A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



December 21, 2018

Holiday Asteroid

Holiday Asteroid Imaged with NASA Radar

The December 2018 close approach by the large, near-Earth asteroid 2003 SD220 has provided astronomers an outstanding opportunity to obtain detailed radar images of the surface and shape of the object and to improve the understanding of its orbit.

These three radar images of near-Earth asteroid
2003 SD220 were obtained on Dec. 15-17.
The asteroid will fly safely past Earth on Saturday, Dec. 22, at a distance of about 1.8 million miles (2.9 million kilometers). This will be the asteroid's closest approach in more than 400 years and the closest until 2070, when the asteroid will safely approach Earth slightly closer.

The radar images reveal an asteroid with a length of at least one mile (1.6 kilometers) and a shape similar to that of the exposed portion of a hippopotamus wading in a river. They were obtained Dec. 15-17 by coordinating the observations with NASA's 230-foot (70-meter) antenna at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in California, the National Science Foundation's 330-foot (100-meter) Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia and the Arecibo Observatory's 1,000-foot (305-meter) antenna in Puerto Rico.

The Green Bank Telescope was the receiver for the powerful microwave signals transmitted by either Goldstone or the NASA-funded Arecibo planetary radar in what is known as a "bistatic radar configuration." Using one telescope to transmit and another to receive can yield considerably more detail than would one telescope, and it is an invaluable technique to obtain radar images of closely approaching, slowly rotating asteroids like this one.

"The radar images achieve an unprecedented level of detail and are comparable to those obtained from a spacecraft flyby," said Lance Benner of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and the scientist leading the observations from Goldstone. "The most conspicuous surface feature is a prominent ridge that appears to wrap partway around the asteroid near one end. The ridge extends about 330 feet [100 meters] above the surrounding terrain. Numerous small bright spots are visible in the data and may be reflections from boulders. The images also show a cluster of dark, circular features near the right edge that may be craters."

The images confirm what was seen in earlier "light curve" measurements of sunlight reflected from the asteroid and from earlier radar images by Arecibo: 2003 SD220 has an extremely slow rotation period of roughly 12 days. It also has what seems to be a complex rotation somewhat analogous to a poorly thrown football. Known as "non-principal axis" rotation, it is uncommon among near-Earth asteroids, most of which spin about their shortest axis.

With resolutions as fine as 12 feet (3.7 meters) per pixel, the detail of these images is 20 times finer than that obtained during the asteroid's previous close approach to Earth three years ago, which was at a greater distance. The new radar data will provide important constraints on the density distribution of the asteroid's interior — information that is available on very few near-Earth asteroids.

"This year, with our knowledge about 2003 SD220's slow rotation, we were able to plan out a great sequence of radar images using the largest single-dish radio telescopes in the nation," said Patrick Taylor, senior scientist with Universities Space Research Association (USRA) at the Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI) in Houston.

"The new details we've uncovered, all the way down to 2003 SD220's geology, will let us reconstruct its shape and rotation state, as was done with Bennu, target of the OSIRIS-REx mission," said Edgard Rivera-Valentín, USRA scientist at LPI. "Detailed shape reconstruction lets us better understand how these small bodies formed and evolved over time."

Patrick Taylor led the bistatic radar observations with Green Bank Observatory, home of the Green Bank Telescope, the world's largest fully steerable radio telescope. Rivera-Valentín will be leading the shape reconstruction of 2003 SD220 and led the Arecibo Observatory observations.

Asteroid 2003 SD220 was discovered on Sept. 29, 2003, by astronomers at the Lowell Observatory Near-Earth-Object Search (LONEOS) in Flagstaff, Arizona — an early Near-Earth Object (NEO) survey project supported by NASA that is no longer in operation. It is classified as being a "potentially hazardous asteroid" because of its size and close approaches to Earth's orbit. However, these radar measurements further refine the understanding of 2003 SD220's orbit, confirming that it does not pose a future impact threat to Earth.

The Arecibo, Goldstone and USRA planetary radar projects are funded through NASA's Near-Earth Object Observations Program within the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), which manages the Agency's Planetary Defense Program. The Arecibo Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by the University of Central Florida, Yang Enterprises and Universidad Metropolitana. GBO is a facility of the National Science Foundation, operated under a cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.

Bury his secrets

Trump got the National Enquirer to bury his secrets. Did he do the same with Putin?

Enquiring minds want to know.

By Alex Finley - Center for Public Integrity

A powerful man holds decades of compromising material on a businessman who has long considered running for president of the United States. He strikes a deal with the future politician, in which he will bottle up any negative information about him and, even better, circulate and amplify negative stories and conspiracy theories about the candidate’s political opponents.

To help foster the deal, the candidate’s lawyer sets up creative workarounds to hide payments related to that help. When asked about it, all sides deny any arrangement. All of this is done with the aim of influencing the US presidential election.

That’s the exact situation we now know occurred during the 2016 election between President Donald Trump and the publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid magazine.

And we know all of this because Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer who acted as the go-between, making the whole shady deal happen — admitted it in his recent plea agreement and because the publisher’s company filled in details in a non-prosecution agreement. Cohen pleaded guilty to financial crimes, campaign finance violations, and lying to Congress, and on December 12 was sentenced to three years in prison.

The scheme was simple: American Media Inc. (AMI) — the parent company of the National Enquirer, headed by Trump’s longtime friend David Pecker — made hush payments to a woman who claimed she had had an affair with Trump, and tipped off Cohen that another woman was shopping a similar story.

Pecker’s intention was not to publish the information, but rather to keep it hidden from the American public, which was already seeing screamingly negative headlines in the Enquirer about Trump’s opponents — from Ted Cruz to Hillary Clinton.

Cohen, at the direction of Trump, made arrangements for AMI’s payment to the woman, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, to be reimbursed. When asked about the arrangement, time and again, Pecker, Cohen, and Trump all denied it. The statements of the participating parties nonetheless now make clear that the Trump campaign colluded with AMI to influence the election.

But hang on — haven’t we heard a similar story before?

Russian President Vladimir Putin held compromising information on Trump — namely, that Trump and his advisers had routinely lied about their contacts and business dealings with Russia — throughout Trump’s campaign, the election, and after taking office.

Putin knew, for example, that Trump and his team had publicly denied having meetings with Russians, while in fact Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had met with a team of Russians — including a lawyer connected to Russia’s top government prosecutor — in Trump Tower in June 2016.

Trump’s team also lied about the timeline involving discussions about Trump Tower Moscow. (Cohen has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about this; that is, he lied to Congress, while Putin knew the truth.)

And while we don’t know exactly what Trump did during his trip to Moscow in 2013, little that goes on there involving wealthy American businessmen would escape the Kremlin’s attention. So it’s safe to assume that Putin knew details of the trip. He also surely had details of Trump’s financial dealings with pro-Putin oligarchs.

Like Pecker, Putin has denied he has any compromising information about Trump. Also like Pecker, Putin helped direct the release of disinformation meant to promote Trump and hurt Clinton, according to a report by the Director of National Intelligence. We learned from two Senate reports this week that this effort utilized nearly every social media platform and reached more than 100 million potential voters.

In dealings with Putin, Cohen also played a fixer role, wheeling and dealing with the office of Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson, about a potential Trump Tower Moscow.

When asked later about any business arrangement, all parties denied it, then said it had been discussed but went nowhere and had ended before Trump was the Republican candidate, when in fact, discussions for the project carried on past the Republican primaries (even though the plans did not come to fruition).

It’s an interesting parallel, particularly given how the AMI story is now unraveling. Might the dynamics of the Trump-Pecker relationship provide insight into the perils of the continuing give and take between Trump and Putin?

Collecting dirt and granting favors

According to the Associated Press, Pecker kept a safe full of negative stories on Trump. As multiple sources told the AP, “the safe was a great source of power for Pecker. ... By keeping celebrities’ embarrassing secrets, the company was able to ingratiate itself with them and ask for favors in return.” A former National Enquirer reporter described the so-called “catch-and-kill” technique to the AP as: “‘I did this for you,’ now what can you do for me.” The Enquirer, he said, “always got something in return.”

And Pecker did get something out of the relationship: In addition to flights on Trump’s private plane, Pecker got access to the gossip about the circles Trump inhabited. Trump is reported to have supplied Pecker with information the National Enquirer could turn into juicy stories. Pecker also received public praise from Trump that may have helped him professionally and financially.

Trump’s election also opened up new avenues for more gossip exchanges and more business opportunities for Pecker. Trump hosted a dinner for Pecker and a French businessman with ties to the Saudi royal family, for example, at a time when, according to the New York Times, Pecker was looking to expand AMI’s business with the kingdom. Word of Pecker’s access to the White House opened doors in Saudi Arabia for him.

And shortly before Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s tour of the United States last spring, AMI just so happened to publish a glossy magazine that appeared in supermarket checkout aisles that introduced the Crown Prince as “the most influential Arab leader, transforming the world at 32.”

The transactional nature of this relationship between Pecker and Trump tells us a lot about Trump’s approach to business: You do something for me, and I’ll do something for you.

This kind of give-and-take, however, can also leave people exposed. Trump and Cohen seemed to have realized this.

At one point during the campaign, they evidently began to fear Pecker had too much leverage and that they were too reliant on blessings from the tabloid, which has an average weekly circulation of around 265,000. So they decided to try to buy back the rights for the negative stories, according to reports by the New York Times and ABC News. (A lawyer for AMI denied the company would “seek to ‘extort’ the President of the United States,” according to a letter obtained by the AP.)

But in a way, that, too, is a normal state of affairs for Trump and his associates. Everyone in his circle seemed to have embarrassing information about others. Omarosa Manigault Newman underscored this point last summer when she — a favorite but losing The Apprentice contestant who later won herself an office in the West Wing — revealed audio recordings she had made to make sure her reputation and position were safeguarded from backstabbing.

The Trump business ethos has long been: Do whatever is necessary to beat your competitors. So if Putin came offering a deal to help Trump win, who was Trump to say no?

Following a similar collusion model

Interestingly, the Steele dossier — a series of raw intelligence reports compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele — outlines a deal between Trump and Putin that is very similar to what we now know existed between Trump and Pecker.

In a July 30, 2016, memo to the research firm employing him, Fusion GPS, Steele noted that the Kremlin had plenty of compromising material, or kompromat as it’s known in Russia, on Trump. Steele added that, according to his source for this information, “the Kremlin had given its word that [the compromising material] would not be deployed against the Republican presidential candidate given how helpful and cooperative his team had been over several years, and particularly of late.”

That same memo claimed that Trump was providing information to the Kremlin, mostly on Russian oligarchs and their families. Just as Trump was able to supply gossip to Pecker, Trump might have been able to provide interesting tidbits on Russian oligarchs outside of Russia, particularly given their affinity for investing in Trump properties. As Donald Trump Jr. himself has said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.”

Some of Steele’s information has been borne out in court proceedings initiated by special prosecutor Robert Mueller. Steele’s claims that Trump or his team provided information to the Kremlin has not been proven, along with several additional claims in the dossier. But it would fit into Trump’s pattern of behavior, as evidenced by the arrangement Trump had with Pecker.

We know that Cohen played the fixer in Trump’s dealings with Pecker and that he played a similar role in Trump’s dealings with Putin. Cohen has already confirmed that he was a go-between in Trump’s efforts to secure a deal to build Trump Tower Moscow. Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson, even lied on Cohen’s behalf, in order to back up Cohen’s story (until Cohen’s public confession).

We also know that Cohen worked with Pecker to cover up embarrassing information about Trump. Did he do the same thing in a collaboration or parallel effort with Putin, as Steele’s document suggests? “According to [a] Kremlin insider,” Steele wrote in a memo dated October 19, 2016, “Cohen now was heavily engaged in a cover up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of Trump’s relationship with Russia being exposed.”

And if so, what favors might Trump have been willing to offer Putin in return for his help? Because like Pecker, you can be sure that Putin, too, keeps a favor bank, including a record of all loans and other disbursements.

What happens when he comes to collect?

Pulling Out like a bitch

Here’s Why Trump Is Pulling Out of Syria

KEVIN DRUM

Why did President Trump suddenly decide to pull American troops out of Syria? Mark Landler takes a crack at answering:

If there was a common thread in Mr. Trump’s actions, it was his unswerving conviction that his political survival depends on securing his conservative base. Those supporters have pounded him relentlessly in recent weeks for his failure to build a border wall with Mexico — one of the bedrock promises he made during his improbable journey to the White House.

He rejected the stopgap budget deal because it failed to fund the wall. He criticized the Fed because its policy is dampening the stock market, which until recently he viewed as a barometer of his success. And he pulled troops out of Syria because it fulfilled a campaign promise to extract the United States from foreign wars.

Nah. Trump’s base was certainly pounding him about the wall. And he did promise them jobs and a strong economy. But did Trump really promise to withdraw troops from Syria? Not really. He said ten different things at ten different times. Nor was his base upset about it now. I don’t think there was a single person in the Republican Party, Trump supporter or not, who had so much as mentioned Syria in the past few months. It just wasn’t an issue.

So what really motivated this sudden U-turn? I don’t know any more than you, but here’s my guess: it was the Friday afternoon call from Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan informing Trump that Turkey’s army was about to launch an attack on the Kurds in Syria. This gave Trump two options. He could have told Erdoğan to bring ’em on and gotten ready for a fight. Or he could have backed down and told Erdoğan to hold off for a bit while he withdrew American troops.

I think it was the latter. Erdoğan threatened him and he caved. A guy like Erdoğan understands that this is the best way to deal with Trump. There’s not much more to it than that.

UPDATE: I wrote this before I read this AP dispatch, which confirms that the Erdoğan call was what prompted Trump to get out of Dodge. Ironically, it turns out that even Erdoğan was surprised at how quickly Trump backed down. He expected Trump to withdraw over a period of a few months, which would have given Turkish troops time to prepare for their assault. Instead, in his typical fashion, Trump just ordered an immediate withdrawal. This will likely produce a little more chaos than Erdoğan wanted.

GoFundMe wall is a joke.. Remember, Mexico is paying...

The border wall GoFundMe page sums up the Trump presidency

By Sally Kohn

During his campaign for president, Donald Trump had a common refrain -- he was going to build a wall, and Mexico was going to pay for it. Since taking office, he has reiterated this same sentiment many, many times.

And yet now, through a GoFundMe page, Trump supporters are volunteering to pay for the wall. It's a horrific bait-and-switch that, ironically, is symbolic of much of Trump's presidency.

The very idea of a border wall between the United States and Mexico is a foolish endeavor, designed to gin up anti-immigrant fear and resentment.

Mind you, I'm a bleeding-heart liberal whose patriotic heart grows fourfold when I think about the sacrifices my immigrant ancestors made to come to this country, sacrifices others are making today only to be turned away at the border. And not because they're breaking the rules, but because President Donald Trump changed the rules that previously allowed certain groups of migrants to seek asylum at the US border. (A court has since blocked some of his efforts.)

And while a lot of Trump supporters want a wall because they blame immigrants for their economic hardships, the fact is immigrants don't "steal jobs." They actually boost economies through spending and paying taxes. Plus immigrants generally take on jobs that citizen workers don't want to fill.

But the other fact a wall ignores is that most undocumented immigrants do not cross the southern border. Rather, they overstay their visas after arriving at American airports.

So, instead of building a pointless wall, we could spend money on the things that are actually hurting all Americans -- opioid addiction, stagnating wages, crumbling roads, failing public schools and lack of access to affordable health care.

Even if you think it's a good idea because you've bought into generations of anti-immigrant scapegoating, wasn't Mexico going to pay for it? Wasn't that Trump's promise? "Mexico will pay for the wall!" Trump tweeted on September 1, 2016.

But Trump broke that promise when he realized that he had not been elected emperor of the universe and couldn't force a foreign government to pay for much of anything, let alone a wasteful wall. So, he tried to get the United States taxpayers to foot the bill. And even with his own party in control of both houses of Congress for two years, he has to yet to get the money he wants to build the wall.

Which means now Trump supporters are pouring donations into a viral GoFundMe campaign that aims to raise at least $1 billion of the $5 billion price tag Trump has set. As of this writing, they have only raised a little over $7 million -- far short of their goal.

But this is hardly Trump's first deception of his base.

Trump promised tax policies that would help his largely white working-class base -- and while some less affluent people received modest benefits, the law gave the biggest breaks to big businesses and the super rich. Worse yet, by 2025, the bottom 20% of Americans will actually see their taxes increase under the plan.

Meanwhile, his trade wars, including with China, have driven up the cost of raw materials and arguably led to layoffs, including 14,000 GM workers just before Christmas. Trump's trade policies have also harmed rural farmers, because China, for a period of time, halted its buying of soybeans and more from US farmers. To mitigate this, Trump has given farmers $9.5 billion in subsidies, but that's less than the amount he originally promised and less than farmers say they've lost because of Trump's trade war.

And Trump's various rollbacks of environmental health and safety have had little to no effect on expanding industry -- but are expected to pollute air and water, especially in communities where Trump voters live. Trump's deregulation of the coal industry alone, centered in rural America, is expected to lead to as many as 1,400 more heart and lung disease deaths per year.

Trump campaigned on fearmongering and empty promises. And that's how he's governing as president. When will his voters realize they're the ones, over and over again, paying the price?

Dangerous for Their Neighbors

Factory Farms No Longer Have to Report Their Air Emissions. That’s Dangerous for Their Neighbors

And bad news for the climate.

LEAH DOUGLAS

Rosemary Partridge has lived in Sac County, Iowa, for 40 years. She has watched the state’s agricultural landscape change, with large-scale hog farms taking over nearly all the land surrounding her home. The stink of the neighboring farms is “unbearable,” making her nauseous whenever she is outside. She and her husband, once cattle and crop farmers who now plant their land with native grasses, suffer health problems—including her husband’s chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—that they worry are a result of the pollution their neighbors are pumping into the air.

Eleven hundred miles to the east, Lisa Inzerillo wonders how much longer she and her husband can tolerate living across the street from six chicken barns, one of the many concentrated animal farming operations (CAFOs) that make the area the poultry production epicenter of Maryland’s Delmarva peninsula. She says she suffers chronic allergies and her husband has had several bouts of bronchitis since the chicken farm moved in about three years ago. “At night, you see the dust from these fans,” she says. “That’s fecal matter, that’s feathers, god knows what else. And if you’re seeing it, you’re breathing it.”

The two families are united by the experience of living near large-scale livestock operations: unable to use their porch or land on certain days, keeping windows closed, and worrying constantly about long-term health consequences. Until recently, though, they could at least be assured that in the case of a major emission of hazardous waste, farm operators would be required by law to notify state and federal responders.

But recent actions by the GOP-controlled Congress and the Trump administration have exempted big livestock farms from reporting air emissions. The moves follow a decade-long push by the livestock industry for exemption and leave neighbors of large-scale operations in the dark about what they’re inhaling. If that weren’t enough, environmental advocates warn that the failure to monitor those emissions makes it even harder to assess the climate effects of large-scale agriculture.

Carrie Apfel, an attorney for Earthjustice who is leading a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency by a coalition of environmental and animal-welfare organizations, says the exemption indicates “further denial of the impact that these [emissions] are having, whether it’s on climate or whether it’s on public health.”

The EPA declined a request for comment on the consequences of CAFO emissions for human health or the environment.

The two laws in question, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), required farms to notify national and local emergency response committees, respectively, in the case of spills, leaks, or other discharge of hazardous waste. That included farm waste products like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide over a “reportable quantity” of 100 pounds. Most farms don’t meet that reporting standard, but large-scale livestock operations commonly do, according to researchers from the University of Iowa.

But in March, Congress added the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act, which exempts farms from reporting air emissions under CERCLA, to its appropriations bill. And in November, Trump’s EPA issued proposed rules to exempt those same operations from air emissions reporting under the EPCRA. The agency’s public-comment period on the new rules ended December 14.

In response, a coalition of national and local advocacy groups—including Food & Water Watch, the Humane Society, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and North Carolina’s Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help—is suing the EPA. Advocates say these exemptions only serve the biggest farms and endanger community health and the environment. The EPA requested to stay the litigation for six months on November 29. The US district court in Washington, D.C., has yet to rule on the motion.

These latest moves to exempt farms from reporting requirements follow a decade of push and pull between the livestock industry and community advocates. In 2008, at the tail end of the second Bush administration, the EPA issued its first EPCRA and CERCLA reporting exemption for farms. The exemption had been prompted by lobbying from the National Chicken Council, the National Turkey Federation, and the US Poultry & Egg Association.

At the time, the EPA defended its decision by saying that “reports are unnecessary because, in most cases, a federal response is impractical and unlikely.” But the exemption was overturned by the court of appeals for the District of Columbia in April 2017, which said that “reports aren’t nearly as useless as the EPA makes them out to be.”

The livestock industry and its Republican supporters in Congress urged EPA to challenge the court’s ruling. Several industry groups, including the US Poultry & Egg Association, National Pork Producers Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association met with EPA leaders in July 2018. But rather than challenge the court’s decision, the EPA turned to its own rulemaking process to create a local reporting exemption that dovetailed with the FARM Act’s national reporting exemption.

The exemptions have ties to Big Ag, too. The FARM Act was introduced by Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer in February and supported by the livestock industry. Sen. Fischer received more than $230,000 from agribusiness PACs in 2017 and 2018.

These exemptions come as scientists, citizens and even the EPA’s own researchers express concern about the environmental and human-health effects of emissions from large-scale livestock farms. A September 2017 report from the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General said that the agency had not found a reliable method for tracking emissions from animal farms or of ascertaining whether the farms comply with the Clean Air Act. A recent report from the World Resources Institute lists reducing air emissions from livestock farming as a major step in addressing climate change.

People who live near these large livestock operations have reason to worry that their health is at risk. The major chemicals being emitted are ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, which can interact with other air pollutants to reduce air quality. Animal farms are responsible for more than 70 percent of the ammonia emissions in the US. Chronic exposure to the levels of these chemicals that come from big farms can lead to a range of health problems, according to researchers from the University of Iowa, from headaches and nausea to respiratory damage. More than 100 farm workers have died after being exposed to high amounts of hydrogen sulfide in manure lagoons or elsewhere on large-scale farms.

In the absence of detailed federal monitoring, some communities rely on citizen scientists to monitor waterways and air for toxic emissions. In Iowa, Rosemary Partridge once tested local water for nitrates with Iowa’s IOWATER program, which trained residents to do basic water monitoring. But those local programs are also vulnerable—Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources ended IOWATER in 2016 after several years of underfunding.

Partridge says the stakes of not monitoring farm waste are clear. “[This] should be of monumental interest to everyone,” she says. “These are major greenhouse gases. People don’t even know about it,” she says, referring to other emissions from animal agriculture like methane.

Both Partridge and the Inzerillos in Maryland have weighed whether to stay on their family land or move away. Partridge says she and her husband decided against uprooting their lives. “We’re going to stay here until we can’t anymore,” she says. “We love our land. There’s no reason that an industry should drive us off our land.”

Lisa Inzerillo says she and her husband would like to leave but aren’t yet ready to walk away from land that once belonged to her grandparents. “It was a dream place for us,” she says. “But living long term there, I just don’t know.”

Not funny










But this is funny as hell........

Off the rails balding rant....

'We don't have to yell': Wolf Blitzer tells Stephen Miller to 'calm down' during border wall interview

Allyson Chiu

When White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller went on CNN for a live interview Thursday night, Wolf Blitzer instantly took notice of his guest's appearance.

But it wasn't Miller's widely-discussed hairline that caught the anchor's attention. Filling the screen above a news chyron that read in all capital letters, "DEFENSE SECRETARY QUITS IN PROTEST OVER TRUMP MIDDLE EAST POLICY AS GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN LOOMS AND FINANCIAL MARKETS TANK," Miller had a broad smile across his face.

"I see you smiling, but right now it doesn't look like there's a lot to smile about," Blitzer said. "Very serious issues."

Miller, one of President Donald Trump's most ardent supporters, was invited on "The Situation Room" to discuss the whirlwind of events that have left the country in what has been described as "a state of chaos" just days before Christmas. What began as a civil exchange rapidly turned into more than 20 minutes of a heated back-and-forth.

Miller appeared to repeatedly dodge Blitzer's pointed questions, choosing instead to shower Trump with praise and spout lengthy impassioned defenses of the president's recent controversial decisions. At one point, Miller became so animated while arguing for the president's proposed border wall that Blitzer, who remained composed, cut him off, saying, "Calm down a minute. We don't have to yell."

The interview soon went viral, encapsulating for many a hectic day of turmoil in the nation's capitol.

Blitzer kicked off Thursday's interview asking Miller for his reaction to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis's abrupt resignation just hours earlier. In a letter, Mattis wrote that Trump has the right to have someone in the position who is "better aligned" with his views, The Washington Post reported. The pair recently clashed over Trump's surprise announcement that he plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, a decision Mattis and other top advisers warned the president against.

On Twitter, Trump announced Mattis was retiring, which Blitzer pointed out was not the reason cited in the lengthy resignation letter. "Tell us what you know about this," Blitzer asked Miller.

"Well, first of all, there is a lot to be happy about right now," Miller responded, referencing Blitzer's initial comment about his seemingly out-of-place smile. Miller quickly rattled off the day's achievements, which included the House passing a sweeping criminal justice reform bill and Trump signing an $867 billion farm bill into law. He also touted a low unemployment rate.

"As to your question about Secretary Mattis, he and the president had a great relationship," Miller said. "Secretary Mattis served our country with honor and distinction."

Then, Miller shifted gears to defend the president's "America First" approach to foreign policy. Seeming unsatisfied with Miller's answer, Blitzer reiterated his original question about Mattis.

"The president said that Mattis is retiring," the anchor said. "Mattis is quitting, he's not retiring. He's quitting in protest over the president's policies, so why is the president saying in that statement he made on Twitter that Mattis is retiring?"

"James Mattis is retiring," Miller said, before parroting the explanation the defense secretary gave in his resignation letter for why he's decided to step down. Talking over Blitzer who tried to ask a follow-up question, Miller added that it is "very normal at this point in the administration to have turnover."

Throughout the interview, Miller defended Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, and asserted that the media was responsible for encouraging U.S. involvement in the affairs of other countries.

Blitzer responded that the current situation has "nothing to do with the media," pointing out that opposition is coming from top government officials.

Miller, who told Blitzer he didn't mean "any disrespect," argued that he's seen "hour and hour of coverage, breathlessly trying to drag America deeper into a Syrian conflict, breathlessly engaging in propping up quotes from people who have dragged us into conflicts like Iraq."

"This president's been very clear about the fact he will defend America like no one else," Miller said, talking faster and louder as he went on. "He will have a military power second to none. He will kill terrorists wherever and whenever he has to. But he's also going to be sophisticated and intelligent and smart about it. And he's not going to have us in foreign conflicts, like Syria, generation after generation after generation instead of protecting this country."

He continued, ignoring Blitzer's attempts to interject: "And you want to talk about protecting this country, you want to talk about defending America? Border security."

Trump, Blitzer said, had two years to complete the wall when both the House and the Senate were under Republican control. "Why did he fail?" Blitzer asked.

Laughing, Miller said the House was currently voting to pass a funding bill that allocated $5.7 billion for the wall. The bill passed Thursday night and is headed to the Senate where Democrats have the votes to block any legislation that contains funding for the wall, The Post reported.

"The fight's only just beginning," Miller told Blitzer. "We're talking about success at border security, this president has made unprecedented achievements in that area."

When Blitzer asked again why the wall wasn't finished, Miller started to shout.

"He wants to build the wall by getting the money now, just like the president was very clear about for the last year leading up to this funding fight," Miller said, raising his voice.

Cutting off Blitzer, who tried to ask about securing the $5 billion in funding, Miller said emphatically, "Right now as we speak there is a surge of illegal immigration heading toward our country that presents a national crisis now."

He continued, appearing to become more irate: "Not a month from now, not a year from now, right now. And this president took an oath, like every lawmaker in Congress to defend the citizens of this country. How many more innocent people have to die in pursuit of an open borders agenda?"

"Alright, Stephen, hold on a minute," Blitzer said, trying to curtail Miller's outburst. "Calm down a minute, we don't have to yell."

As Miller chuckled, Blitzer said, "These are important policy issues that we're discussing. The American people have a right to know where you and the president, the White House, stands."

Social media was instantly alight with reactions to the fiery interview, or what one Twitter user described as "Stephen Miller's crazy, alarmist ranting." Blitzer and Miller were both trending on Twitter as of Thursday night.

Many were quick to praise Blitzer for maintaining his composure and handling the interview "like a pro."

NBC News reporter Kasie Hunt applauded Blitzer on Twitter for being "calm cool and collected," to which the CNN anchor responded, tweeting, "Thanks . . . That is so nice."

People also saw the interview as an opportunity to continue poking fun at Miller, who was recently savaged by the Internet for appearing on "Face the Nation" last weekend with what looked to be fake hair. (Miller, many noticed, was back to his normal baldness for Thursday's CNN interview).

Miller, however, did receive support from those who argued that he "owned Wolf Blitzer," describing his appearance as "epic" and "incredible."

"Stephen Miller is my hero," tweeted Jacob Wohl, the 21-year-old pro-Trump conspiracy theorist who received national attention for allegedly being part of a scheme to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller.

Exit unleashes....

Mattis's exit unleashes Trump's 'America First' doctrine

Nick Wadhams

For two years, the world counted on leaders like Jim Mattis to hold firm against President Donald Trump's "America First" doctrine. Now that last line of defense is gone.

Mattis's abrupt resignation as defense secretary and Trump's rapid-fire moves to reshape the U.S. military footprint abroad are provoking fears that there's no one left to restrain the president's most combative and isolationist impulses.

Already the floodgates are opening.

U.S. forces in Syria will be rapidly withdrawn -- the very issue that provoked Mattis's resignation -- as the president declares victory over Islamic State. American troop levels in Afghanistan will be slashed in half even as peace talks founder. Both decisions signal Trump's willingness to leave key allies on the battlefield.

In a Washington that had grown accustomed to White House chaos, the developments this week forced even Trump's most reliable allies to question his thinking. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- usually loathe to criticize the president -- said he was "distressed" over the departure of Mattis, who he said had a "clear-eyed understanding of our friends and foes."

"It is regrettable that the president must now choose a new Secretary of Defense," McConnell said. "But I urge him to select a leader who shares Secretary Mattis's understanding of these vital principles."

The news heightened the sense of tumult in Washington, already consumed by the prospect of a partial government shutdown egged on by Trump's insistence that Congress meet his demands for border wall funding. And it followed the departure or planned departures of several other key Trump aides, including Chief of Staff John Kelly, United Nations envoy Nikki Haley and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

None of those moves fell with the force of Mattis's decision -- first announced in a presidential tweet and soon after in a letter released to the public. The 68-year-old former Marine general's decision appeared to mark the death knell for the hope that a small group of "adults in the room" -- of whom Mattis was the last -- could dissuade Trump from his most impulsive and potentially disastrous decisions on the world stage.

"Mattis was the administration's last representative of the traditional American view of its strategic role," said Hugh White, a professor of strategic studies at the Australia National University. "It will mean more erratic decision-making."

That impact could be felt on a series of key foreign policy decisions Trump has to make in the early months of 2019, including whether to quit a Cold War-era nuclear treaty with Russia, end waivers that let allies keep buying Iranian oil and determine whether to add Venezuela to a list of state sponsors of terror.

Inside the White House, some aides close to the president said they felt unsettled by Mattis's departure and expressed concern that it could affect foreign leaders' perceptions of the administration's stability.

That extended to Capitol Hill, where key lawmakers were already deep in a fight with the president over a possible government shutdown this weekend.

"This is scary," said Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a tweet late Thursday. "Secretary Mattis has been an island of stability amidst the chaos of the Trump administration."

Mattis's exit may augur a fundamental change in the way adversaries and allies approach the administration, a trend that's already visible with North Korea. Kim Jong Un's regime has all but shut out Pompeo and his chief envoy, Steve Biegun, instead looking to deal with the president himself, knowing he is the ultimate authority."Trump's abrupt decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria without consulting his national security team will reinforce North Korea's inclination to only deal with Trump," Suzanne DiMaggio, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, wrote in a tweet. "Trump has set up a dangerous dynamic that undercuts attempts to conduct real diplomacy."

In a blistering two-page letter to the president, Mattis laid out his convictions on the value of U.S. leadership in strategic alliances, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the 74-nation coalition to defeat Islamic State. His letter also suggested differences with Trump over the president's handling of strategic challenges posed by Russia and China.

"Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position," Mattis said in the letter to Trump released by the Pentagon.

White House officials publicly played down the idea that Mattis's departure betrayed serious problems plaguing the administration.

Senior adviser Stephen Miller denounced the media's "hysterical reaction" during an interview with CNN. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders chided the focus on "palace intrigue" during an appearance on the Fox Business Network.

The question now is who is left to replace Mattis, and who would serve a president who seems so willing to disregard the recommendations of his advisers. Trump's hope is to name a replacement for Mattis by the end of the year, Sanders said Thursday.

But Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., encapsulated many observers' fears about the road ahead. Writing on Twitter, Rubio said Mattis's resignation letter "makes it abundantly clear that we are headed towards a series of grave policy errors which will endanger our nation, damage our alliances & empower our adversaries."

Shock waves abroad

'A morning of alarm': Mattis departure sends shock waves abroad

Griff Witte and Isaac Stanley-Becker

For two years, as the Trump presidency grew increasingly chaotic, the world invested its hopes for a stable and reliable America in a retired four-star Marine Corps general with the nickname "Mad Dog."

On Friday, those hopes turned to despair as allied capitals awoke to the news that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis would leave his post. Even among U.S. adversaries, there was unease at the thought that President Trump will direct U.S. foreign policy without the last of his once-vaunted trio of generals to rein him in.

"Mattis was the last man standing for what had been U.S. foreign policy since World War II," said Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the German parliament and a close ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel. "With him gone, this really marks a juncture in the Trump presidency. Now we have an unrestrained Trump, which is a dangerous signal for the year ahead."

In China and Russia, U.S. adversaries that were cited in Mattis's resignation letter as deserving of tough treatment, there was open anxiety that the world had just become more vulnerable to conflict.

"Our concern is who comes next," said Yue Gang, a retired People's Liberation Army colonel and military commentator in Beijing. "If Trump chooses a lackey who isn't willing to serve as a balance to his instincts, the worry is that the world becomes even more unstable."

The anxiety sweeping the globe Friday reflected the head-spinning news of the previous 48 hours. Not only was Mattis leaving, he was implicitly rebuking the president on his way out for undermining U.S. alliances and failing to recognize the threat posed by America's enemies.

The announcement Thursday that Mattis would step down came after a dispute with Trump over the president's decision to withdraw troops from Syria. It was followed by word that the president was also preparing to downsize the American military presence in Afghanistan.

In regions of the world that bear the imprint of decades-long American influence, it all added up to a realization of some people's worst fears about U.S. foreign policy under Trump: an increasingly volatile, unreliable and inward-looking United States.

"A morning of alarm in Europe" was how Carl Bildt, co-chairman of the European Council on Foreign Relations and formerly prime minister of Sweden, described the reaction to news of the defense secretary's exit.

Mattis, he wrote on Twitter, "is the remaining strong bond across the Atlantic in the Trump administration. All the others are fragile at best or broken at worst."

Röttgen said Mattis's exit and the U.S. withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan should prompt Europe to step up and fill the void left behind as America departs.

"We have to mature and we have to rely more on ourselves," he said. "How many more wake-up calls do we need in order to engage?"

The concern felt in Berlin was no less pronounced in Paris, where François Heisbourg, a former French diplomatic adviser, wrote on Twitter that Mattis had stabilized a dysfunctional administration and "helped preserve the Western alliance system."

"Believe me, America's allies are already reviewing all options," wrote Heisbourg, who is president of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

"This is big bad," he added.

The French government, which has pursued an active role in the conflict in Syria, made clear where it came down on the clashing interpretations over Syria that drove Mattis to submit a letter of resignation on Thursday. The defense minister, Florence Parly, said Friday on RTL radio that the Islamic State has been reduced but not eliminated. She said the French government "does not at all share" Trump's interpretation that the fight in Syria is over.

Parly also saluted Mattis as a "partner" and a "great soldier."

Mattis' resignation even left Moscow on edge. While Mattis often referred to Russia as a strategic adversary of the United States, Russian officials also saw his leadership as key to preventing a military confrontation between the two forces in Syria.

"Mattis was tough, but not without realism: He didn't seek conflict with Russia," lawmaker Alexey Pushkov, a foreign-policy specialist in the upper house of parliament, wrote on Twitter. "Will the replacement be for the better?"

But another lawmaker in the upper house, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Konstantin Kosachev, saw a heartening sign in the general's departure. On issues such as relations with Russia and China, Trump's view was so different from his defense secretary's that the president essentially forced Mattis out, Kosachev said in a Facebook post.

"This is an interesting signal - likely a positive one," Kosachev said.

As for the Kremlin's official response, spokesman Dmitry Peskov, asked about Mattis as a restraining influence on Trump, had this dry rejoinder: "In our times, guessing who restrained President Trump from doing what is the work of political scientists and a rather thankless task."

In parts of South Asia and the Middle East, warnings emerged that the abrupt shift in strategy propelling Mattis's exit would be a grievous mistake, even as Kabul struck a calm note.

A senior official in Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, speaking about the possibility that Trump might remove about 7,000 of the 14,000 U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan, said that "any troop withdrawal or major reduction in their number before peace is restored would be a very unwise move. It would bring chaos and disorder, more fighting and perhaps a civil war." The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the matter.

But in the first public comments from the Kabul government on reports of the U.S. troop reduction, several aides to President Ashraf Ghani sought to put a brave face on the development, saying that such a drawdown would have no major impact on Afghanistan's ability to defend itself. Their reaction marked a notable contrast with prior appeals for U.S. troops to remain as a force for stability.

Israel, meanwhile, was most alarmed by Trump's abrupt decision to wash his hands of the ongoing violence in Syria. Following the news of Trump's plans, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the withdrawal on Twitter as an "American decision."

There was a sense that, with Mattis on the way out, Israel was losing a voice for its security interests in the Middle East. Michael Oren, a deputy minister in the prime minister's office and former Israeli ambassador to the United States, noted that, like Israel's leadership, "Mattis believed that a strong American presence in the Middle East served as a buffer to Iran and other hostile elements."

"Today as in the past, Israel will have to defend itself with its own forces to deal with the great threats in the north," Oren tweeted.

And in Asia, news of the Pentagon chief's departure raised questions about Washington's approach to China's rise.

The uncertainty was felt particularly in India, where bolstering ties with the United States has been one of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's central foreign policy aims.

Arvind Gupta, who served as India's deputy national security adviser until last year, said the country considered Mattis "a friend" with whom it had "an excellent relationship." Mattis played a key role in intensifying the defense cooperation between the United States and India as both countries seek to manage China's increasingly active role in the region.

During Mattis' tenure, the two countries signed a landmark military communications agreement, and the retired four-star Marine general developed a rapport with his Indian counterpart, Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The two held talks four times this year, most recently earlier this month in Washington. Mattis also met with Modi in June and September.

Since the inauguration, Mattis has persistently warned about China as the greatest long-term threat facing the United States, a view that permeated last year's National Security Strategy paper, in which the administration recast China as a competitor. While Beijing saw Mattis as one of its toughest critics, it also saw him as a straight-shooter in an administration that the Chinese government otherwise has struggled to decipher.

Yue, the retired People's Liberation Army colonel, said the Chinese military had high regard for Mattis, who, even in times of high tension, stressed the importance of avoiding a shooting war between the two powers.

"Even though toward us he was tough and vexing, the Chinese military felt assured dealing with this type of professional military man," Yue said.

It is largely because of Mattis, "viewed as a 'mature guy' within the Trump administration," said Shen Yamei, a researcher at the China Institute of International Studies, that "military relations between China and the U.S. have been relatively stable."

Gupta, India's former deputy national security adviser, played down the longer-term consequences of the resignation. "This is not something that has happened for the first time," he said. "In the end, we have to deal with the American administration, and that is what we will do."

In fact, said Ajai Shukla, an Indian defense analyst and former army officer, Mattis's departure and the abrupt withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan is the kind of "adverse contingency New Delhi has been planning for."

"Mattis' departure signals that it would not be wise to assume that all the old policies will continue," he said. While India has drawn closer to the United States, he added, it has also hedged its bets by defusing tensions with China and maintaining ties with Russia. With defense cooperation at the heart of the U.S.-India relationship, Mattis' departure will have an "out-of-proportion impact" on ties with New Delhi, Shukla predicted.

News of Mattis' departure reverberated on the Korean Peninsula, where Pyongyang has said this week it will not give up its nuclear arms until the "U.S. nuclear threat to Korea" is eliminated.

Kwon Bo-ram, a researcher at South Korea's state-run Institute for Defense Analyses, said the uncertainty created by the resignation could affect the ongoing defense cost-sharing talks between Seoul and Washington. The two sides failed to reach a deal amid disagreement over a bigger South Korean share of the cost.

The shock announcement that Mattis would soon leave the administration also created alarm in Australia, a close ally that currently has several hundred personnel in Afghanistan.

The former foreign minister, Julie Bishop, observed that it would "hard to replace" Mattis, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

"His wise counsel, integrity and deep understanding of geostrategic issues will be greatly missed by the U.S. government and those who worked with him," said Bishop, who worked closely with Mattis during the first two years of the Trump administration. The two countries are part of the "Five Eyes" group, an Anglophone intelligence alliance that also includes Britain, Canada and New Zealand.

Defense Minister Christopher Pyne hailed Mattis as a "close friend of Australia."

Rather than simply another departure of "one of the adults in the Trump administration," as Jim Molan, a senator with the governing Liberal Party and a former major general in the army, put it, the exit by Mattis makes clear that Australia can no longer rely on the United States for its defense.

"The United States, whose military capability now has been severely reduced since the end of the Cold War, now has introduced another extreme variable into their decision-making, and that must be of deep concern to Australia," he told The Australian newspaper. "The answer must be that Australia must be self-reliant in its defense."

Return to Earth After 197-Day Mission

NASA Astronaut, Crewmates Return to Earth After 197-Day Mission in Space

Three members of the International Space Station’s Expedition 57 crew, including NASA astronaut Serena Auñón-Chancellor, returned to Earth Thursday, safely landing at 12:02 a.m. EST (11:02 a.m. local time) in Kazakhstan.

Auñón-Chancellor and her crewmates, Expedition 57 Commander Alexander Gerst of ESA (European Space Agency) and Soyuz Commander Sergey Prokopyev, launched June 6 and arrived at the space station two days later to begin their mission. Over 197 days, they circled the globe 3,152 times, covering 83.3 million miles.

For the last 16 days of her mission, Auñón-Chancellor was joined by fellow NASA astronaut Anne McClain, marking the first time in which the only two U.S. astronauts on a mission both were women.

The Expedition 57 crew contributed to hundreds of experiments in biology, biotechnology, physical science and Earth science aboard the world-class orbiting laboratory. Highlights included investigations into new cancer treatment methods and algae growth in space. The crew also installed a new Life Sciences Glovebox, a sealed work area for life science and technology investigations that can accommodate two astronauts.

This was the first flight for Auñón-Chancellor and Prokopyev and the second for Gerst, who – with a total of 362 days in orbit – now holds the flight duration record among ESA astronauts.

Prokopyev completed two spacewalks totaling 15 hours and 31 minutes. During a 7 hour, 45 minute spacewalk Dec. 11, he and Oleg Kononenko of Roscosmos retrieved patch samples and took digital images of a repair made to the habitation module of the Soyuz MS-09 in which the Expedition 57 trio rode home. The space station crew located and, within hours of its detection, repaired a small hole inside the Soyuz in August. The spacecraft was thoroughly checked and deemed safe for return to Earth.

When the Soyuz undocked at 8:40 p.m. Dec. 19, Expedition 58 began aboard the station, with McClain, David Saint-Jacques of the Canadian Space Agency, and Kononenko comprising a three-person crew. The next residents on the space station – Nick Hague and Christina Koch of NASA and Alexey Ovchinin of Roscosmos – will launch Feb. 28 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan to join their crewmates, marking the start of Expedition 59.

For more than 18 years, humans have lived and worked continuously aboard the station, advancing scientific knowledge and demonstrating new technologies, making research breakthroughs not possible on Earth that will enable long-duration human and robotic exploration into deep space. A global endeavor, more than 230 people from 18 countries have visited the unique microgravity laboratory that has hosted more than 2,400 research investigations from researchers in more than 103 countries.

Gross negligence???

Which side are you on?

From Sailing Anarchy

This is a tricky one and I am not 100% sure where I come down on this. I would have fully backed the captain had his behavior after the suicide been different but he didn’t (apparently) follow some basic seamanship rules and now has been charged with manslaughter. Here is the story as we best can tell and I say ‘as best we can tell’ because there are some big gaps that need filling in.

Captain Rick Smith runs a charter business out of Camden, Maine and St. John in the U.S. Virgin islands aboard his 43-foot yawl, Cimarron, and has been doing so for a number of years. In October 2015 he and a crew were delivering the yacht to the winter sailing grounds when one of the crew members, a man by the name of David Pontious, suddenly jumped overboard and drowned. In court filings Captain Smith said that Pontious had been seasick for three days and had been growing increasingly paranoid.

He also stated that Pontious had attacked him minutes before jumping overboard. Now, almost three years later, the federal court in St John has begun to lay out their case against Rick Smith. Why suddenly three years after the incident took place are they only now getting around to pressing charges? Beats me except it may just be that they are running on ‘island time.’

I would be calling total BS on the whole thing and would have stated that Smith, the captain, should not be charged had he acted differently in the moments after Pontious jumped overboard. According to the other crew there was zero attempt made to get Pontious back on board. No lifebouy was tossed and there was no grid pattern search done to look for him. Indeed it took Smith 32 hours before he managed to raise another vessel on the VHF asking them to keep a lookout for Pontious.

This kind of gross negligence has me feeling that there is something a little suspect about our good captain. The fact that he told authorities that he  didn’t try and locate Pontious was because he feared for his safety and the safety of the other crew members rings a little bit hollow to me. Smith stated that he saw Pontius go under and not resurface and that is why he did not turn back and search. Plus, he added, that he was scared to death that if Pontius got back on the vessel, he would throw other people overboard. I am calling BS on that statement as well. As I said from the outset I am not sure where I come down on this but I do think this whole incident is about a Ship of Fools and believe me I have come across some complete nut jobs in the 40-plus years I have been making a living sailing.

According to court documents, the prosecution plans to call at least two maritime experts who will testify that Smith, as captain, should have intervened long before Pontious jumped from the Cimarron. “I would say that there were a number of failures on the captain’s part that lead up to the situation in the first place,” wrote Capt. Glen Allen, a government witness and U.S. Coast Guard licensed captain for more than 30 years. Allen also stated that Smith did not do enough to vet Pontious before allowing him on board and should have altered course to the nearest safe harbor once it was clear Pontious was suffering.

“I find the action of the captain after the victim jumped overboard totally unacceptable,” Allen wrote. “It would seem to me that you would make some attempt at saving this life even if I thought it would do no good – every person deserves at least a fighting chance.”

I have plied the waters between Maine and the Caribbean for many years and can testify that there are some very sketchy people looking for rides too and from the tropics. That, in many ways, is the fun of it and Jimmy Buffett knew it as well when he wrote in his song Banana Republic, “some are running tons of ganga some are running from the IRS.” That’s not all they are running from or toward. I think  that the witness that Smith’s defense team engaged summed this whole mess succinctly when he wrote, “I believe the responsibility for the loss of Mr. Pontious is solely the fault of Mr. Pontious himself.”  That much I agree with.

– Brian Hancock.

Raises the likelihood of a government shutdown

House and Senate on collision course as shutdown nears

House approval of a spending bill with money for Trump's wall significantly raises the likelihood of a government shutdown this weekend.

By SARAH FERRIS and JOHN BRESNAHAN

House Republicans passed a stop-gap spending bill on Thursday that delivers $5 billion for President Donald Trump’s border wall, setting up a standoff with the Senate that drastically raises the likelihood of a government shutdown this weekend.

By a 217-185 vote, House Republicans pushed through the measure, which extends the deadline for government funding until Feb. 8. It includes nearly $8 billion in emergency disaster aid for California, Florida and several other states.

House Republicans believe their bill is a starting point for negotiations with the Senate, which unanimously passed a clean funding bill on Wednesday night and quickly left town.

"The House has now passed a bill. The Senate passed a bill," House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). "Now we find where the common ground lies."

But the House GOP proposal is D.O.A. in the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to reject any funding for the border wall. Government funding runs out at midnight Friday, meaning a partial government shutdown looks almost certain at this point.

"The bottom line is simple: The Trump temper tantrum will shut down the government, but it will not get him his wall," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters shortly before the House vote. Schumer was joined by House Minority Leader Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is adamantly opposed to the wall.

House Republicans teed off on Pelosi after the House vote, noting repeatedly that she had told Trump at last week's epic White House meeting that there weren't enough votes to pass any bill with $5 billion in wall funding.

"All I know is that just one week ago, Nancy Pelosi was in the Oval Office and she said the House can't pass a funding with border security wall dollars on it," crowed Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, a group of hardliners on immigration. "We just got 217 votes for that bill."

But the House vote capped a chaotic day for Trump and House Republicans, a day when - once again - the Freedom Caucus dictated to GOP leaders what they can do. And the sudden, acrimonious resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis rattled Republicans and Democrats alike, as one of the most highly respected officials in Trump's administration decided he could no longer work for a capricious president.

Trump declared earlier in the day that he wouldn't sign any funding bill that didn't include money for his signature border wall, a position that dramatically increases the risk of a partial government shutdown.

Trump's declaration ended several days of confusion over what the president wanted. The Senate on Wednesday passed a short-term funding bill to keep the government open until Feb. 8, but it included no wall funding.

But Trump finally showed his hand after an Oval Office meeting with GOP House leadership and key members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. The meeting with McCarthy, Jordan, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and two members of the House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), among others, was held to settle an internal GOP battle over the border wall and a potential government shutdown.

"I've made my position very clear," Trump said as he signed a five-year farm bill. "Any measure that funds the government has to include border security. Has to. Not for political purposes, but for our country, for the safety of our community."

Following Trump's decision, Ryan and other House GOP leaders were forced to change direction on the border wall. The House leadership had earlier backed the Senate bill, but after Trump's declaration, they moved forward with a bill to provide $5 billion for the border wall.

Republican leaders then added the $8 billion in disaster aid to sweeten the pot for members.

Jordan and Meadows had led a revolt on the House floor on Wednesday night after GOP leaders did not fund Trump’s border wall, a demand that was taken up by conservative commentators in the media. All of this proved too much for Trump to resist, leading to an embarrassing setback for Ryan, McCarthy, Scalise and other top House Republicans.

“The president informed us he will not sign the bill that came from the Senate last evening because of his legitimate concerns for border security,” Ryan told reporters after the hour-long meeting with Trump at the White House. “So what we're going to do is go back to the House and work with our members.”

Ryan, McCarthy and Scalise had been urging Trump to avoid a shutdown and agree to a stopgap funding measure that would keep the government open until Feb. 8. The party leaders initially argued that Senate Democrats will never approve Trump's demand for another $5 billion in wall funding.

After the meeting, McCarthy changed direction and embraced Trump’s position.

“We had a great discussion with him now,” McCarthy said. “The president said that what the Senate sent over is just kicking the can down the road. We want to solve this problem, we want to keep the government open.”

Meadows and Jordan argued that once Democrats get control of the House on Jan. 3, Pelosi and her colleagues will never approve any money for the president's border wall project so they had to act now.

Meadows, along with more than a dozen other conservatives, took to the House floor Wednesday night in a series of protest floor speeches demanding more money for the wall.

"[Trump] believes that his request is reasonable and certainly something that should be supported by the vast majority of Americans, and certainly by the vast majority of Congress," said Meadows, who had been in the mix to become Trump's chief of staff. "At this point, I don't see a vote from a clean CR [continuing resolution] that has come over from the Senate being something that will have even close to the majority of the majority."

Meadows — who privately appealed to Trump for support, a move that undermined Ryan and McCarthy — also said he didn't want a stand-alone bill with wall funding. "There's no leverage there, so I can't imagine that would be a tactic anyone would use," Meadows said.

House Republicans moved quickly Thursday night, one sign of progress during an otherwise ugly day for the party leadership. Even so, Sessions warned members of the rules panel to “stick around” through the evening.

"We're gonna get it passed and send a clear message that we stand with the president in securing our border," Scalise said, despite the fact that hours earlier he'd been pushing a short-term spending bill with no border wall money. "What I've always said is we need to support the president and give him the tools to keep the country safe."

Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) said he’s personally heard from GOP leaders that the bill will pass. It helps, Byrne said, that many of the missing GOP lawmakers on Thursday lean moderate.

"The question is, what happens when it goes over there?" Byrne said of the Senate, which he said seems to be missing half its members.

The Alabama Republican then deadpanned that he's begun looking for a place to get a Christmas meal in Washington.

Senators, meanwhile, learned of the news about Trump's hardline decision on the border wall via Twitter, where it was read aloud in a sparsely attended GOP lunch. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately left to talk to Ryan, according to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson.

Johnson said at least half the conference had gone home and they have been given notice that they may be called back to D.C. But he’s preparing to head back to Wisconsin.

“It’s kind of a ghost town around here,” Johnson said.

Earlier on Thursday, Pelosi reveled in what she described as "sort of a meltdown" among House Republicans, but said Democrats would be open to some potential sweeteners GOP leaders are considering, like disaster aid.

Even though the House approved a bill to give Trump border wall money, Schumer and other Senate Democrats will never allow it move forward in that chamber. That's why McConnell (R-Ky.) was able to push through a short-term funding bill late Wednesday night with no opposition.

The stopgap funding bill initially proposed by House GOP leaders did include some money for border fencing: it maintains current spending at a level of $1.3 billion, just shy of the $1.6 billion that the Senate had sought in a funding deal. Trump had initially demanded $5 billion, though he had since appeared to retreat on that figure.

The seven-week funding bill also had no disaster aid money, which upset a number of members from affected states.

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) said a group of lawmakers from the Southeast states would oppose any funding bill that didn’t include at least some disaster aid for farmers hit by coastal storms this fall.

“Absolutely not,” Scott said firmly, when asked if he would support the bill in its current form.

Bets and loses...

A ‘Never Trumper’ bets on Trump, and loses

Trump’s abrupt decision to exit Syria blindsides — and severely undermines — a veteran diplomat who set aside his doubts about Trump to take a thankless job shaping U.S. policy toward the country.

By NAHAL TOOSI

James Jeffrey, President Donald Trump‘s special representative for Syria engagement, probably should have seen it coming.

In August 2016, the well-respected veteran diplomat signed an open letter denouncing then-presidential candidate Trump as a danger to America. “In our experience,” Jeffrey and dozens of fellow “Never Trumpers” wrote, “a president must be willing to listen to his advisers and department heads [and] must encourage consideration of conflicting views.” Trump, they argued, is “erratic” and “acts impetuously.”

This week Trump blindsided his national security team, including Jeffrey, by announcing that he will be pulling U.S. troops from war-torn Syria. Just two days earlier, Jeffrey had delivered a high-profile speech forecasting a sustained U.S. role in the Arab country.

And with that, the 70-something Jeffrey became the latest in a long line of Trump administration officials to be undermined and even humiliated by the president they serve.

In a sign of frustration at the top levels of Trump’s national security team, Defense Secretary James Mattis announced his resignation on Thursday, releasing a letter saying that his views are not “aligned” with Trump’s and specifically citing the U.S. campaign against the Islamic State terrorist group, which has partly been waged in Syria.

Trump’s decision to exit Syria reminds critics of former President Barack Obama’s pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011. They fear that it will have similarly dangerous consequences, allowing a nearly defeated Islamic State to reconstitute.

Jeffrey was U.S. ambassador to Baghdad at the time of America’s withdrawal from Iraq, one of several ambassadorial posts he’s held. and is widely believed to have joined the Trump administration in part to prevent a repeat of that disastrous scenario. Now, some fellow foreign policy hands are wondering why he would bother to stick around.

“Jim came into the administration on the understanding that it would remain deeply and aggressively engaged in Syria and that Trump wouldn’t change his mind,” said Rob Malley, a former senior Obama aide. “Jim will have to decide whether what remains of the [Syria] policy makes sense to him, and whether he wants to be the person overseeing it.”

“How can he put his name and reputation behind this policy?” asked another foreign policy expert who keeps a close eye on Syria and requested anonymity to speak frankly. “The president undermined everything he had been working on.”

Jeffrey is not the only Trump administration official burned by the president.

Trump’s decision to withdraw the roughly 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria breaks with the advice and public statements of nearly every one of his foreign policy advisers, including national security adviser John Bolton, the now-resigning Mattis and diplomats such as Brett McGurk, the special envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.

In a briefing last week, McGurk scoffed at the sort of action Trump wound up announcing several days later: “[O]bviously, it would be reckless if we were just to say, well, the physical caliphate is defeated, so we can just leave now,” McGurk told State Department reporters, using an Arabic-derived term to describe the Islamic State’s structure.

But Trump’s decision is a particularly direct blow at Jeffrey, contradicting the mission of “engagement” described in a job title he assumed despite his reservations about Trump.

“He’s the consummate public servant, so it’s never about politics for him,” a former State Department official said. “If he feels he can contribute to help us navigate difficult policy issues he steps up, which he did.”

The salty-tongued Jeffrey has not commented publicly since Trump’s announcement, and he did not reply to emails Thursday from POLITICO. There was no sign that he intends to quit.

Given Trump’s capricious nature, it’s possible Jeffrey, other Trump aides, or even furious Republican lawmakers, could still convince the president to delay or slow down the pullout. And even without ground forces in Syria, the U.S. is likely to stay involved in Syria in some way, at least through diplomatic engagement with the various actors in the country.

But by pulling out the troops, Washington appears to have less leverage as it pushes warring factions to reach peace deals. The departure of U.S. troops is already being seen as a betrayal of U.S. allies in Syria, including Kurdish fighters going to head-to-head with the Islamic State.

“The way this was done is going to make Jim Jeffrey’s job harder because foreign governments and foreign officials are going to wonder whether he genuinely represents the president of the United States,” said Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and fellow at the Middle East Institute.

Jeffrey’s mid-August appointment, announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, surprised Washington’s foreign policy community. Trump had blackballed “Never Trumpers” from serving his administration. But Jeffrey is believed to be the first of any prominence to get a slot, because Pompeo, who has maintained a solid relationship with Trump, was willing to vouch for him.

A month later, Trump agreed to abandon his previous desire to quickly remove the U.S. troops. At the time, Jeffrey said U.S. troops would stay in Syria to ensure the lasting defeat of the Islamic State terrorist group and the departure of Iranian troops, a timeline that could prove indefinite.

“I am confident the president is on-board with this,” Jeffrey said.

On Wednesday, Trump justified his about-face by saying he’s fulfilling a campaign promise in bringing home the troops because his only goal in Syria, defeating the Islamic State, has been achieved.

But Trump aides have repeatedly said the terrorist group, also known as ISIS, though much diminished, is not yet fully vanquished. Aside from that, Syria’s other major conflict — the nearly 8-year-old war between the regime of Bashar Assad and rebels trying to oust him — is not over.

The Syrian morass has also drawn in Iran, Russia, Turkey, Israel and other actors. Jeffrey’s mission has included trying to devise a coherent strategy for a diabolically vexing situation. He is one of three special envoys based at the State Department who deal directly or indirectly with Syria.

Aside from Jeffrey, there’s McGurk, who took his post under the Obama administration and is rumored to be leaving soon. There’s also Joel Rayburn, who holds the title of special envoy to Syria as well as deputy assistant secretary for Levant affairs; he joined the State Department after serving at the National Security Council and has kept a low profile.

Jeffrey has taken the opposite tack. He has held press conferences, given speeches and otherwise privately and publicly assured U.S. allies that America won‘t abandon Syria.

He often cites Iraq, where a U.S. troop pullout in 2011 allowed the Islamic State to overpower a weak Iraqi military. Obama had to redeploy troops to the country to beat back the terrorist group, which also snatched territory in neighboring Syria.

Jeffrey has repeatedly said U.S. goals should include what he calls the Islamic State’s “enduring” defeat.

“The enduring defeat means not simply smashing the last of ISIS’s conventional military units holding terrain, but ensuring that ISIS doesn’t immediately come back and sleeper cells come back as an insurgent movement,” Jeffrey told reporters in mid-November.

Jeffrey is in many ways the ideal candidate for his current role.

He has held multiple diplomatic posts in Iraq and was in the country during some of the most violent years following the 2003 U.S. invasion. That has made him deeply familiar with Sunni Muslim militant movements.

His experience as the U.S. ambassador to Turkey has helped him navigate the political tensions between U.S.-backed Kurds fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Turkish government threats against those Kurds, whom Ankara fears will embolden Kurdish separatists in Turkey.

Jeffrey also understands how to wend through Washington, having held posts such as deputy national security adviser under then-president George W. Bush. Before taking his current job, he spent several years as an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

He’s familiar with the military, too. He was a former Army infantry officer who served in Germany and Vietnam from 1969 to 1976 before joining the U.S. Foreign Service, according to his official biographies online.

Jeffrey, a father of two who holds degrees from Northeastern and Boston universities, has a gruff manner, a booming voice and a killer glare. During his briefings on Syria, he displays near-granular knowledge of the situation on the ground as well as the political process intended to end the conflict.

Jeffrey has an appreciation for nuance. For instance, he’s careful to remind critics of Obama about the complex reasons the former president decided to pull troops out of Iraq, including the crucial fact that the Iraqi government refused to exempt U.S. forces from Iraqi prosecution.

But Jeffrey also has some strong views about the Middle East. In particular, he sees Iran’s Islamist government as a menace to the region, if not the world, and he worries about the long-term impact of the Iranian presence in Syria. Israel has also counted on the U.S. to act as a check against Tehran in neighboring Syria.

One of the main goals of the Trump administration, Jeffrey has repeatedly said, is “the withdrawal of all Iranian-commanded forces from the entirety of Syria.”

“We don’t see why it is in the interest of anyone to have Iranian forces, particularly power projection forces — long-range missiles and other systems that can threaten other countries — present in Syria if we have resolved the underlying conflict,” Jeffrey said in mid-November.

In that same session with reporters, Jeffrey said the U.S. military presence “has indirect impact” on reigning in Iran’s “malign” activities in Syria.

But, like any diplomat, Jeffrey is always mindful of who’s ultimately in charge of what the U.S. does.

During the md-November briefing, Jeffrey was asked point blank: “When do you foresee U.S. forces actually leaving Syria? Can you give us a guesstimate?”

His answer? “When the president decides.”

All the ways....

All the ways Mattis tried to contain Trump

The Defense secretary tried to steady the president without saying "no."

By WESLEY MORGAN

For two years, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis slow-walked and stymied President Donald Trump's most dramatic impulses on military policy.

That strategy came to a swift end when it came to Syria.

Trump’s and Mattis' vocal disagreement on withdrawing U.S. troops from the war-ravaged country was just the latest clash between the president and his Pentagon chief on their approach to deploying the military and projecting American power.

The retired four-star general took advantage of Trump’s early high regard by expanding the defense budget and pushing more authority down to military commanders in the field. He even leveraged Trump’s sometimes-hawkish rhetoric into troop increases in some of the same regions the president is now itching to leave.

Troops on the border

Mattis' approach was on full display twice this year when Trump ordered the deployment of military forces to the U.S.-Mexico border in response to the approach of migrant caravans from Central America.

In April, after Trump initially demanded a military deployment, the Pentagon responded by sending 2,100 unarmed National Guardsmen — a move little different from the approaches of former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

In October, when Trump ordered a full active-duty deployment, Mattis complied — but on a much smaller scale, and in more modest roles, than the president demanded.

In a tit-for-tat that played out in Trump's public appearances and Mattis' quieter media briefings and announcements, the president called for 10,000, then 15,000 troops to fend off a migrant "invasion." The military sent only about 6,000 troops, many unarmed and serving in support roles to civilian law enforcement. A good number of those troops have since come home.

Even when Trump had White House chief of staff John Kelly authorize the troops to defend Border Patrol agents with deadly force, Mattis suggested he didn't plan to use the authority.

Mattis also insisted that the order wouldn't lead to troops firing on migrants, despite Trump's statement that the feds would respond to anyone throwing rocks as if they had firearms.

The troops are “not even carrying guns, for Christ’s sake,” Mattis told reporters. "Don't worry about it."

Surging in Afghanistan

During Trump’s first summer in office, the president was advocating pulling out of Afghanistan while the military pushed for more troops. But Mattis and then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster managed to shape his decision-making.

Trump ultimately endorsed Mattis’ recommendation to deploy more than 3,000 U.S. reinforcements and embrace an expanded military advisory strategy. In an August 2017 speech announcing his decision, Trump alluded to how established foreign policy figures in his administration had changed his mind, although he did not single out any by name.

“My original instinct was to pull out, and, historically, I like following my instincts,” Trump said in the speech. But “after many meetings, over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my Cabinet and generals,” he continued, and settled on the Pentagon’s preferred outcome.

Whether Trump now reverts to his original instincts on Afghanistan — and whether Mattis’ successor will go along with it — now loom large over U.S. military strategy.

Syria strikes

Trump's announcement this week of a pullout from Syria was a stark defeat for Mattis. But Mattis' approach had won him tactical victories on Syria policy in the past — including during deliberations over how to respond to the Assad regime's chemical weapons attacks against civilians in April. At that time, the Defense secretary was seeking to rein in Trump’s aggressive instincts, not the non-interventionist streak that has been on display this week.

The military’s Central Command drew up five options for military responses, according to a military official involved in the deliberations who described them on condition of anonymity. When Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford briefed the options to Trump, the official said, Mattis characterized the most restrained option — limited strikes against three targets instead of a broader attack — as more muscular than it really was.

It worked. Trump signed off on the option that Mattis was advocating.

Iran policy

On Iran, Mattis has found himself in the unlikely position of pursuing continuity with policies of a past administration that he chafed at when in uniform.

Mattis repeatedly contradicted Trump by publicly advocating that the U.S. remain a part of the multi-nation, Obama-era deal aimed at restraining Iran's nuclear ambitions — and testifying that Iran was complying with it. In Syria, where U.S. and Iranian troops are often in close proximity, he resisted White House calls to make countering Iranian influence a formal part of the U.S. strategy, insisting that American troops remain focused on the Islamic State.

It was a contrast to the more hawkish role he had played as a general under Obama, who frequently faced accusations from hawks of being too reluctant to confront Tehran.

Mattis “has to be very sensitive to where the president is,” James Jeffrey told POLITICO earlier this year. Jeffrey, who was Obama's ambassador to Iraq when Mattis headed Central Command and now serves as the Trump administration’s special envoy for negotiations in Syria, said, “With Obama, he had a president who was very reticent to challenge Iran militarily … so he was forward-leaning, and that probably hurt his relationship with Obama.”

Now, Jeffrey said, Mattis is “dealing with a president who is both extremely aggressive on Iran and very volatile. So he has to be the cautioner, the balance of reason, the ‘look before you leap’ guy. You see him doing this with North Korea, and you see him doing it with Iran.”

Transgender troop ban

When Trump tweeted his order that the military ban transgender personnel, Mattis tried to walk it back but ultimately failed. After the White House followed up the tweet with formal guidance, Mattis ordered a six-month policy review headed by his top deputy and generals from each of the military branches.

While the reviews were underway, the existing Obama-era policies that allowed troops to be open about their transgender status — and in some cases receive government-funded sex-reassignment surgeries — remained in place.

But the review ended with Mattis largely acquiescing to Trump, recommending in a memo to the president that "persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria" be "disqualified from military service except under limited circumstances.”

Trump followed through in March by formally ordering a ban based on Mattis’ recommendation — although that policy is now being contested in several court cases.