North Korea’s Kim Jong Un asked China’s Xi Jinping to help lift sanctions – report
2 July 2018 08:00 AFP2 min read
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has appealed to China’s Xi Jinping to help end sanctions against Pyongyang following his landmark summit with US President Donald Trump, a Japanese newspaper reported Sunday, citing multiple unnamed sources in the two countries.
Kim made the request during his third meeting with Xi in Beijing last month, and the Chinese president promised to do his “utmost” to satisfy it, the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper said.
Xi Jinping
Chinese President Xi Jinping. File photo: S.Korean Gov’t.
“We are feeling great pain due to economic sanctions. Now that we have concluded the US-North Korea summit in success, I want (China) to work toward early lifting of the sanctions,” Kim reportedly told Xi, according to the newspaper.
In recent months the Cold War-era allies have sought to repair ties strained by Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and Beijing’s support of subsequent UN sanctions.
Kim chose Beijing — his main economic patron and diplomatic protector — for his first official foreign trip in March and met Xi again in May in the northeastern port city of Dalian.
Kim asked Xi to help ease the sanctions that have crippled North Korea’s economy, and urged China to back Pyongyang in its denuclearisation talks with Washington, the report said.
Kim Jong-un
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. File photo: S.Korean Gov’t.
Xi in turn told Kim he “actively supports North Korea’s reform and opening-up and will proactively cooperate with issues associated with the efforts”, according to the Yomiuri.
He also urged North Korea to “continue (its) consultations with China” as it negotiates with the United States, the report said.
China indicated last year that the UN Security Council could consider easing the punitive measures against Pyongyang.
Kim’s third official visit to China was seen as a move to reassure Beijing that Pyongyang would not neglect its interests after the historic summit with Trump in Singapore.
China and the US both hope to see the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons.
But Beijing is concerned Washington and Pyongyang might move closer at its expense, a possibility that China sees as threatening to its economic and security interests in the region.
Monday, July 2, 2018
Angela Merkel's government is on the brink of collapse - Independent
July, 2, 2018
Angela Merkel's government is on the brink of collapse – and we should all worry about what might happen then
Germany is in no position to 'lead' Europe, and has little desire to. That is bad news for everyone
Sean O'Grady
@_seanogrady
To borrow a phrase, when Germany catches a cold, Europe gets pneumonia, and right now the political situation in Berlin is looking distinctly peaky.
If Angela Merkel’s rickety government does collapse – whether or not it’s in the orderly fashion ordained by the federal republic’s constitution – everyone in Europe should be very afraid of what life after “Mutti” would be like.
You could argue she’s had it coming, ever since her brave and principled decision to allow around a million asylum seekers, including from the war in Syria, into Germany. No matter; a weak, divided Germany, with a succession of wobbly governments based on a kaleidoscope of shifting allegiances, and a growing parliamentary presence for parties on the extreme right… well, I hope I am not being too alarmist.
We should remember too that Germany remains the continent’s only economic and industrial power of truly global stature. It is great force for good; but perhaps we have taken its benign stability for granted for too long.
If Merkel does go, and out of some bitter arguments comes a stronger AFD, a noxiously nationalistic party, three things will inevitably flow.
First, an unwillingness to honour what she has been able to achieve in the way of a European “deal” on migration. That, in effect, is what a fresh election would be a referendum on.
Second, a refusal frankly backed by its financial impossibility: to bail out Italy. That country’s banks and the state itself are virtually insolvent. Now, in a country itself seized by the far right, the Italians are threatening to print their own version of the euro currency – mini Italian Treasury bonds with a face value as low as 10 euros that can be used a legal tender and to fund bank accounts – a clear dodge to evade European central bank disciplines.
Italy is the third largest economy in the Eurozone; to prop it up is beyond the means even of the Germans and even if they wanted to, which they don’t. Sooner or later, Italy will leave the euro because Italy is too big to save, unlike little Greece; and because Italy has a government, and is a country, full of people who actually wish that to happen. It could bring the entire single currency down with it.
Ian Bremmer describes starbursts exchange between Donald Trump and Angela Merkel: 'don't say I never give you anything'
Third; there will be a generally more sceptical German attitude to further European integration along the lines advocated by President Macron of France, and, thus, a weakening of the spine of the European Union, the Paris-Berlin axis. The European Union, probably with the calculating connivance of the French (Macron too needs to watch his political flank), the ready assistance of the east Europeans, Dutch, Austrians and Scandinavians – and to the ecstatic delight of the Italians – would be moving towards a looser, less cohesive force. If and when that happens, freedom of movement will be ditched, and the Schengen accord on free borders would see fundamental reform. Brexit would be a sideshow compared to a Eurosceptic Germany.
The irony would be that a reform of the EU to suit British tastes would be arriving at just the moment the UK would be heading out of the door.
It is sometimes reported that the threat by the leader of the Christian Social Union Party (CSU) and federal interior minister Horst Seehofer to resign from the Merkel government is a routine bit of argy-bargy between coalition partners, like the rows Nick Clegg and David Cameron used to have, very occasionally. This crisis is, however, much more than that, and more important and potentially seismic than just the fall of the Merkel government and the end of the Chancellor’s long political career, momentous as that would be.
For the CSU is the “sister” party of Merkel’s CDU, which in fact understates the sibling bond. They are more like twins, if not conjoined twins. The CSU, though technically separate, has, for most of the period of its existence since the Second World War, acted as a sort of regional variant of the CDU, operating in Bavaria, whereas the CDU operates elsewhere in Germany. They have always worked in close concert at the federal level.
The CSU hasn’t managed to win the federal chancellorship, but it has put candidates up on behalf of the CDU-CSU “union”, and always provided political heavyweights to CDU-CSU administrations. The two wings of German Christian Democracy have usually agreed, broadly, on the notion of a “social market economy”, though the CSU is more culturally “Catholic” and socially conservative (it has been stressing this lately), and represents what is one of the wealthiest regions of Germany, or the world for that matter.
It is also true that Bavaria has been on the “front line” during the migration crisis and the flow of people from the south. The rich Bavarians – whose area is home to BMW, Audi, Infineon and Puma, as well as some fine breweries – resent paying vast sums to rescue places like Greece. Bavarian regional interests are diverging more markedly from federal German ones. Hence the schism.
This is all part of a fracturing of the Germany party system, with Greens, Free Democrats (nowadays a roughly Thatcherite group and socially liberal) and former Communists (“the Left”) finding representation in a Bundestag once monopolised by the CDU/CSU and the Social Democrats, with the FPD providing a handy and usually cooperative coalition partner for one or the other. The German electoral system was not designed for such a crowded field as today’s, and it is showing the strain of the resulting paralysis. Germany is in no position to “lead” Europe, and has little desire to. That is bad.
What is happening in Germany has been happening across Europe for years, masked by the victory of Emmanuel Macron in France and Angela Merkel hanging on to power in Germany. The far right, or populist right, or neo-Nazi right, or conservative right, or fruitcake right, in varying national flavours, are in government, either alone or in coalition, in Slovenia (the latest), Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. They are too close for comfort to the levers of power in the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and France; they are slowly pushing up their support in Germany and Sweden. Only in Slovakia do they seem to have been beaten back. In Greece and Spain, it is the populist far-left who have taken the bet advantage of the atmosphere of crisis.
All across Europe, then, social democracy has been dying a slow and pitiful death. Now Christian democracy – what the British would recognise as moderate conservatism – is suffering the same fate.
Too many conservatives see their easiest path to power in forming accommodations and coalitions with the far right, rather than centrist groups of “grand coalitions” with social democrats. It is a frightening trend, and one in which Brexit, the Conservative-DUP deal and the rise of Corbynism are the British counterparts to the wider story.
With America disengaging from European defence, an expansionist and aggressive Russia, trade wars and a floundering European “project” – and most of all a politically powerless and introverted Germany – the 2020s promise to be stormy years for our continent. The clouds are gathering, if we dare to look.
Angela Merkel's government is on the brink of collapse – and we should all worry about what might happen then
Germany is in no position to 'lead' Europe, and has little desire to. That is bad news for everyone
Sean O'Grady
@_seanogrady
To borrow a phrase, when Germany catches a cold, Europe gets pneumonia, and right now the political situation in Berlin is looking distinctly peaky.
If Angela Merkel’s rickety government does collapse – whether or not it’s in the orderly fashion ordained by the federal republic’s constitution – everyone in Europe should be very afraid of what life after “Mutti” would be like.
You could argue she’s had it coming, ever since her brave and principled decision to allow around a million asylum seekers, including from the war in Syria, into Germany. No matter; a weak, divided Germany, with a succession of wobbly governments based on a kaleidoscope of shifting allegiances, and a growing parliamentary presence for parties on the extreme right… well, I hope I am not being too alarmist.
We should remember too that Germany remains the continent’s only economic and industrial power of truly global stature. It is great force for good; but perhaps we have taken its benign stability for granted for too long.
If Merkel does go, and out of some bitter arguments comes a stronger AFD, a noxiously nationalistic party, three things will inevitably flow.
First, an unwillingness to honour what she has been able to achieve in the way of a European “deal” on migration. That, in effect, is what a fresh election would be a referendum on.
Second, a refusal frankly backed by its financial impossibility: to bail out Italy. That country’s banks and the state itself are virtually insolvent. Now, in a country itself seized by the far right, the Italians are threatening to print their own version of the euro currency – mini Italian Treasury bonds with a face value as low as 10 euros that can be used a legal tender and to fund bank accounts – a clear dodge to evade European central bank disciplines.
Italy is the third largest economy in the Eurozone; to prop it up is beyond the means even of the Germans and even if they wanted to, which they don’t. Sooner or later, Italy will leave the euro because Italy is too big to save, unlike little Greece; and because Italy has a government, and is a country, full of people who actually wish that to happen. It could bring the entire single currency down with it.
Ian Bremmer describes starbursts exchange between Donald Trump and Angela Merkel: 'don't say I never give you anything'
Third; there will be a generally more sceptical German attitude to further European integration along the lines advocated by President Macron of France, and, thus, a weakening of the spine of the European Union, the Paris-Berlin axis. The European Union, probably with the calculating connivance of the French (Macron too needs to watch his political flank), the ready assistance of the east Europeans, Dutch, Austrians and Scandinavians – and to the ecstatic delight of the Italians – would be moving towards a looser, less cohesive force. If and when that happens, freedom of movement will be ditched, and the Schengen accord on free borders would see fundamental reform. Brexit would be a sideshow compared to a Eurosceptic Germany.
The irony would be that a reform of the EU to suit British tastes would be arriving at just the moment the UK would be heading out of the door.
It is sometimes reported that the threat by the leader of the Christian Social Union Party (CSU) and federal interior minister Horst Seehofer to resign from the Merkel government is a routine bit of argy-bargy between coalition partners, like the rows Nick Clegg and David Cameron used to have, very occasionally. This crisis is, however, much more than that, and more important and potentially seismic than just the fall of the Merkel government and the end of the Chancellor’s long political career, momentous as that would be.
For the CSU is the “sister” party of Merkel’s CDU, which in fact understates the sibling bond. They are more like twins, if not conjoined twins. The CSU, though technically separate, has, for most of the period of its existence since the Second World War, acted as a sort of regional variant of the CDU, operating in Bavaria, whereas the CDU operates elsewhere in Germany. They have always worked in close concert at the federal level.
The CSU hasn’t managed to win the federal chancellorship, but it has put candidates up on behalf of the CDU-CSU “union”, and always provided political heavyweights to CDU-CSU administrations. The two wings of German Christian Democracy have usually agreed, broadly, on the notion of a “social market economy”, though the CSU is more culturally “Catholic” and socially conservative (it has been stressing this lately), and represents what is one of the wealthiest regions of Germany, or the world for that matter.
It is also true that Bavaria has been on the “front line” during the migration crisis and the flow of people from the south. The rich Bavarians – whose area is home to BMW, Audi, Infineon and Puma, as well as some fine breweries – resent paying vast sums to rescue places like Greece. Bavarian regional interests are diverging more markedly from federal German ones. Hence the schism.
This is all part of a fracturing of the Germany party system, with Greens, Free Democrats (nowadays a roughly Thatcherite group and socially liberal) and former Communists (“the Left”) finding representation in a Bundestag once monopolised by the CDU/CSU and the Social Democrats, with the FPD providing a handy and usually cooperative coalition partner for one or the other. The German electoral system was not designed for such a crowded field as today’s, and it is showing the strain of the resulting paralysis. Germany is in no position to “lead” Europe, and has little desire to. That is bad.
What is happening in Germany has been happening across Europe for years, masked by the victory of Emmanuel Macron in France and Angela Merkel hanging on to power in Germany. The far right, or populist right, or neo-Nazi right, or conservative right, or fruitcake right, in varying national flavours, are in government, either alone or in coalition, in Slovenia (the latest), Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. They are too close for comfort to the levers of power in the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and France; they are slowly pushing up their support in Germany and Sweden. Only in Slovakia do they seem to have been beaten back. In Greece and Spain, it is the populist far-left who have taken the bet advantage of the atmosphere of crisis.
All across Europe, then, social democracy has been dying a slow and pitiful death. Now Christian democracy – what the British would recognise as moderate conservatism – is suffering the same fate.
Too many conservatives see their easiest path to power in forming accommodations and coalitions with the far right, rather than centrist groups of “grand coalitions” with social democrats. It is a frightening trend, and one in which Brexit, the Conservative-DUP deal and the rise of Corbynism are the British counterparts to the wider story.
With America disengaging from European defence, an expansionist and aggressive Russia, trade wars and a floundering European “project” – and most of all a politically powerless and introverted Germany – the 2020s promise to be stormy years for our continent. The clouds are gathering, if we dare to look.
Meet the Serve America Movement, or SAM, which wants to take on the two biggest political parties. - Bloomberg
By and
July 2, 2018, 8:00 PM GMT+10
Eric Grossman doesn’t look like he would want to do anything drastic. The top lawyer at Morgan Stanley is a 51-year-old homeowner in the New York suburbs with twin sons and a seat on the firm’s management committee. He’s another man in a power suit in a midtown Manhattan bank.
He also wants to topple America’s two-party system.
Eric Grossman, the top lawyer at Morgan Stanley.
Photographer: Wireimage via Getty Images
Grossman is trying to build a new party—called the Serve America Movement, or SAM—even though third wheels in American politics tend to have the lasting power of the Free Soilers and the Anti-Masons. His quixotic goal hasn’t deterred donors that include fellow members of Morgan Stanley’s operating committee, the bank’s head of government relations, its top independent board member, and the last chief executive officer, John Mack.
Don’t expect this crusade for unity to turn into the next Women’s March, Tea Party, or even a semi-memorable hashtag. At least so far, this is what resistance to President Donald Trump looks like on Wall Street. Even though tax cuts and reduced regulation have made big banks and corporations some of this era’s big winners, many of their executives squirm when the president abandons global agreements and threatens trade wars. These people also tend to resent and even dread the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, as if it’s out to get them personally. That opens a space for SAM’s unlikely, ambitious and well-moneyed cry for something else.
“Perhaps it’s a fear of arrogance that people are like, ‘Wow you can’t say that, you can’t say you’re going to be a party,’” said Richard Bennett, a partner at investment firm B-FORE Capital who contributed $140,000 to SAM. “I’m like, why not? What else are we going to do? That’s the only thing that’s going to fix it.”
SAM stands against divisiveness, but what it stands for isn't obvious. One Morgan Stanley executive who donated admitted he doesn’t know anything about it, he just wanted to help a friend’s pet cause.
SAM’s upbeat website, with no specifics on immigration, reproductive rights, or the health-care system, can’t clear up big questions. The principles are so broad and cheerful—“applying America’s innovative spirit,” “a strong, clear-eyed, values-based leader,” and “the vitality of local communities”—that they have the ring of taglines for a Silicon Valley startup that hasn’t put out a product yet.
This inoffensive flavor makes sense for a political project backed by executives from Morgan Stanley, a big bank with a particularly understated political style. At JPMorgan Chase & Co., by contrast, CEO Jamie Dimon devoted pages of this year’s annual letter to praising Trump’s tax cuts while warning against isolationism. And Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has perfected a pipeline to Washington, sending executives Gary Cohn and Dina Powell for stints in Trump’s White House.
“Let’s have civil dialogue.”
The financial types backing SAM have taken stock of the American landscape and decided the overarching crisis isn’t guns, opioids, climate change or the treatment of immigrants—it’s divisiveness. SAM thinks it has a shot at winning by preaching unity, and it is in vogue to make public pleas for politeness. Some elected officials have had more to say about White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave a Virginia restaurant than the poisoned water in Flint, Michigan.
“Let’s have civil dialogue,” said Stephanie Miner, a former Syracuse mayor and once a top New York Democrat. SAM announced plans for her to run under its banner in the race for governor, with a longtime Republican lieutenant. The favorite is Democratic incumbent Andrew Cuomo, already a darling of the establishment center.
In some ways, SAM’s timing for its understated arrival on the political scene has been excellent. The Trump immigration policy separating thousands of children from families who crossed the border illegally caused top GOP strategist Steve Schmidt to dump the party. Across the aisle, in New York, 28-year-old Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just toppled congressional powerhouse Joe Crowley, the kind of primary upset that threatens finance-friendly moderates.
Grossman, who wouldn’t comment for this story, has well-heeled friends at the bank who like what he’s doing. Even Vice Chairman Tom Nides, a top bundler for Hillary Clinton, borrowed SAM’s peppy vibe: “I support Democrat candidates, period. That said, I think it’s great when people get involved in the political process, even if I disagree with them.” Grossman and his professional peers have sent more than $1.3 million to SAM, according to filings. Donations so far include $50,000 from investment-management head Dan Simkowitz and $10,000 each from Mack, director Tom Glocer, and former litigation co-head Jim Cusick.
That’s pocket change compared with the cash corporations can unleash but a remarkable sum for a political project with no track record. And contributions have popped up from outside Morgan Stanley. The biggest amount, more than $900,000, came from former tobacco executive Charles Wall.
SAM wants to be more than a party backed by bankers and lawyers, so its officials don’t like to emphasize New York roots. The group did its first big voter survey in Kansas, and says it has cash coming in from small donors across the U.S. The headquarters, with a handful of staffers, is located inside a co-working space in Denver.
“Major donors are probably going to be finance or lawyers or Hollywood.”
SAM CEO Sarah Lenti argued that the early infusion of Wall Street money doesn’t mean anything. “Major donors are probably going to be finance or lawyers or Hollywood,” said Lenti, who was a spokesperson for John McCain and a research consultant to Mitt Romney. “You have to be financed somehow.”
SAM is far from the first attempt to find a sweet spot in the middle of the U.S. political spectrum. Other groups insisting on centrism include Third Way and No Labels. Michael R. Bloomberg, the owner of this news service, has pledged to spend $80 million in the upcoming midterm elections, mostly in support of Democratic congressional candidates, according to a report in the New York Times.
Grossman is the kind of big-time bank attorney who made it into the club of Wall Street lawyers that flew to the Trianon Palace Versailles hotel outside Paris in 2016 to talk shop. He isn’t enrolled in a party, and he's donated about $28,000 outside of SAM, money that tended to go to moderate Democrats and Morgan Stanley’s Republican-leaning political action committee. He played rugby at Hamilton College, got his law degree at Fordham University, and spent a few years moonlighting as an agent for baseball star Darryl Strawberry. At Morgan Stanley, he’s lately been seen around the office wearing SAM cufflinks.
He decided to do something on the day after Trump won the White House, according to SAM’s website. Grossman started by rallying friends including Scott Muller, once general counsel at the Central Intelligence Agency and now SAM’s chairman. Deep-pocketed people were ready to give it a try. “They told me all of the things they thought it was going to cost,” said Wall, who was vice chairman of Philip Morris International Inc. until 2010. “And I said, ‘I’m in. And here’s the amount I’m in for.’”
He had an even better message for them: “Come back to me when you need some more.”
— With assistance by Bill Allison
Michael Cohen says 'first loyalty' is to 'family and country' – not Trump - Guardian
Michael Cohen says 'first loyalty' is to 'family and country' – not Trump
Trump’s longtime fixer tells Good Morning America ‘I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy’
Martin Pengelly in New York
@MartinPengelly
Mon 2 Jul 2018 21.44 AEST Last modified on Mon 2 Jul 2018 21.45 AEST
Michael Cohen on Friday. His home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April.
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, will put “family and country first” as investigations continue into his work for the president, including a payment to an adult film star who claims to have had an affair with Trump.
Is Trump really winning? The truth about the president's popularity
Read more
Cohen’s remarks, in an off-camera interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, will intensify speculation that he may be prepared to “flip” and co-operate with federal prosecutors in New York and investigators looking into Russian election interference and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow.
“My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will,” Cohen told George Stephanopoulos in the interview, which was conducted on Saturday at a hotel in New York. “I put family and country first.”
In answer to the question of whether he expected Trump to turn on him, he said: “I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy. I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way.”
Cohen’s home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April, after a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating matters related to Russia.
Cohen has not been charged with any crime. He told ABC: “Once I understand what charges might be filed against me, if any at all, I will defer to my new counsel, Guy Petrillo, for guidance.”
Good Morning America
✔
@GMA
In @GStephanopoulos' exclusive interview with Pres. Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen, Cohen stays mum on commitment to his longtime client: “To be crystal clear, my wife, my daughter and my son, and this country have my first loyalty.” http://gma.abc/2tNmERT
9:17 PM - Jul 2, 2018
Petrillo is a former federal prosecutor who was once head of the criminal division of the US Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.
In April, Trump tweeted that though “most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble, even if it means lying or making up stories”, he did not “see Michael doing that”. He also called Cohen a “fine person with a wonderful family”.
Trump denies collusion with Russia. He has denied Stormy Daniels’ claims of an affair. But in May his current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, admitted that Trump reimbursed Cohen for a payment of $130,000 which Daniels claims was made shortly before the 2016 election in order to keep her quiet. Filings by Trump showed payments of $250,000 to Cohen in 2017.
Cohen did not discuss the Daniels payment with ABC. “I want to answer,” he said. “One day I will answer. But for now, I can’t comment further on advice of my counsel.”
Regarding Trump’s repeated claim that the Mueller investigation is a “witch-hunt”, Cohen said: “I don’t like the term witch hunt. As an American, I repudiate Russia’s or any other foreign government’s attempt to interfere or meddle in our democratic process, and I would call on all Americans to do the same.”
I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way
Michael Cohen
Trump last week tweeted that Russia “continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!” The president will meet Vladimir Putin in Helsinki later this month. He told reporters on Friday he would press the Russian president about election interference.
Cohen said: “Simply accepting the denial of Mr Putin is unsustainable.”
Cohen told ABC he thought Mueller would not find evidence he colluded with Russians himself. An infamous meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 between Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, then campaign chair Paul Manafort and a group of Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton was, he said, ““a mistake” and “an example of poor judgment”.
Another former Trump confidante, former White House strategist Steve Bannon, famously called the meeting “treasonous”. Trump’s role in drafting a misleading statement about the meeting is one instance under investigation by Mueller as he seeks to determine if the president sought to obstruct justice.
Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Bannon says in explosive book
Read more
Asked if he thought Donald Trump had known of that meeting in advance, Cohen said he could not comment, under the advice of his counsel.
Manafort is one of four former Trump aides to have been indicted by Mueller. He denies financial charges against him and is currently in jail, over alleged witness tampering, while awaiting trial. Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and former national security adviser Michael Flynn are all co-operating with investigators.
In his ABC interview, Cohen concluded: “I want to regain my name and my reputation and my life back.”
Trump’s longtime fixer tells Good Morning America ‘I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy’
Martin Pengelly in New York
@MartinPengelly
Mon 2 Jul 2018 21.44 AEST Last modified on Mon 2 Jul 2018 21.45 AEST
Michael Cohen on Friday. His home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April.
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, will put “family and country first” as investigations continue into his work for the president, including a payment to an adult film star who claims to have had an affair with Trump.
Is Trump really winning? The truth about the president's popularity
Read more
Cohen’s remarks, in an off-camera interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, will intensify speculation that he may be prepared to “flip” and co-operate with federal prosecutors in New York and investigators looking into Russian election interference and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow.
“My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will,” Cohen told George Stephanopoulos in the interview, which was conducted on Saturday at a hotel in New York. “I put family and country first.”
In answer to the question of whether he expected Trump to turn on him, he said: “I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy. I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way.”
Cohen’s home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April, after a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating matters related to Russia.
Cohen has not been charged with any crime. He told ABC: “Once I understand what charges might be filed against me, if any at all, I will defer to my new counsel, Guy Petrillo, for guidance.”
Good Morning America
✔
@GMA
In @GStephanopoulos' exclusive interview with Pres. Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen, Cohen stays mum on commitment to his longtime client: “To be crystal clear, my wife, my daughter and my son, and this country have my first loyalty.” http://gma.abc/2tNmERT
9:17 PM - Jul 2, 2018
Petrillo is a former federal prosecutor who was once head of the criminal division of the US Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.
In April, Trump tweeted that though “most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble, even if it means lying or making up stories”, he did not “see Michael doing that”. He also called Cohen a “fine person with a wonderful family”.
Trump denies collusion with Russia. He has denied Stormy Daniels’ claims of an affair. But in May his current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, admitted that Trump reimbursed Cohen for a payment of $130,000 which Daniels claims was made shortly before the 2016 election in order to keep her quiet. Filings by Trump showed payments of $250,000 to Cohen in 2017.
Cohen did not discuss the Daniels payment with ABC. “I want to answer,” he said. “One day I will answer. But for now, I can’t comment further on advice of my counsel.”
Regarding Trump’s repeated claim that the Mueller investigation is a “witch-hunt”, Cohen said: “I don’t like the term witch hunt. As an American, I repudiate Russia’s or any other foreign government’s attempt to interfere or meddle in our democratic process, and I would call on all Americans to do the same.”
I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way
Michael Cohen
Trump last week tweeted that Russia “continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!” The president will meet Vladimir Putin in Helsinki later this month. He told reporters on Friday he would press the Russian president about election interference.
Cohen said: “Simply accepting the denial of Mr Putin is unsustainable.”
Cohen told ABC he thought Mueller would not find evidence he colluded with Russians himself. An infamous meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 between Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, then campaign chair Paul Manafort and a group of Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton was, he said, ““a mistake” and “an example of poor judgment”.
Another former Trump confidante, former White House strategist Steve Bannon, famously called the meeting “treasonous”. Trump’s role in drafting a misleading statement about the meeting is one instance under investigation by Mueller as he seeks to determine if the president sought to obstruct justice.
Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Bannon says in explosive book
Read more
Asked if he thought Donald Trump had known of that meeting in advance, Cohen said he could not comment, under the advice of his counsel.
Manafort is one of four former Trump aides to have been indicted by Mueller. He denies financial charges against him and is currently in jail, over alleged witness tampering, while awaiting trial. Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and former national security adviser Michael Flynn are all co-operating with investigators.
In his ABC interview, Cohen concluded: “I want to regain my name and my reputation and my life back.”
Republican Sen. Susan Collins Won't Support a Supreme Court Nominee Who Would Overturn Roe v. Wade - TIME
Republican Sen. Susan Collins Won't Support a Supreme Court Nominee Who Would Overturn Roe v. Wade
By MARK NIQUETTE AND CHRISTOPHER CONDON July 1, 2018
President Donald Trump shouldn’t pick someone for the Supreme Court who doesn’t respect legal precedent, including the “settled” 1973 decision that legalized abortion, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said.
“A candidate for this important position who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me, because that would indicate an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have,” Collins said Sunday in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”
Collins said she urged Trump during a meeting last week to broaden the list of 25 possible justices he released during the campaign, and that the White House subsequently told her five more people had been added to it.
“I got the feeling that he was still deliberating and had not yet reached a decision, and that this was genuine outreach on his part,” Collins said. “There are people on that list whom I could not support.”
Collins is among small group of U.S. senators whose support is seen as crucial to securing the confirmation of a new Supreme Court Justice following the retirement announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The Maine senator has said previously that she wouldn’t support someone who pledges to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in the U.S. It’s settled law, and justices must respect legal precedent, she said.
Graham’s View
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he wouldn’t vote for a nominee who promises to overturn a case before the facts are presented. Graham said he also supports the concept of stare decisis, meaning a respect for legal precedent.
“That means you don’t overturn precedent unless there’s a good reason,” Graham said. “And I would tell my pro-life friends you can be pro-life and conservative, but you can also believe in stare decisis.”
Leonard Leo, a former vice president of the Federalist Society who has advised Trump on judicial nominations, also expressed support for the idea of a justice upholding precedent in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I don’t think at the end of the day it’s about Roe v. Wade,” Leo said. “It’s about having judges on the court who are going to interpret the constitution the way it’s written, and part of interpreting the constitution is taking into account major precedents, and that’s going to happen.”
Not That Specific
Trump said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he “probably” wouldn’t ask his potential nominees about how they would vote on the abortion law. He said he’s been told he shouldn’t be that specific in his questions, though he will be putting a conservative on the court.
Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said he thinks Trump is looking for a justice who will overturn the abortion law, as well as rule that protections under President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul against denying insurance to those with pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional.
“Donald Trump is looking for a justice who’s going to rule in his favor,” Durbin said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Meeting with Senators
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a tweet Thursday that Trump had met with Collins and fellow Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp are Democrats from states Trump won in 2016. He has targeted them for defeat in November’s midterm elections. That makes them more likely than other senators in their party to support his nominee for the court.
With Republicans controlling the Senate 51 to 49, Democrats must prevent any defections and win over at least one Republican if they hope to block a nominee.
Trump said Friday he had narrowed his search to about five finalists, including two women, and will announce his pick on July 9. Trump said that he may interview one or two candidates this weekend at his resort in Bedminster, New Jersey.
A person familiar with the process said White House officials are focused primarily on five federal appeals court judges — Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar.
By MARK NIQUETTE AND CHRISTOPHER CONDON July 1, 2018
President Donald Trump shouldn’t pick someone for the Supreme Court who doesn’t respect legal precedent, including the “settled” 1973 decision that legalized abortion, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said.
“A candidate for this important position who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me, because that would indicate an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have,” Collins said Sunday in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”
Collins said she urged Trump during a meeting last week to broaden the list of 25 possible justices he released during the campaign, and that the White House subsequently told her five more people had been added to it.
“I got the feeling that he was still deliberating and had not yet reached a decision, and that this was genuine outreach on his part,” Collins said. “There are people on that list whom I could not support.”
Collins is among small group of U.S. senators whose support is seen as crucial to securing the confirmation of a new Supreme Court Justice following the retirement announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The Maine senator has said previously that she wouldn’t support someone who pledges to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in the U.S. It’s settled law, and justices must respect legal precedent, she said.
Graham’s View
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he wouldn’t vote for a nominee who promises to overturn a case before the facts are presented. Graham said he also supports the concept of stare decisis, meaning a respect for legal precedent.
“That means you don’t overturn precedent unless there’s a good reason,” Graham said. “And I would tell my pro-life friends you can be pro-life and conservative, but you can also believe in stare decisis.”
Leonard Leo, a former vice president of the Federalist Society who has advised Trump on judicial nominations, also expressed support for the idea of a justice upholding precedent in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I don’t think at the end of the day it’s about Roe v. Wade,” Leo said. “It’s about having judges on the court who are going to interpret the constitution the way it’s written, and part of interpreting the constitution is taking into account major precedents, and that’s going to happen.”
Not That Specific
Trump said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he “probably” wouldn’t ask his potential nominees about how they would vote on the abortion law. He said he’s been told he shouldn’t be that specific in his questions, though he will be putting a conservative on the court.
Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said he thinks Trump is looking for a justice who will overturn the abortion law, as well as rule that protections under President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul against denying insurance to those with pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional.
“Donald Trump is looking for a justice who’s going to rule in his favor,” Durbin said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Meeting with Senators
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a tweet Thursday that Trump had met with Collins and fellow Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp are Democrats from states Trump won in 2016. He has targeted them for defeat in November’s midterm elections. That makes them more likely than other senators in their party to support his nominee for the court.
With Republicans controlling the Senate 51 to 49, Democrats must prevent any defections and win over at least one Republican if they hope to block a nominee.
Trump said Friday he had narrowed his search to about five finalists, including two women, and will announce his pick on July 9. Trump said that he may interview one or two candidates this weekend at his resort in Bedminster, New Jersey.
A person familiar with the process said White House officials are focused primarily on five federal appeals court judges — Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar.
Here’s a Rule to Help Powell Manage the Fed’s Uncertainty Problem - Bloomberg
Here’s a Rule to Help Powell Manage the Fed’s Uncertainty Problem
By Christopher Condon
July 2, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
Fed chair questions theoretical concepts and looks to the data
Williams’ ‘first-difference’ rule could offer guidance
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell hasn’t been shy about drawing attention to the limits of the central bank’s knowledge.
In a June 13 press conference he was remarkably frank in doubting the Fed’s ability to answer the most important conceptual questions in monetary policy: At what level would interest rates have a neutral impact on the economy, and how low can unemployment fall before it begins to provoke problematic inflation?
Jerome Powell on June 13.Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
“We can’t be too attached to these unobserved variables,” said Powell, who took the Fed’s helm in February. “You shouldn’t try to speak about it with a lot of precision or confidence,” he added. “We’re estimating these things.”
The real emphasis, he said, should be on monitoring changes in the hard data.
That may be refreshing for Fed watchers weary of theoretical economic models. The new chairman’s “plain-English” approach and his humility in the face of uncertainty is proving popular among those working in financial markets. But it doesn’t say much about what the Fed will do when the data arrives.
Estimates about the neutral interest rate and the so-called natural level of unemployment, however flawed, are useful because they provide guideposts for policy. And when Fed officials make their estimates public, they lend predictability to how they will react when the economy changes.
Williams Paper
If only there were a guide for setting rates that accommodates Powell’s uneasiness with “unobserved variables” and his preference for hard data. As it happens, there is just such a road map, and one of Powell’s most senior colleagues, New York Fed President John Williams, helped draw it up.
In 2002 when Williams was an economist at the San Francisco Fed, he co-authored a paper confronting the unreliability of estimating the neutral rate of interest and the natural rate of unemployment, and the problem that presented in setting interest rates.
The solution they offered was something called the “first-difference” rule.
There are many monetary policy rules that will recommend a level of rates for different economic conditions. The Fed doesn’t strictly follow any of them, but consults several. The first-difference rule is distinct for not relying on any of the unobserved variables that vex Powell, making it, as Williams and Athanasios Orphanides wrote, “immune to likely misperceptions in these concepts.”
Simple Formula
Instead, it counsels policy makers -- in the form of a simple formula -- to respond to actual changes in unemployment and inflation, thus fitting snugly with Powell’s description of how he believes the Fed should proceed.
Taking the crudest version of the rule and plugging in median forecasts from Fed officials for unemployment and inflation at the end of 2019 and 2020, the first difference rule would prescribe a federal funds rate of 2.3 percent for both points in time. That’s just two hikes higher than where the rate is now and well below the 3.1 percent and 3.4 percent projected by those same officials.
Matthew Luzzetti, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, who wrote about the first-difference rule in a recent note to clients, argued for caution. Powell’s views do appear to align with Williams’ paper, and Williams is clearly an influential figure inside the Fed. But neither Powell nor Williams is going to follow any policy rule mechanically, he said.
Moreover, there are different versions of the rule. A more complex one that appears in the Fed’s semi-annual report to Congress puts the rate much closer to the Fed’s projections, according to Luzzetti.
“The Fed is likely to look at these rules as a guide,” he said, “but I don’t think you can really infer what the reaction of the Fed will be.”
By Christopher Condon
July 2, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
Fed chair questions theoretical concepts and looks to the data
Williams’ ‘first-difference’ rule could offer guidance
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell hasn’t been shy about drawing attention to the limits of the central bank’s knowledge.
In a June 13 press conference he was remarkably frank in doubting the Fed’s ability to answer the most important conceptual questions in monetary policy: At what level would interest rates have a neutral impact on the economy, and how low can unemployment fall before it begins to provoke problematic inflation?
Jerome Powell on June 13.Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
“We can’t be too attached to these unobserved variables,” said Powell, who took the Fed’s helm in February. “You shouldn’t try to speak about it with a lot of precision or confidence,” he added. “We’re estimating these things.”
The real emphasis, he said, should be on monitoring changes in the hard data.
That may be refreshing for Fed watchers weary of theoretical economic models. The new chairman’s “plain-English” approach and his humility in the face of uncertainty is proving popular among those working in financial markets. But it doesn’t say much about what the Fed will do when the data arrives.
Estimates about the neutral interest rate and the so-called natural level of unemployment, however flawed, are useful because they provide guideposts for policy. And when Fed officials make their estimates public, they lend predictability to how they will react when the economy changes.
Williams Paper
If only there were a guide for setting rates that accommodates Powell’s uneasiness with “unobserved variables” and his preference for hard data. As it happens, there is just such a road map, and one of Powell’s most senior colleagues, New York Fed President John Williams, helped draw it up.
In 2002 when Williams was an economist at the San Francisco Fed, he co-authored a paper confronting the unreliability of estimating the neutral rate of interest and the natural rate of unemployment, and the problem that presented in setting interest rates.
The solution they offered was something called the “first-difference” rule.
There are many monetary policy rules that will recommend a level of rates for different economic conditions. The Fed doesn’t strictly follow any of them, but consults several. The first-difference rule is distinct for not relying on any of the unobserved variables that vex Powell, making it, as Williams and Athanasios Orphanides wrote, “immune to likely misperceptions in these concepts.”
Simple Formula
Instead, it counsels policy makers -- in the form of a simple formula -- to respond to actual changes in unemployment and inflation, thus fitting snugly with Powell’s description of how he believes the Fed should proceed.
Taking the crudest version of the rule and plugging in median forecasts from Fed officials for unemployment and inflation at the end of 2019 and 2020, the first difference rule would prescribe a federal funds rate of 2.3 percent for both points in time. That’s just two hikes higher than where the rate is now and well below the 3.1 percent and 3.4 percent projected by those same officials.
Matthew Luzzetti, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, who wrote about the first-difference rule in a recent note to clients, argued for caution. Powell’s views do appear to align with Williams’ paper, and Williams is clearly an influential figure inside the Fed. But neither Powell nor Williams is going to follow any policy rule mechanically, he said.
Moreover, there are different versions of the rule. A more complex one that appears in the Fed’s semi-annual report to Congress puts the rate much closer to the Fed’s projections, according to Luzzetti.
“The Fed is likely to look at these rules as a guide,” he said, “but I don’t think you can really infer what the reaction of the Fed will be.”
Sunday, July 1, 2018
Jack Ma Embraces Blockchain for Ant But Warns of Bitcoin Bubble - Bloomberg
Jack Ma Embraces Blockchain for Ant But Warns of Bitcoin Bubble
By Lulu Yilun Chen
June 25, 2018, 6:19 PM GMT+10
The Alibaba chairman remains an advocate of blockchain tech
Ant Financial starts a blockchain-based remittance service
Billionaire Jack Ma has declared Bitcoin a potential bubble, reiterating his caution over the volatile crypto-currency as his Ant Financial on Monday launched blockchain-based money transfers between Hong Kong and the Philippines.
The founder and chairman of Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. extolled the possibilities of the decentralized ledger on which Bitcoin is based but warned that the digital currency itself may be driven by torrid speculation. Ma made his comments after officially launching a blockchain-based remittance service with Standard Chartered Plc and GCash, Ant’s venture with the Philippines’ Globe Telecom Inc.
Bitcoin set a 2018 low on Sunday before bouncing back a tad, underscoring the volatility that stems from increased scrutiny by regulators even as global central bankers and business chiefs raise questions about its viability.
“Blockchain technology could change our world more than people imagine,” Ma told reporters in the former British colony, home to a large population of Filipino workers and domestic helpers who send money home regularly. “Bitcoin however could be a bubble.”
Read more: Ant Financial Raises $14 Billion as Funding Round Closes
Ant Financial, an affiliate of Alibaba’s backed by some of the biggest names in global finance and investment, has explored blockchain technology for years, including to clean up China’s murky charities. But the remittance service marks one of the first instances of the internet giant using the technology in mainstream finance.
On Monday, Ma also took potshots at the traditional banking industry, saying financial institutions were over-charging for overseas payments. Ant Financial, blocked from buying Moneygram International Inc., now wants to build something better and take blockchain-based remittances beyond just Hong Kong to the Philippines. He didn’t elaborate.
“Traditional financial institutions serve 20 percent of people and make 80 percent of profits. New financial institutions should service 80 percent of people, and make 20 percent of profit,” said Ma.
By Lulu Yilun Chen
June 25, 2018, 6:19 PM GMT+10
The Alibaba chairman remains an advocate of blockchain tech
Ant Financial starts a blockchain-based remittance service
Billionaire Jack Ma has declared Bitcoin a potential bubble, reiterating his caution over the volatile crypto-currency as his Ant Financial on Monday launched blockchain-based money transfers between Hong Kong and the Philippines.
The founder and chairman of Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. extolled the possibilities of the decentralized ledger on which Bitcoin is based but warned that the digital currency itself may be driven by torrid speculation. Ma made his comments after officially launching a blockchain-based remittance service with Standard Chartered Plc and GCash, Ant’s venture with the Philippines’ Globe Telecom Inc.
Bitcoin set a 2018 low on Sunday before bouncing back a tad, underscoring the volatility that stems from increased scrutiny by regulators even as global central bankers and business chiefs raise questions about its viability.
“Blockchain technology could change our world more than people imagine,” Ma told reporters in the former British colony, home to a large population of Filipino workers and domestic helpers who send money home regularly. “Bitcoin however could be a bubble.”
Read more: Ant Financial Raises $14 Billion as Funding Round Closes
Ant Financial, an affiliate of Alibaba’s backed by some of the biggest names in global finance and investment, has explored blockchain technology for years, including to clean up China’s murky charities. But the remittance service marks one of the first instances of the internet giant using the technology in mainstream finance.
On Monday, Ma also took potshots at the traditional banking industry, saying financial institutions were over-charging for overseas payments. Ant Financial, blocked from buying Moneygram International Inc., now wants to build something better and take blockchain-based remittances beyond just Hong Kong to the Philippines. He didn’t elaborate.
“Traditional financial institutions serve 20 percent of people and make 80 percent of profits. New financial institutions should service 80 percent of people, and make 20 percent of profit,” said Ma.
Judicial adviser Leonard Leo on what Trump is looking for in a Supreme Court nominee - CBS News
June 28, 2018, 1:49 PM
Judicial adviser Leonard Leo on what Trump is looking for in a Supreme Court nominee
After Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, President Trump said his replacement would come from a list of 25 possible nominees released by the White House last November. Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society, advises Mr. Trump on judicial nominations and spoke to the president following Kennedy's announcement. Leo, whose group consists of conservative lawyers who want judges to interpret the law as it was written, said Mr. Trump was looking for three things when he created the list:
"One, extraordinarily well qualified. Two, people who are, in his words, not weak. And thirdly, people who are going to interpret the Constitution the way the framers meant it to be, which is the way he put it, which I thought was an interesting way to do it," Leo said Thursday on "CBS This Morning."
Leo said Mr. Trump met with him and suggested the idea of the list.
"It was a novel idea. I told him that no one had ever done it before, but it was an interesting idea because it would tell people where the president stood on the issue of judicial selection. And so he went ahead and decided to do the list," Leo said.
Asked whether he had a leading contender from the list in mind, Leo repeatedly said no.
"The list is really good," Leo said, adding, "You can throw a dart at that list and in my view you would be fine."
A writer in the National Review once wrote, "No one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade than the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo…" But Leo denied the description, saying "it's not about Roe v. Wade" for him.
What does Anthony Kennedy's retirement mean for Roe v. Wade?
"For constitutional conservatives, that's not what it's about. It's about interpreting the Constitution as it's written and basically interpreting the limits on government power because that's really the way to preserve human dignity in our country," Leo said.
He said Roe v. Wade has been used as a "scare tactic" that's gone decades back to the days of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor nomination.
"And nothing has happened to Roe in that period of time," Leo said.
He said people should not be worried about Roe v. Wade "or any other particular case."
Kennedy, a conservative justice, has sided with liberal members of the court from time to time. Leo said he was "personally disappointed" when Kennedy voted with liberals on abortion rights.
"But the fact of the matter is that Justice Kennedy has been a very important conservative member of the court on many very key issues. Obamacare, gun rights, Citizens United. And in many of those instances I think he understood that the Constitution needed to be interpreted as it's written," Leo said. "So he parted company with conservatives on a few key areas, but he understands the importance of the Constitution and the way it's written."
Kennedy will step down effective July 31.
Judicial adviser Leonard Leo on what Trump is looking for in a Supreme Court nominee
After Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, President Trump said his replacement would come from a list of 25 possible nominees released by the White House last November. Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society, advises Mr. Trump on judicial nominations and spoke to the president following Kennedy's announcement. Leo, whose group consists of conservative lawyers who want judges to interpret the law as it was written, said Mr. Trump was looking for three things when he created the list:
"One, extraordinarily well qualified. Two, people who are, in his words, not weak. And thirdly, people who are going to interpret the Constitution the way the framers meant it to be, which is the way he put it, which I thought was an interesting way to do it," Leo said Thursday on "CBS This Morning."
Leo said Mr. Trump met with him and suggested the idea of the list.
"It was a novel idea. I told him that no one had ever done it before, but it was an interesting idea because it would tell people where the president stood on the issue of judicial selection. And so he went ahead and decided to do the list," Leo said.
Asked whether he had a leading contender from the list in mind, Leo repeatedly said no.
"The list is really good," Leo said, adding, "You can throw a dart at that list and in my view you would be fine."
A writer in the National Review once wrote, "No one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade than the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo…" But Leo denied the description, saying "it's not about Roe v. Wade" for him.
What does Anthony Kennedy's retirement mean for Roe v. Wade?
"For constitutional conservatives, that's not what it's about. It's about interpreting the Constitution as it's written and basically interpreting the limits on government power because that's really the way to preserve human dignity in our country," Leo said.
He said Roe v. Wade has been used as a "scare tactic" that's gone decades back to the days of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor nomination.
"And nothing has happened to Roe in that period of time," Leo said.
He said people should not be worried about Roe v. Wade "or any other particular case."
Kennedy, a conservative justice, has sided with liberal members of the court from time to time. Leo said he was "personally disappointed" when Kennedy voted with liberals on abortion rights.
"But the fact of the matter is that Justice Kennedy has been a very important conservative member of the court on many very key issues. Obamacare, gun rights, Citizens United. And in many of those instances I think he understood that the Constitution needed to be interpreted as it's written," Leo said. "So he parted company with conservatives on a few key areas, but he understands the importance of the Constitution and the way it's written."
Kennedy will step down effective July 31.
Report: Merkel secures deal with 14 EU nations on migrants - ABC News
Report: Merkel secures deal with 14 EU nations on migrants
By DAVID RISING, ASSOCIATED PRESS BERLIN — Jun 30, 2018, 12:56 PM ET
German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks during a media conference at an EU summit in Brussels, Friday, June 29, 2018. European Union leaders cried victory Friday, claiming to have set aside major differences over how best to handle migrant arrivals. (The Associated Press
German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks during a media conference at an EU summit in Brussels, Friday, June 29, 2018. European Union leaders cried victory Friday, claiming to have set aside major differences over how best to handle migrant arrivals. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)more +
Email
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reportedly secured agreements with 14 European Union countries to rapidly return some asylum seekers as she seeks to end a schism in her government over migration policy.
Merkel also says she also wants to establish "anchor centers" to process migrants at Germany's borders, the dpa news agency reported Saturday.
The announcements came in a letter Merkel wrote to leaders of her Christian Democratic Union's Bavaria-only sister party, the Christian Social Union, as well as to her junior coalition government partner, the Social Democrats, after she attended a two-day EU summit in Brussels.
Merkel is seeking to end a three-week standoff with her hard-line Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, who heads the CSU.
Seehofer, whose party faces a state election in the fall, has been threatening to turn away migrants at Germany's border who have already been rejected by the country or who have registered for asylum elsewhere in the EU.
Merkel has rejected that approach, instead insisting on a European-wide solution to migration issues to preserve EU unity. The dispute has raised the possibility of an end to Germany's decades-old conservative alliance between the CSU and Merkel's CDU if Seehofer goes ahead with the unilateral move, which could bring down her government.
Both the CDU and the CSU are holding separate meetings Sunday to discuss Merkel's latest efforts on migration and plot their next steps.
Merkel on Friday came away from an EU summit with agreements from Greece and Spain to take back migrants previously registered in those countries, and an overall agreement by the 28-nation bloc to ease the pressures of migration into Europe.
In the eight-page letter obtained Saturday by dpa, the chancellor said that she had also secured agreement with half of the EU nations to return migrants to them if they'd first registered in those countries.
The countries included Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, which have all been harsh critics of Merkel's welcoming stance to migrants, as well as Belgium, France, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.
Officials in Hungary and the Czech Republic, however, both said later Saturday that they had not signed any deal on migrants.
Asked about the Czech comment, Merkel's spokesman told dpa that the country "had expressed a willingness to negotiate an administrative agreement on improved cooperation on repatriation."
In the letter, the chancellor threw her support behind establishing large collection centers in Germany for migrants as their cases are processed. Dpa reported the centers would be used for migrants who attempt to bypass border controls and for those whose cases don't fall under bilateral return agreements.
Whether the combination of the bilateral measures and EU agreement is enough to placate the CSU is not yet clear.
Top CSU lawmaker Markus Soeder, Bavaria's governor, on Saturday praised the EU agreement as more than his party had expected, but at the same time suggested that it left open the possibility of unilateral national measures as well.
Merkel's office told dpa, however, that interpretation was wrong, saying "unilateral measures at the expense of other countries are not what is meant."
In neighboring Austria, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz again urged a European solution to migration, warning in the Bild newspaper that if the southern German region of Bavaria undertook unilateral measures it would create a "domino effect" as Austria and other EU nations then closed their borders one-by-one.
"Our goal remains a joint European solution with orderly protection of the exterior borders, and centers in third countries,' said Kurz, whose nation took over the rotating EU presidency on Saturday. "That way we can also preserve a Europe without internal borders."
By DAVID RISING, ASSOCIATED PRESS BERLIN — Jun 30, 2018, 12:56 PM ET
German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks during a media conference at an EU summit in Brussels, Friday, June 29, 2018. European Union leaders cried victory Friday, claiming to have set aside major differences over how best to handle migrant arrivals. (The Associated Press
German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks during a media conference at an EU summit in Brussels, Friday, June 29, 2018. European Union leaders cried victory Friday, claiming to have set aside major differences over how best to handle migrant arrivals. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)more +
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reportedly secured agreements with 14 European Union countries to rapidly return some asylum seekers as she seeks to end a schism in her government over migration policy.
Merkel also says she also wants to establish "anchor centers" to process migrants at Germany's borders, the dpa news agency reported Saturday.
The announcements came in a letter Merkel wrote to leaders of her Christian Democratic Union's Bavaria-only sister party, the Christian Social Union, as well as to her junior coalition government partner, the Social Democrats, after she attended a two-day EU summit in Brussels.
Merkel is seeking to end a three-week standoff with her hard-line Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, who heads the CSU.
Seehofer, whose party faces a state election in the fall, has been threatening to turn away migrants at Germany's border who have already been rejected by the country or who have registered for asylum elsewhere in the EU.
Merkel has rejected that approach, instead insisting on a European-wide solution to migration issues to preserve EU unity. The dispute has raised the possibility of an end to Germany's decades-old conservative alliance between the CSU and Merkel's CDU if Seehofer goes ahead with the unilateral move, which could bring down her government.
Both the CDU and the CSU are holding separate meetings Sunday to discuss Merkel's latest efforts on migration and plot their next steps.
Merkel on Friday came away from an EU summit with agreements from Greece and Spain to take back migrants previously registered in those countries, and an overall agreement by the 28-nation bloc to ease the pressures of migration into Europe.
In the eight-page letter obtained Saturday by dpa, the chancellor said that she had also secured agreement with half of the EU nations to return migrants to them if they'd first registered in those countries.
The countries included Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, which have all been harsh critics of Merkel's welcoming stance to migrants, as well as Belgium, France, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.
Officials in Hungary and the Czech Republic, however, both said later Saturday that they had not signed any deal on migrants.
Asked about the Czech comment, Merkel's spokesman told dpa that the country "had expressed a willingness to negotiate an administrative agreement on improved cooperation on repatriation."
In the letter, the chancellor threw her support behind establishing large collection centers in Germany for migrants as their cases are processed. Dpa reported the centers would be used for migrants who attempt to bypass border controls and for those whose cases don't fall under bilateral return agreements.
Whether the combination of the bilateral measures and EU agreement is enough to placate the CSU is not yet clear.
Top CSU lawmaker Markus Soeder, Bavaria's governor, on Saturday praised the EU agreement as more than his party had expected, but at the same time suggested that it left open the possibility of unilateral national measures as well.
Merkel's office told dpa, however, that interpretation was wrong, saying "unilateral measures at the expense of other countries are not what is meant."
In neighboring Austria, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz again urged a European solution to migration, warning in the Bild newspaper that if the southern German region of Bavaria undertook unilateral measures it would create a "domino effect" as Austria and other EU nations then closed their borders one-by-one.
"Our goal remains a joint European solution with orderly protection of the exterior borders, and centers in third countries,' said Kurz, whose nation took over the rotating EU presidency on Saturday. "That way we can also preserve a Europe without internal borders."
Migrant crisis: Italy minister Salvini closes ports to NGO boats - BBC News
Migrant crisis: Italy minister Salvini closes ports to NGO boats
30 June 2018
Why is the Aquarius migrant rescue ship empty?
Migrants saved by boats run by non-governmental organisations will not be allowed into Italy, rightwing Interior Minister Matteo Salvini says.
Mr Salvini has often accused the NGOs of encouraging the trafficking of migrants. He told Corriere della Sera these NGOs were no longer "legitimate".
He also hailed the agreement reached by European Union leaders in Brussels that Italy hopes will lessen its burden.
Thousands of migrants, mainly from African countries, have reached Italy.
Gruelling migration talks end in draw
Reality Check: Is Italy taking in thousands of migrants?
The number is 95% lower than at the peak of the crisis in 2015, the EU says, but started to rise again recently.
What did leaders agree on Thursday?
Several Central European states have so far rejected an EU scheme to relocate 160,000 refugees from overcrowded camps in Greece and Italy.
Mr Salvini posted an image on his Facebook, showing one of the rescue boats, with the hashtag #closetheports.
His message read: "Halt the mafia of human trafficking: the fewer that depart, the fewer will perish."
Italy has complained about the lack of solidarity and its new government sparked a crisis earlier this month when it did not allow a boat full of migrants, the Aquarius, to disembark. Spain agreed to take them after days at sea.
The Brussels summit agreement foresees the creation of secure centres to receive migrants in EU countries on a voluntary basis - but it does not specify where.
President Emmanuel Macron of France, for instance, said hours after the deal that they would be in countries where migrants arrived first - such as Italy and Greece, but not France.
Italy insists these may be set up anywhere in the EU.
What did Merkel negotiate?
The migration procedure, known as the Dublin Regulation, means migrants should register in the first EU country they arrive. Front-line countries want this changed.
The deal will likely help to stabilise Angela Merkel's rocky coalition
The issue has destabilised the governing coalition led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Mrs Merkel's key ally, Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, has threatened to start turning away migrants who have already registered elsewhere.
So the German chancellor says she has struck bilateral agreements with 14 countries to return migrants registered there if their claims to asylum in Germany have been rejected.
Spain and Greece have also agreed to take back migrants, but not Italy or Austria - both run by populist governments.
And Hungary, one of the countries listed by the German media, said no such agreement had been reached, either.
European press says migrant deal 'fragile'
Merkel's Bavarian ally threatens migrant mutiny
Trapped in a country everyone wants to leave
Migrant crisis: EU border force Frontex explained
What do aid agencies say?
NGOs have fiercely condemned the Brussels deal, saying it betrays vulnerable people and those trying to stop them dying in the Mediterranean.
The deal also aimed to "demonise non-governmental search and rescue operations", MSF's emergencies chief Karline Kleijer said.
On Friday, around 100 people were said to have drowned off the Libyan coast, with 16 rescued.
30 June 2018
Why is the Aquarius migrant rescue ship empty?
Migrants saved by boats run by non-governmental organisations will not be allowed into Italy, rightwing Interior Minister Matteo Salvini says.
Mr Salvini has often accused the NGOs of encouraging the trafficking of migrants. He told Corriere della Sera these NGOs were no longer "legitimate".
He also hailed the agreement reached by European Union leaders in Brussels that Italy hopes will lessen its burden.
Thousands of migrants, mainly from African countries, have reached Italy.
Gruelling migration talks end in draw
Reality Check: Is Italy taking in thousands of migrants?
The number is 95% lower than at the peak of the crisis in 2015, the EU says, but started to rise again recently.
What did leaders agree on Thursday?
Several Central European states have so far rejected an EU scheme to relocate 160,000 refugees from overcrowded camps in Greece and Italy.
Mr Salvini posted an image on his Facebook, showing one of the rescue boats, with the hashtag #closetheports.
His message read: "Halt the mafia of human trafficking: the fewer that depart, the fewer will perish."
Italy has complained about the lack of solidarity and its new government sparked a crisis earlier this month when it did not allow a boat full of migrants, the Aquarius, to disembark. Spain agreed to take them after days at sea.
The Brussels summit agreement foresees the creation of secure centres to receive migrants in EU countries on a voluntary basis - but it does not specify where.
President Emmanuel Macron of France, for instance, said hours after the deal that they would be in countries where migrants arrived first - such as Italy and Greece, but not France.
Italy insists these may be set up anywhere in the EU.
What did Merkel negotiate?
The migration procedure, known as the Dublin Regulation, means migrants should register in the first EU country they arrive. Front-line countries want this changed.
The deal will likely help to stabilise Angela Merkel's rocky coalition
The issue has destabilised the governing coalition led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Mrs Merkel's key ally, Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, has threatened to start turning away migrants who have already registered elsewhere.
So the German chancellor says she has struck bilateral agreements with 14 countries to return migrants registered there if their claims to asylum in Germany have been rejected.
Spain and Greece have also agreed to take back migrants, but not Italy or Austria - both run by populist governments.
And Hungary, one of the countries listed by the German media, said no such agreement had been reached, either.
European press says migrant deal 'fragile'
Merkel's Bavarian ally threatens migrant mutiny
Trapped in a country everyone wants to leave
Migrant crisis: EU border force Frontex explained
What do aid agencies say?
NGOs have fiercely condemned the Brussels deal, saying it betrays vulnerable people and those trying to stop them dying in the Mediterranean.
The deal also aimed to "demonise non-governmental search and rescue operations", MSF's emergencies chief Karline Kleijer said.
On Friday, around 100 people were said to have drowned off the Libyan coast, with 16 rescued.
Trump urges Saudis to raise oil output 'by two million barrels' - BBC News
Trump urges Saudis to raise oil output 'by two million barrels'
30 June 2018
President Trump and King Salman of Saudi Arabia discussed oil production by phone
US President Donald Trump has urged Saudi Arabia to sharply increase its oil production to combat the rising cost of fuel.
Mr Trump tweeted that he had asked Saudi ruler King Salman to raise oil output by up to two million barrels a day.
"Prices to [sic] high! He has agreed!" the president added.
Mr Trump said the move was needed due to "turmoil and dysfunction in Iran and Venezuela".
Oil prices rose last week, partly due to US plans to reimpose sanctions on Iran, a major oil producer.
The Opec oil producers' group agreed to increase output, as did Russia, but this failed to reassure markets.
US tells allies to halt Iran oil imports
The impact of Iran sanctions - in charts
Oil hits $75 as Iran sanction fears mount
The Saudi Press Agency confirmed that President Trump and King Salman had spoken by phone, giving few details. It said they had discussed the need to "preserve the stability of the oil market".
The statement did not confirm that Saudi Arabia had agreed to the two million barrels a day figure.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia and explained to him that, because of the turmoil & disfunction in Iran and Venezuela, I am asking that Saudi Arabia increase oil production, maybe up to 2,000,000 barrels, to make up the difference...Prices to high! He has agreed!
9:37 PM - Jun 30, 2018
Saudi Arabia is the world's biggest exporter of oil and produced about 10 million barrels a day in May. It is reported to have between 1.5 million and two million barrels a day of spare capacity - but experts told The Wall Street Journal it might not be keen to meet the president's request.
"Saudi Arabia does not really like going beyond 11 million barrels a day and has no intention of expanding its current production capacity. It is expensive," a Saudi official told the paper.
Mr Trump has repeatedly criticised Opec even though US ally Saudi Arabia is a core member.
On 20 April he tweeted that oil prices were "artificially very high", saying this was "no good" and "will not be accepted!"
Skip Twitter post 2 by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Looks like OPEC is at it again. With record amounts of Oil all over the place, including the fully loaded ships at sea, Oil prices are artificially Very High! No good and will not be accepted!
Trump targets Opec over high oil prices
Iran, another Opec member, has accused Mr Trump of trying to politicise the group and has blamed Riyadh for doing his bidding.
On Saturday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the US was trying to drive a wedge between Iranians and their government using "economic pressure".
"Six US presidents before him tried this and had to give up," Mr Khamenei cautioned on his website.
The value of Iran's currency, the rial, has tumbled since Washington backed out of the Iran nuclear deal in May.
Earlier this week, thousands of traders at Tehran's Grand Bazaar marched in protest against rising prices and the plummeting value of the rial. It was the biggest protest the city has seen since 2012.
30 June 2018
President Trump and King Salman of Saudi Arabia discussed oil production by phone
US President Donald Trump has urged Saudi Arabia to sharply increase its oil production to combat the rising cost of fuel.
Mr Trump tweeted that he had asked Saudi ruler King Salman to raise oil output by up to two million barrels a day.
"Prices to [sic] high! He has agreed!" the president added.
Mr Trump said the move was needed due to "turmoil and dysfunction in Iran and Venezuela".
Oil prices rose last week, partly due to US plans to reimpose sanctions on Iran, a major oil producer.
The Opec oil producers' group agreed to increase output, as did Russia, but this failed to reassure markets.
US tells allies to halt Iran oil imports
The impact of Iran sanctions - in charts
Oil hits $75 as Iran sanction fears mount
The Saudi Press Agency confirmed that President Trump and King Salman had spoken by phone, giving few details. It said they had discussed the need to "preserve the stability of the oil market".
The statement did not confirm that Saudi Arabia had agreed to the two million barrels a day figure.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia and explained to him that, because of the turmoil & disfunction in Iran and Venezuela, I am asking that Saudi Arabia increase oil production, maybe up to 2,000,000 barrels, to make up the difference...Prices to high! He has agreed!
9:37 PM - Jun 30, 2018
Saudi Arabia is the world's biggest exporter of oil and produced about 10 million barrels a day in May. It is reported to have between 1.5 million and two million barrels a day of spare capacity - but experts told The Wall Street Journal it might not be keen to meet the president's request.
"Saudi Arabia does not really like going beyond 11 million barrels a day and has no intention of expanding its current production capacity. It is expensive," a Saudi official told the paper.
Mr Trump has repeatedly criticised Opec even though US ally Saudi Arabia is a core member.
On 20 April he tweeted that oil prices were "artificially very high", saying this was "no good" and "will not be accepted!"
Skip Twitter post 2 by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Looks like OPEC is at it again. With record amounts of Oil all over the place, including the fully loaded ships at sea, Oil prices are artificially Very High! No good and will not be accepted!
Trump targets Opec over high oil prices
Iran, another Opec member, has accused Mr Trump of trying to politicise the group and has blamed Riyadh for doing his bidding.
On Saturday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the US was trying to drive a wedge between Iranians and their government using "economic pressure".
"Six US presidents before him tried this and had to give up," Mr Khamenei cautioned on his website.
The value of Iran's currency, the rial, has tumbled since Washington backed out of the Iran nuclear deal in May.
Earlier this week, thousands of traders at Tehran's Grand Bazaar marched in protest against rising prices and the plummeting value of the rial. It was the biggest protest the city has seen since 2012.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
A Korean janitor who found seven gold bars worth $325,000 in the trash could be allowed to keep them - CNBC News
A Korean janitor who found seven gold bars worth $325,000 in the trash could be allowed to keep them
The unidentified male cleaner found the thrown away gold bars at Incheon International Airport on Thursday, according to local media reports.
The owner of the bullion is a Korean man, according to Yonhap News Agency, and two other men ditched the bars out of fear of being searched at customs.
Ryan Browne | @Ryan_Browne_
Published 6:39 AM ET Thu, 3 May 2018 Updated 10:46 PM ET Thu, 3 May 2018
CNBC.com
Gold bars on display in Tokyo on September 27, 2010.
Yoshikazu Tsuno | AFP | Getty Images
Gold bars on display in Tokyo on September 27, 2010.
A janitor in South Korea who discovered seven gold bars in a garbage bin could keep them if no-one else claims ownership.
The unidentified male cleaner found the discarded gold bars, that each weighed 1 kilogram and were wrapped in newspaper, at Seoul's Incheon International Airport on Thursday, according to local media reports. Altogether, the bars are worth 350 million won ($325,000).
The owner of the bullion is a Korean man, according to Seoul-based Yonhap News Agency, and two other men ditched the bars at the request of the owner out of fear of being searched at customs.
According to Yonhap, police said that the men were traveling from Hong Kong to Japan, and went through South Korea in the belief that it would be easier to bypass customs searches.
Whether the owner makes a claim for the discarded gold or not, the janitor will still be able to keep 5 to 20 percent of its market price, amounting to between 17.5 million won ($16,250) and 70 million won ($65,000), in accordance with South Korean law, The Korea Times reported. But he could also lose it all if the items are found to be tainted or linked to criminal activity.
Correction: This report has been updated to reflect a proper conversion of 350 million won into U.S. dollars.
The unidentified male cleaner found the thrown away gold bars at Incheon International Airport on Thursday, according to local media reports.
The owner of the bullion is a Korean man, according to Yonhap News Agency, and two other men ditched the bars out of fear of being searched at customs.
Ryan Browne | @Ryan_Browne_
Published 6:39 AM ET Thu, 3 May 2018 Updated 10:46 PM ET Thu, 3 May 2018
CNBC.com
Gold bars on display in Tokyo on September 27, 2010.
Yoshikazu Tsuno | AFP | Getty Images
Gold bars on display in Tokyo on September 27, 2010.
A janitor in South Korea who discovered seven gold bars in a garbage bin could keep them if no-one else claims ownership.
The unidentified male cleaner found the discarded gold bars, that each weighed 1 kilogram and were wrapped in newspaper, at Seoul's Incheon International Airport on Thursday, according to local media reports. Altogether, the bars are worth 350 million won ($325,000).
The owner of the bullion is a Korean man, according to Seoul-based Yonhap News Agency, and two other men ditched the bars at the request of the owner out of fear of being searched at customs.
According to Yonhap, police said that the men were traveling from Hong Kong to Japan, and went through South Korea in the belief that it would be easier to bypass customs searches.
Whether the owner makes a claim for the discarded gold or not, the janitor will still be able to keep 5 to 20 percent of its market price, amounting to between 17.5 million won ($16,250) and 70 million won ($65,000), in accordance with South Korean law, The Korea Times reported. But he could also lose it all if the items are found to be tainted or linked to criminal activity.
Correction: This report has been updated to reflect a proper conversion of 350 million won into U.S. dollars.
Canada 'will not back down' over US metals tariffs - BBC News
Canada 'will not back down' over US metals tariffs
29 June 2018
Canada will "not back down" in the face of new US tariffs on steel and aluminium, according to the country's foreign minister.
Chrystia Freeland spoke as officials unveiled a C$2bn (US$1.5bn; £1.15bn) package to support the country's steel and aluminium industries.
Retaliatory tariffs on C$16.6bn worth of US products are due to come into effect on 1 July.
Ms Freeland said US tariffs left Canada "no choice" but to respond.
Canada's tariffs target US steel and aluminium products.
It also includes items such as yoghurt, ketchup and orange juice, which are made in key political battlegrounds such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Where does Trump's 'America First' leave Canada?
G7 summit: Trump's Trudeau jibes bring Canadians and Americans together
The list of products is intended to match "dollar for dollar" the US tariffs, which came into effect on 1 June, Ms Freeland said.
"Our approach is we will not escalate but equally we will not back down," she said.
'Too much at stake'
The US and Canada are among each other's top trade partners, exchanging nearly US$700bn in goods and services last year.
But trade relations between the two countries have grown tense, amid disputes over issues such as lumber, dairy and wine.
Dairy wars: Why is Trump threatening Canada over milk?
The two countries, with Mexico, are also locked in negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In May, when the US said it would not extend exemptions from the tariffs to Canada and Mexico, it said those talks were moving too slowly.
Ms Freeland said the discussions continue and will heat up again after the Mexican election on Sunday. She said she is confident that "common sense" will prevail.
"There's too much at stake," she said.
'A good first step'
The US is the top foreign market for Canada's steel and aluminium, while Canada is the destination for more than half of US steel exports.
In Canada, the steel and aluminium industries employ more than 33,500 people, according to the government.
About 6,000 jobs in Canada are at risk due to the US tariffs, the CD Howe Institute has estimated.
President Donald Trump has complained about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Twitter
Ken Neumann, director in Canada for the United Steelworkers union, said the aid package, which includes loan assistance, should help companies, but the support for workers is more "modest".
The package "a good first step that will need to be expanded if the trade dispute continues beyond the short-term", he said.
The US is also exposed to thousands of potential job losses, as higher costs for steel and aluminium hurt US firms and trigger retaliation from Canada and elsewhere.
In addition to Canada, the European Union and Mexico are among those that have announced tariffs on US goods in response.
US tariffs: Allies retaliate with levies on jam, lamps and sleeping bags
Who is losing out from Trump's tariffs?
The Trump administration has said the tariffs are necessary to protect the steel and aluminium industries, arguing that their success is vital to America's national security.
Several countries, including Canada, are challenging that rationale with complaints against the US to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
29 June 2018
Canada will "not back down" in the face of new US tariffs on steel and aluminium, according to the country's foreign minister.
Chrystia Freeland spoke as officials unveiled a C$2bn (US$1.5bn; £1.15bn) package to support the country's steel and aluminium industries.
Retaliatory tariffs on C$16.6bn worth of US products are due to come into effect on 1 July.
Ms Freeland said US tariffs left Canada "no choice" but to respond.
Canada's tariffs target US steel and aluminium products.
It also includes items such as yoghurt, ketchup and orange juice, which are made in key political battlegrounds such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Where does Trump's 'America First' leave Canada?
G7 summit: Trump's Trudeau jibes bring Canadians and Americans together
The list of products is intended to match "dollar for dollar" the US tariffs, which came into effect on 1 June, Ms Freeland said.
"Our approach is we will not escalate but equally we will not back down," she said.
'Too much at stake'
The US and Canada are among each other's top trade partners, exchanging nearly US$700bn in goods and services last year.
But trade relations between the two countries have grown tense, amid disputes over issues such as lumber, dairy and wine.
Dairy wars: Why is Trump threatening Canada over milk?
The two countries, with Mexico, are also locked in negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In May, when the US said it would not extend exemptions from the tariffs to Canada and Mexico, it said those talks were moving too slowly.
Ms Freeland said the discussions continue and will heat up again after the Mexican election on Sunday. She said she is confident that "common sense" will prevail.
"There's too much at stake," she said.
'A good first step'
The US is the top foreign market for Canada's steel and aluminium, while Canada is the destination for more than half of US steel exports.
In Canada, the steel and aluminium industries employ more than 33,500 people, according to the government.
About 6,000 jobs in Canada are at risk due to the US tariffs, the CD Howe Institute has estimated.
President Donald Trump has complained about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Twitter
Ken Neumann, director in Canada for the United Steelworkers union, said the aid package, which includes loan assistance, should help companies, but the support for workers is more "modest".
The package "a good first step that will need to be expanded if the trade dispute continues beyond the short-term", he said.
The US is also exposed to thousands of potential job losses, as higher costs for steel and aluminium hurt US firms and trigger retaliation from Canada and elsewhere.
In addition to Canada, the European Union and Mexico are among those that have announced tariffs on US goods in response.
US tariffs: Allies retaliate with levies on jam, lamps and sleeping bags
Who is losing out from Trump's tariffs?
The Trump administration has said the tariffs are necessary to protect the steel and aluminium industries, arguing that their success is vital to America's national security.
Several countries, including Canada, are challenging that rationale with complaints against the US to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
Donald Trump gets prank call on Air Force One - BBC News
June 30, 2018
Donald Trump gets prank call on Air Force One
President Trump spoke to a prank comedian while on board Air Force One
US President Donald Trump was fooled by a comedian into taking a prank call while on board Air Force One.
Comedian John Melendez posed as Senator Bob Menendez. He says he spoke to the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner and received a call back from Mr Trump.
Mr Melendez said he claimed to be Senator Menendez and a fake assistant.
"Sometimes the [President's] channels are open too widely and mistakes like this happen," a White House official told CNN.
Senator Menendez is a Democratic senator from New Jersey and a long-time campaigner for immigration reform.
The US government has come under fire in recent weeks over its policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border with Mexico.
Mr Melendez, who goes by the stage name Stuttering John, recorded his conversations with the US president and uploaded on his podcast.
On the recording, the voice that is purportedly Mr Trump congratulates Mr Menendez for his 2017 acquittal in a bribery case.
He was accused of accepting gifts from a Florida eye doctor in exchange for political influence.
The two voices on Mr Melendez's podcast recording also talked about the Supreme Court vacancy following Anthony Kennedy's decision to step down next month.
The voice said to be Mr Trump says he will nominate a new judge to the Supreme Court in "10 to 14 days".
Trump narrows down Supreme Court candidates
Why is the US Supreme Court so important?
When the White House made inquiries with Mr Menendez's office about the conversation Mr Trump thought he had with him on Thursday, the senator's staff were befuddled, US media report.
The prank caller said that his plan could have easily gone wrong.
"All they had to ask me is what party affiliation is Senator Menendez, or what state is he a senator of, and I would not have known. But they didn't ask me any of this," Mr Melendez told CNN.
Donald Trump gets prank call on Air Force One
President Trump spoke to a prank comedian while on board Air Force One
US President Donald Trump was fooled by a comedian into taking a prank call while on board Air Force One.
Comedian John Melendez posed as Senator Bob Menendez. He says he spoke to the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner and received a call back from Mr Trump.
Mr Melendez said he claimed to be Senator Menendez and a fake assistant.
"Sometimes the [President's] channels are open too widely and mistakes like this happen," a White House official told CNN.
Senator Menendez is a Democratic senator from New Jersey and a long-time campaigner for immigration reform.
The US government has come under fire in recent weeks over its policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border with Mexico.
Mr Melendez, who goes by the stage name Stuttering John, recorded his conversations with the US president and uploaded on his podcast.
On the recording, the voice that is purportedly Mr Trump congratulates Mr Menendez for his 2017 acquittal in a bribery case.
He was accused of accepting gifts from a Florida eye doctor in exchange for political influence.
The two voices on Mr Melendez's podcast recording also talked about the Supreme Court vacancy following Anthony Kennedy's decision to step down next month.
The voice said to be Mr Trump says he will nominate a new judge to the Supreme Court in "10 to 14 days".
Trump narrows down Supreme Court candidates
Why is the US Supreme Court so important?
When the White House made inquiries with Mr Menendez's office about the conversation Mr Trump thought he had with him on Thursday, the senator's staff were befuddled, US media report.
The prank caller said that his plan could have easily gone wrong.
"All they had to ask me is what party affiliation is Senator Menendez, or what state is he a senator of, and I would not have known. But they didn't ask me any of this," Mr Melendez told CNN.
US ambassador to Estonia resigns 'over Trump comments' - BBC News
June 30, 2018
US ambassador to Estonia resigns 'over Trump comments'
James D Melville is a career diplomat who has held senior posts in several European countries
The US ambassador to Estonia is resigning, reportedly in frustration at remarks made by President Donald Trump about America's European allies.
James D Melville revealed in a Facebook post that Mr Trump's comments had brought forward his decision to retire, Foreign Policy magazine reported.
The US president has imposed trade tariffs on some EU industries and strongly criticised Nato allies.
Other US diplomats have also left their posts early in recent months.
In January, US ambassador to Panama John Feeley resigned saying he was no longer able to serve under President Trump.
A month earlier, Elizabeth Shackelford resigned from her post in Nairobi where she worked for the US mission to Somalia.
In her letter of resignation to then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, she said she was quitting because the US had abandoned human rights as a priority, Foreign Policy reported.
US tariffs a dangerous game, says EU
Trump lashes out at key US allies
In the private Facebook post seen by Foreign Policy, Mr Melville reportedly told friends: "For the president to say the EU was 'set up to take advantage of the United States, to attack our piggy bank', or that 'Nato is as bad as Nafta [the North American Free Trade Agreement]' is not only factually wrong, but proves to me that it's time to go."
Mr Melville is a career diplomat and took up his position as ambassador in Estonia in 2015 after being nominated by then President Barack Obama.
He had previously held senior diplomatic posts in several European countries and speaks Russian, German and French, according to his biography on the US State Department website.
A State Department spokesperson confirmed Mr Melville's departure on Friday, saying: "Earlier today, the United States' Ambassador to Estonia, Jim Melville, announced his intent to retire from the Foreign Service effective July 29 after 33 years of public service."
President Trump reiterated his criticism of fellow Nato members on Friday while on a flight from Washington to his private golf club in New Jersey.
He told reporters on board Air Force One that countries including Germany, Spain and France had to increase their financial contributions to the bloc.
"It's not fair what they've done to the United States," he said. "The United States is paying much more disproportionately to anyone else."
His remarks come less than two weeks before a Nato summit in Brussels.
US ambassador to Estonia resigns 'over Trump comments'
James D Melville is a career diplomat who has held senior posts in several European countries
The US ambassador to Estonia is resigning, reportedly in frustration at remarks made by President Donald Trump about America's European allies.
James D Melville revealed in a Facebook post that Mr Trump's comments had brought forward his decision to retire, Foreign Policy magazine reported.
The US president has imposed trade tariffs on some EU industries and strongly criticised Nato allies.
Other US diplomats have also left their posts early in recent months.
In January, US ambassador to Panama John Feeley resigned saying he was no longer able to serve under President Trump.
A month earlier, Elizabeth Shackelford resigned from her post in Nairobi where she worked for the US mission to Somalia.
In her letter of resignation to then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, she said she was quitting because the US had abandoned human rights as a priority, Foreign Policy reported.
US tariffs a dangerous game, says EU
Trump lashes out at key US allies
In the private Facebook post seen by Foreign Policy, Mr Melville reportedly told friends: "For the president to say the EU was 'set up to take advantage of the United States, to attack our piggy bank', or that 'Nato is as bad as Nafta [the North American Free Trade Agreement]' is not only factually wrong, but proves to me that it's time to go."
Mr Melville is a career diplomat and took up his position as ambassador in Estonia in 2015 after being nominated by then President Barack Obama.
He had previously held senior diplomatic posts in several European countries and speaks Russian, German and French, according to his biography on the US State Department website.
A State Department spokesperson confirmed Mr Melville's departure on Friday, saying: "Earlier today, the United States' Ambassador to Estonia, Jim Melville, announced his intent to retire from the Foreign Service effective July 29 after 33 years of public service."
President Trump reiterated his criticism of fellow Nato members on Friday while on a flight from Washington to his private golf club in New Jersey.
He told reporters on board Air Force One that countries including Germany, Spain and France had to increase their financial contributions to the bloc.
"It's not fair what they've done to the United States," he said. "The United States is paying much more disproportionately to anyone else."
His remarks come less than two weeks before a Nato summit in Brussels.
Political War Over Replacing Kennedy on Supreme Court Is Underway - New York Times
Political War Over Replacing Kennedy on Supreme Court Is Underway
The Supreme Court building in Washington. A battle for the future of the court is underway after Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will retire.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times
By Michael D. Shear and Thomas Kaplan
June 28, 2018
WASHINGTON — A political war over replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy roared to life on Thursday in Washington, the start of an election-season clash over a Supreme Court retirement that will reshape the country’s judicial future.
Hours after Justice Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will step down July 31, conservative organizations were mobilizing to support the Republican-controlled Senate in a quick confirmation of a justice who would be expected to vote against the court’s liberal precedents. One group, the Judicial Crisis Network, has already started a $1 million ad campaign urging people to support the president’s choice.
Democrats and liberal advocacy organizations face enormous challenges if they hope to prevent President Trump and the Republicans from installing a conservative justice who would shift the ideological balance of the court for generations. Mr. Trump has promised to pick from a list of highly conservative jurists, and Republicans control the Senate, which can confirm the president’s choice by a simple majority.
Mr. Trump began wooing senators late Thursday night, meeting at the White House separately with three Republicans and with the three Democrats — Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — who broke party ranks last year and voted to confirm Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, the president’s first Supreme Court pick.
After the meeting, Ms. Heitkamp said in a statement that she urged the president to appoint someone who is “pragmatic, fair, compassionate, committed to justice, and above politics.”
But the effect of Justice Kennedy’s departure has already ignited opposition from many Democratic lawmakers, party strategists and liberal activists, who vowed a fierce battle to try to preserve decades of liberal court precedents on abortion, civil rights, gay rights, affirmative action and the death penalty.
“I think it has sunk in very quickly that this is the biggest fight of them all,” said Brian Fallon, a veteran Democratic operative whose organization, Demand Justice, is leading the charge against Mr. Trump’s pick. “If we don’t succeed in this fight, Trumpism will be here for 40 years, not just four years.”
Democratic strategists say the party needs to model its resistance to the successful fight Democratic senators waged in 1987 against Judge Robert H. Bork, President Ronald Reagan’s pick for the Supreme Court. After they defeated Judge Bork, Mr. Reagan eventually settled on Justice Kennedy, who was seen as a more moderate choice.
If they can mobilize Democrats and liberals, lawmakers say they hope to demand a more moderate justice from the current president, as well.
“There are people who have had to withdraw over the years because you get information out and you question them and the public is focused on it and galvanized by it,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Demand Justice has begun running online ads against three of Mr. Trump’s possible picks and expects to spend more than $1 million on television ads once the president selects a nominee.
One ad targets Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is on the president’s list of possible justices, for saying that the Affordable Care Act should have been held unconstitutional. Another ad is aimed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh, another possible pick, for saying that a president should be able to “decide whether and when he can be investigated.”
Democrats say they will focus on two main issues, abortion and health care. Mr. Fallon, who worked for President Barack Obama and was a top spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, said the challenge will be convincing people that a Trump justice poses a threat to both issues.
“We have to do the work and spend the money to communicate the consequences of what a 5-4 court with a newly installed justice looks like,” Mr. Fallon said.
Democratic lawmakers gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court Thursday morning, flanked by members of progressive groups, to declare their opposition to all of the potential candidates on Mr. Trump’s public list of 25 possible jurists.
Video
Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, both moderate Republicans who favor abortion rights, are facing pressure from liberal activists to defend Roe v. Wade in the impending confirmation battle over President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.Published OnJune 28, 2018CreditImage by Tom Brenner/The New York Times
At the Capitol, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, warned of the high stakes in filling the vacancy.
“Make no mistake: Republicans now have the opportunity to erase a generation of progress for women’s rights, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, civil rights, workers’ rights and health care,” Ms. Pelosi declared.
Strategists say Democrats must demand that Mr. Trump’s pick for the court affirmatively say whether he or she would uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark case establishing a right to abortion. Saying that it is “settled law,” as some conservatives concede, is not enough, the strategists say.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has vowed to move swiftly once Mr. Trump announces his choice, but Democratic lawmakers are demanding that a replacement for Justice Kennedy not be confirmed until after the midterm elections in the fall. They argue that voters should be given the opportunity to select the members of Congress they want to vote on the vital selection.
Democrats have angrily pointed out that Republicans, led by Mr. McConnell, used exactly that argument in 2016, before the presidential election, as they blocked Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
With Kennedy’s Retirement, the Supreme Court Loses Its Center
The swing vote in many decisions, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy shifted toward more conservative opinions in the final months of his 30-year justice tenure.
June 27, 2018
On Thursday Mr. McConnell defended his decision to move forward with filling the vacancy this year.
“This is not 2016,” he said on the Senate floor. “There aren’t the final months of a second-term constitutionally lame-duck presidency with a presidential election fast approaching. We’re right in the middle of this president’s very first term.”
Mr. McConnell pointed to the Supreme Court confirmations of Justices Elena Kagan in 2010, Stephen G. Breyer in 1994 and David H. Souter in 1990 — all midterm election years in a president’s first term.
“To my knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested before yesterday that the Senate should only process Supreme Court nominations in odd-numbered years,” Mr. McConnell said.
Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said that “the 2018 midterm elections just became the most consequential election of our lifetime.”
“We must keep organizing, mobilizing and holding lawmakers to account every single day — and then we need turn out like never before this November,” he said.
Conservatives in Charge, the Supreme Court Moved Right
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s last Supreme Court term contained hints of his retirement and foreshadowed a lasting rightward shift.
June 28, 2018
Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, echoed that message in an email to his supporters seeking signatures on a petition.
“We should not vote on a new Supreme Court Justice before the American people vote in November,” Mr. Kaine wrote. “Sign my petition if you agree: No Supreme Court vote until the American people vote.”
There is little chance of that happening, given that Mr. Trump and his allies in Congress want to make sure to act on the court vacancy before the fall elections, when Democrats could regain control of the Senate.
To that end, conservative organizations are planning campaigns to support a speedy confirmation.
“Concerned Women for America is gearing up for our biggest and perhaps most important confirmation battle in our almost 40-year history,” said Penny Nance, the group’s president. “We plan to devote considerable resources to this effort, and we expect to win. Our happy warrior/activist ladies relish the fight and shine in these historic moments.”
Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, said her organization is already running ads targeting Democratic senators in states where Mr. Trump won during the presidential election.
One ad says: “Like they did before, extremists will lie and attack the nominee. But don’t be fooled. President Trump’s list includes the best of the best.”
Ms. Severino said that she expects liberals to aggressively criticize the president’s pick for the court, no matter who that person is.
“It’s the war on women. Or this person hates the little guy,” she said. “Without even knowing the nominee, we know the directions they will go. Some of these scaremongering tactics have been used since Reagan’s appointees. We are expecting that and we are absolutely prepared.”
Carl Hulse and Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.
The Supreme Court building in Washington. A battle for the future of the court is underway after Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will retire.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times
By Michael D. Shear and Thomas Kaplan
June 28, 2018
WASHINGTON — A political war over replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy roared to life on Thursday in Washington, the start of an election-season clash over a Supreme Court retirement that will reshape the country’s judicial future.
Hours after Justice Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will step down July 31, conservative organizations were mobilizing to support the Republican-controlled Senate in a quick confirmation of a justice who would be expected to vote against the court’s liberal precedents. One group, the Judicial Crisis Network, has already started a $1 million ad campaign urging people to support the president’s choice.
Democrats and liberal advocacy organizations face enormous challenges if they hope to prevent President Trump and the Republicans from installing a conservative justice who would shift the ideological balance of the court for generations. Mr. Trump has promised to pick from a list of highly conservative jurists, and Republicans control the Senate, which can confirm the president’s choice by a simple majority.
Mr. Trump began wooing senators late Thursday night, meeting at the White House separately with three Republicans and with the three Democrats — Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — who broke party ranks last year and voted to confirm Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, the president’s first Supreme Court pick.
After the meeting, Ms. Heitkamp said in a statement that she urged the president to appoint someone who is “pragmatic, fair, compassionate, committed to justice, and above politics.”
But the effect of Justice Kennedy’s departure has already ignited opposition from many Democratic lawmakers, party strategists and liberal activists, who vowed a fierce battle to try to preserve decades of liberal court precedents on abortion, civil rights, gay rights, affirmative action and the death penalty.
“I think it has sunk in very quickly that this is the biggest fight of them all,” said Brian Fallon, a veteran Democratic operative whose organization, Demand Justice, is leading the charge against Mr. Trump’s pick. “If we don’t succeed in this fight, Trumpism will be here for 40 years, not just four years.”
Democratic strategists say the party needs to model its resistance to the successful fight Democratic senators waged in 1987 against Judge Robert H. Bork, President Ronald Reagan’s pick for the Supreme Court. After they defeated Judge Bork, Mr. Reagan eventually settled on Justice Kennedy, who was seen as a more moderate choice.
If they can mobilize Democrats and liberals, lawmakers say they hope to demand a more moderate justice from the current president, as well.
“There are people who have had to withdraw over the years because you get information out and you question them and the public is focused on it and galvanized by it,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Demand Justice has begun running online ads against three of Mr. Trump’s possible picks and expects to spend more than $1 million on television ads once the president selects a nominee.
One ad targets Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is on the president’s list of possible justices, for saying that the Affordable Care Act should have been held unconstitutional. Another ad is aimed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh, another possible pick, for saying that a president should be able to “decide whether and when he can be investigated.”
Democrats say they will focus on two main issues, abortion and health care. Mr. Fallon, who worked for President Barack Obama and was a top spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, said the challenge will be convincing people that a Trump justice poses a threat to both issues.
“We have to do the work and spend the money to communicate the consequences of what a 5-4 court with a newly installed justice looks like,” Mr. Fallon said.
Democratic lawmakers gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court Thursday morning, flanked by members of progressive groups, to declare their opposition to all of the potential candidates on Mr. Trump’s public list of 25 possible jurists.
Video
Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, both moderate Republicans who favor abortion rights, are facing pressure from liberal activists to defend Roe v. Wade in the impending confirmation battle over President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.Published OnJune 28, 2018CreditImage by Tom Brenner/The New York Times
At the Capitol, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, warned of the high stakes in filling the vacancy.
“Make no mistake: Republicans now have the opportunity to erase a generation of progress for women’s rights, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, civil rights, workers’ rights and health care,” Ms. Pelosi declared.
Strategists say Democrats must demand that Mr. Trump’s pick for the court affirmatively say whether he or she would uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark case establishing a right to abortion. Saying that it is “settled law,” as some conservatives concede, is not enough, the strategists say.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has vowed to move swiftly once Mr. Trump announces his choice, but Democratic lawmakers are demanding that a replacement for Justice Kennedy not be confirmed until after the midterm elections in the fall. They argue that voters should be given the opportunity to select the members of Congress they want to vote on the vital selection.
Democrats have angrily pointed out that Republicans, led by Mr. McConnell, used exactly that argument in 2016, before the presidential election, as they blocked Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
With Kennedy’s Retirement, the Supreme Court Loses Its Center
The swing vote in many decisions, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy shifted toward more conservative opinions in the final months of his 30-year justice tenure.
June 27, 2018
On Thursday Mr. McConnell defended his decision to move forward with filling the vacancy this year.
“This is not 2016,” he said on the Senate floor. “There aren’t the final months of a second-term constitutionally lame-duck presidency with a presidential election fast approaching. We’re right in the middle of this president’s very first term.”
Mr. McConnell pointed to the Supreme Court confirmations of Justices Elena Kagan in 2010, Stephen G. Breyer in 1994 and David H. Souter in 1990 — all midterm election years in a president’s first term.
“To my knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested before yesterday that the Senate should only process Supreme Court nominations in odd-numbered years,” Mr. McConnell said.
Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said that “the 2018 midterm elections just became the most consequential election of our lifetime.”
“We must keep organizing, mobilizing and holding lawmakers to account every single day — and then we need turn out like never before this November,” he said.
Conservatives in Charge, the Supreme Court Moved Right
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s last Supreme Court term contained hints of his retirement and foreshadowed a lasting rightward shift.
June 28, 2018
Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, echoed that message in an email to his supporters seeking signatures on a petition.
“We should not vote on a new Supreme Court Justice before the American people vote in November,” Mr. Kaine wrote. “Sign my petition if you agree: No Supreme Court vote until the American people vote.”
There is little chance of that happening, given that Mr. Trump and his allies in Congress want to make sure to act on the court vacancy before the fall elections, when Democrats could regain control of the Senate.
To that end, conservative organizations are planning campaigns to support a speedy confirmation.
“Concerned Women for America is gearing up for our biggest and perhaps most important confirmation battle in our almost 40-year history,” said Penny Nance, the group’s president. “We plan to devote considerable resources to this effort, and we expect to win. Our happy warrior/activist ladies relish the fight and shine in these historic moments.”
Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, said her organization is already running ads targeting Democratic senators in states where Mr. Trump won during the presidential election.
One ad says: “Like they did before, extremists will lie and attack the nominee. But don’t be fooled. President Trump’s list includes the best of the best.”
Ms. Severino said that she expects liberals to aggressively criticize the president’s pick for the court, no matter who that person is.
“It’s the war on women. Or this person hates the little guy,” she said. “Without even knowing the nominee, we know the directions they will go. Some of these scaremongering tactics have been used since Reagan’s appointees. We are expecting that and we are absolutely prepared.”
Carl Hulse and Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.
Supreme Court: Trump to name nominee on 9 July - BBC News
June 30, 2018
Supreme Court: Trump to name nominee on 9 July
President Trump spoke to journalists during a flight to his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey
US President Donald Trump says he plans to announce his nominee for a new Supreme Court judge on 9 July.
He told reporters on board the presidential aircraft Air Force One he had narrowed the choice down to "about five" candidates, including two women.
The vacancy arose when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement earlier this week.
It gives President Trump the opportunity to solidify a conservative majority on the top court.
His nominee will need to be confirmed by the Senate where the president's Republican Party holds a narrow majority.
In other comments to reporters on Friday, Mr Trump:
Said he would discuss allegations of election tampering when he met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki next month
Called on Germany and other European nations to spend more on Nato, adding: "The United States is paying much more, disproportionately to anyone else"
Said the World Trade Organization (WTO) had treated the US "very badly" but insisted he was "not talking about pulling out"
'I like them all'
Speaking on a flight from Washington to New Jersey on Friday, President Trump said he would not ask Supreme Court candidates about their position on the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision which legalised abortion across the US.
During his campaign, Mr Trump promised to deliver "pro-life" judges to the Supreme Court - a prospect that has alarmed women's rights groups.
Women fear abortion rights under threat
Analysis: Why a fight over US abortion law looms
Why is the US Supreme Court so important?
"I've got it narrowed to about five [candidates]," he told reporters, adding: "I like them all."
Mr Trump said he planned to interview one or two of the candidates over the weekend while staying at his golf club in Bedminster.
Justice Kennedy, 81, is the second-oldest justice on the nine-member US Supreme Court.
The court plays a key role in US society and is often the final word on highly contentious laws, disputes between states and the federal government, and final appeals to stay executions.
In recent years it has expanded gay marriage to all 50 states, stopped President Barack Obama's immigration orders and delayed a US plan to cut carbon emissions while appeals went forward.
Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire on 31 July
Although a conservative, Justice Kennedy has sided with liberals on previous decisions, including the 5-4 rulings that decided same-sex marriage and upheld abortion rights.
US media have reported several front runners who could replace him:
Brett Kavanaugh, who is at the top of most lists, is an appeals court judge in Washington DC and was a former clerk to Justice Kennedy
Amul Thapar, a Kentucky judge handpicked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Amy Comey Barrett, a former professor at Catholic university Notre Dame, are both likely nominees
Raymond Kethledge, a judge on the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals and also a former clerk to Justice Kennedy, is another possible contender.
Meet the Supremes - the nine judges on US top court
Putin summit agenda
In other remarks to reporters, President Trump said he would raise the issue of alleged Russian election meddling when he met President Putin in Finland on 16 July.
"We'll be talking about elections... we don't want anybody tampering with elections," he said.
US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia tried to sway the 2016 US election in Mr Trump's favour, a claim the Kremlin has consistently denied.
US punishes Russians over vote meddling
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, which led to US and EU sanctions, and the war in Syria, would also be discussed, Mr Trump confirmed.
A short guide to the Syrian civil war
He refused to rule out accepting the annexation when he met Mr Putin, saying: "We're going to have to see."
When asked whether US sanctions on Russia might be lifted, he said: "We'll see what Russia does."
Supreme Court: Trump to name nominee on 9 July
President Trump spoke to journalists during a flight to his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey
US President Donald Trump says he plans to announce his nominee for a new Supreme Court judge on 9 July.
He told reporters on board the presidential aircraft Air Force One he had narrowed the choice down to "about five" candidates, including two women.
The vacancy arose when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement earlier this week.
It gives President Trump the opportunity to solidify a conservative majority on the top court.
His nominee will need to be confirmed by the Senate where the president's Republican Party holds a narrow majority.
In other comments to reporters on Friday, Mr Trump:
Said he would discuss allegations of election tampering when he met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki next month
Called on Germany and other European nations to spend more on Nato, adding: "The United States is paying much more, disproportionately to anyone else"
Said the World Trade Organization (WTO) had treated the US "very badly" but insisted he was "not talking about pulling out"
'I like them all'
Speaking on a flight from Washington to New Jersey on Friday, President Trump said he would not ask Supreme Court candidates about their position on the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision which legalised abortion across the US.
During his campaign, Mr Trump promised to deliver "pro-life" judges to the Supreme Court - a prospect that has alarmed women's rights groups.
Women fear abortion rights under threat
Analysis: Why a fight over US abortion law looms
Why is the US Supreme Court so important?
"I've got it narrowed to about five [candidates]," he told reporters, adding: "I like them all."
Mr Trump said he planned to interview one or two of the candidates over the weekend while staying at his golf club in Bedminster.
Justice Kennedy, 81, is the second-oldest justice on the nine-member US Supreme Court.
The court plays a key role in US society and is often the final word on highly contentious laws, disputes between states and the federal government, and final appeals to stay executions.
In recent years it has expanded gay marriage to all 50 states, stopped President Barack Obama's immigration orders and delayed a US plan to cut carbon emissions while appeals went forward.
Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire on 31 July
Although a conservative, Justice Kennedy has sided with liberals on previous decisions, including the 5-4 rulings that decided same-sex marriage and upheld abortion rights.
US media have reported several front runners who could replace him:
Brett Kavanaugh, who is at the top of most lists, is an appeals court judge in Washington DC and was a former clerk to Justice Kennedy
Amul Thapar, a Kentucky judge handpicked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Amy Comey Barrett, a former professor at Catholic university Notre Dame, are both likely nominees
Raymond Kethledge, a judge on the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals and also a former clerk to Justice Kennedy, is another possible contender.
Meet the Supremes - the nine judges on US top court
Putin summit agenda
In other remarks to reporters, President Trump said he would raise the issue of alleged Russian election meddling when he met President Putin in Finland on 16 July.
"We'll be talking about elections... we don't want anybody tampering with elections," he said.
US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia tried to sway the 2016 US election in Mr Trump's favour, a claim the Kremlin has consistently denied.
US punishes Russians over vote meddling
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, which led to US and EU sanctions, and the war in Syria, would also be discussed, Mr Trump confirmed.
A short guide to the Syrian civil war
He refused to rule out accepting the annexation when he met Mr Putin, saying: "We're going to have to see."
When asked whether US sanctions on Russia might be lifted, he said: "We'll see what Russia does."
Friday, June 29, 2018
11 quotes from US politicians who are not fans of socialism - Independent
11 quotes from US politicians who are not fans of socialism
Posted on June 27, 2018 by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
Tuesday saw one of the most surprising political results in American history as 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated veteran Democrat Joe Crowley in the party's congressional primary in New York City.
Ms Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is a former Bernie Sanders volunteer and describes herself as a socialist Democrat. She was also the first person from the part to challenge Crowley in 14 years.
She received a huge amount of support from the ethnic minority districts in the Bronx and Queens, receiving 42.5 per cent of the vote from that particular demographic, winning with an overall 57.5 per cent of the vote.
According to BBC News, Crowley had been tipped as a potential leader for the Democrats in the future, or even Speaker of the House, but now he'll have to look on as his younger successor will now face Republican Anthony Pappas in the November mid-terms.
Should she win, she'll become the youngest woman to ever be elected to Congress.
This could be a significant moment for American politics, especially on the left, which Ocasio-Cortez echoed in a Twitter thread.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
Almost two years ago, I started what was then a completely ‘impossible’ bid for Congress.
Since then, everything has changed.
Now, there’s only 20 minutes left.
And it feels great.
10:47 AM - Jun 27, 2018
61.7K
7,008 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
Replying to @Ocasio2018
I have spent today criss-crossing the district my family has called home for generations. I have met strangers who knew my dad, and knew stories about my loved ones.
I have touched the hands of people who have felt ignored and invisible for a long, long time. And they felt seen.
10:50 AM - Jun 27, 2018
8,980
1,132 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
Replying to @Ocasio2018
Today I saw people voting that are almost never seen in an off-year midterm primary.
Just now, as I’m typing this with 8 minutes left, two young men of color, 20 years old, just walked up to me and said they just voted.
2 yrs ago, the “experts” told me not to bother with them.
10:55 AM - Jun 27, 2018
28.8K
5,303 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
Replying to @Ocasio2018
But I knew that in refusing to engage with non-voters, we were churning a cycle of neglect and cynicism.
So I reached out. And we have been embraced. We have built power. We have organized.
What we have built is permanent. No. Matter. What.
11:00 AM - Jun 27, 2018
21.2K
3,409 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
This is the start of a movement.
Thank you all.
2:21 PM - Jun 27, 2018
226K
35K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Although Bernie Sanders was ultimately unsuccessful in his attempts to become the Democrat's presidential candidate in 2016, his philosophy seems to have continued to resonate with the American people - or at least those in New York.
Ocasio-Cortez's victory might seem minor at the moment, but it flies in the face of what many US politicians would want their public to believe socialism is about.
For instance, the current President, Donald Trump has gone on record to unsurprisingly denounce socialism with a bad 'joke'.
Last year, during a speech at the United Nations, Trump highlighted countries like Venezuela and Cuba as examples of where socialism has failed. He said:
The problem... is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.
From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.
Trump's comments were met with silence and laughter from his fellow world leaders.
Luckily for him, Sarah Sanders was there to back him up.
Sarah Sanders
✔
@PressSec
"The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented." @POTUS
12:41 AM - Sep 20, 2017
16K
6,725 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
It would appear that a firm grasp of the ideals of socialism does not run deep in the Trump family as Donald Trump Jr proved with this tweet on Halloween.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Donald Trump Jr.
✔
@DonaldJTrumpJr
I’m going to take half of Chloe’s candy tonight & give it to some kid who sat at home. It’s never to early to teach her about socialism.
8:53 AM - Nov 1, 2017
89.3K
108K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Trump's vice president Mike Pence has also said a few choice words about socialism in the past too.
At a presidential campaign rally at Georgia State Fairgrounds in August 2016, he quoted Margaret Thatcher when criticising Hillary Clinton.
We should probably point out that Hillary Clinton almost never defined herself as a socialist, or at least not as broadly as Sanders did.
Earlier this year, the former First Lady spoke at the Shared Values Leadership Summit, where she admitted that being a capitalist probably hurt her position among Democrats.
I mean, it’s hard to know, but if you’re in the Iowa caucuses and 41 per cent of Democrats are socialists, or self-described socialists, and I’m asked, ‘Are you a capitalist’, and I say ‘Yes, but with appropriate regulation and accountability,’ that probably gets lost in the ‘Oh my God, she’s a capitalist!’
Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, also shares these values. Speaking at a health care rally in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, Clinton highlighted his belief in a private health care system in America.
He said:
Socialism is when the government runs a health care system.
We don't have socialized medicine in this country, and my plan is for private insurance and private doctors.
[The 20 century marked] the victory of democracy over totalitarianism, of free enterprise over state socialism.
This isn't a current trend, however.
Back in 2008, then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain referenced the infamous Joe the Plumber incident in a speech about Barack's Obama's proposed policies.
He said:
Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism.
And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, ‘spreading the wealth around’ is a familiar idea from the American left.
And that kind of class warfare sure doesn't sound like a ‘new kind of politics'.
McCain's former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin also branded Obama a socialist during the 2008 campaign.
Citing the same Joe the Plumber incident, she said:
Obama is a socialist/Marxist. Joe suggested that that sounded a little bit like socialism.
Whatever you call it, I call it bad medicine for an ailing economy, and it's what Barack Obama will do to those who want to create jobs, and we're willing to call Barack Obama on it.
Another one of Barack Obama's opponents, Mitt Romney, also criticised the former President's seemingly socialist approach.
In a September 2011 speech, the Republican said:
Barack Obama is a big-spending liberal. He takes his inspiration from Europe and the socialist democrats in Europe.
Europe isn't working in Europe. It's not going to work here. I believe in America.
I believe in the opportunity and the freedom that is American opportunity and freedom. I believe in free enterprise and capitalism.
That being said, Obama was hardly an outstanding advocate for socialism.
Speaking at the 2013 CEO Council, Obama addressed the claims that he was a socialist. He said:
People call me a socialist sometimes, but you've got to meet real socialists, you'll have a real sense of what a socialist is. I'm talking about lowering the corporate tax rate, my health care reform is based on the private marketplace, the stock market is doing pretty good the last time I checked and it is true that I am concerned about growing inequality in the system, but nobody questions the efficacy of a market economy in terms of producing wealth and innovation and keeping us competitive.
In addition in a speech made in Argentina in March 2016, Obama encouraged young people to find their own way in politics and not feel like they have to conform to either a socialist or capitalist theory.
[S]o often in the past there’s been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist.
And especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate, right? Oh, you know, you’re a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you’re some crazy communist that’s going to take away everybody’s property.
And I mean, those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works.
You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory — you should just decide what works.
Melania Trump makes second solo trip to border - CBS News
June 28, 2018, 2:17 PM
Melania Trump makes second solo trip to border
Last Updated Jun 28, 2018 2:17 PM EDT
First Lady Melania Trump is making her second solo trip to the southern border to visit immigration facilities. The first lady, who visited children and federal immigration authorities in Texas last week, landed in Tucson, Arizona, Thursday.
The first lady, her spokeswoman said, is eager to see what has changed since her last visit. Melania Trump — who President Trump said raised the issue of family separation with him — continues to discuss the border situation with the president, said her communications director, Stephanie Grisham. Grisham did not elaborate on those discussions.
"This is a complex issue. She recognizes that," Grisham told reporters, according to the White House press pool.
While in Tucson, Melania Trump is touring a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility, where she is expected to have a roundtable discussion with officials from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Marshals Service. Then, according to the White House press pool, she will tour the Tucson Coordinating Center, a short-term holding facilities. The first lady will also do a closed-press tour of an intelligence center.
Grisham said the trip to Tucson was planned last week, after the first lady's trip to Texas was cut short due to flooding.
"She wasn't able to visit a DHS facility, and she wants to learn from the people on the front lines at the border," Grisham told reporters.
On her last trip to the border, the first lady made headlines when she sported a jacket that said, "I don't care, do you?" The first lady didn't wear the jacket when she was with the children, and although her spokesperson said there was no "hidden message," President Trump claimed the jacket was an attempt to hit back at the media. On Thursday when she boarded the plane in D.C., the White House press pool observed nothing unusual about her attire.
Melania Trump makes second solo trip to border
Last Updated Jun 28, 2018 2:17 PM EDT
First Lady Melania Trump is making her second solo trip to the southern border to visit immigration facilities. The first lady, who visited children and federal immigration authorities in Texas last week, landed in Tucson, Arizona, Thursday.
The first lady, her spokeswoman said, is eager to see what has changed since her last visit. Melania Trump — who President Trump said raised the issue of family separation with him — continues to discuss the border situation with the president, said her communications director, Stephanie Grisham. Grisham did not elaborate on those discussions.
"This is a complex issue. She recognizes that," Grisham told reporters, according to the White House press pool.
While in Tucson, Melania Trump is touring a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility, where she is expected to have a roundtable discussion with officials from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Marshals Service. Then, according to the White House press pool, she will tour the Tucson Coordinating Center, a short-term holding facilities. The first lady will also do a closed-press tour of an intelligence center.
Grisham said the trip to Tucson was planned last week, after the first lady's trip to Texas was cut short due to flooding.
"She wasn't able to visit a DHS facility, and she wants to learn from the people on the front lines at the border," Grisham told reporters.
On her last trip to the border, the first lady made headlines when she sported a jacket that said, "I don't care, do you?" The first lady didn't wear the jacket when she was with the children, and although her spokesperson said there was no "hidden message," President Trump claimed the jacket was an attempt to hit back at the media. On Thursday when she boarded the plane in D.C., the White House press pool observed nothing unusual about her attire.
Bill Gates: Everyone should know these 3 facts - CNBC
June 29, 2018
Bill Gates: Everyone should know these 3 facts
Catherine Clifford
Bill Gates
Adam Galica | CNBC
Bill Gates
Billionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates says you need to know three facts to better understand the world.
Those statistics are the global rate of childhood deaths, the fertility rate and the number of people who escape extreme poverty.
The facts come from Oxford economist Max Roser, the founder of the data and statistics website, OurWorldInData.org.
“One of my favorite websites is OurWorldInData.org. Based at the University of Oxford, it uses statistics — on everything from health and population growth to war, the environment, and energy — to give you phenomenal insight into how living conditions are changing around the world,” says Gates in a post published on his blog Tuesday. “I asked its founder, Oxford economist Max Roser, to share three facts from the site that everyone should know.”
Roser says memorizing a few statistics gives you a framework to more accurately understand the world.
“Yes, for some details, it makes sense to just search for them when you need them. But for the large global developments, it is important to know some basic statistics that describe living conditions currently and the direction of change that we have seen over the past few decades,” says Roser in a piece published on the Gates Notes blog.
“Knowing the facts on global changes gives you the context for the daily news and allows you to make sense of new information that you learn. And it must be the basis for political debate, so that we can discuss what we should and shouldn’t do as a society.”
Here's what Gates and Roser say you need to know:
1. Annual childhood deaths have fallen by more than half since 1960
Each year, 5.6 million children under the age of five die. That’s 15,500 deaths per day and 11 deaths of children per minute, according to data from the UN. In the 1950s and 1960s, 20 million children were dying every year, according to the same data set.
“One key reason why we struggle to see progress in the world today is that we do not know how very bad the past was. Both are true at the same time: The world is much better than in the past and it is still awful,” says Roser.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Here are three facts from the site that Max thinks everyone should know…
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #1: Fewer children are dying before the age of 5. pic.twitter.com/RNcCNcBTFz
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“To bring this to mind I need to know both statistics: When someone says we can sit back and relax because the world is in a much better place, I point out that 11 children are still dying every minute. We cannot accept the world as it is today. And when I feel hopeless in the face of this tragedy, I remember that we reduced annual child deaths from 20 million to 5.6 million in the last 50 years," writes Roser.
2. The average number of children born per woman per year is falling
In the last 50 years, the global fertility rate, or the average number of children every woman in the world has, has fallen from five to less than 2.5, Roser says. That means the rate of population growth has gone from 2 percent a year to just over 1 percent per year.
Availability of contraceptives and access to education and higher quality jobs affect fertility rates, says Roser. So too does child mortality rates.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Fact #1: Fewer children are dying before the age of 5. pic.twitter.com/RNcCNcBTFz
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #2: Since 1960, the number of children born per woman has fallen by half. pic.twitter.com/BzCFzdwdWE
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“Improvements in conditions for women and the health of children have driven a rapid reduction in fertility rates across the world,” says Roser. “The statistic that I remember on population growth is the one that tells me that rapid population growth is coming to an end in this century.”
Why is that important? "The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it," Gates explained in a 2012 blog post, so there is an inability to feed, educate, employ and protect the environment.
3. More than 100,000 people a day have escaped extreme poverty in recent decades
Between 1990 and 2015, 137,000 people left “extreme poverty” each day, says Roser.
Someone is defined as living in "extreme poverty" if they live on the equivalent of less than about $1.90 per person per day, as determined by the World Bank.
Today, 706 million people in the world live in extreme poverty. In 1990, 1.86 billion people lived in extreme poverty. That means the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen to one in 10 people from one in three.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Fact #2: Since 1960, the number of children born per woman has fallen by half. pic.twitter.com/BzCFzdwdWE
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #3: The world is making progress against extreme poverty. pic.twitter.com/PCH6aMzxfd
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“When you ask people whether the world is making progress against extreme poverty, the majority of us believe things are getting worse — that the number of people in extreme poverty in the world is rising,” says Roser. “The opposite is true. Both the number and the share of people in extreme poverty is falling.”
Though the number of people living in extreme poverty is still “unacceptably large," says Roser, "we should also know that the trend is moving in the right direction. The number of people in extreme poverty is falling. It is possible to end extreme poverty.”
Knowing these statistics is a reason feel optimistic, says Roser. “The statistics on global change over time tell us that it is possible to work for a better world. The number of child deaths is dropping. The challenges of rapid population growth will not continue indefinitely. And the number of people in extreme poverty is falling,” he says. “Our past successes should encourage us to work for more progress.”
Gates also advocates holding onto an optimistic view of the world.
“I’m not trying to downplay the work that remains. Being an optimist doesn’t mean you ignore tragedy and injustice. It means you’re inspired to look for people making progress on those fronts, and to help spread that progress,” Gates wrote as the guest editor for Time magazine in January.
“To some extent, it is good that bad news gets attention. If you want to improve the world, you need something to be mad about," he said. "But it has to be balanced by upsides. When you see good things happening, you can channel your energy into driving even more progress."
Bill Gates: Everyone should know these 3 facts
Catherine Clifford
Bill Gates
Adam Galica | CNBC
Bill Gates
Billionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates says you need to know three facts to better understand the world.
Those statistics are the global rate of childhood deaths, the fertility rate and the number of people who escape extreme poverty.
The facts come from Oxford economist Max Roser, the founder of the data and statistics website, OurWorldInData.org.
“One of my favorite websites is OurWorldInData.org. Based at the University of Oxford, it uses statistics — on everything from health and population growth to war, the environment, and energy — to give you phenomenal insight into how living conditions are changing around the world,” says Gates in a post published on his blog Tuesday. “I asked its founder, Oxford economist Max Roser, to share three facts from the site that everyone should know.”
Roser says memorizing a few statistics gives you a framework to more accurately understand the world.
“Yes, for some details, it makes sense to just search for them when you need them. But for the large global developments, it is important to know some basic statistics that describe living conditions currently and the direction of change that we have seen over the past few decades,” says Roser in a piece published on the Gates Notes blog.
“Knowing the facts on global changes gives you the context for the daily news and allows you to make sense of new information that you learn. And it must be the basis for political debate, so that we can discuss what we should and shouldn’t do as a society.”
Here's what Gates and Roser say you need to know:
1. Annual childhood deaths have fallen by more than half since 1960
Each year, 5.6 million children under the age of five die. That’s 15,500 deaths per day and 11 deaths of children per minute, according to data from the UN. In the 1950s and 1960s, 20 million children were dying every year, according to the same data set.
“One key reason why we struggle to see progress in the world today is that we do not know how very bad the past was. Both are true at the same time: The world is much better than in the past and it is still awful,” says Roser.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Here are three facts from the site that Max thinks everyone should know…
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #1: Fewer children are dying before the age of 5. pic.twitter.com/RNcCNcBTFz
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“To bring this to mind I need to know both statistics: When someone says we can sit back and relax because the world is in a much better place, I point out that 11 children are still dying every minute. We cannot accept the world as it is today. And when I feel hopeless in the face of this tragedy, I remember that we reduced annual child deaths from 20 million to 5.6 million in the last 50 years," writes Roser.
2. The average number of children born per woman per year is falling
In the last 50 years, the global fertility rate, or the average number of children every woman in the world has, has fallen from five to less than 2.5, Roser says. That means the rate of population growth has gone from 2 percent a year to just over 1 percent per year.
Availability of contraceptives and access to education and higher quality jobs affect fertility rates, says Roser. So too does child mortality rates.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Fact #1: Fewer children are dying before the age of 5. pic.twitter.com/RNcCNcBTFz
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #2: Since 1960, the number of children born per woman has fallen by half. pic.twitter.com/BzCFzdwdWE
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“Improvements in conditions for women and the health of children have driven a rapid reduction in fertility rates across the world,” says Roser. “The statistic that I remember on population growth is the one that tells me that rapid population growth is coming to an end in this century.”
Why is that important? "The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it," Gates explained in a 2012 blog post, so there is an inability to feed, educate, employ and protect the environment.
3. More than 100,000 people a day have escaped extreme poverty in recent decades
Between 1990 and 2015, 137,000 people left “extreme poverty” each day, says Roser.
Someone is defined as living in "extreme poverty" if they live on the equivalent of less than about $1.90 per person per day, as determined by the World Bank.
Today, 706 million people in the world live in extreme poverty. In 1990, 1.86 billion people lived in extreme poverty. That means the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen to one in 10 people from one in three.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Fact #2: Since 1960, the number of children born per woman has fallen by half. pic.twitter.com/BzCFzdwdWE
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #3: The world is making progress against extreme poverty. pic.twitter.com/PCH6aMzxfd
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“When you ask people whether the world is making progress against extreme poverty, the majority of us believe things are getting worse — that the number of people in extreme poverty in the world is rising,” says Roser. “The opposite is true. Both the number and the share of people in extreme poverty is falling.”
Though the number of people living in extreme poverty is still “unacceptably large," says Roser, "we should also know that the trend is moving in the right direction. The number of people in extreme poverty is falling. It is possible to end extreme poverty.”
Knowing these statistics is a reason feel optimistic, says Roser. “The statistics on global change over time tell us that it is possible to work for a better world. The number of child deaths is dropping. The challenges of rapid population growth will not continue indefinitely. And the number of people in extreme poverty is falling,” he says. “Our past successes should encourage us to work for more progress.”
Gates also advocates holding onto an optimistic view of the world.
“I’m not trying to downplay the work that remains. Being an optimist doesn’t mean you ignore tragedy and injustice. It means you’re inspired to look for people making progress on those fronts, and to help spread that progress,” Gates wrote as the guest editor for Time magazine in January.
“To some extent, it is good that bad news gets attention. If you want to improve the world, you need something to be mad about," he said. "But it has to be balanced by upsides. When you see good things happening, you can channel your energy into driving even more progress."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
