Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/alabama-senate-abortion/index.html


“I would focus everything on China. And get the Europeans, Canadians and Mexicans to be on our side and focus on China. Because they are the great danger.” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. | Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

trade

Democrats who have long blasted China’s trade policies aren’t supporting the president’s tariffs.

Democrats have pushed President Donald Trump for months to take a tougher stance toward China on trade. But now that Trump has taken their advice, he finds himself on an island with no lifeline from Democrats.

In interviews with a dozen House and Senate Democrats from the Midwest and in leadership, most lawmakers refused to back Trump’s offensive against China, particularly as he’s kept tariffs on U.S. allies.

Story Continued Below

Even those most willing to praise Trump on trade have been notably reserved.

“We should not be having a multifront war on tariffs,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Trump’s closest Democratic ally on the topic. “I would focus everything on China. And get the Europeans, Canadians and Mexicans to be on our side and focus on China. Because they are the great danger.”

Schumer has repeatedly urged Trump publicly and privately to “stay tough,” including in a meeting at the White House in April. Later Tuesday, the New York Democrat said he doesn’t “fully agree” with Trump’s approach of imposing tariffs on allies as well as China and warned the president from coming up with a “weak solution.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi — like Schumer, a China hawk for decades — told reporters Monday that Trump’s action toward Beijing is “in recognition that something needed to be done.” But she again criticized the president for “antagonizing” Europe with a separate series of tariffs last year instead of trying to join with European Union allies to pressure China.

“I wish him success in the negotiation. But as I say, we have to use our leverage without antagonizing those who are on our side on this,” she said.

Schumer and Pelosi have not been alone in egging Trump on: A number of Democrats who have soured on free trade deals have offered rare praise for Trump’s trade policies. But now that Trump is embroiled in a trade war with China, there’s very little Democratic support for him — and the party is reluctant to give the president any bipartisan cover, particularly if the tariffs end up doing real harm to the economy.

“I still hope he can reach an agreement, but I don’t know. He’s pretty unaware of the damage they’re doing if they don’t get an agreement soon,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who has otherwise supported Trump’s tough-on-China approach. “I did for several months. And he just kept doing it wrong.”

“I am conflicted,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “To ignore what China’s done is not my position at all. But this approach with the tariffs I think has been heavy-handed. And doesn’t leave enough openings for the Chinese to find a face-saving way out.”

Trump’s dramatically escalating trade war with China has resulted in a frantic realigning of the two parties on trade. Republicans have typically been free-traders but have declined to go to war against the protectionist president of their own party. Democrats have often been skeptical of free trade, but most have expressed deep dismay with Trump’s policy implementation, even if his trade rhetoric resonates more with them.

And though it’s popular in both parties to challenge China, the resulting economic pain from retaliatory tariffs is not.

“I don’t think he truly understands what he is doing and what chaos that may be causing,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who applauded Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs last year. “I am for being tough on China, but I believe that he is not the least bit knowledgeable about a trade policy, tariff policy or anything else.”

“This really can be fixed by one guy and he’s in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. This is self-imposed, it’s unilateral and he can fix it. And he’s got to fix it, our farmers are hurting,” said Rep. Cheri Bustos who runs the House Democrats’ campaign committee and represents a rural Illinois district.

Republicans are far less critical of China than Democrats are, and the GOP is more focused on removing steel and aluminum tariffs on U.S. allies. Even the most fervent Republican opponents of tariffs, like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), say that the “jury is still out” on whether Trump’s China strategy can be effective.

But Democrats from states that have lost manufacturing jobs amid rising globalization are not in favor of the president’s stance toward China. It’s a bet, in part, that Trump is unlikely to get a transformative deal, so there’s little reason to back him publicly while Democrats’ constituents are in such pain.

“He’s not going into this fight with allies. It isn’t targeted. It’s just kind of across-the-board tariffs,” said Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, one of two Democrats in the chamber up for reelection in states that Trump won. Asked whether he opposes Trump’s latest China tariffs, he said: “Yeah. I think the way he has done it has not been thoughtful at all.”

“What I’ve got a concern about is going it alone,” said Sen. Doug Jones. The Alabama Democrat faces an even tougher reelection bid than Peters faces. “At the same time we started this with China, we were also kicking our European allies in the shins and we were kicking Canada in their shins and we were kicking Mexico.”

To Republicans, Democrats sound like they are finding excuses to oppose Trump. Not one Democrat interviewed by POLITICO fully embraced the president’s trade policies on China while he also maintains a combative stance toward U.S. allies

“No matter what he says or does, today’s congressional Democrats will demonize, vilify and attack him,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is himself conflicted about Trump’s China strategy. “Their opposition at the end of the day is not based on policy. It is based on a visceral hatred for the man.”

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/14/trump-trade-china-1322691

President Trump’s legal team slammed House Democrats on Tuesday evening after a report the House Intelligence Committee has been investigating possible obstruction by Trump’s lawyers after the 2016 election.

“Instead of addressing important intelligence needs, the House Intelligence Committee appears to seek a truly needless dispute,” Patrick Strawbridge, who represents attorney Jay Sekulow, told Fox News.

The statement came in response to a New York Times article published Tuesday that said the Democrat-led committee “is investigating whether lawyers tied to President Trump and his family helped obstruct the panel’s inquiry into Russian election interference by shaping false testimony.” The article attributed a series of previously undisclosed letters from the committee’s chairman, Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

The newspaper reported the questions emerged from claims made by Michael Cohen, the president’s former lawyer who publicly turned on his ex-boss while under investigation earlier this year. Cohen, who reported to prison this week to begin a three-year sentence, told Congress that “the lawyers in question helped edit false testimony that he provided to Congress in 2017 about a Trump Tower project in Moscow,” as the Times reported. Cohen reportedly said they also offered a potential pardon to try to keep his loyalty.

COHEN GETS 3 YEARS IN PRISON FOR TAX FRAUD, CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS, LYING

Recently the committee sent document requests to Sekulow and lawyers representing Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and the top attorney at the Trump Organization.

“Among other things, it appears that your clients may have reviewed, shaped and edited the false statement that Cohen submitted to the committee, including causing the omission of material facts,” Schiff, D-Calif., wrote to lawyers in a May 3 letter obtained by The New York Times.

He added, “In addition, certain of your clients may have engaged in discussions about potential pardons in an effort to deter one or more witnesses from cooperating with authorized investigations.”

When a reporter asked Schiff about the Times’ reporting that he’s prepared to issue a subpoena if the lawyers don’t cooperate with the committee’s requests, the lawmaker responded: “I don’t get ahead of where we are but we have been in communication with the lawyers that were representing other parties who had, reportedly, access to this statement, input in this statement. We want to find out what their role was, what they were knowing of, and whether anyone was participating besides Michael Cohen in this act of obstruction.”

Strawbridge said, “Instead of addressing important intelligence needs, the House Intelligence Committee appears to seek a truly needless dispute — this one with private attorneys — that would force them to violate privileges and ethical rules.”

“As committed defense lawyers, we will respect the constitution and defend the attorney-client privilege — one of the oldest and most sacred privileges in the law,” he continued.

The lawyers wrote that Schiff’s inquiry “appears to be far afield from any proper legislative purpose.” They also wrote that Cohen is a witness of “questionable reliability.”

DONALD TRUMP JR. SUBPOENAED BY SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, SOURCE SAYS

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt after he defied a subpoena for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s full Russia report.

Mueller’s investigation did not find proof of collusion between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government, though it detailed “links” between the two. The probe did not come to a conclusion on the separate question of whether Trump obstructed justice.

But, Democrats have pointed to numerous instances Mueller identified of possible obstruction, as well as contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russians, as cause for future investigations — with a number of House Democrats and 2020 presidential hopefuls calling for impeachment hearings.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The New York Times reported that the obstruction case would likely be difficult to bring against the attorneys, writing, “Even if it could prove wrongdoing, the committee has little recourse beyond referring the case to the Justice Department.”

The newspaper also pointed out that Mueller already has declined to investigate or to charge the lawyers involved.

Fox News’ Jason Donner and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-lawyers-house-dems-russia-probe-obstruction

President Trump is telling advisers and close allies that he has no intention of pulling back on his escalating trade war with China, arguing that clashing with Beijing is highly popular with his political base and will help him win reelection in 2020 regardless of any immediate economic pain.

Administration officials and outside Trump advisers said Tuesday that they do not expect him to shift his position significantly in coming days, saying he is determined to endure an intensifying showdown with Chinese President Xi Jinping despite turbulence in global markets and frustration within his own party.

Trump’s defiance is rooted in decades of viewing the Chinese as economic villains and driven by his desire to fulfill a core promise from his 2016 campaign: that he would dramatically overhaul the U.S.-China relationship. The confrontation is also fueled by Trump’s willingness to flout the norms of presidential behavior, including his suggestion on Tuesday that the Federal Reserve should assist his trade efforts by lowering interest rates.

“I don’t see him crying uncle anytime soon,” said Stephen Moore, a conservative economist who withdrew from consideration as a Trump Federal Reserve Board nominee amid an uproar. “It’s a high-risk strategy, but it’s not in his personality to back down. This goes back to what he said that first time he came down the escalator at Trump Tower.”

Speaking to reporters Tuesday before boarding Marine One en route to Louisiana, Trump insisted that he is in a “very, very strong position” and called the stalled negotiations “a little squabble.”

Trump cast the strength of the U.S. economy as leverage, saying, “We have all the advantage.” And he threatened to impose $100 billion in additional tariffs, saying, “We’re looking at it very strongly.”

But as Trump expresses confidence, there have been tensions inside the White House, with some advisers uneasy with Trump’s strident nationalism and firm belief in tariffs as economic weapons. The disagreements reflect broader distress within Republican circles about the president’s sharp rhetoric and refusal to budge.

“I don’t like directionally where it’s going,” said former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci, a prominent investor. “The economy is still very strong. It’s not clear to me it will fully derail the economic story. But it could put a dent in the stock and bond market.”

“Tariffs are blunt instruments. They can inflict harm on competitors and be a source of leverage for negotiations,” said former White House staff secretary Rob Porter, who at times engaged in heated discussions in the Oval Office on trade. “They can also have significant consequences for global supply chains and domestic producers and consumers, and any decision on tariffs should include careful consideration of all these consequences.”

Trump has worked to contain his current advisers as the negotiations have unfolded and present a united front to the Chinese, who he believes are looking for weakness, according to multiple officials, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private discussions. With Scaramucci, Porter and others who are alarmed now gone from the White House, Trump has found it easier to navigate his own administration and govern by his own instincts.

Trump was irritated on Sunday after National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow acknowledged on “Fox News Sunday” that American consumers end up paying for the administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting Trump’s claim that the Chinese foot the bill, officials said.

“Trump called Larry, and they had it out,” according to one White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Two other officials, however, described the conversation as cordial and said Trump and Kudlow went back and forth on trade, with Trump telling Kudlow several times to “not worry about it.”

Republicans close to the president have said they’ve come to accept the president’s hard line, even if they do not share it.

“The president believes tariffs are good economic policy. They are a tool to bring about trade,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump confidant. “Trump has been consistent on trade for 30 years.”

Graham said Trump often speaks about China in sweeping ways that underscore his unwillingness to flinch. Aides to the president say he comments about how many goods are made at low cost in China and how he believes China does not pay their workers or follow international laws. These people say he also bragged to aides about how much he has damaged the Chinese economy.

At a “Cocktails and Conversation” gathering of Republicans at the luxe 21 Club restaurant in New York City on Monday night, former Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn said he felt that the president might want to keep the debate over trade alive for the 2020 election because he believed it is a winning campaign issue, according to one attendee who was not authorized to discuss the meeting publicly.

Cohn, who has long been critical of tariffs, also worried aloud that the clash could do lasting damage to the nation’s farming industries and said the Trump administration’s effort to offset the effect of the trade war on U.S. farmers by supplying subsidies for them is not a sufficient approach if markets are lost, two attendees said. Cohn compared Trump’s strategy to treating cancer with a Band-Aid, they said.

Still, Cohn said, Trump could win a second term on the strength of the U.S. economy. He added that the president could run on a “3-3-3” platform, meaning about 3 percent for unemployment, GDP growth and wage growth, two attendees said.

The event, which included wealthy political donors and other GOP power brokers, was organized by a firm that employs former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, who also spoke there, according to three people familiar with the gathering.

When Cohn was in the administration, he and Trump would have loud, profane fights over tariffs, and Trump would sometimes tell him to stop arguing because Cohn wasn’t going to change the president’s mind, according to former aides.

Trump would acknowledge in private conversations that economists broadly say tariffs cause American consumers to pay higher prices, but he would add that “you can find an economist to say anything,” in the words of one former aide who discussed the issue with him.

Dozens of U.S. companies have complained that Trump’s earlier steel and aluminum tariffs drove up their costs and hurt more U.S. workers than they helped. But Trump does not see it that way and suspects companies are trying to blame him for troubles that began before he implemented tariffs, according to people familiar with the internal debate.

“For right now, it’s what is going to get him reelected, because we have unemployment rates low and wages increasing,” said Tom Bossert, a former Trump administration homeland security adviser. “Trump sees it as standing up for the American worker.”

Some Democrats wonder if Trump’s strategy is effective or more of an extemporaneous exercise without any clear end.

“China is a target that has to be confronted,” said Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats. “The question is whether this shock-and-awe strategy is a strategy at all. Will stronger tariffs lead to results? I’m not sure.”

Trump’s influential allies in the conservative media, such as Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, have been enthusiastically encouraging the president’s headstrong tactics and disparaging his business-friendly critics.

Dobbs, speaking on Monday night’s broadcast with longtime Trump political adviser Corey Lewandowski, railed against Trump’s opponents on trade as the “chamber of horrors” — a reference to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — and said he should ignore “all the Wall Street firms.”

Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House chief strategist who once advised Trump on trade, said in an interview Tuesday that Trump’s outlook on trade has not changed since they first met in 2010 at Trump Tower, and argued that it will be hard for any adviser to convince him to change.

“Back then, he was watching Dobbs, reading the New York Times, following everything on China,” Bannon said. “It’s at the core of who he is.”

But there is a widening gap between Trump and congressional Republicans, who on Tuesday expressed unhappiness with the president’s refusal to measurably soften his position. A number of GOP senators have called to express displeasure in recent days, people familiar with the calls say, but Trump remains determined.

“The fact is it’s Americans who are paying the price of these tariffs,” Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) told reporters on Tuesday, citing economic data showing the levies have not had the intended effect of closing the trade gap with China or measurably hurting Chinese exports.

Asked if Trump understands this view, Toomey said, “I assume the president understands how this works. But you’d have to ask him why he comes to the conclusions he comes to.” When pressed for further explanation, he declined and said he would “leave it at that.”

Vice President Pence has quietly sought to allay senators’ concerns over tariffs but has been unable to offer any meaningful concessions or promises, Senate GOP aides said this week. During a lunch with Republicans last week, Pence told senators he heard them when they berated the administration’s tariffs, but he then asked them to stand with the president, without saying much else.

Erica Werner and Damian Paletta contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-dont-see-him-crying-uncle-trump-believes-china-tariffs-will-help-him-win-reelection/2019/05/14/e7fd67fe-7657-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html

Attendees interact with a facial recognition demonstration during the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Jan. 8, 2019. (The New York Times: Joe Buglewicz)

Written by Kate Conger, Richard Fausset and Serge F. Kovaleski

On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors enacted the first ban by a major city on the use of facial recognition technology by police and all other municipal agencies. The vote was 8-1 in favour, with two members who support the bill absent. There will be an obligatory second vote next week but it is seen as a formality.

Police forces across America have begun turning to facial recognition to search for both small-time criminal suspects and perpetrators of mass carnage: authorities used the technology to help identify the gunman in the mass killing at an Annapolis, Maryland, newspaper in June. But civil liberty groups have expressed unease about the technology’s potential abuse by government amid fears that it may shove the United States in the direction of an overly oppressive surveillance state.

Also read | Bangalore airport to introduce facial recognition tech for passengers

Aaron Peskin, the city supervisor who announced the bill, said that it sent a particularly strong message to the nation, coming from a city transformed by tech.

“I think part of San Francisco being the real and perceived headquarters for all things tech also comes with a responsibility for its local legislators,” said Peskin, who represents neighbourhoods on the northeast side of the city. “We have an outsize responsibility to regulate the excesses of technology precisely because they are headquartered here.”

Similar bans are under consideration in Oakland, California, and in Somerville, Massachusetts, outside of Boston. In Massachusetts, a bill in the state Legislature would put a moratorium on facial recognition and other remote biometric surveillance systems. On Capitol Hill, a bill introduced last month would ban users of commercial face recognition technology from collecting and sharing data for identifying or tracking consumers without their consent, although it does not address the government’s uses of the technology.

Matt Cagle, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, summed up the broad concerns of critics Tuesday: Facial recognition technology, he said, “provides government with unprecedented power to track people going about their daily lives. That’s incompatible with a healthy democracy.”

The San Francisco proposal, he added, “is really forward-looking and looks to prevent the unleashing of this dangerous technology against the public.”

In one form or another, facial recognition is already being used in many U.S. airports and big stadiums, and by a number of other police departments. Pop star Taylor Swift has reportedly incorporated the technology at one of her shows, using it to help identify stalkers.

The issue has been particularly charged in San Francisco, a city with a rich history of incubating dissent and individual liberties, but one that has also suffered lately from high rates of property crime. A local group called Stop Crime SF asked supervisors to exclude local prosecutors, police and sheriffs from the ordinance when performing investigative duties, as well as an exemption for the airport.

The group had been encouraging residents to send a form letter to supervisors. It argued that the ordinance “could have unintended consequences that make us less safe by severely curtailing the use of effective traditional video surveillance by burying agencies like the police department in a bureaucratic approval process.”

The facial recognition fight in San Francisco is largely theoretical — the Police Department does not currently deploy facial recognition technology, except in its airport and ports that are under federal jurisdiction and are not affected by the legislation.

Some local homeless shelters use biometric finger scans and photos to track shelter usage, said Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness. The practice has driven some residents who are immigrants away from the shelters, she added.

Cagle and other experts said that it was difficult to know exactly how widespread the technology was in the U.S. “Basically governments and companies have been very secretive about where it’s being used, so the public is largely in the dark about the state of play,” he said.

But Dave Maas, senior investigative researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, offered a partial list of police departments that he said used the technology, including Las Vegas; San Diego; New York City; Boston; Detroit; Durham, North Carolina; Orlando, Florida; and San Jose, California.

Other users, Maas said, include the Colorado Department of Public Safety, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, the California Department of Justice and the Virginia State police.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now using facial recognition in many U.S. airports and ports of sea entry. At airports, international travelers stand before cameras, then have their pictures matched against photos provided in their passport applications. The agency says the process complies with privacy laws, but it has still come in for criticism from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which argues that the government, though promising travelers that they may opt out, has made it increasingly difficult to do so.

But there is a broader concern. “When you have the ability to track people in physical space, in effect everybody becomes subject to the surveillance of the government,” said Marc Rotenberg, the group’s executive director.

Source Article from https://indianexpress.com/article/world/san-francisco-bans-facial-recognition-technology-5728100/

An adviser to the Iranian president has warned President Donald Trump directly that the White House was headed toward a military confrontation.

Hesameddin Ashena, head of the Center for Strategic Studies think tank and widely described as part of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s inner circle, called Trump out on Twitter, dismissing the likelihood of the U.S. striking a better nuclear agreement than the 2015 deal it abandoned a year ago. With Tehran itself gradually scaling down its commitments to the accord and Washington threatening Iran both economically and militarily, Ashena issued one of his country’s most high-level, direct warnings yet.

“You wanted a better deal with Iran. Looks like you are going to get a war instead. That’s what happens when you listen to the mustache,” Ashena tweeted in an apparent reference to hawkish White House national security adviser John Bolton. “Good luck in 2020!”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (6th-L) attends a military parade surrounded by officers during a ceremony marking the country’s annual army day in Tehran, on April 18. With tensions running high, Iran has refused to give in to U.S. demands and has instead begun to step back from a nuclear agreement that the White House has already abandoned entirely. AFP/Getty Images

In another week of seemingly ever-growing tension between the U.S. and Iran, Bolton announced the early deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Persian Gulf amid “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” of an alleged Iranian plot against U.S. interests in the region. Days later, Tehran took its first slow steps away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the multilateral nuclear deal that the White House left one year ago after accusing Iran of using sanctions relief to support militant groups and ballistic missile development.

With Washington vowing to bring Tehran’s oil exports to zero via strict sanctions, Rouhani has repeated the threats of hard-liners warning that the elite Revolutionary Guards may attempt to disrupt traffic in the world’s top oil choke point, the Strait of Hormuz. The elite Iranian military branch was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. last month in an unprecedented step that led Iran to give the same title to the Pentagon’s Central Command.

A week after Bolton announced the incoming military armada and a day after the U.S. Maritime Administration warned of “an increased possibility that Iran and/or its regional proxies could take action against U.S. and partner interests,” including oil production infrastructure, a pair of still unclaimed “sabotage” attacks against commercial oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman increased tensions. The attacks, less than 100 miles away from the Strait of Hormuz, targeted two Saudi ships—one of which was set to transport oil to the U.S.—and one registered in Norway.

Iran joined Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, along with others, in criticizing the attacks Monday, but Trump later that same day warned “it’s gonna be a bad problem for Iran if something happens,” suggesting Tehran or its allied militias may have played a role. The following day, The Wall Street Journal cited unnamed U.S. officials claiming that an initial assessment placed the blame for the unclaimed attacks on Iran.

National security adviser John Bolton listens while President Donald Trump speaks to the press before a meeting with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the Oval Office of the White House on May 13 in Washington. Trump later warned that Iran would “suffer greatly” if it targeted U.S. interests in the region. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

With tensions already soaring Monday, The New York Times reported on a meeting of Trump’s top national security aides that took place Thursday, when acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan allegedly drew a plan for up to 120,000 U.S. troops to respond to any Iranian attack. The plan quickly drew comparisons to the 2003 Iraq War.

The Iranians also made this comparison. Tehran’s United Nations envoy Majid Takht Ravanchi recently called Bolton’s claims of an impending Iranian plot “fake intelligence” that was “being produced by the same people who, in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, did the same.” As he previously advocated for military action against Iran, Bolton was also a leading supporter of the decision to invade Iraq based on charges that then-President Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction and supporting Al-Qaeda—two accusations later shown to be false.

Iranian military leaders have pledged to repel any U.S. attack, but have also downplayed the threat of an imminent conflict erupting. At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has linked the recent mystery attacks off the coast of the UAE to his predictions last month that the so-called “B-Team” of Bolton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and UAE President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan would intentionally instigate a conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

p:last-of-type::after, .node-type-slideshow .article-body > p:last-of-type::after{content:none}]]>

Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/iran-war-trump-adviser-1425163

President Trump on Tuesday said he would send “a hell of a lot” more U.S. troops to the Middle East to counter Iran than were sent to Iraq in 2003.

Trump made the comment after being asked about a New York Times report that officials in his administration updated a military plan that calls for sending up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack U.S. forces or start up nuclear fuel production, which has been suspended under the Iranian nuclear agreement.

Trump called the Times report fake news, then confirmed that he would do it, even though he didn’t want to do it — and that if he did, there would definitely be more than 120,000 troops involved.

“I think it’s fake news. Okay? Now, would I do that? Absolutely.  But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not gonna have to plan for that. And if we did that we would send a hell of a lot more troops than that. But I think it’s just — where was that story, in The New York Times? Well, The New York Times is fake news.”

The Times report, published Monday, reveals the growing influence of Trump administration officials who are hawkish on Iran, like national security adviser John Bolton. Officials who spoke to the Times said that hardliners like Bolton ordered the changes to the military plan on Iran, which does not involve a land invasion of the country.

A land invasion of Iran would require substantially more U.S. troops. For comparison, 120,000 troops would approach the number that invaded Iraq in 2003. Iraq has less than a third of Iran’s population, now at 81 million, and is slightly over one-fourth the size of Iran in land.

More than half a dozen officials spoke to the Times, and some who were briefed on the plan said they were shocked at the large size of troops that would be involved. Some said the new plan shows the threat that Iran has become, while others warned that this “amounts to a scare tactic to warn Iran against new aggressions.”

Over the last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has held last-minute meetings in Belgium and Iraq, reportedly to discuss the threats that Iran poses to the region. His efforts in both countries did not go over well.

After Pompeo’s visit to Iraq last week, the president and prime minister both stressed the importance of Iraq cooperating with all its neighbors and building bridges. When Pompeo visited Belgium on Monday — again, at the last minute — E.U. diplomats were reportedly not pleased, with one telling the Wall Street Journal, “He wanted a photo op. We declined and stuck with the plan.”

It would be hard for Trump to sell Iran as an imminent threat, in large part because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and that it is still complying with the terms of the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement.

Trump withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2018, and since then his administration has reimposed sanctions on Iran and threatened secondary sanctions on those in other countries still doing business with or in Iran. The agreement — struck between Iran, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Germany — is technically still in place, but the sanctions violate the key tenet Iran was supposed to be offered in exchange for limiting its nuclear activity.

Last week, Iran announced that if the European Union did not do anything to address this imbalance in 60 days, it would resume some of the activities it stopped as part of the deal. (Experts note that this isn’t technically a violation of the deal, nor is it a sign that Iran is trying to get a nuclear bomb.)

Despite previous allegations that he did not support the invasion of Iraq, Trump is on the record as having supported the war. In 2002, Trump was asked if he was for invading Iraq, and he replied, “Yeah, I guess so. You know I wish… the first time it was done correctly.” One day into the invasion, he said that it “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint” and that “Wall Street’s just gonna go up like a rocket.”

The Times report stressed that it was not clear if Trump was briefed on the new plan’s details or the number of troops that would be involved.

But during a press conference on Monday with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Trump was asked if he was at war with or seeking regime change in Iran.

“We’ll see what happens with Iran,” he replied. “If they do anything, it would be a very bad mistake. If they do anything. I’m hearing little stories about Iran. If they do anything, they will suffer greatly. We’ll see what happens with Iran.”


Source Article from https://thinkprogress.org/trump-says-he-would-send-a-hell-of-a-lot-more-than-120000-troops-to-counter-iran-7c67f7ad5dfe/

Image copyright
EPA

Image caption

Mr Pompeo (left) and Mr Lavrov held talks in the Russian city of Sochi

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said the United States does not seek a war with Iran, amid rapidly growing tensions between the two countries.

Speaking in Russia, Mr Pompeo said the US was looking for Iran to behave like a “normal country” but would respond if its interests were attacked.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also said there will be no war with the US.

Last week, the US deployed warships and warplanes to the Gulf.

Tensions escalated even further after an incident with four tankers off the United Arab Emirates on Sunday, with US investigators reportedly believing Iran or groups it supports were involved.

No evidence of Iran’s role has emerged and Tehran, which denies any involvement, has called for an investigation.

In another development, Spain withdrew a frigate from a US-led naval group in the Gulf as tensions between Washington and Tehran rose.

What has Pompeo said?

Mr Pompeo, who held talks with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Russian city of Sochi, said the US “fundamentally” did not seek a conflict with Iran.

“We have also made clear to the Iranians that if American interests are attacked, we will most certainly respond in an appropriate fashion.”

The talks between Mr Pompeo and Mr Lavrov to help improve ties between Washington and Moscow have underlined continuing differences:

  • Mr Pompeo said he had urged Russia to end its support for President Nicolás Maduro but Mr Lavrov rejected this, saying the US threats against Mr Maduro were undemocratic
  • He also said he had warned Russia against interference in the 2020 US presidential election while Mr Lavrov said he hoped that tumult over allegations of Russian influence in US elections would die down
  • On Ukraine, Mr Pompeo said the US would not recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and that sanctions would remain in place

What has Iran said?

In remarks carried on state media and on his Twitter account, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei repeated Tehran’s position that it would not negotiate with the US on a nuclear deal to replace the one President Donald Trump withdrew from last year.

But Mr Khamenei said: “We don’t seek a war, nor do they.”

On Monday, President Hassan Rouhani told a meeting with clerics that Iran was “too great to be intimidated by anyone”, saying: “God willing we will pass this difficult period with glory and our heads held high, and defeat the enemy.”

What has Spain said?

The Spanish frigate Mendez Nunez had been accompanying a US aircraft carrier’s strike group in the Gulf for a military exercise.

But on Tuesday, Acting Defence Minister Margarita Robles said it would be recalled because the original mission had changed.

Image copyright
Reuters

Image caption

The frigate Mendez Nunez had been accompanying the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln

The Spanish daily El Pais said Madrid wanted to avoid being dragged into any kind of conflict with Iran.

A defence ministry spokesman later told AFP news agency it was “a temporary withdrawal… as long as the American aircraft carrier is in this zone”.

“No possible confrontation or warlike action is envisaged (by Spain) and it is for this reason that the participation is suspended for the moment,” the spokesman added.

Why have tensions with Iran risen?

The incident with the four commercial ships is said to have taken place within UAE territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman, east of the emirate of Fujairah, but few details have been released.

The vessels had been targeted in a “sabotage attack” near Fujairah port, just outside the Strait of Hormuz, the UAE foreign ministry said.

There were no casualties but Saudi Arabia said two of its ships had suffered “significant damage”. Another tanker was Norwegian-registered while the fourth was reportedly UAE-flagged.

US military investigators discovered large holes in all of the ships and believe they were caused by explosive charges, the Associated Press reported quoting an unnamed official. They did not explain how the damage was linked to Iran.

A deliberate attempt to increase tensions?

Compared with previous attacks on shipping in the Middle East – the USS Cole in 2000, the Limburg tanker in 2002 and more recent attacks off Yemen – the damage done to four tankers off the UAE coast on Sunday is minimal.

There has been no oil spillage, no flames and no casualties. But the timing is both suspicious and dangerous.

Whoever carried out this attack could hardly have been unaware of the rising tensions in the Gulf, with the US dispatching additional forces to the region. It would appear that the anonymous culprit was deliberately trying to ratchet up that tension, possibly provoking a conflict.

While Saudi Arabia and the UAE have stopped short of blaming their adversary, Iran, US officials have reportedly said that is where their suspicions lie. But Iran has condemned the attack as “dreadful” and a parliamentary spokesman said Iranian suspicions fell on Israel.

What has Trump said?

On Tuesday, President Trump dismissed a New York Times report suggesting the military had plans to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack US forces there or accelerate work on nuclear weapons.

“We have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that,” Mr Trump said a day after warning Iran that it would “suffer greatly” if it did anything.

Media captionUS special representative for Iran: ‘We are not looking to get into a war’

The US has previously warned that “Iran or its proxies” could be targeting maritime traffic in the region and, in recent days, deployed warships to counter “clear indications” of threats from the country.

Iran dismissed the allegation as nonsense.

Earlier, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they had carried out drone attacks on a major Saudi oil pipeline. Saudi Arabia’s energy minister described the incident as an act of terrorism.

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48272208

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/tariffs-trump-china-europe-india/index.html

Generals, officers, and policy staffers knocking their heads together in the office and drawing up war plans are nothing new in the Pentagon. The U.S. military has a plan for every contingency you can possibly think of, from an out-of-the-blue Russian incursion in the Baltics to an internal collapse of the Venezuelan government. So, we should all take the latest report in the New York Times about a hypothetical American military attack on Iran with this context in mind.

Mobilization plans are one thing. But acting on those plans and mobilizing for war is quite another. There are no two ways about it: A U.S. military operation in Iran absent a credible and direct national security threat to the United States, its personnel, or citizens in the region is the very definition of recklessness.

It’s not that the U.S. wouldn’t prevail in a conflict with Iran. Conventionally speaking, the regular Iranian military and the more elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are no match for the U.S. Armed Forces. The concern, rather, is that the costs associated with military action heavily outweigh whatever benefits Washington would receive. The problems Iran poses to the region can’t be resolved through bombing raids or sinking the IRGC’s fleet underneath the Persian Gulf.

Militarily, Tehran has options. It can retaliate through proxies or tactical partners in multiple countries with a certain amount of plausible deniability. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Palestinian militants in Gaza, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan — Tehran would be able to utilize all or at least some of these groups as a form of pressure in the event of a John Bolton-like bombing campaign. In such a scenario, the tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East actually limit Washington’s flexibility and increase the risk; the more troops the U.S. deploys to the region, the more targets Iran has.

Of course, none of this is new. The Iran-proxy relationship has been studied for decades by regional scholars and intelligence analysts. Tehran may be a weak power compared to the United States, but this doesn’t mean it won’t go down fighting.

What is relatively new, however, is the man who sits in the Oval Office. Unlike previous U.S. presidents, Donald Trump appears reflexively opposed to getting the U.S. deeper into the Middle East. He recoils at the thought of wasting a few more trillion dollars and sacrificing a few thousand additional American lives for the cesspool this region has become — a place with a lot of intractable problems (ethnic conflict, predatory government, jihadists, unaccountable militias, and zero-sum competition between states) and few easy solutions. This is exactly what Trump campaigned against, and it was an issue that resonated with a lot of Americans who were tired of spending so many resources in a theater that seems immune to every dose of medicine.

A preventive attack on Iran would of course be a breaking of this campaign promise from a president who likes to remind Americans that unlike other politicians, he actually does what he says. Strategically, an attack on Iran would be a disaster, dividing the U.S. from its allies and partners and opening a Pandora’s Box that would unfurl a brand new set of crises. But such an action wouldn’t be politically advantageous either; indeed, it would reinforce a belief in the minds of many in the commentariat that Trump doesn’t give orders, but rather follows them from his more hawkish national security advisers.

The best way to prevent this would be to stop whistling past the graveyard. Before the tension with Iran gets any more solidified, President Trump should seriously rethink his course of action. Provoking Iran into a conflict or launching one unilaterally serves the interest of nobody. This is especially true for the United States, a country that should be working to rebalance its force posture after nearly two decades of expensive and counterproductive military commitments in the region.

Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/planning-for-war-in-iran-is-very-different-from-mobilizing-for-war-in-iran

NSO demonstrated its mobile-phone hacks on BlackBerry, iPhone, and Android phones in 2013, according to leaked emails from a breach of Hacking Team, a competitor of the company based in Italy, published on WikiLeaks.

“Your smartphone today is the new walkie-talkie,” Lavie told the Financial Times that year. “Most of your typical solutions for interception are inadequate, so a new tool had to be built.”

Pegasus can infect a targeted phone in two ways, through SMS text messaging. Its “zero-click” vector allows an attacker to send a special SMS message to a target that causes the phone to automatically load a malicious link, while its “one-click” vector requires a user to click a link to infect their device, which happens in the background without a user ever knowing.

Once the device is infected, spies can actively record with its microphone or video camera, grab personal data like calendars, contacts, and passwords, or download all the data on the device, to include emails, photos, and browsing history.

“We’re a complete ghost,” Lavie told Defense News in 2013. “We’re totally transparent to the target, and we leave no traces.”

Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/whatsapp-hack-who-is-nso-group-spy-firm-behind-attack-2019-5

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., may rue the day he sided with Donald Trump Jr. against a valid subpoena by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Graham’s advice that Trump Jr. refuse to testify was way out of line in principle, and could prove harmful to his own committee’s work in practice.

Graham at first said that Trump Jr. should refuse even to appear before the Intelligence Committee. At least he later amended his advice. Now he says he meant the presidential son should comply technically with the subpoena by showing up at an Intelligence Committee hearing, but then refuse to answer any question by pleading the Fifth Amendment.

The original statement was worse, indeed awful, but even the modified advice is wrongheaded.

A subpoena from Congress, like one from a court, is a binding legal summons. The only valid reason for refusing to comply is if the subpoena demands information or material that is unlawful for the subpoenaed person to supply. Mere disagreements over politics or mere inconveniences (“I’ve already answered some of their questions!”) do not qualify as valid excuses. Graham himself made that very point back in 1998 when arguing in favor of impeaching then-president Bill Clinton.

Congressional oversight — over the executive branch, over law enforcement, and over U.S. intelligence gathering — is an essential part of constitutional government. Courts repeatedly have recognized the oversight power as necessary and vast. Indeed, oversight by the elected representatives of the people is an essential safeguard of liberty.

Graham knows this. Moreover, in very practical terms, he should appreciate the oversight and subpoena authority even more than most. The Judiciary Committee that Graham leads is, historically, one of the committees that needs and uses subpoena power the most. By openly saying a citizen should ignore or undermine a subpoena, he weakens his own standing, at least morally and perhaps at the margins legally, if he as chairman wants to issue subpoenas in the future.

Graham also undermines Senate traditions and comity by so disrespecting a co-equal committee chairman as he now has done to Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C. The insult is especially pronounced when inflicted upon a chairman of one’s own party, and in this case from a neighboring state as well.

The damage was mitigated, but only slightly, when Graham clarified that he thinks Trump Jr. should comply but “take the Fifth.” While paying belated homage to the importance that Congress’ legal powers of subpoena be preserved, Graham still is advising a key witness to withhold information another committee and its chairman think vital to the national interest. As the committee in question here is Intelligence, with the national-security implications involved and often with the added element of secrecy, Graham in theory could be undermining a particularly important inquiry whose importance he does not fully understand.

Graham’s only stated reason for doing so is that he thinks it’s important for the investigation into Russian perfidy to be “over.” Well, who is he to say so? The criminal investigation may largely have run its course, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t loose ends to tie up regarding the crucial, underlying reason for the intelligence investigation in the first place: learning how the Russians went about trying to subvert U.S. elections.

To advise someone to “take the Fifth” implies both that that person remains subject to criminal liability (which probably is not the case here) and that the person’s knowledge is immaterial to Congress’ due interests in protecting American security. Both assumptions likely are wrong.

Graham’s advice is thus ill-considered, and potentially dangerous.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/lindsey-graham-should-not-be-advising-trump-jr-to-take-the-fifth

Iranian officials accused “hardliners” in the United States and elsewhere of attempting to orchestrate an incident that would ratchet up tensions with the Islamic Republic, as the supreme leader vowed there would be no war.

The allegation by Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Tuesday came as tensions in the Gulf continue to rise as American military forces head to the region and amid a series of attacks on oil infrastructure.

Four ships – two Saudi, one Norwegian and one Emirati – were damaged on Sunday off the coast of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in what Emirati officials described as acts of sabotage near the port of Fujairah.

The incident happened 140km south of the Strait of Hormuz, where about one-third of all oil traded by sea passes through.

“We … talked about the policies that hardliners in the US administration as well as in the region are attempting to impose,” Zarif told Iranian state TV in India after a bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj.

“We raised concerns over the suspicious activities and sabotage that are happening in our region. We had formerly anticipated that they would carry out these sorts of activities to escalate tension.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday there would be no war with the US despite mounting concerns. He also reiterated Iran would not negotiate with the US on a new nuclear deal.

“There won’t be any war. The Iranian nation has chosen the path of resistance,” he said. “Neither we nor them seek war. They know it will not be in their interest.” 



Norwegian-flagged oil tanker MT Andrea Victory off the coast of Fujairah [UAE National Media Council via AP]

Details of the alleged oil vessel sabotage remained unclear, and UAE officials have declined to say who they suspected was responsible.

Mohammad Javad Jamali, an Iranian member of parliament, accused unidentified countries in the region of trying “to drag Trump into a war”.

“I think the talk of explosions in Fujairah is just a hasty scenario and it suffers many shortcomings. Whoever stands behind this is pushing for a failed plan,” said Jamali.

Fatemeh Aman, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, said the attacks on the vessels may have been planned as a pretext to start a conflict with Tehran.

“The attack on the ships was predictable and it looks like it was orchestrated to function as a pretext to attack Iran,” Aman told Al Jazeera. “Any incident or sabotage could be falsely attributed to Iran, even if Iran had no involvement.”

Arch foes Saudi Arabia and Iran have both used proxy forces in the region to further their aspirations. 

Asked by Al Jazeera if Riyadh may be attempting to push the US towards war with Iran, analyst Tim Constantine said: “Considering the Saudi position on Iran and the well-known position of the Trump administration on Iran, yes I think the Saudis can be counted on to stir the pot and encourage a very aggressive stance by the United States.” 

No conclusive proof

The alleged attacks demonstrated the raised risks for shippers in a region vital to global energy supplies as tensions are increasing between the US and Iran over its unravelling nuclear deal with world powers.

The Iran-backed Houthi rebel group in Yemen, meanwhile, claimed responsibility for a series of drone attacks on two Saudi Arabian oil facilities in its eastern region on Tuesday, further ratcheting up tensions.


The US Maritime Administration said last week Iran could target US commercial ships including oil tankers sailing through Middle East waterways.

An unnamed US official familiar with American intelligence told Reuters news agency that Iran was a prime suspect in Sunday’s sabotage off the UAE coast, although Washington had no conclusive proof.

The US ambassador to Saudi Arabia said Washington should take what he called “reasonable responses short of war” after it determined who was behind the attacks near Fujairah.

“We need to do a thorough investigation to understand what happened, why it happened, and then come up with reasonable responses short of war,” Ambassador John Abizaid told reporters in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on Tuesday.

“It’s not in [Iran’s] interest, it’s not in our interest, it’s not in Saudi Arabia’s interest to have a conflict.”

US military plan? 

On Monday, the New York Times reported that the top US defence official has presented an updated military plan to Trump’s administration that envisions sending up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East, should Iran attack US forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons.

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday denied the report.

“I think it’s fake news, okay? Now, would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that,” Trump told reporters at the White House.


Tensions between Iran and the US have intensified since Trump pulled out of a 2015 international deal to curb Iran’s nuclear activities and imposed increasingly strict sanctions on Tehran.

Trump wants to force Tehran to agree to a broader arms control accord and has sent an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Gulf in a show of force against what US officials have said are threats to US troops in the region.

Iran has said the US is engaging in “psychological warfare”, called the US military presence “a target” rather than a threat and said it will not allow its oil exports to be halted.

Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Tuesday he was getting indications from talks with both the US and Iran that “things will end well” despite the current ramping up of rhetoric.

But analysts suggest things could quickly escalate as the American military presence in the region grows. 

“Iran could actually view some of this as being a potential buildup for some type of offensive action,” said Becca Wasser, a RAND Corp analyst specialising in Gulf security.

“It raises the risk of accidental escalation. Because the US and Iran don’t have clear lines of communication at the moment, everything can be perceived in a very different light than one side is intending.”

Al Jazeera’s Ali Younes contributed to this report 

Source Article from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/05/iran-suggests-oil-attacks-orchestrated-spark-conflict-190514155502867.html

There was a school of thought that said former Vice President Joe Biden would begin to sink in the polls the moment he announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. Biden’s first day in the race, the thinking went, would be his best day.

In fact, the opposite has happened. Since formally becoming a candidate on April 25, Biden has shot up in the polls. On announcement day, Biden held a 6.3-point lead over second-place Sen. Bernie Sanders in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Today, that lead is 23.5 points. That is a big change.

Polls do not tell us who will win an election months from now. But they do tell us what is happening at this moment. And at this moment, Democratic voters, who are sometimes said to be moving left and itching to transform the United States with a “Green New Deal,” “Medicare for All,” and through-the-roof taxes on the rich, are in fact responding to a decidedly more centrist appeal.

That appeal, from Biden, is a promise not to fundamentally remake American society but to restore things to the way they used to be. And “the way they used to be” means before President Trump.

Obviously, Democratic voters want to replace a Republican president with a Democratic president. But they are especially dismayed by Trump — and some, driven by increasingly strident news coverage, seem to have gone nearly ’round the bend about him.

But for some center-left Democrats, the solution to the Trump Problem — that is, the fact that Trump is president — might not be the “Green New Deal” or “Medicare for All.” It is to restore the pre-2017 order in American politics. And Biden, Barack Obama’s vice president from 2009 to 2017, is the physical embodiment of that old order.

That is what Biden promises. Nearly every day, he repeats some version of his core campaign pledge: “I want to restore the soul of this country.”

Biden’s unexpected choice of Charlottesville, Va., as the theme of his announcement was a way of saying that something has gone terribly wrong in the U.S. and that he wants to return to the pre-Trump past. Addressing a real or imagined moral crisis is one way for an opposition candidate to run against an incumbent president whose term has brought solid economic growth, low unemployment, and higher wages.

How long will Biden’s lead last? Who knows? There is simply no telling how the Democratic race will play out. In the last two Republican nomination contests, we saw one race, in 2012, in which several candidates alternated holding the lead before Mitt Romney finally won. In the other, in 2016, we saw Trump lead a big field virtually the entire time. Now, with an even bigger Democratic field, the race dynamics are not yet clear.

Plus, for Biden specifically, there will always be the issue of age. Biden will be 78 years old on inauguration day 2021. That is the same age Trump would be upon leaving office, should he serve eight years. But Biden would be just beginning his presidency nearing the age of 80. That is totally uncharted territory in U.S. history. (By the way, one other candidate, Sanders, is even older.)

Even if Democrats want to restore the old order, they might decide a younger candidate should do the job.

They might also want a candidate without Biden’s record of fizzling out in presidential campaigns. In his first run for president, in 1988, Biden withdrew amid a plagiarism scandal before any votes were cast. In his second run, in 2008, he quit after finishing fifth in the Iowa caucuses. So, he has run twice and never even made it to the New Hampshire primary.

Now, though, Biden stands ahead of the field. Democrats know how old he is, they know he has lost in the past, and they still like him.

There’s a truism that elections are always about the future, not the past. That’s often the case. But what if it isn’t this time? A lot of political truisms did not hold up in the 2016 election, which was won by a man with another promise of restoration, to “Make America Great Again.”

Now, many Democrats seem happy to support a candidate who pledges to take them back a few years. Again, that could change, but for the moment, it shows how many Democrats yearn to return to a time before Trump.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-joe-biden-and-restoring-the-old-pre-trump-order

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) used her Twitter feed on Monday to show voters how corporate lobbyists influence legislators.

The freshman lawmaker shared an Intercept report about a resort event that was attended by dozens of senior staffers of both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The party was filled with music, wine and talking points from health care industry lobbyists who urged the staffers to fight Medicare for All proposals. 

“This event wasn’t about fixing the health care system,” Wendell Potter, president of Business Initiative for Health Policy, told the Intercept. “It was about protecting the health care industry, no matter the cost to patients, families, workers or employers.” 

🎶What would you do if I sang out of tune,
would you stand up and walk out on me?/
Lend me your ears and I’ll sing you a song/
and I’ll try not to sing out of key. /
Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends /
mm, gonna try with a little help from my friends 🎶
.
This was one of my papa’s favorite songs. Before he passed away, he built a trellis for my mother by hand in our backyard. He wanted to inscribe this lyric around the edges, but never got the chance. I have always felt that this is a love song, but a love song for friendship.
.
This #internationalwomensday, I’m thinking about (and grateful for) sisterhood. At the heart of sisterhood, like so many meaningful relationships, is love. And to me, loving people isn’t about who you’re trying to be a “rockstar” in front of. Love is about who you’re unafraid to let see you sing out of tune. 🎤
.
📸: @rashidatlaib + @azizthefrenchie

Own your power.
.
For so many, it’s radical to feel comfortable in your own skin – and to know that you are more than enough, just as you are.
.
One of my favorite quotes is from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: “Everybody can be great…because anybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.”
.
So take up space. Speak up. Hold the door open and take others with you. Accept that you will be criticized no matter what – that is the price of fighting for change and innovation. I consider constructive criticism a blueprint for improvement and a medicine for ego.
.
Ultimately, the people who get down, stay focused in adversity, and do the thankless work of change are the ones who transform society. We can all be a part of that, if we so choose. We can all knock a door, register our cousin to vote, or educate ourselves on an issue we’re curious about.
.
We are all capable of awakening and commitment. And because of that, we can all be great.
.
📸: @gigilaub

IT’S OFFICIAL: OCASIO2018 IS ON THE BALLOT FOR NY-14! 🔥
.
This is what ~5,500 grassroots signatures, collected by 141 volunteer witnesses, held by 1 overwhelmingly grateful candidate at midnight looks like! 💪🏽💪🏽 #peoplepower
.
All weekend, high-priced opposition lawyers were crawling over our petitions to find any excuse to bump me off the ballot.
.
Ultimately, our grassroots 5X effort was too overwhelming. As of midnight last night, no objections were filed to our campaign for Congress.
.
Ocasio2018 is on the ballot for NY-14 all thanks to YOU. THANK YOU to our supporters, door knockers, petition captains, donors, prayer squads, EVERYONE who helped make this happen in all ways large and small.
.
Now it’s time to kick it into high gear. Join us in the Bronx THIS SAT for our organizing rally and Barnstorm. You are all officially invited – so you have no reason to say “I’ve never been to the Bronx” again! COMMIT NOW: LINK IN BIO.




Ocasio-Cortez said this was just business as usual for much of Washington as lobbyists “schmooze policymakers in secret” into accepting their industry-friendly talking points to stay on message:

Earlier this year, Ocasio-Cortez had a viral moment after she shined a light on PACs, “dark money” and the shady world of campaign finance

  • This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/05/14/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-exposes-just-how-easily-lobbyists-manipulate-policymakers/23725800/

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/investing/dow-stocks-today/index.html

CLOSE

The $19 billion deal was apparently fleshed out over a dinner meeting. It is not clear whether Zuckerberg knew about Ma’s plans or surgery.
Newslook

A cybersecurity breach in Facebook’s messaging app WhatsApp left users unknowingly vulnerable to malicious spyware installed on their smartphones, WhatsApp admitted Monday. 

The security vulnerability affects both iPhone and Android devices, and WhatsApp is urging users to update their apps as soon as possible.

WhatsApp, which is used by over 1.5 billion people, confirmed the vulnerability in a statement, but didn’t name the perpetrator. 

“WhatsApp encourages people to upgrade to the latest version of our app, as well as keep their mobile operating system up to date, to protect against potential targeted exploits designed to compromise information stored on mobile devices,” the company said in a statement .

“We are constantly working alongside industry partners to provide the latest security enhancements to help protect our users.”

Facebook issued a security advisory confirming the vulnerability on Monday that outlines which versions of WhatsApp where affected. 

Alexa might be spying: Amazon secretly recording and storing what your kids say, complaint says

Data diet? Google attempts a pivot toward privacy at I/O developer conference

The Financial Times reported that a loophole in WhatsApp allowed attackers to inject spyware on smartphones by calling targets using the app. The malicious code could be transmitted whether the user answered the call or not.

The Financial Times said the spyware was developed by Israeli cyber surveillance company NSO Group.

An NSO spokesperson told USA TODAY that the company’s technology is “licensed to authorized government agencies for the sole purpose of fighting crime and terror.”

“We investigate any credible allegations of misuse and if necessary, we take action, including shutting down the system,” NSO said in a statement. 

WhatsApp says the cyber threat was first discovered earlier this month and had been used to target a “select number” of users. The messaging company said it briefed human rights organizations on the discovery and notified U.S. law enforcement to help them conduct an investigation. 

Follow Dalvin Brown on Twitter: @Dalvin_Brown

 

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/05/14/whatsapp-urges-users-upgrade-app-after-security-flaw/3664064002/

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will “back off” its investigation into alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse.

Addressing reporters on Capitol Hill, Graham, the committee chairman, said he changed his mind after learning Attorney General William Barr had tasked U.S. Attorney John Durham from Connecticut with examining the origins of the federal Russia investigation.

“I’m glad you have a prosecutor not a politician,” he said. “I don’t expect you to take my word about what happened with the FISA warrant. I’m a Republican, and I want the president to do well. I don’t expect Republicans to take [House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry] Nadler’s word about anything wrongdoing toward Trump. We finally have somebody outside of politics.”

Graham said he wanted to give Durham “space” to do his job after it was reported Monday he was assigned by Barr.

“You’ve now got a prosecutor. I don’t want to get in their way, I don’t want to mess up his criminal investigation, and I don’t want to put people at risk, so I’m going to back off,” he said.

A source told Fox News that Durham has been reviewing the origin of the Russia investigation “for weeks.”

Durham’s effort is the third known federal investigation dedicated to unearthing information about the genesis of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, which was later wrapped into special counsel Robert Mueller’s effort.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is investigating alleged FISA abuse and is expected to wrap up in late May or June. U.S. Attorney John Huber is also conducting an investigation into the federal Russia probe.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lindsey-graham-says-he-will-back-off-fisa-abuse-investigation

  • The US military briefed President Donald Trump’s national-security aides on a revamped plan that could result in the deployment of up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East, according to national-security officials cited in a New York Times report published Monday.
  • The plan calls for the deployment in the event that Iran either attacks US forces or ramps up its nuclear-weapons program, several unnamed US officials told The Times.
  • The plan does not indicate whether the US troops would invade Iran, the newspaper reported.
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

The US military briefed President Donald Trump’s national-security aides on a revamped plan that could result in the deployment of up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East, according to national-security officials cited in a New York Times report published Monday.

The reported plan calls for the deployment of troops in the event that Iran either attacks US forces or ramps up its nuclear-weapons program, several unnamed US officials told The Times.

The plan does not indicate whether US troops would invade Iran, the newspaper said. The number of troops deployed to the Middle East would be close to the roughly 130,600 service members deployed to Iraq in 2003.

The latest blueprint is an updated version of a destabilizing cyberwarfare operation called “Nitro Zeus,” which would target Iran’s power grid and military. Some officials reportedly said the plan was updated in past years and the latest changes were influenced by national security adviser John Bolton, a hawkish foreign policy adviser.

Read more: The US is sending a ton of firepower to take on Iran — here’s everything headed its way




News of the plan comes amid increased tensions between the US and Tehran. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani indicated he would scuttle his country’s nuclear deal after President Donald Trump withdrew and more US sanctions were slapped against Iran.

US defense officials also cited “indications of a credible threat by Iranian regime forces” earlier in May. Israeli intelligence officials uncovered a potential attack against US interests, which fueled Bolton’s “unrelenting” rhetoric toward the Iranians, Axios reported.

Another CNN report citing US officials suggested that a potential attack would have targeted US forces in Syria and Iraq.

In a show of force, the US deployed several military assets to the region. A carrier strike group and bomber task force were sent to the Middle East to “send a clear and unmistakable message.”

Iran responded by downplaying the threat and claimed the US “wouldn’t dare to launch military action against us.”

“If [the Americans] make a move, we will hit them in the head,” Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Amirali Hajizadeh reportedly said.

NOW WATCH: We spent a day with US Border Patrol in El Paso, where the agency is overwhelmed by the volume of migrants crossing the US-Mexico border

See Also:

SEE ALSO: 2nd-highest ranking US military officer reportedly slammed his hands on table after growing tired of John Bolton’s aides at fiery meeting

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/05/14/us-military-explores-plan-to-deploy-120k-troops-to-the-middle-east-as-tensions-with-iran-intensify/23725818/