California Governor Jerry Brown on Friday pledged to launch a satellite that will track and detect the sources of climate pollutants, his state’s latest effort to challenge the Trump administration’s skepticism about the science of climate change.
Brown, who was nicknamed “Governor Moonbeam” during his first stint as governor in the 1970s in part because of a proposal he made at the time to launch an emergency communications satellite for the state, said California was teaming up with earth imaging company Planet Labs to develop the technology.
“We’re going to launch our own satellite. Our own damn satellite to figure out where the pollution is and how we’re going to end it,” Brown told a gathering of political, environmental and business leaders.
He did not give a timeline or cost for the project.
The remarks echoed a pledge the Governor made nearly two years ago at a scientific gathering in the face of potential cuts to federal satellite and climate monitoring programs under President Donald Trump, who is skeptical of climate science.
Data from the satellite would be shared with governments and others, Brown’s office said in a statement, under a new initiative called the Climate Data Partnership with Environmental Defense Fund and others.
The partnership has the potential to reduce emissions by 1,000 million metric tons a year, equivalent to taking 200 million cars off the road every year, the statement said.
Initial funding for the project has been provided by philanthropists Dee and Richard Lawrence and their Overlook International Foundation as well as The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust, it said.
Additional business and philanthropic partners are expected to join the initiative, according to the release.
Cargill Meat Solutions will pay a total of $1.5 million to 138 Muslim workers who were fired after walking off the job in a dispute over prayer breaks at a Colorado meat-packing plant in 2015, the company said on Friday.
The dispute arose after the workers, mostly Somali immigrants, were dismissed after they staged a three-day walkout over what they said were insufficient prayer breaks at a plant in Fort Morgan, about 75 miles northeast of Denver.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said in a statement on Friday that it had “reasonable cause to believe that Somali, African and Muslim employees were harassed, denied their requests for prayer breaks and fired.”
The Wichita, Kansas-based company said in a statement that it disagreed with the findings, but agreed to settle the case to avoid protracted litigation. It added that it was committed to allowing “Muslim workers to take short breaks to perform their obligatory prayers.”
The EEOC said in a statement that it welcomed Cargill’s willingness “to reach a meaningful resolution enabling all parties to move forward.”
Cargill Meat Solutions is a division of Cargill Inc.
Additional reporting by Brendan O'Brien in Milwaukee
Hollywood's A-listers gather Monday to honor the best in television at the Emmy Awards, with record-breaking fantasy epic "Game of Thrones" back in the competition and once again looking to slay its rivals.
But winter could come early for HBO's blood-spattered smash hit if it fails to snare the coveted best drama series prize, with last year's winner "The Handmaid's Tale" hotly tipped to defend its crown.
Both shows have already picked up some Emmys hardware: "Game of Thrones" won seven statuettes in technical categories at last weekend's Creative Arts Emmys, while "The Handmaid's Tale" scooped up three.
And both are likely to add to that haul at Monday's glittering gala in downtown Los Angeles, but the race for the top prize still seems to be a crapshoot, with dark horse pick "The Americans" also in the hunt.
Can "Handmaid" -- Hulu's bleak take on a totalitarian America where women are oppressed, based on Margaret Atwood's 1985 novel -- again win over voters, especially in the #MeToo era?
Will "The Americans" -- the gripping FX thriller about Soviet sleeper agents in the United States during the Cold War -- finally earn some Emmys love after a critically acclaimed six-season run?
Or will "GoT," the cinematic tale of noble families vying for the Iron Throne, reign supreme once again, on the back of its whopping 22 nominations?
Others in the best drama category include HBO's futuristic western "Westworld," Netflix favorites "The Crown" and retro sci-fi mystery "Stranger Things," and NBC family saga "This is Us."
AFP/File / Robyn BeckThere are seven nominees this year for the coveted best drama series Emmy, including past winners "Game of Thrones" and "The Handmaid's Tale"
The Television Academy's 22,000-plus members have already cast their ballots for the 70th Primetime Emmys, the small-screen answer to the Oscars -- so it's time for red carpet glamour and heartfelt speeches.
For Robert Thompson, professor of pop culture and television history at Syracuse University in New York, there are no "obvious winners" on the drama side -- but a plethora of innovative, quality comedies.
"As peak TV settles into middle age, half-hour comedies are television's red Corvette," Thompson said -- a shiny new toy for viewers.
With perennial heavy hitter "Veep" out of contention this year, FX's "Atlanta" -- a quirky look at the rap scene in the Georgia capital -- is squaring off with Amazon's "The Marvelous Mrs Maisel" for top honors.
"Atlanta" star and creator Donald Glover, a winner last year for best lead comedy actor, is tipped to repeat. Overall, the show earned 16 nominations.
- TV history in making -
In 2016, "Game of Thrones" made history, picking up 12 awards and becoming the most decorated fictional show since the Television Academy first handed out prizes in 1949.
GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File / Alberto E. RodriguezActor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau -- shown here at the premiere of HBO's "Game Of Thrones" Season 6 in April 2016 in Hollywood -- is a first-time Emmy nominee this year
With the seven statuettes it won last weekend, "GoT" -- which will return in 2019 for an eighth and final season -- now has 45 Emmys overall.
On Monday, beyond the best drama trophy, cast members Lena Headey, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Peter Dinklage are nominated, along with the show's directors and writers.
Other major contenders include FX's "The Assassination of Gianni Versace," which racked up 18 nominations.
Darren Criss is the favorite to win the star-studded race for best actor in a limited series or movie for his searing portrayal of Versace's killer Andrew Cunanan.
But he faces stiff competition from a clutch of boldface names including Antonio Banderas, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jeff Daniels and John Legend, the pop crooner who has already made some history of his own.
GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP / Alberto E. RodriguezAndrew Lloyd Webber, John Legend and Tim Rice earned EGOT status with their Emmy win for "Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert" -- each now has an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony
The "Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert" headliner joined the musical's co-producers Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice as the latest showbiz personalities to earn EGOT status.
Each now has won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony. Only 12 others have achieved the distinction.
Another bit of Emmys history: streaming giant Netflix ended HBO's 17-year streak of leading the nominations, with 112 to the premium cable network's 108.
After last week's Creative Arts Emmys, HBO has won 17 statuettes to Netflix's 16.
- Politics and ratings -
Another major contender is veteran comedy sketch show "Saturday Night Live," just behind "GoT" with 21 nominations.
Show regulars Michael Che and Colin Jost will host the Emmys at the Microsoft Theater, to be broadcast on NBC, and series creator Lorne Michaels will produce the event for the first time in 30 years.
AFP / AFPA look at this year's Emmy nominees
With awards show audiences dwindling in the age of Twitter, can the "SNL" team breathe new life into the format?
"If anyone can do live TV and try to keep the format relevant, I suppose it's Lorne Michaels," Thompson said.
Jost has said he wants the Emmys to be "less political than normal" -- but that seems unlikely only a week after CBS chairman and CEO Les Moonves left in a cloud of sexual misconduct allegations.
For Thompson, television's best and brightest "tend to be politically conscious folks" and given that the #MeToo movement erupted after last year's Emmys gala, a few well-placed comments appear inevitable.
This week, nine-year-old Queensland school girl, Harper Nielsen, was threatened with suspension by her school for refusing to sing the Australian national anthem. The heated and at time preposterous reaction to the story adds fuel to a question that has been lingering in public debate for a while now: is Australian nationalism on the rise?
According to Nielsen and her parents, her refusal was intended as a gesture of solidarity with Indigenous Australians, whom she felt were marginalised and disrespected by a song that glorifies white Australia in its declaration that we “are young and free”.
While many people praised the young girl’s brave and principled stand, conservative Liberal politician Tony Abbott indirectly criticised her actions as impolite. Other self-described “patriotic” politicians went further, strongly attacking the character and motives of Nielsen and her parents.
Jarrod Bleijie, the Queensland shadow minister for Education, tweeted:
Senator Pauline Hanson advocated physical abuse as a suitable penalty for the young girl’s transgression: “It’s about who we are as a nation, it’s part of us … Here we have a kid who’s been brainwashed and I’ll tell you what, I’d give her a kick up the backside.”
The incident appears to confirm that in Australia, like many liberal democracies around the world, much-vaunted values of openness, tolerance and respect for diversity and freedom of opinion are in decline, while aggressive nationalism is increasing.
There are numerous other examples to support this view: the rise of far-right, populist, anti-immigration political parties and movements, the increasingly exclusionary and racist tones and language of “mainstream” political leaders both here and overseas, violent street clashes between right-wing nationalist and anti-racist forces.
This is capped off by shrill demands by politicians and sections of the media for unquestioning displays of loyalty to “nationalist” symbols and institutions including the flag, the national anthem and contentious national days like Australia Day and ANZAC Day.
Whether such incidents reflect an increase in the actual numbers of Australians embracing aggressive nationalism, or simply an intensification of feeling and behaviour amongst a select minority, is not clear at this point.
But ultimately, the issue of numbers is less important than the general mood such controversies convey. Right-wing xenophobes and nationalists are clearly feeling emboldened. Collectively, we must ask ourselves why this is the case and what should be done about it.
There is good reason for concern. History shows us how dangerous nationalist and racist sentiment is for the quality and character of liberal democracies. Assertions of the primacy, unity and superiority of the national group can easily slip into the denigration, marginalisation, oppression, expulsion and even decimation of individual and minority groups considered to be “other”.
Demands for unquestioning loyalty and conformity in the name of national unity and pride can undermine much vaunted liberal traditions of freedom of speech, thought and association.
White Australia is a country seemingly so inured to its own racist traditions that the systematic mistreatment of Indigenous people, refugees and asylum-seekers, though hotly debated in public forums, is tolerated by a large section of the population. Now that right-wing politicians feel empowered enough to publicly denigrate and threaten a nine-year-old child for her political views, perhaps more people will feel compelled to pay attention.
There is, of course, a discernible double standard at work in the claims that Nielsen should be “punished” for her views and should just “follow the rules.” These, after all, are the very same people who have demanded the right to express their views on all manner of issues, including “the right” to be bigots or deny equal treatment to others on the basis of religious belief. Free speech is fine, it seems, as long as it expresses a view social conservatives agree with.
History is also often the victim of nationalist mobilisations. By this I mean the tendency of “patriots” to select those aspects of the national story that “fit” the narrative of a timeless, unified, undifferentiated, organic community to which they are “loyal”. In the process, they edit out the bits that show how contested and contingent our national story really is.
The national anthem, Advance Australia Fair, is a case in point. Claims that not singing the anthem “disrespects our country and our veterans” assume the song holds deep historical, moral and sacred meaning. The truth is more prosaic.
Advance Australia Fair became our national anthem in 1974, following a competition launched by the Whitlam Labor Government and a public opinion poll by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to identify the relative popularity of three “unofficial” Australian songs: Advance Australia Fair, Waltzing Matilda and Song of Australia. Advance Australia Fair was the clear front-runner, but it is worth remembering that only just over half of respondents (51.4%) nominated it. In other words, nearly 50% of the population did not. So much for collective unity.
Indeed, it was not so long ago that those who showed loyalty to symbols of independent Australian identity such as the current national anthem were derided for their lack of patriotism. In 1943, when Minister for Information, Arthur Calwell, directed Advance Australia Fair be played in Australian cinemas as part of a broader effort to deepen nationalist sentiment and mobilise popular support for the war effort, conservatives criticised the move as disloyal to the British Empire.
Arthur Calwell tried to stir nationalist sentiment by ordering Advance Australia Fair to be played in cinemas.
National Maritime Museum
Calwell was similarly derided when he introduced an independent Australian citizenship in the form of the Australian Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. One Liberal MP in the House of Representatives argued the legislation would “be supported by every enemy of Great Britain and Australia”.
The public bullying of Harper Nielsen should concern us as yet another example of the dangers of unbridled nationalism, and the potential it has to undermine our cherished freedoms.
Nonetheless, the incident provides some cause for hope. It is heartening to see someone so young working thoughtfully through the issues, resisting the pressure of demands for unthinking, unblinking conformity to someone else’s ideal of what national belonging is all about, and reach her own conclusions.
Those who like the story Australians tell themselves of their inherent anti-authoritarianism, might even be tempted to say: “how very Australian” of her.
Whether tapping a contactless card to take the subway, buying a gift for a loved one or using a smart phone to find the way home, your everyday actions leave behind breadcrumbs of digital information. When these traces are collected and analysed en masse, they can help urban planners to pick up on the daily rhythms of the life of a city and uncover trends about the people who live there.
In a recent study, we developed a new mathematical framework which extracts various spending habits or lifestyles from the digital traces left by credit cards and mobile phone data in Mexico City. We discovered that purchase habits not only related to socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, income and mobility – they also related to the places people visit, and the people they call.
Over the past decade, smart phone data has helped researchers to understand and plan cities. For example, location data is used in transport planning to identify which stations and routes are busiest at different times of the day. For example, scientists have found that people don’t necessarily take the optimal route to their destination – instead, they have a favourite route for trips they perform routinely, and a few alternative routes which they take less frequently.
Meanwhile, credit card data and spending behaviour data have been used from the retail companies to build a profile of consumers, based on their set of purchases. This is illustrated by the parable of the beer and nappies. As it turns out, on Friday evenings, young men who buy nappies also have a predisposition to buy beer – this group became parents.
When analysed across the years, these digital traces can help scientists and governments to understand at an unprecedented scale how societies in different parts of the world cope with major events, such as recessions or major policy changes.
The six tribes
From the detected spending habits, we identify six groups or “tribes” while protecting people’s privacy by aggregating the data and ensuring they were anonymous. Each of these groups has a core purchase, which is the most frequent of their spending activities, indicated by the yellow arrows in the figure below.
Our six lifestyle groups: the colour of the arrows represents the frequency of the transactions, from yellow (most frequent) to red (less frequent).
The “commuters” tribe is mainly made up of adult men who live far from the city centre. They commute by car (paying tolls), earn above average incomes and enjoy eating at restaurants.
Middle-aged women dominate the “household” tribe and tend to have the least expenditure and mobility. Their core transaction is grocery shopping, they have lower incomes and live in the suburbs. On average, members of this group receive more phone calls from the other tribes.
Young people are split between two tribes. The “young”, who are under 30 years old, live in the city centre, mainly use taxis as means of transportation and have an average income.
The second group, called “high tech”, is slightly older, with an average age of 35. Their core transactions are on technology such as smart phones and computers. They could be young professionals, since they have higher than average expenditure, a wide range of contacts in their mobile phones and do most of their activities downtown.
The “dinner out” group lives closer to the city centre. Their core transactions are restaurants. They also have more contacts in their social network than average.
We also created an “average” group from a random sample of citizens, to use as a benchmark, against which we could compare the spending habits and socio-demographic information of the other tribes.
Helping urban challenges
By generating useful information from these digital traces, we hope to help cities to embrace the digital revolution and resolve important urban issues, such as how to make cities more inclusive.
For example, the commuters tribe may be hit hardest by fuel price increases which may affect their spending and commuting. The creation of inexpensive and efficient public transport systems may be an important investment in urban areas, especially those where low-income residential areas and job opportunities are not in proximity. And to help the household tribe, we could consider introducing nutrition subsidies – programmes to incentivise low-cost grocery stores in areas where it’s difficult to find affordable, good quality food.
What’s more, our study shows that it is possible to gather information about daily mobility, social contacts and lifestyles by collecting the data that people already produce, rather than undertaking surveys which are expensive, time consuming and very limited in sample size.
This kind of analysis can help city authorities make informed decisions based on data about an unprecedented number of people and lead to more tailored policy to the specific needs of different groups and lifestyles.
Despite what pop psychology articles might suggest, detecting deception via body language – or even bodily functions such as respiration, heart rate and skin conductivity, the staples of the famed polygraph – is not in any way a reliable science. Such measures can indeed accurately pin point when someone is nervous – but not necessarily when they are lying.
When it comes to investigating and convicting criminals, British police rely on solid evidence. That is what detectives strive to collect – and what counts at court. And this is what the Metropolitan Police believe they have in the case of Alexander Petrov and Rusian Boshirov, the two Russian nationals accused of the poisoning of Russian emigre and former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury last March.
On September 5, the police released details of a trip to the UK by the pair between March 2 and 4, the period when the Skripals were poisoned. They provided details of CCTV footage of the pair arriving in Salisbury, and walking in the vicinity of what is thought to be the scene of the poisoning at the time it happened.
This week, in a 25-minute interview with Russian state broadcaster RT, conducted by the editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonovna Simonyan – widely regarded as a close ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin – the pair insisted they were innocent tourists who worked in the sports nutrition business. They claim they simply travelled to London, and fitted in a couple of day trips to Salisbury.
I work in the department of psychology at the University of Portsmouth and my principal research is into deception and the detection of deception. In this capacity I have worked closely with the police. My colleagues and I at the university have conducted research into lies where the stakes are very high – this generally involves suspects in police interviews accused of serious crimes and our findings generally reflected those of laboratory studies.
We’ve found that different people react in vastly different ways when being questioned. These differences can occur between cultures and within cultures. Our experience when interviewing Russian participants in experiments is that they generally show less animation, facially and bodily, than British participants. Also, clever liars rarely tell a completely fabricated story, but instead tend to embed lies in an otherwise truthful account. On the other hand, someone who is telling the truth about key elements of their story, might still want to hide other elements.
Body language
For Petrov and Boshirov the interview has very high stakes – and throughout the interview they both appear very anxious and uncomfortable. At one point, the interviewer Simonyan even points out that they are sweating and turns up the air conditioning.
For the most part they appear to be keeping their hands under the desk. Many people associate fidgeting with deception – despite deception research consistently showing that liars actually tend to be less animated than truth tellers. Lying requires extra mental effort, which in turn results in a neglect of body language. Liars also tend to restrict their non-verbal behaviour, since they – like many other people – wrongly believe that fidgeting is associated with mendacity. But the fact that these men to a large extent hide their hands under the desk might suggest that they are seeking to give an impression of calmness.
It’s also important to note that the behaviour of an interviewer will often have an effect on the behaviour of interviewees. You may have noticed that in conversation your body language may end up mirroring that of your conversation partner and vice versa.
The two Russians claim they were in Salisbury to see the ‘world famous’ cathedral and 123-metre spire.
Either way, the only fact that can be established from the body language and demeanour of the pair in this interview is that they are worried. No more than that. For this reason, deception researchers have moved on from studying non-verbal behaviour in individuals.
Typically, in a police scenario, if more than one person is suspected of being involved in a crime, the suspects are split up and interviewed individually. The RT interview is different in that it is not a police interview – the questioning style differs quite substantially, and they are being interviewed together.
My Portsmouth colleague Zarah Vernham has conducted research into how truth tellers and liars behave when interviewed in pairs. She found that truth tellers tend to be more inclined to look at each other and add to each other’s stories or interrupt each other. Liars, meanwhile, tend to focus more on maintaining eye contact (it is also a myth that a liar cannot maintain eye contact) with the interviewer, with one as the main story teller and the other in a more subordinate role. Petrov and Boshirov both contribute to the dialogue and do on occasion interrupt or add to each other’s speech.
You couldn’t make it up
Truth tellers are more likely to include complications in their stories. This is largely because it might not occur to liars to do so. Complications happen in life (calling to mind the expression “you just couldn’t make it up”) and a truth teller will experience such complications.
Of course, all the above discussed research is published and available on the internet. It is therefore possible that Petrov and Boshirov could have studied this or been coached ahead of their appearance.
Did Petrov and Boshirov lie in their RT interview? Plenty of apparent contradictions to their story have emerged independently to suggest they may not have been telling the truth. But body language or facial expressions alone cannot be conclusive.
Brazil’s far-right presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, in intensive care after being stabbed at a campaign rally, kept his first-round lead in an election opinion poll on Friday, but a leftist rival from the Workers Party (PT) made solid gains.
Bolsonaro was backed by 26 percent of those surveyed, up two percentage points from the same poll published earlier this week, according to the Datafolha survey published by the Folha de S.Paulo newspaper.
The knife attack against Bolsonaro last week has further complicated Brazil’s most unpredictable election in three decades, with its most popular politician, jailed former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, banned from running in the Oct. 7 vote due to a corruption conviction.
Lula’s hand-picked successor to stand for the PT is former Sao Paulo mayor Fernando Haddad, who jumped to 13 percent of support in Friday’s poll, up 4 points.
The poll indicates the PT’s strategy of transferring Lula’s massive appeal to the relatively unknown Haddad is bearing fruit. The party’s campaign rolled out advertising this week with the simple message: “Haddad is Lula.”
Lula’s backing is expected to propel Haddad into a likely Oct. 28 runoff vote, required if no candidate takes a majority in the first ballot.
The Datafolha poll showed that Bolsonaro, who has spent nearly three decades in Congress, and Haddad would be technically tied in a simulated second-round vote.
Bolsonaro would lose to all other major candidates in a runoff, the survey found. A former army captain who favors easing gun control laws to fight crime, Bolsonaro has enraged many Brazilians with comments denigrating women, gays, blacks and indigenous people.
He has led the field from the outset in polls that excluded Lula, tapping into voter anger over political corruption.
But the polarizing nature of Bolsonaro means he has the highest rejection rate of all contenders, holding even at 44 percent on Friday. Haddad’s rejection rate is 26 percent, up 4 percentage points from Monday.
Support for center-left candidate Ciro Gomes, a former governor of Ceará state in Brazil’s poor northeast, stayed even at 13 percent.
Business-friendly candidate Geraldo Alckmin saw his campaign continue to stagnate, with the poll indicating support of 9 percent. Environmentalist Marina Silva fell 3 percentage points to 8 percent.
Datafolha interviewed 2,820 people across Brazil on Thursday and Friday for the survey, which has a 2 percentage point margin of error.
Reporting by Brad Brooks; Editing by James Dalgleish and Rosalba O'Brien
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday lambasted his predecessor, John Kerry, for meeting Iranian officials in back-channel talks and accused him of trying to undermine the Trump administration’s policy toward Tehran.
“What Secretary Kerry has done is unseemly and unprecedented,” Pompeo told a news conference, adding that he “ought not to engage in that kind of behavior. It’s inconsistent with what the foreign policy of the United States is, as directed by this president. It is beyond inappropriate.”
Reporting by Lesley Wroughton and David Alexander, editing by G Crosse
These were Sergey Naryshkin of the SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service (under sanction but allowed in under a special dispensation from State Department), Igor Korobov of the GU (formerly GRU), Russia’s military intelligence agency, and Aleksandr Bortnikov of the FSB, the internal security and intelligence service.
These visits, all simultaneous and all short, were unprecedented, their purpose mysterious, their outcome unknown.
Clearly the visit was important, sensitive and not particularly hostile, otherwise they would not have been allowed into the United States. One might imagine that they proffered some sort of co-operation with the Americans that could only be extended from the highest levels of the Russian government, one rank below Vladimir Putin himself.
But what and how? How could they be welcomed after Russia’s unprecedented and extensive meddling in the 2016 election? What they proffered must have been vital, and perhaps even pertinent to that meddling. As a former adviser on Russia to the Bill Clinton White House, I am following my instincts and offering a series of guesses.
Mueller indictments
In February, shortly after the visits, special investigator Robert Mueller’s probe into whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia yielded indictments against 13 Russians at the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg, along with three supporting companies, for meddling. The indictments listed names and other details.
In July, just as the U.S. president was preparing to meet with Putin for a summit in Helsinki, Mueller’s team issued 12 more indictments, this time against the GU, listing not merely names, but extensive information about the perpetrators, a sort of “we know who you are and where you live.”
The three American foreign intelligence agencies — the CIA, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and the National Security Agency — have formidable reach and penetration. But the information put forward in these indictments, especially the one against GU military operatives, was exceptionally detailed.
I speculate that the information that formed these indictments was what the three Russian intelligence heads had shared with their American colleagues in late January.
Why would they have done this? To make some amends for the chaos they had helped to unleash in the form of President Donald Trump. But why? I suspect that they may have sought help with numerous bomb threats called in by internet services throughout Russia starting in September 2017. Those bomb hoaxes have largely escaped the notice of the U.S. media but were highly disruptive to life in numerous Russian cities.
Is there any other evidence to support my bold conjecture of Russian assistance?
There are two small items that stand out as odd, both stemming from the Helsinki summit.
First, Trump seems to have brought the GU indictment list with him to his talk with Putin, a two-hour private encounter. In turn, I suspect Putin presented his own list to Trump, a reciprocal itemization of people of interest, starting with the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul.
The White House then said it was a reasonable offer on Putin’s part to exchange miscreants, as it were, for local interrogation.
Trump’s assessments are rarely insightful, but this time he might have shone a spotlight on Putin’s state of mind.
From Putin’s viewpoint, if his men had handed over lists to assist Washington, then it was quite reasonable that Washington should reciprocate and assist the Kremlin in its own “wish list.”
Setting Trump up for ridicule?
Of course, if my speculation is accurate, Putin would have been setting Trump up. That’s because Putin knows full well that the United States would never turn over the people on the Kremlin’s wish list, just as the Russian operatives named in the Mueller indictments will never stand trial in the U.S., but remain safe in Russia.
Putin took advantage of the naive and gullible Trump, sending him back with a “reasonable” request, I believe, simply to make him look like a fool. It worked.
There was also the curious matter of the president’s tweeted suggestion, shortly after the summit, that Russia is unhappy with him. He suggests here that he’s has been tough on Russia, which is of course nonsense.
He might, however, have been telling the truth in one regard. Why should the Russians be pleased with his actions in the White House? Trump has been unable to roll back economic sanctions against Russia, though he has been soft in enforcing them. But more crucially, Trump exhibits his lost credibility over anything he says about Russia or Putin. For Putin, Trump is bad press.
Trump has helped fulfil Putin’s wish to create chaos in the U.S., but even in this regard, the president is failing, his days seemingly numbered with numerous legal actions looming all around him, his businesses, his associates and his family.
Putin sees Trump as his patsy, his creature. What else to do with him? How else might he be useful to Putin as the wagons circle? There remains one dramatic possibility.
That has to do with November’s mid-term elections. The media has suggested that the usual leaks from within the Kremlin have gone silent and that American intelligence is now blind about Russian intentions.
General meddling and chaos in mid-term voting, and perhaps in some of the campaigning, is likely to be part of Russia’s intent to continuing sowing tumult in the U.S. Russia might well even pit sides against one another, mucking around equally with both, since by betting on both Republican and Democratic contenders, Russia will think it cannot lose.
Trump’s role in this, however, would only be tangential, but there may be a more important Russian use for Trump alone.
Putin seeks to sow U.S. chaos
One Russian insider whom I cannot name has emphasized that Trump is merely a tool to Putin’s determination to cause chaos in America.
As long as America stays locked within its domestic political turmoil, its role on the world stage is diminished and, reciprocally, Russia’s is enhanced. This analyst suggests that, if Democrats win the House of Representatives in November, Putin will release such damning information on Trump that the new Democratic House will be forced to draw up articles of impeachment.
With a Senate that may still lack a two-thirds majority to convict given the Republicans are expected to hold onto more than a third of the seats, such a release would tie up the United States in domestic knots for at least a year and a half, perhaps two — right up until 2020.
This political immolation would be Trump’s last service as a stooge of Putin’s.
Then in 2019 or 2020, Putin would seek a summit with Trump’s replacement or successor.
Financial corruption and more?
What information might Putin give to Republicans and to the American people, many of whom are now feverishly following the story?
We can likely expect some sort of major financial corruption centring around his dream of a Trump Tower in Moscow. Given all of Trump’s hush payments to women, there also could be some lurid sexual antics. We could also expect some promises proffered by Trump to Putin, all secretly recorded by the Russians, that are treasonous and could implicate some of his congressional supporters.
That last complication might be what finally convinces many in the GOP, especially if they lose big in November, to return to their original party principles and abandon Trump to his fate while sparing themselves from some similar end.
These are just guesses, of course — and if the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that American politics is erratic and unpredictable. But based on my knowledge of how the Russians operate, this speculation has an air of plausibility. It explains some of this year to date, and might serve as a useful guide amid the chaos that likely looms ahead.
U.S. President Donald Trump has instructed aides to proceed with tariffs on about $200 billion more of Chinese products, a source familiar with the process said on Friday, adding that the timing is not yet clear.
An earlier Bloomberg report on Friday that Trump was moving ahead on the tariffs despite Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s attempts to restart talks with China on resolving the trade war had an immediate effect on financial markets, leading U.S. stocks to reverse course and trade lower.
The step comes one week after Trump raised the possibility of duties on the $200 billion of imports and also threatened tariffs on another $267 billion worth of goods. Trump has already levied duties on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods.
The United States only imported $505 billion in goods imported from China last year. But 2018 imports from China through July were up nearly 9 percent over the same period of 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
Reporting by Lisa Lambert and Jeff Mason; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Phil Berlowitz
U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort agreed to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election as part of a plea deal, prosecutors said on Friday.
Manafort, 69, pleaded guilty in federal court in Washington to two criminal counts, becoming the most prominent former Trump campaign official to strike a plea deal in Mueller’s investigation.
Trump has denied any collusion with Russian officials by his campaign and has long denounced the investigation as a political witch hunt. Moscow denies U.S. intelligence agency allegations that it interfered in the political process.
Mueller told Trump’s attorneys in March he was continuing to investigate the Republican president but did not consider him a criminal target “at this point,” the Washington Post reported in early April.
The following is a list of people who have been indicted or convicted or are being investigated:
** On Sept. 7, George Papadopoulos, a former campaign adviser to Trump, was sentenced to 14 days in prison. He had pleaded guilty in October to lying to FBI agents about the timing and significance of his contacts, including a professor who told him the Russians had “dirt” on Trump’s Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton.
According to documents released with his guilty plea, Papadopoulos offered to help set up a meeting with then-candidate Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
** On Aug. 31, Samuel Patten, 47, an American who is the business partner of a Russian national accused by the special counsel’s office of having ties to Russian intelligence, pleaded guilty to unregistered lobbying for a pro-Kremlin political party in Ukraine. He also agreed to cooperate with investigators.
** On Aug. 21, Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court in New York to campaign finance violations and other charges, saying he made payments to influence the 2016 election at the direction of a candidate for federal office. The deal included a possible prison sentence of up to five years and three months.
** Also on Aug. 21, a jury in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, found former Trump campaign chairman Manafort guilty on eight of 18 charges of filing false tax returns, failing to disclose his offshore bank accounts and bank fraud. The judge declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 counts, which were dismissed as part of Manafort’s plea deal on Sept. 14 in a second case against him in Washington.
** Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser to Trump who was also a close campaign aide, pleaded guilty in December to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Russia and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation. Mueller and Flynn’s defense team last month asked for more time before Flynn is sentenced.
** Rick Gates, a former deputy campaign chairman for Trump, pleaded guilty in February to conspiracy against the United States and lying to investigators, and agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation.
** Alex Van der Zwaan, a lawyer who once worked closely with Manafort and Gates, pleaded guilty in February to lying to Mueller’s investigators about contacts with an official in the Trump election campaign. Van der Zwaan, the Dutch son-in-law of one of Russia’s richest men, was sentenced on April 3 to 30 days in prison and fined $20,000.
** Twelve Russian intelligence officers were indicted by a federal grand jury on July 13, accused of hacking Democratic Party computer networks in 2016, in the most detailed U.S. accusation yet that Moscow meddled in the presidential election to help Trump. The Russian government has repeatedly denied meddling in the election.
** Thirteen Russians and three Russian entities were indicted in Mueller’s investigation in February, accused of tampering in the 2016 election to support Trump.
** Richard Pinedo, who was not involved with the Trump campaign, pleaded guilty in a case related to the Mueller probe in February to aiding and abetting interstate and foreign identity fraud by creating, buying and stealing hundreds of bank account numbers that he sold to individuals to use with large digital payment companies. Pinedo “made a mistake” but “had absolutely no knowledge” about who was buying the information or their motivations, his lawyer said. Sources familiar with the indictment said Pinedo was named as helping Russian conspirators launder money as well as purchase Facebook ads and pay for rally supplies.
** Konstantin Kilimnik, a Manafort aide in Ukraine and political operative with alleged ties to Russian intelligence, was charged on June 8 with tampering with witnesses about their past lobbying for Ukraine’s former pro-Russian government.
Compiled by Frances Kerry, Cynthia Osterman, Mohammad Zargham and Susan Heavey; editing by Grant McCool
U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Friday warned the Trump administration that the NAFTA trade agreement should be maintained as a trilateral pact between the United States, Mexico and Canada and not just a U.S.-Mexico arrangement.
Whatever deal ultimately is reached in negotiations will be reviewed by the next Congress that convenes in January. Pelosi could be the speaker of the House if Democrats win this November’s congressional midterm elections.
The House speaker sets the legislative agenda and often has the political muscle to assure passage or defeat of initiatives.
“I think it should be trilateral,” Pelosi told reporters, adding that she did not think it would be “in the interest of this hemisphere” to turn the North American Free Trade Agreement into a bilateral deal.
A revamped trade agreement with Mexico has been negotiated and U.S. President Donald Trump has warned Ottawa that he is prepared to leave Canada out of the arrangement if it fails to accept terms more favorable to the United States.
Speaking at a news conference that mainly centered on hurricane devastation wreaked in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands last year, Pelosi said she was seeking more details on the results of the U.S.-Mexico negotiations.
She said that earlier on Friday she had instructed aides to set up briefings for rank-and-file lawmakers.
“Any arrangement of that kind, of that length of being in effect should be subjected to some scrutiny I think,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi added that Democrats want to see more progress toward raising U.S. wages and cautioned: “You don’t lift wages in the United States by suppressing them other places. So we’re concerned about the ability of Mexican workers to organize and improve their economic status as well.”
Reporting By Richard Cowan, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien
"In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her," The New Yorker article states. "She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand."
Kavanaugh issued a statement refuting the allegations, saying, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”
His classmate said simply, “I have no recollection of that.”
At the time, Kavanaugh was a high school student at the prestigious private Catholic Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda. The woman, who has asked to not have her name revealed, was a student at a nearby school. All three were minors at the time.
Farrow is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist whose work brought down film producer Harvey Weinstein, and late last week CBS chairman Les Moonves. Farrow and Mayer's joint report last year led to the resignation of NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
AFP/File / Robyn Beck
GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File / Alberto E. Rodriguez
GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP / Alberto E. Rodriguez
AFP / AFP
