August 22, 2018.
The November mid-terms will end up as a referendum on Trump's impeachment – and he could do surprisingly well
Legally, the president occupies a special place in the constitution. Practically, he also stands to gain a lot from his present supporters
Sean O'Grady
@_seanogrady
The Independent Voices
Why Crazy Rich Asians is scrutinised more than rich white people films
Guy Pearce: It's dangerous to say certain actors can't play gay roles
Italian police hunt naked tourists who jumped in fountain
Trump ignores day of disaster in rambling speech featuring turkeys
It’s all getting a bit All the President’s Men, isn’t it? Like Watergate – uncannily so in this respect – the waters of the scandal are starting to splash at the president’s feet.
Donald Trump’s former presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been convicted of a variety of fraud charges, albeit not directly linked to the president; and his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has claimed that Trump ordered to him to pay “hush money” to two women to prevent embarrassment during the 2016 presidential election, for the “principal purpose of influencing the election”. The point is that he was, he says, ordered to do so by Trump himself (rather than Cohen acting at his own discretion on his own account.) That would, it is said, be an indictable, or impeachable, offence. And it’s far from over.
On one single day of politico-judicial drama unseen since the saga that destroyed Richard Milhous Nixon, Manafort has been found guilty of eight counts of financial crimes, directly as a result of the wider probe into the 2016 presidential election being spearheaded by special counsel Robert Mueller. A further 10 charges were, basically, suspended as they were declared “mistrials” (the rest, obviously, were not).
What happens next is in some doubt because Manafort also faces another trial, in Washington DC, this time on charges of failure to register his foreign lobbying and relating to conspiracy to launder money, all relating to his activities in Ukraine. Sooner or later, though, there will be more probes, more convictions, more plea bargains and more questions.
In due course the Mueller investigation will, we know, pursue other witnesses, and more charges may emerge.
Some of Trump’s former staffers and allies, such as Omarosa Newman, may bring about more stories about legally questionable activities before and after Trump took office. As more officials leave the Trump administration, either of their own accord or after some bust-up, the political embarrassments are bound to mount up, as they always do. The more pertinent question is whether these ex-officials reveal anything that is legally problematic, which might, after all, implicate them themselves in some way.
Then there is what, if any, “Kompromat” the Russians hold on Trump, as the wilder rumours have it. Again, there is a huge difference, for the purposes of impeachment, between stuff that’s just in bad taste or nutty, and actions that plainly transgress a relevant law or obligation, as per the oath of office that Trump took in front of that vast crowd on 20 January 2017.
Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions
Legally, the president occupies a special place in the constitution, and rightly so. He should be free of undue harassment from any quarter, and no democracy could function where its elected chief executive could be deposed because of some trumped-up charges. He does not go before a judge; but before the legislature. That is key.
First, the House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
Second, if a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
Third, if a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
Then, for the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.
Two-thirds. Presently the Republicans hold 51 seats in the Senate and the Democrats 46, with two independents. In November, there are 35 seats up for election, of which 26 are already held by Democrats. You may draw your own conclusions.
The US Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours”. To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the president committed one such of these acts.
So, as President Nixon put it in his resignation speech in 1974, the process of impeachment is “deliberately difficult, and is a mix of the legal, in its early stages, and the political, in the end.”
First you need an impeachable offence. Do we have that yet? Does directing another person (as Cohen alleges) to pay “hush” money to Stormy Daniels and/or Karen McDougal amount to a “high crime and misdemeanour”?
Even if it did, you might well argue, as will no doubt happen, that this sort of thing – if it occurred – happens quite often with well-known personalities, who need to be discreet about affairs and the like. The argument would run that it would have occurred anyway and had nothing to do with the campaign itself.
Also arguable is that the revelations, had they come out, would have altered the course of the election, which, given the Teflon quality of the Trump campaign, is far from obvious. Nor, it might be said, were the payments, which are in any case challenged, intended to sway the election.
But a court would also have to settle findings of fact – whether the moneys were paid, when and by how; what Trump knew; and what Trump then did or did not do in ordering payment(s) to be made. As Trump himself said, it may amount to his word against Cohen’s.
There may be other charges, as there were in the Watergate affair.
Trump ignores day of disaster in rambling speech featuring turkeys
Gorka and Trump aides called 'treasonous little bitches' by caller
Cohen's lawyer says he will not accept pardon from 'criminal' Trump
Trump directed me to break law, president's former lawyer says
In the case of Cohen, indeed, there may also be more where that came from, as a part of his putative plea bargain. The same goes for Manafort.
To launch a successful impeachment process, you need evidence and appropriate charges. These are possible.
To win an impeachment case, you need Congress behind you and against a popularly elected president with lots of his own supporters there. This is less possible.
Bill Clinton was impeached, you may recall, in 1998 after Ken Starr amassed evidence over the Lewinsky and other affairs, but ultimately found not guilty – because his party in the Senate voted for him. The same happened with the only other impeachment of a president, that for Andre Johnson in 1868. In its later stages the process is deeply political, and deeply difficult.
Impeachment, for the British to understand, would be like Theresa May being on a charge and it being decided not by the normal courts, but by the House of Commons.
Back in 1974, President Nixon knew he was in trouble when even his most rabid right-wing Republican supporters, the likes of Senator Barry Goldwater, began to desert him publicly. Hence his remark in that resignation speech that he was quitting before his “trial” because: “I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilising precedent for the future.”
In other words, Tricky Dicky had done the numbers and knew he didn't stand a chance. In due course his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him.
So for the authorities to depose Donald Trump they need support in the Congress, and for that this November’s mid-term elections will be especially crucial. They may, in effect, end up as a referendum on impeaching Trump, and that makes the result still more unpredictable.
Unlike Richard Nixon, but like Bill Clinton, Trump has a booming (so far) economy behind him, and is delivering in his campaign promises about protection and “America First” (misguided or not as they may be). It is not impossible that he and the Republicans loyal to him will do better on the autumn than many expect. Weirdly, the very threat of impeachment might mobilise the Trump base.
But what if the charges were so grave – say, for example, of collusion with the Russians, that even the Trumpists could not support him in conscience? (And it is true that many Republicans quietly loathe Trump).
Would Trump simply refuse to go?
When they thought Richard Nixon might not go quietly, and might use his role as Commander in Chief of the US military to resist arrest, Nixon’s chief of staff, Al Haig, made arrangements to ensure that the president’s orders would not stand. It was quite a fevered atmosphere in that White House. You would think, though, that Trump would use any and all means at his disposal to resist being levered out of office. The very threat of a Trumpian Gotterdammerung might deter some in Congress from pursuing impeachment or, in due course, finding him guilty.
Last, and really not be underestimated, we have to turn to the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln before we get carried away: “In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.”
If Trump, via his rallies, his tweets, his bombast, and indeed his political and economic delivery, can mould public his way, then he will survive the ringing pressure of impeachment – and even prosper form it.
He is, as President Macron said, not a “classical politician”, and he seems to cope with the pressures surprisingly well. He’s had quite a few scrapes in his business and private life. This may just turn out to be one more.
Impeachment would take so long, and be resisted so attritionally at every turn, that Trump could easily be past his term of office before anything caught up with him fatally. By which time he’d be gone and it wouldn’t seem to matter much. If he stuck around for a second term – and managed to get re-elected even with impeachment hanging around his neck – then the chances of him being convicted would seem slim indeed.
In either case President Mike Pence, or President Ivanka Trump, or whoever succeeds him, could dish out a presidential pardon.
Or he’ll end up in jail.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
All of Trump's Problems Came Together on Tuesday - TIME
August 22, 2018.
All of Trump's Problems Came Together on Tuesday
By RYAN TEAGUE BECKWITH
Michael Cohen once believed that he would lead Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. When that didn’t come to pass, he told friends he might become White House chief of staff. That didn’t happen either, but still he told a reporter he’d “take a bullet for the president.”
Instead, Trump’s longtime lawyer stood in a federal courtroom in Manhattan on a sunny Tuesday afternoon and, in the parlance of the president, ratted him out.
Wearing a dark suit and a gold tie, Cohen said under oath that he was immune from any outside influences, including drugs and alcohol. He’d had a glass of 12-year Glenlivet Scotch on the rocks the night before, he told the judge, but that was an extenuating circumstance given what he was about to do.
Then, one of the most loyal of the president’s loyalists entered into a guilty plea with the U.S government on eight felonies. He admitted that he had arranged payments to keep a porn star and a former Playboy model quiet during the 2016 election about alleged affairs with Trump years earlier, coordinating his efforts with a tabloid magazine and filing fake invoices with the Trump Organization to get reimbursed. He did all this, he testified, “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office” — Trump.
That statement, along with an array of other guilty pleas to charges including skimming money from New York City taxi medallions, obtaining a bank loan on false pretenses and failing to report income on his taxes over half a decade ensured that Cohen will likely spend some time in a federal prison.
“I think Cohen will be going to jail for a long time no matter what the judge does,” said David L. Axelrod, a former federal prosecutor and current litigator of white-collar crime. “I think the bigger fallout from this is that — for the first time — we’ve seen, in court, evidence strongly linking the president to criminal acts.”
Cohen’s bad day also brought all of the president’s legal and political headaches together into a single supernova.
The Cohen scandal truly has it all. There’s Trump’s personal problems with women — not just limited to alleged affairs with porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, but also those who have accused him of sexual misconduct. There’s the blurring of the lines between his business, his campaign and his presidency, personified by Cohen, the former fixer who worked on behalf of all three, sometimes simultaneously. And there’s the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who first referred the Cohen matter to federal prosecutors.
“I feel bad for Michael,” said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide. “He wasn’t given a job at the White House and now he ends up getting three to five years.”
And like the ring of an exploding star, the reverberations will only continue. Daniels’ lawyer, Trump antagonist Michael Avenatti, tweeted that he believes the plea will help a civil case she is bringing, potentially forcing Trump to testify about what he knew. “Buckle Up Buttercup,” he tweeted at Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. “You and your client completely misplayed this.”
Michael Avenatti
✔
@MichaelAvenatti
The developments of today will permit us to have the stay lifted in the civil case & should also permit us to proceed with an expedited deposition of Trump under oath about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. We will disclose it all to the public.
4:33 AM - Aug 22, 2018
But it’s not just Trump who has to deal with the potential legal ramifications, it’s also his closely held business, which reimbursed Cohen and is unlikely to remain above the legal fray.
According to law enforcement, Cohen was reimbursed for his payment to Daniels through the Trump Organization, doled out in monthly installments of $35,000. The business allegedly tracked the invoices detailing the installments as legal services, even though Cohen was not actually providing any. Experts say that if Trump had paid Cohen himself, out of his own personal bank account, it would not have raised these issues. But since it was through his business, these payments could ultimately be found to violate the prohibition on corporations donating to political campaigns.
“At the end of the day after these reimbursements take place, not only did Michael Cohen make his unusually large $130,000 campaign to the Trump campaign but the Trump Organization, by reimbursing Michael Cohen, made an illegal $130,000 corporate contribution to the Trump campaign,” said Paul S. Ryan, the vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, the non-partisan organization that filed complaints with the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission earlier this year regarding the campaign’s payments to Daniels and American Media Inc., owner of the National Enquirer.
“If [Trump] had reimbursed Michael Cohen out of his own personal bank account instead of out of the Trump Organization’s bank account there would be no additional contribution violation. It’s because he chose to use the corporate coffers to reimburse Cohen that you get this additional violation of federal law by the Trump Organization and by extension Donald Trump himself.”
Both events also cemented corruption as a theme that Democrats can use to hammer Republican incumbents in Congress during the midterm elections just 11 weeks away, a dynamic party leaders wasted no time seizing. “Today’s guilty verdicts against President Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and the guilty plea of Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, are further evidence of the rampant corruption and criminality at the heart of Trump’s inner circle,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement issued less than two hours after Cohen’s court proceedings had ended and Manafort’s verdict had been announced. “The Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans’ unprecedented culture of corruption, cronyism and incompetence is characteristic of the dysfunctional political system in Washington.”
But Democrats soon had even more fodder that extended beyond Trump’s inner circle. Not long after Manafort and Cohen’s court dealings, Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and his wife were indicted on federal charges of misusing campaign funds for everything from trips to Italy to school tuition, dental work and theater tickets.
Hunter was the second sitting member of Congress to endorse Trump during the 2016 election. The first, Republican Rep. Chris Collins of New York, was recently indicted on charges that he misused his position on a biotech firm to help his family avoid more than $768,000 in stock losses through insider trading.
“The charges against Congressman Hunter are further evidence of the rampant culture of corruption among Republicans in Washington today,” Pelosi said in yet another statement.
To be fair, the two Republican lawmakers’ legal problems are not Trump’s doing, but the accusations they are facing are similar enough to Cohen and Manafort’s crimes that voters may end up linking them. Adding to the party’s problems is the fact that Cohen was previously the deputy finance chair of the Republican National Committee, where he worked alongside longtime GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy, who is now facing his own investigation on allegations of selling influence, (Cohen also brokered a similar non-disclosure agreement for Broidy over an alleged affair with former Playboy model Shera Bechard), and Steve Wynn, the onetime chairman who resigned amidst numerous allegations of sexual misconduct from dozens of people that stemmed decades. The RNC was silent on Tuesday and did not immediately respond to request for comment.
With impeccable timing, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts chose Tuesday to roll out a broad anti-corruption bill that takes direct aim at several of Trump’s scandals and ethics questions, such as a requirement for federal officeholders to release their tax returns. The bill is going nowhere in the current Congress, or during Trump’s presidency, for that matter, but coming from a likely 2020 candidate it showed how the party plans to use ethics as a cudgel against Trump in much the same way he used it against them in 2016.
Democrats for the moment enjoy a distinct advantage over Republicans in generic head-to-head ballots nationwide. But strategists close to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi last week sent a memo to Democratic candidates with a proposed message: Run as a check on Trump’s agenda. By adding that layer to messaging, these strategists found in their research, the Democratic candidates saw a 12-point bump. Among independent and non-aligned voters, the rhetoric was worth 14 percentage points.
Though the Senate is slightly safer for Republicans, due to a baked-in advantage on the states that happen to be holding elections this year, losing the House to Democrats could spell trouble for the president and his party.
While most Democrats are careful not to use the I-word — ”impeachment” — when making their pitch to voters, they couch the value of balanced government with another I-word — “investigations.” And that’s where Cohen’s rough day in court could end up causing further trouble for Trump. If the ongoing air of scandal drags down Republicans in Congress, Democrats could find themselves chairing committees next January with broad oversight powers to dig up even more dirt on the president and his associates.
– With Alana Abramson and Katie Reilly in New York and Philip Elliott and Abby Vesoulis in Washington
All of Trump's Problems Came Together on Tuesday
By RYAN TEAGUE BECKWITH
Michael Cohen once believed that he would lead Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. When that didn’t come to pass, he told friends he might become White House chief of staff. That didn’t happen either, but still he told a reporter he’d “take a bullet for the president.”
Instead, Trump’s longtime lawyer stood in a federal courtroom in Manhattan on a sunny Tuesday afternoon and, in the parlance of the president, ratted him out.
Wearing a dark suit and a gold tie, Cohen said under oath that he was immune from any outside influences, including drugs and alcohol. He’d had a glass of 12-year Glenlivet Scotch on the rocks the night before, he told the judge, but that was an extenuating circumstance given what he was about to do.
Then, one of the most loyal of the president’s loyalists entered into a guilty plea with the U.S government on eight felonies. He admitted that he had arranged payments to keep a porn star and a former Playboy model quiet during the 2016 election about alleged affairs with Trump years earlier, coordinating his efforts with a tabloid magazine and filing fake invoices with the Trump Organization to get reimbursed. He did all this, he testified, “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office” — Trump.
That statement, along with an array of other guilty pleas to charges including skimming money from New York City taxi medallions, obtaining a bank loan on false pretenses and failing to report income on his taxes over half a decade ensured that Cohen will likely spend some time in a federal prison.
“I think Cohen will be going to jail for a long time no matter what the judge does,” said David L. Axelrod, a former federal prosecutor and current litigator of white-collar crime. “I think the bigger fallout from this is that — for the first time — we’ve seen, in court, evidence strongly linking the president to criminal acts.”
Cohen’s bad day also brought all of the president’s legal and political headaches together into a single supernova.
The Cohen scandal truly has it all. There’s Trump’s personal problems with women — not just limited to alleged affairs with porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, but also those who have accused him of sexual misconduct. There’s the blurring of the lines between his business, his campaign and his presidency, personified by Cohen, the former fixer who worked on behalf of all three, sometimes simultaneously. And there’s the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who first referred the Cohen matter to federal prosecutors.
“I feel bad for Michael,” said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide. “He wasn’t given a job at the White House and now he ends up getting three to five years.”
And like the ring of an exploding star, the reverberations will only continue. Daniels’ lawyer, Trump antagonist Michael Avenatti, tweeted that he believes the plea will help a civil case she is bringing, potentially forcing Trump to testify about what he knew. “Buckle Up Buttercup,” he tweeted at Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. “You and your client completely misplayed this.”
Michael Avenatti
✔
@MichaelAvenatti
The developments of today will permit us to have the stay lifted in the civil case & should also permit us to proceed with an expedited deposition of Trump under oath about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. We will disclose it all to the public.
4:33 AM - Aug 22, 2018
But it’s not just Trump who has to deal with the potential legal ramifications, it’s also his closely held business, which reimbursed Cohen and is unlikely to remain above the legal fray.
According to law enforcement, Cohen was reimbursed for his payment to Daniels through the Trump Organization, doled out in monthly installments of $35,000. The business allegedly tracked the invoices detailing the installments as legal services, even though Cohen was not actually providing any. Experts say that if Trump had paid Cohen himself, out of his own personal bank account, it would not have raised these issues. But since it was through his business, these payments could ultimately be found to violate the prohibition on corporations donating to political campaigns.
“At the end of the day after these reimbursements take place, not only did Michael Cohen make his unusually large $130,000 campaign to the Trump campaign but the Trump Organization, by reimbursing Michael Cohen, made an illegal $130,000 corporate contribution to the Trump campaign,” said Paul S. Ryan, the vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, the non-partisan organization that filed complaints with the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission earlier this year regarding the campaign’s payments to Daniels and American Media Inc., owner of the National Enquirer.
“If [Trump] had reimbursed Michael Cohen out of his own personal bank account instead of out of the Trump Organization’s bank account there would be no additional contribution violation. It’s because he chose to use the corporate coffers to reimburse Cohen that you get this additional violation of federal law by the Trump Organization and by extension Donald Trump himself.”
Both events also cemented corruption as a theme that Democrats can use to hammer Republican incumbents in Congress during the midterm elections just 11 weeks away, a dynamic party leaders wasted no time seizing. “Today’s guilty verdicts against President Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and the guilty plea of Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, are further evidence of the rampant corruption and criminality at the heart of Trump’s inner circle,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement issued less than two hours after Cohen’s court proceedings had ended and Manafort’s verdict had been announced. “The Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans’ unprecedented culture of corruption, cronyism and incompetence is characteristic of the dysfunctional political system in Washington.”
But Democrats soon had even more fodder that extended beyond Trump’s inner circle. Not long after Manafort and Cohen’s court dealings, Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and his wife were indicted on federal charges of misusing campaign funds for everything from trips to Italy to school tuition, dental work and theater tickets.
Hunter was the second sitting member of Congress to endorse Trump during the 2016 election. The first, Republican Rep. Chris Collins of New York, was recently indicted on charges that he misused his position on a biotech firm to help his family avoid more than $768,000 in stock losses through insider trading.
“The charges against Congressman Hunter are further evidence of the rampant culture of corruption among Republicans in Washington today,” Pelosi said in yet another statement.
To be fair, the two Republican lawmakers’ legal problems are not Trump’s doing, but the accusations they are facing are similar enough to Cohen and Manafort’s crimes that voters may end up linking them. Adding to the party’s problems is the fact that Cohen was previously the deputy finance chair of the Republican National Committee, where he worked alongside longtime GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy, who is now facing his own investigation on allegations of selling influence, (Cohen also brokered a similar non-disclosure agreement for Broidy over an alleged affair with former Playboy model Shera Bechard), and Steve Wynn, the onetime chairman who resigned amidst numerous allegations of sexual misconduct from dozens of people that stemmed decades. The RNC was silent on Tuesday and did not immediately respond to request for comment.
With impeccable timing, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts chose Tuesday to roll out a broad anti-corruption bill that takes direct aim at several of Trump’s scandals and ethics questions, such as a requirement for federal officeholders to release their tax returns. The bill is going nowhere in the current Congress, or during Trump’s presidency, for that matter, but coming from a likely 2020 candidate it showed how the party plans to use ethics as a cudgel against Trump in much the same way he used it against them in 2016.
Democrats for the moment enjoy a distinct advantage over Republicans in generic head-to-head ballots nationwide. But strategists close to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi last week sent a memo to Democratic candidates with a proposed message: Run as a check on Trump’s agenda. By adding that layer to messaging, these strategists found in their research, the Democratic candidates saw a 12-point bump. Among independent and non-aligned voters, the rhetoric was worth 14 percentage points.
Though the Senate is slightly safer for Republicans, due to a baked-in advantage on the states that happen to be holding elections this year, losing the House to Democrats could spell trouble for the president and his party.
While most Democrats are careful not to use the I-word — ”impeachment” — when making their pitch to voters, they couch the value of balanced government with another I-word — “investigations.” And that’s where Cohen’s rough day in court could end up causing further trouble for Trump. If the ongoing air of scandal drags down Republicans in Congress, Democrats could find themselves chairing committees next January with broad oversight powers to dig up even more dirt on the president and his associates.
– With Alana Abramson and Katie Reilly in New York and Philip Elliott and Abby Vesoulis in Washington
How a booming US economy can cost Trump his presidency - Guardian
How a booming US economy can cost Trump his presidency
Michael Boskin
Strong economies tend to boost incumbents yet the Democrats are riding high in midterm election polls. Why?
Wed 22 Aug 2018
For the first time in memory, there were more job vacancies listed than unemployed people in the US. Photograph: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
The US economy is growing, inflation has finally hit the US Federal Reserve’s 2% target and unemployment is quite low – and at an all-time low for African-Americans and Hispanics. For the first time in memory, there are more job openings listed by US companies than there are unemployed people. Such conditions usually foreshadow rising real (inflation-adjusted) wages, which would indicate that American workers, many of whom were left behind in the anaemic post-crisis recovery, might finally reap benefits from the strong economy.
Electoral models predict a strong economy favours the party in power and a weak economy dooms it to crushing losses. And yet, with the economy in its best condition in more than a decade, most polls show a substantial Democratic party lead in the run-up to the midterm congressional elections in November. Moreover, most political pundits predict the Democrats will take back control of the House of Representatives. And some even foresee a “blue wave” in which Democrats also retake the Senate, despite having to defend far more seats than the Republicans. In several recent special elections, Republicans have held on by far narrower margins than in past elections for the same congressional seats.
There are a number of plausible explanations for this anomaly. For starters, the pollsters and pundits could simply be wrong, as many were in the 2016 election. At the same time, Donald Trump may be hurting his and his party’s electoral prospects, especially among suburban women, by against those who criticise him – including the basketball player LeBron James. And it is possible that, despite high ratings for his , many voters may not attribute the economy’s strength to Trump’s policies.
But another possibility is that the “economic effect” on elections no longer holds true. While economic distress may harm the party in power, economic strength might not help it as much as in the past. As voters become wealthier, more have the luxury of focusing on other issues.
In the Democratic primary election for New York’s 14th district earlier this year, the Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez representative, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House. Clearly overconfident, Crowley barely even campaigned. Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has , appearing alongside the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist who narrowly missed out on the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. While much of the energy among the Democrats is on the far left, the party has made a point of selecting candidates with a real chance of winning in November.
It is possible that, despite high ratings for his handling of the economy, many voters may not attribute the economy’s strength to Donald Trump’s policies. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock
Advertisement
Meanwhile, in the Republican primaries, candidates endorsed by Trump, or closely aligned with him, have tended to prevail. But Republicans do not currently have as much enthusiasm as Democrats, which may affect turnout among the party’s supporters in November.
Midterms are almost always a referendum on the president and his policies. In the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, strong Republican majorities were viewed as a repudiation of Barack Obama. Accordingly, Democrats have been framing the midterms as a referendum on Trump. At the same time, Republicans have tried to make the midterms about Nancy Pelosi, the liberal House minority leader from San Francisco, who would likely return as speaker if the Democrats gain a House majority. The problem is that a potential speaker is a tougher target to hit than a sitting president, let alone one as persuasive in the media as Trump.
Midterm elections are almost always a referendum on the president and his policies
For now, attention is being paid to the economy’s potential role in the election. But after election day, the results will, in turn, affect economic policies – and thus the economic outlook. If Republicans retain the House and Senate, the pro-growth tax and regulatory changes enacted thus far will be sustained, and perhaps even expanded. Likewise, if they keep the Senate, conservative federal judges will continue to be confirmed.
By contrast, a Democratic majority in the House will predictably block Trump’s legislative proposals, and a Democratic majority in the Senate (a long shot) will stonewall conservative judicial appointees. Though divided governments sometimes produce policy compromises and preside over a strong economy, it is hard to imagine that happening if Democrats retake either or both chambers of Congress.
After all, even supposedly moderate Democrats have moved further to the left to ward off socialist challengers. And more Democrats are coalescing around an agenda of greatly expanded government spending and higher taxes (though they haven’t yet spoken much about the latter).
A widely circulated Gallup poll recently found a higher percentage of Democrats are amenable to socialism than to capitalism. Hence most of the Democrats veering to the left are proposing universal government-provided health insurance (“Medicare for all”), tuition-free college and a federal job guarantee or basic income.
Of course, enacting that agenda would require a Democratic president and majorities in both chambers of Congress. And even then, it would cost tens of trillions of dollars. Paying for it would require a large European-style value-added tax or dramatically higher income and payroll taxes, most likely leading to European-style economic stagnation.
For their part, the Republicans are divided between traditional free-market, free-trade conservatives and Trumpian “economic nationalists” who want to restrict immigration and trade in lieu of concessions by the US’s trading partners.
So, after the November elections, the strong US economy may be threatened by an escalating trade war or the spectre of higher taxes. With growth slowing in China, Europe and elsewhere, the global economy will need America to avoid those dangerous policy mistakes.
Michael J Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution
Michael Boskin
Strong economies tend to boost incumbents yet the Democrats are riding high in midterm election polls. Why?
Wed 22 Aug 2018
For the first time in memory, there were more job vacancies listed than unemployed people in the US. Photograph: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
The US economy is growing, inflation has finally hit the US Federal Reserve’s 2% target and unemployment is quite low – and at an all-time low for African-Americans and Hispanics. For the first time in memory, there are more job openings listed by US companies than there are unemployed people. Such conditions usually foreshadow rising real (inflation-adjusted) wages, which would indicate that American workers, many of whom were left behind in the anaemic post-crisis recovery, might finally reap benefits from the strong economy.
Electoral models predict a strong economy favours the party in power and a weak economy dooms it to crushing losses. And yet, with the economy in its best condition in more than a decade, most polls show a substantial Democratic party lead in the run-up to the midterm congressional elections in November. Moreover, most political pundits predict the Democrats will take back control of the House of Representatives. And some even foresee a “blue wave” in which Democrats also retake the Senate, despite having to defend far more seats than the Republicans. In several recent special elections, Republicans have held on by far narrower margins than in past elections for the same congressional seats.
There are a number of plausible explanations for this anomaly. For starters, the pollsters and pundits could simply be wrong, as many were in the 2016 election. At the same time, Donald Trump may be hurting his and his party’s electoral prospects, especially among suburban women, by against those who criticise him – including the basketball player LeBron James. And it is possible that, despite high ratings for his , many voters may not attribute the economy’s strength to Trump’s policies.
But another possibility is that the “economic effect” on elections no longer holds true. While economic distress may harm the party in power, economic strength might not help it as much as in the past. As voters become wealthier, more have the luxury of focusing on other issues.
In the Democratic primary election for New York’s 14th district earlier this year, the Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez representative, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House. Clearly overconfident, Crowley barely even campaigned. Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has , appearing alongside the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist who narrowly missed out on the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. While much of the energy among the Democrats is on the far left, the party has made a point of selecting candidates with a real chance of winning in November.
It is possible that, despite high ratings for his handling of the economy, many voters may not attribute the economy’s strength to Donald Trump’s policies. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock
Advertisement
Meanwhile, in the Republican primaries, candidates endorsed by Trump, or closely aligned with him, have tended to prevail. But Republicans do not currently have as much enthusiasm as Democrats, which may affect turnout among the party’s supporters in November.
Midterms are almost always a referendum on the president and his policies. In the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, strong Republican majorities were viewed as a repudiation of Barack Obama. Accordingly, Democrats have been framing the midterms as a referendum on Trump. At the same time, Republicans have tried to make the midterms about Nancy Pelosi, the liberal House minority leader from San Francisco, who would likely return as speaker if the Democrats gain a House majority. The problem is that a potential speaker is a tougher target to hit than a sitting president, let alone one as persuasive in the media as Trump.
Midterm elections are almost always a referendum on the president and his policies
For now, attention is being paid to the economy’s potential role in the election. But after election day, the results will, in turn, affect economic policies – and thus the economic outlook. If Republicans retain the House and Senate, the pro-growth tax and regulatory changes enacted thus far will be sustained, and perhaps even expanded. Likewise, if they keep the Senate, conservative federal judges will continue to be confirmed.
By contrast, a Democratic majority in the House will predictably block Trump’s legislative proposals, and a Democratic majority in the Senate (a long shot) will stonewall conservative judicial appointees. Though divided governments sometimes produce policy compromises and preside over a strong economy, it is hard to imagine that happening if Democrats retake either or both chambers of Congress.
After all, even supposedly moderate Democrats have moved further to the left to ward off socialist challengers. And more Democrats are coalescing around an agenda of greatly expanded government spending and higher taxes (though they haven’t yet spoken much about the latter).
A widely circulated Gallup poll recently found a higher percentage of Democrats are amenable to socialism than to capitalism. Hence most of the Democrats veering to the left are proposing universal government-provided health insurance (“Medicare for all”), tuition-free college and a federal job guarantee or basic income.
Of course, enacting that agenda would require a Democratic president and majorities in both chambers of Congress. And even then, it would cost tens of trillions of dollars. Paying for it would require a large European-style value-added tax or dramatically higher income and payroll taxes, most likely leading to European-style economic stagnation.
For their part, the Republicans are divided between traditional free-market, free-trade conservatives and Trumpian “economic nationalists” who want to restrict immigration and trade in lieu of concessions by the US’s trading partners.
So, after the November elections, the strong US economy may be threatened by an escalating trade war or the spectre of higher taxes. With growth slowing in China, Europe and elsewhere, the global economy will need America to avoid those dangerous policy mistakes.
Michael J Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution
There’s only one cure for the cancer of Trump’s presidency - Guardian
There’s only one cure for the cancer of Trump’s presidency
Jill Abramson
Jill Abramson
Michael Cohen has flipped, and could bring down the president with him. The echoes of Watergate grow ever louder
@JillAbramson
Wed 22 Aug 2018 19.45 AEST
The walls have suddenly caved in on Donald Trump’s presidency. First came Michael Cohen’s stunning plea agreement, in which Trump’s longtime fixer and trusted legal gun admitted in a federal courtroom in Manhattan that he had committed crimes at the direction of the president. Then, in Alexandria, Virginia, Robert Mueller’s prosecution team notched a big win with the guilty verdict on eight counts reached by the jury against Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager.
Facing a second federal trial in Washington DC next month, Manafort will be under intense pressure to cooperate with Mueller in order to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. After the verdict was announced, one of his lawyers said Manafort was “evaluating all of his options”, pointing towards the possibility of cooperation with Mueller.
A third wall crumbled over the weekend, when the New York Times revealed that the White House counsel, Don McGahn, had spent 30 hours providing information to Mueller. On Sunday, the president himself invoked Watergate in one of his fevered tweets. Referring to the man whose testimony led directly to the vote to impeach Richard Nixon, Trump tweeted that McGahn was no “John Dean type ‘RAT’” in a panicked effort to dispute and discredit the Times story.
Donald Trump: 'worst hour' for president as Manafort and Cohen guilty
After months of relative quiet, during which Trump denounced Mueller’s probe as a “witch hunt” and his supporters spearheaded a concerted campaign to discredit the special prosecutor, everything has suddenly broken Mueller’s way. The past week could go down in history as being just as consequential the crucial period in the spring and early summer of 1973, when everything caved in on Nixon. It was then that Dean began cooperating with the Senate Watergate committee and Nixon was forced to fire his closest aides, John Erlichman and Bob Haldeman, the architects of the criminal Watergate cover-up. It was downhill from there until Nixon’s resignation on 9 August, 1974.
One of Cohen’s lawyers, Lanny Davis, revealed before Tuesday’s plea deal that he had contacted Dean in order to help Cohen. “I reached out to my old friend John Dean because of what he went through with Watergate, and I saw some parallels to what Michael Cohen is experiencing,” Davis told Politico. “I wanted to gain from John’s wisdom.”
Dean’s testimony was so significant because of his detailed knowledge, as White House counsel, of Nixon’s direct involvement in the criminal Watergate cover-up and his lies about it. In White House conversations with Nixon, which were taped, Dean had direct knowledge of the president’s crimes.
The parallels with Cohen are clear. He said in court on Tuesday that he committed crimes, including making payoffs that constituted illegal campaign gifts, “in coordination with and direction of a candidate for federal office”. In July, Cohen released to CNN a tape he’d made of Trump discussing a cash payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels. He has other tapes, too. And on MSNBC Tuesday night, Davis made clear that Cohen was ready to share all that he knows with Mueller, including that Trump had advance knowledge of Russia’s illegal hacking of the communications of Democratic officials.
Manafort, if he too flipped on Trump, could provide more crucial information about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He attended the Trump Tower meeting in 2016 with a Russian lawyer offering dirt on Hillary Clinton, with Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr.
No one, including White House officials, seems to know exactly what McGahn told Mueller and whether any of his testimony incriminated the president. But he has intimate knowledge about the issues at the heart of any obstruction of justice charges being investigated by Mueller, including Trump’s firing of former FBI director James Comey and efforts to dislodge senior justice department officials, including attorney general Jeff Sessions.
Mueller has other potential crucial witnesses in former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump’s former campaign advisor Rick Gates, and former foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos, who have all made plea deals.
Cohen has no formal deal yet to cooperate with Mueller and such agreements usually take shape over months. But in pleading guilty, he went out of his way to implicate Trump in his crimes, which certainly suggests an agreement is likely.
Like Nixon, Trump will try to use the power of the presidency to undercut the special prosecutor and fight an aggressive press corps. He will continue to brand the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt. But deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein smartly handed the Cohen case to experienced New York prosecutors, not Mueller’s team, and it will be harder for Trump to demonize their work.
Donald Trump's reckoning has arrived
Trump could also take out his pardon pen. He has already denounced Manafort’s prosecution and defended him as a good man. A Cohen pardon would seem less likely, as have rumors been circulating for months that he would turn on the man he once said he’d take a bullet for.
On Tuesday night, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden warned Trump, saying that attempts to buy the silence of his men with pardons would constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
I vividly remember the spring of 1973, when Dean turned against Richard Nixon. I spent most of that June with my ear attached to a transistor radio, listening to his fateful Senate testimony. Once he revealed what he knew, including his unforgettable description of “a cancer on the presidency”, Nixon’s days were numbered.
Michael Cohen has not yet publicly disclosed all that he knows. Worried that he faced arrest for bank fraud and federal campaign finance violations, he reportedly agonized over the weekend before deciding to plead guilty. His stunning admission that his illegal acts were “at the direction of a candidate for federal office” were every bit as shocking as Dean’s words were more than 40 years ago. Back then, as now, the president’s men face stiff jail sentences.
The cancer on Trump’s presidency began during his 2016 campaign, as Cohen and Manafort may help to prove. It has metasticized to his White House. The cure, as was true in Nixon’s time, may involve impeachment.
• Jill Abramson is a political columnist for the Guardian
Jill Abramson
Jill Abramson
Michael Cohen has flipped, and could bring down the president with him. The echoes of Watergate grow ever louder
@JillAbramson
Wed 22 Aug 2018 19.45 AEST
The walls have suddenly caved in on Donald Trump’s presidency. First came Michael Cohen’s stunning plea agreement, in which Trump’s longtime fixer and trusted legal gun admitted in a federal courtroom in Manhattan that he had committed crimes at the direction of the president. Then, in Alexandria, Virginia, Robert Mueller’s prosecution team notched a big win with the guilty verdict on eight counts reached by the jury against Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager.
Facing a second federal trial in Washington DC next month, Manafort will be under intense pressure to cooperate with Mueller in order to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. After the verdict was announced, one of his lawyers said Manafort was “evaluating all of his options”, pointing towards the possibility of cooperation with Mueller.
A third wall crumbled over the weekend, when the New York Times revealed that the White House counsel, Don McGahn, had spent 30 hours providing information to Mueller. On Sunday, the president himself invoked Watergate in one of his fevered tweets. Referring to the man whose testimony led directly to the vote to impeach Richard Nixon, Trump tweeted that McGahn was no “John Dean type ‘RAT’” in a panicked effort to dispute and discredit the Times story.
Donald Trump: 'worst hour' for president as Manafort and Cohen guilty
After months of relative quiet, during which Trump denounced Mueller’s probe as a “witch hunt” and his supporters spearheaded a concerted campaign to discredit the special prosecutor, everything has suddenly broken Mueller’s way. The past week could go down in history as being just as consequential the crucial period in the spring and early summer of 1973, when everything caved in on Nixon. It was then that Dean began cooperating with the Senate Watergate committee and Nixon was forced to fire his closest aides, John Erlichman and Bob Haldeman, the architects of the criminal Watergate cover-up. It was downhill from there until Nixon’s resignation on 9 August, 1974.
One of Cohen’s lawyers, Lanny Davis, revealed before Tuesday’s plea deal that he had contacted Dean in order to help Cohen. “I reached out to my old friend John Dean because of what he went through with Watergate, and I saw some parallels to what Michael Cohen is experiencing,” Davis told Politico. “I wanted to gain from John’s wisdom.”
Dean’s testimony was so significant because of his detailed knowledge, as White House counsel, of Nixon’s direct involvement in the criminal Watergate cover-up and his lies about it. In White House conversations with Nixon, which were taped, Dean had direct knowledge of the president’s crimes.
The parallels with Cohen are clear. He said in court on Tuesday that he committed crimes, including making payoffs that constituted illegal campaign gifts, “in coordination with and direction of a candidate for federal office”. In July, Cohen released to CNN a tape he’d made of Trump discussing a cash payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels. He has other tapes, too. And on MSNBC Tuesday night, Davis made clear that Cohen was ready to share all that he knows with Mueller, including that Trump had advance knowledge of Russia’s illegal hacking of the communications of Democratic officials.
Manafort, if he too flipped on Trump, could provide more crucial information about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He attended the Trump Tower meeting in 2016 with a Russian lawyer offering dirt on Hillary Clinton, with Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr.
No one, including White House officials, seems to know exactly what McGahn told Mueller and whether any of his testimony incriminated the president. But he has intimate knowledge about the issues at the heart of any obstruction of justice charges being investigated by Mueller, including Trump’s firing of former FBI director James Comey and efforts to dislodge senior justice department officials, including attorney general Jeff Sessions.
Mueller has other potential crucial witnesses in former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump’s former campaign advisor Rick Gates, and former foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos, who have all made plea deals.
Cohen has no formal deal yet to cooperate with Mueller and such agreements usually take shape over months. But in pleading guilty, he went out of his way to implicate Trump in his crimes, which certainly suggests an agreement is likely.
Like Nixon, Trump will try to use the power of the presidency to undercut the special prosecutor and fight an aggressive press corps. He will continue to brand the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt. But deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein smartly handed the Cohen case to experienced New York prosecutors, not Mueller’s team, and it will be harder for Trump to demonize their work.
Donald Trump's reckoning has arrived
Trump could also take out his pardon pen. He has already denounced Manafort’s prosecution and defended him as a good man. A Cohen pardon would seem less likely, as have rumors been circulating for months that he would turn on the man he once said he’d take a bullet for.
On Tuesday night, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden warned Trump, saying that attempts to buy the silence of his men with pardons would constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
I vividly remember the spring of 1973, when Dean turned against Richard Nixon. I spent most of that June with my ear attached to a transistor radio, listening to his fateful Senate testimony. Once he revealed what he knew, including his unforgettable description of “a cancer on the presidency”, Nixon’s days were numbered.
Michael Cohen has not yet publicly disclosed all that he knows. Worried that he faced arrest for bank fraud and federal campaign finance violations, he reportedly agonized over the weekend before deciding to plead guilty. His stunning admission that his illegal acts were “at the direction of a candidate for federal office” were every bit as shocking as Dean’s words were more than 40 years ago. Back then, as now, the president’s men face stiff jail sentences.
The cancer on Trump’s presidency began during his 2016 campaign, as Cohen and Manafort may help to prove. It has metasticized to his White House. The cure, as was true in Nixon’s time, may involve impeachment.
• Jill Abramson is a political columnist for the Guardian
I spoke to UK businesspeople over the weekend about what they’d really do in a no-deal Brexit. Everyone needs to hear what they said - Independent
August 21, 2018.
I spoke to UK businesspeople over the weekend about what they’d really do in a no-deal Brexit. Everyone needs to hear what they said
‘Very quickly people will see that this is not Project Fear but Project Reality – this is complete madness’
Chuka Umunna
@chukaumunna
Guy Pearce: It's dangerous to say certain actors can't play gay roles
Italian police hunt naked tourists who jumped in fountain
Trump ignores day of disaster in rambling speech featuring turkeys
Gorka and Trump aides called 'treasonous little b**ches' on live TV
To get a real understanding of the implications of a no-deal Brexit for the majority of the UK, I spoke over the weekend to the chairman of one of the country’s biggest and best-known supermarket chains. Supermarkets are the great levellers: we may not all own a car, or care about bankers having passporting rights, or visit other European countries for our holidays, but we certainly all step inside one supermarket or another in our day-to-day lives. It seemed like a good place to start, even if what I found out was distinctly unsettling.
The supermarket chairman – who I will keep anonymous – started the conversation by reminding me that the EU provides 30 per cent of what his supermarket sells in food and groceries. If we were to leave the European Union and trade on WTO rules, his supermarket is working on the basis that tariffs will be levied on goods being imported to the UK from the EU. So, for example, cheese will attract a 44 per cent tariff, beef a 40 per cent tariff, lamb a 40 per cent tariff, chicken a 22 per cent tariff, apples a 15 per cent tariff and grapes a 20 per cent tariff, and so on.
Not all of the costs of the increased tariffs would be passed directly onto the consumer but, he said, “we will roughly see a 10 per cent rise in food prices and the impact on fresh food will be particularly disastrous because it is more expensive to bring it in from the rest of the world than from the EU”.
Those who he expects to suffer most are customers on low incomes: “The British consumer will have a big cut to their standard of living, particularly for people at the bottom of the income scale, for whom food is a bigger proportion of their spending,” he told me. But isn’t this all more “Project Fear”? His response: “Very quickly people will see it is not Project Fear but Project Reality – this is complete madness.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg and other Brexiteers have suggested the UK could simply apply 0 per cent tariffs to goods coming from the EU – but there is no guarantee that, if there is no deal, we will get 0 per cent tariffs in the opposite direction on the goods our firms are selling into the EU. This supermarket executive – who is one of the most respected people in UK business so knows a thing or two about dealmaking – told me on that point that “if you simply unilaterally say you are going to have low tariffs, you have no leverage” when it comes to making an agreement.
Mark Tanzer, chief executive of Abta: ‘With a hard Brexit or a no-deal exit looking more likely, then I think Abta’s members will start to make plans for a different world after next March’
Other Brexiteers make the point that if we were to walk away without a deal and refuse to pay the divorce bill – as Brexit secretary Dominic Raab has suggested – this would give us leverage. This supermarket chairman took a very dim view of that suggestion as a strategy: if the UK did this, he said, “nobody would trust that we would keep our obligations as we go around the rest of the world seeking new trade agreements”. The point he makes is that if we renege on our financial obligations to the EU, no one will have faith that we will meet our obligations to them under any trade future agreement.
So this is the practical reality for households of a no-deal Brexit. The fact that we are no closer now to any proposition on Brexit commanding a majority in the House of Commons makes that no-deal scenario more likely. Remember, the Brexiteers asserted there would be a deal throughout the Vote Leave campaign – so whatever the government has a mandate for, it is not this.
There is good reason to believe that members of the British public realise this and want their democratic say on what’s going to happen to their country next. In the most recent You Gov Poll commissioned by the People’s Vote campaign (of which I am a part), 45 per cent of people now think there should be a vote on the final Brexit deal against 34 per cent who do not. This is a reversal of the view last December when just 33 per cent wanted a final vote, with 42 per cent opposed.
The poll also showed that, if they were given a people’s vote, 53 per cent of people now back staying in the EU with 47 per cent choosing to leave.
In-depth, constituency-level analysis carried out by Hope Not Hate and Best For Britain shows that more than 100 Westminster parliamentary constituencies that voted to leave in 2016 have now switched their support to Remain, including those of Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) and Michael Gove (Surrey Heath), who co-led the Vote Leave campaign.
And, at the time of writing, more than 680,000 people have signed The Independent’s Final Say petition to give people a vote on the Brexit deal. The shift is undeniable and the momentum behind the campaign increases every week.
Of late there have been two attempts to undermine the efforts of the People’s Vote campaign. First, the usual nonsense that the campaign is London-centric, metropolitan and “elite”. This is simply not an argument that can be made with any credibility. The People’s Vote campaign has groups in every single part of the UK – the same cannot be said of the other side of the argument.
At the beginning of August, hundreds attended a packed rally in Bristol; this weekend just past more than 1,000 people took part in the rally in Edinburgh; and this coming weekend there is a big rally planned in Newcastle. Further events are taking place across the whole of the UK.
Second, there is the false claim – principally made by a minority on the left of UK politics – that the People’s Vote campaign is the forerunner to the creation of a new “centrist” party. This is ludicrous nonsense. The People’s Vote campaign involves activists and politicians from the three main parties, the Green Party, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and those of no particular party affiliation. The idea that Caroline Lucas’s Green Party, politicians from nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales and figures such as myself from the main parties in England are about to come together and create a new, big-tent party is patently absurd.
This is also an idea being promoted by Brexiteers who dislike the effective cross-party working there has been in and outside of parliament to thwart efforts to pursue the most extreme of Brexits – surely those on the left of British politics do not want to be parroting lines from the Brexiteer hard right?
It’s clear what the Brexiteers’ game plan is. The prime minister’s Chequers proposals, as I have said before in this column, pleased no one. Unless the hardest of Brexits is adopted by the government – which I do not believe could command a majority in the House of Commons – those Brexiteers will whip up xenophobia and campaign in the ugliest possible way in an effort to build support for a no-deal Brexit, which they continue to insist will not cause the catastrophic damage to jobs and livelihoods as many predict.
Research shows that the British public trusts economists most concerning Brexit predictions, then business leaders, followed by public service professionals such as teachers, doctors and nurses.
The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives are all backing the People’s Vote campaign, not least because they believe a no-deal Brexit will be deeply damaging to the NHS.
The government didn’t want us to see the analysis its own economists have provided to ministers on the economic impact of Brexit, but following the leaking of such details in January we know that their judgement is that the UK will be worse off in every single scenario, particularly if we left with no deal – in that scenario, trading with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms, it is estimated economic growth would be reduced by a whopping 8 per cent over 15 years.
The bosses of large companies such as Airbus and Jaguar Land Rover – which employ hundreds of thousands of people directly, and which indirectly provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in their supply chains – have also said that leaving the EU without a deal would be immensely damaging. JLR’s CEO, Dr Ralf Speth recently said: “If the UK automotive industry is to remain globally competitive and protect 300,000 jobs in Jaguar Land Rover and our supply chain, it must retain tariff and customs free access to trade and talent with no change to current EU regulations.” You can’t get much clearer than that.
All of this simply reinforces the necessity for the British people to be the final arbiters of what happens on Brexit – that is why so many people have been rallying behind the People’s Vote movement and Final Say campaign this summer. Long may it continue, for the good of us all.
Combatting Twitter fatigue
I trialled switching off and not checking Twitter for most of the day while on holiday towards the start of the parliamentary recess, and it has been a revelation. My fantastic team has helped to keep a roving eye and checked there is nothing (for example, an emergency in my constituency) that would require my immediate attention, so I could take time some proper time out from it.
Taking a proper break makes you realise just how loud, shouty and so damn negative Twitter can be as a forum. I hold my hands up – I am no innocent bystander in this and can vent like anyone else on the platform, though I’ve never resorted to abuse and try to maintain some moderation (even when riled up by the likes of Nigel Farage). It also reminds you that the Twittersphere can distort your perspective and sense of proportion too. So I’d recommend, every now and then, doing what I did – I’ve found it’s good for the soul. Give it a go.
Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham
I spoke to UK businesspeople over the weekend about what they’d really do in a no-deal Brexit. Everyone needs to hear what they said
‘Very quickly people will see that this is not Project Fear but Project Reality – this is complete madness’
Chuka Umunna
@chukaumunna
Guy Pearce: It's dangerous to say certain actors can't play gay roles
Italian police hunt naked tourists who jumped in fountain
Trump ignores day of disaster in rambling speech featuring turkeys
Gorka and Trump aides called 'treasonous little b**ches' on live TV
To get a real understanding of the implications of a no-deal Brexit for the majority of the UK, I spoke over the weekend to the chairman of one of the country’s biggest and best-known supermarket chains. Supermarkets are the great levellers: we may not all own a car, or care about bankers having passporting rights, or visit other European countries for our holidays, but we certainly all step inside one supermarket or another in our day-to-day lives. It seemed like a good place to start, even if what I found out was distinctly unsettling.
The supermarket chairman – who I will keep anonymous – started the conversation by reminding me that the EU provides 30 per cent of what his supermarket sells in food and groceries. If we were to leave the European Union and trade on WTO rules, his supermarket is working on the basis that tariffs will be levied on goods being imported to the UK from the EU. So, for example, cheese will attract a 44 per cent tariff, beef a 40 per cent tariff, lamb a 40 per cent tariff, chicken a 22 per cent tariff, apples a 15 per cent tariff and grapes a 20 per cent tariff, and so on.
Not all of the costs of the increased tariffs would be passed directly onto the consumer but, he said, “we will roughly see a 10 per cent rise in food prices and the impact on fresh food will be particularly disastrous because it is more expensive to bring it in from the rest of the world than from the EU”.
Those who he expects to suffer most are customers on low incomes: “The British consumer will have a big cut to their standard of living, particularly for people at the bottom of the income scale, for whom food is a bigger proportion of their spending,” he told me. But isn’t this all more “Project Fear”? His response: “Very quickly people will see it is not Project Fear but Project Reality – this is complete madness.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg and other Brexiteers have suggested the UK could simply apply 0 per cent tariffs to goods coming from the EU – but there is no guarantee that, if there is no deal, we will get 0 per cent tariffs in the opposite direction on the goods our firms are selling into the EU. This supermarket executive – who is one of the most respected people in UK business so knows a thing or two about dealmaking – told me on that point that “if you simply unilaterally say you are going to have low tariffs, you have no leverage” when it comes to making an agreement.
Mark Tanzer, chief executive of Abta: ‘With a hard Brexit or a no-deal exit looking more likely, then I think Abta’s members will start to make plans for a different world after next March’
Other Brexiteers make the point that if we were to walk away without a deal and refuse to pay the divorce bill – as Brexit secretary Dominic Raab has suggested – this would give us leverage. This supermarket chairman took a very dim view of that suggestion as a strategy: if the UK did this, he said, “nobody would trust that we would keep our obligations as we go around the rest of the world seeking new trade agreements”. The point he makes is that if we renege on our financial obligations to the EU, no one will have faith that we will meet our obligations to them under any trade future agreement.
So this is the practical reality for households of a no-deal Brexit. The fact that we are no closer now to any proposition on Brexit commanding a majority in the House of Commons makes that no-deal scenario more likely. Remember, the Brexiteers asserted there would be a deal throughout the Vote Leave campaign – so whatever the government has a mandate for, it is not this.
There is good reason to believe that members of the British public realise this and want their democratic say on what’s going to happen to their country next. In the most recent You Gov Poll commissioned by the People’s Vote campaign (of which I am a part), 45 per cent of people now think there should be a vote on the final Brexit deal against 34 per cent who do not. This is a reversal of the view last December when just 33 per cent wanted a final vote, with 42 per cent opposed.
The poll also showed that, if they were given a people’s vote, 53 per cent of people now back staying in the EU with 47 per cent choosing to leave.
In-depth, constituency-level analysis carried out by Hope Not Hate and Best For Britain shows that more than 100 Westminster parliamentary constituencies that voted to leave in 2016 have now switched their support to Remain, including those of Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) and Michael Gove (Surrey Heath), who co-led the Vote Leave campaign.
And, at the time of writing, more than 680,000 people have signed The Independent’s Final Say petition to give people a vote on the Brexit deal. The shift is undeniable and the momentum behind the campaign increases every week.
Of late there have been two attempts to undermine the efforts of the People’s Vote campaign. First, the usual nonsense that the campaign is London-centric, metropolitan and “elite”. This is simply not an argument that can be made with any credibility. The People’s Vote campaign has groups in every single part of the UK – the same cannot be said of the other side of the argument.
At the beginning of August, hundreds attended a packed rally in Bristol; this weekend just past more than 1,000 people took part in the rally in Edinburgh; and this coming weekend there is a big rally planned in Newcastle. Further events are taking place across the whole of the UK.
Second, there is the false claim – principally made by a minority on the left of UK politics – that the People’s Vote campaign is the forerunner to the creation of a new “centrist” party. This is ludicrous nonsense. The People’s Vote campaign involves activists and politicians from the three main parties, the Green Party, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and those of no particular party affiliation. The idea that Caroline Lucas’s Green Party, politicians from nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales and figures such as myself from the main parties in England are about to come together and create a new, big-tent party is patently absurd.
This is also an idea being promoted by Brexiteers who dislike the effective cross-party working there has been in and outside of parliament to thwart efforts to pursue the most extreme of Brexits – surely those on the left of British politics do not want to be parroting lines from the Brexiteer hard right?
It’s clear what the Brexiteers’ game plan is. The prime minister’s Chequers proposals, as I have said before in this column, pleased no one. Unless the hardest of Brexits is adopted by the government – which I do not believe could command a majority in the House of Commons – those Brexiteers will whip up xenophobia and campaign in the ugliest possible way in an effort to build support for a no-deal Brexit, which they continue to insist will not cause the catastrophic damage to jobs and livelihoods as many predict.
Research shows that the British public trusts economists most concerning Brexit predictions, then business leaders, followed by public service professionals such as teachers, doctors and nurses.
The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives are all backing the People’s Vote campaign, not least because they believe a no-deal Brexit will be deeply damaging to the NHS.
The government didn’t want us to see the analysis its own economists have provided to ministers on the economic impact of Brexit, but following the leaking of such details in January we know that their judgement is that the UK will be worse off in every single scenario, particularly if we left with no deal – in that scenario, trading with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms, it is estimated economic growth would be reduced by a whopping 8 per cent over 15 years.
The bosses of large companies such as Airbus and Jaguar Land Rover – which employ hundreds of thousands of people directly, and which indirectly provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in their supply chains – have also said that leaving the EU without a deal would be immensely damaging. JLR’s CEO, Dr Ralf Speth recently said: “If the UK automotive industry is to remain globally competitive and protect 300,000 jobs in Jaguar Land Rover and our supply chain, it must retain tariff and customs free access to trade and talent with no change to current EU regulations.” You can’t get much clearer than that.
All of this simply reinforces the necessity for the British people to be the final arbiters of what happens on Brexit – that is why so many people have been rallying behind the People’s Vote movement and Final Say campaign this summer. Long may it continue, for the good of us all.
Combatting Twitter fatigue
I trialled switching off and not checking Twitter for most of the day while on holiday towards the start of the parliamentary recess, and it has been a revelation. My fantastic team has helped to keep a roving eye and checked there is nothing (for example, an emergency in my constituency) that would require my immediate attention, so I could take time some proper time out from it.
Taking a proper break makes you realise just how loud, shouty and so damn negative Twitter can be as a forum. I hold my hands up – I am no innocent bystander in this and can vent like anyone else on the platform, though I’ve never resorted to abuse and try to maintain some moderation (even when riled up by the likes of Nigel Farage). It also reminds you that the Twittersphere can distort your perspective and sense of proportion too. So I’d recommend, every now and then, doing what I did – I’ve found it’s good for the soul. Give it a go.
Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham
Facebook and Twitter say they found Iran-based propaganda effort - NBC News
Facebook and Twitter say they found Iran-based propaganda effort
The announcements add to a steady drumbeat of efforts by U.S. tech companies to detect and stop hacking attempts by suspected foreign agents.
by David Ingram / Aug.22.2018
SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook said on Tuesday it had removed hundreds of Iran-based pages, groups and accounts, alleging that they formed a network linked to Iranian state media that covertly spread political content to people on four continents including in the U.S.
Facebook said in a blog post that the 652 pages, groups and accounts were in violation of its terms of service because they were engaged in "coordinated inauthentic behavior." Facebook generally requires people to use their real names on the social network.
Twitter followed suit, saying it had suspended 284 accounts for engaging in "coordinated manipulation" on its network and that many of the accounts had originated in Iran.
The announcements add to a steady drumbeat of efforts by U.S. tech companies to detect and stop hacking attempts by suspected foreign agents who might want to meddle in the Nov. 6 midterm elections.
"You're going to see people try to abuse the services in any way possible," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on a conference call with reporters.
"We need to make sure that we're continuing to strengthen the security operations that we have," Zuckerberg said, adding that Facebook had other investigations ongoing that he could not yet disclose.
Mark Warner
✔
@MarkWarner
· 10h
Replying to @MarkWarner
I’ve been saying for months that there’s no way the problem of social media manipulation is limited to a single troll farm in St. Petersburg, and that fact is now beyond a doubt.
Mark Warner
✔
@MarkWarner
We also learned today that the Iranians are now following the Kremlin’s playbook from 2016.
9:36 AM - Aug 22, 2018
Earlier on Tuesday, Microsoft said it had shut down six websites created by a group tied to Russian intelligence that sought to spoof conservative U.S. institutions as well as the U.S. Senate. Russian authorities denied the allegations.
Facebook said last month that it had removed 32 pages and accounts from its platform and from Instagram that the company said were trying to covertly spread divisive political messages.
On Tuesday, Facebook said its investigation into the Iran-based pages began with a tip in July from FireEye, a private security firm. FireEye published its own preliminary findings on its website.
Samples of the posts in question, released by Facebook, showed that the pages posted on an array of divisive global topics such as Britain's planned exit from the European Union, U.S. relations with North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Facebook said its investigation was continuing and that the company had shared its findings with U.S. and British authorities.
Manafort convicted on 8 counts; mistrial declared on 10 other charges
One part of the Iran-based network, going by the name "Quest 4 Truth," claimed to be an independent Iranian media organization but was in fact linked to Iranian state media, Facebook said. Other accounts used the name "Liberty Front Press," the company said.
Some of the accounts attempted to hack other people's accounts and spread malware, Facebook said. It said the company had been able to disrupt the attacks.
The company was not in a position to assess the motives of the people behind the accounts, Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy, told reporters.
The investigation may have implications for how the social media company complies with U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Facebook said that because of the sanctions it takes steps to prevent people in Iran from using its advertising tools, and that the accounts in question had purchased more than $12,000 in ads on Facebook and Instagram.
"We'll make changes to better detect people who try to evade our sanctions compliance tools and prevent them from advertising," Gleicher said in the blog post.
Separate from the Iran-based pages, Facebook said it had removed more pages, groups and accounts that it said could be linked to sources identified by the U.S. as Russian military intelligence services.
The Russia-linked accounts most recently focused on politics in Syria and Ukraine, not in the U.S., Facebook said, although the company said it was working with U.S. law enforcement. It did not disclose the number of accounts it took down or their names.
The announcements add to a steady drumbeat of efforts by U.S. tech companies to detect and stop hacking attempts by suspected foreign agents.
by David Ingram / Aug.22.2018
SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook said on Tuesday it had removed hundreds of Iran-based pages, groups and accounts, alleging that they formed a network linked to Iranian state media that covertly spread political content to people on four continents including in the U.S.
Facebook said in a blog post that the 652 pages, groups and accounts were in violation of its terms of service because they were engaged in "coordinated inauthentic behavior." Facebook generally requires people to use their real names on the social network.
Twitter followed suit, saying it had suspended 284 accounts for engaging in "coordinated manipulation" on its network and that many of the accounts had originated in Iran.
The announcements add to a steady drumbeat of efforts by U.S. tech companies to detect and stop hacking attempts by suspected foreign agents who might want to meddle in the Nov. 6 midterm elections.
"You're going to see people try to abuse the services in any way possible," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on a conference call with reporters.
"We need to make sure that we're continuing to strengthen the security operations that we have," Zuckerberg said, adding that Facebook had other investigations ongoing that he could not yet disclose.
Mark Warner
✔
@MarkWarner
· 10h
Replying to @MarkWarner
I’ve been saying for months that there’s no way the problem of social media manipulation is limited to a single troll farm in St. Petersburg, and that fact is now beyond a doubt.
Mark Warner
✔
@MarkWarner
We also learned today that the Iranians are now following the Kremlin’s playbook from 2016.
9:36 AM - Aug 22, 2018
Earlier on Tuesday, Microsoft said it had shut down six websites created by a group tied to Russian intelligence that sought to spoof conservative U.S. institutions as well as the U.S. Senate. Russian authorities denied the allegations.
Facebook said last month that it had removed 32 pages and accounts from its platform and from Instagram that the company said were trying to covertly spread divisive political messages.
On Tuesday, Facebook said its investigation into the Iran-based pages began with a tip in July from FireEye, a private security firm. FireEye published its own preliminary findings on its website.
Samples of the posts in question, released by Facebook, showed that the pages posted on an array of divisive global topics such as Britain's planned exit from the European Union, U.S. relations with North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Facebook said its investigation was continuing and that the company had shared its findings with U.S. and British authorities.
Manafort convicted on 8 counts; mistrial declared on 10 other charges
One part of the Iran-based network, going by the name "Quest 4 Truth," claimed to be an independent Iranian media organization but was in fact linked to Iranian state media, Facebook said. Other accounts used the name "Liberty Front Press," the company said.
Some of the accounts attempted to hack other people's accounts and spread malware, Facebook said. It said the company had been able to disrupt the attacks.
The company was not in a position to assess the motives of the people behind the accounts, Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy, told reporters.
The investigation may have implications for how the social media company complies with U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Facebook said that because of the sanctions it takes steps to prevent people in Iran from using its advertising tools, and that the accounts in question had purchased more than $12,000 in ads on Facebook and Instagram.
"We'll make changes to better detect people who try to evade our sanctions compliance tools and prevent them from advertising," Gleicher said in the blog post.
Separate from the Iran-based pages, Facebook said it had removed more pages, groups and accounts that it said could be linked to sources identified by the U.S. as Russian military intelligence services.
The Russia-linked accounts most recently focused on politics in Syria and Ukraine, not in the U.S., Facebook said, although the company said it was working with U.S. law enforcement. It did not disclose the number of accounts it took down or their names.
Michael Cohen: Trump's personal lawyer who paid a porn star - BBC News
Michael Cohen: Trump's personal lawyer who paid a porn star
By Suzanne Kianpour
BBC News, Washington
21 August 2018
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's once fiercely loyal lawyer, has struck a plea deal with prosecutors investigating possible campaign finance violations and tax fraud. Who is he anyway?
When an FBI team raided Cohen's office in New York on 9 April, they arrived at a workspace fit for the silver screen.
It's 30-odd floors up at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, in a corner - but not very spacious - office at the Squire Patton Boggs law firm.
Cohen's office is decked out with paraphernalia from his time at the Trump Organization and on Trump's presidential campaign, as well as from superhero movies - Thor's hammer, Captain America's shield.
Also hard to miss - a nearly full-length impressionist-style painting of Cohen himself at the press secretary's podium in the White House briefing room.
Cohen has remained in Trump's inner circle for more than a decade, during ups and downs at the Trump Organization and on the campaign.
But as Cohen has been named a subject of a federal investigation in New York, his relations with Donald Trump have deteriorated.
The protector
Cohen, 51, had prided himself in going above and beyond the line of duty as the president's personal lawyer. He considered himself Trump's protector. He'll do anything for him, telling Vanity Fair last September he'd "take a bullet" for the president.
The day before the FBI raid, Cohen tweeted a month-old story about him with a Joyce Maynard quote: "A person who deserves my loyalty receives it" followed by his own pledge: "I will always protect our @POTUS @realDonaldTrump #MAGA".
Cohen is the son of an immigrant who escaped a Nazi concentration camp in Poland. He grew up in Long Island, right outside of New York City, before attending American University in Washington and Cooley Law School in western Michigan.
Trump defended Cohen in an unrelated meeting after the FBI raided his office and hotel
Back in New York, Cohen worked at a law firm, married an Ukrainian immigrant, ran a successful taxi business and made a failed run for New York City Council, all before entering Trump's orbit.
Cohen was introduced to Donald Trump by his son, Donald Jr, in 2006.
Cohen's family had purchased a number of properties in the Trump World Tower near the United Nations, and Cohen had become the treasurer of the building's board.
He had grown up idolising Trump, reading The Art of the Deal multiple times. So when Trump offered him a job after he had advised on a few legal matters, Cohen was shocked.
Why the raid on Trump's lawyer is a big deal
The porn star scandal Trump can't shake
Fox host unmasked as Trump lawyer client
He took the job, becoming executive vice president and special counsel at the Trump Organization in 2007. From then on, he was practically part of the family - close with Trump's adult children, regularly dining with them and their spouses.
He was also an early fan of the idea of President Trump. In 2011, he helped launch a website, Should Trump Run?, to gauge public opinion. He was on board when Trump announced his candidacy in 2015.
Cohen's been described as the president's "pit bull" and extension of Trump himself. He speaks with a thick Long Island accent and avoids alcohol much like his boss. Cohen is high energy, speaks assertively and has an affinity for Hermes belts and eccentric jackets.
Cohen is not press shy. He prides himself on taking everyone's calls.
When a CNN published a story about his role in covering up Donald Trump's alleged affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels, he texted it to me.
"How do you feel about being called fixer?" I asked him.
"Not insulted," he replied.
Cohen chats with friends ahead of a hearing on the FBI raid
But he's also visibly affected by what's written about him.
In late 2017 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, Cohen was heard complaining about a recent story written about him. He called it "fake news," saying the only news anyone should believe about him is what comes out of his own mouth.
Visit to Prague?
Well before the FBI raid, Cohen was named as a key figure in the alleged Russian effort to sway the 2016 presidential election in Trump's favour.
The "Steele Dossier" - a report by ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by research firm Fusion GPS to investigate Trump - specifically points to a trip Cohen allegedly made to Prague in late summer of 2016 to meet Kremlin representatives.
Cohen has repeatedly denied the report or having ever been to the Czech Republic. He recently tweeted another denial in light of a new report claiming Mueller has proof backing up that element of the dossier.
But it began to unravel for Cohen when the news broke of a hush money payment he made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels - who claims she had an affair with Trump before he was president.
Since Special Counsel Robert Mueller began his investigation into possible campaign collusion with Russia, Trump had been advised by his other lawyers to keep his distance from Cohen.
However - perhaps in a signal of loyalty - Trump had dinner with Cohen the night before Daniels' interview aired on CBS' 60 Minutes.
The raid on Cohen's office and hotel in search of files related to the Daniels payment and other matters, however, was a surprise.
Cohen was working out of the offices of a major New York law firm
"No-one saw this coming," a source familiar with Cohen's thinking on the matter said.
Out of all the possible persons of interest to Mueller, Cohen has been closest to the president the longest - save the members of Trump's immediate family. He knows the most.
And his legal troubles in New York come from a "referral" from the special counsel's office.
The southern district of New York - where Cohen's case is being handled - is known for being aggressive.
As the federal prosecutors reportedly considered charges against him, his loyalty to Mr Trump seemed to soften - he told ABC News that his top concern was his family.
In the immediate aftermath of the FBI raid, Trump came to his friend's defence - both on Twitter, complaining of a witch hunt, and in person, calling Cohen a "good man".
But his tone soon changed when Cohen's lawyer released audio of a conversation he had with Mr Trump about the Stormy payment.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Inconceivable that the government would break into a lawyer’s office (early in the morning) - almost unheard of. Even more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client - totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!
10:10 PM - Jul 21, 2018
There were also reports that Mr Cohen claimed Mr Trump knew in advance of the infamous Trump Tower meeting in 2016 where Russians met members of the campaign with the promise of offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump's current lawyer, said Mr Cohen had "lied all his life".
It means that while Trump could theoretically offer a presidential pardon to his former lawyer - as he recently did for Bush-era White House aide Scooter Libby - that now seems a remote possibility.
By Suzanne Kianpour
BBC News, Washington
21 August 2018
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's once fiercely loyal lawyer, has struck a plea deal with prosecutors investigating possible campaign finance violations and tax fraud. Who is he anyway?
When an FBI team raided Cohen's office in New York on 9 April, they arrived at a workspace fit for the silver screen.
It's 30-odd floors up at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, in a corner - but not very spacious - office at the Squire Patton Boggs law firm.
Cohen's office is decked out with paraphernalia from his time at the Trump Organization and on Trump's presidential campaign, as well as from superhero movies - Thor's hammer, Captain America's shield.
Also hard to miss - a nearly full-length impressionist-style painting of Cohen himself at the press secretary's podium in the White House briefing room.
Cohen has remained in Trump's inner circle for more than a decade, during ups and downs at the Trump Organization and on the campaign.
But as Cohen has been named a subject of a federal investigation in New York, his relations with Donald Trump have deteriorated.
The protector
Cohen, 51, had prided himself in going above and beyond the line of duty as the president's personal lawyer. He considered himself Trump's protector. He'll do anything for him, telling Vanity Fair last September he'd "take a bullet" for the president.
The day before the FBI raid, Cohen tweeted a month-old story about him with a Joyce Maynard quote: "A person who deserves my loyalty receives it" followed by his own pledge: "I will always protect our @POTUS @realDonaldTrump #MAGA".
Cohen is the son of an immigrant who escaped a Nazi concentration camp in Poland. He grew up in Long Island, right outside of New York City, before attending American University in Washington and Cooley Law School in western Michigan.
Trump defended Cohen in an unrelated meeting after the FBI raided his office and hotel
Back in New York, Cohen worked at a law firm, married an Ukrainian immigrant, ran a successful taxi business and made a failed run for New York City Council, all before entering Trump's orbit.
Cohen was introduced to Donald Trump by his son, Donald Jr, in 2006.
Cohen's family had purchased a number of properties in the Trump World Tower near the United Nations, and Cohen had become the treasurer of the building's board.
He had grown up idolising Trump, reading The Art of the Deal multiple times. So when Trump offered him a job after he had advised on a few legal matters, Cohen was shocked.
Why the raid on Trump's lawyer is a big deal
The porn star scandal Trump can't shake
Fox host unmasked as Trump lawyer client
He took the job, becoming executive vice president and special counsel at the Trump Organization in 2007. From then on, he was practically part of the family - close with Trump's adult children, regularly dining with them and their spouses.
He was also an early fan of the idea of President Trump. In 2011, he helped launch a website, Should Trump Run?, to gauge public opinion. He was on board when Trump announced his candidacy in 2015.
Cohen's been described as the president's "pit bull" and extension of Trump himself. He speaks with a thick Long Island accent and avoids alcohol much like his boss. Cohen is high energy, speaks assertively and has an affinity for Hermes belts and eccentric jackets.
Cohen is not press shy. He prides himself on taking everyone's calls.
When a CNN published a story about his role in covering up Donald Trump's alleged affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels, he texted it to me.
"How do you feel about being called fixer?" I asked him.
"Not insulted," he replied.
Cohen chats with friends ahead of a hearing on the FBI raid
But he's also visibly affected by what's written about him.
In late 2017 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, Cohen was heard complaining about a recent story written about him. He called it "fake news," saying the only news anyone should believe about him is what comes out of his own mouth.
Visit to Prague?
Well before the FBI raid, Cohen was named as a key figure in the alleged Russian effort to sway the 2016 presidential election in Trump's favour.
The "Steele Dossier" - a report by ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by research firm Fusion GPS to investigate Trump - specifically points to a trip Cohen allegedly made to Prague in late summer of 2016 to meet Kremlin representatives.
Cohen has repeatedly denied the report or having ever been to the Czech Republic. He recently tweeted another denial in light of a new report claiming Mueller has proof backing up that element of the dossier.
But it began to unravel for Cohen when the news broke of a hush money payment he made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels - who claims she had an affair with Trump before he was president.
Since Special Counsel Robert Mueller began his investigation into possible campaign collusion with Russia, Trump had been advised by his other lawyers to keep his distance from Cohen.
However - perhaps in a signal of loyalty - Trump had dinner with Cohen the night before Daniels' interview aired on CBS' 60 Minutes.
The raid on Cohen's office and hotel in search of files related to the Daniels payment and other matters, however, was a surprise.
Cohen was working out of the offices of a major New York law firm
"No-one saw this coming," a source familiar with Cohen's thinking on the matter said.
Out of all the possible persons of interest to Mueller, Cohen has been closest to the president the longest - save the members of Trump's immediate family. He knows the most.
And his legal troubles in New York come from a "referral" from the special counsel's office.
The southern district of New York - where Cohen's case is being handled - is known for being aggressive.
As the federal prosecutors reportedly considered charges against him, his loyalty to Mr Trump seemed to soften - he told ABC News that his top concern was his family.
In the immediate aftermath of the FBI raid, Trump came to his friend's defence - both on Twitter, complaining of a witch hunt, and in person, calling Cohen a "good man".
But his tone soon changed when Cohen's lawyer released audio of a conversation he had with Mr Trump about the Stormy payment.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Inconceivable that the government would break into a lawyer’s office (early in the morning) - almost unheard of. Even more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client - totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!
10:10 PM - Jul 21, 2018
There were also reports that Mr Cohen claimed Mr Trump knew in advance of the infamous Trump Tower meeting in 2016 where Russians met members of the campaign with the promise of offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump's current lawyer, said Mr Cohen had "lied all his life".
It means that while Trump could theoretically offer a presidential pardon to his former lawyer - as he recently did for Bush-era White House aide Scooter Libby - that now seems a remote possibility.
Trump directed hush money, says his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen - BBC News
August 22, 2018.
Trump directed hush money, says his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen leaves court as some of the charges against him are listed
US President Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has pleaded guilty in a New York court to violating campaign finance laws.
He said he had done so at the direction of "the candidate", for the "principal purpose of influencing [the] election".
The admission was related to hush money paid to Mr Trump's alleged mistresses.
Mr Trump has not commented. In May, he admitted reimbursing Cohen for paying one of the women, having earlier denied any knowledge of it.
Mr Cohen, 51, admitted eight counts on Tuesday, including tax and bank fraud, in a plea deal with prosecutors which may see his prison sentence reduced from 65 years to five years and three months.
Will Trump remain bulletproof?
On the same day, a jury in Alexandria, Virginia, convicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of bank and tax fraud charges.
The developments in the Cohen and Manafort cases have revived speculation that the president himself may face legal proceedings.
What happened in court?
Clearly referring to Mr Trump, Cohen said he had been directed by "a candidate for federal office" to break federal election laws.
Cohen pleaded guilty to counts of tax evasion, making false statements to a financial institution, wilfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution and making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate or campaign.
Sentencing was set for 12 December and he was released on bail of $500,000 (£390,000).
Who is Michael Cohen?
Trump again dismissed there had been any collusion with Russia to get him elected
Cohen's voice quavered as he answered routine questions from the judge. Asked whether he had consumed any alcohol or drugs before making his guilty plea, he told Judge William Pauley he had only had a glass of 12-year-old Glenlivet, a single-malt scotch, with dinner the night before.
'Lock him up!'
Nick Bryant, BBC News, in court
This was the legal summer blockbuster that journalists had been waiting months for and, in terms of courtroom drama and potential political impact, the appearance of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's one-time Mr Fix-it, didn't disappoint.
It was his admission that he had knowingly broken campaign finance laws that was by far the most politically explosive.
It was extraordinary to hear him tell the court that he had done so in co-ordination with, and at the direction of, the candidate.
Though he did not mention his name - or those of the women in question - the candidate is, of course, his former boss, Mr Trump.
Though Cohen has admitted guilt, he has not agreed as part of the plea agreement to co-operate with federal prosecutors, either in New York or those working on the investigation led by the special counsel Robert Mueller.
He left court to chants of "lock him up" from a few of his fellow New Yorkers.
What did prosecutors say?
Robert Khuzami, the deputy US attorney for the Southern District of New York, said Cohen's crimes had been "particularly significant" because he was a trained lawyer.
Cohen, he said, had failed over the past five years to report income on $1.3m from a taxi business, $100,000 from brokerage commissions and $200,000 from consultancy fees.
Prosecutor Robert Khuzami spoke outside the court after the plea deal was reached
He said Cohen had provided "sham" invoices to the campaign for legal fees that he allegedly provided last year.
The prosecutor also said Cohen had sought reimbursement for his "excessive campaign contribution" by submitting the bogus invoices to the campaign.
Why was hush money paid?
Porn star Stormy Daniels says she was paid $130,000 by Cohen just days before the 2016 election to keep quiet about an affair she says she had a decade earlier with Mr Trump.
Cohen also recorded a conversation with Mr Trump two months before the election in which they discussed buying the rights to a kiss-and-tell story by former Playboy model Karen McDougal who says she had an affair with Mr Trump.
McDougal apologises for 'Trump affair'
Undisclosed payments to bury embarrassing stories about a political candidate can be treated as a violation of US campaign finance laws.
The lawyer for Ms Daniels - who is suing both Mr Trump and Cohen for defamation - tweeted that the court developments had boosted her case against the president.
Skip Twitter post by @MichaelAvenatti
Michael Avenatti
✔
@MichaelAvenatti
The developments of today will permit us to have the stay lifted in the civil case & should also permit us to proceed with an expedited deposition of Trump under oath about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. We will disclose it all to the public.
4:33 AM - Aug 22, 2018
How did Trump and Cohen's lawyers react?
Cohen's lawyer said his client was living up to his vow in an interview last month to put his loyalty to family and country above his old boss.
Mr Davis said: "Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election."
Skip Twitter post by @MaddowBlog
Maddow Blog
✔
@MaddowBlog
12:09 PM - Aug 22, 2018
Cohen more than happy to tell Mueller all that he knows: attorney
Lanny Davis, attorney for former Donald Trump attorney Michael Cohen, tells Rachel Maddow that Cohen has knowledge that should be of interest to Robert Mueller and he is happy to tell Mueller what he...
msnbc.com
CNN reporter asks Mr Trump about Michael Cohen back in July
The people around Donald Trump
How did the case come about?
Cohen worked at the Trump Organization for more than a decade and continued to serve as Mr Trump's personal lawyer and fixer after the election.
The FBI seized a number of files in April from Cohen's office and a hotel room used by him in New York.
They had conducted the raid reportedly following a tip-off from Robert Mueller's team.
Could Trump go on trial?
"If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?" Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, asked after Tuesday's proceedings.
Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Mr Trump, told reporters that there had been "no allegation of any wrongdoing against the president" in the charges against Cohen.
In any case, Mr Trump is unlikely to face criminal charges as long as he remains president, legal experts say.
What is conceivable is that he could be sacked by Congress under the US constitution's provision for impeaching a president over "high crimes and misdemeanours".
For that to happen, Mr Trump's opponents in the Democratic Party would have to win control of both houses.
How easy is it to impeach a president?
Even if they did well in the mid-term elections in November, they would almost certainly need to persuade members of Mr Trump's Republicans to change sides over the issue.
No US president has ever been removed from office on the basis of impeachment.
The chances of impeachment would increase dramatically were an ongoing investigation led by Robert Mueller to conclude that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election - a charge denied by Russia and described by Mr Trump as a "witch hunt".
Cohen's lawyer said his client was keen to "tell truth to power" and that what he had to say was going to be of great interest to Mr Mueller.
Speaking at a rally in West Virginia, Mr Trump said the Cohen and Manafort cases did not involve him and had "nothing to do with Russian collusion".
Trump directed hush money, says his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen leaves court as some of the charges against him are listed
US President Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has pleaded guilty in a New York court to violating campaign finance laws.
He said he had done so at the direction of "the candidate", for the "principal purpose of influencing [the] election".
The admission was related to hush money paid to Mr Trump's alleged mistresses.
Mr Trump has not commented. In May, he admitted reimbursing Cohen for paying one of the women, having earlier denied any knowledge of it.
Mr Cohen, 51, admitted eight counts on Tuesday, including tax and bank fraud, in a plea deal with prosecutors which may see his prison sentence reduced from 65 years to five years and three months.
Will Trump remain bulletproof?
On the same day, a jury in Alexandria, Virginia, convicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of bank and tax fraud charges.
The developments in the Cohen and Manafort cases have revived speculation that the president himself may face legal proceedings.
What happened in court?
Clearly referring to Mr Trump, Cohen said he had been directed by "a candidate for federal office" to break federal election laws.
Cohen pleaded guilty to counts of tax evasion, making false statements to a financial institution, wilfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution and making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate or campaign.
Sentencing was set for 12 December and he was released on bail of $500,000 (£390,000).
Who is Michael Cohen?
Trump again dismissed there had been any collusion with Russia to get him elected
Cohen's voice quavered as he answered routine questions from the judge. Asked whether he had consumed any alcohol or drugs before making his guilty plea, he told Judge William Pauley he had only had a glass of 12-year-old Glenlivet, a single-malt scotch, with dinner the night before.
'Lock him up!'
Nick Bryant, BBC News, in court
This was the legal summer blockbuster that journalists had been waiting months for and, in terms of courtroom drama and potential political impact, the appearance of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's one-time Mr Fix-it, didn't disappoint.
It was his admission that he had knowingly broken campaign finance laws that was by far the most politically explosive.
It was extraordinary to hear him tell the court that he had done so in co-ordination with, and at the direction of, the candidate.
Though he did not mention his name - or those of the women in question - the candidate is, of course, his former boss, Mr Trump.
Though Cohen has admitted guilt, he has not agreed as part of the plea agreement to co-operate with federal prosecutors, either in New York or those working on the investigation led by the special counsel Robert Mueller.
He left court to chants of "lock him up" from a few of his fellow New Yorkers.
What did prosecutors say?
Robert Khuzami, the deputy US attorney for the Southern District of New York, said Cohen's crimes had been "particularly significant" because he was a trained lawyer.
Cohen, he said, had failed over the past five years to report income on $1.3m from a taxi business, $100,000 from brokerage commissions and $200,000 from consultancy fees.
Prosecutor Robert Khuzami spoke outside the court after the plea deal was reached
He said Cohen had provided "sham" invoices to the campaign for legal fees that he allegedly provided last year.
The prosecutor also said Cohen had sought reimbursement for his "excessive campaign contribution" by submitting the bogus invoices to the campaign.
Why was hush money paid?
Porn star Stormy Daniels says she was paid $130,000 by Cohen just days before the 2016 election to keep quiet about an affair she says she had a decade earlier with Mr Trump.
Cohen also recorded a conversation with Mr Trump two months before the election in which they discussed buying the rights to a kiss-and-tell story by former Playboy model Karen McDougal who says she had an affair with Mr Trump.
McDougal apologises for 'Trump affair'
Undisclosed payments to bury embarrassing stories about a political candidate can be treated as a violation of US campaign finance laws.
The lawyer for Ms Daniels - who is suing both Mr Trump and Cohen for defamation - tweeted that the court developments had boosted her case against the president.
Skip Twitter post by @MichaelAvenatti
Michael Avenatti
✔
@MichaelAvenatti
The developments of today will permit us to have the stay lifted in the civil case & should also permit us to proceed with an expedited deposition of Trump under oath about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. We will disclose it all to the public.
4:33 AM - Aug 22, 2018
How did Trump and Cohen's lawyers react?
Cohen's lawyer said his client was living up to his vow in an interview last month to put his loyalty to family and country above his old boss.
Mr Davis said: "Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election."
Skip Twitter post by @MaddowBlog
Maddow Blog
✔
@MaddowBlog
12:09 PM - Aug 22, 2018
Cohen more than happy to tell Mueller all that he knows: attorney
Lanny Davis, attorney for former Donald Trump attorney Michael Cohen, tells Rachel Maddow that Cohen has knowledge that should be of interest to Robert Mueller and he is happy to tell Mueller what he...
msnbc.com
CNN reporter asks Mr Trump about Michael Cohen back in July
The people around Donald Trump
How did the case come about?
Cohen worked at the Trump Organization for more than a decade and continued to serve as Mr Trump's personal lawyer and fixer after the election.
The FBI seized a number of files in April from Cohen's office and a hotel room used by him in New York.
They had conducted the raid reportedly following a tip-off from Robert Mueller's team.
Could Trump go on trial?
"If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?" Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, asked after Tuesday's proceedings.
Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Mr Trump, told reporters that there had been "no allegation of any wrongdoing against the president" in the charges against Cohen.
In any case, Mr Trump is unlikely to face criminal charges as long as he remains president, legal experts say.
What is conceivable is that he could be sacked by Congress under the US constitution's provision for impeaching a president over "high crimes and misdemeanours".
For that to happen, Mr Trump's opponents in the Democratic Party would have to win control of both houses.
How easy is it to impeach a president?
Even if they did well in the mid-term elections in November, they would almost certainly need to persuade members of Mr Trump's Republicans to change sides over the issue.
No US president has ever been removed from office on the basis of impeachment.
The chances of impeachment would increase dramatically were an ongoing investigation led by Robert Mueller to conclude that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election - a charge denied by Russia and described by Mr Trump as a "witch hunt".
Cohen's lawyer said his client was keen to "tell truth to power" and that what he had to say was going to be of great interest to Mr Mueller.
Speaking at a rally in West Virginia, Mr Trump said the Cohen and Manafort cases did not involve him and had "nothing to do with Russian collusion".
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
What Microsoft's Revelation about Russian Hacking Means for the Midterms - Fortune
August 21, 2018.
What Microsoft's Revelation about Russian Hacking Means for the Midterms
Trump, Putin Deny Russian Meddling in the 2016 Election.
Here’s what they had to say.
By HALLIE DETRICK 5:41 AM EDT
Microsoft announced Monday that it had detected and thwarted the early stages of an attempted attack on the U.S. Senate and two conservative think tanks by Fancy Bear, the Russia-linked group that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016.
Microsoft president Brad Smith told The New York Times that the latest detected threat demonstrates a broadening in the types of websites hackers are going after, to now include organizations that are “informally tied to Republicans.”
Eric Rosenbach, the director of the Defending Digital Democracy project at Harvard University, similarly emphasized to the Times that Russians are attacking organizations based on their own self-interest rather than a preference between the two major American parties: “It’s about disrupting and diminishing any group that challenges how Putin’s Russia is operating at home and around the world.”
This latest attempt to gain access to political leaders ahead of the midterms is not the only one that has been detected. Last week it emerged that two Democratic congressional primary candidates were hacked, though the attacker has not yet been publicly identified.
Microsoft received a court order to take control of six websites that were designed to resemble Congressional domains, such as “senate.group” and “adfs-senate.email.” The Hudson Institute and the International Republican Institute were also targeted. Using these domains, hackers could have carried out a “spearphishing” attack to obtain user credentials, similar to the one that brought down Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta in 2016.
The latest revelation comes amid rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia ahead of the midterm elections. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russia continues, and a U.S. grand jury indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers on charges of hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. Meanwhile, President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin continue to deny any Russian meddling in the election, even as politicians and experts warn that the system remains vulnerable to attack.
What Microsoft's Revelation about Russian Hacking Means for the Midterms
Trump, Putin Deny Russian Meddling in the 2016 Election.
Here’s what they had to say.
By HALLIE DETRICK 5:41 AM EDT
Microsoft announced Monday that it had detected and thwarted the early stages of an attempted attack on the U.S. Senate and two conservative think tanks by Fancy Bear, the Russia-linked group that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016.
Microsoft president Brad Smith told The New York Times that the latest detected threat demonstrates a broadening in the types of websites hackers are going after, to now include organizations that are “informally tied to Republicans.”
Eric Rosenbach, the director of the Defending Digital Democracy project at Harvard University, similarly emphasized to the Times that Russians are attacking organizations based on their own self-interest rather than a preference between the two major American parties: “It’s about disrupting and diminishing any group that challenges how Putin’s Russia is operating at home and around the world.”
This latest attempt to gain access to political leaders ahead of the midterms is not the only one that has been detected. Last week it emerged that two Democratic congressional primary candidates were hacked, though the attacker has not yet been publicly identified.
Microsoft received a court order to take control of six websites that were designed to resemble Congressional domains, such as “senate.group” and “adfs-senate.email.” The Hudson Institute and the International Republican Institute were also targeted. Using these domains, hackers could have carried out a “spearphishing” attack to obtain user credentials, similar to the one that brought down Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta in 2016.
The latest revelation comes amid rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia ahead of the midterm elections. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russia continues, and a U.S. grand jury indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers on charges of hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. Meanwhile, President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin continue to deny any Russian meddling in the election, even as politicians and experts warn that the system remains vulnerable to attack.
Despite Talks With China, Trump Is in No Rush to Call Off His Trade War - Daily Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )
August 21, 2018.
Despite Talks With China, Trump Is in No Rush to Call Off His Trade War
By Jonah Shepp
Trump’s not expecting much from talks with China. Photo: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Stock markets rose around the world on Monday on the news that the U.S. and China are beginning mid-level talks in Washington this week to try to resolve the escalating trade conflict between the world’s two largest economies, even as another $16 billion round of tariffs comes into effect. By the end of the trading day, Wall Street had dipped after President Donald Trump told Reuters in an interview that he was “not thrilled” with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s agenda of raising interest rates.
The rest of the Reuters interview was released after the closing bell and was not priced into Monday’s trading, but likely would have erased more of those gains, as Trump said he wasn’t expecting much to come out of this week’s talks. “I’m like them, I have a long horizon,” Trump told the agency, explaining that he had “no time frame” for ending the dispute.
It’s never clear whether Trump is on the same page of the policy agenda as his officials, but in this case, the president’s statement appeared to contradict what American and Chinese officials told the Wall Street Journal on Friday, which is that they are aiming to reach a deal to avert a trade war by the time Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and the G20 summit in November.
The Chinese government is eager to see the dispute settled quickly, for obvious reasons: A protracted trade conflict with the U.S. would damage China economically and complicate Xi’s plans to transform the country from a low-wage manufacturing powerhouse into a global leader in high technology. He has reportedly instructed his deputies to stabilize the relationship with the U.S. as soon as possible.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, is not in such a rush. November is still three long months away, and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office wants to delay negotiations and keep ratcheting up the tariff pressure in an attempt to secure a deal from a position of dominance in October.
Needless to say, the U.S. business community is not thrilled at the prospect of even more barriers to trade with a country they rely on for all manner of raw materials and finished goods. The U.S. has so far slapped duties on $34 billion of Chinese goods, but the USTR wants to impose another $200 billion on a wider range of imports, including for the first time an array of consumer goods.
In the first of six days of public hearings on the new proposed tariffs on Monday, business owners warned that they would lead to huge price hikes, driving up consumer costs and putting tremendous, possibly ruinous strain on import-dependent American businesses. Meanwhile, the CEO of the global shipping giant Maersk said in a presentation on Friday that Trump’s protectionist tariffs on China and other countries could slow U.S. trade growth by up to 3 or 4 percent: a huge hit.
Granted, these businesses have a direct interest in the public believing that claim and in the administration forgoing another round of tariffs, but it’s not hard to see how raising the price of Chinese furniture and lighting products, tires, chemicals, and plastics, among other things, by as much as 25 percent would hit Americans in the wallet and disrupt a variety of U.S. industries. Of course, Trump might in that case turn around and blame these companies for passing the costs onto consumers.
The deal with Beijing the administration hopes to negotiate would see China reduce industrial subsidies, cut production in industries like steel and aluminum where overproduction has been depressing global prices, stop pressuring U.S. companies to hand over proprietary technology, buy more U.S. goods and services, and bolster the value of its currency, the yuan, to make the dollar more competitive.
This is a hefty slate of demands, but significantly pared down from the completely unreasonable proposal U.S. negotiators put forth in May, which would have compelled China to cut its trade surplus by $200 billion, abandon its industrial policies, and refrain from contesting U.S. lawsuits against it at the World Trade Organization. That was never going to happen. Under pressure and eager to reach a resolution, China may be more amenable to the less stringent terms now on offer, or some approximation thereof.
On the other hand, the Trump administration needs to be wary of China accepting a deal, then failing to fulfill its side of the bargain. Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that China has failed to keep its promises on trade in the past and has been evasive about the behaviors this deal would seek to curb, such as intellectual property theft. The administration, Scissors argues, will need to enforce any deal rigorously, using the threat of sanctions.
Beijing might well balk at such conditions, however, and even if Xi is eager to make a deal, he will not bend over backwards to accept whatever the U.S. is magnanimous enough to give him. The economic impact of a full-on trade war would complicate things politically for Xi, but giving into American demands to his country’s disadvantage would be even more damaging to his prestige. Xi has consolidated his power in Beijing, indeed to a troubling extent, and will likely remain in control of the country for another decade or more no matter what, but if he is given a choice between belt-tightening and national humiliation, he won’t have to think too hard about that decision.
Anyway, China’s efforts to become a global economic superpower are proceeding apace in other realms, such as Belt and Road Initiative, a drive to massively upgrade overland trade infrastructure between China, Central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as sea routes to Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa. This huge endeavor will project Chinese trade power in these regions, particularly Africa, to an even greater degree than its influence is already being felt.
There is a strong current in Chinese political discourse today that its rise to superpower status is unstoppable, even in the face of American resistance. Indeed, a trade war would much more likely slow that process than stop it completely. China’s dominance of global manufacturing was as much an organic product of globalization as a deliberate consequence of Chinese industrial policy or U.S. trade policy. Xi’s high-tech ambitions today reflect the fact that China is actually beginning to lose low-cost manufacturing operations to other, less developed Asian countries with lower labor costs.
China is going to keep on being China, no matter what Trump does. Yes, Beijing needs to be held accountable for its anti-competitive trade practices, but there may be limits to how far a trade war can go toward achieving that goal without doing unacceptable damage to the U.S. economy instead.
Perhaps the most important question to ask about these trade wars is what would it mean to win them? Trump’s obsession with trade deficits, based on the unorthodox theories embraced by his key economic advisers, has led to these deficits actually expanding as U.S. buyers rush to place import orders before prices go up. Trump’s economic policies in general are unlikely to reduce the U.S.’s current account deficit, economist Scott Sumner argues in an op-ed at The Hill, and hardly anyone other than Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and the president himself believes that trade deficits reduce American economic output.
No matter what Trump believes, trade is not zero-sum. Before the administration embarks on a trade war with China, perhaps it should explain to the American people exactly what it would mean to win it.
Despite Talks With China, Trump Is in No Rush to Call Off His Trade War
By Jonah Shepp
Trump’s not expecting much from talks with China. Photo: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Stock markets rose around the world on Monday on the news that the U.S. and China are beginning mid-level talks in Washington this week to try to resolve the escalating trade conflict between the world’s two largest economies, even as another $16 billion round of tariffs comes into effect. By the end of the trading day, Wall Street had dipped after President Donald Trump told Reuters in an interview that he was “not thrilled” with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s agenda of raising interest rates.
The rest of the Reuters interview was released after the closing bell and was not priced into Monday’s trading, but likely would have erased more of those gains, as Trump said he wasn’t expecting much to come out of this week’s talks. “I’m like them, I have a long horizon,” Trump told the agency, explaining that he had “no time frame” for ending the dispute.
It’s never clear whether Trump is on the same page of the policy agenda as his officials, but in this case, the president’s statement appeared to contradict what American and Chinese officials told the Wall Street Journal on Friday, which is that they are aiming to reach a deal to avert a trade war by the time Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and the G20 summit in November.
The Chinese government is eager to see the dispute settled quickly, for obvious reasons: A protracted trade conflict with the U.S. would damage China economically and complicate Xi’s plans to transform the country from a low-wage manufacturing powerhouse into a global leader in high technology. He has reportedly instructed his deputies to stabilize the relationship with the U.S. as soon as possible.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, is not in such a rush. November is still three long months away, and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office wants to delay negotiations and keep ratcheting up the tariff pressure in an attempt to secure a deal from a position of dominance in October.
Needless to say, the U.S. business community is not thrilled at the prospect of even more barriers to trade with a country they rely on for all manner of raw materials and finished goods. The U.S. has so far slapped duties on $34 billion of Chinese goods, but the USTR wants to impose another $200 billion on a wider range of imports, including for the first time an array of consumer goods.
In the first of six days of public hearings on the new proposed tariffs on Monday, business owners warned that they would lead to huge price hikes, driving up consumer costs and putting tremendous, possibly ruinous strain on import-dependent American businesses. Meanwhile, the CEO of the global shipping giant Maersk said in a presentation on Friday that Trump’s protectionist tariffs on China and other countries could slow U.S. trade growth by up to 3 or 4 percent: a huge hit.
Granted, these businesses have a direct interest in the public believing that claim and in the administration forgoing another round of tariffs, but it’s not hard to see how raising the price of Chinese furniture and lighting products, tires, chemicals, and plastics, among other things, by as much as 25 percent would hit Americans in the wallet and disrupt a variety of U.S. industries. Of course, Trump might in that case turn around and blame these companies for passing the costs onto consumers.
The deal with Beijing the administration hopes to negotiate would see China reduce industrial subsidies, cut production in industries like steel and aluminum where overproduction has been depressing global prices, stop pressuring U.S. companies to hand over proprietary technology, buy more U.S. goods and services, and bolster the value of its currency, the yuan, to make the dollar more competitive.
This is a hefty slate of demands, but significantly pared down from the completely unreasonable proposal U.S. negotiators put forth in May, which would have compelled China to cut its trade surplus by $200 billion, abandon its industrial policies, and refrain from contesting U.S. lawsuits against it at the World Trade Organization. That was never going to happen. Under pressure and eager to reach a resolution, China may be more amenable to the less stringent terms now on offer, or some approximation thereof.
On the other hand, the Trump administration needs to be wary of China accepting a deal, then failing to fulfill its side of the bargain. Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that China has failed to keep its promises on trade in the past and has been evasive about the behaviors this deal would seek to curb, such as intellectual property theft. The administration, Scissors argues, will need to enforce any deal rigorously, using the threat of sanctions.
Beijing might well balk at such conditions, however, and even if Xi is eager to make a deal, he will not bend over backwards to accept whatever the U.S. is magnanimous enough to give him. The economic impact of a full-on trade war would complicate things politically for Xi, but giving into American demands to his country’s disadvantage would be even more damaging to his prestige. Xi has consolidated his power in Beijing, indeed to a troubling extent, and will likely remain in control of the country for another decade or more no matter what, but if he is given a choice between belt-tightening and national humiliation, he won’t have to think too hard about that decision.
Anyway, China’s efforts to become a global economic superpower are proceeding apace in other realms, such as Belt and Road Initiative, a drive to massively upgrade overland trade infrastructure between China, Central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as sea routes to Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa. This huge endeavor will project Chinese trade power in these regions, particularly Africa, to an even greater degree than its influence is already being felt.
There is a strong current in Chinese political discourse today that its rise to superpower status is unstoppable, even in the face of American resistance. Indeed, a trade war would much more likely slow that process than stop it completely. China’s dominance of global manufacturing was as much an organic product of globalization as a deliberate consequence of Chinese industrial policy or U.S. trade policy. Xi’s high-tech ambitions today reflect the fact that China is actually beginning to lose low-cost manufacturing operations to other, less developed Asian countries with lower labor costs.
China is going to keep on being China, no matter what Trump does. Yes, Beijing needs to be held accountable for its anti-competitive trade practices, but there may be limits to how far a trade war can go toward achieving that goal without doing unacceptable damage to the U.S. economy instead.
Perhaps the most important question to ask about these trade wars is what would it mean to win them? Trump’s obsession with trade deficits, based on the unorthodox theories embraced by his key economic advisers, has led to these deficits actually expanding as U.S. buyers rush to place import orders before prices go up. Trump’s economic policies in general are unlikely to reduce the U.S.’s current account deficit, economist Scott Sumner argues in an op-ed at The Hill, and hardly anyone other than Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and the president himself believes that trade deficits reduce American economic output.
No matter what Trump believes, trade is not zero-sum. Before the administration embarks on a trade war with China, perhaps it should explain to the American people exactly what it would mean to win it.
Trump floats possibility of taking over Mueller probe: 'I can go in and I could do whatever, I could run it if I want' - Fox News
August 21, 2018.
Trump floats possibility of taking over Mueller probe: 'I can go in and I could do whatever, I could run it if I want'
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News
Trump expresses increasing frustration with Mueller probe
President accuses Democrats of using the special counsel to impact midterm elections; Kevin Corke reports from the White House.
President Trump asserted on Monday that he would be "totally allowed" to take over Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe if he wanted to, in another thinly veiled broadside against an investigation he has repeatedly derided as a partisan "witch hunt."
"I can go in, and I could do whatever — I could run it if I want," Trump told Reuters. "But I decided to stay out. I’m totally allowed to be involved if I wanted to be. So far, I haven’t chosen to be involved. I’ll stay out."
The extraordinary comment -- apparently a reference to Trump's executive authority to order Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department to fire or replace Mueller -- came as jurors continued to deliberate in the first trial brought as a result of Mueller's probe. There was no verdict in the case on Monday, raising the defense team's hopes after three days of deliberations.
Trump also repeated the concerns raised publicly by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, that speaking with Mueller's team directly would expose him to perjury charges, even if he told the truth.
President Trump's attorney accuses the special counsel of trying to run the Russia investigation into the midterm elections on 'The Story.'
TRUMP LASHES OUT AT MUELLER 'THUGS' IN MONDAY TWEETS, CALLS SPECIAL COUNSEL A 'NATIONAL DISGRACE'
“So if I say something and [former FBI Director James Comey] says something, and it’s my word against his, and he’s best friends with Mueller, so Mueller might say: ‘Well, I believe Comey,’ and even if I’m telling the truth, that makes me a liar," Trump said. "That’s no good.”
Speaking exclusively to Fox News' "The Story with Martha MacCallum" Monday night, Giuliani defended his comment Sunday that "truth isn't truth," which drew a firestorm of criticism on social media. Prosecutors can bring perjury charges against an honest witness, Giuliani said, as long as they can find others to present an alternative version of events.
Giuliani also alleged that Mueller's team was trying to cause political damage for Trump, even though, he said, prosecutors had assured him they did not want to repeat Comey's mistakes.
"They're trying to run this right up until the election," Giuliani said, calling the investigation a "travesty."
"They're trying to do the same thing Comey did -- they're trying to be the judge and jury of the 2018 election," he added.
Giuliani also downplayed a report over the weekend that White House Counsel Don McGahn had extensive meetings with Mueller, saying McGahn is an "honorable" man who would have resigned long ago if Trump had told him to do anything illegal.
"They're trying to do the same thing Comey did -- they're trying to be the judge and jury of the 2018 election."
- Rudy Giuliani
"I can't imagine him sitting around the White House for six months with a president he thinks committed a crime," Giuliani said.
Trump also told Reuters that he hadn't "given a lot of thought" to the possibility of revoking Mueller's security clearance -- a move that would be sure to trigger a political uproar in Washington and potentially unravel the Mueller probe.
Last week, the White House terminated ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance, charging that he had misled Congress about the CIA's role in spying on Senate staffers and improperly politicized his access to classified information with his attacks on the president.
Trump told Reuters the Mueller probe had “played right into the Russians - if it was Russia - they played right into the Russians’ hands.”
Separately, Trump also responded to the news that several tech giants, including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, had removed or banned content from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
"I won't mention names, but when they take certain people off of Twitter or Facebook and they're making that decision, that is really a dangerous thing because that could be you tomorrow," Trump said.
Fox News' Martha MacCallum contributed to this report.
Trump floats possibility of taking over Mueller probe: 'I can go in and I could do whatever, I could run it if I want'
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News
Trump expresses increasing frustration with Mueller probe
President accuses Democrats of using the special counsel to impact midterm elections; Kevin Corke reports from the White House.
President Trump asserted on Monday that he would be "totally allowed" to take over Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe if he wanted to, in another thinly veiled broadside against an investigation he has repeatedly derided as a partisan "witch hunt."
"I can go in, and I could do whatever — I could run it if I want," Trump told Reuters. "But I decided to stay out. I’m totally allowed to be involved if I wanted to be. So far, I haven’t chosen to be involved. I’ll stay out."
The extraordinary comment -- apparently a reference to Trump's executive authority to order Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department to fire or replace Mueller -- came as jurors continued to deliberate in the first trial brought as a result of Mueller's probe. There was no verdict in the case on Monday, raising the defense team's hopes after three days of deliberations.
Trump also repeated the concerns raised publicly by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, that speaking with Mueller's team directly would expose him to perjury charges, even if he told the truth.
President Trump's attorney accuses the special counsel of trying to run the Russia investigation into the midterm elections on 'The Story.'
TRUMP LASHES OUT AT MUELLER 'THUGS' IN MONDAY TWEETS, CALLS SPECIAL COUNSEL A 'NATIONAL DISGRACE'
“So if I say something and [former FBI Director James Comey] says something, and it’s my word against his, and he’s best friends with Mueller, so Mueller might say: ‘Well, I believe Comey,’ and even if I’m telling the truth, that makes me a liar," Trump said. "That’s no good.”
Speaking exclusively to Fox News' "The Story with Martha MacCallum" Monday night, Giuliani defended his comment Sunday that "truth isn't truth," which drew a firestorm of criticism on social media. Prosecutors can bring perjury charges against an honest witness, Giuliani said, as long as they can find others to present an alternative version of events.
Giuliani also alleged that Mueller's team was trying to cause political damage for Trump, even though, he said, prosecutors had assured him they did not want to repeat Comey's mistakes.
"They're trying to run this right up until the election," Giuliani said, calling the investigation a "travesty."
"They're trying to do the same thing Comey did -- they're trying to be the judge and jury of the 2018 election," he added.
Giuliani also downplayed a report over the weekend that White House Counsel Don McGahn had extensive meetings with Mueller, saying McGahn is an "honorable" man who would have resigned long ago if Trump had told him to do anything illegal.
"They're trying to do the same thing Comey did -- they're trying to be the judge and jury of the 2018 election."
- Rudy Giuliani
"I can't imagine him sitting around the White House for six months with a president he thinks committed a crime," Giuliani said.
Trump also told Reuters that he hadn't "given a lot of thought" to the possibility of revoking Mueller's security clearance -- a move that would be sure to trigger a political uproar in Washington and potentially unravel the Mueller probe.
Last week, the White House terminated ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance, charging that he had misled Congress about the CIA's role in spying on Senate staffers and improperly politicized his access to classified information with his attacks on the president.
Trump told Reuters the Mueller probe had “played right into the Russians - if it was Russia - they played right into the Russians’ hands.”
Separately, Trump also responded to the news that several tech giants, including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, had removed or banned content from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
"I won't mention names, but when they take certain people off of Twitter or Facebook and they're making that decision, that is really a dangerous thing because that could be you tomorrow," Trump said.
Fox News' Martha MacCallum contributed to this report.
Russia plans largest war games since end of Soviet Union - CNN
Russia plans largest war games since end of Soviet Union
By Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 0852 GMT (1652 HKT) August 21, 2018
A Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft makes a very-low altitude pass by the USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) April 12. Donald Cook, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, forward deployed to Rota, Spain is conducting a routine patrol in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations in support of U.S. national security interests in Europe.
Putin announces 'invincible' new missile (March 2018)
(CNN)Russia will stage the its largest war games since the fall of the Soviet Union next month, the country's Defense Ministry said Monday.
Thousands of troops from China and Mongolia are expected to join in the exercises in Siberia, dubbed Vostok 2018, according to statements from the Russian and Chinese defense ministries.
The games will have an "unprecedented scale both in territory and number of troops involved," supreme commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces, General Sergi Shoigu, said in a statement.
Shoigu said it would be the "largest event since the Zapad-81 maneuvers," which involved as many as 150,000 troops, according to CIA documents.
Those exercises saw the Soviet Union test new weapons, including intermediate range ballistic missiles. Videos from the Zapad-81 games show huge formations of tanks and artillery as well as jet aircraft making mock attacks.
If Vostok 2018 is of the scope Shoigu suggested, it would be bigger than the Kremlin's Vostok 2014 exercises. Those involved 155,000 troops, 8,000 pieces of equipment, more than 600 aircraft and 80 naval vessels.
China's contribution to the massive exercises will be 3,200 troops, 900 weapons, and 30 planes and helicopters, which will deploy from September 11 to 15 at Russia's Tsugol training range near where the borders of Russia, China and eastern Mongolia meet, China's Defense Ministry said in a statement.
"The exercise is not directed against any third party" and will focus on "maneuver defense, firepower strikes and counterattack," it added.
The September dates announced by China overlap with the Russian-sponsored Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. Chinese President Xi Jinping is among the leaders expected to attend this year's version of the annual event, hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In preparation for the September war games, Russian military chief Shoigu ordered surprise combat readiness inspections of airborne troops as well as long-range aviation and air transport units.
The inspections involve "16 special exercises" with an emphasis on "aviation readiness" and "timely deployment of military command and control bodies."
Russia has been highlighting its military this year, with Putin in March boasting of new weaponry he claimed would render NATO defenses "completely useless." Some of those arms were shown off in a video released shortly after his July summit with US President Donald Trump.
While the US military has cast doubt on the abilities of the new Russian weapons, a US Defense Intelligence Agency report from 2017 notes Moscow is in the midst of "a massive state armaments program" aimed at equipping its forces with "70% new or modernized equipment by 2020."
At the same time, China is also modernizing its military, launching new warships, including its first domestically made aircraft carrier, and world-class guided-missile destroyers. Earlier this year Beijing pronounced its newest stealth fighter, the J-20, combat ready.
A Pentagon report on China's military released last week said Beijing was developing its fleet of long-range bombers and "likely" training its pilots for missions targeting the US.
China called the US report "irresponsible" and said Beijing's military moves are only designed to safeguard its "sovereignty and security."
CNN's Serenitie Wang and Angus Watson contributed to this report.
By Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 0852 GMT (1652 HKT) August 21, 2018
A Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft makes a very-low altitude pass by the USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) April 12. Donald Cook, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, forward deployed to Rota, Spain is conducting a routine patrol in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations in support of U.S. national security interests in Europe.
Putin announces 'invincible' new missile (March 2018)
(CNN)Russia will stage the its largest war games since the fall of the Soviet Union next month, the country's Defense Ministry said Monday.
Thousands of troops from China and Mongolia are expected to join in the exercises in Siberia, dubbed Vostok 2018, according to statements from the Russian and Chinese defense ministries.
The games will have an "unprecedented scale both in territory and number of troops involved," supreme commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces, General Sergi Shoigu, said in a statement.
Shoigu said it would be the "largest event since the Zapad-81 maneuvers," which involved as many as 150,000 troops, according to CIA documents.
Those exercises saw the Soviet Union test new weapons, including intermediate range ballistic missiles. Videos from the Zapad-81 games show huge formations of tanks and artillery as well as jet aircraft making mock attacks.
If Vostok 2018 is of the scope Shoigu suggested, it would be bigger than the Kremlin's Vostok 2014 exercises. Those involved 155,000 troops, 8,000 pieces of equipment, more than 600 aircraft and 80 naval vessels.
China's contribution to the massive exercises will be 3,200 troops, 900 weapons, and 30 planes and helicopters, which will deploy from September 11 to 15 at Russia's Tsugol training range near where the borders of Russia, China and eastern Mongolia meet, China's Defense Ministry said in a statement.
"The exercise is not directed against any third party" and will focus on "maneuver defense, firepower strikes and counterattack," it added.
The September dates announced by China overlap with the Russian-sponsored Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. Chinese President Xi Jinping is among the leaders expected to attend this year's version of the annual event, hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In preparation for the September war games, Russian military chief Shoigu ordered surprise combat readiness inspections of airborne troops as well as long-range aviation and air transport units.
The inspections involve "16 special exercises" with an emphasis on "aviation readiness" and "timely deployment of military command and control bodies."
Russia has been highlighting its military this year, with Putin in March boasting of new weaponry he claimed would render NATO defenses "completely useless." Some of those arms were shown off in a video released shortly after his July summit with US President Donald Trump.
While the US military has cast doubt on the abilities of the new Russian weapons, a US Defense Intelligence Agency report from 2017 notes Moscow is in the midst of "a massive state armaments program" aimed at equipping its forces with "70% new or modernized equipment by 2020."
At the same time, China is also modernizing its military, launching new warships, including its first domestically made aircraft carrier, and world-class guided-missile destroyers. Earlier this year Beijing pronounced its newest stealth fighter, the J-20, combat ready.
A Pentagon report on China's military released last week said Beijing was developing its fleet of long-range bombers and "likely" training its pilots for missions targeting the US.
China called the US report "irresponsible" and said Beijing's military moves are only designed to safeguard its "sovereignty and security."
CNN's Serenitie Wang and Angus Watson contributed to this report.
Microsoft claims win over 'Russian political hackers' - BBC News
August 21, 2018.
Microsoft claims win over 'Russian political hackers'
A Russian hacking group known as Fancy Bear is accused of trying to disrupt the US midterm elections
Russian attempts to launch cyber-attacks against US conservative groups have been thwarted, Microsoft says.
The software company said Russian hackers had tried to steal data from political organisations, including the International Republican Institute and the Hudson Institute think tanks.
But they had been thwarted when its security staff had won control of six net domains mimicking their websites.
Microsoft said the Fancy Bear hacking group had been behind the attacks.
Domain control
"We're concerned that these and other attempts pose security threats to a broadening array of groups connected with both American political parties in the run-up to the 2018 elections," Microsoft said in its blog detailing its work.
The thwarted attack was likely the start of a "spear phishing" campaign, said Microsoft. This would involve tricking people into visiting the mimicked domains allowing the Fancy Bear group to see and steal login information that people use.
As well as the two think-tanks, the domains seized were associated with several Senate offices and services. One domain sought to mimic Microsoft's Office 365 online service.
Hunt wants 'malign' Russia to face action
Trump relaxes rules around cyber-attacks
US accuses Russia of 'pervasive' meddling
The New York Times suggested that the two think tanks were targeted because they were former supporters of President Trump but were now foes who had called for more sanctions to be imposed on Russia.
The International Republican Institute's directors include Senator John McCain and General HR McMaster who was replaced earlier this year as the White House national security adviser.
IRI president Daniel Twining told the Times that the attacks were consistent with the "campaign of meddling" the Kremlin is known to have indulged in.
In its blog, Microsoft president Brad Smith said it had grabbed dodgy domains 12 times in two years to shut down 84 websites associated with Fancy Bear.
It said that, so far, it had no evidence that the domains had been used in any attacks.
Microsoft added that the attack activity seen around the domains "mirrors" what it saw in 2016 in the US and during the 2017 election in France.
Microsoft's action comes soon after the US charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking computer networks used by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Russia has consistently denied meddling in the elections or mounting any cyber-attacks on US institutions.
Microsoft claims win over 'Russian political hackers'
A Russian hacking group known as Fancy Bear is accused of trying to disrupt the US midterm elections
Russian attempts to launch cyber-attacks against US conservative groups have been thwarted, Microsoft says.
The software company said Russian hackers had tried to steal data from political organisations, including the International Republican Institute and the Hudson Institute think tanks.
But they had been thwarted when its security staff had won control of six net domains mimicking their websites.
Microsoft said the Fancy Bear hacking group had been behind the attacks.
Domain control
"We're concerned that these and other attempts pose security threats to a broadening array of groups connected with both American political parties in the run-up to the 2018 elections," Microsoft said in its blog detailing its work.
The thwarted attack was likely the start of a "spear phishing" campaign, said Microsoft. This would involve tricking people into visiting the mimicked domains allowing the Fancy Bear group to see and steal login information that people use.
As well as the two think-tanks, the domains seized were associated with several Senate offices and services. One domain sought to mimic Microsoft's Office 365 online service.
Hunt wants 'malign' Russia to face action
Trump relaxes rules around cyber-attacks
US accuses Russia of 'pervasive' meddling
The New York Times suggested that the two think tanks were targeted because they were former supporters of President Trump but were now foes who had called for more sanctions to be imposed on Russia.
The International Republican Institute's directors include Senator John McCain and General HR McMaster who was replaced earlier this year as the White House national security adviser.
IRI president Daniel Twining told the Times that the attacks were consistent with the "campaign of meddling" the Kremlin is known to have indulged in.
In its blog, Microsoft president Brad Smith said it had grabbed dodgy domains 12 times in two years to shut down 84 websites associated with Fancy Bear.
It said that, so far, it had no evidence that the domains had been used in any attacks.
Microsoft added that the attack activity seen around the domains "mirrors" what it saw in 2016 in the US and during the 2017 election in France.
Microsoft's action comes soon after the US charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking computer networks used by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Russia has consistently denied meddling in the elections or mounting any cyber-attacks on US institutions.
Mueller inquiry: Trump fears 'perjury trap' in Russia inquiry - BBC News
August 21, 2018.
Mueller inquiry: Trump fears 'perjury trap' in Russia inquiry
President Trump has repeatedly referred to the Mueller investigation as a "witch hunt"
US President Donald Trump has said he is worried he might face perjury charges if he gives statements under oath to the investigation into Russia's alleged role in his election victory.
He told Reuters news agency he feared any discrepancies between his account and others could be used against him.
Mr Trump also suggested he could take over the investigation run by special counsel Robert Mueller, but said he'd decided to stay out of it.
He has called the inquiry a witch hunt.
Russia also strongly denies claims it interfered in the 2016 election, which saw Mr Trump defeat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
In the Reuters interview, Mr Trump expressed concern that any statement he made to investigators could be compared with that of others who have testified, such as former FBI chief James Comey, and that any discrepancies could be used against him.
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
He was echoing previous concerns by his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who said Mr Trump could be "trapped into perjury".
"So if I say something and he (Comey) says something, and it's my word against his, and he's best friends with Mueller, so Mueller might say: 'Well, I believe Comey,' and even if I'm telling the truth, that makes me a liar. That's no good," President Trump said.
Mr Trump also asserted that he could, if he wanted to, intervene in the investigation, but added that he had chosen not to do so for now.
"I've decided to stay out. Now I don't have to stay out. I can go in, and I could do whatever - I could run it if I want. But I decided to stay out," he said.
"I'm totally allowed to be involved if I wanted to be. So far, I haven't chosen to be involved. I'll stay out."
In an interview with NBC on Sunday, Mr Giuliani was asked whether the Trump team was stalling about a possible testimony at the Mueller inquiry.
Lawyer Rudy Giuliani was widely ridiculed for suggesting "truth isn't truth"
Mr Giuliani said: "I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so he can be trapped into perjury."
He added: "When you tell me that he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth. Not the truth."
NBC host Chuck Todd countered: "Truth is truth."
Mr Giuliani responded by saying: "Truth isn't truth." That comment was widely mocked on social media.
Special counsel Mueller is investigating whether President Trump's campaign team colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
In 2016, US intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had used a state-authorised campaign of cyber attacks and fake news stories planted on social media in an attempt to turn the election against Mrs Clinton.
Thirty-two people have now been indicted, including four members of Mr Trump's campaign team and 25 Russians.
The president's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is the first person to go on trial as a result of Mr Mueller's investigation. However, the charges are not related to the US election but instead to tax evasion and money-laundering stemming from his political consultancy work in Ukraine.
The jury in his case is in its fourth day of deliberation to reach a verdict.
Mueller inquiry: Trump fears 'perjury trap' in Russia inquiry
President Trump has repeatedly referred to the Mueller investigation as a "witch hunt"
US President Donald Trump has said he is worried he might face perjury charges if he gives statements under oath to the investigation into Russia's alleged role in his election victory.
He told Reuters news agency he feared any discrepancies between his account and others could be used against him.
Mr Trump also suggested he could take over the investigation run by special counsel Robert Mueller, but said he'd decided to stay out of it.
He has called the inquiry a witch hunt.
Russia also strongly denies claims it interfered in the 2016 election, which saw Mr Trump defeat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
In the Reuters interview, Mr Trump expressed concern that any statement he made to investigators could be compared with that of others who have testified, such as former FBI chief James Comey, and that any discrepancies could be used against him.
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
He was echoing previous concerns by his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who said Mr Trump could be "trapped into perjury".
"So if I say something and he (Comey) says something, and it's my word against his, and he's best friends with Mueller, so Mueller might say: 'Well, I believe Comey,' and even if I'm telling the truth, that makes me a liar. That's no good," President Trump said.
Mr Trump also asserted that he could, if he wanted to, intervene in the investigation, but added that he had chosen not to do so for now.
"I've decided to stay out. Now I don't have to stay out. I can go in, and I could do whatever - I could run it if I want. But I decided to stay out," he said.
"I'm totally allowed to be involved if I wanted to be. So far, I haven't chosen to be involved. I'll stay out."
In an interview with NBC on Sunday, Mr Giuliani was asked whether the Trump team was stalling about a possible testimony at the Mueller inquiry.
Lawyer Rudy Giuliani was widely ridiculed for suggesting "truth isn't truth"
Mr Giuliani said: "I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so he can be trapped into perjury."
He added: "When you tell me that he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth. Not the truth."
NBC host Chuck Todd countered: "Truth is truth."
Mr Giuliani responded by saying: "Truth isn't truth." That comment was widely mocked on social media.
Special counsel Mueller is investigating whether President Trump's campaign team colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
In 2016, US intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had used a state-authorised campaign of cyber attacks and fake news stories planted on social media in an attempt to turn the election against Mrs Clinton.
Thirty-two people have now been indicted, including four members of Mr Trump's campaign team and 25 Russians.
The president's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is the first person to go on trial as a result of Mr Mueller's investigation. However, the charges are not related to the US election but instead to tax evasion and money-laundering stemming from his political consultancy work in Ukraine.
The jury in his case is in its fourth day of deliberation to reach a verdict.
Monday, August 20, 2018
Japan's scandal-plagued Shinzo Abe eyes his place in history books - NBC News
Japan's scandal-plagued Shinzo Abe eyes his place in history books
A trickle of revelations that damaged his standing in opinion polls and contributed to a sense of arrogance at the heart of government seems like a memory.
by Daniel Hurst / Aug.20.2018
TOKYO — Only a few months ago, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe appeared to be in danger of losing his job as a series of cronyism scandals dragged his popularity to perilous lows.
To make matters worse, President Donald Trump was ratcheting up trade tensions with Japan, a long-term security ally, exposing the fragility of a personal relationship that Abe had worked hard to establish since Trump was elected in 2016.
Yet Abe is on the cusp of a remarkable political recovery. After stabilizing his position in opinion polls, he has emerged as the clear front-runner in a party leadership vote due next month, according to experts.
Japan falls out of love with sake as 'Western way of living' takes root
Securing another three-year term as head of the dominant center-right party would put Abe on track to become the longest-serving prime minister in Japanese history.
Backroom factional politics within his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) are “lining up in Abe's favor,” said Kristi Govella, an assistant professor at the School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa — even as tariff disputes with the U.S. cast a shadow over Japan’s most significant international relationship.
“Given the volatility of recent American foreign policy under the Trump administration, it was inevitable that Abe would experience ups and downs in his relationship with the U.S. president,” she told NBC News. “More than in any personal rapport with Trump, Abe's advantage lies in his strength of expertise and skill on foreign policy issues in comparison to most other Japanese politicians.”
Abe is the second-longest serving leader in the G-7 after German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He wants to maintain pressure on North Korea until the regime takes concrete steps to denuclearize.
Abe has also helped to revive the trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which seemed to be at risk when Trump withdrew the U.S. from the original 12-country deal.
In both security and economics, Govella said, Abe had “a long track record of almost singularly strong foreign policy leadership, and particularly in times of uncertainty in international politics, the Japanese people see this as a valuable asset in a leader.”
Abe has dominated Japanese politics ever since he led the LDP to a landslide victory in the general election in 2012. He had a brief earlier stint as prime minister, from 2006 to 2007, but resigned because of unpopularity and personal health concerns.
Abe’s grip on power began to slip again last year as a result of twin scandals over alleged favoritism.
One involved a huge discount on state-owned land granted to a nationalistic educational group that was closely linked to Abe’s wife, Akie. The first lady had been named as the honorary principal of a proposed new elementary school before the controversy arose.
Image: Shinzo Abe, Melania Trump, Akie Abe, Donald TrumpPresident Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump dine with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and wife Akie Abe at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on April 17.MANDEL NGAN / AFP - Getty Images
The other scandal hinged on suspected preferential treatment for Japan’s first new veterinary school in more than 50 years. It was proposed by an educational institution run by one of the prime minister’s long-time friends.
Abe repeatedly denied wrongdoing and even volunteered to resign if he was found to have been involved in the 85 percent discount on the land sale.
But the trickle of revelations damaged his standing in opinion polls and contributed to a sense of growing arrogance at the heart of government. The approval rating for Abe’s cabinet dropped to 26 percent in a poll by the Mainichi newspaper in July 2017.
'Japan is the only country you can enjoy both drinking and smoking together'
Amid rising tensions with North Korea, however, Abe seized the initiative by calling a snap general election late last year.
The fragmented opposition parties were not well prepared and the ruling coalition managed to retain a two-thirds majority in the lower house — providing Abe with a political lifeline.
Abe faced renewed dangers in March when the finance ministry admitted it had tampered with official documents surrounding talks with the elementary school operator, including removing references to Abe and the first lady before the files were presented to lawmakers investigating the sale.
Several finance ministry officials were disciplined, but prosecutors decided against laying formal criminal charges. The finance minister, Taro Aso, kept his job — an important development given that Aso also serves as deputy prime minister and is a powerful factional operator.
Experts say the largest factions have locked in behind Abe, giving him a big advantage in the forthcoming vote of his fellow lawmakers.
“As of now, Prime Minister Abe is the clear front-runner in the upcoming LDP leadership race,” Govella said. “Despite clear signs that the Japanese public continues to be unhappy about the domestic scandals that have plagued Abe in recent months, his support ratings have slowly recovered.”
Yu Uchiyama, from the Department of Advanced Social and International Studies at the University of Tokyo, said while the scandals have damaged Abe, the drip-feed of incremental revelations may have contributed to a sense of public fatigue.
He pointed to a Nikkei newspaper opinion poll showing that the Cabinet’s approval rating increased by 10 points, to 52 percent, from May to June, even though seven in 10 respondents did not think Abe’s explanations were satisfactory.
“It seems to mean that the people don't put much weight on the scandal issue any longer,” Uchiyama added.
'Embarrassment capes,' singing drones aim to shame Japan's workaholics
While approval ratings are a factor in the leadership machinations, the general public does not get a direct say on the LDP leadership. The party’s lawmakers have an equal share with its grass-roots membership in the first vote. If a runoff is needed, lawmakers dominate the second vote.
The only viable challenger is an Abe nemesis, Shigeru Ishiba, who has vowed to restore trust in politics and to speak up for those who have not felt the benefits of “Abenomics,” the prime minister's economic policy.
Ishiba has previously called for substantive changes to Japan’s “pacifist” constitution.
The constitution, which has not been changed since it was adopted after World War II, prohibits Japan from retaining a full-fledged military. Abe also wants to change this section of the constitution, but has proposed a minimalist amendment to codify the existence of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.
Ishiba, a former defense minister, was popular among grass-roots LDP members when he ran in 2012. He is still a strong candidate but is unlikely to secure enough votes from lawmakers and even from the broader LDP membership, according to Ryo Sahashi, a professor of international politics at Kanagawa University.
Abe’s advantage was boosted last month when Fumio Kishida, a former foreign minister, pulled out of the race and urged his factional allies to support the incumbent.
The internal affairs minister, Seiko Noda, would become the first female prime minister if elected as LDP leader, but is expected to struggle to gain the 20 nominations needed to run.
Rising star Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of a former prime minister, is considered not yet ready for the top job.
One potential wildcard is Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on automotive imports — a move that would be more damaging to the Japanese economy than the steel and aluminum duties announced this year.
“If the U.S. were to announce automobile tariffs before the LDP election, it could complicate the leadership campaign, since it would test Abe’s claims to have forged a productive friendship with Trump,” said Tobias Harris, vice president of global consulting firm Teneo Intelligence.
If he’s still in power in November 2019, Abe would become Japan's longest-serving prime minister, totaling nearly eight years in office including his short earlier tenure.
With a lower house election able to be held as late as 2021, he appears to be in a good position to reach the milestone, although a poor showing by his party in the upper house election next year could affect his chances.
A trickle of revelations that damaged his standing in opinion polls and contributed to a sense of arrogance at the heart of government seems like a memory.
by Daniel Hurst / Aug.20.2018
TOKYO — Only a few months ago, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe appeared to be in danger of losing his job as a series of cronyism scandals dragged his popularity to perilous lows.
To make matters worse, President Donald Trump was ratcheting up trade tensions with Japan, a long-term security ally, exposing the fragility of a personal relationship that Abe had worked hard to establish since Trump was elected in 2016.
Yet Abe is on the cusp of a remarkable political recovery. After stabilizing his position in opinion polls, he has emerged as the clear front-runner in a party leadership vote due next month, according to experts.
Japan falls out of love with sake as 'Western way of living' takes root
Securing another three-year term as head of the dominant center-right party would put Abe on track to become the longest-serving prime minister in Japanese history.
Backroom factional politics within his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) are “lining up in Abe's favor,” said Kristi Govella, an assistant professor at the School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa — even as tariff disputes with the U.S. cast a shadow over Japan’s most significant international relationship.
“Given the volatility of recent American foreign policy under the Trump administration, it was inevitable that Abe would experience ups and downs in his relationship with the U.S. president,” she told NBC News. “More than in any personal rapport with Trump, Abe's advantage lies in his strength of expertise and skill on foreign policy issues in comparison to most other Japanese politicians.”
Abe is the second-longest serving leader in the G-7 after German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He wants to maintain pressure on North Korea until the regime takes concrete steps to denuclearize.
Abe has also helped to revive the trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which seemed to be at risk when Trump withdrew the U.S. from the original 12-country deal.
In both security and economics, Govella said, Abe had “a long track record of almost singularly strong foreign policy leadership, and particularly in times of uncertainty in international politics, the Japanese people see this as a valuable asset in a leader.”
Abe has dominated Japanese politics ever since he led the LDP to a landslide victory in the general election in 2012. He had a brief earlier stint as prime minister, from 2006 to 2007, but resigned because of unpopularity and personal health concerns.
Abe’s grip on power began to slip again last year as a result of twin scandals over alleged favoritism.
One involved a huge discount on state-owned land granted to a nationalistic educational group that was closely linked to Abe’s wife, Akie. The first lady had been named as the honorary principal of a proposed new elementary school before the controversy arose.
Image: Shinzo Abe, Melania Trump, Akie Abe, Donald TrumpPresident Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump dine with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and wife Akie Abe at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on April 17.MANDEL NGAN / AFP - Getty Images
The other scandal hinged on suspected preferential treatment for Japan’s first new veterinary school in more than 50 years. It was proposed by an educational institution run by one of the prime minister’s long-time friends.
Abe repeatedly denied wrongdoing and even volunteered to resign if he was found to have been involved in the 85 percent discount on the land sale.
But the trickle of revelations damaged his standing in opinion polls and contributed to a sense of growing arrogance at the heart of government. The approval rating for Abe’s cabinet dropped to 26 percent in a poll by the Mainichi newspaper in July 2017.
'Japan is the only country you can enjoy both drinking and smoking together'
Amid rising tensions with North Korea, however, Abe seized the initiative by calling a snap general election late last year.
The fragmented opposition parties were not well prepared and the ruling coalition managed to retain a two-thirds majority in the lower house — providing Abe with a political lifeline.
Abe faced renewed dangers in March when the finance ministry admitted it had tampered with official documents surrounding talks with the elementary school operator, including removing references to Abe and the first lady before the files were presented to lawmakers investigating the sale.
Several finance ministry officials were disciplined, but prosecutors decided against laying formal criminal charges. The finance minister, Taro Aso, kept his job — an important development given that Aso also serves as deputy prime minister and is a powerful factional operator.
Experts say the largest factions have locked in behind Abe, giving him a big advantage in the forthcoming vote of his fellow lawmakers.
“As of now, Prime Minister Abe is the clear front-runner in the upcoming LDP leadership race,” Govella said. “Despite clear signs that the Japanese public continues to be unhappy about the domestic scandals that have plagued Abe in recent months, his support ratings have slowly recovered.”
Yu Uchiyama, from the Department of Advanced Social and International Studies at the University of Tokyo, said while the scandals have damaged Abe, the drip-feed of incremental revelations may have contributed to a sense of public fatigue.
He pointed to a Nikkei newspaper opinion poll showing that the Cabinet’s approval rating increased by 10 points, to 52 percent, from May to June, even though seven in 10 respondents did not think Abe’s explanations were satisfactory.
“It seems to mean that the people don't put much weight on the scandal issue any longer,” Uchiyama added.
'Embarrassment capes,' singing drones aim to shame Japan's workaholics
While approval ratings are a factor in the leadership machinations, the general public does not get a direct say on the LDP leadership. The party’s lawmakers have an equal share with its grass-roots membership in the first vote. If a runoff is needed, lawmakers dominate the second vote.
The only viable challenger is an Abe nemesis, Shigeru Ishiba, who has vowed to restore trust in politics and to speak up for those who have not felt the benefits of “Abenomics,” the prime minister's economic policy.
Ishiba has previously called for substantive changes to Japan’s “pacifist” constitution.
The constitution, which has not been changed since it was adopted after World War II, prohibits Japan from retaining a full-fledged military. Abe also wants to change this section of the constitution, but has proposed a minimalist amendment to codify the existence of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.
Ishiba, a former defense minister, was popular among grass-roots LDP members when he ran in 2012. He is still a strong candidate but is unlikely to secure enough votes from lawmakers and even from the broader LDP membership, according to Ryo Sahashi, a professor of international politics at Kanagawa University.
Abe’s advantage was boosted last month when Fumio Kishida, a former foreign minister, pulled out of the race and urged his factional allies to support the incumbent.
The internal affairs minister, Seiko Noda, would become the first female prime minister if elected as LDP leader, but is expected to struggle to gain the 20 nominations needed to run.
Rising star Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of a former prime minister, is considered not yet ready for the top job.
One potential wildcard is Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on automotive imports — a move that would be more damaging to the Japanese economy than the steel and aluminum duties announced this year.
“If the U.S. were to announce automobile tariffs before the LDP election, it could complicate the leadership campaign, since it would test Abe’s claims to have forged a productive friendship with Trump,” said Tobias Harris, vice president of global consulting firm Teneo Intelligence.
If he’s still in power in November 2019, Abe would become Japan's longest-serving prime minister, totaling nearly eight years in office including his short earlier tenure.
With a lower house election able to be held as late as 2021, he appears to be in a good position to reach the milestone, although a poor showing by his party in the upper house election next year could affect his chances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
