TRIPOLI/BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) – Eastern Libyan troops commanded by Khalifa Haftar said on Friday they had advanced into the southern outskirts of the capital Tripoli in a dangerous thrust against the internationally recognized government.

Fighting was going on near the former international airport, which Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) force controlled by nightfall, an LNA spokesman and residents said.

The move by the LNA, which is allied to a parallel administration based in the east, escalated a power struggle that has splintered the nation since the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

It came as U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres departed after meeting Haftar to try to avert civil war.

“I leave Libya with a heavy heart and deeply concerned. I still hope it is possible to avoid a bloody confrontation in and around Tripoli,” he said on Twitter.

The U.N. Security Council was briefed behind closed doors on the latest developments on Friday and expressed deep concern in a statement read after the meeting by German U.N. Ambassador Christoph Heusgen, president of the council for April.

“They (the council) called on LNA forces to halt all military movements. They also called on all forces to de-escalate and halt military activity. There can be no military solution to the conflict,” Heusgen said.

Haftar, 75, who casts himself as an opponent of Islamist extremism but is viewed by opponents as a new Gaddafi, was quoted by Al-Arabiya TV as telling Guterres the operation would continue until terrorism was defeated.

The coastal capital Tripoli is the ultimate prize for Haftar’s eastern parallel government.

In 2014, he assembled former Gaddafi soldiers and in a three-year battle seized the main eastern city of Benghazi.

This year, he took the south with its oilfields.

As well as visiting Haftar in Benghazi, Guterres had been in Tripoli this week to help organize a national reconciliation conference planned for later this month.

But that plan looked in jeopardy on Thursday as LNA forces took Gharyan, about 80 km (50 miles) south of the capital after skirmishes with forces allied to Tripoli-based, U.N.-backed Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj.

From there, Haftar’s forces moved north, first taking the village of Suq al-Khamis, about 40 km (25 miles) from Tripoli, after some fighting, a resident and an eastern military source said.

Then on Friday, the LNA said it took the areas of Qasr ben Ghashir and Wadi al-Rabie on the southern outskirts of the capital, seizing the former Tripoli International Airport, which has been abandoned since a 2014 battle.

SETBACK TO MEDIATION PLAN

The LNA was in control of the former airport, LNA spokesman Ahmed Mismari said, rejecting a claim by the Tripoli interior minister, Fathi Bashagha, that his forces had retaken it.

The LNA said it had lost five soldiers since Thursday.

While the advance has looked fast, so far Haftar’s force has mainly crossed sparsely populated areas after taking Gharyan, the last town in the mountains before the road descends to a coastal plain.

In 2014 battles for Tripoli, it took advancing fighters weeks to reach the city center from the old airport as snipers bogged them down.

Forces from Misrata, a city east of Tripoli, sent more reinforcements to defend Serraj, residents said.

Major ministries are still 20 km away.

Despite their gains, Haftar’s forces failed to take a checkpoint about 30 km west of the capital in a bid to close the coastal road to Tunisia. An LNA-allied armed group withdrew overnight from so-called Gate 27, leaving it abandoned in the morning, a Reuters reporter said.

And in another setback, forces allied to Tripoli took 145 LNA fighters prisoner in Zawiya, west of the capital, a western commander, Mohamed Alhudair, told Reuters.

An LNA source confirmed 128 had been captured.

Armed groups allied to the Tripoli government have moved more machinegun-mounted pickup trucks from the coastal city of Misrata to Tripoli to defend it against Haftar’s forces.

The offensive is a setback for the United Nations and Western nations trying to mediate between Serraj, 59, who comes from a wealthy business family, and military veteran Haftar.

They met in Abu Dhabi last month to discuss power-sharing.

The United Nations wants to find agreement on a road map for elections to resolve the prolonged instability in Libya, an oil producer and transit point for refugees and migrants trekking across the Sahara with the aim of reaching Europe.

Haftar enjoys the backing of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, which see him as a bulwark against Islamists and have supported him militarily, according to U.N. reports.

The UAE, however, joined Western countries in expressing its deep concern about the fighting.

Slideshow (4 Images)

Russia said it was not helping Haftar’s forces and it supported a negotiated political settlement that ruled out any new bloodshed.

Tunisia has tightened control on its border with Libya in response to the renewed conflict, the defense ministry said.

Former colonial power Italy, which lies across the Mediterranean and has been a destination for migrants, was very worried, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini said.

“We need to throw water on the fire, not petrol on the fire. I hope that people, acting out of economic or business self-interest, are not looking for a military solution, which would be devastating,” Salvini said.

Additional reporting by Hesham Hajali in Cairo and Michelle Nichols at the United Nations; Writing by Ulf Laessing; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne, Daniel Wallis and James Dalgleish

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security/east-libyan-troops-close-on-tripoli-clashes-near-former-airport-idUSKCN1RH0TB

In his first public appearance since allegations of improper contact with women threatened his yet-to-be-announced White House bid, former Vice President Joe Biden appeared to make light of the controversy surrounding his well-publicized past getting too close for comfort with fellow politicians, their family members and others.

Yet minutes later, talking with reporters, a more somber Biden emphasized that “I’m sorry I didn’t understand more.”

BIDEN TEAM CHARGES AHEAD WITH PLANS FOR 2020 CAMPAIGN

And referring to his likely presidential campaign announcement, Biden said, “I am very close to making a decision to stand before you all relatively soon.” Asked why the hold-up, Biden quickly answered, “The hold-up is to put everything together.”

The comments Friday reflected a likely candidate still wrestling with how to address the controversy. But at the start of the event – a speech before a friendly audience, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers – he defaulted to a familiar approach, with a seemingly off-the-cuff quip that played well in the room, but not necessarily to the rest of the country.

Biden was introduced by the union’s male president, Lonnie Stephenson, and embraced him. The former vice president immediately joked that: “I just want you to know I had permission to hug Lonnie.”

The comment elicited cheers from the mostly male audience of largely blue-collar workers that Biden feels he can count on as he moves closer to launching a third White House bid.

But Lucy Flores, the first woman to come forward with allegations of improper touching, tweeted, “It’s clear @JoeBiden hasn’t reflected at all on how his inappropriate and unsolicited touching made women feel uncomfortable. To make light of something as serious as consent degrades the conversation women everywhere are courageously trying to have.”

Others joined Flores in suggesting Biden should not be joking about the issue.

About 15 minutes into his speech while talking about the need to license to braid hair in some states, Biden stopped himself and said “I should be careful,” which brought laughter from the union crowd.

And a moment later, the former vice president looked at some of the children in the crowd and said, “hey, all those kids you want to come up on the stage? It’s OK.” As some of the children walked up to the stage and shook hands with Biden, he again joked, “I got their permission.”

BARACK OBAMA STILL BELIEVES JOE BIDEN WOULD MAKE ‘AN EXCELLENT PRESIDENT’

But speaking with reporters after his speech, Biden took a more serious tone.

“I’m sorry I didn’t understand more. I’m not sorry for any of my intentions. I’m not sorry for anything I’ve ever done. I’ve never been disrespectful intentionally to a man or a woman,” he stressed.

And Biden explained that “it is incumbent on me and everybody else to make sure that if you embrace someone, if you touch someone, it’s with their consent, regardless of your intentions.”

“It’s my responsibility to do that,” he added.

Biden, known as a hugger and back-slapper on the stump, lamented that, “I think [I’m] going to have to change somewhat how I campaign.”

Biden’s comments to the union crowd, quickly described as tone deaf by some political commentators, seemed to step on comments addressing the controversy that he made Wednesday in a video released on Twitter.

“Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I’ve heard what these women are saying,” Biden tweeted. “Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That’s my responsibility and I will meet it.”

Biden’s Friday appearance came one week after questions over his affectionate brand of physical politics was thrust into the spotlight thanks to allegations from 2014 Nevada Democratic lieutenant governor nominee Flores. She said in an essay published in New York Magazine that Biden made her feel “uneasy, gross, and confused” at a campaign rally when she said he kissed her on the back of the head. Her claims quickly went viral and became a top cable news story throughout last weekend and into this week.

In the ensuing days, six other women came forward to recount similar physical encounters with Biden that they say made them feel uneasy.

Those accounts were countered by dozens of testimonials from women – from former Biden staffers to lawmakers – who said they’ve always viewed the former vice president as supportive.

Biden for years has drawn attention for his sometimes-awkward embraces of politicians and their family members. While the gestures have been defended as harmless by his supporters, they’ve been seen as excessive by others, especially with the rise of the #MeToo movement.

Biden allies say that the controversy’s not slowing down the likely launch of a presidential campaign.

An adviser close to the former vice president told Fox News the uproar, if anything, “has strengthened his resolve.”

Asked if the developments would slow Biden’s decision-making process, the adviser answered: “Absolutely not.” The source, who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely, added that a Biden announcement could likely come in late April – after Easter – or soon afterward.

President Trump on Thursday mocked Biden, tweeting out a doctored version of the video that the former vice president had released a day earlier. “WELCOME BACK JOE!” Trump wrote in his tweet.

Biden fired back on Twitter, writing, “I see that you are on the job and presidential, as always.”

Asked about Trump’s slight, the former vice president told reporters Friday, “It doesn’t surprise me. He doesn’t have time to do his job. Look, everybody knows who Donald Trump is. I don’t have to say anymore, I don’t think.”

Trump, who’s been accused of sexual harassment and assault by around a dozen women, was questioned on Friday if he was the right person to scrutinize Biden because of his own history.

“I think I’m a very good messenger,” the president responded, adding that “people got a kick out of it (the doctored video). We’ve got to sort of smile a bit.”

Biden, pushing back against the perception that he’s a moderate in a party that’s increasingly moving to the left, also defended his record on Friday. He said he’ll stack his record against “anybody who has run or who is running now or who will run.”

And highlighting his early public push for same-sex marriage, he said, “I’m not sure when everybody else came out and said they’re for gay marriage.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-cracks-joke-about-hugging-in-1st-appearance-since-improper-contact-allegations

On Friday morning, President Trump took to his favorite soapbox, Twitter, and announced his latest plans for the southern border. In a series of tweets that started off with praise for Mexico’s cooperation with the U.S. to apprehend illegal immigrants, the president’s line swerved toward the absurd as he threatened new tariffs on cars, closing the border, and ended with a call for economic penalties for drugs smuggled across the border.

The crowning jewel of the whole statement, however, was a consequential line tucked in among the threats: “This will supersede USMCA.” Although more overt, Trump had already hinted at this possibility on Thursday when he floated new tariffs as an alternative to closing the border.

The USMCA, or United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, of course, is the trade deal the Trump administration negotiated as a replacement to NAFTA. Trump, as one of the architects of the agreement, has been leaning heavily on lawmakers to pass the deal and has even threatened to withdraw from NAFTA to force their hand.

In a tweet, blasted off before heading to the southern border, however, Trump derailed arguments in favor of his own deal in Washington. Why should lawmakers support a deal that the president is already eager to undermine? Trump’s tweet implies to allies and rivals alike that a deal is no protection from the unilateral, tariff-happy whims of the president. That won’t help the U.S. reach a solid, lasting trade agreement with China or the European Union.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-the-make-a-deal-president-undermines-own-deal-with-usmca-tweet

The man who surfaced in Kentucky claiming to be Timmothy Pitzen, a boy who went missing at the age of 6 in 2011, was charged Friday with making false statements to a federal agent, according to the FBI.

Brian Michael Rini, 23, told investigators in Kentucky on Wednesday that he was Pitzen and had run across an Ohio bridge after escaping two kidnappers. But DNA tests indicated that the man was not the boy who vanished eight years ago, officials said Thursday.

While Rini was posing as Pitzen, he told authorities, including those who identified themselves as FBI agents, that he had been sexually and physically abused for years while he was being held, said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio Benjamin Glassman.

Rini didn’t change his story even after the agents warned him that lying to federal agents is a violation of federal law.

The FBI discovered that Rini had allegedly portrayed himself as a juvenile sex trafficking victim in two prior instances.

Brian Rini Hamilton County Sheriff

He complained of abdominal pain, and was brought to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, where he refused to be fingerprinted, but agreed to submit a DNA sample, Glassman said. He maintained he was Pitzen until he was confronted by investigators with the DNA results that they had compared with DNA of Pitzen’s relatives.

“He allegedly said he watched a story about Timmothy on ’20/20′ and stated he wanted to get away from his own family,” said a statement from Glassman’s office. “A rerun had aired several weeks ago,” Glassman said during a news conference Friday.

Rini also told investigators that “he wished he had a father like Timmothy’s because if he went missing, his father would just keep drinking,” according to a criminal complaint.

Rini appeared in federal court Friday, and is being held without bond, Glassman said. He is expected to appear at a detention hearing Tuesday.

Rini could spend eight years in federal prison if convicted, the U.S. attorney said.

“As the result of false reporting in cases such as Timmothy’s, it is extremely traumatic to the families of the missing children and diverts resources away from legitimate investigative efforts,” said Special Agent in Charge of FBI Louisville Robert Brown. “Today’s charge is a reminder that lying to the FBI has consequences and we hold those who attempt to distract us from our important work accountable.”

Brown said about 50 officers and public health officials were assigned to investigate after Rini came forward claiming to be Pitzen.

“While this is not the result that we had hoped for, the outpouring of victim law enforcement and community support gives everyone hope that we will find Timmothy,” Brown said.

Timmothy PitzenWMAQ

Rini was released from jail less than a month ago after serving 18 months in Ohio for trashing a $400,000 model home with a group of friends while holding a “tattoo party.” He pleaded guilty to burglary and vandalism in that incident in January 2018.

Meanwhile, Rini was found guilty in another case on a count of unauthorized use of a vehicle. He was sentenced to three years of probation, 200 hours of community service and ordered to pay $1,750, and other court costs.

But he didn’t pay the fines before heading to jail on the burglary and vandalism convictions.

When he was released from his sentence for those charges on March 7, he was supposed to begin three years of supervision. But when officials attempted to serve him with the bill, which had nearly doubled, they couldn’t find him at his Medina, Ohio, address and the order was “returned not served,” according to court records.

The bill was returned to court on March 26, about a week before Rini was discovered in Kentucky, NBC Chicago reported.

Rini also pleaded guilty in 2015 to passing bad checks and was sentenced to three years of intensive supervision, according to Medina County court documents. He allegedly violated his probation in 2016 and 2017, and was ordered back to court each time.

His estranged brother, Jonathan Rini, told NBC Chicago that the 23-year-old had stopped getting treatment for numerous mental health issues. “I’d tell the family that I’m sorry for what he’s done, but for him, I wouldn’t even speak to him,” Jonathan Rini said.

The family of the boy, who disappeared while on a road trip with his mother, Amy Fry-Pitzen, said Thursday they remained hopeful that he would be found.

“My heart goes out to the family of Timothy Pitzen. I can only imagine the kind of pain they’ve been through and this episode has caused for them,” Glassman said Friday.

“The investigation regarding Timmothy PItzen is ongoing, and law enforcement will do everything in their power to find the actual child,” the prosecutor added.

Fry-Pitzen, 43, is believed to have picked Timmothy up from school, taking him to a zoo and water park before she was found dead by what appeared to be suicide in a motel room in Rockford, Illinois, according to a police report and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Notes she left behind stated her son was safe but would never be found, authorities have said.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/brian-michael-rini-who-claimed-be-timmothy-pitzen-has-criminal-n991256

On Thursday, Boeing for the first time officially took responsibility for the two crashes of 737 Max jets that got the planes grounded by regulators.

Claiming responsibility was part of an attempt to get the planes approved to fly again. Boeing was trying to say that it now understands why the planes crashes — flawed software — and has a plan in place to replace it with new software that will eliminate the problem and persuade regulators to get the planes off the ground. But then Friday morning, the company announced that it had found a second, unrelated software flaw that it also needs to fix and will somewhat delay the process of getting the planes cleared to fly again.

All of which, of course, raises the question of why such flawed systems were allowed to fly in the first place.

And that story begins nine years ago when Boeing was faced with a major threat to its bottom line, spurring the airline to rush a series of kludges through the certification process — with an underresourced Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seemingly all too eager to help an American company threatened by a foreign competitor, rather than to ask tough questions about the project.

The specifics of what happened in the regulatory system are still emerging (and despite executives’ assurances, we don’t even really know what happened on the flights yet). But the big picture is coming into view: A major employer faced a major financial threat, and short-term politics and greed won out over the integrity of the regulatory system. It’s a scandal.

The 737 versus 320 rivalry, explained

There are lots of different passenger airplanes on the market, but just two very similar narrow-body planes dominate domestic (or intra-European) travel. One is the European company Airbus’s 320 family, with models called A318, A319, A320, or A321 depending on how long the plane is. These four variants, by design, have identical flight decks, so pilots can be trained to fly them interchangeably.

The 320 family competes with a group of planes that Boeing calls the 737 — there’s a 737-600, a 737-700, a 737-800, and a 737-900 — with higher numbers indicating larger planes. Some of them are also extended-range models that have an ER appended to the name, and, as you would probably guess, they have longer ranges.

Importantly, even though there are many different flavors of 737, they are all in some sense the same plane, just as all the 320 family planes are the same plane. Southwest Airlines, for example, simplifies its overall operations by exclusively flying different 737 variants.

Both the 737 and the 320 come in lots of different flavors, so airlines have plenty of options in terms of what kind of aircraft should fly exactly which route. But because there are only two players in this market, and because their offerings are so fundamentally similar, the competition for this slice of the plane market is both intense and weirdly limited. If one company were to gain a clear technical advantage over the other, it would be a minor catastrophe for the losing company.

And that’s what Boeing thought it was facing.

The A320neo was trouble for Boeing

Jet fuel is a major cost for airlines. With labor costs largely driven by collective bargaining agreements and regulations that require minimum ratios of flight attendants per passenger, fuel is the cost center airlines have the most capacity to do something about. Consequently, improving fuel efficiency has emerged as one of the major bases of competition between airline manufacturers.

If you roll back to 2010, it began to look like Boeing had a real problem in this regard.

Airbus was coming out with an updated version of the A320 family that it called the A320neo, with “neo” meaning “new engine option.” The new engines were going to be more fuel-efficient, with a larger diameter than previous A320 engines, that could nonetheless be mounted on what was basically the same airframe. This was a nontrivial engineering undertaking both in designing the new engines and in figuring out how to make them work with the old airframe, but even though it cost a bunch of money, it basically worked. And it raised the question of whether Boeing would respond.

Initial word was that it wouldn’t. As CBS Moneywatch’s Brett Snyder wrote in December 2010, the basic problem was that you couldn’t slap the new generation of more efficient, larger-diameter engines onto the 737:

One of the issues for Boeing is that it takes more work to put new engines on the 737 than on the A320. The 737 is lower to the ground than the A320, and the new engines have a larger diameter. So while both manufacturers would have to do work, the Boeing guys would have more work to do to jack the airplane up. That will cost more while reducing commonality with the current fleet. As we know from last week, reduced commonality means higher costs for the airlines as well.

Under the circumstances, Boeing’s best option was to just take the hit for a few years and accept that it was going to have to start selling 737s at a discount price while it designed a whole new airplane. That would, of course, be time-consuming and expensive, and during the interim, it would probably lose a bunch of narrow-body sales to Airbus.

The original version of the 737 first flew in 1967, and a decades-old decision about how much height to leave between the wing and the runway left them boxed out of 21st-century engine technology — and there was simply nothing to be done about it.

Unless there was.

Boeing decided to put on the too-big engines anyway

As late as February 2011, Boeing chair and CEO James McNerney was sticking to the plan to design a totally new aircraft.

“We’re not done evaluating this whole situation yet,” he said on an analyst call, “but our current bias is to move to a newer airplane, an all-new airplane, at the end of the decade, beginning of the next decade. It’s our judgment that our customers will wait for us.”

But in August 2011, Boeing announced that it had lined up orders for 496 re-engined Boeing 737 aircraft from five airlines.

It’s not entirely clear what happened, but, reading between the lines, it seems that in talking to its customers Boeing reached the conclusion that airlines would not wait for them. Some critical mass of carriers (American Airlines seems to have been particularly influential) was credible enough in its threat to switch to Airbus equipment that Boeing decided it needed to offer 737 buyers a Boeing solution sooner rather than later.

Committing to putting a new engine that didn’t fit on the plane was the corporate version of the Fyre Festival’s “let’s just do it and be legends, man” moment, and it unsurprisingly wound up leading to a slew of engineering and regulatory problems.

New engines on an old plane

As the industry trade publication Leeham News and Analysis explained earlier in March, Boeing engineers had been working on the concept that became the 737 Max even back when the company’s plan was still not to build it.

In a March 2011 interview with Aircraft Technology, Mike Bair, then the head of 737 product development, said that reengineering was possible.

“There’s been fairly extensive engineering work on it,” he said. “We figured out a way to get a big enough engine under the wing.”

The problem is that an airplane is a big, complicated network of interconnected parts. To get the engine under the 737 wing, engineers had to mount the engine nacelle higher and more forward on the plane. But moving the engine nacelle (and a related change to the nose of the plane) changed the aerodynamics of the plane, such that the plane did not handle properly at a high angle of attack. That, in turn, led to the creation of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). It fixed the angle-of-attack problem in most situations, but it created new problems in other situations when it made it difficult for pilots to directly control the plane without being overridden by the MCAS.

On Wednesday, Boeing rolled out a software patch that it says corrects the problem, and it hopes to persuade the FAA to agree.

But note that the underlying problem isn’t really software; it’s with the effort to use software to get around a whole host of other problems.

Recall, after all, that the whole point of the 737 Max project was to be able to say that the new plane was the same as the old plane. From an engineering perspective, the preferred solution was to actually build a new plane. But for business reasons, Boeing didn’t want a “new plane” that would require a lengthy certification process and extensive (and expensive) new pilot training for its customers. The demand was for a plane that was simultaneously new and not new.

But because the new engines wouldn’t fit under the old wings, the new plane wound up having different aerodynamic properties than the old plane. And because the aerodynamics were different, the flight control systems were also different. But treating the whole thing as a fundamentally different plane would have undermined the whole point. So the FAA and Boeing agreed to sort of fudge it.

The new planes are pretty different

As far as we can tell, the 737 Max is a perfectly airworthy plane in the sense that error-free piloting allows it to be operated safely.

But pilots of planes that didn’t crash kept noticing the same basic pattern of behavior that is suspected to have been behind the two crashes, according to a Dallas Morning News review of voluntary aircraft incident reports to a NASA database:

The disclosures found by the News reference problems with an autopilot system, and they all occurred during the ascent after takeoff. Many mentioned the plane suddenly nosing down. While records show these flights occurred in October and November, the airlines the pilots were flying for is redacted from the database.

These pilots all safely disabled the MCAS and kept their planes in the air. But one of the pilots reported to the database that it was “unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models.”

The training piece is important because a key selling feature of the 737 Max was the idea that since it wasn’t really a new plane, pilots didn’t really need to be retrained for the new equipment. As the New York Times reported, “For many new airplane models, pilots train for hours on giant, multimillion-dollar machines, on-the-ground versions of cockpits that mimic the flying experience and teach them new features” while the experienced 737 Max pilots were allowed light refresher courses that you could do on an iPad.

That let Boeing get the planes into customers’ hands quickly and cheaply, but evidently at the cost of increasing the possibility of pilots not really knowing how to handle the planes, with dire consequences for everyone involved.

The FAA put a lot of faith in Boeing

In a blockbuster March 17 report for the Seattle Times, the newspaper’s aerospace reporter Dominic Gates details the extent to which the FAA delegated crucial evaluations of the 737’s safety to Boeing itself. The delegation, Gates explains, is in part a story of a years-long process during which the FAA, “citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes.”

But there are indications of failures that were specific to the 737 Max timeline. In particular, Gates reports that “as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process” and that “when time was too short for FAA technical staff to complete a review, sometimes managers either signed off on the documents themselves or delegated their review back to Boeing.”

Most of all, decisions about what could and could not be delegated were being made by managers concerned about the timeline, rather than by the agency’s technical experts.

It’s not entirely clear at this point why the FAA was so determined to get the 737 cleared quickly (there will be more investigations), but if you recall the political circumstances of this period in Barack Obama’s presidency, you can quickly get a general sense of the issue.

Boeing is not just a big company with a significant lobbying presence in Washington; it’s a major manufacturing company with a strong global export presence and a source of many good-paying union jobs. In short, it was exactly the kind of company the powers that be were eager to promote — with the Obama White House, for example, proudly going to bat for the Export-Import Bank as a key way to sustain America’s aerospace industry.

A story about overweening regulators delaying an iconic American company’s product launch and costing good jobs compared to the European competition would have looked very bad. And the fact that the whole purpose of the plane was to be more fuel-efficient only made getting it off the ground a bigger priority. But the incentives really were reasonably aligned, and Boeing has only caused problems for itself by cutting corners.

Boeing is now in a bad situation

One emblem of the whole situation is that as the 737 Max engineering team piled kludge on top of kludge, they came up with a cockpit warning light that would alert the pilots if the plane’s two angle-of-attack sensors disagreed.

But then, as Jon Ostrower reported for the Air Current, Boeing’s team decided to make the warning light an optional add-on, like how car companies will upcharge you for a moon roof.

The light cost $80,000 extra per plane and neither Lion Air nor Ethiopian chose to buy it, perhaps figuring that Boeing would not sell a plane (nor would the FAA allow it to) that was not basically safe to fly. In the wake of the crashes, Boeing has decided to revisit this decision and make the light standard on all aircraft.

Now, to be clear, Boeing has lost about $40 billion in stock market valuation since the crash, so it’s not like cheating out on the warning light turned out to have been a brilliant business decision or anything.

This, fundamentally, is one reason the FAA has become comfortable working so closely with Boeing on safety regulations: The nature of the airline industry is such that there’s no real money to be made selling airplanes that have a poor safety track record. One could even imagine sketching out a utopian libertarian argument to the effect that there’s no real need for a government role in certifying new airplanes at all, precisely because there’s no reason to think it’s profitable to make unsafe ones.

The real world, of course, is quite a bit different from that, and different individuals and institutions face particular pressures that can lead them to take actions that don’t collectively make sense. Looking back, Boeing probably wishes it had just stuck with the “build a new plane” plan and toughed out a few years of rough sales, rather than ending up in the current situation. Right now the company is, in effect, trying to patch things up piecemeal — a software update here, a new warning light there, etc. — in hopes of persuading global regulatory agencies to let its planes fly again.

But even once that’s done, Boeing faces the task of convincing airlines to actually buy its planes. An informative David Ljunggren article for Reuters reminds us that a somewhat comparable situation arose in 1965 when three then-new Boeing 727 jetliners crashed.

There wasn’t really anything unsound about the 727 planes, but many pilots didn’t fully understand how to operate the new flaps — arguably a parallel to the MCAS situation with the 737 Max — which spurred some additional training and changes to the operation manual. Passengers avoided the planes for months, but eventually came back as there were no more crashes, and the 727 went on to fly safely for decades. Boeing hopes to have a similar happy ending to this saga, but so far it seems to be a long way from that point. And the immediate future likely involves more tough questions.

A political scandal on slow burn

The 737 Max was briefly a topic of political controversy in the United States as foreign regulators grounded the planes, but President Donald Trump — after speaking personally to Boeing’s CEO — declined to follow. Many members of Congress (from both parties) called on him to reconsider, which he rather quickly did, pushing the whole topic off Washington’s front burner.

But Trump is generally friendly to Boeing (he even has a former Boeing executive, Patrick Shanahan, serving as acting defense secretary, despite an ongoing ethics inquiry into charges that Shanahan unfairly favors his former employer), and Republicans are generally averse to harsh regulatory crackdowns. The most important decisions in the mix appear to have been made back during the Obama administration, so it’s also difficult for Democrats to go after this issue. Meanwhile, Washington has been embroiled in wrangling over special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and a new health care battlefield opened up as well.

That said, on March 27, FAA officials faced the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Aviation and Space at a hearing called by subcommittee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX). Regulators committed at the hearing to revamp the way they certify new planes, in light of the flaws that were revealed in the previous certification process.

The questions at stake, however, are now much bigger than one subcommittee. Billions of dollars are on the line for Boeing, the airlines that fly 737s, and the workers who build the planes. And since a central element of this story is the credibility of the FAA’s process — in the eyes of the American people and of foreign regulatory agencies — it almost certainly won’t get sorted out without more involvement from the actual decision-makers in the US government.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2019/4/5/18296646/boeing-737-max-mcas-software-update

Image copyright
EPA

The government has not proposed any changes to the PM’s Brexit deal during cross-party talks, says shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer.

Meetings have been taking place between Tory and Labour politicians to find a proposal to put to the Commons before an emergency EU summit next week.

But Sir Keir said the government was not “countenancing any change” on the wording of the existing plan.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “We have made serious proposals.”

The government was “prepared to pursue changes to the political declaration”, a plan for the future relationship with the EU, to “deliver a deal that is acceptable to both sides”, the spokesman said.

Sir Keir said the government’s approach was “disappointing”, and it would not consider any changes the “actual wording” of the political declaration. “Compromise requires change,” he said.

“We want the talks to continue and we’ve written in those terms to the government, but we do need change if we’re going to compromise.”

The UK is currently due to leave the EU on 12 April and, as yet, no withdrawal deal has been approved by MPs.

Theresa May has written to European Council President Donald Tusk to request an extension to 30 June.

But she says if the Commons agrees a deal in time, the UK should be able to leave before European parliamentary elections on 23 May.

Prisons minister Rory Stewart told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme that there were “tensions” but there was “quite a lot of life” left in the talks with Labour.

“In truth the positions of the two parties are very, very close and where there’s goodwill it should be possible to get this done and get it done relatively quickly,” he said.

He insisted that “of course we are prepared to compromise” on the political declaration.

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said: “The sense is that the government has only offered clarifications on what might be possible from the existing documents, rather than adjusting any of their actual proposals in the two documents.”

She added that both sides agree the talks are not yet over, but there are no firm commitments for when further discussions might take place.

In case no agreement has been reached by 23 May, the prime minister has said the UK would prepare to field candidates in European parliamentary elections.

BBC Europe editor Katya Adler has been told by a senior EU source that European Council President Donald Tusk will propose a 12-month “flexible” extension to Brexit, with the option of cutting it short if the UK Parliament ratifies a deal.

But French President Emmanuel Macron’s office said on Friday that it was “premature” to consider another delay.

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47833841

Among them was Ayman al-Drees, the husband of a Saudi feminist activist, Malak al-Shehri, who had fled to the United States last year after the other women’s rights activists had been arrested. In 2016, Ms. al-Shehri herself was arrested after defying the kingdom by tweeting a photo of herself not wearing a head scarf or an abaya, part of a protest against the conservative dress code that governs Saudi women.

She was later released, but on Friday, her husband called her from his family’s farm in Saudi Arabia to tell her that he saw men “coming for him,” she said in a phone interview on Friday from California.

Sounding frightened, he told her to be careful, she said, and that he loved her, before hanging up.

Ms. al-Shehri said that her husband, who worked as an insurance underwriter, had muted his own activist posts on Twitter out of fear two years ago and had recently limited himself to translating feminist videos from English into Arabic to help spread awareness about feminist ideas in Saudi Arabia.

“We didn’t expect this, because he didn’t do anything wrong. He did nothing,” said Ms. al-Shehri, her voice breaking. “He was being careful, but it didn’t work.”

She said she had urged him to join her in the United States, but he had refused, partly because he did not think he would be a target, and partly because his income in Saudi Arabia went to support his wife.

Also among the group of recent detainees, according to Prisoners of Conscience, another rights group, was Yazed al-Faife, a journalist for a state-owned newspaper, Al Sharq. He had recently appeared in a video accusing Saudi officials of habitually neglecting parts of southern Saudi Arabia and suggesting that some officials’ dealings there had been corrupt.

Mr. al-Faife said that poverty, lack of opportunity and poor infrastructure along the Saudi border with Yemen had allowed Iranian intelligence to destabilize the area and incite discontent in the Saudi population there. This, too, may have been sensitive territory in the authorities’ eyes: Saudi Arabia, with its ally the United Arab Emirates, has drawn strong criticism globally for its destructive war in Yemen against the Houthis, a militant group believed to be propped up by Iran.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/world/middleeast/american-detainees-saudi-arabia.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A Lockheed Martin-made F-35 fighter jet for Turkey arrived on Wednesday at a military training facility in Arizona, an Air Force official said on Thursday, amid a dispute over Ankara’s planned purchase of a Russian missile defense system.

Earlier this week, Reuters reported that the United States halted delivery of equipment related to the stealth F-35 fighter aircraft to Turkey because of concern the NATO ally’s planned purchase of the Russian system would compromise the security of the jet, the most advanced U.S. fighter aircraft.

A second jet is scheduled to arrive at Luke Air Force Base on Friday, the Air Force official said. Two Turkish F-35 jets are already at the base.

Pentagon spokesman Charlie Summers told reporters on Thursday: “The training (for pilots) will continue at Luke Air Force Base.”

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has refused to back down from Ankara’s planned purchase of a Russian S-400 missile defense system.

The United States and other NATO allies that own F-35s fear the radar on the system will learn how to spot and track the jet, making it less able to evade Russian weapons.

In an attempt to persuade Turkey to drop its plans to buy the S-400, the United States offered the pricier American-made Patriot anti-missile system in a discounted deal that expired at the end of March. Turkey has shown interest in the Patriot system, but not at the expense of abandoning the S-400.

Turkey has engaged with U.S. negotiators in recent days about buying the Patriot system, a person familiar with the matter said on condition of anonymity. The system is made by Raytheon Co.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Wednesday that Turkey had proposed to the United States that they form a working group to determine that Russian S-400 missile defense systems do not pose a threat to U.S. or NATO military equipment.

On Thursday, the Pentagon said it was not considering a technical working group and that it was not necessary at this stage.

Reporting by Mike Stone; Additional reporting by Idrees Ali in Washington; Editing by Phil Berlowitz and Peter Cooney

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-turkey-f35-arizona/turkish-f-35-delivered-to-training-base-in-arizona-official-says-idUSKCN1RG242

“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

(CNN)The White House on Thursday evening informed Congress it was withdrawing its nomination of Ron Vitiello to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to a letter obtained by CNN.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/politics/ice-director-nomination-pulled/index.html

British Prime Minister Theresa May said Friday she was beginning preparations to hold an election for the European Parliament despite her country’s desire to quit the European Union, an acknowledgment that its divorce efforts could be significantly delayed.

In a letter to a top E.U. official, May asked for Britain’s departure date from the European Union to be delayed until June 30 and said she would order a vote in late May to elect British members of the European Parliament, assuming Britain is still an E.U. member. Without a reprieve from the other 27 leaders of E.U. nations, Britain is due to crash out of the club without a safety net on April 12.

May’s government is “undertaking the lawful and responsible preparations” for an election, May said in her letter to European Council President Donald Tusk. She said that if Britain and the European Union manage to ratify a divorce deal before late May, she would seek to depart from the bloc more quickly and skip the vote. Many hard-line Brexit advocates loathe the idea of participating in the election.

The decision opens the door to a longer extension from E.U. leaders, who said that Britain could not continue to be a member of the European Union beyond May 22 if it did not hold the election. They feared that any law passed by the new European Parliament could be challenged if Britain were not represented in it.

European leaders will gather in Brussels on Wednesday to decide what to do about Britain. Any move must be taken with unanimity, and there have been splits about how strict to be. France in particular has been eager to usher the country out of the European Union as quickly as possible, whether or not London has approved a divorce deal. But other countries want a more flexible approach, and many E.U. diplomats who handle Brexit issues expect that leaders will offer a delay.

Tusk has proposed a year-long reprieve that could be ended early if British leaders settle on a divorce approach in the meantime, according to diplomats familiar with the discussions. The approach, deemed a “flextension” among policymakers with a penchant for acronyms and jargon, would significantly reduce the risk of a Brexit without a safety net. Economists say that a no-deal Brexit could unleash turmoil across Europe, particularly in Britain.

Some E.U. diplomats, sick of their bandwidth being consumed by Brexit, say they are unlikely to agree to a short extension of the type requested by May. More likely is a tough fare-thee-well and a departure on April 12, or Tusk’s longer-term proposal.

Tusk’s approach was endorsed Friday by one influential voice in Germany.

“E.U. has already ruled out 30 June,” Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the German parliament’s foreign affairs committee, wrote on Twitter. “Tusk’s offer of flextension would be a wise decision of [E.U. leaders], both insuring integrity of E.U. elections & leaving all options on table.”

Still, for many Europeans, a longer extension is unappealing. They worry that it would take pressure off the British Parliament to agree on a deal. Many leaders also have concerns with Britain’s lingering in their club. They fear that British policymakers could turn obstructionist, since they would retain their power to shape E.U. policy on their way out the door.

British diplomats scoff at those anxieties, noting that they have abstained on many E.U. discussions since the June 2016 Brexit referendum and have not obstructed.

E.U. leaders worry that could change, particularly if May is deposed as prime minister and replaced by a harder-line Conservative.

One prominent Brexit advocate sought to stoke just such fears on Friday.

“If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible. We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes,” tweeted Conservative lawmaker Jacob Rees-Mogg, an arch-Brexiteer.

Birnbaum reported from Brussels. Quentin Ariès in Brussels contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-take-part-in-european-parliament-elections-signaling-a-brexit-delay/2019/04/05/e7042028-577f-11e9-a047-748657a0a9d1_story.html




From nearly the moment they roared down the runway and took off in their new Boeing jetliner, pilots of an Ethiopian Airlines flight encountered problems with the plane.

Almost immediately, a device called a stick shaker began vibrating the captain’s control column, warning him that the plane might be about to stall and fall from the sky.

For six minutes, the pilots were bombarded by alarms as they fought to fly the plane, at times pulling back in unison on their control columns in a desperate attempt to keep the huge jet aloft.

Ethiopian authorities issued a preliminary report Thursday on the March 10 crash that killed 157 people. They found that a malfunctioning sensor sent faulty data to the Boeing 737 Max 8’s anti-stall system and triggered a chain of events that ended in a crash so violent it reduced the plane to shards and pieces. The pilots’ struggle, and the tragic ending, mirrored an Oct. 29 crash of a Lion Air Max 8 off the coast of Indonesia, which killed 189 people.

The anti-stall system, called MCAS, automatically lowers the plane’s nose under some circumstances to prevent an aerodynamic stall. Boeing acknowledged that a sensor in the Ethiopian Airlines jet malfunctioned, triggering MCAS when it was not needed. The company repeated that it is working on a software upgrade to fix the problem in its best-selling plane.

‘‘It’s our responsibility to eliminate this risk,’’ CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in a video. ‘‘We own it, and we know how to do it.’’

Jim Hall, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said the preliminary findings add urgency to re-examine the way that the Federal Aviation Administration uses employees of aircraft manufacturers to conduct safety-related tasks, including tests and inspections — a decades-old policy that raises questions about the agency’s independence and is now under review by the U.S. Justice Department, the Transportation Department’s inspector general and congressional committees.

‘‘It is clear now that the process itself failed to produce a safe aircraft,’’ Hall said. ‘‘The focus now is to see if there were steps that were skipped or tests that were not properly done.’’

The 33-page preliminary report, which is subject to change in the coming months, is based on information from the plane’s flight data and cockpit voice recorders, the so-called black boxes. It includes a minute-by-minute narrative of a gripping and confusing scene in the cockpit.

Just one minute into Flight 302 from Addis Ababa to Nairobi in neighboring Kenya, the captain, Yared Getachew, reported that they were having flight-control problems.

Then the anti-stall system kicked in and pushed the nose of the plane down for nine seconds. Instead of climbing, the plane descended slightly. Audible warnings — ‘‘Don’t Sink’’ — sounded in the cockpit. The pilots fought to turn the nose of the plane up, and briefly they were able to resume climbing.

But the automatic anti-stall system pushed the nose down again, triggering more squawks of ‘‘Don’t Sink’’ from the plane’s ground-proximity warning system.

Following a procedure that Boeing reiterated after the Lion Air crash, the Ethiopian pilots flipped two switches and disconnected the anti-stall system, then tried to regain control. They asked to return to the Addis Ababa airport, but were continuing to struggle getting the plane to gain altitude.

Then they broke with Boeing procedure and returned power to controls including the anti-stall system, perhaps hoping to use power to adjust a tail surface that controls the pitch up or down of a plane, or maybe out of sheer desperation.

One final time, the automated system kicked in, pushing the plane into a nose dive, according to the report.

A half-minute later, the cockpit voice recording ended, the plane crashed, and all 157 people on board were killed. The plane’s impact left a crater 10 meters deep.

The Max is Boeing’s newest version of its workhorse single-aisle jetliner, the 737, which dates to the 1960s. Fewer than 400 Max jets have been sent to airlines around the world, but Boeing has taken orders for 4,600 more.

Boeing delivered this particular plane, tail number ET-AVJ, to Ethiopian Airlines in November. By the day of Flight 302, it had made nearly 400 flights and been in the air for 1,330 hours — still very new by airline standards.

The pilots were young, too, and between them they had a scant 159 hours of flying time on the Max.

The captain, Getachew, was just 29 but had accumulated more than 8,000 hours of flying since completing work at the airline’s training academy in 2010. He had flown more than 1,400 hours on Boeing 737s but just 103 hours on the Max. That may not be surprising, given that Ethiopian Airlines had just five of the planes, including ET-AVJ.

The co-pilot, Ahmed Nur Mohammod Nur, was only 25 and was granted a license to fly the 737 and the Max on Dec. 12 of last year. He had logged just 361 flight hours — not enough to be hired as a pilot at a U.S. airline. Of those hours, 207 were on 737s, including 56 hours on Max jets.

Thursday’s preliminary report found that both pilots performed all the procedures recommended by Boeing on the March 10 flight but still could not control the jet.

While Boeing continues to work on its software update, Max jets remain grounded worldwide. The CEO said the company is taking ‘‘a comprehensive, disciplined approach’’ to fixing the flight-control software.

But some critics, including Hall, the former NTSB chairman, question why the work has taken so long.

‘‘Don’t you think if Boeing knew what the fix was, we would have the fix by now?’’ he said. ‘‘They said after the Lion Air accident there was going to be a fix, yet there was a second accident with no fix. Now, in response to the worldwide reaction, the plane is grounded and there is still not a fix.’’



Source Article from https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2019/04/05/gone-minutes-ethiopian-airlines-jet-final-journey/Qg9CzEjBRuBEaCRl6ZVCzI/story.html

Despite the fact that William Barr had made public comments denigrating the Mueller investigation and clearly auditioned for the job with a spurious memo suggesting that it was almost impossible for a president to obstruct justice, he was confirmed as Donald Trump’s new attorney general with little difficulty. After what had happened with Jeff Sessions, it was understood that Trump would never again stand for an AG recusing himself from any investigation of the president. So everyone knew that Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election would be in the hands of someone who was unlikely to be an honest broker.

Nonetheless, most of us gave Barr the benefit of the doubt. I wrote about Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, who had been a conservative supporter of Richard Nixon. He was coerced into taking the job by White House chief of staff Alexander Haig, who told him, “We need you, Leon” — assuming he would be loyal to the president. When Jaworski saw the evidence against Nixon, however, he was appalled and moved forward with the investigation. I thought maybe that could happen with Barr too.

I should have known better. Barr was a very political attorney general during George H.W. Bush’s administration, recommending pardons for all the guilty players in the Iran-Contra case, showing that he wasn’t going to be one of those weaklings who saw the Nixon pardon as setting a bad example for the country. I should have realized that this wasn’t a case of someone who’d spent too much time watching Sean Hannity and was slightly out of it. Barr’s been a rock-solid right-winger for decades.

I characterized Barr’s initial four-page summary of the Mueller report as an elegant little political document and it was. It elicited exactly the response he and the White House wanted. He validated Trump’s slogan, “No Collusion, No Obstruction” while cleverly obscuring the fact that there is obviously much more to that story. After a couple of weeks of careful parsing and reconsideration of the implications by the press and various experts, Barr has now lost control of the storyline. He is promising to deliver the full report after he redacts whatever he deems necessary, but because of the game he’s been playing, there is no longer much trust that he’s acting in good faith.

Unlike Ken Starr’s investigations of the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals, the Mueller team didn’t use friendly members of the press to pressure witnesses and try their cases in the court of public opinion. In fact they said nothing at all outside the courtroom. But now that the investigation is over and the attorney general has taken it upon himself to summarize their conclusions they have reportedly begin to express their distress about how he’s handled that.

Numerous news outlets have confirmed that members of Mueller’s team say that Barr has mischaracterized the evidence of obstruction of justice, which by all accounts is substantial.

They have also told associates that they carefully prepared summaries for different sections of the report, assuming they would be released to the public. Those summaries should not require all this concern from Barr about redactions. This certainly comports with many experts’ assumptions about how such a report would be organized. While Barr and the Justice Department are now saying that the summaries are labeled as containing grand jury and other confidential information, therefore requiring careful review and redactions, many professionals have suggested that’s just pro forma.

I think we all knew that the question of obstruction was going to be a problem for President Trump, simply because so much of it was happening right out in the open. But according to NBC News, it’s not just that issue that has the Mueller team agitated. The “collusion” case is also being somewhat misrepresented. The special counsel decided not to charge Trump or his campaign with conspiring with the Russian government in its election interference, but that is far from the whole story. Members of the team say that “the findings paint a picture of a campaign whose members were manipulated by a sophisticated Russian intelligence operation.”

I have long been willing to believe that Trump and his minions were simply so unethical, corrupt and uninformed that they were easy marks for the Russian election sabotage campaign. We know that they behaved idiotically when Russians approached them. Donald Trump Jr. writing an emails saying, “if it’s what you say, I love it!” upon hearing that Russian emissaries want to give him dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” is not the language of a sophisticated conspirator. It’s almost as if they were testing to see if Junior was even sentient. But that doesn’t get him or Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort or Donald Trump himself off the hook. This isn’t a game. Trump is president of the United States.

Trump and his team were almost certainly compromised by the lies they told about the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations. Trump knew that could be revealed at any time and his obsequious behavior toward Vladimir Putin the could easily be interpreted as bowing to an unspoken threat. Trump is conversant in blackmail threats, as we all know. We also know that he pays up when he deems it necessary.

Mueller found that none of this was prosecutable and it is vital we find out why he reached that conclusion. But to say that there was nothing there amounts to sweeping some of the worst judgment calls in the history of presidential campaigns under the carpet. And that’s really saying something.

These were outrageous decisions regardless of the criminal liability or lack thereof. I’m not sure if rank stupidity and reckless greed qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors but we should probably know the whole story before deciding about that. Even if Trump and his close advisers were suckered by the “Russian election interference activities” it’s quite clear that once Trump realized that the FBI and the intelligence community thought he might have done something illegal, he tried to cover it up. If that’s so, it’s not William Barr’s place to make the decision about criminal obstruction of justice. If the Department of Justice has concluded that it cannot charge a sitting president with a crime, it cannot clear one of wrongdoing either. It’s up to the Congress to decide what to do about Donald Trump. It seems as though the Mueller investigators agree.

Source Article from https://www.salon.com/2019/04/05/new-hints-of-the-mueller-report-did-trump-simply-get-rolled-by-the-russians/

CLOSE

Former Vice President Joe Biden promised to be respectful of people’s personal space after allegations of unwanted and inappropriate behavior.
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – Joe Biden’s speech Friday to a labor union will be his first following allegations of unwanted touching by several women, but few expect the former vice president will spend a lot of time addressing the issue.

“He doesn’t want it to become the Joe Biden apology tour,” said Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire who specializes in presidential politics and was speaking generally. “If he feels like he needs to speak more in depth, he’ll find the proper opportunity to do it and it’ll be one and done.”

Biden, a Democrat who served 36 years representing Delaware in the U.S. Senate prior to his time as vice president, is expected by many to announce his entry into the 2020 presidential race in the coming weeks.

The timing of that decision has been complicated by allegations of improper conduct that began when Lucy Flores, a former member of the Nevada Legislature, accused Biden in a March 29 New York Magazine article of “demeaning and disrespectful” behavior for an alleged 2014 incident.

Since then, at least six other women have come forward with similar stories of Biden’s unwanted conduct.

Biden, known for his hugging and hands-on politicking style, promised to be more “mindful and respectful” in a video released Wednesday.

Related: Trump tweets video mocking Joe Biden’s explanation for touching, making a ‘human connection’

Related: How Democrats in early primary states view allegations against Joe Biden

“Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I’ve heard what these women are saying,” he said in a tweet accompanying the video. “Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That’s my responsibility and I will meet it.”

The former vice president will be speaking Friday to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, representing approximately 775,000 members in the construction, manufacturing, railroad and utilities fields – the kind of blue-collar workers who helped propel Donald Trump to the White House in 2016.

It will be a friendly audience, given the union’s antipathy to Trump, and one that’s likely to be more interested in hearing Biden talk about the need to improve working conditions and paychecks than how he’ll change his campaign style.

“Nothing (the Trump) administration does or proposes is designed to enhance the quality of life or working conditions for our federal employees,” IBEW Government Employees Department Director Paul O’Connor said after the president proposed deep cuts in his 2020 budget.

A spokesman for Biden, 76, declined to say what he planned to say in his remarks Friday.

A rousing speech to a friendly audience and a tweeted video promising to change his behavior won’t sweep away the challenge facing Biden, said Susan MacManus, a retired political science professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

“It’s very clear the younger generation is not buying it,” she said, noting that attention around Biden’s behavior has overshadowed a presidential field that includes several strong female candidates after they saw sexism contribute to Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016. “A number of women Democrats are saying, ‘I’ve had enough.’ Those two things together are really part of why there’s outrage.”

The allegations against Biden come amid #MeToo, a movement of mostly women speaking out against innappropriate behavior. It has led to the resignation and downfall of more than 100 entertainers, executives and politicians, including Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and Kevin Spacey. Former Minnesota Democrat Sen. Al Franken announced his resignation in 2017 following accusations of sexual misconduct. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., also stepped down, along with Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who resigned amid reports he discussed with female staffers the possibility they could be surrogates for his and his wife’s baby.

President Donald Trump has been accused of having affairs with multiple women and making unwanted advances at others. In an “Access Hollywood” tape that surfaced during the final weeks of the presidential campaign in 2016, Trump was heard making lewd comments and bragging about groping women. Trump has denied the allegations.

Several polls show Biden leading a large field of candidates even though he has yet to officially announce his candidacy.

About three in 10 Democrats (31%) said they agree Biden is “out of touch” with the challenges that younger Americans face today, compared to 52% who disagree, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll released Thursday.

The poll of 1,945 registered voters nationwide has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. It was conducted from March 29 through April 1, about the time the first allegations against Biden surfaced.

Related: How Joe Biden could make me start forgiving him for Anita Hill (first, stop touching)

Related: Joe Biden’s physicality is a mark of old-school politicians, not a creepy old man

In addition, a third of Democrats (33 percent) agree that Biden is not progressive enough to make the changes Democrats need, compared to 48 percent who disagree.

A number of former female staff members and prominent Democratic women have come out to defend Biden. One of the latest was Stacey Abrams, who nearly won a 2018 race to become Georgia governor. 

“We cannot have perfection as a litmus test,” Abrams said when asked her opinion of the video Biden released Wednesday. 

“The responsibility of leaders is to not be perfect but to be accountable, to say, ‘I’ve made a mistake. I understand it and here’s what I’m going to do to reform as I move forward.’ And I think we see Joe Biden doing that,” she said.

 

 

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/05/joe-biden-address-labor-group-amid-allegations-improper-touching/3366048002/




US Senator Elizabeth Warren is calling for the end of the Senate filibuster should the Democrats return to power and face obstruction.

Warren announced her support for ending the Senate rule in a series of tweets on Friday morning, and she planned to discuss it in a speech to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network later in the morning, according to an excerpt of her remarks shared with the Globe.

The filibuster, in which senators employ a number of delay tactics to effectively kill a piece of legislation, has often spelled doom for legislation on both sides. If Senators filibuster a bill, it then needs the support of 60 members of the Senate in order to proceed to a vote, in what’s known as invoking cloture. The end of the filibuster would mean bills and other measures could pass with a simple majority vote.

Warren said that she would support the end of the Senate rule if the Democrats win the White House and face obstruction from Republicans.

“Enough with that. When we win the election, we WILL make the change that we need in this country,” she will say in her speech Friday morning.

Warren is framing her argument in terms of racial justice, using the recent example of a bill that made lynching a federal crime. It finally passed the Senate in 2018, 100 years after a similar version had first been introduced. One of the reasons? It was often the target of a Senate filibuster, Warren says in the speech.

“An entire century of obstruction because a small group of racists stopped the entire nation from doing what was right,” Warren will say, according to the remarks. “For generations, the filibuster was used as a tool to block progress on racial justice. And in recent years, it’s been used by the far right as a tool to block progress on everything.”

With no filibuster, Democrats see an opportunity to pass major progressive legislation on things like climate change and health care should the party take the Senate in 2020 and lack a 60-vote majority. But proponents of the filibuster say it fosters bipartisanship: Legislation must be supported by a wider range of voices in order to have a chance at passage.

Warren is the first major Democratic presidential candidate to call for the end of the filibuster. In February, Washington Governor Jay Inslee told HuffPost that it was an “artifact of a bygone era.” Other candidates in the field are flatly opposing the idea: Senator Cory Booker described the filibuster as “one of the distinguishing factors of this body” to Politico in January.

Christina Prignano can be reached at christina.prignano@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @cprignano.

Source Article from https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/04/05/warren-call-for-end-senate-filibuster/S3saQJayxQNZBPTXQ85x1O/story.html

Mr. Tusk’s plan would need the backing of the leaders of European Union member states.

In asking for an extension until June 30 — the same date she once asked for but which the European Union previously rejected — Mrs. May was bowing to pressure from within her Conservative Party not to be seen as forcing the country into a longer delay. But she was also laying the ground for a more protracted extension by agreeing that Britain was prepared to participate in European elections in May. That was seen in Brussels as a condition for another Brexit postponement.

Mrs. May has sought over the past week to break months of deadlock by meeting with the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, to try to reach an agreement. But she said in her letter to Mr. Tusk that if those talks did not produce a compromise, she would hold a series of votes in Parliament on alternative paths in the hopes that lawmakers would eventually settle on one.

“This impasse cannot be allowed to continue,” Mrs. May wrote. “In the U.K. it is creating uncertainty and doing damage to faith in politics, while the European Union has a legitimate desire to move on to decisions about its own future.”

The prime minister’s Brexit deal has already been rejected three times by British lawmakers, and there is likely to be a lively debate in Brussels on whether — or more particularly, on what terms — to grant a second extension. Britain was originally scheduled to leave the bloc on March 29, but European leaders granted a short extension to give Parliament more time to approve the withdrawal deal.

Mrs. May and Mr. Corbyn met on Wednesday, and teams from both sides continued the discussions on Thursday. The session ended with neither breakthroughs nor breakdowns.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/world/europe/brexit-extension-may-eu.html

“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

(CNN)The man who falsely claimed to be Timmothy Pitzen, a boy who disappeared in 2011, was released from an Ohio prison last month after serving time for burglary and vandalism, court records show.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/us/timmothy-pitzen-investigation-friday/index.html

    April 4 at 7:09 PM

    Joe Biden hasn’t offered a full-throated apology for his treatment of Anita Hill in the 1990s. He hasn’t backed away from his view that busing was the wrong way to integrate schools in the 1970s, nor has he denounced his decades-old positions on banning federal funding for abortion services.

    Over the past few days, as several women have complained that he had made them uncomfortable by touching them in separate encounters, he has adopted a tone of defiance mixed with a smidgen of contrition. He said women have a right to their views, vowed to change his behavior in the future — but made it clear that he doesn’t believe he ever acted inappropriately.

    Numerous other Democratic candidates are atoning for their past personal and political sins with effusive apologies on a host of fronts, but Biden is striking an altogether different posture. It’s a strategy employed by Bill Clinton — or, more recently, President Trump — to hold firm and refuse to apologize, preventing enemies from pouncing on any weakness. It comes with one big risk: alienating the very people upset at them and those who support them.

    Trump, perhaps not the most objective observer given the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct he faces, urged Biden not to apologize when asked about the former vice president by reporters.

    “I wish him luck,” he said.

    Biden allies defend his refusal to apologize for actions he said were not meant to be offensive, and they point toward women who have rushed to his defense. But if he decides to enter the presidential race, Biden’s limited response will test whether Democratic voters are willing to accept a candidate who not only has held positions or done things that have fallen out of favor but has yet to fully answer for them. To make it even more complicated, Biden’s actions have touched most directly two giant Democratic constituencies, blacks and women.

    Throughout his decades in public life, Biden has never been one to freely offer apologies, particularly when he is confronted with charges that cut to his character or a personal decision.

    During his first presidential campaign, in 1987, he was accused of plagiarizing speeches — as well as a law review article he wrote in law school. He insisted that it was “much ado about nothing.”

    “In the marketplace of ideas in the political realm, the notion that for every thought or idea you have to go back and find and attribute to someone is frankly ludicrous,” he said. A week later, he withdrew from the race.

    “The exaggerated shadow” of his mistakes, he said, had “begun to obscure the essence of my candidacy and the essence of Joe Biden.”

    On the day he announced his next presidential campaign, in 2007, he was besieged by criticism for calling then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

    Biden, holding a conference call with reporters, was not fully repentant.

    “I really regret some have taken totally out of context my use of the word ‘clean,’ ” he said.

    In 2014, the White House said that then-Vice President Biden had apologized to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for suggesting his country had mistakenly helped terrorist groups. Biden insisted he had not, in fact, apologized.

    “I never apologized to him,” Biden said in a CNN interview. “I know him well. I’ve dealt with him. I called him and said, ‘Look, what was reported was not accurate to what I said. Here’s what I said.’ ”

    One rare apology contained an acknowledgment that he couldn’t quite wrap his head around what he was about to do. It occurred in 2013, when he visited Selma for the annual commemoration of Bloody Sunday.

    “I regret and — although it’s not a part of what I’m supposed to say — I apologize it took me 48 years to get here,” Biden said before marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where civil rights activists in 1965 were attacked by police. “I should have been here. It’s one of the regrets that I have and many in my generation have.”

    More recently, he has tried to answer to some of the positions he has held over his nearly five decades in public life. During a Martin Luther King Jr. Day breakfast this year, he attempted to address his support for a 1994 crime bill.

    “I haven’t always been right,” he said. “I know we haven’t always gotten things right, but I’ve always tried.”

    Last week, he attempted to address criticism that he mishandled Hill’s testimony during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “To this day, I regret I couldn’t give her the kind of hearing she deserved,” Biden said. “I wish I could have done something.”

    The comment triggered more criticism from those who said that he wasn’t taking ownership of his actions. He, after all, could have done something: He was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and presiding over the hearings.

    “It’s become sort of a running joke in the household when someone rings the doorbell and we’re not expecting company,” Hill told Elle magazine last year. “ ‘Oh,’ we say, ‘is that Joe Biden coming to apologize?’ ”

    She’s still waiting.

    Biden’s advisers realized over the past few days the he needed to do more to quell the days-old controversy over his intimate style that began after Lucy Flores, the former Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor of Nevada, described Biden’s touching of her in 2014 as “blatantly inappropriate and unnerving.” Several other women have since echoed her criticism after detailing their experiences with Biden.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested that Biden’s initial comments, in which he said he would “pay attention” to the women’s complaints, had been insufficient.

    “To say, ‘I’m sorry that you were offended,’ is not an apology. ‘I’m sorry I invaded your space,’ but not, ‘I’m sorry you were offended.’ Because that’s — what is that?” she asked. “That’s not accepting the fact that people think differently about communication whether it’s a handshake, a hug.”

    One reason Biden has had trouble apologizing is that the criticism lands at the core of who Biden is, those close to him say. He is affectionate and, to his supporters, that is what makes him so likable.

    “At least he’s engaging in a dialogue about it,” said one former staffer, “which is the most important piece.”

    Politicians often struggle with apology. Mitt Romney wrote a book, “No Apology,” partly as a way to criticize Obama’s perceived willingness to apologize. Yet, this year’s crop of presidential candidates seems to have mastered it.

    After harassment complaints arose regarding his 2016 presidential campaign, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) apologized to any woman who felt mistreated. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) recorded a video in January to announce that she was “deeply sorry” for past anti-gay views, while Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) apologized for her past conservative stances on immigration.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in February apologized for her claim of a Native American ancestry: “My apology is an apology for not having been more sensitive about tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty.”

    Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from Texas, in March apologized for not being more sensitive while talking about his wife raising their children. He also apologized for things he wrote as a teenager. He acknowledged criticism that he has enjoyed white privilege.

    “Beto, or whatever his name is,” former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg said dismissively, “he apologized for being born.”

    Biden so far has not offered an apology, and it’s unclear if he will.

    “Biden is always going to be Biden. He’s not changing anytime soon,” said Rebecca Katz, a Democratic consultant. “Advisers around him should realize, if you’re going to be a 2020 candidate, you have to have a 2020 mind-set. But that’s not Biden. To apologize, he has to believe he did something wrong, and I don’t believe he thinks that.”

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-bidens-long-running-no-apology-tour-hits-the-metoo-era/2019/04/04/caf47bdc-56e7-11e9-9136-f8e636f1f6df_story.html

    William Barr was invited to meet justice department officials last summer, on the same day he submitted an “unsolicited” memo that heavily criticized special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into obstruction of justice by Donald Trump.

    Barr, who was a private attorney at the time, met the officials for lunch three weeks later and was then nominated to serve as Trump’s attorney general about six months later.

    The revelation about the meeting, which was arranged by Steve Engel, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, and which has not previously been publicly disclosed, raises new questions about whether the White House’s decision to hire Barr was influenced by private discussions he had about his legal views on Mueller’s investigation.

    Sign up for the US morning briefing

    Barr announced last month he had concluded there was “not sufficient” evidence found in the special counsel’s investigation to establish that Trump had committed obstruction of justice. He made the decision, he wrote in a letter to Congress, after consulting with Engel – who is a legal adviser to the White House – and Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general.

    Barr’s decision is controversial because, months before he was hired, he sent a 20-page memo to two top officials at the DoJ – Engel and Rosenstein – that called Mueller’s obstruction theory “fatally misconceived” and “legally insupportable”. Barr, who served as attorney general under George HW Bush, said he had written the memo in order to “make sure that all of the lawyers involved carefully considered the potential implications of the theory” that Mueller appeared to be pursuing.

    Unnamed officials told the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the memo’s existence, that the memo played no role in the decision to hire Barr.

    In written answers to questions posed by senators as part of his confirmation hearing, Barr said he had provided copies of his memo to Rosenstein and Engel on 8 June 2018. He said he had discussed his legal opinions with Rosenstein at lunch in early 2018 and then later, on a separate occasion, he briefly discussed his views with Engel. He then said in written answers that after writing the memo: “There was no follow-up from any of these Department officials”.

    But a person with knowledge of the matter said that Engel extended an invitation to Barr on 8 June last year – the day the memo arrived at the justice department – for a “brown bag” lunch, in which he was invited to speak to justice department staff.

    The lunch then occurred on 27 June.

    A spokeswoman for the DoJ confirmed that the lunch occurred. “The timing was coincidental and the memo was not discussed,” the spokeswoman said.

    “OLC regularly brings back the former heads of OLC (as do other divisions) to eat with the new team and share experiences from their time at OLC,” she added.

    The Barr luncheon was, however, not an entirely routine affair. While brown bag lunches had been a tradition at DoJ in the past, a person with knowledge of the matter said the Barr lunch was meant to kickstart the tradition again, after two years in which no such lunches had occurred.

    The DoJ spokeswoman initially disputed that account and promised to give the Guardian a list of names and dates of other former officials and notable individuals who had attended such “brown bag” luncheons before Barr. But the spokeswoman then did not provide any further information.

    “This revelation adds yet another data point that suggests Barr’s outlandish memo signaled he would protect Mr Trump even on highly dubious or erroneous legal grounds, and that he was swept into the administration on that basis,” said Ryan Goodman, a law professor at NYU and former special counsel at the Department of Defense.



    The deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, right, has said that Barr’s memo had ‘no impact’ on the special counsel’s investigation. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters

    While Mueller’s investigation was believed to be focused on Trump’s decision to fire James Comey, who was the head of the FBI and was conducting an investigation into a possible conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, Barr argued in his memo that a true act of obstruction had to involve explicit destruction of evidence. Such acts might include witness tampering or other deliberate acts to impair the integrity of evidence.

    The DoJ has played down the significance of Barr’s June memo. Rosenstein told the WSJ that Barr had not sought or received any non-public information regarding the ongoing investigation, and that Barr’s memo had “no impact” on the investigation.

    A person with knowledge of the matter said that any discussions between Barr and Engel would be relevant because it would have informed the DoJ, and possibly the White House, of Barr’s views on executive power.

    Engel has kept a relatively low profile in his role at the Office of Legal Counsel. He served on the Trump campaign transition team and is known to be a close friend of the supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    Engel does not serve as a personal attorney to Trump. In his capacity at the OLC he offers advice to the White House on the scope of their powers, sometimes offering legal justification for certain White House actions.

    Trump recently told Senate Republicans that he had great affection for Barr.

    “I love the AG. He works fast. I love this guy. You told me I would,” he told the group, according to a report in the New York Times.

    Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/05/william-barr-memo-meeting-justice-department-steve-engel

    It comes as no surprise to President Trump that the late first lady, Barbara Bush held him in low regard. “I have heard that she was nasty to me, but she should be. Look what I did to her sons,” he told The Washington Times in an interview published Thursday.

    A new biography of Bush, “The Matriarch,” by USA Today’s Susan Page, contains a number of attacks on the president’s character, both in her interviews with Page and also in her journals, which were provided to Page. 

    President Trump soundly defeated Bush’s son, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, in the 2016 primaries, and often disparaged him as “low-energy.” Her other son, former President George W. Bush, was also a frequent target of attacks by Mr. Trump, as well, largely for his handling of 9/11 and prosecution of the Iraq War.

    “Look, she’s the mother of somebody that I competed against. Most people thought he [Jeb Bush] was going to win and he was quickly out,” Mr. Trump told the Washington Times.

    “I hit him very hard in South Carolina,” he said. “Remember? He was supposed to win South Carolina and I won it in a landslide. I hit him so hard.

    “That’s when his brother came to make the first speech for him,” Mr. Trump recalled. “And I said, ‘What took you so long?'”

    In the end, the president seems to think her dislike of him is justified: “She was nasty to me, but she should be.”

    But Bush’s dislike for the president predated his remarks about her sons. In 1990, Page notes, Mr. Trump had remarked on then-President George H.W. Bush’s high-dollar speeches in Japan. Barbara Bush wrote in her diary, “Trump now means greed, selfishness and ugly. So sad.”

    Page talked with CBSN’s Elaine Quijano about the extent of Barbara Bush’s negative reaction to Mr. Trump. Near the end of her life, Bush told Page she’d “probably say no today” when she was asked whether she considered herself a member of the party in the era of Trump. 

    “I’m trying not to think about it,” she said of the Trump presidency in an interview with Page. “We’re a strong country, and I think it will all work out.” 

    Page told Quijano that she thought it was “the accumulation of concern over the direction of the country, about the nature of President Trump’s rhetoric.”

    Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gets-why-barbara-bush-attacked-him-look-what-i-did-to-her-sons/

    President Trump on Thursday said he was giving Mexico a “one-year warning” to stop the flows of migration and drugs into the U.S., or he would slap tariffs on cars made there and close the southern border.

    “We’re going to give them a one-year warning and if the drugs don’t stop or largely stop, we’re going to put tariffs on Mexico and products, in particular cars,” he told reporters at the White House. “And if that doesn’t stop the drugs, we close the border.”

    OBAMA’S BORDER CHIEF WARNS CONGRESS: IMMIGRATION CRISIS ‘AT A MAGNITUDE NEVER SEEN IN MODERN TIMES’

    He said that Mexico had “unbelievable” and “powerful” immigration laws and that such a threat would be a “powerful incentive” for it to act.

    The warning is a step back from the threat he issued last week when he threatened to close the border this week unless Mexico stopped “all illegal immigration” into the U.S.

    On Tuesday, his stance appeared to soften, when he told reporters that Mexico had started taking further measures to stop migrants traveling into the U.S., and White House officials said that closing the border was one of a number of options on the table.

    “I will say this, that Mexico the last four days has really done a great job on their southern border, with Honduras, with Guatemala, with El Salvador, of grabbing and taking and bringing people back to their countries,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Thursday afternoon. “They have the strongest immigration laws, as strong as there is anywhere in the world. They can do it if they want to do it. They’ve never really wanted to do it for many, many years. And we’ve told them, ‘If you don’t do that, we’re going to close the border.’ But before we close the border, we’ll put the tariffs on the cars.

    “I don’t think we’ll ever have to close the border because the penalty of tariffs on cars coming into the United States from Mexico at 25 percent will be massive,” the president added.

    Trump also faced opposition from members of his own party, including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who had warned that closing the border would have “unintended consequences.”

    On Thursday, Trump said he fully intended to carry out his threat, but added the one-year delay, as well as the additional threat to put tariffs on cars.

    “You know I’ll do it, I don’t play games,” he said.

    IT’S A ‘CAT 5’ IMMIGRATION CRISIS: NIELSEN

    Trump’s remarks came as the administration struggles to get a grip on the escalating crisis on the southern border, with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) saying last week they were on track to apprehend more than 100,000 border crossers in March.

    Trump declared a national emergency on the border in February after Congress granted only a fraction of the $5.6 billion he had sought for funding for a wall on the border. That move, which was opposed by both Democrats and some Republicans, allows the administration to access more than $3 billion extra in funding for the wall.

    Since then, Trump has blasted both Congress and Mexico for not doing enough to stop the crisis at the border as numbers of migrants continue to increase.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “If we don’t make a deal with Congress…or if Mexico doesn’t do what they should be doing…then we’re going to close the border, that’s going to be it, or we’re going to close large sections of the border, maybe not all of it,” he said on Tuesday.

    Trump will travel to Calexico, California on Friday where he will visit a recently completed part of the barrier on the border, as well as participate in a roundtable with local law enforcement officials.

    Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain contributed to this report.

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-gives-mexico-a-one-year-warning-to-stop-drugs-migrants-or-he-will-tax-cars-and-close-border