12/3/2018
Trump touts House Intel findings of 'no evidence of collusion' between campaign, Russia
Brooke Singman By Brooke Singman, Chad Pergram, Catherine Herridge | Fox News
House Republicans find no evidence of Russia-Trump collusion
The House Intel committee has completed their Russia investigation, stating they've found no evidence of collusion by either campaign. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski shares his thoughts on 'The Story.'
President Donald Trump trumpeted the House Intelligence Committee's report that it found "no evidence of collusion, coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians" in an all-caps Twitter post Monday night.
"THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS, AFTER A 14 MONTH LONG IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION, FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION," wrote Trump, reiterating the main finding from the panel's 150-page draft report.
@realDonaldTrump
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS, AFTER A 14 MONTH LONG IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION, FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
11:49 AM - Mar 13, 2018
“We didn't find any evidence of collusion and I don't think [special counsel Robert Mueller] will either,” Texas Republican Rep. Mike Conaway, who led the bipartisan investigation, said on “Special Report.”
"We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians."
- House Intelligence Committee, Majority Staff
The top Democrat on the committee, California Rep. Adam Schiff, responded to Trump with tweet saying that the panel's Republicans "lack the courage to stand up to a President of their own party when the national interest necessitates it."
@RepAdamSchiff
This was not the finding of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. President, but only a statement by its GOP members, who lack the courage to stand up to a President of their own party when the national interest necessitates it. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/973360355790479361 …
12:23 PM - Mar 13, 2018
The committee's investigation was based on four topics: Russian active measures against the 2016 U.S. election, the U.S. government's response to the attack, links between Russians and the Trump and Clinton campaigns, and purported leaks of classified information.
“We believe we've got the information necessary to answer those for the American people,” Conaway said.
The report also noted that based on its investigation which lasted more than a year, the committee disagreed with the intelligence community’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “supposed preference” for then-candidate Donald Trump.
The leaders of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., left, and Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, emerge from a closed-door meeting at the Capitol with Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of social media giant Facebook, amid the company's discovery of Russia-linked ads that ran before and after the 2016 election, in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Rep. Mike Conaway, right, with Rep. Adam Schiff. (AP, File)
“We disagree with the Intelligence Community’s position that Putin favored Trump,” Conaway told Fox News. He said he had “no contact” with the White House during the probe.
The majority staff on the committee is expected to send the draft report to the minority staff on Tuesday. Once the draft report is adopted by committee Democrats, the report will be submitted to the intelligence community for a declassification review, and following that process, it will be released to the public, officials said, though the timeline at this point is unknown.
Texas Congressman Mike Conaway says the investigation uncovered no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
“The report’s completion will signify the closure of one chapter in the Committee’s robust oversight of the threat posed by Moscow—which began well before the investigation and will continue thereafter,” Conaway said.
Schiff, however, fought back. “While the Majority members of our committee have indicated for some time that they have been under great pressure to end the investigation, it is nonetheless another tragic milestone for this Congress, and represents yet another capitulation to the executive branch. By ending its oversight role in the only authorized investigation in the House, the Majority has placed the interests of protecting the President over protecting the country, and history will judge its actions harshly,” the Democratic lawmaker said.
The draft report included 40 other findings, including how Russians used social media to “sow discord” in 2015 and 2016, a “lackluster” pre-election response to Russian measures, how “anti-Trump research” made its way from Russian sources to the Clinton campaign, and “problematic contacts between senior Intelligence Community officials and the media.”
Trump says indictment of 13 Russian nationals shows Trump campaign did nothing wrong; reaction and analysis on 'The Five.'
The report also included more than 25 recommendations for Congress and the executive branch to improve election security, U.S. government response to cyberattacks, campaign finance transparency, and counterintelligence practices related to political campaigns and unauthorized disclosures.
“Campaign finance disclosures ought to be a little more wholesome,” Conaway said on “Special Report” referring to the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee's filing of payments for “opposition research” leading to the anti-Trump dossier as legal matters.
The report's recommendations on handling leaks are serious, according to Conaway.
“Leaks of classified information are criminal," he said. “Leaks can get people killed."
A committee source told Fox News that the “investigation” portion of the probe was complete, meaning the committee would not interview any additional witnesses as part of its effort.
“I’m sure [committee Democrats] will disagree with bringing the interview phase to a close,” Conaway told Fox News. “I’m sure they will have specific folks they wanted to interview.”
Conaway said that the Republicans on the committee wanted to interview former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, but said Schiff “wanted to delay us.” Once Manafort was indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, the committee decided not to call him for an interview.
Conaway also said that he did not “anticipate” pursuing contempt proceedings against former Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon or any other witnesses who did not respond favorably to the committee's questioning.
Conaway took over the probe when House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., stepped down in April 2017 after he was accused of making “unauthorized disclosures of classified information, in violation of House Rules, law regulations, or other standards of conduct,” according to the House Ethics Committee which investigated the allegations. Nunes supporters at the time said that it was a “clever political trick” by the Democrats.
“After more than a year, the Committee has finished its Russia investigation and will now work on completing our report,” Nunes said in a statement Monday. “I’d like to thank Congressmen Trey Gowdy, Tom Rooney, and especially Mike Conaway for the excellent job they’ve done leading this investigation. I’d also like to recognize the hard work undertaken by our other Committee members as well as our staff. Once the Committee’s final report is issued, we hope our findings and recommendations will be useful for improving security and integrity for the 2018 midterm elections.”
“When we began our investigation into what occurred leading up to the 2016 elections, our ultimate goal was to make timely recommendations for Congress, the executive branch and for states to improve election security in advance of the 2018 election. The clock is ticking,” committee member Tom Rooney, R-Fla., said. “We’re now nine months out, and the threat of Russian interference has not diminished. Make no mistake: this is a close to just one chapter in the threat posed by Moscow – which began well before the investigation – but our work does not stop here, and this Committee’s oversight over Russian threats to the U.S. will continue.”
Republicans on the committee, though, have expanded their investigation of the Trump dossier, seeking answers from Obama administration officials, including a former staffer for Vice President Joe Biden. Nunes sent a questionnaire to the former Biden staffer, whose husband worked for Fusion GPS, the firm behind the dossier, seeking answers to when the administration was made aware of the dossier.
Fox News' Samuel Chamberlain contributed to this report.
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
China's parliament unveils major ministry shake-up plan - BBC News
13/3/2018
China's parliament unveils major ministry shake-up plan
China has said it plans to merge its banking and insurance regulators as part of sweeping changes to its central government structure.
The planned shake-up, along with the creation of several new ministries, was announced by the annual sitting of the National People's Congress (NPC).
The move will combine the insurance and banking bodies and is aimed at reducing systemic risk in the financial sector.
Reforming China's financial landscape has been a central task for Beijing.
What will happen under the merger?
The Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) will be combined with the China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) to form a super regulator, overseeing all of China's banking and insurance sector.
President Xi Jinping's top economic advisor, Liu He, said the sweeping reforms would be profound
Some of their roles will be transferred to the central bank - the People's Bank of China (PBOC) - which will take on responsibility for making new laws and regulations.
China approves 'president for life' change
China sets trillion yuan military budget
Human cost of China's economic reforms
President Xi Jinping's top economic advisor, Liu He, said the sweeping reforms would be "profound" and would help abolish inefficiencies across state agencies.
"Deepening the reform of the party and state institutions is an inevitable requirement for strengthening the long-term governance of the party," Mr Liu said.
Why does China say this is needed?
The reforms are part of President Xi's plans to strengthen the central government's control over the economy, crack down on the financial industry and guard against excessive borrowing and risk.
The rising level of debt being carried by some Chinese firms, by state-owned enterprises and by local governments has been a widespread cause for concern for several years.
Central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan said that loopholes in the financial regulatory system needed to be closed and that flaws in regulations needed to be corrected in order to defuse financial risk across the sector.
On the sidelines of the NPC - the annual parliamentary meeting - last week, he said the PBOC would take the lead in co-ordinating those efforts.
As part of recent efforts to reduce financial risk in the country, Beijing took control over China's giant Anbang Insurance Group last month.
Anbang is recognised as one of China's richest and most opaque conglomerates. It's best known for its aggressive international acquisitions, including New York's Astoria Hotel.
Beijing has been cracking down on the financial industry to guard against excessive borrowing and risk
Analysts described Beijing's unusual move to take control of the company as a warning shot to other Chinese firms engaged in particular types of financial engineering and leveraged acquisitions.
What other changes have been announced?
Several new ministries will also be created as part of the new reforms, including a new ministry for agriculture and one for rural villages.
Other new ministries include ones overseeing natural resources, immigration, culture and tourism, and the environment.
The intellectual property rights bureau will also be restructured.
Several of the changes reflect Beijing's commitment to its so-called three critical battles: continuing efforts to resolve major risks in the economy; an unprecedented campaign against poverty; and a continued fight to reduce pollution.
The NPC, which is regarded as a rubber stamp for decisions made by China's ruling communist party, is currently mid-way through its annual two-week gathering.
On Sunday, the removal of the two-term limit on the presidency was approved, effectively allowing Xi Jinping to remain in power for life.
China's parliament unveils major ministry shake-up plan
China has said it plans to merge its banking and insurance regulators as part of sweeping changes to its central government structure.
The planned shake-up, along with the creation of several new ministries, was announced by the annual sitting of the National People's Congress (NPC).
The move will combine the insurance and banking bodies and is aimed at reducing systemic risk in the financial sector.
Reforming China's financial landscape has been a central task for Beijing.
What will happen under the merger?
The Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) will be combined with the China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) to form a super regulator, overseeing all of China's banking and insurance sector.
President Xi Jinping's top economic advisor, Liu He, said the sweeping reforms would be profound
Some of their roles will be transferred to the central bank - the People's Bank of China (PBOC) - which will take on responsibility for making new laws and regulations.
China approves 'president for life' change
China sets trillion yuan military budget
Human cost of China's economic reforms
President Xi Jinping's top economic advisor, Liu He, said the sweeping reforms would be "profound" and would help abolish inefficiencies across state agencies.
"Deepening the reform of the party and state institutions is an inevitable requirement for strengthening the long-term governance of the party," Mr Liu said.
Why does China say this is needed?
The reforms are part of President Xi's plans to strengthen the central government's control over the economy, crack down on the financial industry and guard against excessive borrowing and risk.
The rising level of debt being carried by some Chinese firms, by state-owned enterprises and by local governments has been a widespread cause for concern for several years.
Central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan said that loopholes in the financial regulatory system needed to be closed and that flaws in regulations needed to be corrected in order to defuse financial risk across the sector.
On the sidelines of the NPC - the annual parliamentary meeting - last week, he said the PBOC would take the lead in co-ordinating those efforts.
As part of recent efforts to reduce financial risk in the country, Beijing took control over China's giant Anbang Insurance Group last month.
Anbang is recognised as one of China's richest and most opaque conglomerates. It's best known for its aggressive international acquisitions, including New York's Astoria Hotel.
Beijing has been cracking down on the financial industry to guard against excessive borrowing and risk
Analysts described Beijing's unusual move to take control of the company as a warning shot to other Chinese firms engaged in particular types of financial engineering and leveraged acquisitions.
What other changes have been announced?
Several new ministries will also be created as part of the new reforms, including a new ministry for agriculture and one for rural villages.
Other new ministries include ones overseeing natural resources, immigration, culture and tourism, and the environment.
The intellectual property rights bureau will also be restructured.
Several of the changes reflect Beijing's commitment to its so-called three critical battles: continuing efforts to resolve major risks in the economy; an unprecedented campaign against poverty; and a continued fight to reduce pollution.
The NPC, which is regarded as a rubber stamp for decisions made by China's ruling communist party, is currently mid-way through its annual two-week gathering.
On Sunday, the removal of the two-term limit on the presidency was approved, effectively allowing Xi Jinping to remain in power for life.
Trump blocks Broadcom's bid for Qualcomm on security grounds - BBC News
13/3/2018
Trump blocks Broadcom's bid for Qualcomm on security grounds
Qualcomm has already showcased 1Gbps mobile internet speeds using a 5G chip
US President Donald Trump has blocked a planned takeover of chipmaker Qualcomm by Singapore-based rival Broadcom on grounds of national security.
His order cited "credible evidence" that the proposed $140bn (£100bn) deal "threatens to impair the national security of the US".
There were concerns the takeover could have led to China pulling ahead in the development of 5G wireless technology.
The deal would have been the biggest technology sector takeover on record.
A takeover of Qualcomm by Broadcom would have created the world's third-largest maker of microchips, behind Intel and Samsung.
The chipmaking sector is in a race to develop chips for the latest 5G wireless technology and Qualcomm is considered to be a leader in this field, followed by Broadcom and China's telecoms giant Huawei.
US blocks sale of Moneygram to China's Ant Financial
Huawei's US smartphone deal collapses
Analysts say Qualcomm is highly regarded for its commitment to research and development (R&D), particularly in the field of 5G technology. Huawei is equally committed to R&D in the area.
However, Broadcom is better known for selling assets and growing through acquisitions, and deemed to be weaker on R&D.
With this in mind, analysts have said a deal between Qualcomm and Broadcom could have given Huawei the chance to take over the top spot in years to come - a situation US politicians wanted to prevent given their ongoing security concerns around Chinese telecom firms doing business with US carriers.
Others have said Mr Trump's decision was more about competitiveness than security concerns.
"Given the current political climate in the US and other regions around the world, everyone is taking a more conservative view on mergers and acquisitions and protecting their own domains," said Mario Morales, vice president of enabling technologies and semiconductors at global research firm IDC.
"We are all at the start of a race, and you have 5G as a crown jewel that everyone wants to participate in - and every region is racing towards that," he told the BBC.
"Semiconductor technology and companies like Qualcomm will be an important weapon in that 5G arms race [and] the US like other nations and regions want to be first."
Analysis: Andrew Walker, BBC economics correspondent
Is there a pattern emerging in President Trump's use of national security concerns as an international economic weapon?
Perhaps, but his predecessor, Barack Obama did use the issue to block takeovers, including a technology acquisition attempted by a Chinese investment fund.
The would-be acquirer in the current case is not Chinese, but the concern expressed by the Committee on Foreign Investment was about creating space for an increased Chinese presence in 5G wireless technology.
Mr Trump has also invoked security concerns in slapping new tariffs on imported steel and aluminium.
There are plenty of people who don't believe it. The EU's Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström called it a "safeguard in disguise" - a response to a surge in imports that affects a country's own industry.
Mr Trump's willingness to grant exemptions, partly on the basis of what he sees as a fair trade relationship with the US, is consistent with the idea that it's not just about security.
Steady pursuit
Broadcom said it was reviewing the order and "strongly disagrees that its proposed acquisition of Qualcomm raises any national security concerns".
The company had been pursuing San Diego-based Qualcomm for about four months.
Last week, however, Broadcom's hostile takeover bid was put under investigation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS), a multi-agency body led by the US Treasury Department.
The US company had rejected approaches from its rival on the grounds that the offer undervalued the business, and also that any takeover would face antitrust hurdles.
Earlier this year, Chinese telecoms giant Huawei said it had not been able to strike a deal to sell its new smartphone via a US carrier, widely believed to be AT&T.
The US also recently blocked the $1.2bn sale of money transfer firm Moneygram to China's Ant Financial, the digital payments arm of Alibaba.
Trump blocks Broadcom's bid for Qualcomm on security grounds
Qualcomm has already showcased 1Gbps mobile internet speeds using a 5G chip
US President Donald Trump has blocked a planned takeover of chipmaker Qualcomm by Singapore-based rival Broadcom on grounds of national security.
His order cited "credible evidence" that the proposed $140bn (£100bn) deal "threatens to impair the national security of the US".
There were concerns the takeover could have led to China pulling ahead in the development of 5G wireless technology.
The deal would have been the biggest technology sector takeover on record.
A takeover of Qualcomm by Broadcom would have created the world's third-largest maker of microchips, behind Intel and Samsung.
The chipmaking sector is in a race to develop chips for the latest 5G wireless technology and Qualcomm is considered to be a leader in this field, followed by Broadcom and China's telecoms giant Huawei.
US blocks sale of Moneygram to China's Ant Financial
Huawei's US smartphone deal collapses
Analysts say Qualcomm is highly regarded for its commitment to research and development (R&D), particularly in the field of 5G technology. Huawei is equally committed to R&D in the area.
However, Broadcom is better known for selling assets and growing through acquisitions, and deemed to be weaker on R&D.
With this in mind, analysts have said a deal between Qualcomm and Broadcom could have given Huawei the chance to take over the top spot in years to come - a situation US politicians wanted to prevent given their ongoing security concerns around Chinese telecom firms doing business with US carriers.
Others have said Mr Trump's decision was more about competitiveness than security concerns.
"Given the current political climate in the US and other regions around the world, everyone is taking a more conservative view on mergers and acquisitions and protecting their own domains," said Mario Morales, vice president of enabling technologies and semiconductors at global research firm IDC.
"We are all at the start of a race, and you have 5G as a crown jewel that everyone wants to participate in - and every region is racing towards that," he told the BBC.
"Semiconductor technology and companies like Qualcomm will be an important weapon in that 5G arms race [and] the US like other nations and regions want to be first."
Analysis: Andrew Walker, BBC economics correspondent
Is there a pattern emerging in President Trump's use of national security concerns as an international economic weapon?
Perhaps, but his predecessor, Barack Obama did use the issue to block takeovers, including a technology acquisition attempted by a Chinese investment fund.
The would-be acquirer in the current case is not Chinese, but the concern expressed by the Committee on Foreign Investment was about creating space for an increased Chinese presence in 5G wireless technology.
Mr Trump has also invoked security concerns in slapping new tariffs on imported steel and aluminium.
There are plenty of people who don't believe it. The EU's Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström called it a "safeguard in disguise" - a response to a surge in imports that affects a country's own industry.
Mr Trump's willingness to grant exemptions, partly on the basis of what he sees as a fair trade relationship with the US, is consistent with the idea that it's not just about security.
Steady pursuit
Broadcom said it was reviewing the order and "strongly disagrees that its proposed acquisition of Qualcomm raises any national security concerns".
The company had been pursuing San Diego-based Qualcomm for about four months.
Last week, however, Broadcom's hostile takeover bid was put under investigation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS), a multi-agency body led by the US Treasury Department.
The US company had rejected approaches from its rival on the grounds that the offer undervalued the business, and also that any takeover would face antitrust hurdles.
Earlier this year, Chinese telecoms giant Huawei said it had not been able to strike a deal to sell its new smartphone via a US carrier, widely believed to be AT&T.
The US also recently blocked the $1.2bn sale of money transfer firm Moneygram to China's Ant Financial, the digital payments arm of Alibaba.
Russian spy: Highly likely Moscow behind attack, says Theresa May - BBC News
13/2/2018
Russian spy: Highly likely Moscow behind attack, says Theresa May
Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, are in a critical condition in hospital
Former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, Theresa May has told MPs.
The PM said it was "highly likely" Russia was responsible for the Salisbury attack.
The Foreign Office summoned Russia's ambassador to provide an explanation.
Mrs May said if there is no "credible response" by the end of Tuesday, the UK would conclude there has been an "unlawful use of force" by Moscow.
The chemical used in the attack, the PM said, has been identified as one of a group of nerve agents known as Novichok.
Mrs May said: "Either this was a direct action by the Russian state against our country, or the Russian government lost control of its potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others."
Theresa May: Spy poisoned by "military-grade nerve agent"
She said Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had told the ambassador Moscow must provide "full and complete disclosure" of the Novichok programme to international body the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Mrs May said the UK must stand ready to take much more extensive measures, and these would be set out in the Commons on Wednesday should there be no adequate explanation from Russia.
What we know so far
How could the UK retaliate?
Row over Corbyn's Russia spy response
Retired military intelligence officer Mr Skripal, 66, and his daughter, Yulia, 33, were found slumped on a bench in Salisbury city centre on Sunday 4 March. They remain in a critical but stable condition in hospital.
Det Sgt Nick Bailey, who fell ill attending the pair, remains seriously ill, but has been talking to his family.
Mr Skripal was convicted by the Russian government of passing secrets to MI6 in 2004, but given refuge in the UK in 2010 as part of a "spy swap".
Home Secretary Amber Rudd will chair a meeting of the government emergency committee Cobra on Tuesday to discuss the latest developments in the case.
What are Novichok agents?
Image copyrightPA
Image caption
Investigators removed a vehicle from a village near Salisbury on Monday
The name means "newcomer" in Russian, and applies to a group of advanced nerve agents developed in secret by the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s
One chemical - called A-230 - is reportedly five to eight times more toxic than VX nerve agent, which can kill a person within minutes
Some are liquids, others are thought to exist in solid form. Some are reported to be "binary weapons", meaning they are typically stored as two less toxic chemicals which when mixed, react to produce the more toxic agent
One variant was reportedly approved for use by the Russian military as a chemical weapon
Designed to escape detection by international inspectors, their existence was revealed by defectors
Read more on Novichok and what it can do
Addressing the Commons following a meeting of the government's National Security Council, Mrs May said: "This attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals.
"It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk."
She told MPs the positive identification of this chemical agent was made by experts at the UK's Porton Down laboratory.
She said Russia has previously produced the agent and would still be capable of doing so.
The decision to point the finger at Moscow was also based on "Russia's record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations", the PM added.
Jeremy Corbyn urges action - but criticises the Tories for taking donations from "Russian oligarchs"
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said "robust dialogue" with Russia was needed to avoid escalating tensions further - but he was heckled by Tory MPs when he raised questions about Russian oligarchs donating money to the Conservatives.
'Circus show'
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the US agreed with the UK that Russia was likely to be behind the attack.
"We agree that those responsible - both those who committed the crime and those who ordered it - must face appropriately serious consequences," he added.
"We stand in solidarity with our allies in the United Kingdom and will continue to coordinate closely our responses."
Mrs May spoke to French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday and "discussed the wide pattern of aggressive Russian behaviour and agreed that it would be important to continue to act in concert with allies to address it", her spokesman said.
Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the use of any nerve agent was "horrendous and completely unacceptable" and officials were in touch with the UK.
Downing Street said the incident was not an "article five" matter - a reference to Nato rules which say an attack on one member constitutes an attack on all.
However, the former UK National Security Adviser Lord Ricketts said action would be more effective with a "broader, Nato-EU solidarity behind us".
He added: "We can't out-punch Putin... But we can take a stand and we can invite others to join us."
Media captionPresident Vladimir Putin is asked whether Russia had a hand in the Skripal poisoning
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Mrs May's statement was "a circus show in the British parliament".
"The conclusion is obvious - it's another information and political campaign based on provocation," she said.
Earlier, asked whether Russia was to blame, President Vladimir Putin told the BBC: "Get to the bottom of things there, then we'll discuss this."
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg says the tone of the meeting between Boris Johnson and the Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko was "cool but firm".
She says the men did not shake hands and the foreign secretary expressed the "outrage" of the British public.
Russian spy: Highly likely Moscow behind attack, says Theresa May
Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, are in a critical condition in hospital
Former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, Theresa May has told MPs.
The PM said it was "highly likely" Russia was responsible for the Salisbury attack.
The Foreign Office summoned Russia's ambassador to provide an explanation.
Mrs May said if there is no "credible response" by the end of Tuesday, the UK would conclude there has been an "unlawful use of force" by Moscow.
The chemical used in the attack, the PM said, has been identified as one of a group of nerve agents known as Novichok.
Mrs May said: "Either this was a direct action by the Russian state against our country, or the Russian government lost control of its potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others."
Theresa May: Spy poisoned by "military-grade nerve agent"
She said Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had told the ambassador Moscow must provide "full and complete disclosure" of the Novichok programme to international body the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Mrs May said the UK must stand ready to take much more extensive measures, and these would be set out in the Commons on Wednesday should there be no adequate explanation from Russia.
What we know so far
How could the UK retaliate?
Row over Corbyn's Russia spy response
Retired military intelligence officer Mr Skripal, 66, and his daughter, Yulia, 33, were found slumped on a bench in Salisbury city centre on Sunday 4 March. They remain in a critical but stable condition in hospital.
Det Sgt Nick Bailey, who fell ill attending the pair, remains seriously ill, but has been talking to his family.
Mr Skripal was convicted by the Russian government of passing secrets to MI6 in 2004, but given refuge in the UK in 2010 as part of a "spy swap".
Home Secretary Amber Rudd will chair a meeting of the government emergency committee Cobra on Tuesday to discuss the latest developments in the case.
What are Novichok agents?
Image copyrightPA
Image caption
Investigators removed a vehicle from a village near Salisbury on Monday
The name means "newcomer" in Russian, and applies to a group of advanced nerve agents developed in secret by the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s
One chemical - called A-230 - is reportedly five to eight times more toxic than VX nerve agent, which can kill a person within minutes
Some are liquids, others are thought to exist in solid form. Some are reported to be "binary weapons", meaning they are typically stored as two less toxic chemicals which when mixed, react to produce the more toxic agent
One variant was reportedly approved for use by the Russian military as a chemical weapon
Designed to escape detection by international inspectors, their existence was revealed by defectors
Read more on Novichok and what it can do
Addressing the Commons following a meeting of the government's National Security Council, Mrs May said: "This attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals.
"It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk."
She told MPs the positive identification of this chemical agent was made by experts at the UK's Porton Down laboratory.
She said Russia has previously produced the agent and would still be capable of doing so.
The decision to point the finger at Moscow was also based on "Russia's record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations", the PM added.
Jeremy Corbyn urges action - but criticises the Tories for taking donations from "Russian oligarchs"
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said "robust dialogue" with Russia was needed to avoid escalating tensions further - but he was heckled by Tory MPs when he raised questions about Russian oligarchs donating money to the Conservatives.
'Circus show'
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the US agreed with the UK that Russia was likely to be behind the attack.
"We agree that those responsible - both those who committed the crime and those who ordered it - must face appropriately serious consequences," he added.
"We stand in solidarity with our allies in the United Kingdom and will continue to coordinate closely our responses."
Mrs May spoke to French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday and "discussed the wide pattern of aggressive Russian behaviour and agreed that it would be important to continue to act in concert with allies to address it", her spokesman said.
Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the use of any nerve agent was "horrendous and completely unacceptable" and officials were in touch with the UK.
Downing Street said the incident was not an "article five" matter - a reference to Nato rules which say an attack on one member constitutes an attack on all.
However, the former UK National Security Adviser Lord Ricketts said action would be more effective with a "broader, Nato-EU solidarity behind us".
He added: "We can't out-punch Putin... But we can take a stand and we can invite others to join us."
Media captionPresident Vladimir Putin is asked whether Russia had a hand in the Skripal poisoning
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Mrs May's statement was "a circus show in the British parliament".
"The conclusion is obvious - it's another information and political campaign based on provocation," she said.
Earlier, asked whether Russia was to blame, President Vladimir Putin told the BBC: "Get to the bottom of things there, then we'll discuss this."
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg says the tone of the meeting between Boris Johnson and the Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko was "cool but firm".
She says the men did not shake hands and the foreign secretary expressed the "outrage" of the British public.
Monday, March 12, 2018
9 Things Ivanka Trump Would Like Us to Know - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )
March 12, 2018
9 Things Ivanka Trump Would Like Us to Know
By
Margaret Hartmann
@MargHartmann
Sources who are Ivanka have some great things to say about Ivanka.
You might have heard some negative things about Ivanka Trump recently, like that U.S. counterintelligence officials are scrutinizing one of her business deals and the president is plotting to push her and her husband out of the White House. Then there are Jared Kushner’s woes, which range from having his security clearance downgraded to reports that Special Counsel Robert Muller is looking into the mingling of Kushner family business and the Trump transition.
Usually such gossip is shot down by “sources close to” Jared and Ivanka, but late last month Ivanka chatted with the Washington Post, partially on the record, about how she navigates her dual role as first daughter and senior adviser. According to Ivanka, and glowing statements from several people who work for her father, we might have misjudged her. Here’s what we learned.
If Ivanka has a fault, it’s being too innocent. There was no way for her to know that people in the Trump White House would be so nasty (aside from the rampant infighting on the campaign).
Ivanka has privately said she was naive when she first came to Washington. She was unprepared for the palace infighting that has so shaped the White House power dynamics. It was not until the hiring of White House spokesman Josh Raffel last April that she and Kushner aggressively moved to protect their reputations.
She also has lamented to friends that she is sometimes “weaponized” — unwittingly invoked by other officials as a high-profile surrogate for their personal grievances, knowing that if Ivanka is said to be frustrated about something, it is likely to draw more attention.
Accusing her of focusing on random “pet projects” is mean and untrue. She also drummed up support for the GOP tax bill and her trip to the Olympics may have laid the groundwork for her father to agree to talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (though it seems no planning went into her father’s sudden decision). Awkward silences during dinner with Korean President Moon Jae-in: not on her watch!
Ivanka said she was determined to forge a warm rapport with Moon, a progressive who has a somewhat cool relationship with her father. When South Korea’s first couple hosted the traveling Americans for a dinner of bibimbap with marinated tofu at the presidential Blue House in Seoul, Ivanka knew from her research how to strike up a conversation with first lady Kim Jung-sook. They chatted about their shared interest in K-pop, a distinct musical style originating on the peninsula.
“She 100 percent carried the conversation of the dinner,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a member of the visiting U.S. delegation. “She and Moon instantly had a good connection and she and the first lady had really good chemistry.”
Ivanka works really hard. No “executive time” for her.
She peppered National Security Council experts in advance with questions, not just about the nuclear threat, but also about South Korean President Moon Jae-in and his wife’s hobbies. Flying over the Pacific bound for the Winter Olympic Games last month, she pored over a research dossier for hours. And she and her team choreographed many of the possible encounters she might have, including acting out what she would do if a North Korean official tried to shake her hand.
“I don’t like to leave a lot up to fate,” President Trump’s 36-year-old daughter, also a senior White House adviser, said in an interview with The Washington Post.
That includes her voice. She’s very committed to letting Americans enjoy the patrician accent she’s affected.
In some television appearances, Ivanka seems to present a simulacrum of herself — a for-public-consumption version that is at once both poised and guarded, complete with a breathy, unplaceable accent. In private, her voice sounds an octave deeper. She can be by turns lighthearted and defiant, down-to-earth and supremely confident. And like both her husband and her father, Ivanka sprinkles her conversation with the occasional curse word.
But she’s still super relatable. Who among us doesn’t have a soft spot for Journey, and a personalized memento from one of the band members?
On a small table in her well-appointed office sit several pictures of her kids, a framed copy of Trump’s typed “Remarks Regarding the Capital of Israel” — signed “To Ivanka, Love Dad” in the president’s oversized Sharpie scribble — and the lyrics to Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’ ” handwritten to her by one of the songwriters.
In fact, she’s just like any other White House staffer. “I must work incredibly diligently to follow protocol as any other staffer would,” Ivanka explained. That’s why she’ll occasionally update her employer on the policies she’s pushing on Capitol Hill, and the topics discussed during her frequent, unscheduled chats with her dad.
“The fact that she has her own relationships with members on the Hill enables us to accomplish more, and anytime she’s engaging in conversations, she’s checking in with us on how she can be helpful and getting our advice on what we need,” said Marc Short, White House director of legislative affairs. “She would say, ‘I’m intending to go have a meeting today but I want to make sure your office is comfortable with it and what are the White House priorities I can help with.’ ”
Though she and her father speak multiple times a day — sometimes in unscheduled calls when the president spontaneously dials her — she says she honors [chief of staff John] Kelly’s demand that she inform him and other officials about any policy-related discussions the two have.
Except when she’s not like other staffers. But who knows, maybe Kellyanne Conway is allowed to tell Trump she’s not cool with the travel ban and won’t publicly defend it.
[Ivanka] does not see herself as a talking head and refuses to promote policies with which she personally disagrees; for instance, she was notably silent on last year’s Republican health-care plan, and has said little recently about her father’s guns agenda.
The president is still on Ivanka’s side. Kelly shouldn’t get any ideas, because Trump definitely wants her to stay in the White House.
“Everybody loves and respects Ivanka,” the president said in a statement. “She works very hard and always gets the job done in a first class manner. She was crucial to our success in achieving historic tax cuts and reforms and served as my envoy in South Korea, where she was incredibly well received. Her work on behalf of American families has made a real impact.”
And if he isn’t, it’s only because he loves her.
The president himself has exacerbated the tensions between his chief of staff and his family. He has mused to Kelly that he thinks Ivanka and her husband should perhaps return to New York, where they would be protected from the blood sport of Washington and less of a target for negative media attention, White House officials said. In the president’s eyes, “Ivanka’s still his little girl,” as one confidant put it.
Litvinenko widow warns Tories over Russian donations - Guardian
Litvinenko widow warns Tories over Russian donations
Marina Litvinenko says party risks tainting its reputation in light of Sergei Skripal poisoning
Haroon Siddique
Mon 12 Mar 2018 03.29 AEDT Last modified on Mon 12 Mar 2018 09.00 AEDT
Marina Litvinenko
Marina Litvinenko. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA
The Conservative party is facing pressure to return Russian donations after the attempted murder of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil.
Marina Litvinenko, the widow of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, whose murder is believed to have been carried out under the direction of Russia’s FSB spy agency, said the Tories risked tainting their reputation if they held on to the cash.
Labour MPs should not appear on Russia Today, says John McDonnell
“You need to be very accurate where this money came from before you accept this money,” she told Sky News. “If you identify it’s dirty money [you’re] just not allowed to accept it because I think reputation is very important. [The] reputation of the Conservative party in the UK and all around the world needs to be clear.”
The that Russian oligarchs and their associates had registered donations of £826,100 to the Tories since Theresa May entered No 10.
A spokesman said: “All donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them and comply fully with the law.”
Litvinenko accused May of failing to act to prevent a reoccurrence of the type of attack to which her husband fell victim.
The home secretary, Amber Rudd, has said it is too early to say who is responsible for the attack on Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, but fingers have been pointed at the Kremlin.
May, as home secretary, wrote to Litvinenko after the public inquiry into her husband’s death concluded in 2016. The inquiry found that Vladimir Putin and his top spy chief had “probably approved” her husband’s murder. In the letter, May vowed: “We will take every step to protect the UK and its people from such a crime ever being repeated.”
Litvinenko said: “We received very strong words after meeting in 2016 and I believed something would be done, but we can see nothing was done.”
The steps she wants the prime minister to take include bringing in a British equivalent of the Magnitsky act, US legislation that bans Russian individuals from entering the country and blocks their assets.
Labour tried earlier this month to introduce Magnitsky amendments to the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill in the House of Lords.
Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said the Tories had rejected the suggested clauses for “technical reasons” and urged the government to work with the opposition to implement them.
“What Magnitsky does is it identifies those individuals who are basically found guilty of human rights abuses. In particular it prevents them then operating or having bank accounts in our country and it effectively closes down all cooperation with them. Now, I think that could be remarkably effective,” he said.
On the same programme, the chancellor, Phillip Hammond claimed the amendments created a power the government already had but he suggested a compromise was possible.
“It’s not strictly necessary but we’re seeking to reach an accommodation with those who have put this amendment forward,” he said. “Let’s see if we come to a proposal which works for everybody.”
Can Donald Trump Be Impeached? - New York Times
Can Donald Trump Be Impeached?
By ANDREW SULLIVANMARCH 12, 2018
The Senate as a court of impeachment for the trial of Andrew Johnson. Credit Photographs, from top: Library of Congress; Library of Congress; David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images
IMPEACHMENT
A Citizen’s Guide
By Cass R. Sunstein
199 pp. Harvard University. Paper, $7.95.
CAN IT HAPPEN HERE?
Authoritarianism in America
Edited by Cass R. Sunstein
481 pp. Dey St./Morrow. Paper, $17.99.
It’s really hard to impeach a president.
The founders included the provision, from the very start, as the weakest, “break the glass in case of emergency” mechanism for reining in an out-of-control executive. He was already subject to a four-year term, so he would remain answerable to the people, and to two other branches of government, which could box him in constitutionally. But the founders’ fear of creeping monarchism — the very reason for their revolution — and their deep realism about human nature led them to a provision, rooted in English constitutional precedent, whereby a rogue president could be removed from office by the legislature during his term as well. At the same time, it’s clear they also wanted a strong executive, not serving at the whim of Congress, or subject, like a prime minister, to a parliamentary vote of “no confidence.” He was an equal branch of government, with his own prerogatives, empowered, in Hamilton’s words, to conduct his office with “decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch.” He stood very much on his own feet.
And so the impeachment power was both strong and weak. Strong as it hovered as the ultimate sanction for any president who might push his luck, but weak insofar as it was deliberately limited to the offense of subverting the Constitution itself or betraying the United States in foreign affairs: the famously grave and yet vague Anglo-American terminology of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which included “great and dangerous offenses.” These were essentially serious political crimes, which was why they had to be dealt with in the political arena rather than the courts. They amounted to one core idea: If the president was to start acting like a king, he could be dispatched.
But if he was to start acting like an idiot, he could not be impeached. If he was psychologically disturbed but not mentally incapacitated, ditto. If he pursued ruinous policies, or faced enormous unpopularity, or said unspeakably reckless things, he could not be impeached. If he committed a whole slew of crimes in his personal capacity, he’d be answerable to public opinion and regular justice, but not subject to losing his job. If his judgment was unstable, his personal behavior appalling or if he were to make the United States a laughingstock in the opinion of mankind, the impeachment provision did not apply.
John Tyler Credit Library of Congress
And even then, the bar for impeachment was very high, as Cass R. Sunstein’s elegant new monograph, “Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide,” explains: Both House and Senate would have to be involved and in favor; and conviction would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate, ensuring that a clear national consensus was necessary if a president was to be judged to be gravely violating his oath of office, or betraying the country. This is why in well over two centuries the impeachment power has been invoked against sitting presidents only four times, and never actually pursued to conviction. The attempted impeachment of John Tyler in 1842 was rightly rejected by the House of Representatives by a margin of 127-83 (he was guilty of innovating the use of the veto on policy grounds alone), and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868(on the preposterous grounds that he had no right to appoint his own secretary of war) was turned back by a single vote in the Senate. The impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton in 1998 because of a civil sexual harassment suit squeaked through the House on partisan lines, 221-212, but failed in the Senate, with conviction on the least ludicrous obstruction of justice charge reaching only 50 votes out of a needed 67.
Richard Nixon resigned before a vote in the full House could be taken. Sunstein assesses his articles of impeachment thus: not impeachable for evading taxes (too personal a crime); probably impeachable for resisting a congressional subpoena (but a president could potentially make a legitimate, if dubious, claim about executive privilege); definitely impeachable for covering up an impeachable offense (abusing the powers of the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the Department of Justice to conceal evidence of an attempt to subvert an election by burglarizing the Democratic National Committee).
Opinion Charles M. Blow
The Resistance: Impeachment Anxiety JUNE 12, 2017
In Fight for Judiciary Slot, Democrats Broach the ‘I’ Word: Impeachment DEC. 18, 2017
Opinion Op-Ed Contributors
Don’t Prosecute Trump. Impeach Him. DEC. 4, 2017
Opinion Op-Ed Contributor
How Not to Impeach JAN. 1, 2018
Opinion David Leonhardt
An Article of Impeachment Against Donald J. Trump JAN. 28, 2018
Where does this leave us with respect to Donald Trump? Sunstein smartly doesn’t answer the question directly — instead teasing out various hypotheticals with some similarities to our current concerns. Here are a few: directing the Justice Department to prosecute someone for political reasons; pledging in advance to pardon anyone in law enforcement who commits a crime; using the F.B.I. or C.I.A. to get evidence of criminality against a political opponent; egregiously defaulting on his core presidential responsibilities; secretly bribing others in a direct quid pro quo or similarly receiving bribes; and secretly cooperating with a foreign power to promulgate false information against a political opponent. Sunstein thinks each of these is an impeachable offense — as they almost certainly are.
Bill Clinton after his acquittal by the Senate. Credit David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images
With Trump, these analogies are tantalizingly close but probably not close enough. Firing an F.B.I. director for an investigation into a president’s campaign, for example, is deeply suspicious, but technically kosher, since the F.B.I. director serves at the president’s pleasure. Campaigning to “lock her up” and initiating a new Justice Department investigation into possible illegality by Hillary Clinton likewise could be described, in a pinch, as mere excessive campaign rhetoric or a genuine pursuit of justice. Spending hours watching cable television, refusing to read his daily intelligence briefing, disrupting negotiations with Congress by constantly shifting positions and dictating policy by declarative tweets are all clearly outside what the founders would regard as good executive leadership, but they are too subjective to be a reliable basis for impeachment. Pardoning Sheriff Joe Arpaio for violating the Constitution could be defended, however dubiously, as merely an act of compassion for an old man. Failing to abide by clear ethical rules by refusing to divest all business projects is an egregious outrage, but not provable bribery. Venting at an attorney general for recusing himself from a case in which he was involved (but not actually firing him) doesn’t make the cut either.
What about passively cooperating with a foreign power to subvert an American election and then, after clear proof of such interference, refusing to counter that foreign power’s intent to disrupt the next election too? If a president unwittingly benefited from a foreign foe’s meddling (“no collusion!”), and he’s merely guilty of failing to do enough to counter that power’s continuing assault on the American democratic process, he’s in the clear. But if he is actively neglecting a defense of this country’s electoral integrity because he believes the Kremlin helped him win an election in the past, and will almost certainly help him and his party in the near future, then impeachment is a no-brainer. If he knew of the meddling at the time and encouraged it, ditto. In those cases, you have a combination of treason and defaulting on the core responsibilities of his office — at the center of the founders’ concerns (especially being too close to a foreign government). The trouble here is that we have, so far, no proof of anything but a willingness to collude with a foreign power’s interference; and no clear evidence at all of the president’s personal involvement with foreign actors.
Hillary Rodham, center, a lawyer during the House impeachment inquiry into Watergate. Credit David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images
Yet even if that evidence were incontrovertible (and that could still emerge in Mueller’s investigation), impeachment remains a political decision. Which means that unless we experience some kind of unprecedented sea change in the pathological tribalism that now defines our politics, impeachment is a dead letter. What makes Trump immune is that he is not a president within the context of a healthy republican government. He is a cult leader of a movement that has taken over a political party — and he specifically campaigned on a platform of one-man rule. This fact permeates “Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America,” a collection of essays by a number of writers that has been edited by Sunstein, which concludes, if you read between the lines, that “it” already has.
No, Trump is not about to initiate a coup, or suspend elections or become a dictator. The more likely model for American authoritarianism is that of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey or the Fidesz party in Hungary. The dismemberment of a public discourse centered on objective truth is a key first step, fomented by unceasing dissemination of outright lies from the very top, metabolized by tribal social media, ever more extreme talk radio and what is essentially a state propaganda channel, Fox News. The neutering of the courts is the second step — and Trump is well on his way to (constitutionally) establishing a federal judiciary whose most important feature will be reliable assent to executive power. Congress itself has far less approval than Trump; its inability to do anything but further bankrupt the country, enrich the oligarchy and sabotage many Americans’ health care leaves an aching void filled by … a president who repeatedly insists that “I am the only one who matters.”
I don’t think Trump has a conscious intent to vandalize liberal democracy — he doesn’t even understand what it is. Rather, his twisted, compulsive insecurity requires him to use his office to attack, delegitimize and weaken every democratic institution that may occasionally operate outside his own delusional narcissism. He cannot help this. His tweets are a function of spasms, not plots. But the wreckage after only one year is extraordinary. The F.B.I. is now widely discredited; the C.I.A. is held in contempt; judges, according to the president, are driven by prejudice and partisanship (when they disagree with him); the media produce fake news; Congress is useless (including both Republicans and Democrats); alliances are essentially rip-offs; the State Department — along with the whole idea of a neutral Civil Service — is unnecessary. And the possibility of reasoned deliberation at the heart of democratic life has been obliterated by the white-hot racial and cultural hatreds that Trump was able to exploit to get elected and that he constantly fuels.
The Democrats find themselves in opposition a little like Marco Rubio in the primaries. Take the high road and you are irrelevant; take the low road and you cannot compete with the biggest bully and liar on the block. The result is that an unimpeachable president is slowly constructing the kind of authoritarian state that America was actually founded to overthrow.
There is nothing in the Constitution’s formal operation that can prevent this. Impeachment certainly cannot. As long as one major political party endorses it, and a solid plurality of Americans support such an authoritarian slide, it is unstoppable. The founders knew that without a virtuous citizenry, the Constitution was a mere piece of paper and, in Madison’s words, “no theoretical checks — no form of government can render us secure.” Franklin was blunter in forecasting the moment we are now in: He believed that the American experiment in self-government “can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” You can impeach a president, but you can’t, alas, impeach the people. They voted for the kind of monarchy the American republic was designed, above all else, to resist; and they have gotten one.
Andrew Sullivan is a writer at large for New York magazine.
Activists push US to advocate for human rights in Egypt - Al Jazeera
13/3/2018
Activists push US to advocate for human rights in Egypt
Egyptian-Americans will call on US politicians to pressure the Egyptian government to address human rights concerns.
About 60 delegates from 30 different states will head to the US capital on Monday and Tuesday to push lawmakers to support freedom and human rights in Egypt [File: Adrees Latif/Reuters]
About 60 delegates from 30 different states will head to the US capital on Monday and Tuesday to push lawmakers to support freedom and human rights in Egypt [File: Adrees Latif/Reuters]
North Korean defector describes life at home through cartoons
today
Are Sudanese passports the Bidoons' solution?
today
Indigenous Yukpa face humanitarian crisis after fleeing Venezuela
today
Trump administration sued for 'separating' families
yesterday
Dozens of members of the Egyptian Diaspora in the US are gathering in Washington, DC this week to develop strategies to push members of Congress to support freedom and human rights in Egypt.
The two-day training, dubbed Egypt Advocacy Day, will bring about 60 delegates from 30 different states to the US capital on Monday and Tuesday, said Mohamed Soltan, one of the event organisers.
"We hope that we can bring folks together outside of Egypt, in the Diaspora … to be the voice of those that can't have one, or [for whom] the cost of having a voice is simply too much to bear," Soltan told Al Jazeera via telephone.
Soltan founded The Freedom Initiative, a US-based non-profit group co-organising the event, in late 2015 to advocate on behalf of political prisoners in Egypt, which human rights groups say now number in the tens of thousands.
A citizen of both Egypt and the US, Soltan was jailed in 2013 by the government of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, which accused him of supporting the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood movement.
Soltan returned to the US after being released from prison in 2015. He spent more than a year on hunger strike while in prison.
"Instead of feeling helpless and not knowing what to do, we can use democratic mechanisms and we can pressure elected officials to pressure Egypt to better its human rights record," Soltan said, about the role the Diaspora can play in pushing for greater freedoms in Egypt.
Mohammed Soltan spent more than a year on hunger strike [AP Photo]
More than 100 meetings have been scheduled as part of this week's event, he said, including with members of the US Senate and Congress and the US State Department.
Participants will also receive advocacy training from experts on US foreign policy vis-a-vis Egypt.
The event is co-organised by the Belady Foundation, a group helping Egyptian street children that was founded by Aya Hijazi, a dual US-Egyptian citizen who was jailed in Egypt for over three years.
Hijazi was released from prison and returned to the US in April 2017 after a Cairo court acquitted her of human trafficking, a charge human rights groups said was fabricated.
'Human rights crisis'
Human rights groups have accused the Sisi government - which came to power following a 2013 coup – of cracking down on freedom of speech and assembly, carrying out arbitrary arrests and detaining civil society leaders.
Rights groups blast Egypt's human rights record
"Egypt's human rights crisis continued unabated" last year, Amnesty International said in its 2017-2018 report.
The Egyptian authorities "used torture and other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance against hundreds of people", the rights group said, while "mass unfair trials" targeting peaceful protesters, journalists and human rights workers "were routine".
At least 20 journalists were behind bars in Egypt at the end of last year, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported, making the country one of the world's three worst jailers of journalists.
Last year, the US announced it was delaying or cutting some aid to Egypt over human rights concerns.
This week's advocacy training in the US also comes a few weeks ahead of Egyptian presidential elections, which are set for the end of March.
Analysts have accused Sisi, who is seeking a second term as president, of making it impossible for any political opponents to challenge him at the polls. A handful of presidential hopefuls have dropped out of the race since the start of the year.
"Egypt is heading [down] this route where there is a complete crushing of any public or political space," Soltan said.
He added that he hoped the event would succeed in "mobilising and organising the Egyptian Diaspora" and "correcting the narrative on Egypt".
Sisi was elected president of Egypt with 97 percent support in 2014.
A year earlier, the former Egyptian army chief led a coup that deposed his democratically-elected predecessor, Mohamed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
