North Koreans are negotiating in good faith.
"Now that we have put out what we know about the covert enrichment sites, we can see if the North Koreans will choose to disclose those or not."
Will the pressure work?
What remains is the bigger question of whether post-Singapore summit, this kind of pressure will really be able to steer Pyongyang into line.
The flurry of recent reports of North Korea's continued nuclear and military efforts suggest the country is intent on maintaining its nuclear and ballistic capabilities and even to continuing to produce them.
"It could be that Pyongyang is calculating that no matter what, China is already off the maximum pressure campaign of sanctions against North Korea. And the US really can't sustain it without China," warns Mr Narang.
"Kim Jong-un might simply say 'I've done what I have to in order to break the maximum pressure campaign' - and I think he might be right."
By Andreas Illmer
BBC News
2 July 2018
Reports that North Korea is continuing its weapons programme, despite pledges to denuclearise, have cast doubt on its sincerity in peace talks.
The recent reports, based on US intelligence leaks, suggest the country is still upgrading its nuclear enrichment sites, among other activities. So what's actually going on?
What are the allegations?
Here's what has been reported across US media:
North Korea's only official nuclear enrichment site at Yongbyon is being upgraded.
The country is stepping up enrichment at two or more secret sites besides Yongbyon.
Pyongyang continues to produce more mobile launch vehicles for its ballistic missiles.
It has also expanded missile production of solid fuel engines which are more mobile and easier to launch.
How reliable are these reports? They are "only" reports but they are deemed accurate by respected North Korea watchers.
The information is based on multiple unnamed sources from the US intelligence community as well as the 38 North study of satellite images of the Yongbyon site.
Skip Twitter post by @nktpnd
Ankit Panda
✔
@nktpnd
In summary: centrifuges spin at Yongbyon, Kangson, and another facility; KN15 TELs continue to roll out; the Hamhung solid-fuel shop expands considerably.
We shouldn't be surprised; these are in line with Kim's New Year's Day directive on warhead/ballistic missile production.
10:29 AM - Jul 2, 2018
How serious are they?
"None of that activity is in violation of any agreements made at the Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un," explains Vipin Narang, MIT professor for political science and specialist on nuclear proliferation.
In the declaration wrapping up that summit, Pyongyang merely agreed to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, something it sees as a phased process.
Details of the process still remain to be worked out by the two sides.
"This was never going to be unilateral and immediate," says Mr Narang. "So Kim Jong-un is free to continue operating the existing sites."
To trust or not to trust, that is the question
Yet the reports that the North is continuing its nuclear activity is still seen as undermining the spirit of the summit and casts doubt on Pyongyang's sincerity to denuclearise.
"The bigger picture here is that North Korea's nuclear programme continues as directed by Kim Jong-un in his speech in January, where he urged the continued production of warheads and ballistic missiles," explains Ankit Panda, editor at The Diplomat magazine.
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
North Korean propaganda changes its tune
N Korea still poses major threat - Trump
What is the biggest news?
Solid fuel engines are more mobile and hence a big step for Pyongyang. Together with the mobile launchers, it means that North Korea can fire missiles from sites that can be quickly set up and not be detected ahead of time by South Korea or the US.
Yet the biggest revelation has been the details about North Korea's secret enrichment sites. So far, Pyongyang has only ever admitted to one enrichment site: Yongbyon.
Solid fuel and mobile launchers would be a major step for Pyongyang
It's been a longstanding suspicion though that there are more, secret sites. An exclusive NBC report based on US intelligence sources confirmed and named one such site and says there is at least one more secret enrichment site.
"You can imagine a North Korean strategy where - without a full disclosure of all their facilities - they can offer to shut down some of the known sites in order to get sanctions relief," explains Mr Narang.
"At the same time they would clandestinely push ahead at the secret sites."
A sacred mountain and other ideologies
On board the train to Korea's music festival for peace
Inside the North Korean place that ‘doesn’t exist’
Why is timing important?
The information coming from the US intelligence sources is presumably something they have known for quite some time. Mr Trump is likely to have been briefed about that very information in the run-up to the Singapore summit.
So why is it now being leaked to the media?
"The sheer number of leaks on nuclear activity makes it look like an authorised attempt to get that intel out into the public sphere," says Mr Abrahamian.
Experts believe there are two reasons why the US intelligence community might have chosen to disclose its information at this point in time.
Scenario one would be "to counter the narrative coming from the White House that it's 'mission accomplished' and that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat," explains Mr Narang.
It may therefore "constrain Trump a bit so he can't claim successes that have not yet be reached", agrees Mr Abrahamian. "It gets the foreign policy community riled up and increases pressure on Trump not to be soft on the [North] Koreans."
The other scenario would be that it's in fact co-ordinated by the Trump administration to generate leverage. By revealing the extent of US intel, Washington can put pressure on North Korea to admit to its secret sites and operations.
The leaked intel could be a way to say 'Mr Kim, we're watching you'
"The assumption was always that we would let the North Koreans disclose their own sites and check that against the list the US intelligence community maintains," explains Mr Panda. "Immediately you would have a sense of whether or not the North Koreans are negotiating in good faith.
"Now that we have put out what we know about the covert enrichment sites, we can see if the North Koreans will choose to disclose those or not."
Will the pressure work?
What remains is the bigger question of whether post-Singapore summit, this kind of pressure will really be able to steer Pyongyang into line.
The flurry of recent reports of North Korea's continued nuclear and military efforts suggest the country is intent on maintaining its nuclear and ballistic capabilities and even to continuing to produce them.
"It could be that Pyongyang is calculating that no matter what, China is already off the maximum pressure campaign of sanctions against North Korea. And the US really can't sustain it without China," warns Mr Narang.
"Kim Jong-un might simply say 'I've done what I have to in order to break the maximum pressure campaign' - and I think he might be right."
FAA declines to regulate more legroom for airline passengers - NBC News
FAA declines to regulate more legroom for airline passengers
Group called FlyersRights says passenger space on flights is dangerously confined and could hinder emergency evacuations.
by Dennis Romero, Tom Costello and Associated Press / Jul.04.2018 / 11:01 AM ET / Updated 11:03 AM ET
FAA refuses to regulate plane seating
JUL.04.201801:13
The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday that even though America's collective waistline is expanding, airlines are free to keep putting passenger room on a diet.
The agency was responding to a legal challenge by the group FlyersRights, which argued that current seatback-to-seatback measurements could hinder passengers' evacuation during emergencies.
"The FAA has no evidence that there is an immediate safety issue necessitating rulemaking at this time," the agency wrote in a letter responding to the court challenge.
Speaking to NBC News, FlyersRights staff attorney Andrew Applebaum responded: "Over the last 20 years the average American passenger has grown taller and larger and that makes it more difficult for passengers to evacuate from the airplane."
The group seeks to "establish a moratorium on further seat size shrinkage" on passenger jets, Applebaum said. Economy class space from seatback to seatback has been reduced from 35 inches to 28 inches on some planes. Seat width has not seen similar reductions.
The FAA does not regulate these dimensions, but it has set a 90-second standard for emergency evacuation with half the exits blocked.
In response to FlyersRights' court challenge, plane manufacturers submitted to the court videos of evacuation drills that show packed planes being emptied within the 90-second limit. However, the travelers' group says some of those exercises were conducted decades ago, when the average American was smaller.
"We observed that the passengers, the test subjects, were younger and smaller than the the average American," Applebaum said.
The Centers for Disease Control has recently said that 70 percent of adults in the United States are now overweight or obese.
Hollywood actor maimed in kidnapping, ransom plot, indictment says
The manufacturers' imagery, FlyersRights claims, is unrealistic, doesn't show the entire evacuation procedure, and does not depict anyone reaching for carry-on bags, which have increased in number as baggage fees have swept the industry.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, FAA safety engineer Jeffrey Gardlin countered that real-world crash- and emergency landings from the last three years also prove that passengers — overweight and otherwise —can escape safely.
The "Miracle on the Hudson," U.S. Airways Flight 1549 in January 2009 — immortalized by Hollywood in the Tom Hanks movie "Sully" — was held up as a modern example of "an effective and timely evacuation," according to a conclusion by the National Transportation and Safety Board. All 155 people on board escaped to safety.
Exit door size, which is regulated, is one reason passengers usually make it out during modern emergencies, Gardlin stated. But he also argued that the size of a passenger doesn't make a crucial difference in exit times.
The FAA decision was a response to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which had ordered the agency to take a second look at regulating seat size and passenger room. The court challenge had taken the form of a rule-making petition by FlyersRights, which says it might appeal the FAA's decision.
In the meantime the advocacy group says it is drafting a letter in response to the FAA's stance.
A bill passed by the House of Representatives in April would force the FAA to establish some minimum passenger room measurements, but it would leave the specific numbers up to the agency. It's currently being weighed by the Senate.
"Lives are at stake here," said Applebaum. "We need to make sure that the FAA and the manufacturers are actually testing full scale demonstrations."
Group called FlyersRights says passenger space on flights is dangerously confined and could hinder emergency evacuations.
by Dennis Romero, Tom Costello and Associated Press / Jul.04.2018 / 11:01 AM ET / Updated 11:03 AM ET
FAA refuses to regulate plane seating
JUL.04.201801:13
The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday that even though America's collective waistline is expanding, airlines are free to keep putting passenger room on a diet.
The agency was responding to a legal challenge by the group FlyersRights, which argued that current seatback-to-seatback measurements could hinder passengers' evacuation during emergencies.
"The FAA has no evidence that there is an immediate safety issue necessitating rulemaking at this time," the agency wrote in a letter responding to the court challenge.
Speaking to NBC News, FlyersRights staff attorney Andrew Applebaum responded: "Over the last 20 years the average American passenger has grown taller and larger and that makes it more difficult for passengers to evacuate from the airplane."
The group seeks to "establish a moratorium on further seat size shrinkage" on passenger jets, Applebaum said. Economy class space from seatback to seatback has been reduced from 35 inches to 28 inches on some planes. Seat width has not seen similar reductions.
The FAA does not regulate these dimensions, but it has set a 90-second standard for emergency evacuation with half the exits blocked.
In response to FlyersRights' court challenge, plane manufacturers submitted to the court videos of evacuation drills that show packed planes being emptied within the 90-second limit. However, the travelers' group says some of those exercises were conducted decades ago, when the average American was smaller.
"We observed that the passengers, the test subjects, were younger and smaller than the the average American," Applebaum said.
The Centers for Disease Control has recently said that 70 percent of adults in the United States are now overweight or obese.
Hollywood actor maimed in kidnapping, ransom plot, indictment says
The manufacturers' imagery, FlyersRights claims, is unrealistic, doesn't show the entire evacuation procedure, and does not depict anyone reaching for carry-on bags, which have increased in number as baggage fees have swept the industry.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, FAA safety engineer Jeffrey Gardlin countered that real-world crash- and emergency landings from the last three years also prove that passengers — overweight and otherwise —can escape safely.
The "Miracle on the Hudson," U.S. Airways Flight 1549 in January 2009 — immortalized by Hollywood in the Tom Hanks movie "Sully" — was held up as a modern example of "an effective and timely evacuation," according to a conclusion by the National Transportation and Safety Board. All 155 people on board escaped to safety.
Exit door size, which is regulated, is one reason passengers usually make it out during modern emergencies, Gardlin stated. But he also argued that the size of a passenger doesn't make a crucial difference in exit times.
The FAA decision was a response to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which had ordered the agency to take a second look at regulating seat size and passenger room. The court challenge had taken the form of a rule-making petition by FlyersRights, which says it might appeal the FAA's decision.
In the meantime the advocacy group says it is drafting a letter in response to the FAA's stance.
A bill passed by the House of Representatives in April would force the FAA to establish some minimum passenger room measurements, but it would leave the specific numbers up to the agency. It's currently being weighed by the Senate.
"Lives are at stake here," said Applebaum. "We need to make sure that the FAA and the manufacturers are actually testing full scale demonstrations."
Amesbury: Two collapse near Russian spy poisoning site - BBC News
July 4, 2018
Amesbury: Two collapse near Russian spy poisoning site
Police have cordoned off a number of areas including Muggleton Road in Amesbury
A man and woman feared to have been exposed to an unknown substance are in a critical condition, prompting police to declare a major incident.
The pair, in their 40s, were found unconscious in what was thought to be in a drugs-related incident in Amesbury, Wiltshire, on Saturday.
Further tests on the substance are being carried out to identify it.
Amesbury is about 10 miles from Salisbury, where a former Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned.
Sergei Skripal and daughter Yulia were poisoned with Novichok, a suspected military nerve agent, in March.
Police said they are "open-minded" about the cause after a couple were found at a house in Muggleton Road, Amesbury.
Image caption
Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury was one of a number of areas cordoned off overnight
While it was not clear whether a crime had been committed, the force said, a number of places in Amesbury and Salisbury known to have been frequented by the couple had been cordoned off.
Russian spy: What happened to the Skripals?
"It was initially believed that the two patients fell ill after using possibly heroin or crack cocaine from a contaminated batch of drugs," Wiltshire Police said.
"They are both currently receiving treatment for suspected exposure to an unknown substance at Salisbury District Hospital," it added.
The couple are believe to have attended a family fun day at Amesbury Baptist Church on Saturday afternoon before they were found unconscious in the property.
Roy Collins, church secretary, said "nobody else has suffered any ill-effects" from attending the community event and "there was nothing going on that was nefarious".
"There have been no reports of any other incidents," he said.
"We are all quite puzzled and shocked - naturally the connection with Salisbury and recent events there mean there is a heightened public interest."
Parked outside the red brick Amesbury Baptist Centre are three police cars and four or five officers standing around with one jotting something down in a notepad.
There are no forensic tents, and it all feels like a very low key operation.
It doesn't feel like a Hazchem or Hazardous Chemical incident. It's not Skripal part two.
It does seem like an incredible coincidence for another incident like this to occur, it may just be the police being cautious or there could be something more to it.
Local resident Jake Murphy said he was watching the football on Tuesday night when "all these police cars appeared".
"I didn't know what was happening," he said.
Justin Doughty, who lives opposite the police cordon, said none of the residents have been "told anything by the police".
"We would have thought the police would have been more forthcoming and keep us in the loop."
A government spokesman said ministers were "being kept up to date about the incident in Amesbury".
Wiltshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Angus Macpherson said the police had worked hard at "containing any risk that might be there".
"There's no reason to think it's connected with matters of last month," he said.
"I haven't seen anything in this incident yet that I would consider to be an overreaction in terms of previous incidents, it all seems fairly textbook."
Public Health England said it did not believe there was a "significant health risk" to the wider public, although its advice was being continually assessed.
The hospital was "open as usual" and advised patients to attend routine appointments unless contacted and advised to do otherwise.
Amesbury: Two collapse near Russian spy poisoning site
Police have cordoned off a number of areas including Muggleton Road in Amesbury
A man and woman feared to have been exposed to an unknown substance are in a critical condition, prompting police to declare a major incident.
The pair, in their 40s, were found unconscious in what was thought to be in a drugs-related incident in Amesbury, Wiltshire, on Saturday.
Further tests on the substance are being carried out to identify it.
Amesbury is about 10 miles from Salisbury, where a former Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned.
Sergei Skripal and daughter Yulia were poisoned with Novichok, a suspected military nerve agent, in March.
Police said they are "open-minded" about the cause after a couple were found at a house in Muggleton Road, Amesbury.
Image caption
Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury was one of a number of areas cordoned off overnight
While it was not clear whether a crime had been committed, the force said, a number of places in Amesbury and Salisbury known to have been frequented by the couple had been cordoned off.
Russian spy: What happened to the Skripals?
"It was initially believed that the two patients fell ill after using possibly heroin or crack cocaine from a contaminated batch of drugs," Wiltshire Police said.
"They are both currently receiving treatment for suspected exposure to an unknown substance at Salisbury District Hospital," it added.
The couple are believe to have attended a family fun day at Amesbury Baptist Church on Saturday afternoon before they were found unconscious in the property.
Roy Collins, church secretary, said "nobody else has suffered any ill-effects" from attending the community event and "there was nothing going on that was nefarious".
"There have been no reports of any other incidents," he said.
"We are all quite puzzled and shocked - naturally the connection with Salisbury and recent events there mean there is a heightened public interest."
Parked outside the red brick Amesbury Baptist Centre are three police cars and four or five officers standing around with one jotting something down in a notepad.
There are no forensic tents, and it all feels like a very low key operation.
It doesn't feel like a Hazchem or Hazardous Chemical incident. It's not Skripal part two.
It does seem like an incredible coincidence for another incident like this to occur, it may just be the police being cautious or there could be something more to it.
Local resident Jake Murphy said he was watching the football on Tuesday night when "all these police cars appeared".
"I didn't know what was happening," he said.
Justin Doughty, who lives opposite the police cordon, said none of the residents have been "told anything by the police".
"We would have thought the police would have been more forthcoming and keep us in the loop."
A government spokesman said ministers were "being kept up to date about the incident in Amesbury".
Wiltshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Angus Macpherson said the police had worked hard at "containing any risk that might be there".
"There's no reason to think it's connected with matters of last month," he said.
"I haven't seen anything in this incident yet that I would consider to be an overreaction in terms of previous incidents, it all seems fairly textbook."
Public Health England said it did not believe there was a "significant health risk" to the wider public, although its advice was being continually assessed.
The hospital was "open as usual" and advised patients to attend routine appointments unless contacted and advised to do otherwise.
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Trump’s Ineptitude Is No Joke - The administration’s missteps continue unabated - Bloomberg
Trump’s Ineptitude Is No Joke
The administration’s missteps continue unabated. Plus, Jonathan Bernstein’s morning links.
By
637
July 3, 2018, 12:34 AM GMT+10
We’re not laughing, either. Photographer: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
It’s hard to imagine a better quick story summing up the Donald Trump administration than the one that broke Sunday night about a bill the White House was preparing to, as Jonathan Swan at Axios put it, “declare America’s abandonment of fundamental World Trade Organization rules” by giving the president authority to unilaterally break those rules.
Let’s see …
The policy is nuts; virtually all experts, both in trade and in foreign policy, believe global trade is very good for the U.S.
In fact, according to Swan’s reporting, almost everyone in the White House thinks the bill “is unrealistic or unworkable.”
Why does it exist, then? Because Trump ordered it, and sometimes the best way to mollify a president is to give him what he wants — very slowly, and without anything actually happening. Apparently this thing has been kicking around for months.
The bill has virtually no chance whatsoever of being enacted into law.
The draft bill has a title, the United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act, which yields an acronym that had every Twitter wag making fart jokes Sunday night.
On that last point, political scientist Brendan Nyhan made the crucial point: There are actually two perfectly plausible explanations. The ridiculous title could be just another sign of an administration that routinely botches basic tasks; after all, official White House communications have been plagued by typos ever since Trump took office, and just a few days ago a prankster claiming to be New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez managed to get a call through to the president. But it’s equally possible it was a malicious effort to undermine the policy by someone in the White House or an executive-branch agency; all administrations leak, but none before this have leaked so often with information that looked this bad for the president.
So to summarize: The president ordered something inept; he’s not going to get what he wanted; and everyone in the administration has egg on their faces over it.
What’s even more amazing about this is that Trump seems to be oblivious to all of it. For all we know, he really thinks that North Korea is giving up its nuclear weapons (it isn’t), the border wall is under construction (nope), and that he’s going to get his Space Force (seems extremely unlikely, even if Trump thinks wars against the Pentagon bureaucracy are good and easy to win).
He remains such a weak president that he has to select a Supreme Court nominee from a list supplied by an interest group. But he doesn’t appear to realize it — and he certainly isn’t demonstrating any ability to change the situation. Meanwhile, he’ll just keep ordering people to do things that (most of the time at least) will never happen, while the few competent people he’s somehow managed to put in place will continue to do things in his name whether he likes it or not. I could add a fart joke, but the whole thing really isn’t very funny.
1. Stephanie Carvin at the Monkey Cage on Trump and Canadian foreign policy.
2. Seth Masket takes me to task over the importance of hypocrisy. Where I’d agree with him is that I do think it’s important, as he says, for politicians to offer reasons for the things they do — reasons more public-oriented than simply doing it because they want to.
3. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Brooke Sutherland on GM and Trump’s trade war.
4. Alec MacGillis on Mitch McConnell’s legacy.
5. Jonathan Chait on Lawrence Kudlow and the federal budget deficit. The update at the bottom is the best part.
Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Brooke Sample at bsample1@bloomberg.net
The administration’s missteps continue unabated. Plus, Jonathan Bernstein’s morning links.
By
637
July 3, 2018, 12:34 AM GMT+10
We’re not laughing, either. Photographer: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
It’s hard to imagine a better quick story summing up the Donald Trump administration than the one that broke Sunday night about a bill the White House was preparing to, as Jonathan Swan at Axios put it, “declare America’s abandonment of fundamental World Trade Organization rules” by giving the president authority to unilaterally break those rules.
Let’s see …
The policy is nuts; virtually all experts, both in trade and in foreign policy, believe global trade is very good for the U.S.
In fact, according to Swan’s reporting, almost everyone in the White House thinks the bill “is unrealistic or unworkable.”
Why does it exist, then? Because Trump ordered it, and sometimes the best way to mollify a president is to give him what he wants — very slowly, and without anything actually happening. Apparently this thing has been kicking around for months.
The bill has virtually no chance whatsoever of being enacted into law.
The draft bill has a title, the United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act, which yields an acronym that had every Twitter wag making fart jokes Sunday night.
On that last point, political scientist Brendan Nyhan made the crucial point: There are actually two perfectly plausible explanations. The ridiculous title could be just another sign of an administration that routinely botches basic tasks; after all, official White House communications have been plagued by typos ever since Trump took office, and just a few days ago a prankster claiming to be New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez managed to get a call through to the president. But it’s equally possible it was a malicious effort to undermine the policy by someone in the White House or an executive-branch agency; all administrations leak, but none before this have leaked so often with information that looked this bad for the president.
So to summarize: The president ordered something inept; he’s not going to get what he wanted; and everyone in the administration has egg on their faces over it.
What’s even more amazing about this is that Trump seems to be oblivious to all of it. For all we know, he really thinks that North Korea is giving up its nuclear weapons (it isn’t), the border wall is under construction (nope), and that he’s going to get his Space Force (seems extremely unlikely, even if Trump thinks wars against the Pentagon bureaucracy are good and easy to win).
He remains such a weak president that he has to select a Supreme Court nominee from a list supplied by an interest group. But he doesn’t appear to realize it — and he certainly isn’t demonstrating any ability to change the situation. Meanwhile, he’ll just keep ordering people to do things that (most of the time at least) will never happen, while the few competent people he’s somehow managed to put in place will continue to do things in his name whether he likes it or not. I could add a fart joke, but the whole thing really isn’t very funny.
1. Stephanie Carvin at the Monkey Cage on Trump and Canadian foreign policy.
2. Seth Masket takes me to task over the importance of hypocrisy. Where I’d agree with him is that I do think it’s important, as he says, for politicians to offer reasons for the things they do — reasons more public-oriented than simply doing it because they want to.
3. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Brooke Sutherland on GM and Trump’s trade war.
4. Alec MacGillis on Mitch McConnell’s legacy.
5. Jonathan Chait on Lawrence Kudlow and the federal budget deficit. The update at the bottom is the best part.
Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Brooke Sample at bsample1@bloomberg.net
Cohen’s Next Phase, Manafort’s Trial Looms: Trump Legal Update - Bloomberg
Cohen’s Next Phase, Manafort’s Trial Looms: Trump Legal Update
Bloomberg News
July 2, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+10
House Republicans (still) want to shut down the probe into Russian election meddling. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort -- facing trial this month on fraud charges -- told a judge that government leaks to reporters were meant to bias jurors against him. And lawyers for Trump’s onetime fixer Michael Cohen, who’s being scrutinized in a separate criminal investigation, finished a review of seized evidence for records that they claim are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
These are just a few of the developments during the past week in the legal cases entangling the president. Here’s a recap of where things stand and what to watch in the coming week:
Cohen’s Next Phase
For a case involving an FBI investigation, a fixer for the future president and an adult film star, it was a quiet week for Cohen. The exception was a suggestive selfie of Cohen and actor Tom Arnold, who says he’s producing a TV series critical of Trump. The photo, posted to Twitter by Arnold, stirred speculation that Cohen was turning on Trump. Otherwise, developments in that probe were limited to courtroom procedures.
Federal agents are completing their review of millions of items seized by the FBI during an April raid of Cohen’s home, hotel room and office. Cohen’s lawyers said last week that they had completed their review. Cohen asked a retired judge appointed to oversee the process to withhold about 12,000 files from the government, saying they were covered by the attorney-client privilege.
The investigation is focused on Cohen’s business activities. He presumably learned a great deal about Trump’s dealings in the years he worked for the Trump Organization -- making it especially risky for the president if Cohen opts to cooperate with investigators. The company has until Thursday to complete its own review of the seized evidence.
Here are some of the most recent stories on Cohen’s travails:
Trump Organization Must End Cohen Document Review by July 5
Michael Cohen Lawyer Completed Review of Files Seized by FBI
Mueller Probe
Republican criticism of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign was intense last week, as the House approved a Republican-backed resolution demanding the Justice Department turn over all remaining documents sought by congressional committees related to the investigation. It was the latest attempt by Trump’s Republican allies to derail the probe, which they contend has been a political witch hunt from the beginning.
Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican who co-sponsored the resolution, said on the House floor that “when we get these documents, we believe that it will do away with this whole fiasco of what they call the Russian collusion investigation because there wasn’t any!”
On Wednesday, FBI agent Peter Strzok, who has been accused of bias by Trump and his supporters, appeared for closed-door questioning before two House committees as part of their investigation “into decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016” intended to undermine Mueller’s probe. Lawmakers who heard Strzok defend his actions later said he was grilled about his text messages to a former colleague, including one that said he’d “stop” Trump from becoming president.
The special counsel’s team has indicted 20 people and three Russian companies, secured five guilty pleas -- with several of Trump’s former associates also agreeing to cooperate with the probe.
Here are some of recent stories on Mueller’s investigation:
Russian Firm Tied to Putin’s Cook Attacks Mueller in Filing
Mueller Poised to Zero In on Trump-Russia Collusion Allegations
Mueller Seeks to Secure Troll Evidence From ‘Putin’s Chef’
Mueller Wins Key Victory as Manafort Judge Upholds Authority
Ex-Roger Stone Aide Fighting Mueller Subpoena, His Lawyer Says
Manafort Gives Mueller a Win
Paul ManafortPhotographer: Zach Gibson/Bloomberg
Manafort, Trump’s onetime campaign manager, will have the distinction later his month of being the first person to go on trial in a case stemming from Mueller’s investigation. Manafort’s attempt to have the case thrown out on the grounds that Mueller lacked authority instead gave the special counsel a key victory when a federal judge on June 26 ruled the tax- and bank-fraud charges had been filed properly.
The ruling cleared the way for Manafort to go to trial on July 25 in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, where he’s accused of cheating banks and failing to pay taxes on income he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian groups in Ukraine. Manafort, 69, faces a separate trial in Washington in September on charges of acting as an unregistered agent of Ukraine, laundering money and obstructing justice.
Mueller’s prosecutors acted properly because the crimes charged “clearly arise out of the special counsel’s investigation into the payments defendant allegedly received from Russian-backed leaders and pro-Russian political officials,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III wrote in the 31-page opinion.
The cases against Manafort relate to his business dealings before he joined Trump’s campaign, but some legal experts say Mueller may be trying to pressure him to cooperate in the larger probe.
Here are some of recent stories on Mueller’s investigation and a link to the Special Counsel site:
Reporters Gave Tip on Manafort Storage Unit, FBI Agent Says
Manafort Reported $10 Million Loan From Russian Oligarch in 2010
Manafort Appeals Dismissal of Suit Disputing Mueller’s Authority
Mueller Wins Key Victory as Manafort Judge Upholds Authority
The Porn Star v. the President
The most sensational case against Trump was brought by Stephanie Clifford, an adult-film actress who performs as Stormy Daniels. She says she had a tryst with Trump in 2006 and was threatened and manipulated to cover it up.
Stephanie Clifford and Michael AvenattiPhotographer: Wes Bruer/Bloomberg
Clifford last week challenged a request by Cohen to gag her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, from discussing the lawsuit against Trump and his longtime personal attorney, who paid her $130,000 in October 2016 to keep quiet about the alleged sexual encounter.
Cohen previously got a 90-day hold placed on the lawsuit to protect his right against self-incrimination in the criminal probe.
Avenatti has said he wants to question Trump under oath. The California lawyer has kept the scandal alive with television appearances and additional lawsuits questioning Cohen’s competence and ethics. And he’s using his spare time to pick another fight with Trump, this time on behalf of immigration whistle-blowers who he says reached out to him to expose the “truth” behind the government’s child-separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Here is a recent story:
Stormy Daniels Says Cohen’s Request for Gag Order Is Premature
Russian Trolls and Fake News
Less lurid (but no less compelling) is an indictment Mueller brought against 13 Russians and three entities including a Russia-based research operation -- a case that offers a glimpse of just how extensive the 2016 election meddling was.
The two sides are fighting over how much evidence prosecutors must disclose to a company led by Russian businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is under indictment for financing the cyber activities. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich in Washington said the government has made a good case to keep some of the evidence under wraps. Among the topics the government doesn’t want to disclose are cooperating witnesses who may be helping with the broader Russia investigation.
Russians spent a couple of years collecting intelligence on U.S. elections, then got directly engaged in the 2016 race, reaching out to unwitting Trump supporters to promote the candidate, according to Mueller. Meanwhile, programmers at the Saint Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which is allegedly bankrolled by Prigozhin, allegedly concocted social media accounts that seemingly represented groups aligned with actual movements, such as Black Lives Matter, to sow further disinformation to voters.
Separately, the Democratic National Committee sued Russia, the campaign, WikiLeaks and Trump’s associates claiming widespread election interference. Its case in Manhattan could force campaign staffers to answer questions under oath. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 13.
Here are some of the most recent stories on the Russian hackers:
‘Putin’s Chef’ Judge Scolds Lawyers Over Evidence-Access Fight
Russian Firm Says Mueller Can’t Bar Access to Troll Evidence
Russia Keeps Meddling, Mueller Says in Bid to Guard Evidence
Defamation Claims and Possible Deposition
Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” claims Trump groped her in 2005. She sued the president for defamation after he labeled her, and other women who accused him of sexual misconduct, as liars.
Summer ZervosPhotographer: Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images
A New York judge rejected Trump’s claim that the Constitution bars the president from being dragged into court. “No one is above the law,” the judge wrote. Trump has lost several efforts to derail the suit, most recently on June 14, but he’s continuing to wage appeals. Meanwhile, trial preparations are under way and a schedule has been set for exchanging evidence and filing submissions. Zervos wants to depose Trump and seeks documents relating to similar claims by other women. The deadline for depositions is Jan. 31, but there hasn’t been a decision on whether Trump must face questioning.
Here’s the most recent story on the Zervos case:
Trump Keeps Failing to Derail Contestant’s Defamation Suit
Another NDA Fight
Clifford isn’t the only one seeking to void a nondisclosure agreement to air a tale about Trump: A Los-Angeles-based actress who worked as a manager on Trump’s 2016 campaign is pressing to keep her case public.
The actress, Jessica Denson, asked a New York judge on June 18 to deny the campaign’s request to force the case into arbitration. Denson, whose credits include the CBS crime drama “Person of Interest,” sued to nullify the agreement, saying it’s making it more difficult to pursue a separate lawsuit in which she claims she was harassed while she worked on Trump’s campaign.
Here’s the most recent coverage of Denson’s suit:
Trump Campaign Ex-Staffer Asks Judge to Keep NDA Suit Public
Tax Returns, Trump Foundation
Presidents have long disclosed their tax returns. Trump refused. But he may not have a choice.
Several lawsuits accuse Trump of violating the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause by taking payments without Congress’s approval from foreign governments at his Washington hotel, golf courses and elsewhere, as well as the domestic clause that bars payments from federal or state governments.
Lawsuits by about 200 Democrats in Congress, and by attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia, are pending. A third case, by an ethics-watchdog group and restaurant-industry competitors, is on appeal after a Manhattan federal judge tossed it out. The cases could force Trump to divest his holdings or put them in a blind trust. At a minimum, the plaintiffs will seek Trump’s tax returns.
The Maryland judge is to rule by late July whether to allow the lawsuit to go forward.
In another battle over the president’s holdings, New York state sued to dissolve Trump’s charitable foundation, claiming it persistently broke state and federal laws through improper political activity, self-dealing and failing to follow basic fiduciary obligations. In response, Trump tweeted that “sleazy New York Democrats” are attacking a charity that “gave out more money than it took in.” Barbara Underwood, the state’s attorney general, has also referred the findings to the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service.
Here are the most recent stories on challenges to Trump’s business and charity:
Trump Used Charity as His Checkbook, N.Y. Says as It Flags IRS
Trump, Democrats Clash in D.C. Court Over President’s Empire
The Case Files:
The Flynn case is U.S. v. Flynn, 17-cr-232, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
The Cohen case is In the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 9, 2018, 18-mj-3161, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
The Manafort cases are U.S. v. Manafort, 17-cr-201, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington), and 18-cr-83, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).
The Clifford cases are Clifford v. Trump, 18-cv-2217, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles); Clifford v. Trump, 18-cv-3842, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan); and Clifford v. Davidson, 18-cv-5052, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
The Denson case: Denson v. Trump, 18-cv-2690, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
The hacking indictment is U.S. v. Concord Management, 18-cr-00032, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington). The DNC case is Democratic National Committee v. the Russian Federation, 18-cv-3501, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
The Apprentice case is Zervos v. Trump, 150522/2017, New York Supreme Court, New York County.
The emoluments cases are Blumenthal v. Trump, 17-cv-1154, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington); District of Columbia v. Trump, 17-cv-1596, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Greenbelt); Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump, 17-cv-00458, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
The Trump Foundation case is People of the State of New York v. Trump, 451130/2018, New York Supreme Court, New York County.
— With assistance by Erik Larson
Bloomberg News
July 2, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+10
House Republicans (still) want to shut down the probe into Russian election meddling. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort -- facing trial this month on fraud charges -- told a judge that government leaks to reporters were meant to bias jurors against him. And lawyers for Trump’s onetime fixer Michael Cohen, who’s being scrutinized in a separate criminal investigation, finished a review of seized evidence for records that they claim are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
These are just a few of the developments during the past week in the legal cases entangling the president. Here’s a recap of where things stand and what to watch in the coming week:
Cohen’s Next Phase
For a case involving an FBI investigation, a fixer for the future president and an adult film star, it was a quiet week for Cohen. The exception was a suggestive selfie of Cohen and actor Tom Arnold, who says he’s producing a TV series critical of Trump. The photo, posted to Twitter by Arnold, stirred speculation that Cohen was turning on Trump. Otherwise, developments in that probe were limited to courtroom procedures.
Federal agents are completing their review of millions of items seized by the FBI during an April raid of Cohen’s home, hotel room and office. Cohen’s lawyers said last week that they had completed their review. Cohen asked a retired judge appointed to oversee the process to withhold about 12,000 files from the government, saying they were covered by the attorney-client privilege.
The investigation is focused on Cohen’s business activities. He presumably learned a great deal about Trump’s dealings in the years he worked for the Trump Organization -- making it especially risky for the president if Cohen opts to cooperate with investigators. The company has until Thursday to complete its own review of the seized evidence.
Here are some of the most recent stories on Cohen’s travails:
Trump Organization Must End Cohen Document Review by July 5
Michael Cohen Lawyer Completed Review of Files Seized by FBI
Mueller Probe
Republican criticism of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign was intense last week, as the House approved a Republican-backed resolution demanding the Justice Department turn over all remaining documents sought by congressional committees related to the investigation. It was the latest attempt by Trump’s Republican allies to derail the probe, which they contend has been a political witch hunt from the beginning.
Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican who co-sponsored the resolution, said on the House floor that “when we get these documents, we believe that it will do away with this whole fiasco of what they call the Russian collusion investigation because there wasn’t any!”
On Wednesday, FBI agent Peter Strzok, who has been accused of bias by Trump and his supporters, appeared for closed-door questioning before two House committees as part of their investigation “into decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016” intended to undermine Mueller’s probe. Lawmakers who heard Strzok defend his actions later said he was grilled about his text messages to a former colleague, including one that said he’d “stop” Trump from becoming president.
The special counsel’s team has indicted 20 people and three Russian companies, secured five guilty pleas -- with several of Trump’s former associates also agreeing to cooperate with the probe.
Here are some of recent stories on Mueller’s investigation:
Russian Firm Tied to Putin’s Cook Attacks Mueller in Filing
Mueller Poised to Zero In on Trump-Russia Collusion Allegations
Mueller Seeks to Secure Troll Evidence From ‘Putin’s Chef’
Mueller Wins Key Victory as Manafort Judge Upholds Authority
Ex-Roger Stone Aide Fighting Mueller Subpoena, His Lawyer Says
Manafort Gives Mueller a Win
Paul ManafortPhotographer: Zach Gibson/Bloomberg
Manafort, Trump’s onetime campaign manager, will have the distinction later his month of being the first person to go on trial in a case stemming from Mueller’s investigation. Manafort’s attempt to have the case thrown out on the grounds that Mueller lacked authority instead gave the special counsel a key victory when a federal judge on June 26 ruled the tax- and bank-fraud charges had been filed properly.
The ruling cleared the way for Manafort to go to trial on July 25 in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, where he’s accused of cheating banks and failing to pay taxes on income he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian groups in Ukraine. Manafort, 69, faces a separate trial in Washington in September on charges of acting as an unregistered agent of Ukraine, laundering money and obstructing justice.
Mueller’s prosecutors acted properly because the crimes charged “clearly arise out of the special counsel’s investigation into the payments defendant allegedly received from Russian-backed leaders and pro-Russian political officials,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III wrote in the 31-page opinion.
The cases against Manafort relate to his business dealings before he joined Trump’s campaign, but some legal experts say Mueller may be trying to pressure him to cooperate in the larger probe.
Here are some of recent stories on Mueller’s investigation and a link to the Special Counsel site:
Reporters Gave Tip on Manafort Storage Unit, FBI Agent Says
Manafort Reported $10 Million Loan From Russian Oligarch in 2010
Manafort Appeals Dismissal of Suit Disputing Mueller’s Authority
Mueller Wins Key Victory as Manafort Judge Upholds Authority
The Porn Star v. the President
The most sensational case against Trump was brought by Stephanie Clifford, an adult-film actress who performs as Stormy Daniels. She says she had a tryst with Trump in 2006 and was threatened and manipulated to cover it up.
Stephanie Clifford and Michael AvenattiPhotographer: Wes Bruer/Bloomberg
Clifford last week challenged a request by Cohen to gag her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, from discussing the lawsuit against Trump and his longtime personal attorney, who paid her $130,000 in October 2016 to keep quiet about the alleged sexual encounter.
Cohen previously got a 90-day hold placed on the lawsuit to protect his right against self-incrimination in the criminal probe.
Avenatti has said he wants to question Trump under oath. The California lawyer has kept the scandal alive with television appearances and additional lawsuits questioning Cohen’s competence and ethics. And he’s using his spare time to pick another fight with Trump, this time on behalf of immigration whistle-blowers who he says reached out to him to expose the “truth” behind the government’s child-separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Here is a recent story:
Stormy Daniels Says Cohen’s Request for Gag Order Is Premature
Russian Trolls and Fake News
Less lurid (but no less compelling) is an indictment Mueller brought against 13 Russians and three entities including a Russia-based research operation -- a case that offers a glimpse of just how extensive the 2016 election meddling was.
The two sides are fighting over how much evidence prosecutors must disclose to a company led by Russian businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is under indictment for financing the cyber activities. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich in Washington said the government has made a good case to keep some of the evidence under wraps. Among the topics the government doesn’t want to disclose are cooperating witnesses who may be helping with the broader Russia investigation.
Russians spent a couple of years collecting intelligence on U.S. elections, then got directly engaged in the 2016 race, reaching out to unwitting Trump supporters to promote the candidate, according to Mueller. Meanwhile, programmers at the Saint Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which is allegedly bankrolled by Prigozhin, allegedly concocted social media accounts that seemingly represented groups aligned with actual movements, such as Black Lives Matter, to sow further disinformation to voters.
Separately, the Democratic National Committee sued Russia, the campaign, WikiLeaks and Trump’s associates claiming widespread election interference. Its case in Manhattan could force campaign staffers to answer questions under oath. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 13.
Here are some of the most recent stories on the Russian hackers:
‘Putin’s Chef’ Judge Scolds Lawyers Over Evidence-Access Fight
Russian Firm Says Mueller Can’t Bar Access to Troll Evidence
Russia Keeps Meddling, Mueller Says in Bid to Guard Evidence
Defamation Claims and Possible Deposition
Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” claims Trump groped her in 2005. She sued the president for defamation after he labeled her, and other women who accused him of sexual misconduct, as liars.
Summer ZervosPhotographer: Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images
A New York judge rejected Trump’s claim that the Constitution bars the president from being dragged into court. “No one is above the law,” the judge wrote. Trump has lost several efforts to derail the suit, most recently on June 14, but he’s continuing to wage appeals. Meanwhile, trial preparations are under way and a schedule has been set for exchanging evidence and filing submissions. Zervos wants to depose Trump and seeks documents relating to similar claims by other women. The deadline for depositions is Jan. 31, but there hasn’t been a decision on whether Trump must face questioning.
Here’s the most recent story on the Zervos case:
Trump Keeps Failing to Derail Contestant’s Defamation Suit
Another NDA Fight
Clifford isn’t the only one seeking to void a nondisclosure agreement to air a tale about Trump: A Los-Angeles-based actress who worked as a manager on Trump’s 2016 campaign is pressing to keep her case public.
The actress, Jessica Denson, asked a New York judge on June 18 to deny the campaign’s request to force the case into arbitration. Denson, whose credits include the CBS crime drama “Person of Interest,” sued to nullify the agreement, saying it’s making it more difficult to pursue a separate lawsuit in which she claims she was harassed while she worked on Trump’s campaign.
Here’s the most recent coverage of Denson’s suit:
Trump Campaign Ex-Staffer Asks Judge to Keep NDA Suit Public
Tax Returns, Trump Foundation
Presidents have long disclosed their tax returns. Trump refused. But he may not have a choice.
Several lawsuits accuse Trump of violating the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause by taking payments without Congress’s approval from foreign governments at his Washington hotel, golf courses and elsewhere, as well as the domestic clause that bars payments from federal or state governments.
Lawsuits by about 200 Democrats in Congress, and by attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia, are pending. A third case, by an ethics-watchdog group and restaurant-industry competitors, is on appeal after a Manhattan federal judge tossed it out. The cases could force Trump to divest his holdings or put them in a blind trust. At a minimum, the plaintiffs will seek Trump’s tax returns.
The Maryland judge is to rule by late July whether to allow the lawsuit to go forward.
In another battle over the president’s holdings, New York state sued to dissolve Trump’s charitable foundation, claiming it persistently broke state and federal laws through improper political activity, self-dealing and failing to follow basic fiduciary obligations. In response, Trump tweeted that “sleazy New York Democrats” are attacking a charity that “gave out more money than it took in.” Barbara Underwood, the state’s attorney general, has also referred the findings to the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service.
Here are the most recent stories on challenges to Trump’s business and charity:
Trump Used Charity as His Checkbook, N.Y. Says as It Flags IRS
Trump, Democrats Clash in D.C. Court Over President’s Empire
The Case Files:
The Flynn case is U.S. v. Flynn, 17-cr-232, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
The Cohen case is In the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 9, 2018, 18-mj-3161, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
The Manafort cases are U.S. v. Manafort, 17-cr-201, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington), and 18-cr-83, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).
The Clifford cases are Clifford v. Trump, 18-cv-2217, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles); Clifford v. Trump, 18-cv-3842, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan); and Clifford v. Davidson, 18-cv-5052, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
The Denson case: Denson v. Trump, 18-cv-2690, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
The hacking indictment is U.S. v. Concord Management, 18-cr-00032, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington). The DNC case is Democratic National Committee v. the Russian Federation, 18-cv-3501, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
The Apprentice case is Zervos v. Trump, 150522/2017, New York Supreme Court, New York County.
The emoluments cases are Blumenthal v. Trump, 17-cv-1154, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington); District of Columbia v. Trump, 17-cv-1596, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Greenbelt); Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump, 17-cv-00458, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
The Trump Foundation case is People of the State of New York v. Trump, 451130/2018, New York Supreme Court, New York County.
— With assistance by Erik Larson
Thailand cave rescue: How can rescuers free the boys? - BBC News
July 3, 2018
Thailand cave rescue: How can rescuers free the boys?
By Toby Luckhurst
BBC News
After nine days, the group of boys and their coach have finally been found
After nine days trapped in darkness in a cave in Thailand, 12 boys and their football coach have been found alive.
Two British divers found all 13 safe in a cavern in the Tham Luang cave system in the northern Chiang Rai province.
But the issue now is to get them all out of the cave with rising waters and mud hindering access and the trapped group's health a major concern.
The army says the group might have to wait in the cave for up to four months for floods to recede.
So what are the options to free the youngsters and their coach?
Finding the Thai cave boys and getting them out
Missing Thai boys found alive in caves
What to do to survive underground
Diving
"The option to bring them out by diving is the quickest but it's also the most dangerous," Anmar Mirza, national co-ordinator of the US Cave Rescue Commission, told the BBC.
Thai navy divers, three top British cave divers and US military personnel all attempted to find the boys.
In total, more than 1,000 people have been involved in the operation, including teams from China, Myanmar, Laos and Australia.
Oxygen tanks were prepared for divers outside the cave complex
These skilled professional divers still needed several hours to get to the trapped group from the entrance, through tiny, debris-strewn passages and aided by round-the-clock water pumping efforts to try to clear the flood waters. And these boys are not trained divers.
Edd Sorenson, regional co-ordinator in Florida for the International Underwater Cave Rescue and Recovery Organisation, told the BBC the diving option is "extremely dangerous and hazardous", saying he would consider it "an absolute last resort".
"Having somebody in zero visibility that's not familiar with... that kind of extreme conditions, it's real easy and very likely that they would panic, and either kill themselves and/ or the rescuers."
Drilling
Authorities have tried to drill holes in the cave walls to help drain some of the flood water - although the thick rock has hampered efforts.
There have also been suggestions that drilling could be another way to get to the boys, and to help them out.
But to even begin the process, new roads would need to be built up above the caves to accommodate the heavy drilling equipment needed to break through the rock.
Image copyrightEPA
Image caption
Authorities have tried to drill holes to let out flood waters
On top of that, Mr Mirza explains you would need to have conducted a survey of the caves and to know them back to front before you could start drilling - otherwise there would be little chance of digging a hole in the correct place for the boys and their coach.
"It sounds easy but it's actually very difficult," he says. "It's a needle in a haystack problem."
Resupply?
In a press conference, Chiang Rai governor Narongsak Osottanakorn said they would continue to drain water out of the cave while sending doctors and nurses in to check the health of the boys and their coach.
"If the doctors say their physical condition is strong enough to be moved, they will take them out from the cave," he said.
But Mr Mirza says their health is a serious concern. "After nine days without food, you have to watch their food intake," he says.
Authorities have set up a temporary hospital near the cave entrance in preparation to handle the trapped team
People deprived of food can suffer ill-health effects if not properly reintroduced to food - sometimes as severe as heart failure or comas.
Mr Mirza says if the group are on high ground, safe from flooding, and can be resupplied there that might be a good option for now. Their ill-health "significantly compromises the rescue effort," he says.
Mr Sorenson agrees. "I think they would be better off bringing in food, water, filtration systems, oxygen if the air space needs it and requires it", he says.
"They have lights and hope now, so I think waiting it out, as long as they can get supplies in there to make them comfortable and warm and fed and hydrated."
Thailand cave rescue: How can rescuers free the boys?
By Toby Luckhurst
BBC News
After nine days, the group of boys and their coach have finally been found
After nine days trapped in darkness in a cave in Thailand, 12 boys and their football coach have been found alive.
Two British divers found all 13 safe in a cavern in the Tham Luang cave system in the northern Chiang Rai province.
But the issue now is to get them all out of the cave with rising waters and mud hindering access and the trapped group's health a major concern.
The army says the group might have to wait in the cave for up to four months for floods to recede.
So what are the options to free the youngsters and their coach?
Finding the Thai cave boys and getting them out
Missing Thai boys found alive in caves
What to do to survive underground
Diving
"The option to bring them out by diving is the quickest but it's also the most dangerous," Anmar Mirza, national co-ordinator of the US Cave Rescue Commission, told the BBC.
Thai navy divers, three top British cave divers and US military personnel all attempted to find the boys.
In total, more than 1,000 people have been involved in the operation, including teams from China, Myanmar, Laos and Australia.
Oxygen tanks were prepared for divers outside the cave complex
These skilled professional divers still needed several hours to get to the trapped group from the entrance, through tiny, debris-strewn passages and aided by round-the-clock water pumping efforts to try to clear the flood waters. And these boys are not trained divers.
Edd Sorenson, regional co-ordinator in Florida for the International Underwater Cave Rescue and Recovery Organisation, told the BBC the diving option is "extremely dangerous and hazardous", saying he would consider it "an absolute last resort".
"Having somebody in zero visibility that's not familiar with... that kind of extreme conditions, it's real easy and very likely that they would panic, and either kill themselves and/ or the rescuers."
Drilling
Authorities have tried to drill holes in the cave walls to help drain some of the flood water - although the thick rock has hampered efforts.
There have also been suggestions that drilling could be another way to get to the boys, and to help them out.
But to even begin the process, new roads would need to be built up above the caves to accommodate the heavy drilling equipment needed to break through the rock.
Image copyrightEPA
Image caption
Authorities have tried to drill holes to let out flood waters
On top of that, Mr Mirza explains you would need to have conducted a survey of the caves and to know them back to front before you could start drilling - otherwise there would be little chance of digging a hole in the correct place for the boys and their coach.
"It sounds easy but it's actually very difficult," he says. "It's a needle in a haystack problem."
Resupply?
In a press conference, Chiang Rai governor Narongsak Osottanakorn said they would continue to drain water out of the cave while sending doctors and nurses in to check the health of the boys and their coach.
"If the doctors say their physical condition is strong enough to be moved, they will take them out from the cave," he said.
But Mr Mirza says their health is a serious concern. "After nine days without food, you have to watch their food intake," he says.
Authorities have set up a temporary hospital near the cave entrance in preparation to handle the trapped team
People deprived of food can suffer ill-health effects if not properly reintroduced to food - sometimes as severe as heart failure or comas.
Mr Mirza says if the group are on high ground, safe from flooding, and can be resupplied there that might be a good option for now. Their ill-health "significantly compromises the rescue effort," he says.
Mr Sorenson agrees. "I think they would be better off bringing in food, water, filtration systems, oxygen if the air space needs it and requires it", he says.
"They have lights and hope now, so I think waiting it out, as long as they can get supplies in there to make them comfortable and warm and fed and hydrated."
Thailand cave rescue: Boys 'could be in cave for months' - BBC News
July 3, 2018
Thailand cave rescue: Boys 'could be in cave for months'
Finding the Thai cave boys and getting them out
Twelve boys and their football coach trapped in a Thai cave are alive, but will need to learn to dive or wait months for flooding to recede before they can get out, the army says.
The group had been missing for nine days before they were found by divers late on Monday on a small dry ledge.
Rescuers are now battling rising water to bring more supplies to the group.
They may need to have food sent in for at least the next four months, according to the military.
Attempts were being made to install power and telephone lines inside the cave to let the boys speak with their parents, Chiang Rai Governor Narongsak Osotthanakon said.
How were they found?
Two British rescuer divers who had flown over to join the search operation found the boys on Monday night.
The video of that first contact was posted on Facebook by Thai Navy SEAL special forces.
The boys are seen by torchlight sitting on a ledge above water, responding to the divers that all 13 were there and that they were very hungry.
Thailand rejoices as boys found
The Brits who found the group alive
The hours after the boys were found
Media captionBill Whitehouse of the British Cave Rescue Council has been in touch with the divers
They ask how long they have been underground and whether they can leave now. The divers tell them they have to wait, but say people will come back for them.
One boy replies: "Oh. See you tomorrow."
The search for the group had gripped the nation as it was unclear where they were or whether they even were still alive.
Families of the missing group were ecstatic at news of the rescue.
How did they get there?
The boys, aged between 11 and 16, and their 25-year-old coach went missing on 23 June. It's believed they entered the cave when it was dry and sudden heavy rains blocked the exit.
They were found on a rock shelf around 4km (2.5 miles) from the mouth of the cave.
It is thought the boys could move through parts of the cave in dry conditions but rushing waters clogged the narrow passages with mud and debris, blocking visibility and access.
One of the toughest stretches for the divers came as they neared so-called Pattaya Beach - an elevated mound in the cave complex - where it was hoped the boys had sought refuge.
Divers had to navigate a series of sharp, narrow bends in near-darkness. They completed the difficult journey to find Pattaya Beach flooded, so swam on and found the boys about 400m away.
How can they get out?
Bringing the trapped boys to safety is an extremely dangerous task given the conditions inside.
The Tham Luang cave complex in Chiang Rai in northern Thailand is regularly flooded during the rainy season which lasts until September or October.
A Facebook photo shows the coach with some of the missing children
If the children are to be brought out before then, they will have to learn basic diving skills.
But experts have cautioned that taking inexperienced divers through the dangerous corridors of muddy, zero-visibility waters would be very risky.
Attempts to pump the water levels lower have so far not been successful.
If they are to wait until the water recedes by itself, it would mean the boys will have to stay in the cave for months and have to be continuously supplied with food and assistance.
Specially trained doctors will go in to carry out medical checks in the coming days to establish their condition and treat possible injuries.
BBC South East Asia correspondent Jonathan Head, who is at the scene, said the Thai military has a few doctors with the diving skills required to reach them.
"But even when they recover their strength, pulling them back through miles of partly flooded tunnels will be a daunting challenge. And the rainy season has just started here - water levels will rise," he said.
Other teams are still scouring the mountainside in the hope of finding another way in to the cave.
Who are they?
The 12 boys are all members of a local football team and their coach is known to have taken them on occasional excursions and field trips.
Tinnakorn Boonpiem, whose 12-year-old son Mongkol is among the 13, told AFP news agency near the caves she was "so glad" to hear they were safe.
"I want him to be physically and mentally fit," she said.
"I'm so happy I can't put it into words," another relative of one of the group told reporters as tears of joy streamed down his cheeks.
Thailand cave rescue: Boys 'could be in cave for months'
Finding the Thai cave boys and getting them out
Twelve boys and their football coach trapped in a Thai cave are alive, but will need to learn to dive or wait months for flooding to recede before they can get out, the army says.
The group had been missing for nine days before they were found by divers late on Monday on a small dry ledge.
Rescuers are now battling rising water to bring more supplies to the group.
They may need to have food sent in for at least the next four months, according to the military.
Attempts were being made to install power and telephone lines inside the cave to let the boys speak with their parents, Chiang Rai Governor Narongsak Osotthanakon said.
How were they found?
Two British rescuer divers who had flown over to join the search operation found the boys on Monday night.
The video of that first contact was posted on Facebook by Thai Navy SEAL special forces.
The boys are seen by torchlight sitting on a ledge above water, responding to the divers that all 13 were there and that they were very hungry.
Thailand rejoices as boys found
The Brits who found the group alive
The hours after the boys were found
Media captionBill Whitehouse of the British Cave Rescue Council has been in touch with the divers
They ask how long they have been underground and whether they can leave now. The divers tell them they have to wait, but say people will come back for them.
One boy replies: "Oh. See you tomorrow."
The search for the group had gripped the nation as it was unclear where they were or whether they even were still alive.
Families of the missing group were ecstatic at news of the rescue.
How did they get there?
The boys, aged between 11 and 16, and their 25-year-old coach went missing on 23 June. It's believed they entered the cave when it was dry and sudden heavy rains blocked the exit.
They were found on a rock shelf around 4km (2.5 miles) from the mouth of the cave.
It is thought the boys could move through parts of the cave in dry conditions but rushing waters clogged the narrow passages with mud and debris, blocking visibility and access.
One of the toughest stretches for the divers came as they neared so-called Pattaya Beach - an elevated mound in the cave complex - where it was hoped the boys had sought refuge.
Divers had to navigate a series of sharp, narrow bends in near-darkness. They completed the difficult journey to find Pattaya Beach flooded, so swam on and found the boys about 400m away.
How can they get out?
Bringing the trapped boys to safety is an extremely dangerous task given the conditions inside.
The Tham Luang cave complex in Chiang Rai in northern Thailand is regularly flooded during the rainy season which lasts until September or October.
A Facebook photo shows the coach with some of the missing children
If the children are to be brought out before then, they will have to learn basic diving skills.
But experts have cautioned that taking inexperienced divers through the dangerous corridors of muddy, zero-visibility waters would be very risky.
Attempts to pump the water levels lower have so far not been successful.
If they are to wait until the water recedes by itself, it would mean the boys will have to stay in the cave for months and have to be continuously supplied with food and assistance.
Specially trained doctors will go in to carry out medical checks in the coming days to establish their condition and treat possible injuries.
BBC South East Asia correspondent Jonathan Head, who is at the scene, said the Thai military has a few doctors with the diving skills required to reach them.
"But even when they recover their strength, pulling them back through miles of partly flooded tunnels will be a daunting challenge. And the rainy season has just started here - water levels will rise," he said.
Other teams are still scouring the mountainside in the hope of finding another way in to the cave.
Who are they?
The 12 boys are all members of a local football team and their coach is known to have taken them on occasional excursions and field trips.
Tinnakorn Boonpiem, whose 12-year-old son Mongkol is among the 13, told AFP news agency near the caves she was "so glad" to hear they were safe.
"I want him to be physically and mentally fit," she said.
"I'm so happy I can't put it into words," another relative of one of the group told reporters as tears of joy streamed down his cheeks.
Trump administration seeks to block China Mobile in the US - BBC News
July 3, 2018
Trump administration seeks to block China Mobile in the US
State-owned China Mobile is the world's biggest mobile phone operator. It is listed in Hong Kong and New York
The Trump administration has said it does not want one of the world's biggest phone carriers, China Mobile, to provide telecom services within the US, citing national security concerns.
State-owned China Mobile applied to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a licence to do so in 2011.
But the US Department of Commerce has recommended the licence request be denied.
The advice comes amid rising trade tensions between the US and China.
"After significant engagement with China Mobile, concerns about increased risks to US law enforcement and national security interests were unable to be resolved," said the assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, David J Redl.
"Therefore, the executive branch of the US government, through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA]... recommends that the FCC deny China Mobile's Section 214 license request."
Neither China Mobile nor the FCC were immediately available for comment on what their next steps would be.
The move by the NTIA - an arm of the Commerce Department that advises US President Donald Trump on telco and information issues - comes at a time of heightened tensions between the US and China over trade and telecom issues.
In April, the Commerce Department found that the Chinese state-owned technology giant ZTE had violated trade bans with North Korea and Iran.
ZTE is based in Shenzhen and is a Chinese state-owned technology giant
A ban was placed on the firm that prevented it from buying parts from US suppliers - a move that forced Shenzhen-based ZTE to suspend major operations, and threatened to destroy its business.
However, following some pressure from Beijing, the US struck a deal with ZTE that would involve the firm paying a $1bn penalty, hiring a compliance team chosen by the US, and replacing much of its management board, among other measures.
US reaches deal with China's ZTE
China's ZTE 'poses risk to UK security'
In return, the US said it would remove the ban - a negotiation that has been linked to wider trade tensions between the US and China.
ZTE has fulfilled many of these requirements, however, a group of bipartisan senators, including US Senator for Florida Marco Rubio, is currently attempting to maintain the ban on the firm via an amendment to a defense bill.
Reacting to research by The Wall Street Journal that has shown ZTE's management overhaul may not be as dramatic as first thought, Mr Rubio last week questioned why the Trump administration was continuing negotiations with the Chinese firm.
A group of bipartisan US senators including Republican Marco Rubio are attempting maintain the ban on ZTE
Meanwhile, on Friday, as part of the ongoing trade spat between the US and China, the two giants are expected to introduce further tariffs on each other's goods.
The Trump administration is expected to bring into effect the first tranche of 25% tariffs on $34bn of Chinese goods.
And in retaliation, China is expected to enact its first round of tariffs on $34bn worth of US products.
Trump administration seeks to block China Mobile in the US
State-owned China Mobile is the world's biggest mobile phone operator. It is listed in Hong Kong and New York
The Trump administration has said it does not want one of the world's biggest phone carriers, China Mobile, to provide telecom services within the US, citing national security concerns.
State-owned China Mobile applied to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a licence to do so in 2011.
But the US Department of Commerce has recommended the licence request be denied.
The advice comes amid rising trade tensions between the US and China.
"After significant engagement with China Mobile, concerns about increased risks to US law enforcement and national security interests were unable to be resolved," said the assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, David J Redl.
"Therefore, the executive branch of the US government, through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA]... recommends that the FCC deny China Mobile's Section 214 license request."
Neither China Mobile nor the FCC were immediately available for comment on what their next steps would be.
The move by the NTIA - an arm of the Commerce Department that advises US President Donald Trump on telco and information issues - comes at a time of heightened tensions between the US and China over trade and telecom issues.
In April, the Commerce Department found that the Chinese state-owned technology giant ZTE had violated trade bans with North Korea and Iran.
ZTE is based in Shenzhen and is a Chinese state-owned technology giant
A ban was placed on the firm that prevented it from buying parts from US suppliers - a move that forced Shenzhen-based ZTE to suspend major operations, and threatened to destroy its business.
However, following some pressure from Beijing, the US struck a deal with ZTE that would involve the firm paying a $1bn penalty, hiring a compliance team chosen by the US, and replacing much of its management board, among other measures.
US reaches deal with China's ZTE
China's ZTE 'poses risk to UK security'
In return, the US said it would remove the ban - a negotiation that has been linked to wider trade tensions between the US and China.
ZTE has fulfilled many of these requirements, however, a group of bipartisan senators, including US Senator for Florida Marco Rubio, is currently attempting to maintain the ban on the firm via an amendment to a defense bill.
Reacting to research by The Wall Street Journal that has shown ZTE's management overhaul may not be as dramatic as first thought, Mr Rubio last week questioned why the Trump administration was continuing negotiations with the Chinese firm.
A group of bipartisan US senators including Republican Marco Rubio are attempting maintain the ban on ZTE
Meanwhile, on Friday, as part of the ongoing trade spat between the US and China, the two giants are expected to introduce further tariffs on each other's goods.
The Trump administration is expected to bring into effect the first tranche of 25% tariffs on $34bn of Chinese goods.
And in retaliation, China is expected to enact its first round of tariffs on $34bn worth of US products.
Monday, July 2, 2018
North Korea’s Kim Jong Un asked China’s Xi Jinping to help lift sanctions – report - Hong Kong Free Press
North Korea’s Kim Jong Un asked China’s Xi Jinping to help lift sanctions – report
2 July 2018 08:00 AFP2 min read
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has appealed to China’s Xi Jinping to help end sanctions against Pyongyang following his landmark summit with US President Donald Trump, a Japanese newspaper reported Sunday, citing multiple unnamed sources in the two countries.
Kim made the request during his third meeting with Xi in Beijing last month, and the Chinese president promised to do his “utmost” to satisfy it, the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper said.
Xi Jinping
Chinese President Xi Jinping. File photo: S.Korean Gov’t.
“We are feeling great pain due to economic sanctions. Now that we have concluded the US-North Korea summit in success, I want (China) to work toward early lifting of the sanctions,” Kim reportedly told Xi, according to the newspaper.
In recent months the Cold War-era allies have sought to repair ties strained by Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and Beijing’s support of subsequent UN sanctions.
Kim chose Beijing — his main economic patron and diplomatic protector — for his first official foreign trip in March and met Xi again in May in the northeastern port city of Dalian.
Kim asked Xi to help ease the sanctions that have crippled North Korea’s economy, and urged China to back Pyongyang in its denuclearisation talks with Washington, the report said.
Kim Jong-un
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. File photo: S.Korean Gov’t.
Xi in turn told Kim he “actively supports North Korea’s reform and opening-up and will proactively cooperate with issues associated with the efforts”, according to the Yomiuri.
He also urged North Korea to “continue (its) consultations with China” as it negotiates with the United States, the report said.
China indicated last year that the UN Security Council could consider easing the punitive measures against Pyongyang.
Kim’s third official visit to China was seen as a move to reassure Beijing that Pyongyang would not neglect its interests after the historic summit with Trump in Singapore.
China and the US both hope to see the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons.
But Beijing is concerned Washington and Pyongyang might move closer at its expense, a possibility that China sees as threatening to its economic and security interests in the region.
2 July 2018 08:00 AFP2 min read
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has appealed to China’s Xi Jinping to help end sanctions against Pyongyang following his landmark summit with US President Donald Trump, a Japanese newspaper reported Sunday, citing multiple unnamed sources in the two countries.
Kim made the request during his third meeting with Xi in Beijing last month, and the Chinese president promised to do his “utmost” to satisfy it, the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper said.
Xi Jinping
Chinese President Xi Jinping. File photo: S.Korean Gov’t.
“We are feeling great pain due to economic sanctions. Now that we have concluded the US-North Korea summit in success, I want (China) to work toward early lifting of the sanctions,” Kim reportedly told Xi, according to the newspaper.
In recent months the Cold War-era allies have sought to repair ties strained by Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and Beijing’s support of subsequent UN sanctions.
Kim chose Beijing — his main economic patron and diplomatic protector — for his first official foreign trip in March and met Xi again in May in the northeastern port city of Dalian.
Kim asked Xi to help ease the sanctions that have crippled North Korea’s economy, and urged China to back Pyongyang in its denuclearisation talks with Washington, the report said.
Kim Jong-un
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. File photo: S.Korean Gov’t.
Xi in turn told Kim he “actively supports North Korea’s reform and opening-up and will proactively cooperate with issues associated with the efforts”, according to the Yomiuri.
He also urged North Korea to “continue (its) consultations with China” as it negotiates with the United States, the report said.
China indicated last year that the UN Security Council could consider easing the punitive measures against Pyongyang.
Kim’s third official visit to China was seen as a move to reassure Beijing that Pyongyang would not neglect its interests after the historic summit with Trump in Singapore.
China and the US both hope to see the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons.
But Beijing is concerned Washington and Pyongyang might move closer at its expense, a possibility that China sees as threatening to its economic and security interests in the region.
Angela Merkel's government is on the brink of collapse - Independent
July, 2, 2018
Angela Merkel's government is on the brink of collapse – and we should all worry about what might happen then
Germany is in no position to 'lead' Europe, and has little desire to. That is bad news for everyone
Sean O'Grady
@_seanogrady
To borrow a phrase, when Germany catches a cold, Europe gets pneumonia, and right now the political situation in Berlin is looking distinctly peaky.
If Angela Merkel’s rickety government does collapse – whether or not it’s in the orderly fashion ordained by the federal republic’s constitution – everyone in Europe should be very afraid of what life after “Mutti” would be like.
You could argue she’s had it coming, ever since her brave and principled decision to allow around a million asylum seekers, including from the war in Syria, into Germany. No matter; a weak, divided Germany, with a succession of wobbly governments based on a kaleidoscope of shifting allegiances, and a growing parliamentary presence for parties on the extreme right… well, I hope I am not being too alarmist.
We should remember too that Germany remains the continent’s only economic and industrial power of truly global stature. It is great force for good; but perhaps we have taken its benign stability for granted for too long.
If Merkel does go, and out of some bitter arguments comes a stronger AFD, a noxiously nationalistic party, three things will inevitably flow.
First, an unwillingness to honour what she has been able to achieve in the way of a European “deal” on migration. That, in effect, is what a fresh election would be a referendum on.
Second, a refusal frankly backed by its financial impossibility: to bail out Italy. That country’s banks and the state itself are virtually insolvent. Now, in a country itself seized by the far right, the Italians are threatening to print their own version of the euro currency – mini Italian Treasury bonds with a face value as low as 10 euros that can be used a legal tender and to fund bank accounts – a clear dodge to evade European central bank disciplines.
Italy is the third largest economy in the Eurozone; to prop it up is beyond the means even of the Germans and even if they wanted to, which they don’t. Sooner or later, Italy will leave the euro because Italy is too big to save, unlike little Greece; and because Italy has a government, and is a country, full of people who actually wish that to happen. It could bring the entire single currency down with it.
Ian Bremmer describes starbursts exchange between Donald Trump and Angela Merkel: 'don't say I never give you anything'
Third; there will be a generally more sceptical German attitude to further European integration along the lines advocated by President Macron of France, and, thus, a weakening of the spine of the European Union, the Paris-Berlin axis. The European Union, probably with the calculating connivance of the French (Macron too needs to watch his political flank), the ready assistance of the east Europeans, Dutch, Austrians and Scandinavians – and to the ecstatic delight of the Italians – would be moving towards a looser, less cohesive force. If and when that happens, freedom of movement will be ditched, and the Schengen accord on free borders would see fundamental reform. Brexit would be a sideshow compared to a Eurosceptic Germany.
The irony would be that a reform of the EU to suit British tastes would be arriving at just the moment the UK would be heading out of the door.
It is sometimes reported that the threat by the leader of the Christian Social Union Party (CSU) and federal interior minister Horst Seehofer to resign from the Merkel government is a routine bit of argy-bargy between coalition partners, like the rows Nick Clegg and David Cameron used to have, very occasionally. This crisis is, however, much more than that, and more important and potentially seismic than just the fall of the Merkel government and the end of the Chancellor’s long political career, momentous as that would be.
For the CSU is the “sister” party of Merkel’s CDU, which in fact understates the sibling bond. They are more like twins, if not conjoined twins. The CSU, though technically separate, has, for most of the period of its existence since the Second World War, acted as a sort of regional variant of the CDU, operating in Bavaria, whereas the CDU operates elsewhere in Germany. They have always worked in close concert at the federal level.
The CSU hasn’t managed to win the federal chancellorship, but it has put candidates up on behalf of the CDU-CSU “union”, and always provided political heavyweights to CDU-CSU administrations. The two wings of German Christian Democracy have usually agreed, broadly, on the notion of a “social market economy”, though the CSU is more culturally “Catholic” and socially conservative (it has been stressing this lately), and represents what is one of the wealthiest regions of Germany, or the world for that matter.
It is also true that Bavaria has been on the “front line” during the migration crisis and the flow of people from the south. The rich Bavarians – whose area is home to BMW, Audi, Infineon and Puma, as well as some fine breweries – resent paying vast sums to rescue places like Greece. Bavarian regional interests are diverging more markedly from federal German ones. Hence the schism.
This is all part of a fracturing of the Germany party system, with Greens, Free Democrats (nowadays a roughly Thatcherite group and socially liberal) and former Communists (“the Left”) finding representation in a Bundestag once monopolised by the CDU/CSU and the Social Democrats, with the FPD providing a handy and usually cooperative coalition partner for one or the other. The German electoral system was not designed for such a crowded field as today’s, and it is showing the strain of the resulting paralysis. Germany is in no position to “lead” Europe, and has little desire to. That is bad.
What is happening in Germany has been happening across Europe for years, masked by the victory of Emmanuel Macron in France and Angela Merkel hanging on to power in Germany. The far right, or populist right, or neo-Nazi right, or conservative right, or fruitcake right, in varying national flavours, are in government, either alone or in coalition, in Slovenia (the latest), Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. They are too close for comfort to the levers of power in the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and France; they are slowly pushing up their support in Germany and Sweden. Only in Slovakia do they seem to have been beaten back. In Greece and Spain, it is the populist far-left who have taken the bet advantage of the atmosphere of crisis.
All across Europe, then, social democracy has been dying a slow and pitiful death. Now Christian democracy – what the British would recognise as moderate conservatism – is suffering the same fate.
Too many conservatives see their easiest path to power in forming accommodations and coalitions with the far right, rather than centrist groups of “grand coalitions” with social democrats. It is a frightening trend, and one in which Brexit, the Conservative-DUP deal and the rise of Corbynism are the British counterparts to the wider story.
With America disengaging from European defence, an expansionist and aggressive Russia, trade wars and a floundering European “project” – and most of all a politically powerless and introverted Germany – the 2020s promise to be stormy years for our continent. The clouds are gathering, if we dare to look.
Angela Merkel's government is on the brink of collapse – and we should all worry about what might happen then
Germany is in no position to 'lead' Europe, and has little desire to. That is bad news for everyone
Sean O'Grady
@_seanogrady
To borrow a phrase, when Germany catches a cold, Europe gets pneumonia, and right now the political situation in Berlin is looking distinctly peaky.
If Angela Merkel’s rickety government does collapse – whether or not it’s in the orderly fashion ordained by the federal republic’s constitution – everyone in Europe should be very afraid of what life after “Mutti” would be like.
You could argue she’s had it coming, ever since her brave and principled decision to allow around a million asylum seekers, including from the war in Syria, into Germany. No matter; a weak, divided Germany, with a succession of wobbly governments based on a kaleidoscope of shifting allegiances, and a growing parliamentary presence for parties on the extreme right… well, I hope I am not being too alarmist.
We should remember too that Germany remains the continent’s only economic and industrial power of truly global stature. It is great force for good; but perhaps we have taken its benign stability for granted for too long.
If Merkel does go, and out of some bitter arguments comes a stronger AFD, a noxiously nationalistic party, three things will inevitably flow.
First, an unwillingness to honour what she has been able to achieve in the way of a European “deal” on migration. That, in effect, is what a fresh election would be a referendum on.
Second, a refusal frankly backed by its financial impossibility: to bail out Italy. That country’s banks and the state itself are virtually insolvent. Now, in a country itself seized by the far right, the Italians are threatening to print their own version of the euro currency – mini Italian Treasury bonds with a face value as low as 10 euros that can be used a legal tender and to fund bank accounts – a clear dodge to evade European central bank disciplines.
Italy is the third largest economy in the Eurozone; to prop it up is beyond the means even of the Germans and even if they wanted to, which they don’t. Sooner or later, Italy will leave the euro because Italy is too big to save, unlike little Greece; and because Italy has a government, and is a country, full of people who actually wish that to happen. It could bring the entire single currency down with it.
Ian Bremmer describes starbursts exchange between Donald Trump and Angela Merkel: 'don't say I never give you anything'
Third; there will be a generally more sceptical German attitude to further European integration along the lines advocated by President Macron of France, and, thus, a weakening of the spine of the European Union, the Paris-Berlin axis. The European Union, probably with the calculating connivance of the French (Macron too needs to watch his political flank), the ready assistance of the east Europeans, Dutch, Austrians and Scandinavians – and to the ecstatic delight of the Italians – would be moving towards a looser, less cohesive force. If and when that happens, freedom of movement will be ditched, and the Schengen accord on free borders would see fundamental reform. Brexit would be a sideshow compared to a Eurosceptic Germany.
The irony would be that a reform of the EU to suit British tastes would be arriving at just the moment the UK would be heading out of the door.
It is sometimes reported that the threat by the leader of the Christian Social Union Party (CSU) and federal interior minister Horst Seehofer to resign from the Merkel government is a routine bit of argy-bargy between coalition partners, like the rows Nick Clegg and David Cameron used to have, very occasionally. This crisis is, however, much more than that, and more important and potentially seismic than just the fall of the Merkel government and the end of the Chancellor’s long political career, momentous as that would be.
For the CSU is the “sister” party of Merkel’s CDU, which in fact understates the sibling bond. They are more like twins, if not conjoined twins. The CSU, though technically separate, has, for most of the period of its existence since the Second World War, acted as a sort of regional variant of the CDU, operating in Bavaria, whereas the CDU operates elsewhere in Germany. They have always worked in close concert at the federal level.
The CSU hasn’t managed to win the federal chancellorship, but it has put candidates up on behalf of the CDU-CSU “union”, and always provided political heavyweights to CDU-CSU administrations. The two wings of German Christian Democracy have usually agreed, broadly, on the notion of a “social market economy”, though the CSU is more culturally “Catholic” and socially conservative (it has been stressing this lately), and represents what is one of the wealthiest regions of Germany, or the world for that matter.
It is also true that Bavaria has been on the “front line” during the migration crisis and the flow of people from the south. The rich Bavarians – whose area is home to BMW, Audi, Infineon and Puma, as well as some fine breweries – resent paying vast sums to rescue places like Greece. Bavarian regional interests are diverging more markedly from federal German ones. Hence the schism.
This is all part of a fracturing of the Germany party system, with Greens, Free Democrats (nowadays a roughly Thatcherite group and socially liberal) and former Communists (“the Left”) finding representation in a Bundestag once monopolised by the CDU/CSU and the Social Democrats, with the FPD providing a handy and usually cooperative coalition partner for one or the other. The German electoral system was not designed for such a crowded field as today’s, and it is showing the strain of the resulting paralysis. Germany is in no position to “lead” Europe, and has little desire to. That is bad.
What is happening in Germany has been happening across Europe for years, masked by the victory of Emmanuel Macron in France and Angela Merkel hanging on to power in Germany. The far right, or populist right, or neo-Nazi right, or conservative right, or fruitcake right, in varying national flavours, are in government, either alone or in coalition, in Slovenia (the latest), Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. They are too close for comfort to the levers of power in the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and France; they are slowly pushing up their support in Germany and Sweden. Only in Slovakia do they seem to have been beaten back. In Greece and Spain, it is the populist far-left who have taken the bet advantage of the atmosphere of crisis.
All across Europe, then, social democracy has been dying a slow and pitiful death. Now Christian democracy – what the British would recognise as moderate conservatism – is suffering the same fate.
Too many conservatives see their easiest path to power in forming accommodations and coalitions with the far right, rather than centrist groups of “grand coalitions” with social democrats. It is a frightening trend, and one in which Brexit, the Conservative-DUP deal and the rise of Corbynism are the British counterparts to the wider story.
With America disengaging from European defence, an expansionist and aggressive Russia, trade wars and a floundering European “project” – and most of all a politically powerless and introverted Germany – the 2020s promise to be stormy years for our continent. The clouds are gathering, if we dare to look.
Meet the Serve America Movement, or SAM, which wants to take on the two biggest political parties. - Bloomberg
By and
July 2, 2018, 8:00 PM GMT+10
Eric Grossman doesn’t look like he would want to do anything drastic. The top lawyer at Morgan Stanley is a 51-year-old homeowner in the New York suburbs with twin sons and a seat on the firm’s management committee. He’s another man in a power suit in a midtown Manhattan bank.
He also wants to topple America’s two-party system.
Eric Grossman, the top lawyer at Morgan Stanley.
Photographer: Wireimage via Getty Images
Grossman is trying to build a new party—called the Serve America Movement, or SAM—even though third wheels in American politics tend to have the lasting power of the Free Soilers and the Anti-Masons. His quixotic goal hasn’t deterred donors that include fellow members of Morgan Stanley’s operating committee, the bank’s head of government relations, its top independent board member, and the last chief executive officer, John Mack.
Don’t expect this crusade for unity to turn into the next Women’s March, Tea Party, or even a semi-memorable hashtag. At least so far, this is what resistance to President Donald Trump looks like on Wall Street. Even though tax cuts and reduced regulation have made big banks and corporations some of this era’s big winners, many of their executives squirm when the president abandons global agreements and threatens trade wars. These people also tend to resent and even dread the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, as if it’s out to get them personally. That opens a space for SAM’s unlikely, ambitious and well-moneyed cry for something else.
“Perhaps it’s a fear of arrogance that people are like, ‘Wow you can’t say that, you can’t say you’re going to be a party,’” said Richard Bennett, a partner at investment firm B-FORE Capital who contributed $140,000 to SAM. “I’m like, why not? What else are we going to do? That’s the only thing that’s going to fix it.”
SAM stands against divisiveness, but what it stands for isn't obvious. One Morgan Stanley executive who donated admitted he doesn’t know anything about it, he just wanted to help a friend’s pet cause.
SAM’s upbeat website, with no specifics on immigration, reproductive rights, or the health-care system, can’t clear up big questions. The principles are so broad and cheerful—“applying America’s innovative spirit,” “a strong, clear-eyed, values-based leader,” and “the vitality of local communities”—that they have the ring of taglines for a Silicon Valley startup that hasn’t put out a product yet.
This inoffensive flavor makes sense for a political project backed by executives from Morgan Stanley, a big bank with a particularly understated political style. At JPMorgan Chase & Co., by contrast, CEO Jamie Dimon devoted pages of this year’s annual letter to praising Trump’s tax cuts while warning against isolationism. And Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has perfected a pipeline to Washington, sending executives Gary Cohn and Dina Powell for stints in Trump’s White House.
“Let’s have civil dialogue.”
The financial types backing SAM have taken stock of the American landscape and decided the overarching crisis isn’t guns, opioids, climate change or the treatment of immigrants—it’s divisiveness. SAM thinks it has a shot at winning by preaching unity, and it is in vogue to make public pleas for politeness. Some elected officials have had more to say about White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave a Virginia restaurant than the poisoned water in Flint, Michigan.
“Let’s have civil dialogue,” said Stephanie Miner, a former Syracuse mayor and once a top New York Democrat. SAM announced plans for her to run under its banner in the race for governor, with a longtime Republican lieutenant. The favorite is Democratic incumbent Andrew Cuomo, already a darling of the establishment center.
In some ways, SAM’s timing for its understated arrival on the political scene has been excellent. The Trump immigration policy separating thousands of children from families who crossed the border illegally caused top GOP strategist Steve Schmidt to dump the party. Across the aisle, in New York, 28-year-old Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just toppled congressional powerhouse Joe Crowley, the kind of primary upset that threatens finance-friendly moderates.
Grossman, who wouldn’t comment for this story, has well-heeled friends at the bank who like what he’s doing. Even Vice Chairman Tom Nides, a top bundler for Hillary Clinton, borrowed SAM’s peppy vibe: “I support Democrat candidates, period. That said, I think it’s great when people get involved in the political process, even if I disagree with them.” Grossman and his professional peers have sent more than $1.3 million to SAM, according to filings. Donations so far include $50,000 from investment-management head Dan Simkowitz and $10,000 each from Mack, director Tom Glocer, and former litigation co-head Jim Cusick.
That’s pocket change compared with the cash corporations can unleash but a remarkable sum for a political project with no track record. And contributions have popped up from outside Morgan Stanley. The biggest amount, more than $900,000, came from former tobacco executive Charles Wall.
SAM wants to be more than a party backed by bankers and lawyers, so its officials don’t like to emphasize New York roots. The group did its first big voter survey in Kansas, and says it has cash coming in from small donors across the U.S. The headquarters, with a handful of staffers, is located inside a co-working space in Denver.
“Major donors are probably going to be finance or lawyers or Hollywood.”
SAM CEO Sarah Lenti argued that the early infusion of Wall Street money doesn’t mean anything. “Major donors are probably going to be finance or lawyers or Hollywood,” said Lenti, who was a spokesperson for John McCain and a research consultant to Mitt Romney. “You have to be financed somehow.”
SAM is far from the first attempt to find a sweet spot in the middle of the U.S. political spectrum. Other groups insisting on centrism include Third Way and No Labels. Michael R. Bloomberg, the owner of this news service, has pledged to spend $80 million in the upcoming midterm elections, mostly in support of Democratic congressional candidates, according to a report in the New York Times.
Grossman is the kind of big-time bank attorney who made it into the club of Wall Street lawyers that flew to the Trianon Palace Versailles hotel outside Paris in 2016 to talk shop. He isn’t enrolled in a party, and he's donated about $28,000 outside of SAM, money that tended to go to moderate Democrats and Morgan Stanley’s Republican-leaning political action committee. He played rugby at Hamilton College, got his law degree at Fordham University, and spent a few years moonlighting as an agent for baseball star Darryl Strawberry. At Morgan Stanley, he’s lately been seen around the office wearing SAM cufflinks.
He decided to do something on the day after Trump won the White House, according to SAM’s website. Grossman started by rallying friends including Scott Muller, once general counsel at the Central Intelligence Agency and now SAM’s chairman. Deep-pocketed people were ready to give it a try. “They told me all of the things they thought it was going to cost,” said Wall, who was vice chairman of Philip Morris International Inc. until 2010. “And I said, ‘I’m in. And here’s the amount I’m in for.’”
He had an even better message for them: “Come back to me when you need some more.”
— With assistance by Bill Allison
Michael Cohen says 'first loyalty' is to 'family and country' – not Trump - Guardian
Michael Cohen says 'first loyalty' is to 'family and country' – not Trump
Trump’s longtime fixer tells Good Morning America ‘I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy’
Martin Pengelly in New York
@MartinPengelly
Mon 2 Jul 2018 21.44 AEST Last modified on Mon 2 Jul 2018 21.45 AEST
Michael Cohen on Friday. His home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April.
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, will put “family and country first” as investigations continue into his work for the president, including a payment to an adult film star who claims to have had an affair with Trump.
Is Trump really winning? The truth about the president's popularity
Read more
Cohen’s remarks, in an off-camera interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, will intensify speculation that he may be prepared to “flip” and co-operate with federal prosecutors in New York and investigators looking into Russian election interference and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow.
“My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will,” Cohen told George Stephanopoulos in the interview, which was conducted on Saturday at a hotel in New York. “I put family and country first.”
In answer to the question of whether he expected Trump to turn on him, he said: “I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy. I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way.”
Cohen’s home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April, after a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating matters related to Russia.
Cohen has not been charged with any crime. He told ABC: “Once I understand what charges might be filed against me, if any at all, I will defer to my new counsel, Guy Petrillo, for guidance.”
Good Morning America
✔
@GMA
In @GStephanopoulos' exclusive interview with Pres. Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen, Cohen stays mum on commitment to his longtime client: “To be crystal clear, my wife, my daughter and my son, and this country have my first loyalty.” http://gma.abc/2tNmERT
9:17 PM - Jul 2, 2018
Petrillo is a former federal prosecutor who was once head of the criminal division of the US Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.
In April, Trump tweeted that though “most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble, even if it means lying or making up stories”, he did not “see Michael doing that”. He also called Cohen a “fine person with a wonderful family”.
Trump denies collusion with Russia. He has denied Stormy Daniels’ claims of an affair. But in May his current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, admitted that Trump reimbursed Cohen for a payment of $130,000 which Daniels claims was made shortly before the 2016 election in order to keep her quiet. Filings by Trump showed payments of $250,000 to Cohen in 2017.
Cohen did not discuss the Daniels payment with ABC. “I want to answer,” he said. “One day I will answer. But for now, I can’t comment further on advice of my counsel.”
Regarding Trump’s repeated claim that the Mueller investigation is a “witch-hunt”, Cohen said: “I don’t like the term witch hunt. As an American, I repudiate Russia’s or any other foreign government’s attempt to interfere or meddle in our democratic process, and I would call on all Americans to do the same.”
I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way
Michael Cohen
Trump last week tweeted that Russia “continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!” The president will meet Vladimir Putin in Helsinki later this month. He told reporters on Friday he would press the Russian president about election interference.
Cohen said: “Simply accepting the denial of Mr Putin is unsustainable.”
Cohen told ABC he thought Mueller would not find evidence he colluded with Russians himself. An infamous meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 between Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, then campaign chair Paul Manafort and a group of Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton was, he said, ““a mistake” and “an example of poor judgment”.
Another former Trump confidante, former White House strategist Steve Bannon, famously called the meeting “treasonous”. Trump’s role in drafting a misleading statement about the meeting is one instance under investigation by Mueller as he seeks to determine if the president sought to obstruct justice.
Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Bannon says in explosive book
Read more
Asked if he thought Donald Trump had known of that meeting in advance, Cohen said he could not comment, under the advice of his counsel.
Manafort is one of four former Trump aides to have been indicted by Mueller. He denies financial charges against him and is currently in jail, over alleged witness tampering, while awaiting trial. Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and former national security adviser Michael Flynn are all co-operating with investigators.
In his ABC interview, Cohen concluded: “I want to regain my name and my reputation and my life back.”
Trump’s longtime fixer tells Good Morning America ‘I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy’
Martin Pengelly in New York
@MartinPengelly
Mon 2 Jul 2018 21.44 AEST Last modified on Mon 2 Jul 2018 21.45 AEST
Michael Cohen on Friday. His home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April.
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, will put “family and country first” as investigations continue into his work for the president, including a payment to an adult film star who claims to have had an affair with Trump.
Is Trump really winning? The truth about the president's popularity
Read more
Cohen’s remarks, in an off-camera interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, will intensify speculation that he may be prepared to “flip” and co-operate with federal prosecutors in New York and investigators looking into Russian election interference and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow.
“My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will,” Cohen told George Stephanopoulos in the interview, which was conducted on Saturday at a hotel in New York. “I put family and country first.”
In answer to the question of whether he expected Trump to turn on him, he said: “I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy. I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way.”
Cohen’s home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April, after a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating matters related to Russia.
Cohen has not been charged with any crime. He told ABC: “Once I understand what charges might be filed against me, if any at all, I will defer to my new counsel, Guy Petrillo, for guidance.”
Good Morning America
✔
@GMA
In @GStephanopoulos' exclusive interview with Pres. Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen, Cohen stays mum on commitment to his longtime client: “To be crystal clear, my wife, my daughter and my son, and this country have my first loyalty.” http://gma.abc/2tNmERT
9:17 PM - Jul 2, 2018
Petrillo is a former federal prosecutor who was once head of the criminal division of the US Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.
In April, Trump tweeted that though “most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble, even if it means lying or making up stories”, he did not “see Michael doing that”. He also called Cohen a “fine person with a wonderful family”.
Trump denies collusion with Russia. He has denied Stormy Daniels’ claims of an affair. But in May his current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, admitted that Trump reimbursed Cohen for a payment of $130,000 which Daniels claims was made shortly before the 2016 election in order to keep her quiet. Filings by Trump showed payments of $250,000 to Cohen in 2017.
Cohen did not discuss the Daniels payment with ABC. “I want to answer,” he said. “One day I will answer. But for now, I can’t comment further on advice of my counsel.”
Regarding Trump’s repeated claim that the Mueller investigation is a “witch-hunt”, Cohen said: “I don’t like the term witch hunt. As an American, I repudiate Russia’s or any other foreign government’s attempt to interfere or meddle in our democratic process, and I would call on all Americans to do the same.”
I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way
Michael Cohen
Trump last week tweeted that Russia “continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!” The president will meet Vladimir Putin in Helsinki later this month. He told reporters on Friday he would press the Russian president about election interference.
Cohen said: “Simply accepting the denial of Mr Putin is unsustainable.”
Cohen told ABC he thought Mueller would not find evidence he colluded with Russians himself. An infamous meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 between Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, then campaign chair Paul Manafort and a group of Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton was, he said, ““a mistake” and “an example of poor judgment”.
Another former Trump confidante, former White House strategist Steve Bannon, famously called the meeting “treasonous”. Trump’s role in drafting a misleading statement about the meeting is one instance under investigation by Mueller as he seeks to determine if the president sought to obstruct justice.
Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Bannon says in explosive book
Read more
Asked if he thought Donald Trump had known of that meeting in advance, Cohen said he could not comment, under the advice of his counsel.
Manafort is one of four former Trump aides to have been indicted by Mueller. He denies financial charges against him and is currently in jail, over alleged witness tampering, while awaiting trial. Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and former national security adviser Michael Flynn are all co-operating with investigators.
In his ABC interview, Cohen concluded: “I want to regain my name and my reputation and my life back.”
Republican Sen. Susan Collins Won't Support a Supreme Court Nominee Who Would Overturn Roe v. Wade - TIME
Republican Sen. Susan Collins Won't Support a Supreme Court Nominee Who Would Overturn Roe v. Wade
By MARK NIQUETTE AND CHRISTOPHER CONDON July 1, 2018
President Donald Trump shouldn’t pick someone for the Supreme Court who doesn’t respect legal precedent, including the “settled” 1973 decision that legalized abortion, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said.
“A candidate for this important position who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me, because that would indicate an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have,” Collins said Sunday in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”
Collins said she urged Trump during a meeting last week to broaden the list of 25 possible justices he released during the campaign, and that the White House subsequently told her five more people had been added to it.
“I got the feeling that he was still deliberating and had not yet reached a decision, and that this was genuine outreach on his part,” Collins said. “There are people on that list whom I could not support.”
Collins is among small group of U.S. senators whose support is seen as crucial to securing the confirmation of a new Supreme Court Justice following the retirement announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The Maine senator has said previously that she wouldn’t support someone who pledges to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in the U.S. It’s settled law, and justices must respect legal precedent, she said.
Graham’s View
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he wouldn’t vote for a nominee who promises to overturn a case before the facts are presented. Graham said he also supports the concept of stare decisis, meaning a respect for legal precedent.
“That means you don’t overturn precedent unless there’s a good reason,” Graham said. “And I would tell my pro-life friends you can be pro-life and conservative, but you can also believe in stare decisis.”
Leonard Leo, a former vice president of the Federalist Society who has advised Trump on judicial nominations, also expressed support for the idea of a justice upholding precedent in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I don’t think at the end of the day it’s about Roe v. Wade,” Leo said. “It’s about having judges on the court who are going to interpret the constitution the way it’s written, and part of interpreting the constitution is taking into account major precedents, and that’s going to happen.”
Not That Specific
Trump said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he “probably” wouldn’t ask his potential nominees about how they would vote on the abortion law. He said he’s been told he shouldn’t be that specific in his questions, though he will be putting a conservative on the court.
Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said he thinks Trump is looking for a justice who will overturn the abortion law, as well as rule that protections under President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul against denying insurance to those with pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional.
“Donald Trump is looking for a justice who’s going to rule in his favor,” Durbin said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Meeting with Senators
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a tweet Thursday that Trump had met with Collins and fellow Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp are Democrats from states Trump won in 2016. He has targeted them for defeat in November’s midterm elections. That makes them more likely than other senators in their party to support his nominee for the court.
With Republicans controlling the Senate 51 to 49, Democrats must prevent any defections and win over at least one Republican if they hope to block a nominee.
Trump said Friday he had narrowed his search to about five finalists, including two women, and will announce his pick on July 9. Trump said that he may interview one or two candidates this weekend at his resort in Bedminster, New Jersey.
A person familiar with the process said White House officials are focused primarily on five federal appeals court judges — Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar.
By MARK NIQUETTE AND CHRISTOPHER CONDON July 1, 2018
President Donald Trump shouldn’t pick someone for the Supreme Court who doesn’t respect legal precedent, including the “settled” 1973 decision that legalized abortion, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said.
“A candidate for this important position who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me, because that would indicate an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have,” Collins said Sunday in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”
Collins said she urged Trump during a meeting last week to broaden the list of 25 possible justices he released during the campaign, and that the White House subsequently told her five more people had been added to it.
“I got the feeling that he was still deliberating and had not yet reached a decision, and that this was genuine outreach on his part,” Collins said. “There are people on that list whom I could not support.”
Collins is among small group of U.S. senators whose support is seen as crucial to securing the confirmation of a new Supreme Court Justice following the retirement announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The Maine senator has said previously that she wouldn’t support someone who pledges to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in the U.S. It’s settled law, and justices must respect legal precedent, she said.
Graham’s View
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he wouldn’t vote for a nominee who promises to overturn a case before the facts are presented. Graham said he also supports the concept of stare decisis, meaning a respect for legal precedent.
“That means you don’t overturn precedent unless there’s a good reason,” Graham said. “And I would tell my pro-life friends you can be pro-life and conservative, but you can also believe in stare decisis.”
Leonard Leo, a former vice president of the Federalist Society who has advised Trump on judicial nominations, also expressed support for the idea of a justice upholding precedent in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I don’t think at the end of the day it’s about Roe v. Wade,” Leo said. “It’s about having judges on the court who are going to interpret the constitution the way it’s written, and part of interpreting the constitution is taking into account major precedents, and that’s going to happen.”
Not That Specific
Trump said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he “probably” wouldn’t ask his potential nominees about how they would vote on the abortion law. He said he’s been told he shouldn’t be that specific in his questions, though he will be putting a conservative on the court.
Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said he thinks Trump is looking for a justice who will overturn the abortion law, as well as rule that protections under President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul against denying insurance to those with pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional.
“Donald Trump is looking for a justice who’s going to rule in his favor,” Durbin said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Meeting with Senators
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a tweet Thursday that Trump had met with Collins and fellow Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp are Democrats from states Trump won in 2016. He has targeted them for defeat in November’s midterm elections. That makes them more likely than other senators in their party to support his nominee for the court.
With Republicans controlling the Senate 51 to 49, Democrats must prevent any defections and win over at least one Republican if they hope to block a nominee.
Trump said Friday he had narrowed his search to about five finalists, including two women, and will announce his pick on July 9. Trump said that he may interview one or two candidates this weekend at his resort in Bedminster, New Jersey.
A person familiar with the process said White House officials are focused primarily on five federal appeals court judges — Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar.
Here’s a Rule to Help Powell Manage the Fed’s Uncertainty Problem - Bloomberg
Here’s a Rule to Help Powell Manage the Fed’s Uncertainty Problem
By Christopher Condon
July 2, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
Fed chair questions theoretical concepts and looks to the data
Williams’ ‘first-difference’ rule could offer guidance
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell hasn’t been shy about drawing attention to the limits of the central bank’s knowledge.
In a June 13 press conference he was remarkably frank in doubting the Fed’s ability to answer the most important conceptual questions in monetary policy: At what level would interest rates have a neutral impact on the economy, and how low can unemployment fall before it begins to provoke problematic inflation?
Jerome Powell on June 13.Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
“We can’t be too attached to these unobserved variables,” said Powell, who took the Fed’s helm in February. “You shouldn’t try to speak about it with a lot of precision or confidence,” he added. “We’re estimating these things.”
The real emphasis, he said, should be on monitoring changes in the hard data.
That may be refreshing for Fed watchers weary of theoretical economic models. The new chairman’s “plain-English” approach and his humility in the face of uncertainty is proving popular among those working in financial markets. But it doesn’t say much about what the Fed will do when the data arrives.
Estimates about the neutral interest rate and the so-called natural level of unemployment, however flawed, are useful because they provide guideposts for policy. And when Fed officials make their estimates public, they lend predictability to how they will react when the economy changes.
Williams Paper
If only there were a guide for setting rates that accommodates Powell’s uneasiness with “unobserved variables” and his preference for hard data. As it happens, there is just such a road map, and one of Powell’s most senior colleagues, New York Fed President John Williams, helped draw it up.
In 2002 when Williams was an economist at the San Francisco Fed, he co-authored a paper confronting the unreliability of estimating the neutral rate of interest and the natural rate of unemployment, and the problem that presented in setting interest rates.
The solution they offered was something called the “first-difference” rule.
There are many monetary policy rules that will recommend a level of rates for different economic conditions. The Fed doesn’t strictly follow any of them, but consults several. The first-difference rule is distinct for not relying on any of the unobserved variables that vex Powell, making it, as Williams and Athanasios Orphanides wrote, “immune to likely misperceptions in these concepts.”
Simple Formula
Instead, it counsels policy makers -- in the form of a simple formula -- to respond to actual changes in unemployment and inflation, thus fitting snugly with Powell’s description of how he believes the Fed should proceed.
Taking the crudest version of the rule and plugging in median forecasts from Fed officials for unemployment and inflation at the end of 2019 and 2020, the first difference rule would prescribe a federal funds rate of 2.3 percent for both points in time. That’s just two hikes higher than where the rate is now and well below the 3.1 percent and 3.4 percent projected by those same officials.
Matthew Luzzetti, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, who wrote about the first-difference rule in a recent note to clients, argued for caution. Powell’s views do appear to align with Williams’ paper, and Williams is clearly an influential figure inside the Fed. But neither Powell nor Williams is going to follow any policy rule mechanically, he said.
Moreover, there are different versions of the rule. A more complex one that appears in the Fed’s semi-annual report to Congress puts the rate much closer to the Fed’s projections, according to Luzzetti.
“The Fed is likely to look at these rules as a guide,” he said, “but I don’t think you can really infer what the reaction of the Fed will be.”
By Christopher Condon
July 2, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
Fed chair questions theoretical concepts and looks to the data
Williams’ ‘first-difference’ rule could offer guidance
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell hasn’t been shy about drawing attention to the limits of the central bank’s knowledge.
In a June 13 press conference he was remarkably frank in doubting the Fed’s ability to answer the most important conceptual questions in monetary policy: At what level would interest rates have a neutral impact on the economy, and how low can unemployment fall before it begins to provoke problematic inflation?
Jerome Powell on June 13.Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
“We can’t be too attached to these unobserved variables,” said Powell, who took the Fed’s helm in February. “You shouldn’t try to speak about it with a lot of precision or confidence,” he added. “We’re estimating these things.”
The real emphasis, he said, should be on monitoring changes in the hard data.
That may be refreshing for Fed watchers weary of theoretical economic models. The new chairman’s “plain-English” approach and his humility in the face of uncertainty is proving popular among those working in financial markets. But it doesn’t say much about what the Fed will do when the data arrives.
Estimates about the neutral interest rate and the so-called natural level of unemployment, however flawed, are useful because they provide guideposts for policy. And when Fed officials make their estimates public, they lend predictability to how they will react when the economy changes.
Williams Paper
If only there were a guide for setting rates that accommodates Powell’s uneasiness with “unobserved variables” and his preference for hard data. As it happens, there is just such a road map, and one of Powell’s most senior colleagues, New York Fed President John Williams, helped draw it up.
In 2002 when Williams was an economist at the San Francisco Fed, he co-authored a paper confronting the unreliability of estimating the neutral rate of interest and the natural rate of unemployment, and the problem that presented in setting interest rates.
The solution they offered was something called the “first-difference” rule.
There are many monetary policy rules that will recommend a level of rates for different economic conditions. The Fed doesn’t strictly follow any of them, but consults several. The first-difference rule is distinct for not relying on any of the unobserved variables that vex Powell, making it, as Williams and Athanasios Orphanides wrote, “immune to likely misperceptions in these concepts.”
Simple Formula
Instead, it counsels policy makers -- in the form of a simple formula -- to respond to actual changes in unemployment and inflation, thus fitting snugly with Powell’s description of how he believes the Fed should proceed.
Taking the crudest version of the rule and plugging in median forecasts from Fed officials for unemployment and inflation at the end of 2019 and 2020, the first difference rule would prescribe a federal funds rate of 2.3 percent for both points in time. That’s just two hikes higher than where the rate is now and well below the 3.1 percent and 3.4 percent projected by those same officials.
Matthew Luzzetti, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, who wrote about the first-difference rule in a recent note to clients, argued for caution. Powell’s views do appear to align with Williams’ paper, and Williams is clearly an influential figure inside the Fed. But neither Powell nor Williams is going to follow any policy rule mechanically, he said.
Moreover, there are different versions of the rule. A more complex one that appears in the Fed’s semi-annual report to Congress puts the rate much closer to the Fed’s projections, according to Luzzetti.
“The Fed is likely to look at these rules as a guide,” he said, “but I don’t think you can really infer what the reaction of the Fed will be.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
