Why America’s Two Top Fighter Jets Can’t Talk to Each Other
The F-22 and the F-35 were built with communication systems that don’t work together, a problem that’s going to take a lot of money to fix.
By
April 2, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+10 Updated on April 3, 2018, 9:30 AM GMT+10
Why America's Most Sophisticated Fighter Jets Can't Talk to Each Other
With the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II, the U.S. has fielded two of the world’s most sophisticated, maneuverable and stealthy fighter jets. They both function as airborne shepherds of America’s flock of older combat aircraft, using their state-of-the-art systems to communicate threats and targets on the ground and in the air.
Unfortunately, they have a difficult time communicating with each other.
The F-22, originally designed as an air superiority fighter, dates to the mid-1980s and was created to dispense near-invisible lethality against Soviet targets before the enemy knew it was there. The plane’s requirements for maximum stealth extended to its communications systems, since they can betray an aircraft’s location. But budget considerations and initial optimism about a post-Cold War world cut short its production. In 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates ended the program.
And that’s where the problem begins. Had the Air Force gotten all the F-22s it wanted—more than double the 183 or so it has—integration of its systems with another fleet of “fifth generation” fighters wouldn’t have been as critical. The F-22’s Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL) is much older than the system used on the newer F-35. While the F-22’s IFDL protocol can receive data from the F-35 and other allied aircraft, such as the F-16 and Eurofighter Typhoon, it can’t transmit the vast array of situational data it collects.
In a recent story on the situation, Air Force Magazine likened U.S. combat communications among the various aircraft to “a kind of Tower of Babel.” And the necessary modifications haven’t been fast in coming. “There’s a lot of improvements that could have been done and should have been done 15 years ago,” said David Rockwell, a senior defense electronics analyst with Teal Group. “The Air Force postponed a lot of things for [the] F-22.”
A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor at the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition on Oct. 16.Photographer: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg
Both the Raptor and Lightning II are known as “fifth-generation” aircraft because of their stealth, sensors and other capabilities. Jets such as the Air Forces’s F-15 and F-16 and the Navy’s F/A-18 are “fourth-generation.” Russia and China also are fielding and refining their fifth-generation fighters, the Su-57 and J-31, respectively.
The U.S. fifth-generation jets are adept at disseminating a more detailed view of the battle space to older aircraft, increasing the former’s “survivability” in combat. The F-35 fleet also has what’s called a multifunction advanced data link (MADL) to gather and share information with other F-35s. This fusion of sensor data—and the ability to distribute it with allied aircraft—allows the F-35 to serve as a “quarterback” during a conflict. “You hear it from the [F-15) Eagles and the Marine Corps,” said Billie Flynn, an F-35 test pilot at Lockheed Martin Corp., which also made the F-22. “We’re keeping our own forces much more engaged and boosting survivability.”
“The thing that’s great about having Link 16 and MADL onboard and the sensor fusion is the amount of situational awareness the pilot has,” Lt. Col. George Watkins, a squadron commander, said in an Air Force statement last year. “I can see the whole war, and where all the other players are, from a god’s-eye view. That makes me a lot more effective.”
“We don’t have data anymore,” said Flynn, a former squadron commander for the Royal Canadian Air Force. “We have knowledge.”
An F-35A at Hill Air Force Base in Utah in 2016.Photographer: George Frey/Bloomberg
When it comes to talking to each other, however, the F-22 and F-35 pilots currently must use secure voice links. This temporary fix has worked in training and simulated combat, Flynn said.
Keeping the F-22 relevant has been a 15-year effort. The Air Force established a modernization program in 2003, with 10 unique upgrades and enhancements. To date, the program has awarded contracts totaling as much as $12.9 billion, according to a Defense Department Inspector General audit on F-22 modernization released last month. The IG criticized the Air Force’s software development and contracting strategies.
“We’re always working on ways to improve connectivity wherever the mission requires additional information sharing,” an Air Force spokesman, Major Ken Scholz, said in an email. “As well, the F-35A and F-22 are very complementary assets, particularly in highly contested areas.”
Still, the Air Force doesn’t plan to begin fixing the communications problem until 2021, when the F-22 fleet is scheduled to have the system upgraded.
China’s J-31 stealth fighter aircraft in 2014.Photographer: Brent Lewin
While these two fighters have a ways to go until they share the same communications and sensor systems, there’s at least one thing they already have in common: they’re budget busters. The Raptor is the most expensive aircraft in the U.S. arsenal, in terms of cost per flight hour; the program ended up costing taxpayers more than $330 million per unit.
Operating and maintenance costs have grown daunting for the F-35 as well. The Air Force may need to cut almost 600 from its planned order of 1,763 if upkeep costs can’t be lowered by more than a third. It also faces annual maintenance costs of almost $4 billion for a fighter fleet that’s likely to top $1 trillion in sustainment through 2070 across the three service branches.
Meanwhile, Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed and others are working on near-term fixes for the F-22’s communications problems. Longer term, the Air Force would like to find a way to extend the existing stealth profile to its upgraded communications and radar systems, Rockwell said. “There could already be a partial classified solution in the short-term,” he said. “This is exactly the sort of thing that goes classified because you don’t want to put out that the F-22 can interact with other things.”
Saturday, April 7, 2018
Almost 80% of U.K. Companies Pay Women Less Than Men - TIMe Business
Almost 80% of U.K. Companies Pay Women Less Than Men
Posted: 05 Apr 2018 09:07 AM PDT
More than 10,000 employers in the United Kingdom publicly reported their gender pay gap data Wednesday as a result of a 2017 regulation aimed at promoting equal pay for equal work. And judging by the results, organizations have a long way to go.
Companies with more than 250 employees in the U.K. are now required to disclose salary data and any gender wage gap publicly online and to the government, thanks to legislation passed last April. More than 78% of U.K. companies paid men more than women, with a median pay gap of 9.7% on average, according to the BBC’s analysis of the data.
The required reporting is intended to shine a light on pay practices and what may stall a woman’s career advancement. In the case of these U.K.-based companies, many found hefty gender wage gaps due to the high number of male executives or leaders filling the highest-paying roles.
The data released this week produced stunning results, with banks, airlines, retailers and British soccer clubs reporting significant differences in the mean salaries between men and women.
Top investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup reported mean hourly rate differences for U.K.-based female and male employees at 55.5% and 48.4% respectively, according to the data. U.K.-run banks like HSBC and Barclays reported women earned a mean hourly rate of 59% and 48%, respectively, less than their male counterparts.
Ryanair, an Irish-based airline, reported a 67% difference in the mean hourly earnings between men and women. EasyJet, a British airline, reported a 51.7% difference. Due to its highly paid male athletes, the Stoke City Football Club reported women earned 92.5% lower in mean hourly earnings than men. The disparity in the median hourly rate between women and men for the club was 30.5%.
This first round of significant reporting — with data all available on the government’s website — includes a number of gender wage gap data, from the proportion of women in the highest or lowest pay groups at a company to the percentage of women and men who have received bonuses.
“Publishing and monitoring pay gaps will help employers understand the reasons for any gap and consider whether they need to develop action plans to tackle the causes,” the government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said.
BREAKING: Over 10,000 employers with 250 or more staff have now published their #GenderPayGap data. Those that haven't now face legal action. https://t.co/JGxKC9eMon pic.twitter.com/FOhibwJCVW
— EHRC (@EHRC) April 5, 2018
Pay transparency, as exhibited by the U.K., is one of the top initiatives pushed by equal pay advocates around the world. In the United States, champions of the cause point to pay transparency as a mechanism that can be used by women to better leverage themselves in salary negotiations and hold leaders at the company accountable for their payroll.
Both the U.K. and the United States have passed versions of an Equal Pay Act decades ago, making it a requirement for women and men to be paid equally for the same work. Disparities in pay still exist despite this, however. In the U.S., women earn around $0.80 on the dollar of their male counterparts, according to the most recent data from the Institute of Women’s Policy Research.
Posted: 05 Apr 2018 09:07 AM PDT
More than 10,000 employers in the United Kingdom publicly reported their gender pay gap data Wednesday as a result of a 2017 regulation aimed at promoting equal pay for equal work. And judging by the results, organizations have a long way to go.
Companies with more than 250 employees in the U.K. are now required to disclose salary data and any gender wage gap publicly online and to the government, thanks to legislation passed last April. More than 78% of U.K. companies paid men more than women, with a median pay gap of 9.7% on average, according to the BBC’s analysis of the data.
The required reporting is intended to shine a light on pay practices and what may stall a woman’s career advancement. In the case of these U.K.-based companies, many found hefty gender wage gaps due to the high number of male executives or leaders filling the highest-paying roles.
The data released this week produced stunning results, with banks, airlines, retailers and British soccer clubs reporting significant differences in the mean salaries between men and women.
Top investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup reported mean hourly rate differences for U.K.-based female and male employees at 55.5% and 48.4% respectively, according to the data. U.K.-run banks like HSBC and Barclays reported women earned a mean hourly rate of 59% and 48%, respectively, less than their male counterparts.
Ryanair, an Irish-based airline, reported a 67% difference in the mean hourly earnings between men and women. EasyJet, a British airline, reported a 51.7% difference. Due to its highly paid male athletes, the Stoke City Football Club reported women earned 92.5% lower in mean hourly earnings than men. The disparity in the median hourly rate between women and men for the club was 30.5%.
This first round of significant reporting — with data all available on the government’s website — includes a number of gender wage gap data, from the proportion of women in the highest or lowest pay groups at a company to the percentage of women and men who have received bonuses.
“Publishing and monitoring pay gaps will help employers understand the reasons for any gap and consider whether they need to develop action plans to tackle the causes,” the government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said.
BREAKING: Over 10,000 employers with 250 or more staff have now published their #GenderPayGap data. Those that haven't now face legal action. https://t.co/JGxKC9eMon pic.twitter.com/FOhibwJCVW
— EHRC (@EHRC) April 5, 2018
Pay transparency, as exhibited by the U.K., is one of the top initiatives pushed by equal pay advocates around the world. In the United States, champions of the cause point to pay transparency as a mechanism that can be used by women to better leverage themselves in salary negotiations and hold leaders at the company accountable for their payroll.
Both the U.K. and the United States have passed versions of an Equal Pay Act decades ago, making it a requirement for women and men to be paid equally for the same work. Disparities in pay still exist despite this, however. In the U.S., women earn around $0.80 on the dollar of their male counterparts, according to the most recent data from the Institute of Women’s Policy Research.
Amazon’s Reach Into New Markets Is Helping the Company Shrug Off Trump’s Jabs - TIME Business
Amazon’s Reach Into New Markets Is Helping the Company Shrug Off Trump’s Jabs
Posted: 05 Apr 2018 04:44 PM PDT
(WASHINGTON) — Amazon is spending millions of dollars on lobbying as the global online retailer seeks to expand its reach into a swath of industries that President Donald Trump’s broadsides haven’t come close to hitting.
Trump’s attacks over the last week targeted what Amazon is best known for: rapidly shipping just about any product you can imagine to your door. But the company CEO Jeff Bezos founded more than two decades ago is now a sprawling empire that sells groceries in brick-and-mortar stores, hosts the online services of other companies and federal offices in a network of data centers, and even recently branched into health care.
Amazon relies on a nearly 30-member in-house lobbying team that’s four times as large as it was three years ago as well as outside firms to influence the lawmakers and federal regulators who can help determine its success. The outside roster includes a retired congressman from Washington state who was a senior member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee when he stepped down.
Overall, Amazon spent $15.6 million on lobbying in 2017.
“Amazon is just not on an even playing field,” Trump told reporters Thursday aboard Air Force One. “They have a tremendous lobbying effort, in addition to having The Washington Post, which is as far as I’m concerned another lobbyist. But they have a big lobbying effort, one of the biggest, frankly, one of the biggest.”
Bezos owns the Post. He and the newspaper have previously declared that Bezos isn’t involved in any journalistic decisions.
Earlier in the week, Trump alleged that Amazon is bilking the U.S. Postal Service for being its “delivery boy,” a doubtful claim about a contract that’s actually been judged profitable for the post office. And he has charged that Amazon pays “little or no taxes,” a claim that may have merit. Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said in February that Amazon “has built its business model on tax avoidance.” Amazon reported $5.6 billion of U.S. profits in 2017 “and didn’t pay a dime of federal income taxes on it,” according to Gardner.
The company declined to comment on Trump’s remarks and did not immediately respond to a request for comment about its lobbying operations.
Amazon has grown rapidly since it launched in 1995 as a site that sold books. It has changed the way people buy paper towels, diapers or just about anything else. And its ambitions go far beyond online shopping: its Alexa voice assistant is in tablets, cars and its Echo devices; it runs the Whole Foods grocery chain; the company produces movies and TV shows and it designs its own brands of furniture and clothing.
The company is in the midst of launching an independent business with JPMorgan Chase and Berkshire Hathaway that is seeking to lower health care costs for employees at the three companies. Given the three players’ outsize influence the alliance has the potential to shake up how Americans shop for health care and the initiative sent a shudder through the industry when it was announced in January.
Amazon Web Services is angling for a much larger share of the federal government’s market for cloud computing, which allows massive amounts of data to be stored and managed on remote servers. The CIA signed a $600 million deal with Amazon in 2013 to build a system to share secure data across the U.S. intelligence community.
A partner of Amazon Web Services, the Virginia-based Rean Cloud LLC, in February scored what appeared to be a lucrative cloud computing contract from the Pentagon. But the contract, initially projected to be worth as much as $950 million, was scaled back to $65 million after Amazon’s competitors complained about the award.
Lobbying disclosure records filed with the House and Senate show Amazon is engaged on a wide variety of other issues, from trade to transportation to telecommunications. The company also lobbied lawmakers and federal agencies on the testing and operation of unmanned aerial vehicles. Amazon has been exploring the use of drones for deliveries, but current federal rules restrict flying beyond the operator’s line of sight.
The $15.6 million Amazon spent on lobbying last year was $2.6 million more than in 2016, according to the disclosure records. The bulk of the money — $12.8 million — went for Amazon’s in-house lobbying team. The nearly 30-member unit is led by Brian Huseman, who worked previously as chief of staff at the Federal Trade Commission and a Justice Department trial attorney.
As most large corporations do, Amazon also employs outside lobbying firms — as many as 14 in 2017.
In Amazon’s corner is former Washington congressman Norm Dicks of the firm Van Ness Feldman. Dicks was serving as the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee when he ended his 36-year congressional career in 2013. He represented the company on information technology matters and “issues related to cloud computing usage by the federal government,” according to the records, which show Van Ness Feldman earned $160,000 from Amazon last year.
Amazon brought aboard four new firms in 2017, according to the records. Newcomers Ballard Partners, BGR Government Affairs, Brownstein Hyatt, and McGuireWoods Consulting lobbied for Amazon on transportation, taxes, drones and other issues.
President Trump Wants to Hit Chinese Goods With $100 Billion in New Tariffs - TIME
President Trump Wants to Hit Chinese Goods With $100 Billion in New Tariffs
Posted: 05 Apr 2018 06:58 PM PDT
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump instructed the U.S. trade representative to consider slapping an additional $100 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods on Thursday in a dramatic escalation of the trade dispute between the two countries.
Trump’s surprise move came a day after Beijing announced plans to tax $50 billion in American products, including soybeans and small aircraft, in response to a U.S. move this week to slap tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports.
And it intensified what was already shaping up to be the biggest trade battle since World War II. Global financial markets had fallen sharply as the world’s two biggest economies squared off over Beijing’s aggressive trade tactics. But they had calmed down Wednesday and Thursday on hopes the U.S. and China would find a diplomatic solution.
Instead, the White House announced after the markets closed Thursday that Trump had instructed the Office of the United States Trade Representative to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate and, if so, to identify which products they should apply to. He’s also instructed his secretary of agriculture “to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests.”
“China’s illicit trade practices — ignored for years by Washington — have destroyed thousands of American factories and millions of American jobs,” Trump said in a statement announcing the decision.
The latest escalation comes after the U.S. on Tuesday said it would impose 25 percent duties on $50 billion of imports from China, and China quickly retaliated by listing $50 billion of products that it could hit with its own 25 percent tariffs. The Chinese list Wednesday included soybeans, the biggest U.S. export to China, and aircraft up to 45 tons (41 metric tons) in weight. Also on the list were American beef, whiskey, passenger vehicles and industrial chemicals.
Earlier in the week, Beijing announced separate import duties on $3 billion of U.S. goods in response to the Trump administration’s duties on all steel and aluminum imports, including from China.
U.S. officials have sought to downplay the threat of a broader trade dispute, saying a negotiated outcome is still possible. But economists warn that the tit-for-tat moves bear the hallmarks of a classic trade rift that could escalate. And already, tensions between the world’s two biggest economies have rattled global stock markets.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer called China’s moved “unjustified” and said Trump’s proposal was an “appropriate response to China’s recent threat of new tariffs.”
“Such measures would undoubtedly cause further harm to American workers, farmers, and businesses,” he said in a statement. “Under these circumstances, the President is right to ask for additional appropriate action to obtain the elimination of the unfair acts, policies, and practices identified in USTR’s report.”
The clash reflects the tension between Trump’s promises to narrow a U.S. trade deficit with China that stood at $375.2 billion in goods last year and China’s ruling Communist Party’s development ambitions. Trump says China’s trade practices have caused American factories to close and lead to the loss of American jobs.
Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, said earlier Thursday in an interview with Fox Business Network that negotiations were ongoing. But, he said, “at the end of the day, China’s unfair and illegal trading actions are damaging to economic growth, for the U.S., for China and for the rest of the world.”
He also called Trump “the first guy with a backbone in decades … to actually go after it. Not just whisper it, but to go after it with at least preliminary actions.”
But Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., a frequent Trump critic, called the escalation “the dumbest possible way” to punish China.
“Hopefully the President is just blowing off steam again but, if he’s even half-serious, this is nuts,” Sasse said in a statement. “Let’s absolutely take on Chinese bad behavior, but with a plan that punishes them instead of us.”
Any additional tariffs would be subject to a public comment process and would not go into effect until that process is complete.
Posted: 05 Apr 2018 06:58 PM PDT
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump instructed the U.S. trade representative to consider slapping an additional $100 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods on Thursday in a dramatic escalation of the trade dispute between the two countries.
Trump’s surprise move came a day after Beijing announced plans to tax $50 billion in American products, including soybeans and small aircraft, in response to a U.S. move this week to slap tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports.
And it intensified what was already shaping up to be the biggest trade battle since World War II. Global financial markets had fallen sharply as the world’s two biggest economies squared off over Beijing’s aggressive trade tactics. But they had calmed down Wednesday and Thursday on hopes the U.S. and China would find a diplomatic solution.
Instead, the White House announced after the markets closed Thursday that Trump had instructed the Office of the United States Trade Representative to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate and, if so, to identify which products they should apply to. He’s also instructed his secretary of agriculture “to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests.”
“China’s illicit trade practices — ignored for years by Washington — have destroyed thousands of American factories and millions of American jobs,” Trump said in a statement announcing the decision.
The latest escalation comes after the U.S. on Tuesday said it would impose 25 percent duties on $50 billion of imports from China, and China quickly retaliated by listing $50 billion of products that it could hit with its own 25 percent tariffs. The Chinese list Wednesday included soybeans, the biggest U.S. export to China, and aircraft up to 45 tons (41 metric tons) in weight. Also on the list were American beef, whiskey, passenger vehicles and industrial chemicals.
Earlier in the week, Beijing announced separate import duties on $3 billion of U.S. goods in response to the Trump administration’s duties on all steel and aluminum imports, including from China.
U.S. officials have sought to downplay the threat of a broader trade dispute, saying a negotiated outcome is still possible. But economists warn that the tit-for-tat moves bear the hallmarks of a classic trade rift that could escalate. And already, tensions between the world’s two biggest economies have rattled global stock markets.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer called China’s moved “unjustified” and said Trump’s proposal was an “appropriate response to China’s recent threat of new tariffs.”
“Such measures would undoubtedly cause further harm to American workers, farmers, and businesses,” he said in a statement. “Under these circumstances, the President is right to ask for additional appropriate action to obtain the elimination of the unfair acts, policies, and practices identified in USTR’s report.”
The clash reflects the tension between Trump’s promises to narrow a U.S. trade deficit with China that stood at $375.2 billion in goods last year and China’s ruling Communist Party’s development ambitions. Trump says China’s trade practices have caused American factories to close and lead to the loss of American jobs.
Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, said earlier Thursday in an interview with Fox Business Network that negotiations were ongoing. But, he said, “at the end of the day, China’s unfair and illegal trading actions are damaging to economic growth, for the U.S., for China and for the rest of the world.”
He also called Trump “the first guy with a backbone in decades … to actually go after it. Not just whisper it, but to go after it with at least preliminary actions.”
But Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., a frequent Trump critic, called the escalation “the dumbest possible way” to punish China.
“Hopefully the President is just blowing off steam again but, if he’s even half-serious, this is nuts,” Sasse said in a statement. “Let’s absolutely take on Chinese bad behavior, but with a plan that punishes them instead of us.”
Any additional tariffs would be subject to a public comment process and would not go into effect until that process is complete.
Trump Thinks He’s Wildly Popular - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )
April 7, 2018
Trump Thinks He’s Wildly Popular
By
Ed Kilgore
To the president, America is one big Trump rally.
The 45th president of the United States is such a powerful font of misinformation that it’s often difficult to isolate and analyze specific things he says that are factually dubious or flat-out wrong. But this week he’s been promoting a particularly odd and potentially significant meme: that he’s a whole lot more popular than is indicated by any objective measurements.
Out of nowhere, at a West Virginia event ostensibly aimed at publicizing the effects of the GOP’s 2017 tax cut bill, Trump revived his post-2016 election claims that “millions and millions” of Californians had voted multiple times, robbing him of a national popular vote victory over Hillary Clinton. He offered no evidence for this stunning allegation, perhaps because none exists.
But Trump’s assertions of unverified popularity were not strictly retrospective. He also spent some time this week bragging about–and exaggerating–a single poll’s assessment of his current job approval numbers:
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Thank you to Rasmussen for the honest polling. Just hit 50%, which is higher than Cheatin’ Obama at the same time in his Administration.
9:08 PM - Apr 3, 2018
The “honest polling” bit was presumably an allusion to his past unsupported claims that most polls–i.e., the ones that don’t give him the kind of numbers he gets from Rasmussen–are “fake.” This in turn apparently depends on his belief–debunked repeatedly–that most of the polls were way off in 2016 (that’s true only if buy his massive-voter-fraud fantasy).
But in any event, his Rasmussen shout-out is as dubious as his general attitude towards polls. For one thing, while Raz’s daily tracking poll did indeed show his approval rating hitting 50 percent on Monday–and hey, 51 percent on Wednesday!--it’s back down to 47 percent on Friday. And it’s been bouncing around the mid-to-high forties for months, also reaching 50 percent in February, and last year in April and June. Anyone even vaguely familiar with polling knows that Rasmussen’s polls have a distinctly pro-Republican “house effect.” That doesn’t mean the data it produces is useless, but does mean it strays so regularly and predictably from polling averages that a thumb on the scale is wise:
Drew Linzer
✔
@DrewLinzer
Polling firms' house effects on Trump job approval, relative to aggregate.
+4% Rasmussen
+3% Politico/Morning Consult
+1% SurveyMonkey
-2% Ipsos/Reuters
-2% YouGov/Economist
-3% Gallup
Data courtesy @pollster
3:54 AM - Apr 4, 2018
Accordingly, one of the more reliable polling average methodologies, at Five Thirty Eight, adjusts Rasmussen’s findings to counter-act the “house effect.” So Friday’s 47 percent Trump approval rating goes into the averages as 42 percent. Another polling average source, Real Clear Politics, does not adjust polls for “house effects,” but similarly shows Rasmussen as being off-kilter (the current RCP average for Trump’s approval ratings is 41.5 percent). In case you want to dismiss Five Thirty Eight as a “liberal” site (despite its against-the-grain predictions in 2016 that Trump had a real chance to win), it should be noted that RCP’s management is quite conservative.
Touting Rasmussen as the only “honest” poll was not enough for Trump, though. In a radio interview today, the president suggested that his job approval number should have been higher:
“A poll just came out now, Rasmussen, it’s now 51,” Trump said. “They say that it’s 51 but add another 7 or 8 points to it. … They don’t want to talk about it, but when they get into the booth they’re going to vote for Trump.”
This belief in the “shy Trump voter,” of course, is based on an theory that had some currency early in the 2016 presidential nominating contest, but was eventually disproved, as Politico noted at the time:
[T]here’s little evidence that shy Trump voters actually exist. In the Republican primaries, he didn’t outperform his poll numbers relative to his leading challengers — and, until he ran away with the nomination in late April and May, he performed significantly worse than the polls suggested.
Perhaps Trump thinks the “shy Trump voter” phenomenon was proven true by the general election results, which showed the polls were wrong–except they really didn’t, unless you buy his voter fraud theory. You see how quickly Trump’s “reasoning” takes you down the rabbit hole to slippery contentions based on other slippery contentions.
What we cannot really know, of course, is whether the president really believes what he’s saying, or just wants other people to believe what he’s saying. But the circular nature of his disinformation can be seductive to people who are inclined in his direction anyway. If the mainstream news about him is “fake” and so are the non-Rasmussen polls, then there’s only one source of information you can trust: the man himself. Evil as it is, it’s as good a method as any to keep his troops feeling upbeat and ready to vote.
Trump Thinks He’s Wildly Popular
By
Ed Kilgore
To the president, America is one big Trump rally.
The 45th president of the United States is such a powerful font of misinformation that it’s often difficult to isolate and analyze specific things he says that are factually dubious or flat-out wrong. But this week he’s been promoting a particularly odd and potentially significant meme: that he’s a whole lot more popular than is indicated by any objective measurements.
Out of nowhere, at a West Virginia event ostensibly aimed at publicizing the effects of the GOP’s 2017 tax cut bill, Trump revived his post-2016 election claims that “millions and millions” of Californians had voted multiple times, robbing him of a national popular vote victory over Hillary Clinton. He offered no evidence for this stunning allegation, perhaps because none exists.
But Trump’s assertions of unverified popularity were not strictly retrospective. He also spent some time this week bragging about–and exaggerating–a single poll’s assessment of his current job approval numbers:
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Thank you to Rasmussen for the honest polling. Just hit 50%, which is higher than Cheatin’ Obama at the same time in his Administration.
9:08 PM - Apr 3, 2018
The “honest polling” bit was presumably an allusion to his past unsupported claims that most polls–i.e., the ones that don’t give him the kind of numbers he gets from Rasmussen–are “fake.” This in turn apparently depends on his belief–debunked repeatedly–that most of the polls were way off in 2016 (that’s true only if buy his massive-voter-fraud fantasy).
But in any event, his Rasmussen shout-out is as dubious as his general attitude towards polls. For one thing, while Raz’s daily tracking poll did indeed show his approval rating hitting 50 percent on Monday–and hey, 51 percent on Wednesday!--it’s back down to 47 percent on Friday. And it’s been bouncing around the mid-to-high forties for months, also reaching 50 percent in February, and last year in April and June. Anyone even vaguely familiar with polling knows that Rasmussen’s polls have a distinctly pro-Republican “house effect.” That doesn’t mean the data it produces is useless, but does mean it strays so regularly and predictably from polling averages that a thumb on the scale is wise:
Drew Linzer
✔
@DrewLinzer
Polling firms' house effects on Trump job approval, relative to aggregate.
+4% Rasmussen
+3% Politico/Morning Consult
+1% SurveyMonkey
-2% Ipsos/Reuters
-2% YouGov/Economist
-3% Gallup
Data courtesy @pollster
3:54 AM - Apr 4, 2018
Accordingly, one of the more reliable polling average methodologies, at Five Thirty Eight, adjusts Rasmussen’s findings to counter-act the “house effect.” So Friday’s 47 percent Trump approval rating goes into the averages as 42 percent. Another polling average source, Real Clear Politics, does not adjust polls for “house effects,” but similarly shows Rasmussen as being off-kilter (the current RCP average for Trump’s approval ratings is 41.5 percent). In case you want to dismiss Five Thirty Eight as a “liberal” site (despite its against-the-grain predictions in 2016 that Trump had a real chance to win), it should be noted that RCP’s management is quite conservative.
Touting Rasmussen as the only “honest” poll was not enough for Trump, though. In a radio interview today, the president suggested that his job approval number should have been higher:
“A poll just came out now, Rasmussen, it’s now 51,” Trump said. “They say that it’s 51 but add another 7 or 8 points to it. … They don’t want to talk about it, but when they get into the booth they’re going to vote for Trump.”
This belief in the “shy Trump voter,” of course, is based on an theory that had some currency early in the 2016 presidential nominating contest, but was eventually disproved, as Politico noted at the time:
[T]here’s little evidence that shy Trump voters actually exist. In the Republican primaries, he didn’t outperform his poll numbers relative to his leading challengers — and, until he ran away with the nomination in late April and May, he performed significantly worse than the polls suggested.
Perhaps Trump thinks the “shy Trump voter” phenomenon was proven true by the general election results, which showed the polls were wrong–except they really didn’t, unless you buy his voter fraud theory. You see how quickly Trump’s “reasoning” takes you down the rabbit hole to slippery contentions based on other slippery contentions.
What we cannot really know, of course, is whether the president really believes what he’s saying, or just wants other people to believe what he’s saying. But the circular nature of his disinformation can be seductive to people who are inclined in his direction anyway. If the mainstream news about him is “fake” and so are the non-Rasmussen polls, then there’s only one source of information you can trust: the man himself. Evil as it is, it’s as good a method as any to keep his troops feeling upbeat and ready to vote.
There’s a Real Risk That Trump’s Trade War With China Won’t Change Anything - TIME Business
There’s a Real Risk That Trump’s Trade War With China Won’t Change Anything
Posted: 06 Apr 2018 01:41 AM PDT
To quote Will Ferrell in the hit movie Anchorman, “Boy, that escalated quickly.”
On Friday, China’s Commerce Ministry said it would fight “at any cost” new $100 billion tariffs proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, indicating Beijing’s resolve to respond in kind to punitive measures Washington has threatened for alleged Chinese intellectual property (IP) theft.
Talk of a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies had already spooked markets following Wednesday’s announcement that China planned to tax $50 billion in American goods — including soybeans, whiskey and aircraft — in response to an earlier proposal by Washington to slap a similar hike on 1,300 Chinese products.
Hopes that the tussle was simply posturing before a negotiated outcome were dampened after Trump instructed his secretary of agriculture “to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests.”
“China’s illicit trade practices — ignored for years by Washington — have destroyed thousands of American factories and millions of American jobs,” Trump said in a statement. A seven-month investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative found that “Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually.”
The spat spotlights the tension between Trump’s promises to narrow the current $375.2 billion U.S. trade deficit with China, which he claims costs American jobs, and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambitious development plans, which include eradicating poverty from the world’s most populous nation by 2020.
Simon Baptist, chief economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told TIME by email that Washington has legitimate complaints about China’s IP protection record, but responding with trade sanctions paints the U.S. as the trade aggressor. “A better approach would have been to take action through investment and patent rules,” he says.
By virtue of the trade imbalance, the U.S. has the potential to hurt China more than the other way around through the tariffs. If imposed, analysts say China can expect a significant number of bankruptcies and rising unemployment. China is targeting a healthy if slowing 6.5% growth this year.
However, protecting American agriculture is not simple. For one, China may take any new government support into account when calculating future tariff retaliation, nullifying that support’s impact. Secondly, for the U.S. to boost farmer subsidizes would bring third parties into the dispute — especially large producers such as the E.U., Brazil and Australia — who at the very least would complain to the WTO.
“I think it would have been more effective to go to the Chinese with a series of trade allies and say, ‘it’s all of us saying this, we’re all going to act unless you change your policies and we’re all watching to see what you actually do so,’” says Derek Scissors, an economist focusing on China a the American Enterprise Institute.
Fixing the IP issue is also no simple manner. While China needed foreign cash early in its economic liberalization and development in the 1980s and 1990s, for the last decade the country has been financially buoyant. Since then, the very point of foreign investment has been to engineer IP transfer, which is generally done by forcing foreign firms to partner with local Chinese entities — essentially enabling those entities to pilfer IP. Western firms have been so desperate to access the Chinese market that they agreed to operate under those terms — and are now paying the price.
“One guilty party in all of this are U.S. firms themselves, many of whom have actively assisted in ‘voluntary’ technology transfer through joint ventures in order to access China’s domestic market,” adds Baptist.
As such, addressing the IP issue would involve China changing the entire way it interacts with foreign investment. And while leveling the playing field is a noble goal in itself, the question remains whether volatile markets and falling profits across the U.S. economy are a price worth paying to get there.
“Does the U.S. have a plan to actually pursue and at least partly win this trade war? I don’t see that,” says Scissors. “So if I were an American company, I’d be nervous that you’re going to take this pain for the next few years and end up with nothing really different than where you started.”
Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg Says There Were Likely Other Breaches Like Cambridge Analytica - TIME
Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg Says There Were Likely Other Breaches Like Cambridge Analytica
Posted: 06 Apr 2018 06:45 AM PDT
Facebook’s second-in-command says the company expects to uncover additional violations of users’ personal data, just two days after it announced that the Trump campaign-linked data-mining firm Cambridge Analytica had accessed the information of as many as 87 million people.
“I’m not going to sit here and say that we’re not going to find more because we are,” Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, told NBC’s Savannah Guthrie in an interview that aired on the Today show Friday.
In the interview, Sandberg’s posture was defensive, stressing that the social media giant “cared about privacy all along.”
Watch @savannahguthrie's full interview with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg pic.twitter.com/RQ4dsecfes
— TODAY (@TODAYshow) April 6, 2018
“But I think we got the balance wrong,” she told Guthrie. “I think we were very idealistic and not rigorous enough and then there’s the possible misuse. What we are focused on is making sure those possible use cases get shut down.”
Guthrie pressed Sandberg for an explanation as to why Facebook “took so long” to address the Cambridge Analytica data breach, which was first reported in 2015.
“We thought that the data had been deleted,” Sandberg said.
But she conceded that Facebook “should have” notified users of the breach. Sandberg’s remarks come days before Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s founder and chief executive officer, is scheduled to testify before Congress amidst the fallout from the data scandal.
How one high school produced the CEOs of Microsoft, Adobe and Mastercard - CNBC News
How one high school produced the CEOs of Microsoft, Adobe and Mastercard
Abigail Hess | @AbigailJHess 12:07 PM ET Thu, 5 April 2018
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella
One of the best high schools in the world is located in Begumpet, India and it's the alma mater of some of the most influential business people on earth, including Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen and Mastercard CEO Ajay Banga.
In an interview with Stephen Dubner on an episode of the "Freakonomics" podcast, Nadella revealed that all three of the CEOs attended Hyderabad Public School (HPS), a private school founded in 1923 that's attended by over 2,800 students.
At first, Nadella dismissed his shared educational experience with Narayen and Banga as a coincidence. "I think it's one of those false positives that you can take too much out of, right? I think each of us have had our own unique story and unique path," he said.
But Dubner was not so quick to downplay the role that HPS or Nadella's home country had in producing some of the most powerful business executives in the world.
"I understand that you kind of downplay it and say, 'It might be a false positive,'" said Dubner. "But I think a lot of people listening around the world will want to say, 'Whatever they are doing to succeed so brilliantly, if I could perhaps mimic just parts of that within my own family.'"
Nadella conceeded, saying he does "believe that there is a certain structure to the educational system of that country that I think I definitely benefited from."
Here's how one school has managed to produce so many industry leaders.
Shantanu Narayen, CEO, Adobe
Mark Neuling | CNBC
Shantanu Narayen, CEO, Adobe
Teaching outside the classroom
While Nadella agrees that HPS was formative, he says that one of the best parts about the school is that students are able to pursue a range of interests outside of the classroom.
"I think it was formative in very different ways," says Nadella. "Shantanu [Narayen] was a debater. I was a cricketer, and we all learned different things there."
Studies show that students who have access to a wide range of extracurriculars earn better grades and better scores on standardized tests. Research conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics found that participation in extracurricular activities even improves student graduation rates.
By offering a wide range of activities including rock climbing and horseback riding, HPS is able to take advantage of these benefits and also engage a wide range of students and help turn them into well-rounded and impassioned learners.
"HPS produces generals and not foot-soldiers," said HPS principal Ramandeep Kaur Samra to The Economic Times. "We want our students to lead, whichever field they want, small or big, but in a passionate manner.
Ajay Banga, chief executive of Mastercard
MasterCard
Ajay Banga, chief executive of Mastercard
Big thinking
Nadella says that the part of his high school education that influenced him the most was how HPS encouraged him and his peers to think big.
"I think more than anything else, it gave us the freedom to think, learn, and pursue bold dreams," explains Nadella.
"HPS has a unique academic philosophy," says the school's website. "We train students to make a difference in whatever they do and leave their footprints on the sands of time."
Empowering students to think long and hard about the world around them, is not just the right thing to do, it also helps students grow successful adults. For instance, students who believe that anything is possible are more likely to find success in academics.
Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine studied 240 children ages seven to 10 and found that being positive improved their ability to answer math problems, increased their memories and enhanced their problem-solving abilities.
"I was a shy, closed and introverted child during my early days of schooling," one alumni tells The Economic Times. "[HPS] infused a lot of confidence in me."
When Nadella visited his high school last year, he agreed. "Attending the HPS was the best break I had in my life," he said.
Abigail Hess | @AbigailJHess 12:07 PM ET Thu, 5 April 2018
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella
One of the best high schools in the world is located in Begumpet, India and it's the alma mater of some of the most influential business people on earth, including Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen and Mastercard CEO Ajay Banga.
In an interview with Stephen Dubner on an episode of the "Freakonomics" podcast, Nadella revealed that all three of the CEOs attended Hyderabad Public School (HPS), a private school founded in 1923 that's attended by over 2,800 students.
At first, Nadella dismissed his shared educational experience with Narayen and Banga as a coincidence. "I think it's one of those false positives that you can take too much out of, right? I think each of us have had our own unique story and unique path," he said.
But Dubner was not so quick to downplay the role that HPS or Nadella's home country had in producing some of the most powerful business executives in the world.
"I understand that you kind of downplay it and say, 'It might be a false positive,'" said Dubner. "But I think a lot of people listening around the world will want to say, 'Whatever they are doing to succeed so brilliantly, if I could perhaps mimic just parts of that within my own family.'"
Nadella conceeded, saying he does "believe that there is a certain structure to the educational system of that country that I think I definitely benefited from."
Here's how one school has managed to produce so many industry leaders.
Shantanu Narayen, CEO, Adobe
Mark Neuling | CNBC
Shantanu Narayen, CEO, Adobe
Teaching outside the classroom
While Nadella agrees that HPS was formative, he says that one of the best parts about the school is that students are able to pursue a range of interests outside of the classroom.
"I think it was formative in very different ways," says Nadella. "Shantanu [Narayen] was a debater. I was a cricketer, and we all learned different things there."
Studies show that students who have access to a wide range of extracurriculars earn better grades and better scores on standardized tests. Research conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics found that participation in extracurricular activities even improves student graduation rates.
By offering a wide range of activities including rock climbing and horseback riding, HPS is able to take advantage of these benefits and also engage a wide range of students and help turn them into well-rounded and impassioned learners.
"HPS produces generals and not foot-soldiers," said HPS principal Ramandeep Kaur Samra to The Economic Times. "We want our students to lead, whichever field they want, small or big, but in a passionate manner.
Ajay Banga, chief executive of Mastercard
MasterCard
Ajay Banga, chief executive of Mastercard
Big thinking
Nadella says that the part of his high school education that influenced him the most was how HPS encouraged him and his peers to think big.
"I think more than anything else, it gave us the freedom to think, learn, and pursue bold dreams," explains Nadella.
"HPS has a unique academic philosophy," says the school's website. "We train students to make a difference in whatever they do and leave their footprints on the sands of time."
Empowering students to think long and hard about the world around them, is not just the right thing to do, it also helps students grow successful adults. For instance, students who believe that anything is possible are more likely to find success in academics.
Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine studied 240 children ages seven to 10 and found that being positive improved their ability to answer math problems, increased their memories and enhanced their problem-solving abilities.
"I was a shy, closed and introverted child during my early days of schooling," one alumni tells The Economic Times. "[HPS] infused a lot of confidence in me."
When Nadella visited his high school last year, he agreed. "Attending the HPS was the best break I had in my life," he said.
Trump immigration: Texas sends National Guard to Mexico border - BBC News
April 7. 2018
Trump immigration: Texas sends National Guard to Mexico border
Mr Trump's plans have sparked tensions with Mexico
The US state of Texas is deploying National Guard members to the border with Mexico following a call from President Donald Trump.
A Guard spokesman said 250 personnel would be sent to patrol the area within the next 72 hours.
Arizona is also planning to deploy 150 troops there next week.
President Trump says he wants to send up to 4,000 National Guard members to secure the border with Mexico, until his proposed border wall is built.
The states of New Mexico and California have been asked to take similar action to Texas and Arizona.
Media captionTrump: 'We will be guarding our wall with military'
Also on Friday, the US president outlined plans to end a practice dubbed "catch and release" as part of his stricter anti-immigration policies.
Mr Trump wants illegal immigrants to be held in detention while they wait to hear if they will be deported, instead of being freed.
He has asked the US Department of Defense for a detailed list of military and other facilities that could perform that function.
Trump sets targets on immigration cases
US may tie social media to visas
Mr Trump has sent several tweets over the past seven days railing against illegal immigration, and accusing Democrats of allowing "open borders, drugs and crime".
He declared on Twitter that Republicans should "go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws [on illegal migrants] NOW".
Mr Trump also threatened Mexico, saying the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) was at risk unless it stopped the movement of migrants over the border.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Mexico is doing very little, if not NOTHING, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their Southern Border, and then into the U.S. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL!
12:25 AM - Apr 2, 2018
End of Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto has condemned what he called "threatening or disrespectful attitudes" from Mr Trump.
Trump: 'Mexicans are professional mountain climbers'
Is sending troops a first?
The president has called sending troops to the Mexico border a "big step", but both his predecessors also dispatched the National Guard there.
President Barack Obama sent some 1,200 soldiers to guard the boundary, while President George W Bush deployed about 6,000 troops to help Border Patrol in what was called Operation Jump Start.
Both deployments lasted for around a year.
US Defence Secretary James Mattis has approved funding for up to 4,000 National Guard troops from the Pentagon budget until the end of September, the Associated Press reports.
When is Trump going to build his wall?
Constructing a "big, beautiful wall" along the Mexican border was a signature Trump campaign promise, but so far the plan to erect a new physical barrier has been thwarted by lawmakers and appears to have stalled.
A major government spending bill which he signed last month included $1.6bn (£1.1bn) for the border wall - far short of the $25bn the White House sought.
And there were strings attached to the funding Congress did approve. Most of it can only be used to repair stretches of the border where there already is a wall, not to build new segments.
Trump denies changing view on Mexico wall
Six things that could topple Trump's wall
Trump vents anger at child immigrant programme
Last month the Pentagon confirmed Mr Trump had held "initial" talks with his defence secretary about using some of the Pentagon's budget to build a wall.
Skip Twitter post 2 by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!
8:33 PM - Mar 25, 2018
But two Democratic senators wrote to the defence secretary on Monday saying his department had "no legal authority" to use its funds for such a purpose.
"Such a controversial move could only be funded by cutting other vital priorities for our service members," wrote Senators Dick Durbin and Jack Reed.
In December, US Border Patrol announced arrests at the southern border had fallen to their lowest level since 1971, apparently indicating that fewer people were attempting the crossing.
Trump immigration: Texas sends National Guard to Mexico border
Mr Trump's plans have sparked tensions with Mexico
The US state of Texas is deploying National Guard members to the border with Mexico following a call from President Donald Trump.
A Guard spokesman said 250 personnel would be sent to patrol the area within the next 72 hours.
Arizona is also planning to deploy 150 troops there next week.
President Trump says he wants to send up to 4,000 National Guard members to secure the border with Mexico, until his proposed border wall is built.
The states of New Mexico and California have been asked to take similar action to Texas and Arizona.
Media captionTrump: 'We will be guarding our wall with military'
Also on Friday, the US president outlined plans to end a practice dubbed "catch and release" as part of his stricter anti-immigration policies.
Mr Trump wants illegal immigrants to be held in detention while they wait to hear if they will be deported, instead of being freed.
He has asked the US Department of Defense for a detailed list of military and other facilities that could perform that function.
Trump sets targets on immigration cases
US may tie social media to visas
Mr Trump has sent several tweets over the past seven days railing against illegal immigration, and accusing Democrats of allowing "open borders, drugs and crime".
He declared on Twitter that Republicans should "go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws [on illegal migrants] NOW".
Mr Trump also threatened Mexico, saying the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) was at risk unless it stopped the movement of migrants over the border.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Mexico is doing very little, if not NOTHING, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their Southern Border, and then into the U.S. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL!
12:25 AM - Apr 2, 2018
End of Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto has condemned what he called "threatening or disrespectful attitudes" from Mr Trump.
Trump: 'Mexicans are professional mountain climbers'
Is sending troops a first?
The president has called sending troops to the Mexico border a "big step", but both his predecessors also dispatched the National Guard there.
President Barack Obama sent some 1,200 soldiers to guard the boundary, while President George W Bush deployed about 6,000 troops to help Border Patrol in what was called Operation Jump Start.
Both deployments lasted for around a year.
US Defence Secretary James Mattis has approved funding for up to 4,000 National Guard troops from the Pentagon budget until the end of September, the Associated Press reports.
When is Trump going to build his wall?
Constructing a "big, beautiful wall" along the Mexican border was a signature Trump campaign promise, but so far the plan to erect a new physical barrier has been thwarted by lawmakers and appears to have stalled.
A major government spending bill which he signed last month included $1.6bn (£1.1bn) for the border wall - far short of the $25bn the White House sought.
And there were strings attached to the funding Congress did approve. Most of it can only be used to repair stretches of the border where there already is a wall, not to build new segments.
Trump denies changing view on Mexico wall
Six things that could topple Trump's wall
Trump vents anger at child immigrant programme
Last month the Pentagon confirmed Mr Trump had held "initial" talks with his defence secretary about using some of the Pentagon's budget to build a wall.
Skip Twitter post 2 by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!
8:33 PM - Mar 25, 2018
But two Democratic senators wrote to the defence secretary on Monday saying his department had "no legal authority" to use its funds for such a purpose.
"Such a controversial move could only be funded by cutting other vital priorities for our service members," wrote Senators Dick Durbin and Jack Reed.
In December, US Border Patrol announced arrests at the southern border had fallen to their lowest level since 1971, apparently indicating that fewer people were attempting the crossing.
Russian spy: Embassy requests meeting with Boris Johnson - BBC News
April 7, 2018
Russian spy: Embassy requests meeting with Boris Johnson
The Russian Embassy in London has requested a meeting between its ambassador and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson over the Salisbury poisoning.
An embassy spokesperson said it was "high time" for a meeting to discuss the investigation, as well as a "whole range of bilateral issues".
Current interaction between the Russian Embassy and the foreign office was "utterly unsatisfactory", they said.
The Foreign Office confirmed it had received the request.
Sergei and Yulia Skripal were poisoned with a toxic nerve agent called Novichok in Salisbury more than a month ago.
The UK government claims Russia is behind the attack but Moscow has denied all involvement.
Ex-spy 'improving rapidly' after poisoning
Russian spy: What we know so far
Yulia Skripal 'getting stronger daily'
In a statement sent to the BBC an embassy spokesman said: "We believe that it is high time to arrange a meeting between Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson."
It added that the ambassador had already sent a note to the foreign secretary, and it hoped "the British side will engage constructively and that such meeting is arranged shortly".
The Foreign Office said it would respond in due course.
Image caption
Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, remain in hospital
The request follows criticism from the Russian Embassy after the British government's refusal to grant a visa to Ms Skripal's cousin, Viktoria Skripal, to visit the UK.
On Friday the Home Office said the application did not comply with immigration rules.
But the Russian Embassy said Sergei and Yulia "remain hidden from the public".
"The stubborn refusal to cooperate, to provide transparency and to answer the numerous questions means Britain has something to hide," an embassy spokesman said.
Viktoria Skripal later told the BBC she did not have enough money in her bank account to satisfy the visa requirements.
Skripal phone call: 'I have no doubt it was Yulia'
Sergei Skripal: Who is the former Russian colonel?
Mr Skripal was jailed by Russia for spying for Britain's intelligence service, but released as part of a spy swap between the US and Russia in 2010.
His daughter Yulia was visiting him in the UK when the attack happened on 4 March.
Salisbury District Hospital has said Mr Skripal, is responding well to treatment and "improving rapidly".
His daughter Yulia is conscious and talking in hospital.
A diplomatic crisis between Russia and the West has followed, with more than 20 countries expelling Russian envoys in solidarity with the UK.
Russian spy: Embassy requests meeting with Boris Johnson
The Russian Embassy in London has requested a meeting between its ambassador and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson over the Salisbury poisoning.
An embassy spokesperson said it was "high time" for a meeting to discuss the investigation, as well as a "whole range of bilateral issues".
Current interaction between the Russian Embassy and the foreign office was "utterly unsatisfactory", they said.
The Foreign Office confirmed it had received the request.
Sergei and Yulia Skripal were poisoned with a toxic nerve agent called Novichok in Salisbury more than a month ago.
The UK government claims Russia is behind the attack but Moscow has denied all involvement.
Ex-spy 'improving rapidly' after poisoning
Russian spy: What we know so far
Yulia Skripal 'getting stronger daily'
In a statement sent to the BBC an embassy spokesman said: "We believe that it is high time to arrange a meeting between Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson."
It added that the ambassador had already sent a note to the foreign secretary, and it hoped "the British side will engage constructively and that such meeting is arranged shortly".
The Foreign Office said it would respond in due course.
Image caption
Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, remain in hospital
The request follows criticism from the Russian Embassy after the British government's refusal to grant a visa to Ms Skripal's cousin, Viktoria Skripal, to visit the UK.
On Friday the Home Office said the application did not comply with immigration rules.
But the Russian Embassy said Sergei and Yulia "remain hidden from the public".
"The stubborn refusal to cooperate, to provide transparency and to answer the numerous questions means Britain has something to hide," an embassy spokesman said.
Viktoria Skripal later told the BBC she did not have enough money in her bank account to satisfy the visa requirements.
Skripal phone call: 'I have no doubt it was Yulia'
Sergei Skripal: Who is the former Russian colonel?
Mr Skripal was jailed by Russia for spying for Britain's intelligence service, but released as part of a spy swap between the US and Russia in 2010.
His daughter Yulia was visiting him in the UK when the attack happened on 4 March.
Salisbury District Hospital has said Mr Skripal, is responding well to treatment and "improving rapidly".
His daughter Yulia is conscious and talking in hospital.
A diplomatic crisis between Russia and the West has followed, with more than 20 countries expelling Russian envoys in solidarity with the UK.
Facebook suspends AIQ data firm used by Vote Leave in Brexit campaign - BBC News
April 7, 2018
Facebook suspends AIQ data firm used by Vote Leave in Brexit campaign
The British Columbia-based company denies ever being part of Cambridge Analytica or its parent company SCL
Facebook has suspended a Canadian data firm that played a key role in the campaign for the UK to leave the EU.
The social media giant cites reported links with Cambridge Analytica (CA), the consultancy accused of improperly accessing the data of millions.
Facebook says it is suspending AggregateIQ (AIQ) because it may have improperly received users' data.
AIQ denies ever being part of CA, its parent company, SCL, or accessing improperly obtained Facebook data.
The Vote Leave campaign paid AIQ £2.7m ($3.8m) ahead of the 2016 EU referendum.
An ex-volunteer with the campaign has also claimed Vote Leave donated £625,000 to another group to get around campaign spending limits, with most of the money going to AIQ. Vote Leave has denied any wrongdoing.
AIQ's website once quoted Vote Leave chief Dominic Cummings saying: "Without a doubt, the Vote Leave campaign owes a great deal of its success to the work of AggregateIQ. We couldn't have done it without them." The quote has since been removed.
In total, AIQ was given £3.5m by groups campaigning for Brexit, including Vote Leave, the Democratic Unionist Party and Veterans for Britain. The UK's Electoral Commission reopened an investigation into Vote Leave's campaign spending in November.
Zuckerberg: I'm still the man to run Facebook
Facebook scandal 'hit 87 million users'
Can targeted online ads really change a voter's behaviour?
"In light of recent reports that AggregateIQ may be affiliated with SCL and may, as a result, have improperly received FB user data, we have added them to the list of entities we have suspended from our platform while we investigate," a Facebook spokesperson said.
"Our internal review continues, and we will co-operate fully with any investigations by regulatory authorities."
In a message posted to its website, AIQ says it is "100% Canadian owned and operated" and "has never been and is not a part of Cambridge Analytica or SCL".
It adds: "Aggregate IQ has never managed, nor did we ever have access to, any Facebook data or database allegedly obtained improperly by Cambridge Analytica."
Media captionHow the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal unfolded
It also denied ever employing Chris Wylie, the Canadian whistleblower who alleged that the data of 50m people was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. Facebook has since said the number of people affected could be closer to 87m. CA says it obtained the data of no more than 30m people and has deleted all of it.
Spotlight on Brexit campaign
Analysis by technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones
It was three weeks ago that Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica just hours before a whistleblower's revelations to the Observer newspaper triggered the current scandal over improper use of data.
Christopher Wylie insisted that Aggregate IQ was closely linked to Cambridge Analytica, and supplied documents to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee which he said proved it.
Now Facebook's decision to suspend the Canadian firm from its platform appears to give further validation to Mr Wylie's claims. It also throws the spotlight back onto the potential use of Facebook data during the Brexit campaign.
Facebook says it is looking into whether the data that Cambridge Analytica acquired improperly from as many as 87 million people - 1 million of them in the UK - ended up with Aggregate IQ. The firm worked for both Vote Leave and BeLeave during the EU referendum campaign, but has always insisted it has never been a part of Cambridge Analytica, and has not had access to any of its Facebook data.
AIQ is a small company operating out of Victoria, British Columbia. It uses data to help micro-target voters and was founded by two Canadian political staffers.
Apart from its Brexit work the company has also been accused by Mr Wylie of distributing "incredibly anti-Islamic" content on social media ahead of the 2015 Nigerian presidential election to discredit Muslim opposition candidate Muhammadu Buhari, who went on to win the contest.
The BBC has approached AIQ for a response to the Nigeria allegations.
Mr Wylie has said that AIQ was referred to among Cambridge Analytica staff as "our Canadian office". He told the Guardian he helped to set up the firm as a "Canadian entity for people who wanted to work on SCL projects who didn't want to move to London" and that he had known the firm's co-founder, Jeff Silvester, since he was 16.
AIQ says it "has never entered into a contract with Cambridge Analytica" and that "Chris Wylie has never been employed by AggregateIQ".
Cambridge Analytica is at the centre of a row over whether it used the personal data of millions of Facebook users to sway the outcome of the US 2016 presidential election and the UK Brexit referendum.
Facebook suspends AIQ data firm used by Vote Leave in Brexit campaign
The British Columbia-based company denies ever being part of Cambridge Analytica or its parent company SCL
Facebook has suspended a Canadian data firm that played a key role in the campaign for the UK to leave the EU.
The social media giant cites reported links with Cambridge Analytica (CA), the consultancy accused of improperly accessing the data of millions.
Facebook says it is suspending AggregateIQ (AIQ) because it may have improperly received users' data.
AIQ denies ever being part of CA, its parent company, SCL, or accessing improperly obtained Facebook data.
The Vote Leave campaign paid AIQ £2.7m ($3.8m) ahead of the 2016 EU referendum.
An ex-volunteer with the campaign has also claimed Vote Leave donated £625,000 to another group to get around campaign spending limits, with most of the money going to AIQ. Vote Leave has denied any wrongdoing.
AIQ's website once quoted Vote Leave chief Dominic Cummings saying: "Without a doubt, the Vote Leave campaign owes a great deal of its success to the work of AggregateIQ. We couldn't have done it without them." The quote has since been removed.
In total, AIQ was given £3.5m by groups campaigning for Brexit, including Vote Leave, the Democratic Unionist Party and Veterans for Britain. The UK's Electoral Commission reopened an investigation into Vote Leave's campaign spending in November.
Zuckerberg: I'm still the man to run Facebook
Facebook scandal 'hit 87 million users'
Can targeted online ads really change a voter's behaviour?
"In light of recent reports that AggregateIQ may be affiliated with SCL and may, as a result, have improperly received FB user data, we have added them to the list of entities we have suspended from our platform while we investigate," a Facebook spokesperson said.
"Our internal review continues, and we will co-operate fully with any investigations by regulatory authorities."
In a message posted to its website, AIQ says it is "100% Canadian owned and operated" and "has never been and is not a part of Cambridge Analytica or SCL".
It adds: "Aggregate IQ has never managed, nor did we ever have access to, any Facebook data or database allegedly obtained improperly by Cambridge Analytica."
Media captionHow the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal unfolded
It also denied ever employing Chris Wylie, the Canadian whistleblower who alleged that the data of 50m people was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. Facebook has since said the number of people affected could be closer to 87m. CA says it obtained the data of no more than 30m people and has deleted all of it.
Spotlight on Brexit campaign
Analysis by technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones
It was three weeks ago that Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica just hours before a whistleblower's revelations to the Observer newspaper triggered the current scandal over improper use of data.
Christopher Wylie insisted that Aggregate IQ was closely linked to Cambridge Analytica, and supplied documents to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee which he said proved it.
Now Facebook's decision to suspend the Canadian firm from its platform appears to give further validation to Mr Wylie's claims. It also throws the spotlight back onto the potential use of Facebook data during the Brexit campaign.
Facebook says it is looking into whether the data that Cambridge Analytica acquired improperly from as many as 87 million people - 1 million of them in the UK - ended up with Aggregate IQ. The firm worked for both Vote Leave and BeLeave during the EU referendum campaign, but has always insisted it has never been a part of Cambridge Analytica, and has not had access to any of its Facebook data.
AIQ is a small company operating out of Victoria, British Columbia. It uses data to help micro-target voters and was founded by two Canadian political staffers.
Apart from its Brexit work the company has also been accused by Mr Wylie of distributing "incredibly anti-Islamic" content on social media ahead of the 2015 Nigerian presidential election to discredit Muslim opposition candidate Muhammadu Buhari, who went on to win the contest.
The BBC has approached AIQ for a response to the Nigeria allegations.
Mr Wylie has said that AIQ was referred to among Cambridge Analytica staff as "our Canadian office". He told the Guardian he helped to set up the firm as a "Canadian entity for people who wanted to work on SCL projects who didn't want to move to London" and that he had known the firm's co-founder, Jeff Silvester, since he was 16.
AIQ says it "has never entered into a contract with Cambridge Analytica" and that "Chris Wylie has never been employed by AggregateIQ".
Cambridge Analytica is at the centre of a row over whether it used the personal data of millions of Facebook users to sway the outcome of the US 2016 presidential election and the UK Brexit referendum.
Friday, April 6, 2018
Trump imposes major sanctions on Russian oligarchs, officials, companies - NBC News
Trump imposes major sanctions on Russian oligarchs, officials, companies
The move marks one of the administration's most aggressive actions against Russia.
by Vivian Salama / Apr.06.2018 / 10:56 PM ET / Updated 11:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration took one of its most aggressive actions against Russia on Friday, announcing sweeping sanctions on oligarchs, top officials and several businesses, including a bank and a state-owned weapons trading company.
Senior administration officials said that the sanctions are not aimed to punish Moscow for any particular event, but are instead a broader measure aimed at the "totality of the Russian government's ongoing and increasingly malign activities in the world."
The Treasury Department, in connection with the Department of State, targeted seven Russian oligarchs and 12 companies they own or control. It also issued sanctions on 17 senior government officials, along with a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank.
As a result of the Trump administration's action, the Russian assets are blocked, and U.S. entities are blocked from dealing with them.
"The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites," Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said in a statement.
Mnuchin cited a number of Russian activities around the world as support for Friday's U.S. action, including Moscow's ongoing occupation of Crimea and violence in eastern Ukraine, support of Syrian President Bashar Assad's attacks against Syrian civilians, Russia's "ongoing cyber activities" and efforts to "interfere in the democratic processes of the United States and its allies."
"Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities," Mnuchin said.
To date, the Trump administration has issued Russia-related sanctions against 136 individuals and entities.
A senior administration official who briefed reporters on the sanctions said that they had been carefully coordinated with American allies, particularly in Europe.
Tensions between the U.S. and Russia have soared in recent days after the United States and the European Union announced the expulsion of dozens of Russian diplomats in response to the poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil, allegedly orchestrated by the Kremlin.
The U.S. expelled 60 Russian diplomats, identified by officials as intelligence officers, and closed Russia's Seattle consulate. In response, Russia expelled 60 American diplomats and closed the U.S. consulate in St. Petersburg.
The senior administration official, who requested anonymity, said Friday's action is not a direct response to the expulsion of U.S. diplomats or the attack in the United Kingdom.
The move marks one of the administration's most aggressive actions against Russia.
by Vivian Salama / Apr.06.2018 / 10:56 PM ET / Updated 11:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration took one of its most aggressive actions against Russia on Friday, announcing sweeping sanctions on oligarchs, top officials and several businesses, including a bank and a state-owned weapons trading company.
Senior administration officials said that the sanctions are not aimed to punish Moscow for any particular event, but are instead a broader measure aimed at the "totality of the Russian government's ongoing and increasingly malign activities in the world."
The Treasury Department, in connection with the Department of State, targeted seven Russian oligarchs and 12 companies they own or control. It also issued sanctions on 17 senior government officials, along with a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank.
As a result of the Trump administration's action, the Russian assets are blocked, and U.S. entities are blocked from dealing with them.
"The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites," Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said in a statement.
Mnuchin cited a number of Russian activities around the world as support for Friday's U.S. action, including Moscow's ongoing occupation of Crimea and violence in eastern Ukraine, support of Syrian President Bashar Assad's attacks against Syrian civilians, Russia's "ongoing cyber activities" and efforts to "interfere in the democratic processes of the United States and its allies."
"Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities," Mnuchin said.
To date, the Trump administration has issued Russia-related sanctions against 136 individuals and entities.
A senior administration official who briefed reporters on the sanctions said that they had been carefully coordinated with American allies, particularly in Europe.
Tensions between the U.S. and Russia have soared in recent days after the United States and the European Union announced the expulsion of dozens of Russian diplomats in response to the poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil, allegedly orchestrated by the Kremlin.
The U.S. expelled 60 Russian diplomats, identified by officials as intelligence officers, and closed Russia's Seattle consulate. In response, Russia expelled 60 American diplomats and closed the U.S. consulate in St. Petersburg.
The senior administration official, who requested anonymity, said Friday's action is not a direct response to the expulsion of U.S. diplomats or the attack in the United Kingdom.
Why More Animals Died on United Airlines Than Any Other Airline in 2017 - TIME Business
Why More Animals Died on United Airlines Than Any Other Airline in 2017
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 08:54 PM PDT
More animals died on United Airlines in 2017 than any other airline, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s February 2018 Air Travel Consumer Report, which details everything from flight delays and mishandled baggage to disability and discrimination complaints. There were four airlines with reported deaths, and on United Airlines there were 12 more animal deaths than the three others combined.
The numbers in this report reflect last year’s animal fatalities, injuries, and losses — and it doesn’t just pertain to dogs, but any animal flown, including cats and birds. The animals were either pets owned by U.S. families or animals being shipped on commercial flights (i.e. from a breeder). Here’s a look at the numbers:
Totals:
Total number of animals flown last year according to the DOT: 506,994
Total number of animal incidents (loss, injury, death): 40
Total number of animal deaths: 24
Total number of animal injuries: 15
Total number of animal losses: 1
United Airlines:
Total number of animals flown by United Airlines last year according to the DOT: 138,178
Total number of animal incidents on United (loss, injury, death): 31
Total number of animal deaths on United: 18
Total number of animal injuries on United: 13
Total number of animal losses on United: 0
American Airlines:
Total number of animals flown by American Airlines last year according to the DOT: 34,628
Total number of animal incidents (loss, injury, death) on American: 3
Total number of animal deaths on American: 2
Total number of animal injuries on American: 1
Total number of animal losses on American: 0
Delta Air Lines:
Total number of animals flown by Delta Air Lines last year according to the DOT: 57,479
Total number of animal incidents (loss, injury, death) on Delta: 3
Total number of animal deaths on Delta: 2
Total number of animal injuries on Delta: 1
Total number of animal losses on Delta: 0
Alaska Airlines:
Total number of animals flown by Alaska Airlines last year according to the DOT: 114,974
Total number of animal incidents (loss, injury, death) on Alaska: 3
Total number of animal deaths on Alaska: 2
Total number of animal injuries on Alaska: 0
Total number of animal losses on Alaska: 1
Why are United Airlines’ totals higher than the three other airlines with pet-related-issues?
By the numbers, United flew more animals in 2017 than any other airline: 23,204 more than the next highest total number of pets flown (Alaska Airlines). And according to United Airlines spokesman Charles Hobart, the airline flies risky breeds that others, including Alaska, American, and Delta, won’t allow onboard. (Some airlines won’t fly pets in cargo at all, according to the DOT report, including Spirit, Virgin American, Southwest Airlines and JetBlue Airlines.)
“But you’ll notice that some of those animals — in fact a lot of them that died last year — were what is called brachycephalic breeds,” Hobart told TIME. “These are dogs that essentially have a very short nose — short muzzles. Most other carriers don’t fly those breeds.” Dog breeds that are brachycephalic, include Pugs, Boxers, Boston Terrier, Shih Tzu, and Pekingese. Some cats are also considered brachycephalic, including Persian, Burmese and Exotic Shorthairs.
These animals have a tougher time flying due to “smaller openings to their noses and elongated soft palates on the roofs of their mouths, which make breathing more difficult for them, veterinarians said,” according to a 2011 New York Times piece that detailed why these types of pets were being banned from airlines. Extreme heat and travel can also make it harder for these snub-nosed animals to breath.
Hobart contends that often United Airlines is the only option for these owners to fly with their pets, and he cited that roughly 3,000 military families used United Airlines’ PetSafe program for flying their pets in the cargo hold in 2017.
A detailed incident report of United Airlines’ pet deaths and injuries in 2017 (which the DOT report links to) shows that a slight majority of the dogs that died on a United flight were in fact brachycephalic breeds; there were also several other dogs, three felines, along with one bird and two geckos that died.
An in-depth analysis from the Washington Post found that from 2015 to 2017, 40% of dog deaths on United Airlines were high-risk breeds. Of the 85 pet deaths from 2015 to 2017, 41 were on United Airlines: 16 were high-risk breeds, 16 were other breeds, 5 were cats and the rest were other animals.
Still, there’s room for improvement.
The Humane Society of the United States’ acting President and CEO Kitty Block thinks that United Airlines needs to do a better job of handling those high-risk breeds.
“The fact is that while there is some risk with traveling with a brachycephalic breed on a plane, traveling with them in the cabin can be done safely if the right measures are taken by both the owner and the airline,” Block told the Post. “And that is what we’re asking for — that airlines take steps to reduce the risk of flying with pets, regardless of breed, as much as possible.”
Hobart, too, said that safely carrying pets is a priority for the airline, stating that United suspended its PetSafe program (with exceptions for military families, and those who made reservations prior to March 20) to do a “top to bottom review” of the policies by May 1. Certain pets will still be able to fly in the cabin.
“If you take away the brachycephalic breeds, if you take away the animals with preexisting conditions, that number would be incredibly low, and I would also state that when you look at the total number of animals flown, 140,000 [note: it’s 138,178], it’s still an astronomically low number of animals that suffer some sort of incident,” Hobart said of the report. “However, it’s high enough to concern us, suspend the service, and find ways to do it better. And it’s certainly a concern for our customers, and that’s who we’re looking out for when we do this.”
There is a debate over wether brachycephalic breeds should even be allowed to fly in cargo at all, the Times noted back in 2011. Between June 2005 and June 2011, 189 animals died in flight, and 98 of those were brachycephalic, according to the Times, which led to some airline bans. (The Times also notes that if dog owners want to fly these breeds, they can opt to use a pet airline like Pet Airways, which does charter flights and can cost a pretty penny.)
The Humane Society expressly says on its website not to ship brachycephalic animals in cargo.
Some airlines let certain pets fly in the cabin area, which the Humane Society recommends (but is lobbying against pets being held in an overhead bin). “Most airlines will allow you to take a cat or small dog in the cabin for an additional fee,” the organization explains on its website. “But you must call the airline well in advance; there are limits to the number of animals allowed in the cabin. If you are transporting a dog, make sure they meet the size requirements.” Airlines may charge a fee for bringing a pet into the cabin.
Mark Zuckerberg Says He’s Still the Best Person to Run Facebook, Despite Its ‘Huge Mistake’ With the Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal - TIME
Mark Zuckerberg Says He’s Still the Best Person to Run Facebook, Despite Its ‘Huge Mistake’ With the Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 03:49 PM PDT
On the same day that Facebook announced that 87 million users may have had their personal data improperly accessed — updated from the “tens of millions” figure the social network previously reported — the company’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg held a rare question-and-answer session with the media Wednesday, admitting that the company made a “huge mistake” by not taking more steps to protect user data and privacy early on.
When asked if he thinks he is still the best person to run Facebook, Zuckerberg said, “Yes, I think life is about learning from the mistakes and figuring out what you need to do to move forward.”
Questions about Zuckerberg’s leadership come after it’s been revealed that Cambridge Analytica might have improperly obtained data from as many as 87 million people, mostly in the United States. The firm had ties to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
“At the end of the day, this is my responsibility,” Zuckerberg said, when asked if anyone at Facebook had been fired over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. “I still think that I’m going to do the best job running it going forward, but I’m not going to throw anyone else under the bus over the mistakes that we’ve made here.”
During Wednesday’s call with reporters, Zuckerberg said Facebook did not initially take a “broad enough view” of what the company’s responsibility was when it came to protecting user data. “That was a huge mistake,” he said. “It was my mistake.”
When asked if Facebook’s board had discussed whether he should step down, Zuckerberg said, “not that I’m aware of.” Zuckerberg is the board’s chairman.
Next week, Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify before Congress about Facebook’s “use and protection of user data.”
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 03:49 PM PDT
On the same day that Facebook announced that 87 million users may have had their personal data improperly accessed — updated from the “tens of millions” figure the social network previously reported — the company’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg held a rare question-and-answer session with the media Wednesday, admitting that the company made a “huge mistake” by not taking more steps to protect user data and privacy early on.
When asked if he thinks he is still the best person to run Facebook, Zuckerberg said, “Yes, I think life is about learning from the mistakes and figuring out what you need to do to move forward.”
Questions about Zuckerberg’s leadership come after it’s been revealed that Cambridge Analytica might have improperly obtained data from as many as 87 million people, mostly in the United States. The firm had ties to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
“At the end of the day, this is my responsibility,” Zuckerberg said, when asked if anyone at Facebook had been fired over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. “I still think that I’m going to do the best job running it going forward, but I’m not going to throw anyone else under the bus over the mistakes that we’ve made here.”
During Wednesday’s call with reporters, Zuckerberg said Facebook did not initially take a “broad enough view” of what the company’s responsibility was when it came to protecting user data. “That was a huge mistake,” he said. “It was my mistake.”
When asked if Facebook’s board had discussed whether he should step down, Zuckerberg said, “not that I’m aware of.” Zuckerberg is the board’s chairman.
Next week, Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify before Congress about Facebook’s “use and protection of user data.”
Facebook Just Doubled the Number of People Exposed in Data Breach - TIME
Facebook Just Doubled the Number of People Exposed in Data Breach
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 12:28 PM PDT
Facebook Inc. said that data on as many as 87 million people, most of them in the U.S., may have been improperly shared with research firm Cambridge Analytica.
This is Facebook’s first official confirmation of the possible scope of the data leak, which was previously estimated at roughly 50 million in news reports. About 270,000 people downloaded a personality quiz app and shared information about themselves and their friends with a researcher, who then passed along the information to Cambridge Analytica, in a move that Facebook says was against its rules.
Facebook reached the 87 million figure by adding up all the unique people that those 270,000 users were friends with at the time they gave the app permission. Facebook made the new disclosure in an online posting Wednesday.
Facebook says it will tell people, in a notice at the top of their news feeds starting April 9, if their information may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. But it still hasn’t independently confirmed if the firm currently has the data. The revelation hints at the grilling Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg will likely have to face when he testifies on the matter before Congress next week: How many other Cambridge Analytica-scale leaks of data are out there?
The company has been embroiled in controversy for weeks over the revelation that data was shared and then not deleted. It raised questions over the reams of data Facebook compiles on users, makes available to third parties, and what happens to it afterward. Facebook made the announcement along with an update on its plans to restrict data access through its platform.
One of the most dramatic updates on Wednesday was the removal of a tool that let users enter phone numbers or email addresses into Facebook’s search tool to find other people. That was being used by malicious actors to scrape public profile information, Facebook said.
“Given the scale and sophistication of the activity we’ve seen, we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way,” the company said. “So we have now disabled this feature.”
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 12:28 PM PDT
Facebook Inc. said that data on as many as 87 million people, most of them in the U.S., may have been improperly shared with research firm Cambridge Analytica.
This is Facebook’s first official confirmation of the possible scope of the data leak, which was previously estimated at roughly 50 million in news reports. About 270,000 people downloaded a personality quiz app and shared information about themselves and their friends with a researcher, who then passed along the information to Cambridge Analytica, in a move that Facebook says was against its rules.
Facebook reached the 87 million figure by adding up all the unique people that those 270,000 users were friends with at the time they gave the app permission. Facebook made the new disclosure in an online posting Wednesday.
Facebook says it will tell people, in a notice at the top of their news feeds starting April 9, if their information may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. But it still hasn’t independently confirmed if the firm currently has the data. The revelation hints at the grilling Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg will likely have to face when he testifies on the matter before Congress next week: How many other Cambridge Analytica-scale leaks of data are out there?
The company has been embroiled in controversy for weeks over the revelation that data was shared and then not deleted. It raised questions over the reams of data Facebook compiles on users, makes available to third parties, and what happens to it afterward. Facebook made the announcement along with an update on its plans to restrict data access through its platform.
One of the most dramatic updates on Wednesday was the removal of a tool that let users enter phone numbers or email addresses into Facebook’s search tool to find other people. That was being used by malicious actors to scrape public profile information, Facebook said.
“Given the scale and sophistication of the activity we’ve seen, we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way,” the company said. “So we have now disabled this feature.”
Facebook Just Confirmed That It Reviews Your Private Messages - TIME
Facebook Just Confirmed That It Reviews Your Private Messages
Posted: 04 Apr 2018 11:16 AM PDT
Facebook Inc. scans the links and images that people send each other on Facebook Messenger, and reads chats when they’re flagged to moderators, making sure the content abides by the company’s rules. If it doesn’t, it gets blocked or taken down.
The company confirmed the practice after an interview published earlier this week with Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg raised questions about Messenger’s practices and privacy. Zuckerberg told Vox’s Ezra Klein a story about receiving a phone call related to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. Facebook had detected people trying to send sensational messages through the Messenger app, he said.
“In that case, our systems detect what’s going on,” Zuckerberg said. “We stop those messages from going through.”
Some people reacted with concern on Twitter: Was Facebook reading messages more generally? Facebook has been under scrutiny in recent weeks over how it handles users’ private data and the revelation struck a nerve. Messenger doesn’t use the data from the scanned messages for advertising, the company said, but the policy may extend beyond what Messenger users expect.
The company told Bloomberg that while Messenger conversations are private, Facebook scans them and uses the same tools to prevent abuse there that it does on the social network more generally. All content must abide by the same “community standards.” People can report posts or messages for violating those standards, which would prompt a review by the company’s “community operations” team. Automated tools can also do the work.
“For example, on Messenger, when you send a photo, our automated systems scan it using photo matching technology to detect known child exploitation imagery or when you send a link, we scan it for malware or viruses,” a Facebook Messenger spokeswoman said in a statement. “Facebook designed these automated tools so we can rapidly stop abusive behavior on our platform.”
Messenger used to be part of Facebook’s main service, before it was spun off into a separate application in 2014. Facebook’s other major chat app, WhatsApp, encrypts both ends of its users’ communications, so that not even WhatsApp can see it — a fact that’s made it more secure for users, and more difficult for lawmakers wanting information in investigations. Messenger also has an encrypted option, but users have to turn it on.
The company updated its data policy and proposed new terms of service on Wednesday to clarify that Messenger and Instagram use the same rules as Facebook. “We better explain how we combat abuse and investigate suspicious activity, including by analyzing the content people share,” Facebook said in a blog post.
Facebook is on the defensive after revelations that private information from about 50 million users wound up in the hands of political ad-data firm Cambridge Analytica without their consent. Zuckerberg has agreed to testify before the House next week and is holding a conference call on Wednesday afternoon to discuss changes to Facebook privacy policies. (Follow the call on the TOPLive blog.)
The company is working to make its privacy policies clearer, but still ends up with gaps between what it says users have agreed to, and what users think they actually agreed to.
The Messenger scanning systems “are very similar to those that other internet companies use today,” the company said.
Planned Parenthood president claims she felt bribed by Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner - CNN politics
Planned Parenthood president claims she felt bribed by Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner
By Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN
Updated 1806 GMT (0206 HKT) April 4, 2018
What does Planned Parenthood do?
What does Planned Parenthood do? 01:36
Washington (CNN)Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards accused Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner of making an offer that felt like a "bribe" during a meeting back in January 2017.
Richards, who is planning on stepping down as president in 2018, reveals in her new book that the President's daughter and son-in-law offered her an increase in federal funding for Planned Parenthood in exchange for its agreement to stop providing abortion services, according to People magazine.
"Jared and Ivanka were there for one reason: to deliver a political win," Richards writes in "Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out, and Finding the Courage to Lead," which was released Tuesday, People reported. "In their eyes, if they could stop Planned Parenthood from providing abortions, it would confirm their reputation as savvy dealmakers. It was surreal, essentially being asked to barter away women's rights for more money."
Sponsor Content
Highlights from Mobile World Congress, Day 1
Game-changing UK startups making a tech splash in cyber security and organic electronics.
Content provided by the UK’s Department for International Trade
First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to target 8 states, spend $20 million as part of midterm battle plan
First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to target 8 states, spend $20 million as part of midterm battle plan
According to People, Richards recalled, "The main issue, (Kushner) explained, was abortion. If Planned Parenthood wanted to keep our federal funding, we would have to stop providing abortions."
A message left with the White House by CNN Wednesday was not immediately returned. In April 2017, when the meeting was first reported, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood told CNN the sit-down was "cordial and informative."
"The purpose of the meeting, from Planned Parenthood's perspective, was to make sure that Ivanka Trump fully understood the important role Planned Parenthood plays in providing health care to millions of people and why it would be a disastrous idea to block people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood," the spokeswoman said at the time.
Richards writes in her book that after her meeting with Trump and Kushner, she told the organization's executive vice president Dawn Laguens that the deal "felt almost like a bribe," People reported.
The Planned Parenthood leader, who was a Hillary Clinton supporter in the 2016 election, wrote that she met with Trump and Kushner because "even if there was only a sliver of a chance of changing anyone's mind, I owed it to Planned Parenthood patients to at least take the meeting," according to People.
Richards told CNN's Erin Burnett in an interview Tuesday that she thinks Ivanka Trump isn't being a champion for women in her role as senior adviser to her father, the President.
"If her job is to advocate for women, I don't think she's done a very good job," Richards said. "And particularly when it comes to women's rights, we need a strong advocate in this White House."
The bulk of federal money Planned Parenthood receives goes toward preventive health care, birth control, pregnancy tests and other women's health services. Federal law prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.
But President Donald Trump signed a bill in April 2017 that allowed states to withhold federal money from organizations that provide abortion services, including Planned Parenthood, which has been frequently targeted by Republicans.
Planned Parenthood claims to be the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States, offering sexual and reproductive health care, education and outreach to nearly 5 million women, men and adolescents annually worldwide. Planned Parenthood says abortions make up 3% of its provided services.
CNN's Betsy Klein contributed to this report.
By Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN
Updated 1806 GMT (0206 HKT) April 4, 2018
What does Planned Parenthood do?
What does Planned Parenthood do? 01:36
Washington (CNN)Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards accused Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner of making an offer that felt like a "bribe" during a meeting back in January 2017.
Richards, who is planning on stepping down as president in 2018, reveals in her new book that the President's daughter and son-in-law offered her an increase in federal funding for Planned Parenthood in exchange for its agreement to stop providing abortion services, according to People magazine.
"Jared and Ivanka were there for one reason: to deliver a political win," Richards writes in "Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out, and Finding the Courage to Lead," which was released Tuesday, People reported. "In their eyes, if they could stop Planned Parenthood from providing abortions, it would confirm their reputation as savvy dealmakers. It was surreal, essentially being asked to barter away women's rights for more money."
Sponsor Content
Highlights from Mobile World Congress, Day 1
Game-changing UK startups making a tech splash in cyber security and organic electronics.
Content provided by the UK’s Department for International Trade
First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to target 8 states, spend $20 million as part of midterm battle plan
First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to target 8 states, spend $20 million as part of midterm battle plan
According to People, Richards recalled, "The main issue, (Kushner) explained, was abortion. If Planned Parenthood wanted to keep our federal funding, we would have to stop providing abortions."
A message left with the White House by CNN Wednesday was not immediately returned. In April 2017, when the meeting was first reported, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood told CNN the sit-down was "cordial and informative."
"The purpose of the meeting, from Planned Parenthood's perspective, was to make sure that Ivanka Trump fully understood the important role Planned Parenthood plays in providing health care to millions of people and why it would be a disastrous idea to block people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood," the spokeswoman said at the time.
Richards writes in her book that after her meeting with Trump and Kushner, she told the organization's executive vice president Dawn Laguens that the deal "felt almost like a bribe," People reported.
The Planned Parenthood leader, who was a Hillary Clinton supporter in the 2016 election, wrote that she met with Trump and Kushner because "even if there was only a sliver of a chance of changing anyone's mind, I owed it to Planned Parenthood patients to at least take the meeting," according to People.
Richards told CNN's Erin Burnett in an interview Tuesday that she thinks Ivanka Trump isn't being a champion for women in her role as senior adviser to her father, the President.
"If her job is to advocate for women, I don't think she's done a very good job," Richards said. "And particularly when it comes to women's rights, we need a strong advocate in this White House."
The bulk of federal money Planned Parenthood receives goes toward preventive health care, birth control, pregnancy tests and other women's health services. Federal law prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.
But President Donald Trump signed a bill in April 2017 that allowed states to withhold federal money from organizations that provide abortion services, including Planned Parenthood, which has been frequently targeted by Republicans.
Planned Parenthood claims to be the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States, offering sexual and reproductive health care, education and outreach to nearly 5 million women, men and adolescents annually worldwide. Planned Parenthood says abortions make up 3% of its provided services.
CNN's Betsy Klein contributed to this report.
Lockheed Martin Is Building a Quieter Supersonic Jet - Fortune
Shh...A Quieter Supersonic Jet Is on Its Way
Lockheed Martin Is Building a Quieter Supersonic Jet
Thanks to NASA.
By ROBERT HACKETT April 5, 2018
We’re one step closer to faster, quieter flights.
NASA has awarded a nearly quarter-billion dollar contract to Lockheed Martin for the development of a supersonic jet plane that can break the sound barrier without causing an ear-splitting boom.
The contract, valued at $247.5 million, dictates that Lockheed’s Palmdale, Calif.-based Skunk Works division will build an experimental aircraft, known within the aeronautics industry as an X-plane, that produces sound only “as loud as a car door closing…instead of a sonic boom,” NASA said in a Tuesday news release. The specifications call for a plane that cruises as high as 55,000 feet and reaches a speed of about 940 miles per hour. (For reference, the speed of sound is about 767.3 miles per hour.)
NASA and Lockheed said the plane, a so-called low-boom flight demonstrator, will aim to provide regulators with useful data to inform their decision-making as they consider implementing new rules regarding supersonic flights. The United States’ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has banned supersonic flights over land by commercial and private aircraft since 1973.
Lockheed said in a Tuesday news release that the project “will help NASA establish an acceptable commercial supersonic noise standard to overturn current regulations.” The company is set to deliver a prototype of the jet for testing to NASA by the end of 2021.
NASA said in a Tuesday blog post that it plans to fly the aircraft over four to six yet-to-be-selected U.S. cities, collect data, and deliver findings to the FAA as well as the International Civil Aviation Organization, a standards-setting United Nations agency, by 2025.
The to-be-realized plane, whose designs build on an earlier 2016 contract between NASA and Lockheed, is intended to fit a single pilot in its cockpit.
Lockheed Martin Is Building a Quieter Supersonic Jet
Thanks to NASA.
By ROBERT HACKETT April 5, 2018
We’re one step closer to faster, quieter flights.
NASA has awarded a nearly quarter-billion dollar contract to Lockheed Martin for the development of a supersonic jet plane that can break the sound barrier without causing an ear-splitting boom.
The contract, valued at $247.5 million, dictates that Lockheed’s Palmdale, Calif.-based Skunk Works division will build an experimental aircraft, known within the aeronautics industry as an X-plane, that produces sound only “as loud as a car door closing…instead of a sonic boom,” NASA said in a Tuesday news release. The specifications call for a plane that cruises as high as 55,000 feet and reaches a speed of about 940 miles per hour. (For reference, the speed of sound is about 767.3 miles per hour.)
NASA and Lockheed said the plane, a so-called low-boom flight demonstrator, will aim to provide regulators with useful data to inform their decision-making as they consider implementing new rules regarding supersonic flights. The United States’ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has banned supersonic flights over land by commercial and private aircraft since 1973.
Lockheed said in a Tuesday news release that the project “will help NASA establish an acceptable commercial supersonic noise standard to overturn current regulations.” The company is set to deliver a prototype of the jet for testing to NASA by the end of 2021.
NASA said in a Tuesday blog post that it plans to fly the aircraft over four to six yet-to-be-selected U.S. cities, collect data, and deliver findings to the FAA as well as the International Civil Aviation Organization, a standards-setting United Nations agency, by 2025.
The to-be-realized plane, whose designs build on an earlier 2016 contract between NASA and Lockheed, is intended to fit a single pilot in its cockpit.
Perks Await Those Who Cooperate With Mueller's Russia Probe - Bloomberg - ( source : - Associated Press )
Perks Await Those Who Cooperate With Mueller's Russia Probe
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (ERIC TUCKER)
April 5, 2018, 2:58 PM GMT+10 Updated on April 6, 2018, 7:29 AM GMT+10
Why Mueller Is Seen as the Perfect Man for the Job
Washington (AP) -- George Papadopoulos, taken by surprise by FBI agents at an airport last summer, now tweets smiling beach selfies with a hashtag for the Greek resort island of Mykonos.
Rick Gates, for weeks on home confinement, gets rapid approval for a family vacation and shaves down his potential prison time.
Michael Flynn, once targeted in a grand jury investigation, travels cross-country to campaign for a California congressional candidate and books a New York speaking event.
It pays to cooperate with the government.
That's true in any criminal investigation. It's especially notable in a case as high profile as special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia inquiry, where deals for cooperators have raised speculation about incriminating information they're providing.
The perks of cooperation include freer travel, lenient punishment prospects and even public comments by defendants that might have been unthinkable months ago.
Compare that with the experiences of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who has refused to cooperate and faces decades in prison. And it sends the message that others could receive favorable treatment if they agree to work with investigators.
"There's no question that it's in the government's interest to take what steps they can to show that cooperating is in the interest of the defendant," said Daniel Petalas, a former federal prosecutor. "A basic principle of plea bargaining is that you have to make it worth it to the defendant to admit liability in a criminal matter."
The latest example came Tuesday when Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan was sentenced to 30 days in prison for lying to the FBI. Though his deal didn't explicitly require cooperation, the charge he pleaded guilty to carries a maximum five-year sentence and it's almost certain that he risked a longer punishment if convicted at trial. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said some incarceration was necessary to deter others from lying to investigators.
Defendants who admit guilt are stained with criminal convictions, may forfeit liberties including the right to vote and put their jobs and reputation at risk. And they can still wind up with tough sentences.
Given that uncertainty and stress, it's common for prosecutors looking to induce cooperation to make concessions, such as dismissing charges or agreeing to recommend a lighter sentence, especially for someone they think can help them build a case against a higher-value target.
"There is a societal interest, frankly, in having people cooperate with prosecutors because often the government only can know what's happened based on documentary evidence and witnesses that it speaks with," said Sharon McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in New York. "But insiders who can give insight into conversations and planning and things like that are crucial to being able to make cases."
There's nothing new about cutting deals, including for violent mobsters, but the tactics have drawn renewed scrutiny especially in conservative legal circles.
Former Manhattan federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote last month in the National Review that Mueller was shirking Justice Department protocols by offering Gates, Manafort's co-defendant and a onetime Trump campaign aide, a "penny-ante plea" instead of requiring him to plead to the most serious charges he faced.
Gates was initially charged in October in a 12-count indictment and faced well over a decade in prison. He pleaded guilty in February to just two charges. Under sentencing guidelines, he now faces fewer than six years or less, depending on the extent of his cooperation.
He spent weeks on home confinement as a potential flight risk, repeatedly requesting, and generally receiving, permission to attend children's sporting games and holiday events in the region.
The home confinement condition was lifted in January. Days after his plea, he filed a motion with the government's blessing asking to be able to ditch his GPS monitoring, but the judge said she was not ready to grant the motion at that time. He did, however, receive approval for a family trip to Boston for spring break, though that plan was aborted after he said threatening comments were posted online.
Papadopoulos's carefree tweets, including smiling snapshots of his wife on his lap and beside him at the beach, are a far cry from the frowning mug shot taken after his arrest at Dulles International Airport last summer.
Accused of lying to the FBI and facing the possibility of a lengthy sentence, he pleaded guilty in a secret court hearing and agreed to cooperate. Since then, he's resurfaced with a Twitter profile of more than 7,400 followers.
Mueller's team includes lawyers with deep experience in organized crime and financial fraud cases, which frequently require flipping witnesses and sometimes involve aggressive maneuvering.
Andrew Weissmann, one of the Gates prosecutors, indicted the wife of Enron's chief financial officer, Andrew Fastow, in
2003. The move was interpreted by some as a way to encourage Fastow himself to plead guilty and cooperate, which he ultimately did by testifying against high-level colleagues.
Still, prosecutors understand that juries may look askance at sweetheart plea deals, especially with those who've been publicly demonized, and that defense lawyers may subject cooperators to bruising cross-examinations.
"Prosecutors are going to be cognizant that there are always going to be credibility issues with cooperators," said former prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg, "but these are very experienced prosecutors and they're making a decision that, on balance, they're getting something in return."
___
Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP
___
This story has been corrected to say that judge didn't lift GPS monitoring for Gates.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (ERIC TUCKER)
April 5, 2018, 2:58 PM GMT+10 Updated on April 6, 2018, 7:29 AM GMT+10
Why Mueller Is Seen as the Perfect Man for the Job
Washington (AP) -- George Papadopoulos, taken by surprise by FBI agents at an airport last summer, now tweets smiling beach selfies with a hashtag for the Greek resort island of Mykonos.
Rick Gates, for weeks on home confinement, gets rapid approval for a family vacation and shaves down his potential prison time.
Michael Flynn, once targeted in a grand jury investigation, travels cross-country to campaign for a California congressional candidate and books a New York speaking event.
It pays to cooperate with the government.
That's true in any criminal investigation. It's especially notable in a case as high profile as special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia inquiry, where deals for cooperators have raised speculation about incriminating information they're providing.
The perks of cooperation include freer travel, lenient punishment prospects and even public comments by defendants that might have been unthinkable months ago.
Compare that with the experiences of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who has refused to cooperate and faces decades in prison. And it sends the message that others could receive favorable treatment if they agree to work with investigators.
"There's no question that it's in the government's interest to take what steps they can to show that cooperating is in the interest of the defendant," said Daniel Petalas, a former federal prosecutor. "A basic principle of plea bargaining is that you have to make it worth it to the defendant to admit liability in a criminal matter."
The latest example came Tuesday when Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan was sentenced to 30 days in prison for lying to the FBI. Though his deal didn't explicitly require cooperation, the charge he pleaded guilty to carries a maximum five-year sentence and it's almost certain that he risked a longer punishment if convicted at trial. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said some incarceration was necessary to deter others from lying to investigators.
Defendants who admit guilt are stained with criminal convictions, may forfeit liberties including the right to vote and put their jobs and reputation at risk. And they can still wind up with tough sentences.
Given that uncertainty and stress, it's common for prosecutors looking to induce cooperation to make concessions, such as dismissing charges or agreeing to recommend a lighter sentence, especially for someone they think can help them build a case against a higher-value target.
"There is a societal interest, frankly, in having people cooperate with prosecutors because often the government only can know what's happened based on documentary evidence and witnesses that it speaks with," said Sharon McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in New York. "But insiders who can give insight into conversations and planning and things like that are crucial to being able to make cases."
There's nothing new about cutting deals, including for violent mobsters, but the tactics have drawn renewed scrutiny especially in conservative legal circles.
Former Manhattan federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote last month in the National Review that Mueller was shirking Justice Department protocols by offering Gates, Manafort's co-defendant and a onetime Trump campaign aide, a "penny-ante plea" instead of requiring him to plead to the most serious charges he faced.
Gates was initially charged in October in a 12-count indictment and faced well over a decade in prison. He pleaded guilty in February to just two charges. Under sentencing guidelines, he now faces fewer than six years or less, depending on the extent of his cooperation.
He spent weeks on home confinement as a potential flight risk, repeatedly requesting, and generally receiving, permission to attend children's sporting games and holiday events in the region.
The home confinement condition was lifted in January. Days after his plea, he filed a motion with the government's blessing asking to be able to ditch his GPS monitoring, but the judge said she was not ready to grant the motion at that time. He did, however, receive approval for a family trip to Boston for spring break, though that plan was aborted after he said threatening comments were posted online.
Papadopoulos's carefree tweets, including smiling snapshots of his wife on his lap and beside him at the beach, are a far cry from the frowning mug shot taken after his arrest at Dulles International Airport last summer.
Accused of lying to the FBI and facing the possibility of a lengthy sentence, he pleaded guilty in a secret court hearing and agreed to cooperate. Since then, he's resurfaced with a Twitter profile of more than 7,400 followers.
Mueller's team includes lawyers with deep experience in organized crime and financial fraud cases, which frequently require flipping witnesses and sometimes involve aggressive maneuvering.
Andrew Weissmann, one of the Gates prosecutors, indicted the wife of Enron's chief financial officer, Andrew Fastow, in
2003. The move was interpreted by some as a way to encourage Fastow himself to plead guilty and cooperate, which he ultimately did by testifying against high-level colleagues.
Still, prosecutors understand that juries may look askance at sweetheart plea deals, especially with those who've been publicly demonized, and that defense lawyers may subject cooperators to bruising cross-examinations.
"Prosecutors are going to be cognizant that there are always going to be credibility issues with cooperators," said former prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg, "but these are very experienced prosecutors and they're making a decision that, on balance, they're getting something in return."
___
Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP
___
This story has been corrected to say that judge didn't lift GPS monitoring for Gates.
South Africa ex-President Jacob Zuma charged with corruption - BBC News
6/4/2018
South Africa ex-President Jacob Zuma charged with corruption
Mr Zuma briefly appeared in court on Friday morning
South Africa's former President Jacob Zuma has been charged with corruption linked to a 1990s arms deal.
After the 75-year-old's 15-minute appearance at the High Court in Durban on Friday morning, the case was adjourned until 8 June.
He faces 16 counts of corruption, racketeering, fraud and money laundering, which dogged his presidency and were reinstated in 2016.
Mr Zuma, who was forced out of office in February, denies any wrongdoing.
His supporters descended on the city to rally for him, while his critics think court action is long overdue.
After the hearing, Mr Zuma addressed the crowds, who had come to stand alongside him at the court in his home province.
"I have never seen it before where someone is charged with a crime, those charges are dropped and then years later those same charges are re-instated. This is a just a political conspiracy," he said in Zulu.
He then led them in song and dance.
Africa Live: latest updates
Jacob Zuma - the survivor whose nine lives ran out
The many trials of Jacob Zuma
What was the arms deal?
The arms deal took place in 1999, the year Mr Zuma moved from being a provincial minister to deputy president.
He is accused of accepting bribes from French arms firm Thales via his financial adviser.
The adviser, Schabir Shaikh, was found guilty of trying to solicit the bribes and was jailed in 2005.
The case against Mr Zuma was dropped shortly before he ran for president in 2009.
Supporters of former South African president Jacob Zuma outside the Durban's high court
Charming the crowds
By Pumza Fihlani, BBC News, Durban
The Zuma of old is still here - the crowd pleaser, the charmer and tactical politician.
This is the Jacob Zuma who boldly addressed crowds outside the courthouse, minutes after his brief hearing.
A sure, perhaps even defiant Zuma told crowds that he is being targeted by political foes both within his party, the ruling African National Congress (ANC), and opposition parties who were against his attempts to bring economic empowerment to black people.
Here in his home province, he remains a hero, who brought development to forgotten corners of this vast and largely rural province.
On the face of it, he appears to be unperturbed by the latest controversy, having survived many a scandal. "I keep asking what has Zuma done and no one has an answer for me," he told the crowds. And with that in mind, Mr Zuma fights on.
Why is this significant?
The BBC's Andrew Harding said the former president appearing in court on corruption charges was "hugely symbolic" for South Africa's young democracy.
Many, he reports, see it as an era of impunity coming to an end.
The ANC party, led by new president Cyril Ramaphosa, is keen to distance itself from the controversy as it prepares to contest the national elections in a year's time.
Mr Ramaphosa came in on a ticket of clean governance and his party cannot afford another scandal.
The ANC party asked Mr Zuma's supporters not to wear its colours outside court on Friday, but many did not follow this advice, and were seen dressed in black, green and yellow.
Hundreds of police officers were dispatched to provide security in Durban
Why now?
Mr Zuma's opponents had long fought for him to be charged over the 1990s bribes.
The charges were reinstated in 2016 as his grip on the ruling party, the ANC, weakened.
He was facing his ninth vote of no-confidence in parliament before he left office, forced out by the ANC.
Zuma's many scandals
His rule was beset with a series of scandals, including claims of state looting.
The Zuma presidency: Scandals and successes
In 2016, a court ruled that he breached his oath of office by using government money to upgrade a private home in the rural area of Nkandla. He later repaid the money.
Last year he was also accused of profiteering from a relationship with the wealthy Gupta family - allegations that both parties have denied.
In February, Mr Zuma resigned following intense pressure from the ANC party. He had been told to step down or face another vote of no-confidence in parliament.
Six reasons why S Africa's president quit
Mr Zuma's remaining supporters argue that he is being targeted for backing a radical economic reform agenda.
A battle is also brewing over whether the state should keep paying his legal bills.
South Africa ex-President Jacob Zuma charged with corruption
Mr Zuma briefly appeared in court on Friday morning
South Africa's former President Jacob Zuma has been charged with corruption linked to a 1990s arms deal.
After the 75-year-old's 15-minute appearance at the High Court in Durban on Friday morning, the case was adjourned until 8 June.
He faces 16 counts of corruption, racketeering, fraud and money laundering, which dogged his presidency and were reinstated in 2016.
Mr Zuma, who was forced out of office in February, denies any wrongdoing.
His supporters descended on the city to rally for him, while his critics think court action is long overdue.
After the hearing, Mr Zuma addressed the crowds, who had come to stand alongside him at the court in his home province.
"I have never seen it before where someone is charged with a crime, those charges are dropped and then years later those same charges are re-instated. This is a just a political conspiracy," he said in Zulu.
He then led them in song and dance.
Africa Live: latest updates
Jacob Zuma - the survivor whose nine lives ran out
The many trials of Jacob Zuma
What was the arms deal?
The arms deal took place in 1999, the year Mr Zuma moved from being a provincial minister to deputy president.
He is accused of accepting bribes from French arms firm Thales via his financial adviser.
The adviser, Schabir Shaikh, was found guilty of trying to solicit the bribes and was jailed in 2005.
The case against Mr Zuma was dropped shortly before he ran for president in 2009.
Supporters of former South African president Jacob Zuma outside the Durban's high court
Charming the crowds
By Pumza Fihlani, BBC News, Durban
The Zuma of old is still here - the crowd pleaser, the charmer and tactical politician.
This is the Jacob Zuma who boldly addressed crowds outside the courthouse, minutes after his brief hearing.
A sure, perhaps even defiant Zuma told crowds that he is being targeted by political foes both within his party, the ruling African National Congress (ANC), and opposition parties who were against his attempts to bring economic empowerment to black people.
Here in his home province, he remains a hero, who brought development to forgotten corners of this vast and largely rural province.
On the face of it, he appears to be unperturbed by the latest controversy, having survived many a scandal. "I keep asking what has Zuma done and no one has an answer for me," he told the crowds. And with that in mind, Mr Zuma fights on.
Why is this significant?
The BBC's Andrew Harding said the former president appearing in court on corruption charges was "hugely symbolic" for South Africa's young democracy.
Many, he reports, see it as an era of impunity coming to an end.
The ANC party, led by new president Cyril Ramaphosa, is keen to distance itself from the controversy as it prepares to contest the national elections in a year's time.
Mr Ramaphosa came in on a ticket of clean governance and his party cannot afford another scandal.
The ANC party asked Mr Zuma's supporters not to wear its colours outside court on Friday, but many did not follow this advice, and were seen dressed in black, green and yellow.
Hundreds of police officers were dispatched to provide security in Durban
Why now?
Mr Zuma's opponents had long fought for him to be charged over the 1990s bribes.
The charges were reinstated in 2016 as his grip on the ruling party, the ANC, weakened.
He was facing his ninth vote of no-confidence in parliament before he left office, forced out by the ANC.
Zuma's many scandals
His rule was beset with a series of scandals, including claims of state looting.
The Zuma presidency: Scandals and successes
In 2016, a court ruled that he breached his oath of office by using government money to upgrade a private home in the rural area of Nkandla. He later repaid the money.
Last year he was also accused of profiteering from a relationship with the wealthy Gupta family - allegations that both parties have denied.
In February, Mr Zuma resigned following intense pressure from the ANC party. He had been told to step down or face another vote of no-confidence in parliament.
Six reasons why S Africa's president quit
Mr Zuma's remaining supporters argue that he is being targeted for backing a radical economic reform agenda.
A battle is also brewing over whether the state should keep paying his legal bills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
