Lawyer Who Met With Donald Trump Jr. Has Ties to Russian Officials, Emails Show
By ASSOCIATED PRESS July 26, 2018
(LONDON) — The Moscow lawyer said to have promised Donald Trump’s presidential campaign dirt on his Democratic opponent worked more closely with senior Russian government officials than she previously let on, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Scores of emails, transcripts and legal documents paint a portrait of Natalia Veselnitskaya as a well-connected attorney who served as a ghostwriter for top Russian government lawyers and received assistance from senior Interior Ministry personnel in a case involving a key client.
The data was obtained through Russian opposition figure Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s London-based investigative unit, the Dossier Center, that is compiling profiles of Russians it accuses of benefiting from corruption. The data was later shared with journalists at the AP, the Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger, Greek news website Inside Story and others.
The AP was unable to reach Veselnitskaya for comment. Messages from a reporter sent to her phone were marked as “read” but were not returned. A list of questions sent via email went unanswered.
Veselnitskaya has been under scrutiny since it emerged last year that Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr., met with her in June 2016 after being told by an intermediary that she represented the Russian government and was offering Moscow’s help defeating rival presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Veselnitskaya has denied acting on behalf of Russian officialdom when she met with the Trump team, telling Congress that she operates “independently of any government bodies.”
But recent reporting has cast doubt on her story. In an April interview with NBC News, Veselnitskaya acknowledged acting as an “informant” for the Russian government after being confronted with an earlier batch of emails obtained through the Dossier Center.
The new documents reviewed by AP suggest her ties to Russian authorities are close — and they pull the curtain back on her campaign to overturn the sanctions imposed by the U.S. on Russian officials.
The source of the material is murky.
Veselnitskaya has previously said that her emails were hacked. Khodorkovsky told AP he couldn’t know where the messages came from, saying his group maintained a series of anonymous digital drop boxes.
The AP worked to authenticate the 200-odd documents, in some cases by verifying the digital signatures carried in email headers.
In three other cases, individuals named in various email chains confirmed that the messages were genuine. Other correspondence was partially verified by confirming the nonpublic phone numbers or email addresses they held, including some belonging to senior Russian officials and U.S. lobbyists.
Friends in high places
Veselnitskaya’s role in the drama over the Trump campaign’s Russian connections is rooted in her fight against Bill Browder, the American-born British businessman who has become a leading critic of the Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Browder’s decade-plus crusade against the Kremlin has so enraged Russian officials that Putin demanded his extradition to Moscow during his press conference with President Trump in Helsinki earlier this month.
The feud took off in 2009, when a lawyer working for Browder, Sergey Magnitsky, died in a Moscow prison under suspicious circumstances. Magnitsky had been investigating a multimillion dollar embezzlement scheme allegedly involving Russian tax officials when he was arrested, and Browder turned his death into a cause celebre, successfully lobbying Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 law that slapped the officials implicated in the scandal with visa bans and asset freezes.
Moscow has responded with a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian orphans and by an unrelenting campaign against Browder, who says he’s been the subject of more than a half-dozen attempts to extradite him to Russia through Interpol.
Browder has refused to back down, pushing for copycat legislation across the world. Veselnitskaya has taken the counteroffensive, battling him in court across Europe and the U.S. and organizing a media and lobbying campaign to undercut his credibility in Washington.
Veselnitskaya told Congress last year that her interest in Browder was “all part of my job defending a specific person” — her client Denis Katsyv, who Browder accuses of laundering money through the company Prevezon.
But the documents obtained through the Dossier Center show she both received Russian government support and provided assistance to high-level authorities in Moscow.
When Swiss officials investigating Prevezon arrived in Moscow on September 2015 to interrogate Katsyv, for example, they were met not just by Veselnitskaya but by Lt. Col. A. V. Ranchenkov, a senior Interior Ministry official previously known for his role investigating the Russian punk band Pussy Riot.
Ranchenkov devoted a chunk of the interview to questions about the legality of Browder’s actions, according to a transcript of the interrogation reviewed by email.
The Russian Interior Ministry did not return messages seeking comment.
Two years later, the emails show, Veselnitskaya was mixed up in the Russian government’s attempt to extract financial information from Browder’s former law firm in Cyprus.
An Oct. 31, 2017, email shows Veselnitskaya’s office preparing a draft version of Russian Deputy General Prosecutor Mikhail Alexandrov’s affidavit to Cypriot authorities. “This is needed by tomorrow,” she wrote a subordinate.
Two weeks later, a finalized version of the same document was sent by a Russian diplomatic staffer to a Cypriot counterpart, the Dossier Center’s files show.
Browder said this reinforced the idea that Veselnitskaya was enmeshed with Russian officialdom.
“If her office is drafting replies for Russian-Cyprus law enforcement cooperation, in my opinion that effectively shows that she’s an agent of the Russian government and not an independent lawyer as she claims,” he said in a telephone interview.
In a written statement, the Russian Embassy in Cyprus called the AP’s questions a “provocation” and that it had “no idea who is Nataliya Veselnitskaya and what she sends or doesn’t send to the Cypriot Officials.”
Alexandrov, reached at the prosecutor-general’s office, refused to speak to the AP.
‘My antennae were out’
Veselnitskaya tried to extend her influence to the United States.
The emails obtained through the Dossier Center show her at the center of a multipronged lobbying operation aimed at halting Browder’s momentum in Washington.
One prong was aimed at building a grassroots support for the effort to overturn the Magnitsky Act, or at least create the illusion of one.
A potential ally in this effort was the Families for Russian and Ukrainian Adoption Including Neighboring Countries, or FRUA, a charity that supports families who adopt children from former Soviet bloc nations.
Jan Wondra, the organization’s chairman, said she attended a meeting in Washington on June 8, 2016, that with a group of people including Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who was working with Veselnitskaya to overturn U.S. sanctions against Russia.
The group told her they had evidence that the Magnitsky Act had been propelled by bogus claims spread by Browder and his allies, Wondra said, a revelation the group said could lead to the overturning of the Russian adoption ban.
Wondra told the AP she was suspicious and feared that the lobbyists wanted FRUA’s endorsement for their own purposes.
‘My antennae were out. I looked at this as an attempt to put public pressure on Congress to rescind all or a part of the Magnitsky Act,” she said, emphasizing that she spoke only for herself, not her organization. “The conclusion I drew was that FRUA should not participate. And we didn’t.”
Akhmetshin, who would join Veselnitskaya at the Trump Tower meeting the next day, declined comment.
While the lobbyists were wooing Wondra, Veselnitskaya was overseeing the creation of a new organization called the Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation, or HRAGI, which billed itself as a grass-roots group devoted to overturning the Russian adoption ban.
A Bloomberg report shows the organization was in fact funded by Russian friends of Katsyv — something Veselnitskaya appeared eager to keep secret.
“Is it possible to open a Fund account here in Russia, so we can collect money from donations and then pay them into an account anonymously in the U.S?” she wrote Mark Cymrot, a lawyer at the U.S. law firm BakerHostetler, in a March 17, 2016, email.
Cymrot represented Prevezon, the Katsyv-owned company accused by Browder of being a conduit for the ill-gotten money Magnitsky was tracking before he died. But Cymrot did more than just fight Veselnitskaya’s corner in American court; he also helped her undercut Browder’s crusading image in the American media.
For this, Cymrot turned to Fusion GPS, a private intelligence firm that prepared a 660-odd page media dossier on Browder for circulation to journalists.
Fusion also was tasked with background research for Veselnitskaya’s work convincing elected representatives to push back against Browder’s campaign in Washington, where the Global Magnitsky Bill, an enlarged version of the 2012 law, was wending its way through Congress.
The emails capture Cymrot writing to Fusion to ask for damning material on Browder to send to a senior staffer on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Any articles critical of Browder,” Cymrot told Fusion, saying the staffer had asked for “anything we have that could be helpful.”
“Time is of the essence,” he added, noting that the global bill was only two days from the beginning of the amendment process.
Cymrot said his work did not constitute lobbying.
“You’re misinterpreting what occurred,” he said in a telephone interview. When pressed for details, he asked for questions in writing. When these were provided, he did not respond. BakerHostetler also did not respond to written questions.
Whatever Cymrot’s role, Veselnitskaya’s modest American lobbying effort came to naught. The Global Magnitsky Act cleared the Committee on Foreign Affairs amid overwhelming bipartisan support. It was signed into law on Dec. 23, 2016.
Blowback
The campaign to knock the wind out of Browder’s sails began to draw blowback as the political climate changed.
On July 16, 2016, Browder filed a formal complaint with the Justice Department accusing Cymrot, Akhmetshin, Fusion founder Glenn Simpson and many of their colleagues of acting as unregistered agents for Russia.
In October 2016, a judge threw BakerHostetler off the Prevezon case on the grounds of conflict of interest, since the firm had previously represented Browder. It eventually was replaced by Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
After Trump’s election in November, the once-discreet Fusion was thrust into the white-hot center of Trump’s Washington when it was revealed that the private intelligence company had commissioned the dossier containing explosive claims about the future president’s behavior in Russia.
Republican politicians seized on Browder’s 2016 complaint about Fusion to try to undermine the dossier’s authors, accusing Simpson, for example, of secretly working on behalf of the Russian state, or of letting his work for Prevezon overlap with his opposition research on Trump.
Simpson denied the charges in his testimony before Congress. In a statement Thursday, Fusion’s lawyer Joshua A. Levy said the company had provided litigation support — not lobbying — and that its Trump research had survived determined Republican efforts to discredit it.
Others in Veselnitskaya’s orbit took a little time to get their story straight, a document obtained through the Dossier Center suggests.
The April 2017 document initially has Robert Arakelian, the owner of the HRAGI organization working to overturn the adoption ban, explaining that he is exempt from the requirement to register as a foreign agent and saying he created the organization “at the request of Denis Katsyv.”
The document’s tracked changes suggest a BakerHostetler lawyer rewrote the charity’s origin story wholesale, deleting the reference to Katsyv and saying instead that the adoption group was established after Arakelian met Akhmetshin, the lobbyist, and “learned that the law is unjust and based on false information provided to members of the United States Congress.”
The BakerHostetler lawyer then inserted a sentence explaining that there were no agreements between the adoption group, Katsyv, Prevezon “or any other foreign persons or principals from the Russian Federation.”
The only foreign link, the document said, was an “informal representation” by Veselnitskaya.
Arakelian didn’t return an email seeking comment.
“A BAD LIGHT”
As the rewriting of the document shows, BakerHostetler was still involved with Prevezon and its entourage despite the judge having ordered the firm off the case months before.
Faith Gay of Quinn Emanuel told Veselnitskaya on May 1, 2017, that she was still in touch with BakerHostetler even though the firm couldn’t officially participate in trial preparations.
“We have been trying to talk with them informally as much as possible,” she wrote.
Gay no longer works for the firm and declined comment when approached by the AP. But several emails show her former colleagues copying counterparts at BakerHostetler on trial-related matters, as well as BakerHostetler lawyers offering their feedback throughout the first half of 2017.
Cymrot defended his continued work on Prevezon, saying the lawyers at Quinn Emanuel needed help navigating the complex case they had taken on right up until the moment Prevezon settled with the government on May 19, 2017.
“It was all under the transition period,” he said in his interview.
Cymrot refused to divulge whether he or others at BakerHostetler were paid for their work, calling that information privileged.
Worries about the behind-the-scenes assistance becoming public would prove a source of concern after news of Veselnitskaya’s meeting at Trump Tower became public.
Within weeks, she, Akhmetshin, Simpson and others were called before Congress and investigators subpoenaed their emails. Quinn Emmanuel warned Veselnitskaya that the email exchanges could be damaging and urged her to declare them off-limits.
Releasing the messages could result in “a question being raised about BakerHostleter representing Prevezon’s interests well beyond the district court’s disqualification of them as Prevezon’s counsel,” one lawyer wrote.
Veselnitskaya initially shrugged off the issue.
“I can see no reason to worry,” she wrote on Aug. 18.
But five days later, senior Quinn Emanuel lawyer Faith Gay reemphasized the point, arguing that the documents should be kept secret “as it seems to us that it could be your friends at BakerHostetler in a bad light.”
Quinn Emanuel did not respond to a list of questions.
Veselnitskaya’s final response isn’t captured in the messages obtained through the Dossier Center, but she appears to have relented.
The emails between BakerHostetler, Fusion and congressional staffers were never made public. Instead, a two-page email log was produced labeling the material “confidential communication performed at the direction of counsel in anticipation of litigation.”
Unanswered questions
The emails obtained by AP leave some unanswered questions.
In particular, the Dossier Center’s investigation turned up almost no messages about the Trump Tower meeting, its lead-up or its aftermath. The group said it received only a few messages dealing with the media queries when the meeting became public in mid-2017.
That could lend credence to arguments by the Trump campaign and Veselnitskaya that both sides quickly realized the get-together was a waste of time.
“I wanted to go away as soon as possible,” she told Congress. “And I felt Trump Jr. wanted the same too.”
The messages also carry no hint of the Trump dossier, and nothing in the material challenges Simpson’s testimony that Fusion’s work for Prevezon was kept separate from its work on Trump.
Finally, there’s no mention in the documents of the Russian hack-and-leak operation that began rattling the Democrats immediately following Veselnitskaya’s visit.
The only hints of cyberespionage in the documents appear to revolve around concerns that Veselnitskaya or members of her entourage might have their messages hacked by others.
About a week before the Trump Tower meeting, for example, Veselnitskaya’s translator warned Arakelian, the owner of HRAGI, the adoption group, that their emails were vulnerable and suggested switching to more secure channels.
“We need to think about how to send files via Telegram, Signal or PGP,” he said.
Friday, July 27, 2018
Europe must wake up to the looming nightmare of a no-deal Brexit - Guardian
Brexit
Europe must wake up to the looming nightmare of a no-deal Brexit
Henry Newman
A messy EU-UK divorce could rupture the entire western alliance. But will Europe’s big players make Brussels see sense?
@HenryNewman
Fri 27 Jul 2018 22.30 AEST Last modified on Fri 27 Jul 2018 22.31 AEST
Jeremy Hunt, the UK foreign secretary, meets his German counterpart, Heiko Maas in Berlin
A no-deal Brexit will cause a disturbing rupture across not just Europe but the west. That’s the stark reality behind Michel Barnier’s slideshow, UK white papers, and the technical article 50 process that encourages us to see it primarily as a bureaucratic and legalistic exercise.
UK public will blame EU for no-deal Brexit, says Jeremy Hunt
In fact this is a major geopolitical and strategic event. And the prospect of the UK and EU failing to reach agreement on an orderly uncoupling has global implications. So our new foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, was right to raise the growing threat of no deal with his German counterpart. The UK and EU have both drawn red lines limiting their negotiating manoeuvres. Each has limited political space for further concessions. The UK took far too long to say clearly what it wanted, and now has probably asked for too much. Time is running out.
The referendum in 2016 settled the question of whether we were leaving or remaining in the EU. The question now is the nature of our exit, and more importantly our future relationship. We tend to fixate on our future economic relations, neglecting the security, defence and home affairs aspects of Brexit. But they are not neatly separable. An acrimonious exit from the EU will have a major economic impact on both sides of the Channel – and it will also damage security and defence cooperation with probably more lasting consequences.
These are not just threats but statements of fact. It is already evident that leaving the EU may lead to a drop-off in operational cooperation on a host of security issues. It’s more than possible to agree to maintain current joint capabilities, but that’s far from inevitable. The current exit deal on offer from Brussels would lead to a significant drop-off on security cooperation, putting lives at risk.
A messy Brexit without any deal would be far worse. It would by definition mean relations had broken down to such an extent that agreement couldn’t be reached even to tie up the terms of our exit, let alone our future. Inevitably, bilateral relations would be soured, leaving Europe damaged.
Some might argue that this is an inherent risk of Brexit, or that it’s the UK’s fault for voting to leave. Perhaps. But the EU isn’t a prison. Under the Lisbon treaty members have a lawful right to choose to leave the EU. Anyway, opposing or regretting Brexit isn’t an answer to the current predicament. Politics and diplomacy are about dealing with the world as it is, not as you want it to be. An accommodation needs to be found.
For understandable reasons EU members have tended so far to trust the European commission to drive the Brexit talks. Their diplomats in London often tell me candidly that their capitals are too distracted to focus on Brexit, and are willing to leave it to Brussels. That needs to change.
A German diplomat agreed that a compromise is needed, but observed that Germany often picked fights on too many fronts
Member states need to give the British decision to leave a little more sober reflection – perhaps when David Cameron came asking for flexibility during his renegotiation it might have been better to give a little more. Now there’s another inflection point where a British prime minister is asking for flexibility.
It’s incumbent on all member states – above all the largest – to focus on Brexit. They need to look beyond the details of customs arrangements and participation in this or that agency, important though they are, to the bigger canvas: the future shape of this continent. And though the UK is but one departing state, it’s Europe’s second biggest economy and its major defence, development and security player. It’s too big to ignore.
Despite the soya bean breakthrough in Washington, President Trump’s trade war with the EU remains a serious threat, and the trans-Atlantic relationship is more strained than at any point since the second world war. Relations with Russia are at their lowest since the cold war, and Turkey is drifting away from the western alliance. Further afield China is slowly shifting its stance and signalling an intention to play a more active global role.
I recently discussed with a senior German source my worry that if Brexit negotiations went wrong, Germany risked a simultaneous “battle” with the US and Russia and a collapse in relations with the UK, at the same time as the EU faced its own internal threats from Poland and Hungary to Italy and the eurozone. And therefore it made sense to find a compromise with Britain based somewhere near the Chequers plan. My friend didn’t disagree, but wrily observed that Germany had often picked fights on too many fronts.
As we leave the EU, the metaphorical width of the Channel is an open question. Berlin, Paris, Rome and the other key capitals should reflect that the UK remains a fundamentally European ally. EU membership was rejected by our political system. But European values aren’t the four freedoms of the single market. They are the respect for the rule of law, liberal democracy, a free press, and powerful institutions – and these run deep through the UK.
There’s still time to agree a fair and sustainable new partnership that works for both sides, and avoids the nightmare of a total collapse in the Brexit process.
• Henry Newman is director of the thinktank Open Europe
Trump denies knowing of 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians - Reuters
JULY 27, 2018
Trump denies knowing of 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians
Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday denied knowing about the 2016 meeting his son, Donald Trump Jr., and other campaign staff held at Trump Tower with a group of Russians who offered damaging information about Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump walks from Marine One as he returns to the White House in Washington, U.S., July 26, 2018. REUTERS/Mary F. Calvert
“I did NOT know of the meeting with my son, Don jr,” Trump wrote in a post on Twitter, after a CNN report cited his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen as saying Trump had known about the meeting in advance.
CNN, citing unidentified sources with knowledge of the matter, said Cohen was willing to make that assertion to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether Trump’s presidential campaign had worked with Russia to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating Cohen for possible bank and tax fraud, and for possible campaign law violations linked to a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, a person familiar with the investigation has told Reuters. The payment to Daniels, who says she had an intimate relationship with Trump, was meant to buy her silence over the affair.
Cohen has not been charged with any crime.
Trump, who has said in the past he did not know about the meeting in advance, suggested Cohen was implicating Trump in exchange for possible immunity on unrelated charges related to his businesses.
“Sounds to me like someone is trying to make up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam,” Trump speculated on Twitter, without supporting his claim.
The Republican president has been infuriated by the suggestion he might owe his White House victory to Russia, and has focused on the rebutting the collusion question rather than on concerns about the U.S. intelligence community’s findings that Moscow intervened on his behalf.
In a series of angry Tweets on Friday morning, he again denied any collusion with Moscow and denounced the Mueller probe as a witch hunt. Russia has denied meddling in the election.
Cohen did not immediately return a request for comment on Trump’s tweet.
The role Cohen, a longtime personal confidant of Trump, might play in the Mueller probe is unknown. On Wednesday, Trump expressed disbelief that Cohen would have taped conversations with him, a day after an audio recording of a conversation between the two men was aired on U.S. television.
A lawyer for Cohen, Lanny Davis, released the recording of Trump and Cohen discussing paying for the rights to former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story about an alleged affair with Trump and it aired on CNN on Tuesday night.
Before the election, Trump’s campaign denied any knowledge of payment to McDougal, but the taped conversation could undermine those denials.
Reporting by Doina Chiacu; editing by Franklin Paul, Bernadette Baum and Jonathan Oatis
Trump denies knowing of 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians
Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday denied knowing about the 2016 meeting his son, Donald Trump Jr., and other campaign staff held at Trump Tower with a group of Russians who offered damaging information about Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump walks from Marine One as he returns to the White House in Washington, U.S., July 26, 2018. REUTERS/Mary F. Calvert
“I did NOT know of the meeting with my son, Don jr,” Trump wrote in a post on Twitter, after a CNN report cited his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen as saying Trump had known about the meeting in advance.
CNN, citing unidentified sources with knowledge of the matter, said Cohen was willing to make that assertion to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether Trump’s presidential campaign had worked with Russia to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating Cohen for possible bank and tax fraud, and for possible campaign law violations linked to a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, a person familiar with the investigation has told Reuters. The payment to Daniels, who says she had an intimate relationship with Trump, was meant to buy her silence over the affair.
Cohen has not been charged with any crime.
Trump, who has said in the past he did not know about the meeting in advance, suggested Cohen was implicating Trump in exchange for possible immunity on unrelated charges related to his businesses.
“Sounds to me like someone is trying to make up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam,” Trump speculated on Twitter, without supporting his claim.
The Republican president has been infuriated by the suggestion he might owe his White House victory to Russia, and has focused on the rebutting the collusion question rather than on concerns about the U.S. intelligence community’s findings that Moscow intervened on his behalf.
In a series of angry Tweets on Friday morning, he again denied any collusion with Moscow and denounced the Mueller probe as a witch hunt. Russia has denied meddling in the election.
Cohen did not immediately return a request for comment on Trump’s tweet.
The role Cohen, a longtime personal confidant of Trump, might play in the Mueller probe is unknown. On Wednesday, Trump expressed disbelief that Cohen would have taped conversations with him, a day after an audio recording of a conversation between the two men was aired on U.S. television.
A lawyer for Cohen, Lanny Davis, released the recording of Trump and Cohen discussing paying for the rights to former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story about an alleged affair with Trump and it aired on CNN on Tuesday night.
Before the election, Trump’s campaign denied any knowledge of payment to McDougal, but the taped conversation could undermine those denials.
Reporting by Doina Chiacu; editing by Franklin Paul, Bernadette Baum and Jonathan Oatis
Facebook: Explaining the company's massive share slump - BBC News
July 27, 2018
Facebook: Explaining the company's massive share slump
Other tech companies shares fell as Facebook stock plummeted
It was one of the biggest one-day losses in US corporate history.
At the start of the day, Facebook was valued at $630bn (£481bn). By the end, it had dropped to $510bn (£389bn).
Company founder Mark Zuckerberg personally lost more than $15bn (£11.5bn) in one day, seeing him fall from fourth to sixth on Forbes' list of global billionaires.
The drop came after the social media giant published its second quarter results.
Although still positive, they came in below investor expectations - and company shares had plummeted nearly 20% by the end of the day.
So why the weaker numbers? Why did markets react so badly? And what does this mean for Facebook?
What did Facebook say?
The firm announced that its user growth rose at its slowest rate in two years.
It also warned that billions in spending, planned to improve privacy and track advertisers, would outweigh revenue gains.
Eight reasons Facebook has peaked
Those revenue gains had themselves been limited by a fall in user numbers outside the US and people making use of new options to limit advertising.
What role did recent scandals play?
Facebook attributed their results to a new advertising format and giving users more control over privacy.
But the elephant in the room was the swirl of scandals surrounding the company.
The biggest involved Facebook sharing the data of 87 million users to a researcher at Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm.
How the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal unfolded
In May, Mr Zuckerberg appeared before the US Senate to apologise for his company's role in the data breach.
He also spoke about "fake news", and allegations that Russia used Facebook to interfere in the the 2016 US presidential election.
Facebook faces maximum fine for data misuse
Who's policing Facebook?
How Trump's Russia trouble unfolded
Craig Erlam, senior market analyst at Oanda, said these scandals have had a "negative impact" for the firm.
"Trust is so important with consumer trends," Mr Erlam told the BBC, "and people may feel that Facebook betrayed their trust."
How relevant was GDPR?
Facebook announced that the number of its users in Europe fell by 3 million in the first quarter, to 279 million. North American users stayed flat at 185 million.
This follows the introduction in late May of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
WATCH: What GDPR will mean for you?
The new rules make it easier for consumers to find what data organisations hold on them, increases maximum fines for privacy breaches, and makes it mandatory to report any breaches to the authorities.
The great GDPR panic
How will privacy law affect you?
According to US news network CNBC, Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg said GDPR has not hugely affected advertising revenue, but the full effects of the new law may not be felt until the next quarter.
Is competition a factor?
Facebook has been the dominant social media giant for years, and remains vastly popular.
In its results, the company said it had more than 2.2 billion monthly active users at the end of June.
But their latest data does suggest user number growth is slowing.
A study from the US-based Pew Research Center suggests young people are ditching Facebook for Snapchat, Instagram and YouTube, with 85% of teens preferring the video platform to Facebook.
Younger people are turning to other social media sites
"Social media is such a rapidly evolving world, and it's very hard to pull people back once they've moved platform," Mr Erlam said.
And while Facebook owns Instagram and Whatsapp, it cannot financially rely on those apps yet, according to Mr Erlam.
"I don't think Instagram offers enough to offset advertising loss at this time," he said.
Michael Hewson, chief market analyst at CMC Markets, told the BBC that the challenge now facing the company was how to monetise its other platforms.
Do investors expect too much?
Mr Hewson did however warn the market reaction to the results may have been overblown.
Despite its warnings and weaker numbers, Facebook announced year-on-year revenue growth of more than 40% in the most recent quarter.
Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg still has reason to be happy
"Investor expectations of growth strategy was out of whack," he said, adding that company management would be well-advised to "temper" expectations to prevent "irrational exuberance" from investors.
So how bad is it?
The company's market value dropped around $120bn in one day.
To put that in context, McDonald's is in total worth $122bn on the New York Stock Exchange, with US industrial giant General Electric worth $114bn.
So it is a loss that Facebook can absorb.
"It's not the end, not on the basis of one set of numbers," Mr Hewson said. "There needs to be a sense of perspective."
Facebook: Explaining the company's massive share slump
Other tech companies shares fell as Facebook stock plummeted
It was one of the biggest one-day losses in US corporate history.
At the start of the day, Facebook was valued at $630bn (£481bn). By the end, it had dropped to $510bn (£389bn).
Company founder Mark Zuckerberg personally lost more than $15bn (£11.5bn) in one day, seeing him fall from fourth to sixth on Forbes' list of global billionaires.
The drop came after the social media giant published its second quarter results.
Although still positive, they came in below investor expectations - and company shares had plummeted nearly 20% by the end of the day.
So why the weaker numbers? Why did markets react so badly? And what does this mean for Facebook?
What did Facebook say?
The firm announced that its user growth rose at its slowest rate in two years.
It also warned that billions in spending, planned to improve privacy and track advertisers, would outweigh revenue gains.
Eight reasons Facebook has peaked
Those revenue gains had themselves been limited by a fall in user numbers outside the US and people making use of new options to limit advertising.
What role did recent scandals play?
Facebook attributed their results to a new advertising format and giving users more control over privacy.
But the elephant in the room was the swirl of scandals surrounding the company.
The biggest involved Facebook sharing the data of 87 million users to a researcher at Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm.
How the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal unfolded
In May, Mr Zuckerberg appeared before the US Senate to apologise for his company's role in the data breach.
He also spoke about "fake news", and allegations that Russia used Facebook to interfere in the the 2016 US presidential election.
Facebook faces maximum fine for data misuse
Who's policing Facebook?
How Trump's Russia trouble unfolded
Craig Erlam, senior market analyst at Oanda, said these scandals have had a "negative impact" for the firm.
"Trust is so important with consumer trends," Mr Erlam told the BBC, "and people may feel that Facebook betrayed their trust."
How relevant was GDPR?
Facebook announced that the number of its users in Europe fell by 3 million in the first quarter, to 279 million. North American users stayed flat at 185 million.
This follows the introduction in late May of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
WATCH: What GDPR will mean for you?
The new rules make it easier for consumers to find what data organisations hold on them, increases maximum fines for privacy breaches, and makes it mandatory to report any breaches to the authorities.
The great GDPR panic
How will privacy law affect you?
According to US news network CNBC, Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg said GDPR has not hugely affected advertising revenue, but the full effects of the new law may not be felt until the next quarter.
Is competition a factor?
Facebook has been the dominant social media giant for years, and remains vastly popular.
In its results, the company said it had more than 2.2 billion monthly active users at the end of June.
But their latest data does suggest user number growth is slowing.
A study from the US-based Pew Research Center suggests young people are ditching Facebook for Snapchat, Instagram and YouTube, with 85% of teens preferring the video platform to Facebook.
Younger people are turning to other social media sites
"Social media is such a rapidly evolving world, and it's very hard to pull people back once they've moved platform," Mr Erlam said.
And while Facebook owns Instagram and Whatsapp, it cannot financially rely on those apps yet, according to Mr Erlam.
"I don't think Instagram offers enough to offset advertising loss at this time," he said.
Michael Hewson, chief market analyst at CMC Markets, told the BBC that the challenge now facing the company was how to monetise its other platforms.
Do investors expect too much?
Mr Hewson did however warn the market reaction to the results may have been overblown.
Despite its warnings and weaker numbers, Facebook announced year-on-year revenue growth of more than 40% in the most recent quarter.
Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg still has reason to be happy
"Investor expectations of growth strategy was out of whack," he said, adding that company management would be well-advised to "temper" expectations to prevent "irrational exuberance" from investors.
So how bad is it?
The company's market value dropped around $120bn in one day.
To put that in context, McDonald's is in total worth $122bn on the New York Stock Exchange, with US industrial giant General Electric worth $114bn.
So it is a loss that Facebook can absorb.
"It's not the end, not on the basis of one set of numbers," Mr Hewson said. "There needs to be a sense of perspective."
Korea remains: Pyongyang returns US troops slain in Korean War - BBC News
July 27, 2018
Korea remains: Pyongyang returns US troops slain in Korean War
The remains arrived at a US airbase in South Korea
North Korea has returned remains believed to be of 55 US troops killed during the Korean War, bringing renewed hope to families who have waited decades for closure.
The return of the remains, brought to a US base in South Korea, is the latest move in the cautious diplomacy between Washington and Pyongyang.
The repatriation was agreed at the June summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un.
It is hoped more will follow.
"It's hard to live your life not knowing what happened to your loved one," the daughter of one missing serviceman told the BBC ahead of Friday's news.
Reality Check: How many dead US soldiers in North Korea?
Searching for the father they barely knew
The Singapore summit, where Mr Trump and Mr Kim agreed to work towards the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula", has been criticised for a lack of detail on when or how Pyongyang would renounce nuclear weapons.
US airmen salute to vehicles transporting the remains
But the return of US remains was one of four points actually listed in that June declaration, and comes on the 65th anniversary of the signing of the armistice that ended the 1950-1953 Korean War.
It is believed that 55 soldiers have been returned this time, but their remains will need to be forensically tested to ensure they are indeed slain US troops - and it's possible the identification process could take years.
Why North Korea is in no hurry to please the US
John Zimmerlee, the son of a US serviceman who is among the missing, told the BBC there was no guarantee these were the remains of American soldiers.
Mr Zimmerlee, the founder of the Korean War Prisoners Of War and Missing In Action Network, said: "Keep in mind that these 55 remains that are coming back, these are people that they [North Korea] suspected were their enemy during the (Korean) war - not necessarily Americans.
"They could be British, they could be Australians, Belgians - could be a lot of different people."
'An emotional and symbolic gesture'
By Laura Bicker, BBC Seoul correspondent, Osan air base
The small wooden caskets were draped in the UN flag and carried carefully one by one from the aircraft onto US soil.
Hundreds of US soldiers and some of their families from the Osan base came to salute and line the route of their final journey.
Before the ceremony they'd been told they would be watching a key moment in history. They stood silently and watched.
Earlier I'd asked Korean War veterans from the US and the UK what this meant to them. Amazing news, they told me.
"This is an emotional and symbolic gesture," said another.
Why are US remains in North Korea?
More than 326,000 Americans fought alongside soldiers from South Korea and a UN coalition during the war to support the South against the Communist North.
Thousands of US military personnel from the Korean war remain unaccounted for and most of them - about 5,300 - were lost in what is now North Korea.
The missing US soldiers are among around 33,000 coalition troops still unaccounted for.
There are thought to be around 5,300 remains of US soldiers in North Korea
The remains are believed to be located at:
prisoner of war camps - many perished during the winter of 1950
the sites of major battles, such as the areas around Unsan and Chongchon in the north-west of the country - said to contain approximately 1,600 dead
temporary UN military cemeteries - China and North Korea returned about 3,000 dead Americans in an effort called Operation Glory in 1954, but others remain
the demilitarised zone that separates North and South Korea - said to contain 1,000 bodies
Between 1990 and 2005, 229 sets were returned, but this halted as relations deteriorated with the development of North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
What happens now?
A US military aircraft took the remains to the US base at Osan in South Korea where, according to the White House, a repatriation ceremony will be held on 1 August after some initial testing.
The remains will then be brought to the US to undergo thorough forensic testing.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The Remains of American Servicemen will soon be leaving North Korea and heading to the United States! After so many years, this will be a great moment for so many families. Thank you to Kim Jong Un.
1:50 PM - Jul 27, 2018
The White House said it was "a solemn obligation of the United States Government to ensure that the remains are handled with dignity and properly accounted for so their families receive them in an honorable manner".
What has the reaction been?
The US government said it was "encouraged by North Korea's actions and the momentum for positive change".
The return of the dead soldiers was "a significant first step to recommence the repatriation of remains from North Korea and to resume field operations in North Korea to search for the estimated 5,300 Americans who have not yet returned home".
Nukes, Trump Towers and human rights - what might peace look like between the US and North Korea?
North Korean propaganda changes its tune
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
Is North Korea sticking with its nukes?
The repatriation will be welcomed by relatives who have waited decades for progress.
But Bill Richardson, a former UN ambassador who secured the return of six bodies in 2007, remains sceptical.
He told the Washington Post: "They'll give a certain amount of remains for free right away, but then they'll say, 'The next ones, we need to find them, locate them, restore them.' And then they'll start charging."
It is thought North Korea has about 200 sets of remains collected already.
What about North Korea's wider intentions?
The 12 June summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un saw both sides speak with ambition about concrete steps to improve relations but experts have cast doubt on whether Pyongyang is genuine in its apparent commitment to "denuclearise".
Last week North Korea appeared to begin dismantling part of a key rocket launch site but there have been reports it secretly continues its weapons programme. Meanwhile, Pyongyang has accused the US of "gangster-like" tactics.
There's also been little clarity about what exactly the two sides mean by "complete denuclearisation" and no details on a timeline for this to take place.
Nevertheless, Friday's repatriation will likely be seen as a concrete goodwill gesture after years of efforts by relatives and US authorities to retrieve the remains.
Korea remains: Pyongyang returns US troops slain in Korean War
The remains arrived at a US airbase in South Korea
North Korea has returned remains believed to be of 55 US troops killed during the Korean War, bringing renewed hope to families who have waited decades for closure.
The return of the remains, brought to a US base in South Korea, is the latest move in the cautious diplomacy between Washington and Pyongyang.
The repatriation was agreed at the June summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un.
It is hoped more will follow.
"It's hard to live your life not knowing what happened to your loved one," the daughter of one missing serviceman told the BBC ahead of Friday's news.
Reality Check: How many dead US soldiers in North Korea?
Searching for the father they barely knew
The Singapore summit, where Mr Trump and Mr Kim agreed to work towards the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula", has been criticised for a lack of detail on when or how Pyongyang would renounce nuclear weapons.
US airmen salute to vehicles transporting the remains
But the return of US remains was one of four points actually listed in that June declaration, and comes on the 65th anniversary of the signing of the armistice that ended the 1950-1953 Korean War.
It is believed that 55 soldiers have been returned this time, but their remains will need to be forensically tested to ensure they are indeed slain US troops - and it's possible the identification process could take years.
Why North Korea is in no hurry to please the US
John Zimmerlee, the son of a US serviceman who is among the missing, told the BBC there was no guarantee these were the remains of American soldiers.
Mr Zimmerlee, the founder of the Korean War Prisoners Of War and Missing In Action Network, said: "Keep in mind that these 55 remains that are coming back, these are people that they [North Korea] suspected were their enemy during the (Korean) war - not necessarily Americans.
"They could be British, they could be Australians, Belgians - could be a lot of different people."
'An emotional and symbolic gesture'
By Laura Bicker, BBC Seoul correspondent, Osan air base
The small wooden caskets were draped in the UN flag and carried carefully one by one from the aircraft onto US soil.
Hundreds of US soldiers and some of their families from the Osan base came to salute and line the route of their final journey.
Before the ceremony they'd been told they would be watching a key moment in history. They stood silently and watched.
Earlier I'd asked Korean War veterans from the US and the UK what this meant to them. Amazing news, they told me.
"This is an emotional and symbolic gesture," said another.
Why are US remains in North Korea?
More than 326,000 Americans fought alongside soldiers from South Korea and a UN coalition during the war to support the South against the Communist North.
Thousands of US military personnel from the Korean war remain unaccounted for and most of them - about 5,300 - were lost in what is now North Korea.
The missing US soldiers are among around 33,000 coalition troops still unaccounted for.
There are thought to be around 5,300 remains of US soldiers in North Korea
The remains are believed to be located at:
prisoner of war camps - many perished during the winter of 1950
the sites of major battles, such as the areas around Unsan and Chongchon in the north-west of the country - said to contain approximately 1,600 dead
temporary UN military cemeteries - China and North Korea returned about 3,000 dead Americans in an effort called Operation Glory in 1954, but others remain
the demilitarised zone that separates North and South Korea - said to contain 1,000 bodies
Between 1990 and 2005, 229 sets were returned, but this halted as relations deteriorated with the development of North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
What happens now?
A US military aircraft took the remains to the US base at Osan in South Korea where, according to the White House, a repatriation ceremony will be held on 1 August after some initial testing.
The remains will then be brought to the US to undergo thorough forensic testing.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The Remains of American Servicemen will soon be leaving North Korea and heading to the United States! After so many years, this will be a great moment for so many families. Thank you to Kim Jong Un.
1:50 PM - Jul 27, 2018
The White House said it was "a solemn obligation of the United States Government to ensure that the remains are handled with dignity and properly accounted for so their families receive them in an honorable manner".
What has the reaction been?
The US government said it was "encouraged by North Korea's actions and the momentum for positive change".
The return of the dead soldiers was "a significant first step to recommence the repatriation of remains from North Korea and to resume field operations in North Korea to search for the estimated 5,300 Americans who have not yet returned home".
Nukes, Trump Towers and human rights - what might peace look like between the US and North Korea?
North Korean propaganda changes its tune
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
Is North Korea sticking with its nukes?
The repatriation will be welcomed by relatives who have waited decades for progress.
But Bill Richardson, a former UN ambassador who secured the return of six bodies in 2007, remains sceptical.
He told the Washington Post: "They'll give a certain amount of remains for free right away, but then they'll say, 'The next ones, we need to find them, locate them, restore them.' And then they'll start charging."
It is thought North Korea has about 200 sets of remains collected already.
What about North Korea's wider intentions?
The 12 June summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un saw both sides speak with ambition about concrete steps to improve relations but experts have cast doubt on whether Pyongyang is genuine in its apparent commitment to "denuclearise".
Last week North Korea appeared to begin dismantling part of a key rocket launch site but there have been reports it secretly continues its weapons programme. Meanwhile, Pyongyang has accused the US of "gangster-like" tactics.
There's also been little clarity about what exactly the two sides mean by "complete denuclearisation" and no details on a timeline for this to take place.
Nevertheless, Friday's repatriation will likely be seen as a concrete goodwill gesture after years of efforts by relatives and US authorities to retrieve the remains.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Russia investigation: Donald Trump's latest tweet is bad, even for him - Independent
Russia investigation: Donald Trump's latest tweet is bad, even for him
Posted on July 25, 2018 by Mimi Launder in news
UPVOTE
President Donald Trump, otherwise known as the man whose campaign is under investigation over its ties to Russia, is worried about Russian interference.
No, he's not come around and, yes, still thinks the Mueller investigation is a "witch hunt": instead, he is attempting to everyone of his genuine concern that Russia will meddle in the upcoming election in support of the Democrats.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
1:50 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Amid repeated dismissals of allegations of collusion between Russia and his campaign, Trump tweeted his concern that Russia "will be pushing very hard for the Democrats" in the upcoming election.
Crucially, the first trial in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia is set to start this week, examining former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Yet Russians are quaking in fear of Republicans, according to Trump, who boasted that "no president has been tougher on Russia than me" - a baseless assertion at odds with his flattering treatment of Vladmir Putin.
Last week, Trump went as far as to back Russian denials over interference in the 2016 election, before backpedalling following fierce bipartisan condemnation with a questionable excuse.
Confused? Terrified? Want out? So does everyone else.
David Axelrod
✔
@davidaxelrod
Truly unbelievable. Just a week ago, he was practically sitting on Putin’s lap.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
7:11 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Mehdi Hasan
✔
@mehdirhasan
Putin *literally* stood next to Trump and *literally* said he preferred Trump to the Democrats
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:53 AM - Jul 25, 2018
798
323 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
rabia O'chaudry
✔
@rabiasquared
Does he think he has the Men In Black memory eraser gadget or something
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:19 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Scott Santens
✔
@scottsantens
I don't bookmark many tweets, but this is one of them, and it's not because it's one of the most absurd tweets I've ever read. This tweet isn't funny. It's horrifying. This tweet is dangerous. This tweet is pure doublethink.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
6:14 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Angry WH Staffer
@AngrierWHStaff
I can name approximately 44 Presidents that have been tougher on Russia than Trump.
Keeping in mind a solid number of them didn’t know Russia existed.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:10 AM - Jul 25, 2018
1,656
344 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Some people are calling this gaslighting.
Only that Trump is not an unpleasant ex, but one of the most powerful men in the world trying to manipulate everyone in it as allegations over collusion with Russia heat up.
Neera Tanden 🌊
✔
@neeratanden
This guy is taking gaslighting to a new level. And also thinks his base are morons.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
2:26 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Carolyn
@carolyn145
Oh FFS. Putin said he wanted you to win.
Listen sweetie, little Poodle, you will not gaslight us.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
11:13 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Alyssa Milano
✔
@Alyssa_Milano
Flipping the narrative. He really thinks the American people are idiots.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:38 AM - Jul 25, 2018
David Hoffman
@atDavidHoffman
Oh. Just. Stop. It.
Even your supporters aren’t stupid enough to believe this.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
6:35 AM - Jul 25, 2018
One person beautifully corrected the tweet.
Full Frontal
✔
@FullFrontalSamB
2:14 AM - Jul 25, 2018
The Russians aren't the only ones who "definitely don't want Trump".
Chris Evans
✔
@ChrisEvans
Neither did we.
Also, this might be the funniest thing you’ve ever tweeted, Biff.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
8:08 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Other people are asking why Trump is not funding greater election security, given his worries.
Ron Wyden
✔
@RonWyden
If you are actually serious about protecting our elections, @realDonaldTrump, put your money where your mouth is and pass my PAVE Act to require paper ballots for all federal elections. https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-gillibrand-markey-merkley-murray-and-warren-introduce-bill-to-secure-elections- …
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:39 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Ted Lieu
✔
@tedlieu
Dear @realDonaldTrump: Based on your statement below, I look forward to you pushing for funding for election security. The House GOP voted last week to turn down that funding. Tell them they are wrong. Thanks.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:23 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Posted on July 25, 2018 by Mimi Launder in news
UPVOTE
President Donald Trump, otherwise known as the man whose campaign is under investigation over its ties to Russia, is worried about Russian interference.
No, he's not come around and, yes, still thinks the Mueller investigation is a "witch hunt": instead, he is attempting to everyone of his genuine concern that Russia will meddle in the upcoming election in support of the Democrats.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
1:50 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Amid repeated dismissals of allegations of collusion between Russia and his campaign, Trump tweeted his concern that Russia "will be pushing very hard for the Democrats" in the upcoming election.
Crucially, the first trial in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia is set to start this week, examining former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Yet Russians are quaking in fear of Republicans, according to Trump, who boasted that "no president has been tougher on Russia than me" - a baseless assertion at odds with his flattering treatment of Vladmir Putin.
Last week, Trump went as far as to back Russian denials over interference in the 2016 election, before backpedalling following fierce bipartisan condemnation with a questionable excuse.
Confused? Terrified? Want out? So does everyone else.
David Axelrod
✔
@davidaxelrod
Truly unbelievable. Just a week ago, he was practically sitting on Putin’s lap.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
7:11 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Mehdi Hasan
✔
@mehdirhasan
Putin *literally* stood next to Trump and *literally* said he preferred Trump to the Democrats
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:53 AM - Jul 25, 2018
798
323 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
rabia O'chaudry
✔
@rabiasquared
Does he think he has the Men In Black memory eraser gadget or something
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:19 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Scott Santens
✔
@scottsantens
I don't bookmark many tweets, but this is one of them, and it's not because it's one of the most absurd tweets I've ever read. This tweet isn't funny. It's horrifying. This tweet is dangerous. This tweet is pure doublethink.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
6:14 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Angry WH Staffer
@AngrierWHStaff
I can name approximately 44 Presidents that have been tougher on Russia than Trump.
Keeping in mind a solid number of them didn’t know Russia existed.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:10 AM - Jul 25, 2018
1,656
344 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Some people are calling this gaslighting.
Only that Trump is not an unpleasant ex, but one of the most powerful men in the world trying to manipulate everyone in it as allegations over collusion with Russia heat up.
Neera Tanden 🌊
✔
@neeratanden
This guy is taking gaslighting to a new level. And also thinks his base are morons.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
2:26 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Carolyn
@carolyn145
Oh FFS. Putin said he wanted you to win.
Listen sweetie, little Poodle, you will not gaslight us.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
11:13 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Alyssa Milano
✔
@Alyssa_Milano
Flipping the narrative. He really thinks the American people are idiots.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:38 AM - Jul 25, 2018
David Hoffman
@atDavidHoffman
Oh. Just. Stop. It.
Even your supporters aren’t stupid enough to believe this.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
6:35 AM - Jul 25, 2018
One person beautifully corrected the tweet.
Full Frontal
✔
@FullFrontalSamB
2:14 AM - Jul 25, 2018
The Russians aren't the only ones who "definitely don't want Trump".
Chris Evans
✔
@ChrisEvans
Neither did we.
Also, this might be the funniest thing you’ve ever tweeted, Biff.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
8:08 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Other people are asking why Trump is not funding greater election security, given his worries.
Ron Wyden
✔
@RonWyden
If you are actually serious about protecting our elections, @realDonaldTrump, put your money where your mouth is and pass my PAVE Act to require paper ballots for all federal elections. https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-gillibrand-markey-merkley-murray-and-warren-introduce-bill-to-secure-elections- …
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:39 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Ted Lieu
✔
@tedlieu
Dear @realDonaldTrump: Based on your statement below, I look forward to you pushing for funding for election security. The House GOP voted last week to turn down that funding. Tell them they are wrong. Thanks.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:23 AM - Jul 25, 2018
Saudi Arabia suspends oil shipments through Red Sea strait after Houthi attack - NBC News ( source : Reuters )
Saudi Arabia suspends oil shipments through Red Sea strait after Houthi attack
The route is used by tankers heading from the Middle East through the Suez Canal to Europe.
by Reuters / Jul.26.2018
Saudi Arabia said Thursday it was "temporarily halting" all oil shipments through the Red Sea shipping lane of Bab al-Mandeb — one of the most important tanker routes in the world — after an attack on two ships by Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi militants.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the Houthis attacked two Saudi vessels Wednesday morning, one of which sustained minor damage.
The strait, where the Red Sea meets the Gulf of Aden in the Arabian Sea, is only 12 miles wide, making hundreds of ships potentially an easy target.
Tankers heading from the Middle East through the Suez Canal to Europe pass near the shores of Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition has been battling the Houthis in a three-year war.
Fighting intensifies around airport in Yemen port city
JUN.17.201801:11
The Saudi coalition intervened in Yemen's civil war in 2015 to restore the internationally recognized government of exiled president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Saudi Arabia accuses regional arch-foe Iran of supplying missiles to the Houthis, which both Tehran and the Houthis deny.
A Western-backed coalition of Sunni Muslim states, led by Saudi Arabia, launched an offensive in June to wrest Yemen's main port of Hodeidah from the Houthis. The Houthis hold the most populated areas of Yemen including the capital, Sanaa.
The coalition called a halt to the offensive earlier this month in order to give U.N. efforts a chance to reach a political solution that would avert an assault on the port, a lifeline for millions of Yemenis. The United Nations fears a famine in the impoverished country.
Millions at risk of starvation in Yemen amid new military offensive
JUN.15.201801:30
Most exports from the Gulf that transit the Suez Canal and the SUMED Pipeline also pass through Bab al-Mandeb strait.
An estimated 4.8 million barrels per day of crude oil and refined petroleum products flowed through this waterway in 2016 towards Europe, the United States and Asia, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Thousands of civilians have been killed in Yemen during the conflict, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said
The route is used by tankers heading from the Middle East through the Suez Canal to Europe.
by Reuters / Jul.26.2018
Saudi Arabia said Thursday it was "temporarily halting" all oil shipments through the Red Sea shipping lane of Bab al-Mandeb — one of the most important tanker routes in the world — after an attack on two ships by Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi militants.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the Houthis attacked two Saudi vessels Wednesday morning, one of which sustained minor damage.
The strait, where the Red Sea meets the Gulf of Aden in the Arabian Sea, is only 12 miles wide, making hundreds of ships potentially an easy target.
Tankers heading from the Middle East through the Suez Canal to Europe pass near the shores of Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition has been battling the Houthis in a three-year war.
Fighting intensifies around airport in Yemen port city
JUN.17.201801:11
The Saudi coalition intervened in Yemen's civil war in 2015 to restore the internationally recognized government of exiled president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Saudi Arabia accuses regional arch-foe Iran of supplying missiles to the Houthis, which both Tehran and the Houthis deny.
A Western-backed coalition of Sunni Muslim states, led by Saudi Arabia, launched an offensive in June to wrest Yemen's main port of Hodeidah from the Houthis. The Houthis hold the most populated areas of Yemen including the capital, Sanaa.
The coalition called a halt to the offensive earlier this month in order to give U.N. efforts a chance to reach a political solution that would avert an assault on the port, a lifeline for millions of Yemenis. The United Nations fears a famine in the impoverished country.
Millions at risk of starvation in Yemen amid new military offensive
JUN.15.201801:30
Most exports from the Gulf that transit the Suez Canal and the SUMED Pipeline also pass through Bab al-Mandeb strait.
An estimated 4.8 million barrels per day of crude oil and refined petroleum products flowed through this waterway in 2016 towards Europe, the United States and Asia, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Thousands of civilians have been killed in Yemen during the conflict, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said
How Kavanaugh could shape the coming "watershed" moment for digital privacy - CBS News
July 26, 2018, 5:51 AM
How Kavanaugh could shape the coming "watershed" moment for digital privacy
Jul 26, 2018
Over the course of the next two decades, the Supreme Court will likely undertake some of the most consequential digital privacy cases that will reverberate across generations to come. And Judge Brett Kavanaugh's likely addition to the high court, along with President Trump's first nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, will be deciding voices.
"I think the next decade of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is going to be fascinating," said Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and director of the school's Criminal Justice Program.
"This is a watershed moment, because technology — police are using technology, and eventually the court's going to have to recognize that and respond to it," Slobogin added.
What is the future of privacy, surveillance and policing technology under Trump and Sessions?
More and more, the courts are going to have to decide where to draw the line, as law enforcement looks to things like drones, facial recognition software and predictive policing — determining who might commit a crime before they do — through social media, Slobogin said. Those technologies raise new legal questions, Slobogin said, because most people don't think of their social media communications as being public. Do police need a warrant before they access that kind of information? Slobogin posed.
Technology almost always outpaces laws — just watch one of the Facebook hearings Congress held earlier this year to see why laws created by those who don't grasp technology are behind in legislating it. The courts, too, are playing catch-up, navigating the Fourth Amendment's right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, and making probable cause the standard for a warrant, in a world in which technology is ever-expanding, ever-advancing, and ever-enhancing law enforcement's capabilities.
Kavanaugh's record when it comes to digital privacy and Fourth Amendment issues isn't particularly extensive. But it's extensive enough to stall GOP Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's support, who has yet to announce whether he'll vote yes on the president's latest Supreme Court pick, and to incite the outright protest of Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, although as a member of the House he doesn't play a role in the confirmation process. Paul, who met with Kavanaugh on Tuesday, told Politico earlier this week he has serious concerns about Kavanaugh's record on the issue.
"I am honestly undecided," he told Politico. "I am very concerned about his position on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. This is not a small deal for me. This is a big deal."
"When Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, undermining our #4thAmendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, it will be too late for others to join me," Amash tweeted earlier this month.
Justin Amash
✔
@justinamash
When Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, undermining our #4thAmendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, it will be too late for others to join me. http://on.theatln.tc/okWs8iS
3:15 AM - Jul 19, 2018
The Only Republican Opposing Brett Kavanaugh
Representative Justin Amash is the sole member of Congress who's come out against the Supreme Court nominee, citing his record on privacy. Can he get Senator Rand Paul to join him?
theatlantic.com
But Kavanaugh's record does offer a window into where he might land on the Fourth Amendment — which protects the right of the people against unreasonable search and seizure and requires probable cause as a standard for a warrant — in the years to come.
"My guess is he'd be like Alito," Slobogin said, meaning Justice Samuel Alito, on issues of privacy and the Fourth Amendment. Alito has often sided with the government law enforcement in a number of cases about the constitutionality of police searches.
Perhaps Kavanaugh's most famous decision related to digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment was a 2015 case about the NSA's metadata collection program. That program, unearthed by the controversial NSA leaker Edward Snowden, let the NSA collect millions of call records without disclosure. Kavanaugh's court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, threw out another judge's ruling that would have stopped the NSA from collecting the records.
Kavanaugh, in a solo concurrence with the decision, declared the program was "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He reached that conclusion partly by reasoning from what's known as the third-party doctrine — judicial philosophy that asserts once people give up their information to a third party, like a private telephone company, they also surrender an expectation of privacy and the government can use it. The third-party doctrine Kavanaugh used, Slobogin said, is on "life support" in the digital age in which people give up vast amounts of information to companies on an almost daily basis and the Supreme Court begins to recognize that in its opinions.
But, even if the government's collection of the phone data constituted a reasonable search, Kavanaugh, who was working in the Bush White House on Sept. 11, 2001, said it falls under a "special need" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement — the national security and the need to fight terrorism. Matthew Feeney, a policy analyst and director of emerging technologies at the libertarian Cato Institute, called Kavanaugh's reasoning a "lawyer-y way of saying, 'because 9/11,'" when the 9/11 Commission report Kavanaugh cites doesn't even call for such a broad metadata collection program.
"My real concern is then the turn that the concurrence takes, which is to mention that the warrantless collection of millions of Americans data would not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment thanks to the special needs doctrine" said Feeney, who called Kavanaugh's reasoning basically the "widest application" of the special needs doctrine he's seen.
In another case, a stop-and-frisk case called United States v. Askew, Kavanaugh authored a 32-page dissent arguing that the police unzipping a person's jacket — which in this case revealed a gun — constituted a lawful part of eyewitness identification. Kavanaugh argued that prohibiting police from "conducting identification procedures that constitute searches would lead to absurd and dangerous results."
In 2010, Kavanaugh dissented from the D.C. court's decision not to revisit a case that decided police violated a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights by using a GPS tracker on him without a warrant. If anything, placing the GPS tracker may have violated the Fourth Amendment, but using it to track a person's movements did not, Kavanaugh suggested. He based his reasoning on a 1983 case called States v. Knotts, which determined the government didn't violate a person's Fourth Amendment rights by using a radio transmitter to track his movements, because the decision determined a person "traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another."
The case Kavanaugh dissented on in 2010 would eventually reach the Supreme Court as United States v. Jones. The high court disagreed with Kavanaugh and ruled unanimously in 2012 that installing a GPS tracking device on a car and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. On the lower court, Kavanaugh had concluded that the individual's Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated.
Another recent landmark case in the Supreme Court was Carpenter v. United States, in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June that the government had conducted an unconstitutional search by failing to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before using a suspect's cell phone records to track his location and movement.
Still, it's hard to predict how a Justice Kavanaugh would exercise jurisprudence differently than a Judge Kavanaugh, Slobogin points out. Circuit court judges rely heavily on precedent, as do Supreme Court justices, but Supreme Court justices have more latitude in their opinions.
Slobogin said Gorsuch, who wrote his own dissent in Carpenter questioning the third-party doctrine but dissenting nonetheless, is "a justice in the Scalia mold when it comes to the Fourth Amendment."
"He is not happy at all with the expectation of privacy test," Slobogin said, adding Gorsuch thinks such judicial philosophy is a "court-fabricated doctrine" not guaranteed by the Constitution.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch could either expand on the Fourth Amendment protections spelled out in the, albeit narrow, Carpenter and Jones decisions, or stall progress on guaranteeing Fourth Amendment protections, Slobogin said.
"I think they're crucial because if they sign on to the momentum that Jones and Carpenter have established, then we're going to see significant change in Fourth Amendment doctrine," Slobogin said. "If on the other hand they put the brakes on what we've seen. ... If they're hostile to what we've seen since 2012, then at best I think you'll see very slow, incremental change."
It's quite possible, if not likely, that Kavanaugh will be reviewing cases involving technology most people haven't dreamed of yet, Feeney said.
"There will be in the next couple of decades cases involving surveillance technology that we're adapting to and getting used to now, but I'm sure there will be cases involving technologies that we're not even thinking about," Feeney said.
How Kavanaugh could shape the coming "watershed" moment for digital privacy
Jul 26, 2018
Over the course of the next two decades, the Supreme Court will likely undertake some of the most consequential digital privacy cases that will reverberate across generations to come. And Judge Brett Kavanaugh's likely addition to the high court, along with President Trump's first nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, will be deciding voices.
"I think the next decade of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is going to be fascinating," said Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and director of the school's Criminal Justice Program.
"This is a watershed moment, because technology — police are using technology, and eventually the court's going to have to recognize that and respond to it," Slobogin added.
What is the future of privacy, surveillance and policing technology under Trump and Sessions?
More and more, the courts are going to have to decide where to draw the line, as law enforcement looks to things like drones, facial recognition software and predictive policing — determining who might commit a crime before they do — through social media, Slobogin said. Those technologies raise new legal questions, Slobogin said, because most people don't think of their social media communications as being public. Do police need a warrant before they access that kind of information? Slobogin posed.
Technology almost always outpaces laws — just watch one of the Facebook hearings Congress held earlier this year to see why laws created by those who don't grasp technology are behind in legislating it. The courts, too, are playing catch-up, navigating the Fourth Amendment's right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, and making probable cause the standard for a warrant, in a world in which technology is ever-expanding, ever-advancing, and ever-enhancing law enforcement's capabilities.
Kavanaugh's record when it comes to digital privacy and Fourth Amendment issues isn't particularly extensive. But it's extensive enough to stall GOP Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's support, who has yet to announce whether he'll vote yes on the president's latest Supreme Court pick, and to incite the outright protest of Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, although as a member of the House he doesn't play a role in the confirmation process. Paul, who met with Kavanaugh on Tuesday, told Politico earlier this week he has serious concerns about Kavanaugh's record on the issue.
"I am honestly undecided," he told Politico. "I am very concerned about his position on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. This is not a small deal for me. This is a big deal."
"When Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, undermining our #4thAmendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, it will be too late for others to join me," Amash tweeted earlier this month.
Justin Amash
✔
@justinamash
When Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, undermining our #4thAmendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, it will be too late for others to join me. http://on.theatln.tc/okWs8iS
3:15 AM - Jul 19, 2018
The Only Republican Opposing Brett Kavanaugh
Representative Justin Amash is the sole member of Congress who's come out against the Supreme Court nominee, citing his record on privacy. Can he get Senator Rand Paul to join him?
theatlantic.com
But Kavanaugh's record does offer a window into where he might land on the Fourth Amendment — which protects the right of the people against unreasonable search and seizure and requires probable cause as a standard for a warrant — in the years to come.
"My guess is he'd be like Alito," Slobogin said, meaning Justice Samuel Alito, on issues of privacy and the Fourth Amendment. Alito has often sided with the government law enforcement in a number of cases about the constitutionality of police searches.
Perhaps Kavanaugh's most famous decision related to digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment was a 2015 case about the NSA's metadata collection program. That program, unearthed by the controversial NSA leaker Edward Snowden, let the NSA collect millions of call records without disclosure. Kavanaugh's court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, threw out another judge's ruling that would have stopped the NSA from collecting the records.
Kavanaugh, in a solo concurrence with the decision, declared the program was "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He reached that conclusion partly by reasoning from what's known as the third-party doctrine — judicial philosophy that asserts once people give up their information to a third party, like a private telephone company, they also surrender an expectation of privacy and the government can use it. The third-party doctrine Kavanaugh used, Slobogin said, is on "life support" in the digital age in which people give up vast amounts of information to companies on an almost daily basis and the Supreme Court begins to recognize that in its opinions.
But, even if the government's collection of the phone data constituted a reasonable search, Kavanaugh, who was working in the Bush White House on Sept. 11, 2001, said it falls under a "special need" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement — the national security and the need to fight terrorism. Matthew Feeney, a policy analyst and director of emerging technologies at the libertarian Cato Institute, called Kavanaugh's reasoning a "lawyer-y way of saying, 'because 9/11,'" when the 9/11 Commission report Kavanaugh cites doesn't even call for such a broad metadata collection program.
"My real concern is then the turn that the concurrence takes, which is to mention that the warrantless collection of millions of Americans data would not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment thanks to the special needs doctrine" said Feeney, who called Kavanaugh's reasoning basically the "widest application" of the special needs doctrine he's seen.
In another case, a stop-and-frisk case called United States v. Askew, Kavanaugh authored a 32-page dissent arguing that the police unzipping a person's jacket — which in this case revealed a gun — constituted a lawful part of eyewitness identification. Kavanaugh argued that prohibiting police from "conducting identification procedures that constitute searches would lead to absurd and dangerous results."
In 2010, Kavanaugh dissented from the D.C. court's decision not to revisit a case that decided police violated a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights by using a GPS tracker on him without a warrant. If anything, placing the GPS tracker may have violated the Fourth Amendment, but using it to track a person's movements did not, Kavanaugh suggested. He based his reasoning on a 1983 case called States v. Knotts, which determined the government didn't violate a person's Fourth Amendment rights by using a radio transmitter to track his movements, because the decision determined a person "traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another."
The case Kavanaugh dissented on in 2010 would eventually reach the Supreme Court as United States v. Jones. The high court disagreed with Kavanaugh and ruled unanimously in 2012 that installing a GPS tracking device on a car and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. On the lower court, Kavanaugh had concluded that the individual's Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated.
Another recent landmark case in the Supreme Court was Carpenter v. United States, in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June that the government had conducted an unconstitutional search by failing to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before using a suspect's cell phone records to track his location and movement.
Still, it's hard to predict how a Justice Kavanaugh would exercise jurisprudence differently than a Judge Kavanaugh, Slobogin points out. Circuit court judges rely heavily on precedent, as do Supreme Court justices, but Supreme Court justices have more latitude in their opinions.
Slobogin said Gorsuch, who wrote his own dissent in Carpenter questioning the third-party doctrine but dissenting nonetheless, is "a justice in the Scalia mold when it comes to the Fourth Amendment."
"He is not happy at all with the expectation of privacy test," Slobogin said, adding Gorsuch thinks such judicial philosophy is a "court-fabricated doctrine" not guaranteed by the Constitution.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch could either expand on the Fourth Amendment protections spelled out in the, albeit narrow, Carpenter and Jones decisions, or stall progress on guaranteeing Fourth Amendment protections, Slobogin said.
"I think they're crucial because if they sign on to the momentum that Jones and Carpenter have established, then we're going to see significant change in Fourth Amendment doctrine," Slobogin said. "If on the other hand they put the brakes on what we've seen. ... If they're hostile to what we've seen since 2012, then at best I think you'll see very slow, incremental change."
It's quite possible, if not likely, that Kavanaugh will be reviewing cases involving technology most people haven't dreamed of yet, Feeney said.
"There will be in the next couple of decades cases involving surveillance technology that we're adapting to and getting used to now, but I'm sure there will be cases involving technologies that we're not even thinking about," Feeney said.
Imran Khan: Cricket hero who could be Pakistan's next PM - BBC News
Imran Khan: Cricket hero who could be Pakistan's next PM
25 July 2018
Imran Khan is a former international cricket star who promises a "new Pakistan" and an end to corruption if he wins the general election.
The charismatic aristocrat who captained Pakistan to a World Cup victory in 1992 has long shed his celebrity playboy image and now styles himself as a pious, populist, anti-poverty reformer.
Mr Khan, 65, struggled for years to turn popular support into electoral gains. He launched his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in 1996 but he was the only candidate in the party to win a seat in 2002. The PTI boycotted the 2008 vote.
Although he has long been one of Pakistan's best-known faces internationally, he spent years on the political sidelines. That led to teasing - for some Imran Khan became "Imran Khan't".
It took until the last general election in 2013 for his party to emerge as a serious player, when it narrowly missed becoming the second largest nationally.
But five years on, he is tipped as a leading contender for prime minister in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed Islamic republic and a potential flashpoint because of its rocky relations with India and Afghanistan.
However Mr Khan has faced accusations - which he denies - that he is the military's favoured candidate and that its intelligence service has been working behind the scenes against his key rivals.
If his long wait for the top job is finally to end, he needs an an electoral swing of epic proportions.
The PTI currently holds just under one-tenth of the 342 seats in the National Assembly and will need to make huge gains in the crucial province of Punjab, which has more than half of the 272 directly-elected seats.
It's also the power base of the ousted former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party.
'Playboy image'
Oxford-educated Mr Khan had an illustrious career in international cricket spanning two decades from the 1970s.
Imran Khan was at the helm for one of his country's great triumphs
He also developed a reputation as something of a playboy on the London nightclub circuit, though he denies that he ever drank alcohol or engaged in any activities that may be considered inappropriate for a conservative Pakistani Muslim.
Many say his subsequent forays into the fields of philanthropy and politics were fuelled by a desire to put to use the leadership qualities and goodwill he acquired as a cricketer.
His pin-up looks and private life have ensured he's been a favourite of the world's media for decades.
In 1995, at the age of 43, he married the 21-year-old British socialite, Jemima Goldsmith - the daughter of one of the world's richest men at the time, Sir James Goldsmith.
The marriage produced two boys but was dissolved in 2004. The split was amicable, and Mr Khan appears to have maintained a friendly relationship with his ex-wife.
Imran Khan and Jemima Goldsmith's union was dissolved in 2004
A second marriage in 2015, to journalist Reham Khan, lasted less than a year. The former BBC weather presenter alleges she was bullied by his supporters and has written a tell-all memoir.
It has been making waves in Pakistan, where its publication was put on hold by the courts in the run-up to the election.
Mr Khan wed again in 2018 in a low-profile ceremony in Lahore.
His third wife Bushra Watto, a mother of five, was described as his spiritual adviser, and observers say the match plays well with his public shows of devotion to Islam.
As a politician, Imran Khan's views have often shifted or been vague. Many accuse him of U-turns. What he would actually do in power is largely unclear.
Imran Khan supporters think their time has come
He upholds liberalism but at the same time appeals to Islamic values and anti-West sentiment, especially when it comes to perceived interference in Pakistan's internal affairs. He campaigned vocally against US drone strikes against militants in Pakistan's tribal areas as part of the "war on terror".
He has criticised some of the Taliban's violence but last year his party's government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province gave $3m (£2.3m) to the notorious Haqqania madrassa. Its head, Maulana Sami-ul Haq, is known as the "father of the Taliban". Imran Khan has had to fight off taunts he should be called "Taliban Khan".
But it's his campaign against corruption and dynastic politics in Pakistan, and a promise to raise a whole new class of "clean" politicians, that seems to have chimed with his supporters.
He has sought to ride a wave of disillusionment at Pakistan's old political order, particularly among the urban middle class and young voters, who are tired of living in a country with an economy and currency on the slide, and water and power supply in constant crisis.
The main target of his anti-corruption campaign has been his arch-rival Nawaz Sharif.
The Panama Papers leak in 2015 revealed several of Mr Sharif's children had links to offshore companies, which were allegedly used to channel funds and buy foreign assets.
That moment provided Imran Khan with his big chance - and he seized it.
His campaign against the Sharifs saw him threaten to blockade the capital with his supporters. Nawaz Sharif was ousted from the office of prime minister in 2017 and is now behind bars, sentenced to 10 years in prison by an anti-corruption court. The Sharifs maintain the charges are politically motivated.
Imran Khan scents victory in Pakistan vote
With his main rival down but not out, Imran Khan redoubled his efforts to woo politicians with dependable vote banks to his camp. Critics say many of the so-called "electables" were coerced into defecting, charges the military and PTI deny.
Mr Khan rejects persistent claims that the powerful military has manipulated the poll in support of his campaign.
He told the BBC in May: "The current military chief, Gen Bajwa, is probably the most pro-democratic man we have ever seen."
How he might get on with the military in the longer term if he makes it to power remains an open question.
If he really wants to tackle some of Pakistan's root problems, he may find himself on a collision course with the establishment, as previous governments have discovered.
25 July 2018
Imran Khan is a former international cricket star who promises a "new Pakistan" and an end to corruption if he wins the general election.
The charismatic aristocrat who captained Pakistan to a World Cup victory in 1992 has long shed his celebrity playboy image and now styles himself as a pious, populist, anti-poverty reformer.
Mr Khan, 65, struggled for years to turn popular support into electoral gains. He launched his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in 1996 but he was the only candidate in the party to win a seat in 2002. The PTI boycotted the 2008 vote.
Although he has long been one of Pakistan's best-known faces internationally, he spent years on the political sidelines. That led to teasing - for some Imran Khan became "Imran Khan't".
It took until the last general election in 2013 for his party to emerge as a serious player, when it narrowly missed becoming the second largest nationally.
But five years on, he is tipped as a leading contender for prime minister in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed Islamic republic and a potential flashpoint because of its rocky relations with India and Afghanistan.
However Mr Khan has faced accusations - which he denies - that he is the military's favoured candidate and that its intelligence service has been working behind the scenes against his key rivals.
If his long wait for the top job is finally to end, he needs an an electoral swing of epic proportions.
The PTI currently holds just under one-tenth of the 342 seats in the National Assembly and will need to make huge gains in the crucial province of Punjab, which has more than half of the 272 directly-elected seats.
It's also the power base of the ousted former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party.
'Playboy image'
Oxford-educated Mr Khan had an illustrious career in international cricket spanning two decades from the 1970s.
Imran Khan was at the helm for one of his country's great triumphs
He also developed a reputation as something of a playboy on the London nightclub circuit, though he denies that he ever drank alcohol or engaged in any activities that may be considered inappropriate for a conservative Pakistani Muslim.
Many say his subsequent forays into the fields of philanthropy and politics were fuelled by a desire to put to use the leadership qualities and goodwill he acquired as a cricketer.
His pin-up looks and private life have ensured he's been a favourite of the world's media for decades.
In 1995, at the age of 43, he married the 21-year-old British socialite, Jemima Goldsmith - the daughter of one of the world's richest men at the time, Sir James Goldsmith.
The marriage produced two boys but was dissolved in 2004. The split was amicable, and Mr Khan appears to have maintained a friendly relationship with his ex-wife.
Imran Khan and Jemima Goldsmith's union was dissolved in 2004
A second marriage in 2015, to journalist Reham Khan, lasted less than a year. The former BBC weather presenter alleges she was bullied by his supporters and has written a tell-all memoir.
It has been making waves in Pakistan, where its publication was put on hold by the courts in the run-up to the election.
Mr Khan wed again in 2018 in a low-profile ceremony in Lahore.
His third wife Bushra Watto, a mother of five, was described as his spiritual adviser, and observers say the match plays well with his public shows of devotion to Islam.
As a politician, Imran Khan's views have often shifted or been vague. Many accuse him of U-turns. What he would actually do in power is largely unclear.
Imran Khan supporters think their time has come
He upholds liberalism but at the same time appeals to Islamic values and anti-West sentiment, especially when it comes to perceived interference in Pakistan's internal affairs. He campaigned vocally against US drone strikes against militants in Pakistan's tribal areas as part of the "war on terror".
He has criticised some of the Taliban's violence but last year his party's government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province gave $3m (£2.3m) to the notorious Haqqania madrassa. Its head, Maulana Sami-ul Haq, is known as the "father of the Taliban". Imran Khan has had to fight off taunts he should be called "Taliban Khan".
But it's his campaign against corruption and dynastic politics in Pakistan, and a promise to raise a whole new class of "clean" politicians, that seems to have chimed with his supporters.
He has sought to ride a wave of disillusionment at Pakistan's old political order, particularly among the urban middle class and young voters, who are tired of living in a country with an economy and currency on the slide, and water and power supply in constant crisis.
The main target of his anti-corruption campaign has been his arch-rival Nawaz Sharif.
The Panama Papers leak in 2015 revealed several of Mr Sharif's children had links to offshore companies, which were allegedly used to channel funds and buy foreign assets.
That moment provided Imran Khan with his big chance - and he seized it.
His campaign against the Sharifs saw him threaten to blockade the capital with his supporters. Nawaz Sharif was ousted from the office of prime minister in 2017 and is now behind bars, sentenced to 10 years in prison by an anti-corruption court. The Sharifs maintain the charges are politically motivated.
Imran Khan scents victory in Pakistan vote
With his main rival down but not out, Imran Khan redoubled his efforts to woo politicians with dependable vote banks to his camp. Critics say many of the so-called "electables" were coerced into defecting, charges the military and PTI deny.
Mr Khan rejects persistent claims that the powerful military has manipulated the poll in support of his campaign.
He told the BBC in May: "The current military chief, Gen Bajwa, is probably the most pro-democratic man we have ever seen."
How he might get on with the military in the longer term if he makes it to power remains an open question.
If he really wants to tackle some of Pakistan's root problems, he may find himself on a collision course with the establishment, as previous governments have discovered.
Pakistan election: Imran Khan leads in early counting - BBC News
July 26, 2018
Pakistan election: Imran Khan leads in early counting
Five things to know about Imran Khan
Early results from Pakistan's election suggest ex-cricket star Imran Khan is on course to become prime minister.
With nearly half the votes counted from Wednesday's parliamentary election, Mr Khan's PTI party is in the lead.
It is expected to fall short of an overall majority and to seek coalition partners. Officials deny claims of vote rigging made by Mr Khan's rivals.
Campaigning has been marred by violence. On voting day a bomb killed 31 people at a polling station.
Mr Khan, the charismatic aristocrat who captained Pakistan to a World Cup victory in 1992, has long shed his celebrity playboy image and has recently faced accusations that his election challenge is benefiting from military interference in the nuclear-armed republic.
The cricket hero who could be Pakistan's next PM
Why Pakistan's election matters
With votes counted in 49% of stations, Mr Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) party was leading in 119 of the 272 National Assembly constituencies being contested, Pakistan's Dawn Newspaper reported, citing election commission figures.
A total of 137 seats is required for a majority.
Newspapers featuring Mr Khan read "victory" and "man of the match"
This election will mark only the second time that a civilian government has handed power to another after serving a full term in Pakistan.
But the party of disgraced former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has rejected the results, as have a host of smaller parties, all alleging vote-rigging and manipulation.
"The way the people's mandate has blatantly been insulted, it is intolerable," Shehbaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and brother of the former prime minister.
Mr Khan, who first entered politics in 1996 but struggled for years on the political sidelines, now styles himself as a pious, populist, anti-poverty reformer.
The 65-year-old campaigned on a message of anti-corruption and vowed to take on Pakistan's entrenched political dynasties. But his views on Islamist militancy will be scrutinised if he becomes prime minister - he has criticised some of the Taliban's violence but last year his party's government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province gave $3m (£2.3m) to the notorious Haqqania madrassa, headed by a man known as the "father of the Taliban".
On Thursday, Dawn said the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) had raised questions over the voting process. "The commission received complaints that in many areas women were not allowed to vote," the newspaper reported.
The party of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the historically liberal PPP, is widely expected to come third.
It is now fronted by Ms Bhutto's son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a 29-year-old who became party chairman when he was still a student at Oxford University.
The turnout has been estimated at between 50% and 55% out of 106 million registered voters, AFP reports.
What will be the next prime minister's main challenges?
Before the election Mr Khan told the BBC that if he were to be elected, his initial focus would be on the economy. Pakistan's currency, the rupee, has declined by 20%. Inflation is on the rise and the trade deficit widening.
Exports such as textiles have taken a hit from cheaper products by regional competitors, including China. Analysts say the new government may need to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the country's second bailout since 2013.
The BBC's Secunder Kermani in Islamabad says tough decisions that could entail curbs on spending will be easier in a government Mr Khan is able to dominate.
However, if his rivals continue to reject the results, and even potentially launch the kind of street protests Mr Khan did while in opposition, the country could face political instability.
Why does this election matter?
Pakistan has a population of nearly 200 million, and is a nuclear-armed rival to India, a key developing economy and one of the world's largest Muslim-majority nations.
The country has been ruled on and off by the military during its 71-year history, so this election is significant because it is considered the country's second consecutive democratic transition.
BBC news programme sorry for Imran Khan mix-up
Viewpoint: Pakistan's dirtiest election in years
Fears of 'creeping coup' in Pakistan
The election has been seen as a contest between Mr Khan's PTI party and Mr Sharif's PML-N.
Mr Sharif, who won the last election, has been jailed for corruption after a scandal stemming from the Panama Papers leak.
Are the elections clean?
Both the run-up to the vote, and the vote count itself, have been highly controversial.
Ahead of the elections, the PML-N complained of a targeted crackdown by the security establishment, with the alleged help of the courts, in favour of the PTI party. The Pakistani military denied interfering in politics.
Independent media, meanwhile, say there have been blatant attempts to muzzle them, while the human rights commission has said there are "ample grounds" to question the legitimacy of the polls.
Who are the 'angels' and the 'electables'?
Nawaz Sharif: Pakistan's three-time PM
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari: Heir to a political dynasty
After the polls closed on Wednesday, several political groups alleged that vote rigging was taking place in polling stations - something denied by election officials.
Representatives from several parties said that their polling agents were expelled from polling stations during vote count and were denied certified copies of results - breaching election procedures.
Analysts have also highlighted unusual delays in the announcement of unofficial results in dozens of constituencies, especially in the crucial province of Punjab which has been a stronghold of PML-N.
Election officials say delays in releasing the results are simply down to failures in the electronic reporting system and that votes are now being counted manually.
Wednesday's attack in Quetta has been claimed by the Islamic State group
Who is Imran Khan?
Previously an international cricket star who led Pakistan to a World Cup victory in 1992
Educated at the University of Oxford
Attracted media attention for his playboy lifestyle and three marriages
Launched his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in 1996 but spent years on the political sidelines
Has campaigned against corruption and dynastic politics in Pakistan
Faces accusations - which he denies - that his party is benefiting from alleged meddling by the military
Pakistan election: Imran Khan leads in early counting
Five things to know about Imran Khan
Early results from Pakistan's election suggest ex-cricket star Imran Khan is on course to become prime minister.
With nearly half the votes counted from Wednesday's parliamentary election, Mr Khan's PTI party is in the lead.
It is expected to fall short of an overall majority and to seek coalition partners. Officials deny claims of vote rigging made by Mr Khan's rivals.
Campaigning has been marred by violence. On voting day a bomb killed 31 people at a polling station.
Mr Khan, the charismatic aristocrat who captained Pakistan to a World Cup victory in 1992, has long shed his celebrity playboy image and has recently faced accusations that his election challenge is benefiting from military interference in the nuclear-armed republic.
The cricket hero who could be Pakistan's next PM
Why Pakistan's election matters
With votes counted in 49% of stations, Mr Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) party was leading in 119 of the 272 National Assembly constituencies being contested, Pakistan's Dawn Newspaper reported, citing election commission figures.
A total of 137 seats is required for a majority.
Newspapers featuring Mr Khan read "victory" and "man of the match"
This election will mark only the second time that a civilian government has handed power to another after serving a full term in Pakistan.
But the party of disgraced former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has rejected the results, as have a host of smaller parties, all alleging vote-rigging and manipulation.
"The way the people's mandate has blatantly been insulted, it is intolerable," Shehbaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and brother of the former prime minister.
Mr Khan, who first entered politics in 1996 but struggled for years on the political sidelines, now styles himself as a pious, populist, anti-poverty reformer.
The 65-year-old campaigned on a message of anti-corruption and vowed to take on Pakistan's entrenched political dynasties. But his views on Islamist militancy will be scrutinised if he becomes prime minister - he has criticised some of the Taliban's violence but last year his party's government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province gave $3m (£2.3m) to the notorious Haqqania madrassa, headed by a man known as the "father of the Taliban".
On Thursday, Dawn said the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) had raised questions over the voting process. "The commission received complaints that in many areas women were not allowed to vote," the newspaper reported.
The party of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the historically liberal PPP, is widely expected to come third.
It is now fronted by Ms Bhutto's son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a 29-year-old who became party chairman when he was still a student at Oxford University.
The turnout has been estimated at between 50% and 55% out of 106 million registered voters, AFP reports.
What will be the next prime minister's main challenges?
Before the election Mr Khan told the BBC that if he were to be elected, his initial focus would be on the economy. Pakistan's currency, the rupee, has declined by 20%. Inflation is on the rise and the trade deficit widening.
Exports such as textiles have taken a hit from cheaper products by regional competitors, including China. Analysts say the new government may need to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the country's second bailout since 2013.
The BBC's Secunder Kermani in Islamabad says tough decisions that could entail curbs on spending will be easier in a government Mr Khan is able to dominate.
However, if his rivals continue to reject the results, and even potentially launch the kind of street protests Mr Khan did while in opposition, the country could face political instability.
Why does this election matter?
Pakistan has a population of nearly 200 million, and is a nuclear-armed rival to India, a key developing economy and one of the world's largest Muslim-majority nations.
The country has been ruled on and off by the military during its 71-year history, so this election is significant because it is considered the country's second consecutive democratic transition.
BBC news programme sorry for Imran Khan mix-up
Viewpoint: Pakistan's dirtiest election in years
Fears of 'creeping coup' in Pakistan
The election has been seen as a contest between Mr Khan's PTI party and Mr Sharif's PML-N.
Mr Sharif, who won the last election, has been jailed for corruption after a scandal stemming from the Panama Papers leak.
Are the elections clean?
Both the run-up to the vote, and the vote count itself, have been highly controversial.
Ahead of the elections, the PML-N complained of a targeted crackdown by the security establishment, with the alleged help of the courts, in favour of the PTI party. The Pakistani military denied interfering in politics.
Independent media, meanwhile, say there have been blatant attempts to muzzle them, while the human rights commission has said there are "ample grounds" to question the legitimacy of the polls.
Who are the 'angels' and the 'electables'?
Nawaz Sharif: Pakistan's three-time PM
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari: Heir to a political dynasty
After the polls closed on Wednesday, several political groups alleged that vote rigging was taking place in polling stations - something denied by election officials.
Representatives from several parties said that their polling agents were expelled from polling stations during vote count and were denied certified copies of results - breaching election procedures.
Analysts have also highlighted unusual delays in the announcement of unofficial results in dozens of constituencies, especially in the crucial province of Punjab which has been a stronghold of PML-N.
Election officials say delays in releasing the results are simply down to failures in the electronic reporting system and that votes are now being counted manually.
Wednesday's attack in Quetta has been claimed by the Islamic State group
Who is Imran Khan?
Previously an international cricket star who led Pakistan to a World Cup victory in 1992
Educated at the University of Oxford
Attracted media attention for his playboy lifestyle and three marriages
Launched his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in 1996 but spent years on the political sidelines
Has campaigned against corruption and dynastic politics in Pakistan
Faces accusations - which he denies - that his party is benefiting from alleged meddling by the military
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Imran Khan: The World Cup-winning cricket captain hoping to become Pakistan's new prime minister - Independent
July 25, 2018.
Imran Khan: The World Cup-winning cricket captain hoping to become Pakistan's new prime minister
Legendary sportsman and philanthropist seeking to lead PTI to victory at the polls has attracted criticism over right-wing views
Joe Sommerlad
Imran Khan, Pakistan’s legendary World Cup-winning cricket captain, is vying to become the country’s new prime minister as voters go to the polls on Wednesday.
Leader of the centre-right Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Mr Khan, 65, is running on an anti-corruption platform against the conservative Pakistan Muslim League (PML).
His opposition is the party of ex-PM Nawaz Sharif, jailed over a scandal relating to the undisclosed channelling of funds through offshore companies to bankroll the acquisition of luxury flats in London, which was exposed by the Panama Papers leak in 2015.
An interim government under PML’s current president Shehbaz Sharif, younger brother of the disgraced PM, has run the country since his incarceration.
Mr Khan founded PTI in 1996 and has served as a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan since 2013, proving himself an outspoken figure on many divisive social issues.
Critics of his candidacy suggest he has received excessive support as the preferred candidate of the country's powerful military. He has also faced criticism for courting a group of independent political veterans known as "electables" who will offer their allegiance to the party of the highest bidder, rather than backing candidates best equipped to serve the public.
Born in Lahore on 5 October 1952, the only son of affluent civil engineer Ikramullah Khan Niazi and his wife Shaukat Khanum, Imran Khan was sent to England as a boy and educated at Aitchison College in Worcester before attending Keble College, Oxford.
Isis claims huge suicide bomb attack during Pakistan election
He made his cricketing debut for Pakistan aged 18 in 1971. An extremely gifted all-rounder, Mr Khan captained the national side between 1982 and 1992, leading them to glory at the 1992 World Cup at the tail end of an illustrious career that saw him make 3,807 runs and take 362 wickets.
He played for Worcestershire in English county cricket and was inducted into the ICC Hall of Fame in 2010, the same year a big screen biopic, Kaptaan: The Making of a Legend, hit cinemas.
After retiring from the sport Mr Khan turned his hand to philanthropy, working to promote immunisation programmes in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Thailand and founding the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Trust in honour of his mother.
The trust opened Pakistan’s first dedicated cancer hospital in 1991.
Like Liberian footballer George Weah and Senegalese musician Baaba Maal, Mr Khan subsequently decided to put his national fame to political use, founding PTI and making headlines through his persistent criticism of General Pervez Musharraf during the period of military rule between 1999 and 2008.
More controversially, he has been critical of progressive feminist causes, advocated embracing radical religious groups (including some linked to the Taliban, earning him the nickname “Taliban Khan”) and pledged to uphold the country’s strict blasphemy laws, which can leave critics of Islam facing the death penalty.
In 2013, he led PTI protests against alleged vote rigging in that year’s general election after his party received just 19 per cent of the vote and played an integral role in calling for the criminal investigation into the business affairs of Nawaz Sharif over the Panama Papers affair.
Pakistan general election: vote turns violent after suicide bombing
21
show all
Mr Khan has also been a vocal opponent of American military intervention in Afghanistan and the use of drone strikes, saying US president Donald Trump “neither understands the history of Pakistan nor the character of the Afghan people”.
In his personal life, Imran Khan has enjoyed a reputation as something of a playboy, known for his friendship with Mick Jagger and marriage to journalist Jemima Goldsmith in 1995.
She converted to Islam and the couple had two children together before divorcing in 2004, after which she became a subject of British tabloid fascination over her relationships with actor Hugh Grant and comedian Russell Brand.
He has been married twice since: to Rehman Khan – another journalist, who has written an as-yet-unpublished and potentially explosive memoir about their 10 months together – and to spiritual adviser and mother of five Bushra Manika since February of this year.
Imran Khan: The World Cup-winning cricket captain hoping to become Pakistan's new prime minister
Legendary sportsman and philanthropist seeking to lead PTI to victory at the polls has attracted criticism over right-wing views
Joe Sommerlad
Imran Khan, Pakistan’s legendary World Cup-winning cricket captain, is vying to become the country’s new prime minister as voters go to the polls on Wednesday.
Leader of the centre-right Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Mr Khan, 65, is running on an anti-corruption platform against the conservative Pakistan Muslim League (PML).
His opposition is the party of ex-PM Nawaz Sharif, jailed over a scandal relating to the undisclosed channelling of funds through offshore companies to bankroll the acquisition of luxury flats in London, which was exposed by the Panama Papers leak in 2015.
An interim government under PML’s current president Shehbaz Sharif, younger brother of the disgraced PM, has run the country since his incarceration.
Mr Khan founded PTI in 1996 and has served as a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan since 2013, proving himself an outspoken figure on many divisive social issues.
Critics of his candidacy suggest he has received excessive support as the preferred candidate of the country's powerful military. He has also faced criticism for courting a group of independent political veterans known as "electables" who will offer their allegiance to the party of the highest bidder, rather than backing candidates best equipped to serve the public.
Born in Lahore on 5 October 1952, the only son of affluent civil engineer Ikramullah Khan Niazi and his wife Shaukat Khanum, Imran Khan was sent to England as a boy and educated at Aitchison College in Worcester before attending Keble College, Oxford.
Isis claims huge suicide bomb attack during Pakistan election
He made his cricketing debut for Pakistan aged 18 in 1971. An extremely gifted all-rounder, Mr Khan captained the national side between 1982 and 1992, leading them to glory at the 1992 World Cup at the tail end of an illustrious career that saw him make 3,807 runs and take 362 wickets.
He played for Worcestershire in English county cricket and was inducted into the ICC Hall of Fame in 2010, the same year a big screen biopic, Kaptaan: The Making of a Legend, hit cinemas.
After retiring from the sport Mr Khan turned his hand to philanthropy, working to promote immunisation programmes in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Thailand and founding the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Trust in honour of his mother.
The trust opened Pakistan’s first dedicated cancer hospital in 1991.
Like Liberian footballer George Weah and Senegalese musician Baaba Maal, Mr Khan subsequently decided to put his national fame to political use, founding PTI and making headlines through his persistent criticism of General Pervez Musharraf during the period of military rule between 1999 and 2008.
More controversially, he has been critical of progressive feminist causes, advocated embracing radical religious groups (including some linked to the Taliban, earning him the nickname “Taliban Khan”) and pledged to uphold the country’s strict blasphemy laws, which can leave critics of Islam facing the death penalty.
In 2013, he led PTI protests against alleged vote rigging in that year’s general election after his party received just 19 per cent of the vote and played an integral role in calling for the criminal investigation into the business affairs of Nawaz Sharif over the Panama Papers affair.
Pakistan general election: vote turns violent after suicide bombing
21
show all
Mr Khan has also been a vocal opponent of American military intervention in Afghanistan and the use of drone strikes, saying US president Donald Trump “neither understands the history of Pakistan nor the character of the Afghan people”.
In his personal life, Imran Khan has enjoyed a reputation as something of a playboy, known for his friendship with Mick Jagger and marriage to journalist Jemima Goldsmith in 1995.
She converted to Islam and the couple had two children together before divorcing in 2004, after which she became a subject of British tabloid fascination over her relationships with actor Hugh Grant and comedian Russell Brand.
He has been married twice since: to Rehman Khan – another journalist, who has written an as-yet-unpublished and potentially explosive memoir about their 10 months together – and to spiritual adviser and mother of five Bushra Manika since February of this year.
Death Valley Burns at a High of 127 Degrees as Heat Radiates Across U.S. Southwest - TIME
Death Valley Burns at a High of 127 Degrees as Heat Radiates Across U.S. Southwest
Humberto Berlanga, center, wipes sweat from his face while waiting in the heat in line at the Gold & Silver Pawn shop, July 24, 2018, in Las Vegas.
By ANITA SNOW / AP 10:37 PM EDT
(PHOENIX) — Scorching heat radiated across the U.S. Southwest on Tuesday, setting record highs in California’s Death Valley, Thermal and Palm Springs in a week that forecasters say could prove to be the region’s hottest this year.
The National Weather Service said a new high of 127 degrees (52.7 Celsius) was set at California’s Death Valley. Weather service forecaster Chris Outler in Las Vegas said the record broke the previous one of 126 (52 Celsius) registered for the day in 1916.
He said Las Vegas reached a high of 112 (44 Celsius) on Tuesday, but that wasn’t a record for the day.
The weather service said other record highs set Tuesday included 122 (50 Celsius) in Thermal, in California’s Coachella Valley, and 121 (49.4 Celsius) in Palm Springs.
Forecaster Andrew Deemer said the Phoenix high of 116 (46 Celsius) on Tuesday was tied with the previous record set in 2014.
A high of 124 degrees (51 Celsius) was forecast in Death Valley and was expected to nudge up a few more degrees on Thursday as Arizona and parts of California, Utah and Nevada remained under an excessive heat warning. Highs up to 111 were expected Tuesday in Las Vegas.
Phoenix was also forecast to be among the hottest urban areas in the Southwest, with highs passing 100 (38 Celsius) by midmorning and hitting 113 (46 degrees) by early afternoon.
“The hottest weather of the year will persist the next several days with near record highs for many locations,” the National Weather Service in Phoenix said. “After this period of hot and dry weather for the majority of the area, better moisture will arrive back into the region late in the week.”
Forecasters extended the excessive heat warning for Arizona’s Grand Canyon through Thursday, with highs in the South Rim area expected in the low 90s.
The weather agency uses a complicated formula that varies from region to region to declare an excessive heat warning, including close to record or record-breaking temperatures.
In California, power grid operators called for cutbacks in electricity usage as parts of the U.S. Southwest dealt with another day of scorching heat.
With triple-digit temperatures forecast across the region, the California Independent System Operator Corp. urged people to ease off blasting air conditioners or using washing machines or other appliances during the peak power usage times of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health also urged people to stay out of the sun.
“When temperatures are high, even a few hours of exertion may cause severe dehydration, heat cramps, heat exhaustion and heat stroke,” said Dr. Jeffrey Gunzenhauser, the county’s interim health officer.
Children, the elderly and pets shouldn’t be left in homes without air conditioning or in cars even with open windows because temperatures can quickly soar to life-threatening levels, he said.
Phoenix on Monday recorded a sweltering 115 degrees (46 Celsius), breaking the previous record for the day, according to the weather service office.
With some of the highest Southwest temperatures over the next few days expected in Phoenix, officials cautioned people to stay hydrated and take advantage of cooler indoor buildings.
“Nationwide, heat is the #1 heat-related killer,” the weather service in Phoenix said on its website.
Humberto Berlanga, center, wipes sweat from his face while waiting in the heat in line at the Gold & Silver Pawn shop, July 24, 2018, in Las Vegas.
By ANITA SNOW / AP 10:37 PM EDT
(PHOENIX) — Scorching heat radiated across the U.S. Southwest on Tuesday, setting record highs in California’s Death Valley, Thermal and Palm Springs in a week that forecasters say could prove to be the region’s hottest this year.
The National Weather Service said a new high of 127 degrees (52.7 Celsius) was set at California’s Death Valley. Weather service forecaster Chris Outler in Las Vegas said the record broke the previous one of 126 (52 Celsius) registered for the day in 1916.
He said Las Vegas reached a high of 112 (44 Celsius) on Tuesday, but that wasn’t a record for the day.
The weather service said other record highs set Tuesday included 122 (50 Celsius) in Thermal, in California’s Coachella Valley, and 121 (49.4 Celsius) in Palm Springs.
Forecaster Andrew Deemer said the Phoenix high of 116 (46 Celsius) on Tuesday was tied with the previous record set in 2014.
A high of 124 degrees (51 Celsius) was forecast in Death Valley and was expected to nudge up a few more degrees on Thursday as Arizona and parts of California, Utah and Nevada remained under an excessive heat warning. Highs up to 111 were expected Tuesday in Las Vegas.
Phoenix was also forecast to be among the hottest urban areas in the Southwest, with highs passing 100 (38 Celsius) by midmorning and hitting 113 (46 degrees) by early afternoon.
“The hottest weather of the year will persist the next several days with near record highs for many locations,” the National Weather Service in Phoenix said. “After this period of hot and dry weather for the majority of the area, better moisture will arrive back into the region late in the week.”
Forecasters extended the excessive heat warning for Arizona’s Grand Canyon through Thursday, with highs in the South Rim area expected in the low 90s.
The weather agency uses a complicated formula that varies from region to region to declare an excessive heat warning, including close to record or record-breaking temperatures.
In California, power grid operators called for cutbacks in electricity usage as parts of the U.S. Southwest dealt with another day of scorching heat.
With triple-digit temperatures forecast across the region, the California Independent System Operator Corp. urged people to ease off blasting air conditioners or using washing machines or other appliances during the peak power usage times of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health also urged people to stay out of the sun.
“When temperatures are high, even a few hours of exertion may cause severe dehydration, heat cramps, heat exhaustion and heat stroke,” said Dr. Jeffrey Gunzenhauser, the county’s interim health officer.
Children, the elderly and pets shouldn’t be left in homes without air conditioning or in cars even with open windows because temperatures can quickly soar to life-threatening levels, he said.
Phoenix on Monday recorded a sweltering 115 degrees (46 Celsius), breaking the previous record for the day, according to the weather service office.
With some of the highest Southwest temperatures over the next few days expected in Phoenix, officials cautioned people to stay hydrated and take advantage of cooler indoor buildings.
“Nationwide, heat is the #1 heat-related killer,” the weather service in Phoenix said on its website.
The Queen has a secret speech if World War 3 breaks out. This is what it says - Independent
The Queen has a secret speech if World War 3 breaks out. This is what it says
Posted March 24, 2018 by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
The Queen has many planned speeches, including one that the Queen will read to the citizens of Britain in the event of nuclear war, a prospect that was made more real through the actions of Russia in the last few months.
In September 2017, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenkow warned that Russia was preparing its forces for war in Eastern Europe.
In an address to Ukrainian parliament he said:
There are no signs at the moment that Moscow would be ready to pull back from Donbass or leave Crimea.
In fact, there is more and more evidence for its preparations for an offensive war of continental proportions.
And of course, there's the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil, which was led to Prime Minister Theresa May giving 23 diplomats identified as "undeclared intelligence officers" just one week to leave the UK.
In reference to the UK's response to the poisoning of Skripal, Russian ambassador to the UK Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko has said the government's response has been "absolutely unacceptable" and is being considered a "provocation".
And that's all before we even consider North Korea, the Trump administration and the ongoing fight against ISIS.
With that in mind, lin 2017 the BBC reported the Queen already has a speech written in the eventuality of World War 3. This is what it says.
The Queen's Speech.
The speech was originally written in 1983, during the height of the Cold War, and was made public in 2013 under the 30-year rule by the National Archives.
Certain aspects of the speech are now outdated, such as Prince Andrew being in action for the Royal Navy, but it remains a prescient and sobering text.
Written as if The Queen was broadcasting the message at midday on Friday 4 March 1983, she starts by reflecting on the recent joys of Christmas before personally sharing the sadness she felt when World War II was announced.
The BBC quote the speech as saying:
I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's [George VI's] inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939 [at the start of the World War II].
Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.
But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength.
She adds that the terror now comes from technology rather than soldiers or airmen.
We all know that the dangers facing us today are greater by far than at any time in our long history.
The enemy is not the soldier with his rifle nor even the airman prowling the skies above our cities and towns but the deadly power of abused technology.
Her Royal Highness goes on to emphasise the importance of family in such troubling times before concluding:
My message to you therefore is simple. Help those who cannot help themselves, give comfort to the lonely and the homeless and let your family become the focus of hope and life to those who need it.
As we strive together to fight off the new evil, let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.
God Bless you all.
The speech was devised as part of the war gaming exercise which envisioned how the UK would respond to a potential nuclear attack from the Soviet Union.
We certainly hope that we never have to hear a version of this speech, but if you want to read it you can find it below:
When I spoke to you less than three months ago we were all enjoying the warmth and fellowship of a family Christmas. Our thoughts were concentrated on the strong links that bind each generation to the ones that came before and those that will follow. The horrors of war could not have seemed more remote as my family and I shared our Christmas joy with the growing family of the Commonwealth.
Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.
I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939. Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.
We all know that the dangers facing us today are greater by far than at any time in our long history. The enemy is not the soldier with his rifle nor even the airman prowling the skies above our cities and towns but the deadly power of abused technology.
But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength. My husband and I share with families up and down the land the fear we feel for sons and daughters, husbands and brothers who have left our side to serve their country. My beloved son Andrew is at this moment in action with his unit and we pray continually for his safety and for the safety of all servicemen and women at home and overseas.
It is this close bond of family life that must be our greatest defence against the unknown. If families remain united and resolute, giving shelter to those living alone and unprotected, our country's will to survive cannot be broken.
My message to you therefore is simple. Help those who cannot help themselves, give comfort to the lonely and the homeless and let your family become the focus of hope and life to those who need it.
As we strive together to fight off the new evil let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.
God bless you all.
Posted March 24, 2018 by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
The Queen has many planned speeches, including one that the Queen will read to the citizens of Britain in the event of nuclear war, a prospect that was made more real through the actions of Russia in the last few months.
In September 2017, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenkow warned that Russia was preparing its forces for war in Eastern Europe.
In an address to Ukrainian parliament he said:
There are no signs at the moment that Moscow would be ready to pull back from Donbass or leave Crimea.
In fact, there is more and more evidence for its preparations for an offensive war of continental proportions.
And of course, there's the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil, which was led to Prime Minister Theresa May giving 23 diplomats identified as "undeclared intelligence officers" just one week to leave the UK.
In reference to the UK's response to the poisoning of Skripal, Russian ambassador to the UK Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko has said the government's response has been "absolutely unacceptable" and is being considered a "provocation".
And that's all before we even consider North Korea, the Trump administration and the ongoing fight against ISIS.
With that in mind, lin 2017 the BBC reported the Queen already has a speech written in the eventuality of World War 3. This is what it says.
The Queen's Speech.
The speech was originally written in 1983, during the height of the Cold War, and was made public in 2013 under the 30-year rule by the National Archives.
Certain aspects of the speech are now outdated, such as Prince Andrew being in action for the Royal Navy, but it remains a prescient and sobering text.
Written as if The Queen was broadcasting the message at midday on Friday 4 March 1983, she starts by reflecting on the recent joys of Christmas before personally sharing the sadness she felt when World War II was announced.
The BBC quote the speech as saying:
I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's [George VI's] inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939 [at the start of the World War II].
Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.
But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength.
She adds that the terror now comes from technology rather than soldiers or airmen.
We all know that the dangers facing us today are greater by far than at any time in our long history.
The enemy is not the soldier with his rifle nor even the airman prowling the skies above our cities and towns but the deadly power of abused technology.
Her Royal Highness goes on to emphasise the importance of family in such troubling times before concluding:
My message to you therefore is simple. Help those who cannot help themselves, give comfort to the lonely and the homeless and let your family become the focus of hope and life to those who need it.
As we strive together to fight off the new evil, let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.
God Bless you all.
The speech was devised as part of the war gaming exercise which envisioned how the UK would respond to a potential nuclear attack from the Soviet Union.
We certainly hope that we never have to hear a version of this speech, but if you want to read it you can find it below:
When I spoke to you less than three months ago we were all enjoying the warmth and fellowship of a family Christmas. Our thoughts were concentrated on the strong links that bind each generation to the ones that came before and those that will follow. The horrors of war could not have seemed more remote as my family and I shared our Christmas joy with the growing family of the Commonwealth.
Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.
I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939. Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.
We all know that the dangers facing us today are greater by far than at any time in our long history. The enemy is not the soldier with his rifle nor even the airman prowling the skies above our cities and towns but the deadly power of abused technology.
But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength. My husband and I share with families up and down the land the fear we feel for sons and daughters, husbands and brothers who have left our side to serve their country. My beloved son Andrew is at this moment in action with his unit and we pray continually for his safety and for the safety of all servicemen and women at home and overseas.
It is this close bond of family life that must be our greatest defence against the unknown. If families remain united and resolute, giving shelter to those living alone and unprotected, our country's will to survive cannot be broken.
My message to you therefore is simple. Help those who cannot help themselves, give comfort to the lonely and the homeless and let your family become the focus of hope and life to those who need it.
As we strive together to fight off the new evil let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.
God bless you all.
EU prepares retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion of U.S. goods - Reuters
JULY 25, 2018
EU prepares retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion of U.S. goods
Johan Ahlander, Paul Carrel
STOCKHOLM/BERLIN (Reuters) - The European Commission is drawing up a list of $20 billion of U.S. goods to hit with duties if Washington imposes tariffs on imported cars, European Union trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said on the eve of her boss’s meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump.
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom attends an interview with Reuters in Geneva, Switzerland June 4, 2018. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse - RC1E163C7000
Malmstrom is in Washington for talks on trade, with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker due on Wednesday to meet Trump in a bid to stop the United States from extending its import tariffs on EU steel and aluminum to cars and car parts.
“We hope that it doesn’t come to that and that we can find a solution. If not, the EU Commission is preparing a rather long list of many American goods. It would be around $20 billion,” Malmstrom told Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter on Wednesday.
In response to the U.S. metals tariffs, the EU has already imposed its own import duties on 2.8 billion euros ($3.3 billion) worth of U.S. goods, including products like bourbon and motorcycles that are made in some of the electoral districts that supported Trump.
Malmstrom said the next potential round of EU tariffs would not target specific U.S. states.
“No, now it’s more general goods such as agricultural products, machinery, high-tech products and other things,” she said.
The Commission briefed EU countries last week on the bloc’s possible response, saying in theory it could hit 9 billion euros of U.S. goods, according to EU sources.
Metal coils are seen at ArcelorMittal steel plant in Ghent, Belgium, May 22, 2018. REUTERS/Yves Herman
However, some EU diplomats said the Commission was also looking at going for double that amount - to the level Malmstrom is suggesting - at half the duty rate.
A formal proposal would only come after the U.S. Commerce Department completed its investigation into whether car imports threaten national security. The report’s deadline is February 2019, but it is now expected by late August/early September.
MODERATED OPTIMISM
The European Commission, which handles trade policy on behalf of the EU’s 28 members, has insisted that Juncker is seeking to open a dialogue with Trump, rather than to negotiate.
EU officials have also downplayed the idea that Juncker is arriving with a novel trade offer.
EU budget commissioner Guenther Oettinger suggested the EU would be ready to discuss mutual tariff cuts provided the Washington lifts punitive metals tariffs first.
He told broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that the two could try to forge a lighter version of the planned U.S.-European trade deal known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TTIP negotiations were stalled after Trump’s 2016 election victory.
Business confidence in Oettinger’s homeland, Germany, the largest EU exporter of cars to the United States, weakened in July, with the threat of a trade war increasing uncertainty.
Trump on Tuesday tweeted that the EU was coming to negotiate a trade deal.
“I have an idea for them. Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be called Free Market and Fair Trade! Hope they do it, we are ready - but they won’t!” Trump wrote.
Malmstrom indicated she was not expecting a breakthrough.
“Basically, I’m an optimistic person, but heading in to this I’m moderately optimistic. But one must always try,” she told the Swedish newspaper.
She added that she did not think the U.S. proposal to drop tariffs, barriers and subsidies was serious, pointing out that the U.S. has laws, such as the Buy American Act, protecting its industries and agricultural policies supporting its farmers.
“We tried earlier in TTIP negotiations to make the United States loosen those laws,” Malmstrom said. “It was completely impossible. They did not move a millimeter.”
Writing by Philip Blenkinsop, editing by Larry King
EU prepares retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion of U.S. goods
Johan Ahlander, Paul Carrel
STOCKHOLM/BERLIN (Reuters) - The European Commission is drawing up a list of $20 billion of U.S. goods to hit with duties if Washington imposes tariffs on imported cars, European Union trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said on the eve of her boss’s meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump.
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom attends an interview with Reuters in Geneva, Switzerland June 4, 2018. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse - RC1E163C7000
Malmstrom is in Washington for talks on trade, with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker due on Wednesday to meet Trump in a bid to stop the United States from extending its import tariffs on EU steel and aluminum to cars and car parts.
“We hope that it doesn’t come to that and that we can find a solution. If not, the EU Commission is preparing a rather long list of many American goods. It would be around $20 billion,” Malmstrom told Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter on Wednesday.
In response to the U.S. metals tariffs, the EU has already imposed its own import duties on 2.8 billion euros ($3.3 billion) worth of U.S. goods, including products like bourbon and motorcycles that are made in some of the electoral districts that supported Trump.
Malmstrom said the next potential round of EU tariffs would not target specific U.S. states.
“No, now it’s more general goods such as agricultural products, machinery, high-tech products and other things,” she said.
The Commission briefed EU countries last week on the bloc’s possible response, saying in theory it could hit 9 billion euros of U.S. goods, according to EU sources.
Metal coils are seen at ArcelorMittal steel plant in Ghent, Belgium, May 22, 2018. REUTERS/Yves Herman
However, some EU diplomats said the Commission was also looking at going for double that amount - to the level Malmstrom is suggesting - at half the duty rate.
A formal proposal would only come after the U.S. Commerce Department completed its investigation into whether car imports threaten national security. The report’s deadline is February 2019, but it is now expected by late August/early September.
MODERATED OPTIMISM
The European Commission, which handles trade policy on behalf of the EU’s 28 members, has insisted that Juncker is seeking to open a dialogue with Trump, rather than to negotiate.
EU officials have also downplayed the idea that Juncker is arriving with a novel trade offer.
EU budget commissioner Guenther Oettinger suggested the EU would be ready to discuss mutual tariff cuts provided the Washington lifts punitive metals tariffs first.
He told broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that the two could try to forge a lighter version of the planned U.S.-European trade deal known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TTIP negotiations were stalled after Trump’s 2016 election victory.
Business confidence in Oettinger’s homeland, Germany, the largest EU exporter of cars to the United States, weakened in July, with the threat of a trade war increasing uncertainty.
Trump on Tuesday tweeted that the EU was coming to negotiate a trade deal.
“I have an idea for them. Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be called Free Market and Fair Trade! Hope they do it, we are ready - but they won’t!” Trump wrote.
Malmstrom indicated she was not expecting a breakthrough.
“Basically, I’m an optimistic person, but heading in to this I’m moderately optimistic. But one must always try,” she told the Swedish newspaper.
She added that she did not think the U.S. proposal to drop tariffs, barriers and subsidies was serious, pointing out that the U.S. has laws, such as the Buy American Act, protecting its industries and agricultural policies supporting its farmers.
“We tried earlier in TTIP negotiations to make the United States loosen those laws,” Malmstrom said. “It was completely impossible. They did not move a millimeter.”
Writing by Philip Blenkinsop, editing by Larry King
A majority thinks Russia has dirt on Trump, a new poll shows - CNBC News
A majority thinks Russia has dirt on Trump, a new poll shows
By a 51-to-35 percent margin, U.S. voters are convinced the Russian government has dirt on Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll.
His overall approval rating now sits at 38 percent, compared with 58 percent disapproval, according to the poll.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that Trump's rating is underwater by nearly 10 points.
John W. Schoen | @johnwschoen
Published on July 24, 2018
CNBC.com
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland July 16, 2018.
Grigory Dukor | Reuters
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland July 16, 2018.
It's been a week since President Donald Trump’s widely panned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and a new poll shows that a majority of Americans believes the Kremlin has compromising information on the American leader.
By a 51-to-35 percent margin, U.S. voters are convinced the Russian government has dirt on Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll.
At a press conference in Helsinki on July 16, Trump stunned the world by accepting Putin's denial that Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election, thus contradicting the findings of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
“I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia,” Trump said. He tried to walk it back a day later by saying he had misspoken.
Trump’s performance at the summit, widely criticized on Capitol Hill by both parties, has raised further suspicions that Moscow has collected compromising material on the president as part of a wider campaign to influence the American political system. Allegations of the existence of such material surfaced with the disclosure of a dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer who was paid by Democrats to collect damaging information on Trump during the 2016 campaign.
The new poll also showed a decline in Americans' approval of Trump's overall job performance. His approval now sits at 38 percent, compared with 58 percent disapproval. His approval rating fell five points from a June 20 Quinnipiac poll that followed the president’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that Trump's rating is underwater by nearly 10 points.
Republicans largely stand behind the president when it comes to Russia. Only 18 percent of GOP voters believe that Moscow has such information on Trump; some 70 percent say they don’t think the allegations are true, the latest Quinnipiac poll found.
Another silver lining for the president: Voters overall aren't convinced that Trump himself colluded with Russia to interfere in the election, by a 48-to-39 percent margin. But they’re divided on whether the Trump campaign in general did so; some 46 percent say it did, and 44 percent say it did not.
Overall, voters deemed the Helsinki summit a failure for the U.S., by a 52-to-27 percent margin. Some 73 percent believe the summit was a success for Russia. Trump was not acting in the best interest of the U.S., according to 54 percent of voters surveyed. And 78 percent of voters said Trump should defend all of America's NATO allies.
The Helsinki summit left 68 percent of American voters "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about President Trump's relationship with Russia.
By a 51-to-35 percent margin, U.S. voters are convinced the Russian government has dirt on Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll.
His overall approval rating now sits at 38 percent, compared with 58 percent disapproval, according to the poll.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that Trump's rating is underwater by nearly 10 points.
John W. Schoen | @johnwschoen
Published on July 24, 2018
CNBC.com
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland July 16, 2018.
Grigory Dukor | Reuters
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland July 16, 2018.
It's been a week since President Donald Trump’s widely panned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and a new poll shows that a majority of Americans believes the Kremlin has compromising information on the American leader.
By a 51-to-35 percent margin, U.S. voters are convinced the Russian government has dirt on Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll.
At a press conference in Helsinki on July 16, Trump stunned the world by accepting Putin's denial that Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election, thus contradicting the findings of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
“I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia,” Trump said. He tried to walk it back a day later by saying he had misspoken.
Trump’s performance at the summit, widely criticized on Capitol Hill by both parties, has raised further suspicions that Moscow has collected compromising material on the president as part of a wider campaign to influence the American political system. Allegations of the existence of such material surfaced with the disclosure of a dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer who was paid by Democrats to collect damaging information on Trump during the 2016 campaign.
The new poll also showed a decline in Americans' approval of Trump's overall job performance. His approval now sits at 38 percent, compared with 58 percent disapproval. His approval rating fell five points from a June 20 Quinnipiac poll that followed the president’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that Trump's rating is underwater by nearly 10 points.
Republicans largely stand behind the president when it comes to Russia. Only 18 percent of GOP voters believe that Moscow has such information on Trump; some 70 percent say they don’t think the allegations are true, the latest Quinnipiac poll found.
Another silver lining for the president: Voters overall aren't convinced that Trump himself colluded with Russia to interfere in the election, by a 48-to-39 percent margin. But they’re divided on whether the Trump campaign in general did so; some 46 percent say it did, and 44 percent say it did not.
Overall, voters deemed the Helsinki summit a failure for the U.S., by a 52-to-27 percent margin. Some 73 percent believe the summit was a success for Russia. Trump was not acting in the best interest of the U.S., according to 54 percent of voters surveyed. And 78 percent of voters said Trump should defend all of America's NATO allies.
The Helsinki summit left 68 percent of American voters "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about President Trump's relationship with Russia.
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific bow to China Taiwan pressure - BBC News
July 25, 2018
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific bow to China Taiwan pressure
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific have become the latest carriers to change how they refer to Taiwan online, bowing to pressure from China.
Beijing set 25 July as a deadline for companies and airlines to remove references to Taiwan as anything but a Chinese territory on their websites.
The US carriers just lists Taipei, but Cathay refers to it as part of China.
Taiwan has been self-ruling since 1949 but China regards it as a breakaway province to be reunited one day.
The move was dismissed by the White House in May as "Orwellian nonsense", but many global carriers including Lufthansa, Air France-KLM and Qantas decided to comply with the demand coming out of one of the world's biggest aviation markets.
A number of US airlines, however, held out and currently United Airlines continues to list the city of Taipei as being in "TW" on their website.
American Airlines spokeswoman Shannon Gilson told the BBC in an email response: "Like other carriers, American is implementing changes to address China's request. Air travel is global business, and we abide by the rules in countries where we operate".
Cathay Pacific told the BBC in a statement the carrier was a registered airline "of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People's Republic of China. HKSAR is also where our operations are based. We must comply with the regulations and requirements of the relevant civil aviation authorities."
The issue has always been highly sensitive for Beijing, but in recent years it has become increasingly active in clamping down on perceived violations of its territorial claims.
Taipei is listed without giving any country name on the American Airlines website
In April, China's Civil Aviation Administration wrote to more than 40 airlines worldwide telling them to abide by its laws and regulations and sovereignty claims, and threatening sanctions should they not fall in line.
Beijing demanded that neither Taiwan and Hong Kong nor Macau should be listed as separate places in for instance drop-down menus of company websites.
China warns Western firms over Taiwan
British Airways, Germany's Lufthansa, Air France and Singapore Airlines all list Taipei as in "Taiwan, China". Australia's Qantas in June also gave in to Chinese demands leading to the government in Canberra criticising Chinese "pressure" over the situation.
"Private companies should be free to conduct their usual business operations free from political pressure of governments," Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said at the time.
Just before the deadline, United lists Taipei as being in 'TW'
China's vociferous defence of its territorial claims is not just directed at the airline industry.
Earlier this year US clothing company GAP apologised for selling T-shirts with a map of China which did not show Taiwan and other disputed territories.
Japanese retail chain Muji recently has been fined in China for listing Taiwan as a country on some of its packaging.
Hotel chain Marriott also briefly had its Chinese website suspended for listing Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau as separate countries in a customer questionnaire.
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific bow to China Taiwan pressure
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific have become the latest carriers to change how they refer to Taiwan online, bowing to pressure from China.
Beijing set 25 July as a deadline for companies and airlines to remove references to Taiwan as anything but a Chinese territory on their websites.
The US carriers just lists Taipei, but Cathay refers to it as part of China.
Taiwan has been self-ruling since 1949 but China regards it as a breakaway province to be reunited one day.
The move was dismissed by the White House in May as "Orwellian nonsense", but many global carriers including Lufthansa, Air France-KLM and Qantas decided to comply with the demand coming out of one of the world's biggest aviation markets.
A number of US airlines, however, held out and currently United Airlines continues to list the city of Taipei as being in "TW" on their website.
American Airlines spokeswoman Shannon Gilson told the BBC in an email response: "Like other carriers, American is implementing changes to address China's request. Air travel is global business, and we abide by the rules in countries where we operate".
Cathay Pacific told the BBC in a statement the carrier was a registered airline "of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People's Republic of China. HKSAR is also where our operations are based. We must comply with the regulations and requirements of the relevant civil aviation authorities."
The issue has always been highly sensitive for Beijing, but in recent years it has become increasingly active in clamping down on perceived violations of its territorial claims.
Taipei is listed without giving any country name on the American Airlines website
In April, China's Civil Aviation Administration wrote to more than 40 airlines worldwide telling them to abide by its laws and regulations and sovereignty claims, and threatening sanctions should they not fall in line.
Beijing demanded that neither Taiwan and Hong Kong nor Macau should be listed as separate places in for instance drop-down menus of company websites.
China warns Western firms over Taiwan
British Airways, Germany's Lufthansa, Air France and Singapore Airlines all list Taipei as in "Taiwan, China". Australia's Qantas in June also gave in to Chinese demands leading to the government in Canberra criticising Chinese "pressure" over the situation.
"Private companies should be free to conduct their usual business operations free from political pressure of governments," Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said at the time.
Just before the deadline, United lists Taipei as being in 'TW'
China's vociferous defence of its territorial claims is not just directed at the airline industry.
Earlier this year US clothing company GAP apologised for selling T-shirts with a map of China which did not show Taiwan and other disputed territories.
Japanese retail chain Muji recently has been fined in China for listing Taiwan as a country on some of its packaging.
Hotel chain Marriott also briefly had its Chinese website suspended for listing Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau as separate countries in a customer questionnaire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
