Barr: Mueller Could Have Said Whether Trump Broke The Law, Just Not Charged Him
PHILIP EWING
Special counsel Robert Mueller could have declared whether President Trump broke the law if Mueller had wanted — albeit still without the ability to bring any indictment, Attorney General William Barr says in a new TV interview.
Barr told CBS News in an interview scheduled to air on Thursday evening and Friday morning that he believed Mueller had more latitude to state his views than the special counsel may have permitted himself.
"I personally felt he could've reached a decision. He could've reached a conclusion," Barr said.
The discrepancy between the Justice Department's leaders is over its long-standing legal opinion that forbids the indictment of a sitting president.
Mueller said on Wednesday that in his view, that policy meant he could never have considered the option of bringing criminal charges against Trump.
Barr, in excerpts of his CBS interview, said he concurred with respect to charges but said he thought Mueller nonetheless could have declared whether he believed they were necessary.
In other words, Barr is saying Mueller could have said that he believed Trump should be charged — if he thought so — without the ability to actually ask a grand jury for an indictment.
"The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office. But he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity. But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained," Barr said.
The special counsel's view
Mueller's position, as the special counsel repeated in his statement on Wednesday, was that it would be wrong for him to accuse someone of wrongdoing who couldn't then have a fair trial and get the chance to defend himself.
"It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge," Mueller said.
Critics have called the findings in Volume II of Mueller's report evidence that Trump obstructed justice and said that anyone else but a president would face criminal charges.
The special counsel himself, however, stopped short of making so direct an allegation both in the report and in his remarks since it was published.
Barr told CBS he would not argue with Mueller's reasons, but that the special counsel's decisions not to reach a firm conclusion meant the question rose to his level and that of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The men concluded that Trump would not face charges.
Mueller said that he and his office were not the mechanism by which to accuse and punish a president.
"The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," he said.
Political aftershocks continue
Trump's opponents heard those words as a call to action for Congress and they renewed the debate within the Democratic Party over whether to impeach Trump.
The most liberal Democrats and some members of the House majority say Trump deserves impeachment, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has wavered about the idea.
She is caught between responding to calls from some of the most energized members of her base and keeping an eye on the broader electorate, which is cooler on impeachment.
Trump, meanwhile, blasted Mueller and his office on Thursday on his way out to Marine One at the White House.
The special counsel is a "never-Trumper," the president said, his office was filled with bad people and Trump said he has done nothing wrong. The president reacted to Democrats' talk of impeachment by calling that "a dirty, filthy, disgusting word."
May 30, 2019
Leave weapons treaty
Putin moves to leave weapons treaty as US accuses Russia of nuclear violations
By Nicole Gaouette
The arms control framework curbing a US-Russian arms race came under further strain this week as Russian President Vladimir Putin took formal steps to withdraw from a landmark nuclear missile treaty and the US charged that Moscow is violating a separate pact that bans all nuclear explosions.
Putin submitted a bill to parliament Thursday to withdraw Russia from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, following the Trump administration's February announcement that it would pull out of the pact because Russia has violated it since 2014, which Moscow denies.
On Wednesday, the US military's top intelligence officer said the Trump administration believes Moscow is violating a treaty banning all nuclear explosions, a claim that arms control experts questioned and the international body that monitors the treaty could not confirm.
Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, told an audience at the Hudson Institute that the US believes Moscow is violating the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty's "zero yield" standard, which forbids tests strong enough to create a self-sustaining chain reaction that can lead to a nuclear explosion.
No evidence
He argued that the tests were helping Moscow develop new nuclear weapons capabilities.
"The United States believes that Russia is probably not adhering to the nuclear testing moratorium in a manner consistent with the zero-yield standard," Ashley said. "Our understanding of nuclear weapon development leads us to believe Russia's testing activities would help it improve its nuclear weapon capabilities."
Ashley presented no evidence for the statement and when pressed, wouldn't confirm that Russia is conducting these tests, saying only that Moscow could conduct them.
"It is our belief that they are set up in such a way that they are able to operate beyond a way that would be necessary for a zero-yield," Ashley said, "and so the facilities they are operating have that capacity to operate in something other than zero-yield."
Ashley's claim raised eyebrows among arms control experts, who said the general offered nothing to back up his assertion that Russia is breaching the 1996 treaty and that the development of new nuclear capabilities would require tests too big for Moscow to hide.
These experts questioned the administration's intent, pointing both to national security adviser John Bolton's well-known dislike of arms control treaties, as well as the Trump administration's hostility to all manner of international agreements.
And they flagged a US report released just a month earlier on compliance with arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament treaties that didn't mention the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty or Russian testing that violates it.
"This accusation comes with absolutely zero evidence to support it," said Alexandra Bell, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. She noted the lack of details Ashley offered. "There was no mention of time or a specific incident or any clear indication that we've consulted with our allies."
"The word 'testing' didn't even make it into the report" on compliance released last month, Bell noted. This year's version of the report was unusually short by previous years' standards and was criticized for potentially being politicized in its approach to Iran.
Bell said of Ashley's charges against Russia that "if we're ready to talk about it publicly, why didn't it make it into that compliance report?"
No unusual events
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said that "Ashley and the administration appear to be stretching the facts beyond what the evidence they presented supports. It is absolutely no surprise that Russia and the US and China have the capability to conduct a nuclear test explosion. The question is: is Russia actually doing this?"
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, the independent body which watches for violations with over 300 monitoring stations around the world, said it had seen no unusual activity.
"The CTBTO's International Monitoring System (IMS) is operating as normal and has not detected any unusual event," the Vienna-based group said in a statement. "The CTBTO has full confidence in the ability of the IMS to detect nuclear test explosions according to the provisions of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty." The statement added that the "verification regime is already working and effective."
The Russian Embassy did not respond to requests for comment.
Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said "the assertion that Russia is undertaking activities that are violating the treaty can't be dismissed out of hand," but he added that he was concerned "this is the first step to get the US to withdraw from the treaty by accusing Russia of violating it."
Nuclear modernization
Like other arms control analysts, he pointed to Bolton. "This administration, in particular John Bolton, does not like treaties of any kind," Young said, "so there is concern that this rather sudden announcement about Russian activities is merely a subtext of a goal of John Bolton's of getting the US out" of the treaty, which it has signed, but not ratified.
Ashley's claim comes as longstanding arms control agreements between US and Russia are under strain or unraveling and both sides are focused on modernizing their arsenals.
The US announced in February that it will leave the 1987 INF Treaty, a centerpiece of European security since the Cold War that bans ground-launched missiles with a range of between roughly 300 to 3,400 miles and 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The bill Putin submitted Thursday comes into force as soon as it passes the upper house of parliament and is officially published in a state newspaper.
Washington has also indicated that it wants Moscow to renegotiate the landmark New START Treaty, which focused on reducing strategic nuclear stockpiles and expires in 2021, and include China -- a scenario that's unlikely to happen, experts say.
In the meantime, the US is one of eight nations known as the "hold-out states" that have to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty before it can enter into force. The others are China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan. Russia has both signed and ratified the agreement. Ratifying the treaty would allow Washington to demand the kind of short-notice inspections that could prove whether Russia was complying or not.
'Tests they could not hide'
The CTBTO noted in its statement that "the Treaty can only be fully implemented after its entry into force, when the prohibition becomes legally binding for all States Parties. This is also true of the final verification measure of the Treaty, the provisions for on-site inspections, which would allow for on-site visits at short notice if requested by any State Party."
Asked about Ashley's comments Wednesday, State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said the agency was "certainly alarmed that they (Russia) continue to disregard their international obligations as it relates to arms control."
Ortagus referred to the Defense Intelligence Agency on Ashley's specific comments, but said that the State Department has repeatedly noted that Russia "routinely disregards its international security and arms obligations."
Even so, Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists said that "if Russia were seeking to develop any significant new nuclear capabilities, that would require tests that they could not hide. And Russia can't do tests this small that would lead to any significant change in the overall nuclear deterrent equation or negatively impact US security."
Bell agreed, saying that "even if Russia was messing around in this range [of tests] it wouldn't be militarily significant."
By Nicole Gaouette
The arms control framework curbing a US-Russian arms race came under further strain this week as Russian President Vladimir Putin took formal steps to withdraw from a landmark nuclear missile treaty and the US charged that Moscow is violating a separate pact that bans all nuclear explosions.
Putin submitted a bill to parliament Thursday to withdraw Russia from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, following the Trump administration's February announcement that it would pull out of the pact because Russia has violated it since 2014, which Moscow denies.
On Wednesday, the US military's top intelligence officer said the Trump administration believes Moscow is violating a treaty banning all nuclear explosions, a claim that arms control experts questioned and the international body that monitors the treaty could not confirm.
Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, told an audience at the Hudson Institute that the US believes Moscow is violating the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty's "zero yield" standard, which forbids tests strong enough to create a self-sustaining chain reaction that can lead to a nuclear explosion.
No evidence
He argued that the tests were helping Moscow develop new nuclear weapons capabilities.
"The United States believes that Russia is probably not adhering to the nuclear testing moratorium in a manner consistent with the zero-yield standard," Ashley said. "Our understanding of nuclear weapon development leads us to believe Russia's testing activities would help it improve its nuclear weapon capabilities."
Ashley presented no evidence for the statement and when pressed, wouldn't confirm that Russia is conducting these tests, saying only that Moscow could conduct them.
"It is our belief that they are set up in such a way that they are able to operate beyond a way that would be necessary for a zero-yield," Ashley said, "and so the facilities they are operating have that capacity to operate in something other than zero-yield."
Ashley's claim raised eyebrows among arms control experts, who said the general offered nothing to back up his assertion that Russia is breaching the 1996 treaty and that the development of new nuclear capabilities would require tests too big for Moscow to hide.
These experts questioned the administration's intent, pointing both to national security adviser John Bolton's well-known dislike of arms control treaties, as well as the Trump administration's hostility to all manner of international agreements.
And they flagged a US report released just a month earlier on compliance with arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament treaties that didn't mention the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty or Russian testing that violates it.
"This accusation comes with absolutely zero evidence to support it," said Alexandra Bell, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. She noted the lack of details Ashley offered. "There was no mention of time or a specific incident or any clear indication that we've consulted with our allies."
"The word 'testing' didn't even make it into the report" on compliance released last month, Bell noted. This year's version of the report was unusually short by previous years' standards and was criticized for potentially being politicized in its approach to Iran.
Bell said of Ashley's charges against Russia that "if we're ready to talk about it publicly, why didn't it make it into that compliance report?"
No unusual events
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said that "Ashley and the administration appear to be stretching the facts beyond what the evidence they presented supports. It is absolutely no surprise that Russia and the US and China have the capability to conduct a nuclear test explosion. The question is: is Russia actually doing this?"
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, the independent body which watches for violations with over 300 monitoring stations around the world, said it had seen no unusual activity.
"The CTBTO's International Monitoring System (IMS) is operating as normal and has not detected any unusual event," the Vienna-based group said in a statement. "The CTBTO has full confidence in the ability of the IMS to detect nuclear test explosions according to the provisions of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty." The statement added that the "verification regime is already working and effective."
The Russian Embassy did not respond to requests for comment.
Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said "the assertion that Russia is undertaking activities that are violating the treaty can't be dismissed out of hand," but he added that he was concerned "this is the first step to get the US to withdraw from the treaty by accusing Russia of violating it."
Nuclear modernization
Like other arms control analysts, he pointed to Bolton. "This administration, in particular John Bolton, does not like treaties of any kind," Young said, "so there is concern that this rather sudden announcement about Russian activities is merely a subtext of a goal of John Bolton's of getting the US out" of the treaty, which it has signed, but not ratified.
Ashley's claim comes as longstanding arms control agreements between US and Russia are under strain or unraveling and both sides are focused on modernizing their arsenals.
The US announced in February that it will leave the 1987 INF Treaty, a centerpiece of European security since the Cold War that bans ground-launched missiles with a range of between roughly 300 to 3,400 miles and 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The bill Putin submitted Thursday comes into force as soon as it passes the upper house of parliament and is officially published in a state newspaper.
Washington has also indicated that it wants Moscow to renegotiate the landmark New START Treaty, which focused on reducing strategic nuclear stockpiles and expires in 2021, and include China -- a scenario that's unlikely to happen, experts say.
In the meantime, the US is one of eight nations known as the "hold-out states" that have to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty before it can enter into force. The others are China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan. Russia has both signed and ratified the agreement. Ratifying the treaty would allow Washington to demand the kind of short-notice inspections that could prove whether Russia was complying or not.
'Tests they could not hide'
The CTBTO noted in its statement that "the Treaty can only be fully implemented after its entry into force, when the prohibition becomes legally binding for all States Parties. This is also true of the final verification measure of the Treaty, the provisions for on-site inspections, which would allow for on-site visits at short notice if requested by any State Party."
Asked about Ashley's comments Wednesday, State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said the agency was "certainly alarmed that they (Russia) continue to disregard their international obligations as it relates to arms control."
Ortagus referred to the Defense Intelligence Agency on Ashley's specific comments, but said that the State Department has repeatedly noted that Russia "routinely disregards its international security and arms obligations."
Even so, Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists said that "if Russia were seeking to develop any significant new nuclear capabilities, that would require tests that they could not hide. And Russia can't do tests this small that would lead to any significant change in the overall nuclear deterrent equation or negatively impact US security."
Bell agreed, saying that "even if Russia was messing around in this range [of tests] it wouldn't be militarily significant."
Non-Fact checking....
Fact-checking Trump's flurry of lies Thursday morning
By Marshall Cohen
One day after special counsel Robert Mueller publicly refused to exonerate President Donald Trump and hinted at potential impeachment, the President responded Thursday with an avalanche of widely debunked lies about the investigation and its findings.
Over a few hours Thursday morning, Trump spread several lies and falsehoods about the Russia investigation, Mueller's findings, the cost of the probe, and the legal restrictions that Mueller faced when grappling with the possibility of a President who broke the law.
Here's a breakdown of Trump's comments.
Cost of the investigation
In a tweet, Trump said the Mueller probe cost "$40,000,000 over two dark years."
Facts First: It's not clear where Trump is getting his numbers. The latest information from the Justice Department goes through September and says Mueller-specific expenses were around $12 million. Mueller's final price tag will be higher than that, but the data isn't public yet.
The Justice Department spent another $13 million investigating Russian meddling, costs that would have been incurred even if Mueller weren't appointed. That's a total of $25 million, though the price tag will be higher because that doesn't cover the last seven months of the probe. It's unlikely that the final amount for Mueller will reach the $40 million figure claimed by Trump.
Cooperation with the probe
In a tweet, Trump said Mueller had "unlimited access, people, resources and cooperation."
Facts First: The White House largely cooperated with the investigation, but it's wrong to say there was "unlimited" cooperation. Trump repeatedly refused a sit-down interview with Mueller's team. Some Trump campaign associates "deleted relevant communications" or gave conflicting information. Others lied to investigators and were charged with obstruction offenses.
Trump submitted written testimony about Russian meddling but refused to answer any questions about obstruction. Mueller made it clear that Trump's responses were "incomplete" and insufficient. The President's son, Donald Trump Jr., also declined an in-person interview.
At least three Trump associates were charged with lying to investigators, which is an obstructive act, and two others were charged with lying to congressional inquiries about Russian meddling.
Mueller's conflicts of interest
In a tweet, Trump said Mueller was "highly conflicted."
Facts First: Mueller did not have conflicts of interest, and Trump knows it. The Justice Department cleared Mueller of any conflicts when he took the job in 2017. Trump's top aides told him that these perceived conflicts were "ridiculous" and were not considered true conflicts.
Trump has long claimed that Mueller was conflicted for a few reasons: Because he once sought a refund from a Trump-owned golf course, because he interviewed to be FBI director after Trump fired James Comey in 2017, and because his old law firm represented key figures in the investigation.
When Trump raised these concerns with his top aides, they "pushed back on his assertion of conflicts, telling the President they did not count as true conflicts," according to the Mueller report. These White House aides included former chief strategist Steve Bannon, former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former White House counsel Don McGahn, according to the report.
Legal constraints on Mueller
In a tweet, Trump said, "Robert Mueller would have brought charges, if he had ANYTHING, but there were no charges to bring!"
Facts First: This is the opposite of the truth. Mueller's hands were tied by longstanding Justice Department guidelines that a sitting President can't be indicted. In his public comments this week, Mueller specifically said charging Trump was "not an option we could consider."
Mueller made it clear in his public comments on Wednesday that the guidelines had a significant influence on the investigation, tying his hands from the very start from even considering whether a crime had been committed. Trump is therefore creating a false narrative by asserting that Mueller "would have brought charges" if there was evidence Trump broke the law.
In fact, Mueller's report presented substantial evidence that Trump obstructed justice on a few fronts. But Mueller didn't offer a conclusion on whether Trump should be prosecuted, because he was bound by Justice Department guidelines that stopped him from even considering it.
Fairness of the investigation
In a tweet, Trump called the Mueller probe a "witch hunt," a label he has used for two years to suggest that the investigation was unfairly targeting him and would bring him down at any cost.
Facts First: If the investigation really were a "witch hunt," things might have been very different. But Mueller said that the facts didn't lead him to a collusion conspiracy, and he repeatedly declined to use hardball tactics against Trump, like issuing a subpoena for his testimony.
First, Mueller went to great lengths to be fair to Trump and said there was not a collusion conspiracy. He didn't play hardball and subpoena Trump's testimony, and he followed the rules that restrained him from charging Trump. If this was a "witch hunt," it wasn't a very good one.
In his comments, Mueller stressed how it would be unfair to Trump to accuse him of a crime without Trump having a legal venue to clear his name, because he couldn't go on trial while in office. Mueller even said it's "prohibited" to seek a sealed indictment of Trump for later on.
Many of Trump's top appointees and associates, like FBI Director Chris Wray and former White House lawyer Ty Cobb, have broken with the President and publicly rejected the "witch hunt" label. Even Barr rejected the term during his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year, specifically saying that Mueller wouldn't be involved in a witch hunt.
Concerns about Russian meddling
In a tweet, Trump said "Russia has disappeared" from the public debate because the Mueller investigation did not establish a conspiracy of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Facts First: The topic of Russian interference is still at the forefront of national politics.
Mueller zeroed in on Russian meddling during his public comments, solemnly saying, "I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American."
Top US intelligence officials have warned about Russia's continued efforts to undermine American politics. Democratic presidential candidates are bringing it up on the campaign trail, and lawmakers are asking about it at Congressional hearings with administration officials.
Trump's handpicked chiefs to lead the US intelligence community have continued to raise the alarm about persistent Russian meddling. And many of the Democratic candidates for president, including frontrunner Joe Biden, feature their positions on how to counter Russia on their websites.
Trump's role in Russian meddling
In a tweet, Trump said, "I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."
Facts First: The Mueller investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russians. But Trump's tweet ignores his role in promoting the fruits of Russian hacks during the 2016 campaign, which he embraced and amplified at his rallies and on social media.
To be completely clear: Mueller never accused Trump, or any Trump aides, or any Americans for that matter, of criminally conspiring with the Russian government to influence the election.
But that doesn't mean Trump played no role whatsoever, even if it wasn't criminal. Instead of denouncing Russia for intervening in US politics, Trump embraced their actions and used his platform, and his campaign apparatus, to amplify Russian meddling. He regularly cited the emails that Russian hackers stole from Democrats and gave to WikiLeaks for publication.
In his tweet, Trump seemed to accidentally acknowledge for the first time, that Russia tried to help him defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. (This is the assessment of Obama-era intelligence officials and Trump's handpicked appointees.) But later Thursday morning, Trump walked back this part of his tweet, saying "Russia did not help me get elected."
Mueller's findings on obstruction
In a tweet, Trump said, "Mueller didn't find Obstruction either."
Facts First: This is patently false. Mueller did uncover substantial evidence of obstruction by Trump and the report detailed how Trump's actions crossed the legal threshold on several key episodes. But Mueller said he was prohibited from recommending criminal charges and struggled with "difficult issues" of investigating a sitting President. Instead, he alluded to Congress' role in holding a president accountable.
The report details a few incidents with "substantial evidence" that Trump obstructed justice, including his efforts to fire the special counsel and have McGahn lie about it to the press, as well as Trump's efforts to influence the cooperation of several key witnesses in the investigation.
"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations," the report said.
Regarding the obstruction inquiry, Mueller said Wednesday, "if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr, who announced in March his conclusion that Trump didn't break the law. Trump's tweet would have been accurate if he cited Barr instead of Mueller.
By Marshall Cohen
One day after special counsel Robert Mueller publicly refused to exonerate President Donald Trump and hinted at potential impeachment, the President responded Thursday with an avalanche of widely debunked lies about the investigation and its findings.
Over a few hours Thursday morning, Trump spread several lies and falsehoods about the Russia investigation, Mueller's findings, the cost of the probe, and the legal restrictions that Mueller faced when grappling with the possibility of a President who broke the law.
Here's a breakdown of Trump's comments.
Cost of the investigation
In a tweet, Trump said the Mueller probe cost "$40,000,000 over two dark years."
Facts First: It's not clear where Trump is getting his numbers. The latest information from the Justice Department goes through September and says Mueller-specific expenses were around $12 million. Mueller's final price tag will be higher than that, but the data isn't public yet.
The Justice Department spent another $13 million investigating Russian meddling, costs that would have been incurred even if Mueller weren't appointed. That's a total of $25 million, though the price tag will be higher because that doesn't cover the last seven months of the probe. It's unlikely that the final amount for Mueller will reach the $40 million figure claimed by Trump.
Cooperation with the probe
In a tweet, Trump said Mueller had "unlimited access, people, resources and cooperation."
Facts First: The White House largely cooperated with the investigation, but it's wrong to say there was "unlimited" cooperation. Trump repeatedly refused a sit-down interview with Mueller's team. Some Trump campaign associates "deleted relevant communications" or gave conflicting information. Others lied to investigators and were charged with obstruction offenses.
Trump submitted written testimony about Russian meddling but refused to answer any questions about obstruction. Mueller made it clear that Trump's responses were "incomplete" and insufficient. The President's son, Donald Trump Jr., also declined an in-person interview.
At least three Trump associates were charged with lying to investigators, which is an obstructive act, and two others were charged with lying to congressional inquiries about Russian meddling.
Mueller's conflicts of interest
In a tweet, Trump said Mueller was "highly conflicted."
Facts First: Mueller did not have conflicts of interest, and Trump knows it. The Justice Department cleared Mueller of any conflicts when he took the job in 2017. Trump's top aides told him that these perceived conflicts were "ridiculous" and were not considered true conflicts.
Trump has long claimed that Mueller was conflicted for a few reasons: Because he once sought a refund from a Trump-owned golf course, because he interviewed to be FBI director after Trump fired James Comey in 2017, and because his old law firm represented key figures in the investigation.
When Trump raised these concerns with his top aides, they "pushed back on his assertion of conflicts, telling the President they did not count as true conflicts," according to the Mueller report. These White House aides included former chief strategist Steve Bannon, former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former White House counsel Don McGahn, according to the report.
Legal constraints on Mueller
In a tweet, Trump said, "Robert Mueller would have brought charges, if he had ANYTHING, but there were no charges to bring!"
Facts First: This is the opposite of the truth. Mueller's hands were tied by longstanding Justice Department guidelines that a sitting President can't be indicted. In his public comments this week, Mueller specifically said charging Trump was "not an option we could consider."
Mueller made it clear in his public comments on Wednesday that the guidelines had a significant influence on the investigation, tying his hands from the very start from even considering whether a crime had been committed. Trump is therefore creating a false narrative by asserting that Mueller "would have brought charges" if there was evidence Trump broke the law.
In fact, Mueller's report presented substantial evidence that Trump obstructed justice on a few fronts. But Mueller didn't offer a conclusion on whether Trump should be prosecuted, because he was bound by Justice Department guidelines that stopped him from even considering it.
Fairness of the investigation
In a tweet, Trump called the Mueller probe a "witch hunt," a label he has used for two years to suggest that the investigation was unfairly targeting him and would bring him down at any cost.
Facts First: If the investigation really were a "witch hunt," things might have been very different. But Mueller said that the facts didn't lead him to a collusion conspiracy, and he repeatedly declined to use hardball tactics against Trump, like issuing a subpoena for his testimony.
First, Mueller went to great lengths to be fair to Trump and said there was not a collusion conspiracy. He didn't play hardball and subpoena Trump's testimony, and he followed the rules that restrained him from charging Trump. If this was a "witch hunt," it wasn't a very good one.
In his comments, Mueller stressed how it would be unfair to Trump to accuse him of a crime without Trump having a legal venue to clear his name, because he couldn't go on trial while in office. Mueller even said it's "prohibited" to seek a sealed indictment of Trump for later on.
Many of Trump's top appointees and associates, like FBI Director Chris Wray and former White House lawyer Ty Cobb, have broken with the President and publicly rejected the "witch hunt" label. Even Barr rejected the term during his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year, specifically saying that Mueller wouldn't be involved in a witch hunt.
Concerns about Russian meddling
In a tweet, Trump said "Russia has disappeared" from the public debate because the Mueller investigation did not establish a conspiracy of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Facts First: The topic of Russian interference is still at the forefront of national politics.
Mueller zeroed in on Russian meddling during his public comments, solemnly saying, "I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American."
Top US intelligence officials have warned about Russia's continued efforts to undermine American politics. Democratic presidential candidates are bringing it up on the campaign trail, and lawmakers are asking about it at Congressional hearings with administration officials.
Trump's handpicked chiefs to lead the US intelligence community have continued to raise the alarm about persistent Russian meddling. And many of the Democratic candidates for president, including frontrunner Joe Biden, feature their positions on how to counter Russia on their websites.
Trump's role in Russian meddling
In a tweet, Trump said, "I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."
Facts First: The Mueller investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russians. But Trump's tweet ignores his role in promoting the fruits of Russian hacks during the 2016 campaign, which he embraced and amplified at his rallies and on social media.
To be completely clear: Mueller never accused Trump, or any Trump aides, or any Americans for that matter, of criminally conspiring with the Russian government to influence the election.
But that doesn't mean Trump played no role whatsoever, even if it wasn't criminal. Instead of denouncing Russia for intervening in US politics, Trump embraced their actions and used his platform, and his campaign apparatus, to amplify Russian meddling. He regularly cited the emails that Russian hackers stole from Democrats and gave to WikiLeaks for publication.
In his tweet, Trump seemed to accidentally acknowledge for the first time, that Russia tried to help him defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. (This is the assessment of Obama-era intelligence officials and Trump's handpicked appointees.) But later Thursday morning, Trump walked back this part of his tweet, saying "Russia did not help me get elected."
Mueller's findings on obstruction
In a tweet, Trump said, "Mueller didn't find Obstruction either."
Facts First: This is patently false. Mueller did uncover substantial evidence of obstruction by Trump and the report detailed how Trump's actions crossed the legal threshold on several key episodes. But Mueller said he was prohibited from recommending criminal charges and struggled with "difficult issues" of investigating a sitting President. Instead, he alluded to Congress' role in holding a president accountable.
The report details a few incidents with "substantial evidence" that Trump obstructed justice, including his efforts to fire the special counsel and have McGahn lie about it to the press, as well as Trump's efforts to influence the cooperation of several key witnesses in the investigation.
"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations," the report said.
Regarding the obstruction inquiry, Mueller said Wednesday, "if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr, who announced in March his conclusion that Trump didn't break the law. Trump's tweet would have been accurate if he cited Barr instead of Mueller.
Betrayed the USA
Mueller Reminds the Nation That Trump Betrayed the USA
Treachery is not always a crime.
DAVID CORN
Much of the immediate commentary following special counsel Robert Mueller’s surprise press conference on Wednesday focused on his damning statements about President Donald Trump’s actions that potentially could be charged as obstruction of justice—if Justice Department policy did not prohibit the indictment of a sitting president. But Mueller’s remarks were also a reminder of the core elements of the Trump-Russia scandal: Moscow attacked the 2016 election to help Trump, and Trump assisted Vladimir Putin’s assault by claiming at the time (and afterward) that it wasn’t real. That is, whether or not Trump had criminally colluded with Russian operatives, he did side with a foreign adversary that attacked American democracy—and that’s treachery.
Mueller began his statement by reiterating what has already been stated by the US intelligence community, Democratic and Republican members of Congress, and his own report: Putin “launched a concerted attack on our political system.” He noted the Russians “used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.” The Kremlin’s goal was to impede Hillary Clinton and, consequently, boost Trump. And, Mueller added, “a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election.”
In other words, there is no Russian hoax. This is no Deep State concoction cooked up to subvert Trump’s campaign or his presidency. The attack was real. It was significant. And there was a compelling need to investigate it and any contacts between Trump associates and Russians.
Yet during the campaign, Trump and his lieutenants repeatedly denied the Russian attack was under way. As soon as the Democratic National Committee publicly announced its servers had been penetrated by Russian hackers, the Trump campaign claimed this was a “hoax” devised by the DNC itself. After Democratic emails swiped by the Russians were dumped by WikiLeaks right before the Democratic convention in July 2016, Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manfort, then the campaign chairman, went on news shows and denied this had anything to do with the Russians. (Only a month earlier, they and Jared Kushner had attended a meeting with a Russian emissary whom they were told was bringing them dirt on Clinton as part of a secret Kremlin scheme to help the Trump campaign.)
Even after the intelligence community briefed Trump in mid-August of that year and informed him that Moscow indeed was behind the hack-and-dump operation, he continued to say in public that there was no reason to blame the Russians for this intervention. At the first presidential debate, Trump huffed, “I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC…It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK? You don’t know who broke into DNC.” He kept this up after the Obama administration a few weeks later officially declared Russia was culpable.
Comments like these must have signaled to Russia—a foreign adversary trying to subvert an American election—that the Trump campaign was just fine with its underhanded efforts. (After the DNC emails were posted around convention time, Trump publicly called on Russians to hack Clinton: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” And, according to Mueller’s report, hours later, Russian hackers targeted Clinton’s servers.)
Also in the summer of 2016, George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was trying to set up a back-channel with Putin’s office. This means that while Putin was waging information warfare on the United States, one of the campaigns was reaching out and saying, Hey, we want to play ball with you. No doubt, that was another sign of encouragement for Moscow. (And don’t forget that from October 2015 until June 2016, Trump was secretly negotiating to develop a tower project in Moscow that could reap him hundreds of millions of dollars—talks that included communicating with the office of Putin’s top aide. At the same time, Trump was telling American voters he had nothing to do with Russia.)
Trump put his own interests ahead of the security of the nation. And by insisting there was no Russian attack, he helped Putin pull off this caper and made it more difficult for President Barack Obama to enlist Republicans in a united front against Moscow’s attack. With Russia falsely claiming it had nothing to do with the hacks and dumps, Trump and his team were repeating and amplifying Putin’s disinformation. They were aiding and abetting the Kremlin. And after Trump won the election, he continued this pattern, failing to acknowledge the Russian attack and notoriously saying he accepted Putin’s denials. (One result of this was that Trump has done nothing to prioritize actions to prevent future attacks on US elections.)
Mueller’s report notes that the Trump campaign tried to reach out to WikiLeaks during the campaign and exploited the Russian attack—even as it was publicly dismissing the idea that Moscow was undermining the election. Mueller did not dwell on this point during his appearance; he only noted that “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” involving Trump associates and Russians. But this was his understated way of saying that his report had not reached a verdict of whether there had been any collusion. His task was only to determine if crimes had been committed.
The big news was Mueller signaling that there had been enough evidence of obstruction to consider an indictment of Trump but for the DOJ policy and that it was now up to Congress to decide the matter. But he ended with the fundamental fact of this scandal. “I will close,” he said, “by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments: That there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American.”
That was certainly a dig at Trump, who has refused to recognize this central allegation. And it highlights a key subplot of the scandal: Trump has consistently sided with Putin and purposefully obscured the reality of what happened in 2016 (often by tossing out diversions and distractions regarding Deep State coups and other rightwing conspiracy theories). And Trump and his crowd continue to do so. After Trump tweeted “case is closed” in response to Mueller’s statement, his campaign manager, Brad Parscale, issued a statement full of lies: “Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s remarks today confirmed what we already knew: There was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, and there was no case for obstruction. President Trump has been fully and completely exonerated.” None of that was true. And Parscale added, “Now it’s time to turn to the origins of the Russia hoax.”
Hoax—they’re sticking with hoax. This is total gaslighting. Trump and his minions are still covering for Putin and playing the (paranoid) victim.
On Wednesday, Mueller did not spill any beans that were not in his report. He was cautious and disciplined. But this media appearance demonstrated that it is important that the facts and outrages of the Trump-Russia scandal—probably the most consequential political scandal in American history—not be reserved to the printed page of a long and dense report.
Mueller’s nine-and-half-minute-long statement likely had a different, possibly greater, impact than the release of that report. Here was a credible source telling the story, even if only in an abbreviated manner. This illustrated what House Democrats need to do, whether or not they proceed with impeachment: Bring witnesses to public hearings to convey the full narrative of the Russiagate. House committees are tussling with the Trump administration over potential witnesses, such as former White House counsel Don McGahn, but there are others the Democrats could showcase. (How about former Trump business associate Felix Sater, who negotiated the Trump project in Moscow?) The Dems ought to move past the procedural squabbling and present a clear depiction of Trump’s misconduct in this matter—and others.
Mueller did not advocate any course of action. His job is done, his mission accomplished. He announced his resignation and passed the case for obstruction to Congress. But he has told a slice of the story—a slice that is damning for Trump. It fixes a spotlight on the momentous lies Trump and his crew have told, lies that aided Putin’s war on American democracy, and lies that continue to flow from Trump and his henchmen. Mueller has served the truth. In doing so, he has indicted Trump—not in a legal sense, but for betraying his country.
Treachery is not always a crime.
DAVID CORN
Much of the immediate commentary following special counsel Robert Mueller’s surprise press conference on Wednesday focused on his damning statements about President Donald Trump’s actions that potentially could be charged as obstruction of justice—if Justice Department policy did not prohibit the indictment of a sitting president. But Mueller’s remarks were also a reminder of the core elements of the Trump-Russia scandal: Moscow attacked the 2016 election to help Trump, and Trump assisted Vladimir Putin’s assault by claiming at the time (and afterward) that it wasn’t real. That is, whether or not Trump had criminally colluded with Russian operatives, he did side with a foreign adversary that attacked American democracy—and that’s treachery.
Mueller began his statement by reiterating what has already been stated by the US intelligence community, Democratic and Republican members of Congress, and his own report: Putin “launched a concerted attack on our political system.” He noted the Russians “used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.” The Kremlin’s goal was to impede Hillary Clinton and, consequently, boost Trump. And, Mueller added, “a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election.”
In other words, there is no Russian hoax. This is no Deep State concoction cooked up to subvert Trump’s campaign or his presidency. The attack was real. It was significant. And there was a compelling need to investigate it and any contacts between Trump associates and Russians.
Yet during the campaign, Trump and his lieutenants repeatedly denied the Russian attack was under way. As soon as the Democratic National Committee publicly announced its servers had been penetrated by Russian hackers, the Trump campaign claimed this was a “hoax” devised by the DNC itself. After Democratic emails swiped by the Russians were dumped by WikiLeaks right before the Democratic convention in July 2016, Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manfort, then the campaign chairman, went on news shows and denied this had anything to do with the Russians. (Only a month earlier, they and Jared Kushner had attended a meeting with a Russian emissary whom they were told was bringing them dirt on Clinton as part of a secret Kremlin scheme to help the Trump campaign.)
Even after the intelligence community briefed Trump in mid-August of that year and informed him that Moscow indeed was behind the hack-and-dump operation, he continued to say in public that there was no reason to blame the Russians for this intervention. At the first presidential debate, Trump huffed, “I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC…It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK? You don’t know who broke into DNC.” He kept this up after the Obama administration a few weeks later officially declared Russia was culpable.
Comments like these must have signaled to Russia—a foreign adversary trying to subvert an American election—that the Trump campaign was just fine with its underhanded efforts. (After the DNC emails were posted around convention time, Trump publicly called on Russians to hack Clinton: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” And, according to Mueller’s report, hours later, Russian hackers targeted Clinton’s servers.)
Also in the summer of 2016, George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was trying to set up a back-channel with Putin’s office. This means that while Putin was waging information warfare on the United States, one of the campaigns was reaching out and saying, Hey, we want to play ball with you. No doubt, that was another sign of encouragement for Moscow. (And don’t forget that from October 2015 until June 2016, Trump was secretly negotiating to develop a tower project in Moscow that could reap him hundreds of millions of dollars—talks that included communicating with the office of Putin’s top aide. At the same time, Trump was telling American voters he had nothing to do with Russia.)
Trump put his own interests ahead of the security of the nation. And by insisting there was no Russian attack, he helped Putin pull off this caper and made it more difficult for President Barack Obama to enlist Republicans in a united front against Moscow’s attack. With Russia falsely claiming it had nothing to do with the hacks and dumps, Trump and his team were repeating and amplifying Putin’s disinformation. They were aiding and abetting the Kremlin. And after Trump won the election, he continued this pattern, failing to acknowledge the Russian attack and notoriously saying he accepted Putin’s denials. (One result of this was that Trump has done nothing to prioritize actions to prevent future attacks on US elections.)
Mueller’s report notes that the Trump campaign tried to reach out to WikiLeaks during the campaign and exploited the Russian attack—even as it was publicly dismissing the idea that Moscow was undermining the election. Mueller did not dwell on this point during his appearance; he only noted that “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” involving Trump associates and Russians. But this was his understated way of saying that his report had not reached a verdict of whether there had been any collusion. His task was only to determine if crimes had been committed.
The big news was Mueller signaling that there had been enough evidence of obstruction to consider an indictment of Trump but for the DOJ policy and that it was now up to Congress to decide the matter. But he ended with the fundamental fact of this scandal. “I will close,” he said, “by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments: That there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American.”
That was certainly a dig at Trump, who has refused to recognize this central allegation. And it highlights a key subplot of the scandal: Trump has consistently sided with Putin and purposefully obscured the reality of what happened in 2016 (often by tossing out diversions and distractions regarding Deep State coups and other rightwing conspiracy theories). And Trump and his crowd continue to do so. After Trump tweeted “case is closed” in response to Mueller’s statement, his campaign manager, Brad Parscale, issued a statement full of lies: “Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s remarks today confirmed what we already knew: There was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, and there was no case for obstruction. President Trump has been fully and completely exonerated.” None of that was true. And Parscale added, “Now it’s time to turn to the origins of the Russia hoax.”
Hoax—they’re sticking with hoax. This is total gaslighting. Trump and his minions are still covering for Putin and playing the (paranoid) victim.
On Wednesday, Mueller did not spill any beans that were not in his report. He was cautious and disciplined. But this media appearance demonstrated that it is important that the facts and outrages of the Trump-Russia scandal—probably the most consequential political scandal in American history—not be reserved to the printed page of a long and dense report.
Mueller’s nine-and-half-minute-long statement likely had a different, possibly greater, impact than the release of that report. Here was a credible source telling the story, even if only in an abbreviated manner. This illustrated what House Democrats need to do, whether or not they proceed with impeachment: Bring witnesses to public hearings to convey the full narrative of the Russiagate. House committees are tussling with the Trump administration over potential witnesses, such as former White House counsel Don McGahn, but there are others the Democrats could showcase. (How about former Trump business associate Felix Sater, who negotiated the Trump project in Moscow?) The Dems ought to move past the procedural squabbling and present a clear depiction of Trump’s misconduct in this matter—and others.
Mueller did not advocate any course of action. His job is done, his mission accomplished. He announced his resignation and passed the case for obstruction to Congress. But he has told a slice of the story—a slice that is damning for Trump. It fixes a spotlight on the momentous lies Trump and his crew have told, lies that aided Putin’s war on American democracy, and lies that continue to flow from Trump and his henchmen. Mueller has served the truth. In doing so, he has indicted Trump—not in a legal sense, but for betraying his country.
It's because God is punishing the stupid brain dead cunts for being racist...
Here's why the US has seen tornadoes, floods and extreme heat in the past few weeks
By Nicole Chavez
If you feel like the weather has been out of control in much of the United States, you're right. A weather pattern that stuck around longer than usual created a dangerous mix of conditions.
Millions of people across the country have experienced extreme weather for the past two weeks. There was unusual cold in the West, tornadoes and widespread floods have been slamming the central United States, and a record-breaking heat wave has been scorching the Southeast.
It's not a coincidence. CNN meteorologists say it's all tied to a jet stream pattern.
Jet streams are rivers of fast-moving air up in the atmosphere -- around the altitude where planes normally fly -- that push air masses, typically from west to east but not in a straight line. They are key to determining the weather as they separate cold air from warm air.
The jet stream pattern over the United States has been stuck for days, leaving cooler and wetter conditions in the West, and hotter and drier conditions in the East, CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller said.
"Where those two different air masses meet, you get ripe conditions for severe weather," Miller said.
The pattern has been consistently in the same spot for the past two weeks, Miller said, "sparking severe weather pretty much every day in the middle of the country."
May is traditionally the peak of severe weather, but it can continue into June and July, according to Miller.
Luckily, the jet stream is expected to shift Thursday, slowing down the severe weather outbreak.
Tornadoes have now been reported somewhere in the US for 14 days straight -- the longest streak on record in the country.
At least eight tornado reports have been popping up every day since May 15 in 22 different states, according to CNN meteorologists.
This constant tornado activity is also very rare.
"We have active periods similar to this every few years, but there is normally 1 or 2 days interspersed where the pattern shifts and we get a break with no tornadoes for a day or two," Miller said.
It's been a historically active tornado season. There were 500 eyewitness reports of tornadoes made in the 30 days between April 27 and May 27, according to the National Weather Service.
In the past 20 years, the US has seen as many tornadoes only four other times: 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2011.
Is this climate change?
It depends. Meteorologists don't believe there is a link between the remarkable amount of tornadoes and climate change. Flooding is a different story.
All extreme weather events are not necessarily influenced by climate change. In the case of tornadoes, there are many variables that go into making a twister and "turning the lever up on temperature doesn't just create more or less tornadoes," Miller said.
But downpours in the Midwest have increased during the past century due to climate change, and more intense rainfall events are expected in the future, according to the National Climate Assessment, an interagency report that examines the impact of climate change.
By Nicole Chavez
If you feel like the weather has been out of control in much of the United States, you're right. A weather pattern that stuck around longer than usual created a dangerous mix of conditions.
Millions of people across the country have experienced extreme weather for the past two weeks. There was unusual cold in the West, tornadoes and widespread floods have been slamming the central United States, and a record-breaking heat wave has been scorching the Southeast.
It's not a coincidence. CNN meteorologists say it's all tied to a jet stream pattern.
Jet streams are rivers of fast-moving air up in the atmosphere -- around the altitude where planes normally fly -- that push air masses, typically from west to east but not in a straight line. They are key to determining the weather as they separate cold air from warm air.
The jet stream pattern over the United States has been stuck for days, leaving cooler and wetter conditions in the West, and hotter and drier conditions in the East, CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller said.
"Where those two different air masses meet, you get ripe conditions for severe weather," Miller said.
The pattern has been consistently in the same spot for the past two weeks, Miller said, "sparking severe weather pretty much every day in the middle of the country."
May is traditionally the peak of severe weather, but it can continue into June and July, according to Miller.
Luckily, the jet stream is expected to shift Thursday, slowing down the severe weather outbreak.
Tornadoes have now been reported somewhere in the US for 14 days straight -- the longest streak on record in the country.
At least eight tornado reports have been popping up every day since May 15 in 22 different states, according to CNN meteorologists.
This constant tornado activity is also very rare.
"We have active periods similar to this every few years, but there is normally 1 or 2 days interspersed where the pattern shifts and we get a break with no tornadoes for a day or two," Miller said.
It's been a historically active tornado season. There were 500 eyewitness reports of tornadoes made in the 30 days between April 27 and May 27, according to the National Weather Service.
In the past 20 years, the US has seen as many tornadoes only four other times: 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2011.
Is this climate change?
It depends. Meteorologists don't believe there is a link between the remarkable amount of tornadoes and climate change. Flooding is a different story.
All extreme weather events are not necessarily influenced by climate change. In the case of tornadoes, there are many variables that go into making a twister and "turning the lever up on temperature doesn't just create more or less tornadoes," Miller said.
But downpours in the Midwest have increased during the past century due to climate change, and more intense rainfall events are expected in the future, according to the National Climate Assessment, an interagency report that examines the impact of climate change.
Whinny little bitching China..
China accuses US of 'economic terrorism' as trade war tensions escalate
By Ben Westcott, Serenitie Wang and Rob Picheta
China accused the Trump administration of committing "economic terrorism" on Thursday, escalating its war of words with the United States amid rising trade tensions between the two countries.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the White House had "brought huge damage to the economy of other countries and the US itself," spokesperson Lu Kang told reporters in Beijing on Thursday.
Lu described US trade policy as "typical economic terrorism, economic hegemonism, and economic unilateralism."
The statement followed similarly ominous rhetoric from Chinese state media, which issued a stern message to Washington on Wednesday: "Don't say we didn't warn you."
The People's Daily, the newspaper of the ruling Communist Party, used the loaded phrase in a commentary on Wednesday, in which it said that China would "never accept" the US' suppression of Chinese development.
The warning came as China's top economic planning agency suggested it would be willing curb exports of rare earth minerals, which are crucial for high-tech manufacturing.
On May 15, the Trump administration signed an order that potentially banned major Chinese companies, such as technology giant Huawei, from buying vital components such as computer chips from the US.
Many of those chips are made using rare earths, of which China is a major exporter.
"At present, the United States completely overestimates its ability to control the global supply chain and is due to slap itself in the face when it sobers up from its happy, ignorant self-indulgence," said the commentary published under the pseudonym Wuyuehe. "Don't say we didn't warn you."
The phrase has, in the past, been reserved by the Chinese state media for times of serious conflict.
The People's Daily used it in 1962 before going into armed conflict against India and again in 1978 before the Vietnam invasion. More recently, though it has appeared in several People's Daily commentaries on issues ranging from Taiwan to the trade war.
War of words
On May 10, the US raised tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports from 10% to 25%, after talks between the two countries broke down less than a week earlier.
Negotiations have now stalled, with each side blaming the other for the recent setbacks. Speaking in Japan on Monday, US President Donald Trump said he was "not ready" to make a deal.
The US imports far more from China than China does from the US -- one of the reasons for the trade war. As China runs out of US imports to tariff, it has turned to its rare earth exports as a new potential battleground.
China accounted for 80% of all rare earth imports by the US between 2014 and 2017, according to the United States Geological Survey, and are were among the few items not hit by US tariffs.
In statements posted on its website Wednesday, a representative of China's powerful National Development and Reform Commission again hinted at the possibility of action on rare earths.
"What I can tell you is that if anyone wants to use products made of China's rare earth exports to contain China's development, the people of Ganzhou and across China will not be happy with that," the official said, referring to a city in Jiangxi province.
On May 20, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited a rare earth factory in Jiangxi province, an unusual personal touch which many analysts and state media saw as a clear message to Washington.
"Will the rare earth become a counter-control weapon against China's unwarranted suppression (by the US)? The answer is not mysterious," the People's Daily commentary said. "In fact, consumer electronics, military equipment and many other products produced in the US are highly dependent on China's rare earth resources.
An editorial in state media tabloid Global Times Wednesday was headlined: "US will rue forcing China's hand on rare earths."
But while rare earths could prove a potential pain point for Washington, they may not be the advantage some in China think.
Eugene Gholz, who has advised the US government on rare earths, wrote in a report for the Council on Foreign Relations that China's leverage over the rare earths market peaked in 2010 and even then it had been difficult to exploit in Beijing's favor.
Furthermore, the US also maintains stockpiles of many key rare earth materials, not least those used in the defense industry.
By Ben Westcott, Serenitie Wang and Rob Picheta
China accused the Trump administration of committing "economic terrorism" on Thursday, escalating its war of words with the United States amid rising trade tensions between the two countries.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the White House had "brought huge damage to the economy of other countries and the US itself," spokesperson Lu Kang told reporters in Beijing on Thursday.
Lu described US trade policy as "typical economic terrorism, economic hegemonism, and economic unilateralism."
The statement followed similarly ominous rhetoric from Chinese state media, which issued a stern message to Washington on Wednesday: "Don't say we didn't warn you."
The People's Daily, the newspaper of the ruling Communist Party, used the loaded phrase in a commentary on Wednesday, in which it said that China would "never accept" the US' suppression of Chinese development.
The warning came as China's top economic planning agency suggested it would be willing curb exports of rare earth minerals, which are crucial for high-tech manufacturing.
On May 15, the Trump administration signed an order that potentially banned major Chinese companies, such as technology giant Huawei, from buying vital components such as computer chips from the US.
Many of those chips are made using rare earths, of which China is a major exporter.
"At present, the United States completely overestimates its ability to control the global supply chain and is due to slap itself in the face when it sobers up from its happy, ignorant self-indulgence," said the commentary published under the pseudonym Wuyuehe. "Don't say we didn't warn you."
The phrase has, in the past, been reserved by the Chinese state media for times of serious conflict.
The People's Daily used it in 1962 before going into armed conflict against India and again in 1978 before the Vietnam invasion. More recently, though it has appeared in several People's Daily commentaries on issues ranging from Taiwan to the trade war.
War of words
On May 10, the US raised tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports from 10% to 25%, after talks between the two countries broke down less than a week earlier.
Negotiations have now stalled, with each side blaming the other for the recent setbacks. Speaking in Japan on Monday, US President Donald Trump said he was "not ready" to make a deal.
The US imports far more from China than China does from the US -- one of the reasons for the trade war. As China runs out of US imports to tariff, it has turned to its rare earth exports as a new potential battleground.
China accounted for 80% of all rare earth imports by the US between 2014 and 2017, according to the United States Geological Survey, and are were among the few items not hit by US tariffs.
In statements posted on its website Wednesday, a representative of China's powerful National Development and Reform Commission again hinted at the possibility of action on rare earths.
"What I can tell you is that if anyone wants to use products made of China's rare earth exports to contain China's development, the people of Ganzhou and across China will not be happy with that," the official said, referring to a city in Jiangxi province.
On May 20, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited a rare earth factory in Jiangxi province, an unusual personal touch which many analysts and state media saw as a clear message to Washington.
"Will the rare earth become a counter-control weapon against China's unwarranted suppression (by the US)? The answer is not mysterious," the People's Daily commentary said. "In fact, consumer electronics, military equipment and many other products produced in the US are highly dependent on China's rare earth resources.
An editorial in state media tabloid Global Times Wednesday was headlined: "US will rue forcing China's hand on rare earths."
But while rare earths could prove a potential pain point for Washington, they may not be the advantage some in China think.
Eugene Gholz, who has advised the US government on rare earths, wrote in a report for the Council on Foreign Relations that China's leverage over the rare earths market peaked in 2010 and even then it had been difficult to exploit in Beijing's favor.
Furthermore, the US also maintains stockpiles of many key rare earth materials, not least those used in the defense industry.
McCain blasts Orangutan...
Meghan McCain blasts Trump over USS McCain controversy
By Devan Cole
President Donald Trump's repeated attacks on Sen. John McCain have made it difficult for his daughter, Meghan McCain, to heal following the death of her father last August, she said Thursday.
McCain was responding to reports that the White House Military Office asked lower-level US Navy officials about keeping the USS John McCain, named for the late senator's father and grandfather, out of view during Trump's trip to Japan last weekend.
"It's impossible to go through the grief process when my father, who's been dead 10 months, is constantly in the news cycle because the President is so obsessed with the fact that he's never going to be a great man like he was," Meghan McCain, a co-host of ABC's "The View, said Thursday. "It's a bizarre way to do this. It's a bizarre way to grieve. It's a bizarre way to say goodbye to my dad."
She added, "The President's actions have consequences. And when you repeatedly are attacking my father and war heroes, it creates a culture in the military where people are clearly fearful to show my father's name in one way or another. And that, I think, is what has started this chain of events and actions."
One Navy official clarified to CNN Thursday morning that the discussion included obscuring the ship or moving it, which was not practical because the ship was under repairs at the time.
The ship ultimately was not moved nor was anything done to obscure McCain's name. Trump said he wasn't aware of the discussions, though he said the officials were "well-meaning."
The reports underscore Trump's extraordinary and bitter personal feud with McCain, with whom he frequently sparred when the Arizona Republican was alive and even after he passed away from brain cancer in August.
By Devan Cole
President Donald Trump's repeated attacks on Sen. John McCain have made it difficult for his daughter, Meghan McCain, to heal following the death of her father last August, she said Thursday.
McCain was responding to reports that the White House Military Office asked lower-level US Navy officials about keeping the USS John McCain, named for the late senator's father and grandfather, out of view during Trump's trip to Japan last weekend.
"It's impossible to go through the grief process when my father, who's been dead 10 months, is constantly in the news cycle because the President is so obsessed with the fact that he's never going to be a great man like he was," Meghan McCain, a co-host of ABC's "The View, said Thursday. "It's a bizarre way to do this. It's a bizarre way to grieve. It's a bizarre way to say goodbye to my dad."
She added, "The President's actions have consequences. And when you repeatedly are attacking my father and war heroes, it creates a culture in the military where people are clearly fearful to show my father's name in one way or another. And that, I think, is what has started this chain of events and actions."
One Navy official clarified to CNN Thursday morning that the discussion included obscuring the ship or moving it, which was not practical because the ship was under repairs at the time.
The ship ultimately was not moved nor was anything done to obscure McCain's name. Trump said he wasn't aware of the discussions, though he said the officials were "well-meaning."
The reports underscore Trump's extraordinary and bitter personal feud with McCain, with whom he frequently sparred when the Arizona Republican was alive and even after he passed away from brain cancer in August.
Just fucking a stupid fuck spouting off...
Trump unleashes fury on Mueller, again disputes US intelligence findings on Russia
By Devan Cole
President Donald Trump launched a furious broadside Thursday morning against Robert Mueller the day after the special counsel discussed the findings of his report into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the investigation's inability to clear the President of obstruction of justice.
After a relatively muted response to Mueller's statement on Wednesday -- Trump at one point tweeted that there was "insufficient evidence" to prosecute him -- Trump unleashed a lengthy diatribe against Mueller on Twitter and at the White House, calling the special counsel conflicted and disputing US intelligence findings that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election to aid Trump's candidacy.
"No, Russia did not help me get elected," Trump told reporters at the White House. "You know who got me elected? You know who got me elected? I got me elected. Russia didn't help me at all. Russia, if anything, I think, helped the other side."
Trump was later pressed by a reporter on Mueller's decision not to make a determination on obstruction or charge the President with a crime.
"There were no charges. None," Trump said, directing the reporter to "read volume one" of the report, the section that outlines the investigation into collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election.
The reporter responded that Mueller couldn't say Trump was guilty because, as he said Wednesday, it would be "unfair" to accuse somebody of a crime when there could be no court resolution while he was in office.
Trump repeated that he was "innocent of all charges" and "there was no crime" before telling reporters to read Article Two of the Constitution, which outlines the powers of the presidency.
"Someday, you oughta read a thing called Article Two. Read Article Two, which gives the President powers you wouldn't believe, but I don't even have to rely on Article Two. There was no crime, there was no obstruction no obstruction, there was no collusion, there was no nothing," Trump said.
Asked if Mueller had behaved honorably, Trump said, "I think he's totally conflicted," referring to Mueller's brief membership at a Trump golf club in Virginia and repeatedly criticizing his once-close relationship with former FBI director James Comey.
At one point Thursday morning, Trump acknowledged on Twitter Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election to aid his campaign before walking back the statement to reporters.
"Russia, Russia, Russia! That's all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn't exist," Trump wrote in a tweet.
Trump has frequently denied that Russia interfered in the election to help him, a position that stands at odds with the US intelligence community's assessment of Russia's actions in 2016.
In July, during a joint news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump took the unprecedented step of siding with Russia in their denial of interfering in the election, saying he doesn't "see any reason why" Russia would be responsible. He later said he misspoke.
The US intelligence community has said the Russians did not change vote totals. It is not possible to assess the impact of their efforts on voters' opinions and behaviors.
By Devan Cole
President Donald Trump launched a furious broadside Thursday morning against Robert Mueller the day after the special counsel discussed the findings of his report into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the investigation's inability to clear the President of obstruction of justice.
After a relatively muted response to Mueller's statement on Wednesday -- Trump at one point tweeted that there was "insufficient evidence" to prosecute him -- Trump unleashed a lengthy diatribe against Mueller on Twitter and at the White House, calling the special counsel conflicted and disputing US intelligence findings that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election to aid Trump's candidacy.
"No, Russia did not help me get elected," Trump told reporters at the White House. "You know who got me elected? You know who got me elected? I got me elected. Russia didn't help me at all. Russia, if anything, I think, helped the other side."
Trump was later pressed by a reporter on Mueller's decision not to make a determination on obstruction or charge the President with a crime.
"There were no charges. None," Trump said, directing the reporter to "read volume one" of the report, the section that outlines the investigation into collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election.
The reporter responded that Mueller couldn't say Trump was guilty because, as he said Wednesday, it would be "unfair" to accuse somebody of a crime when there could be no court resolution while he was in office.
Trump repeated that he was "innocent of all charges" and "there was no crime" before telling reporters to read Article Two of the Constitution, which outlines the powers of the presidency.
"Someday, you oughta read a thing called Article Two. Read Article Two, which gives the President powers you wouldn't believe, but I don't even have to rely on Article Two. There was no crime, there was no obstruction no obstruction, there was no collusion, there was no nothing," Trump said.
Asked if Mueller had behaved honorably, Trump said, "I think he's totally conflicted," referring to Mueller's brief membership at a Trump golf club in Virginia and repeatedly criticizing his once-close relationship with former FBI director James Comey.
At one point Thursday morning, Trump acknowledged on Twitter Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election to aid his campaign before walking back the statement to reporters.
"Russia, Russia, Russia! That's all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn't exist," Trump wrote in a tweet.
Trump has frequently denied that Russia interfered in the election to help him, a position that stands at odds with the US intelligence community's assessment of Russia's actions in 2016.
In July, during a joint news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump took the unprecedented step of siding with Russia in their denial of interfering in the election, saying he doesn't "see any reason why" Russia would be responsible. He later said he misspoke.
The US intelligence community has said the Russians did not change vote totals. It is not possible to assess the impact of their efforts on voters' opinions and behaviors.
From racist red-neck state to the Moon...
From Alabama to the Moon
The path to the Moon has run through Alabama since the earliest days of our nation’s space program. Today, work in the “Rocket City” Huntsville and across the state is advancing the largest rocket we’ve ever built and our Artemis Program to land humans on the Moon by 2024. At a recent visit with the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine demonstrated Alabama’s deep technical and economic contributions to our nation’s space program. A $1.6 million amendment above the President’s request of $21 billion for NASA’s Fiscal Year 2020 budget will accelerate our progress to the Moon and solidifies that the state’s importance to our exploration efforts.
NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville creates significant economic impact by supporting thousands of jobs and investing millions of dollars in research and development. It helps drive an innovation-based economy in Alabama and throughout the United States. The center generates contracts across nearly every category of manufacturing or service production. And NASA reaches all 67 Alabama counties through education, business, partnerships, and other innovative ways to engage the state with our ambitious national goals.
NASA and its industry partners continue their steady progress toward launching the nation's newest rocket, NASA's Space Launch S
Much of the Marshall’s work is tied to the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that will power human exploration of the Moon and a new generation of missions. SLS is America’s rocket, with men and women from almost every state working hard every day to move America forward to the Moon. And it’s also a critical part of Alabama’s legacy of mission-critical design, development and integration of the systems for space exploration and scientific missions.
Our plans to land humans on the lunar South Pole by 2024 build on Marshall’s expertise. The rocket scientists at Marshall designed, built, tested, and helped launch the giant Saturn V rocket that carried Apollo astronauts to the Moon. They also developed new rocket engines and tanks for the space shuttles, built sections of the International Space Station, and now manage all the astronauts’ science work aboard the station from a 24/7 Payload Operations and Integration Center.
SLS and the Orion spacecraft in which astronauts will travel to the Moon are the backbone of our sustainable deep space exploration systems. Among recent progress, the SLS team has recently:
Astronauts will travel to the Gateway in lunar orbit for expeditions to the surface of the Moon. Marshall is supporting development of potential deep space habitation element for Phase 2 of the Gateway, which will help the agency establish sustainable missions on and around the Moon by 2028.
Marshall and Alabama have also played key roles in additive manufacturing or 3-D printing -- from rocket engine development advances to 3-D printing on the station. This technology has revolutionized what we are able to do in space, where mass and space are big considerations.
Demonstrating Alabama’s importance to our space program, NASA has invested millions in local university programs and in contracts with businesses large and small. Marshall has more than 50 active Space Act Agreements with industry, academic, non-profit and other government agencies based in Alabama, including the University of Alabama System, Auburn University, Alabama A&M University in Huntsville, and the University of North Alabama in Florence.
Next generation STEM leaders from across the world also gain important experience through Marshall’s Student Launch and Rover Challenges.
The path to the Moon has run through Alabama since the earliest days of our nation’s space program. Today, work in the “Rocket City” Huntsville and across the state is advancing the largest rocket we’ve ever built and our Artemis Program to land humans on the Moon by 2024. At a recent visit with the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine demonstrated Alabama’s deep technical and economic contributions to our nation’s space program. A $1.6 million amendment above the President’s request of $21 billion for NASA’s Fiscal Year 2020 budget will accelerate our progress to the Moon and solidifies that the state’s importance to our exploration efforts.NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville creates significant economic impact by supporting thousands of jobs and investing millions of dollars in research and development. It helps drive an innovation-based economy in Alabama and throughout the United States. The center generates contracts across nearly every category of manufacturing or service production. And NASA reaches all 67 Alabama counties through education, business, partnerships, and other innovative ways to engage the state with our ambitious national goals.
NASA and its industry partners continue their steady progress toward launching the nation's newest rocket, NASA's Space Launch S
Much of the Marshall’s work is tied to the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that will power human exploration of the Moon and a new generation of missions. SLS is America’s rocket, with men and women from almost every state working hard every day to move America forward to the Moon. And it’s also a critical part of Alabama’s legacy of mission-critical design, development and integration of the systems for space exploration and scientific missions.
Our plans to land humans on the lunar South Pole by 2024 build on Marshall’s expertise. The rocket scientists at Marshall designed, built, tested, and helped launch the giant Saturn V rocket that carried Apollo astronauts to the Moon. They also developed new rocket engines and tanks for the space shuttles, built sections of the International Space Station, and now manage all the astronauts’ science work aboard the station from a 24/7 Payload Operations and Integration Center.
SLS and the Orion spacecraft in which astronauts will travel to the Moon are the backbone of our sustainable deep space exploration systems. Among recent progress, the SLS team has recently:
- Built and tested the SLS solid rocket boosters and the core stage rocket engines.
- Moved the 66-foot-tall forward part of the rocket’s massive core stage. This helps prepare for its final assembly and integration to the liquid hydrogen tank.
- Delivered the Pathfinder, a full-scale simulator of the rocket’s core stage. This is the same size, shape and weight of the massive real thing, and will help us learn to work with it.
- Loaded a test version of the enormous liquid hydrogen tank that fuels the rocket’s RS-25 engines into a test stand at Marshall. There it will be exposed to simulated stresses of a space launch.
- Outfitted the SLS launch vehicle stage adapter, which connects the core stage of the rocket with its interim cryogenic propulsion stage.
Astronauts will travel to the Gateway in lunar orbit for expeditions to the surface of the Moon. Marshall is supporting development of potential deep space habitation element for Phase 2 of the Gateway, which will help the agency establish sustainable missions on and around the Moon by 2028.
Marshall and Alabama have also played key roles in additive manufacturing or 3-D printing -- from rocket engine development advances to 3-D printing on the station. This technology has revolutionized what we are able to do in space, where mass and space are big considerations.
Demonstrating Alabama’s importance to our space program, NASA has invested millions in local university programs and in contracts with businesses large and small. Marshall has more than 50 active Space Act Agreements with industry, academic, non-profit and other government agencies based in Alabama, including the University of Alabama System, Auburn University, Alabama A&M University in Huntsville, and the University of North Alabama in Florence.
Next generation STEM leaders from across the world also gain important experience through Marshall’s Student Launch and Rover Challenges.
Surround sound...
Surround Sound - Orion Service Module for Artemis 1 Undergoes Acoustic Tests
Orion’s service module for NASA’s Artemis 1 mission completed acoustic testing inside the Operations and Checkout Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida last week. The tests were the latest step in preparing for the agency’s first uncrewed flight test of Orion on the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket.
Teams completed the test May 25, 2019, and technicians will analyze the data collected during the tests to check for flaws uncovered by the acoustic environment. During the testing, engineers secured the service module inside the test cell and then attached microphones, strain gauges and accelerometers to it. They conducted a series of five tests, with acoustic levels ranging from 128 to 140 decibels – as loud as a jet engine during takeoff.
Artemis 1 will be the first mission launching Orion on the SLS rocket from Kennedy’s Launch Pad 39B. The mission will take Orion thousands of miles past the Moon on an approximately three-week test flight. Orion will return to Earth and splashdown in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, where it will be retrieved and returned to Kennedy.
Teams completed the test May 25, 2019, and technicians will analyze the data collected during the tests to check for flaws uncovered by the acoustic environment. During the testing, engineers secured the service module inside the test cell and then attached microphones, strain gauges and accelerometers to it. They conducted a series of five tests, with acoustic levels ranging from 128 to 140 decibels – as loud as a jet engine during takeoff.
Artemis 1 will be the first mission launching Orion on the SLS rocket from Kennedy’s Launch Pad 39B. The mission will take Orion thousands of miles past the Moon on an approximately three-week test flight. Orion will return to Earth and splashdown in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, where it will be retrieved and returned to Kennedy.
Bodies litter Mount Everest....
Dead bodies litter Mount Everest because it's so dangerous and expensive to get them down
Hilary Brueck
Dead bodies are a common sight on top of Mount Everest.
"I cannot believe what I saw up there," Everest filmmaker Elia Saikaly wrote on Instagram last week. "Death. Carnage. Chaos. Lineups. Dead bodies on the route."
Eleven people have died climbing Mount Everest this spring, in what has become the peak's deadliest climbing sprint in recent memory. In 2015, an avalanche roared through Everest, killing at least 19 people.
When people die on Everest, it can be difficult to remove their bodies. Final repatriation costs tens of thousands of dollars (in some cases, around $70,000) and can also come at a fatal price itself: two Nepalese climbers died trying to recover a body from Everest in 1984. Instead, bodies are often left lying on the mountain.
Lhakpa Sherpa, who is the women's record-holder for most Everest summits, said she saw seven dead bodies on her way to the top of the mountain in 2018.
"Only near the top," she told Business Insider, remembering one man's body in particular that "looked alive, because the wind was blowing his hair."
Her memory is a grim reminder that removing dead bodies from Mount Everest is a pricey and potentially deadly chore, and one that is perhaps best left undone.
EVEREST IS CROWDED WITH TOURISTS
It's impossible to know for sure exactly where all of the 306 recorded Everest fatalities have ended up, but it's safe to say that many dead bodies never make it off the mountain. For years, Everest climbers have spoken of a dead man they call "Green Boots" who some have spotted lying in a cave roughly 1,130 feet from the top.
This year, Everest's victims hailed from India, Ireland, Austria, and the US. Some hikers are blaming the surge in deaths, in part, on preventable overcrowding.
As May temperatures warm and winds stall, the favorable springtime Everest climbing conditions are notorious for creating conveyor-belt style lines that snake towards the top of the mountain. Climbers can be so eager to reach the peak and stake their claim on an Everest summit that they'll risk their lives just to make it happen, even when others caution them to stay back. At least two climbers died of exhaustion on their way down from the summit this year, the BBC reported.
Other Everest climbers complain about risky human traffic jams in the mountain's so-called "death zone," the area of the hike that reaches above 8,000 meters (about 26,250 feet), where air is dangerously thin and most people use oxygen masks to stay safe.
Even with masks, this zone is not a great place to hang out for too long, and it's a spot where some deliriously loopy trekkers start removing desperately-needed clothes, and talking to imaginary companions, despite the freezing conditions.
Often, these tourists have spent anywhere from $25,000 to $75,000 to complete this once-in-a-lifetime trek.
REMOVING BODIES IS DANGEROUS AND COSTS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
Getting bodies out of the death zone is a hazardous chore.
"It's expensive and it's risky, and it's incredibly dangerous for the Sherpas," Everest climber Alan Arnette previously told the CBC. "What they have to do is reach the body, then they typically put it in some type of a rigging, sometimes a sled but often it's just a piece of fabric. They tie ropes onto that, and then they do a controlled slip of the body in the sled."
Arnette said he didn't want his body to go that way, and he signed some grim "body disposal" forms before he climbed Everest, ordering that his corpse should rest in place on the mountain in case he died during the trek.
"Typically you have your spouse sign this, so think about that conversation," he added. "You say leave me on the mountain, or get me back to Kathmandu and cremate, or try to get me back to my home country."
"There's sort of this idea that there's only one mountain that really matters in the kind of Western, popular imagination," filmmaker and director Jennifer Peedom told Business Insider when her documentary, "Mountain" was released.
Peedom has climbed Everest herself four times, but says the thrill of summiting Everest is largely relegated to the history books, and for "true mountaineers," it's basically just an exercise in crowd control these days.
"There seems to be a disaster mystique around Everest that seems to only serve to heighten the allure of the place," she said. "It is extremely overcrowded now and just getting more and more every year."
Indeed, the government in Nepal issued a record number of its $11,000 Everest permits this spring, with near 380 hikers approved to summit the peak by May 3.
Hilary Brueck
Dead bodies are a common sight on top of Mount Everest.
"I cannot believe what I saw up there," Everest filmmaker Elia Saikaly wrote on Instagram last week. "Death. Carnage. Chaos. Lineups. Dead bodies on the route."
Eleven people have died climbing Mount Everest this spring, in what has become the peak's deadliest climbing sprint in recent memory. In 2015, an avalanche roared through Everest, killing at least 19 people.
When people die on Everest, it can be difficult to remove their bodies. Final repatriation costs tens of thousands of dollars (in some cases, around $70,000) and can also come at a fatal price itself: two Nepalese climbers died trying to recover a body from Everest in 1984. Instead, bodies are often left lying on the mountain.
Lhakpa Sherpa, who is the women's record-holder for most Everest summits, said she saw seven dead bodies on her way to the top of the mountain in 2018.
"Only near the top," she told Business Insider, remembering one man's body in particular that "looked alive, because the wind was blowing his hair."
Her memory is a grim reminder that removing dead bodies from Mount Everest is a pricey and potentially deadly chore, and one that is perhaps best left undone.
EVEREST IS CROWDED WITH TOURISTS
It's impossible to know for sure exactly where all of the 306 recorded Everest fatalities have ended up, but it's safe to say that many dead bodies never make it off the mountain. For years, Everest climbers have spoken of a dead man they call "Green Boots" who some have spotted lying in a cave roughly 1,130 feet from the top.
This year, Everest's victims hailed from India, Ireland, Austria, and the US. Some hikers are blaming the surge in deaths, in part, on preventable overcrowding.
As May temperatures warm and winds stall, the favorable springtime Everest climbing conditions are notorious for creating conveyor-belt style lines that snake towards the top of the mountain. Climbers can be so eager to reach the peak and stake their claim on an Everest summit that they'll risk their lives just to make it happen, even when others caution them to stay back. At least two climbers died of exhaustion on their way down from the summit this year, the BBC reported.
Other Everest climbers complain about risky human traffic jams in the mountain's so-called "death zone," the area of the hike that reaches above 8,000 meters (about 26,250 feet), where air is dangerously thin and most people use oxygen masks to stay safe.
Even with masks, this zone is not a great place to hang out for too long, and it's a spot where some deliriously loopy trekkers start removing desperately-needed clothes, and talking to imaginary companions, despite the freezing conditions.
Often, these tourists have spent anywhere from $25,000 to $75,000 to complete this once-in-a-lifetime trek.
REMOVING BODIES IS DANGEROUS AND COSTS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
Getting bodies out of the death zone is a hazardous chore.
"It's expensive and it's risky, and it's incredibly dangerous for the Sherpas," Everest climber Alan Arnette previously told the CBC. "What they have to do is reach the body, then they typically put it in some type of a rigging, sometimes a sled but often it's just a piece of fabric. They tie ropes onto that, and then they do a controlled slip of the body in the sled."
Arnette said he didn't want his body to go that way, and he signed some grim "body disposal" forms before he climbed Everest, ordering that his corpse should rest in place on the mountain in case he died during the trek.
"Typically you have your spouse sign this, so think about that conversation," he added. "You say leave me on the mountain, or get me back to Kathmandu and cremate, or try to get me back to my home country."
"There's sort of this idea that there's only one mountain that really matters in the kind of Western, popular imagination," filmmaker and director Jennifer Peedom told Business Insider when her documentary, "Mountain" was released.
Peedom has climbed Everest herself four times, but says the thrill of summiting Everest is largely relegated to the history books, and for "true mountaineers," it's basically just an exercise in crowd control these days.
"There seems to be a disaster mystique around Everest that seems to only serve to heighten the allure of the place," she said. "It is extremely overcrowded now and just getting more and more every year."
Indeed, the government in Nepal issued a record number of its $11,000 Everest permits this spring, with near 380 hikers approved to summit the peak by May 3.
21 years in prison.
She shared heroin with a friend who fatally overdosed. She'll now spend 21 years in prison.
Antonia Noori Farzan
Emma Semler sobbed in court on Wednesday as she faced Jenny Werstler's grieving family.
"I should be dead as well," she told them through tears, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. "I don't know why I'm still here and not Jenny."
The two young women had both struggled with devastating addictions to heroin. On one fateful evening in 2014, they shot up together at a KFC in West Philadelphia. Werstler overdosed and Semler fled, abandoning her friend in the fast-food restaurant's restroom. Later that night, Werstler died. It was her 20th birthday.
Now 23 and finally sober, Semler is slated to spend two decades in prison for sharing what turned out to be a fatal dose of heroin with her friend. In what has become an increasingly common - and controversial - way of responding to the opioid epidemic, prosecutors charged her with distribution of heroin resulting in death, a federal statute that carries a mandatory 20-year minimum sentence and was initially intended to crack down on drug dealers. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter sentenced her to 21 years in prison with six years of supervised release and a $2,500 fine.
To Margaret Werstler, Jenny's mother, the ruling was hardly a victory. "There is no winning family," she told the Inquirer, predicting that Semler's family would be devastated by the outcome.
"But they can at least visit her," she added.
Werstler and Semler, both from the Philadelphia suburbs, first met at rehab in 2013. Werstler, an only child who had recently graduated from high school and worked as a manager at the burger restaurant that her family owned, loved skiing and traveling, according to her obituary. Semler came from a family that had been wracked by divorce, her attorney wrote in a sentencing memo, and had developed a heroin addiction at the age of 15 after she was prescribed opiates for a major spinal surgery.
By 2014, as her 20th birthday approached, Werstler was living in a halfway house in Florida. She had a scheduled court date for drug paraphernalia charges, her parents told the Inquirer, and the judge demanded that she return to Pennsylvania. Fearful that being around her old friends would threaten her hard-won sobriety, her family pleaded for leniency, but their appeal was rejected. She flew home for the court hearing and went out to celebrate her birthday with friends the next day.
That day - May 9, 2014 - Werstler contacted Semler through Facebook Messenger to ask about getting some heroin, according to prosecutors. Semler replied that she knew a place that they could go, and promised to bring a syringe that Werstler could use. Accompanied by Semler's younger sister, they headed to West Philadelphia, which, like many other areas of the city, has been hit hard by the opioid crisis.
After Semler bought heroin from a dealer she knew, the three headed to a nearby KFC and began shooting up in the women's restroom. Werstler reportedly asked for a second dose because it was her birthday, then immediately began to show the telltale signs of an overdose. Instead of calling 911, Semler and her sister frantically cleaned the restroom to hide evidence of their drug use. Then, they hurried out of the KFC, leaving Werstler "alone and fighting for her life on the bathroom floor," prosecutors said.
A KFC employee later spotted Werstler's limp body and called 911. The 20-year-old died in the hospital that day.
"But they can at least visit her," she added.
Werstler and Semler, both from the Philadelphia suburbs, first met at rehab in 2013. Werstler, an only child who had recently graduated from high school and worked as a manager at the burger restaurant that her family owned, loved skiing and traveling, according to her obituary. Semler came from a family that had been wracked by divorce, her attorney wrote in a sentencing memo, and had developed a heroin addiction at the age of 15 after she was prescribed opiates for a major spinal surgery.
By 2014, as her 20th birthday approached, Werstler was living in a halfway house in Florida. She had a scheduled court date for drug paraphernalia charges, her parents told the Inquirer, and the judge demanded that she return to Pennsylvania. Fearful that being around her old friends would threaten her hard-won sobriety, her family pleaded for leniency, but their appeal was rejected. She flew home for the court hearing and went out to celebrate her birthday with friends the next day.
That day - May 9, 2014 - Werstler contacted Semler through Facebook Messenger to ask about getting some heroin, according to prosecutors. Semler replied that she knew a place that they could go, and promised to bring a syringe that Werstler could use. Accompanied by Semler's younger sister, they headed to West Philadelphia, which, like many other areas of the city, has been hit hard by the opioid crisis.
After Semler bought heroin from a dealer she knew, the three headed to a nearby KFC and began shooting up in the women's restroom. Werstler reportedly asked for a second dose because it was her birthday, then immediately began to show the telltale signs of an overdose. Instead of calling 911, Semler and her sister frantically cleaned the restroom to hide evidence of their drug use. Then, they hurried out of the KFC, leaving Werstler "alone and fighting for her life on the bathroom floor," prosecutors said.
A KFC employee later spotted Werstler's limp body and called 911. The 20-year-old died in the hospital that day.
Antonia Noori Farzan
Emma Semler sobbed in court on Wednesday as she faced Jenny Werstler's grieving family.
"I should be dead as well," she told them through tears, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. "I don't know why I'm still here and not Jenny."
The two young women had both struggled with devastating addictions to heroin. On one fateful evening in 2014, they shot up together at a KFC in West Philadelphia. Werstler overdosed and Semler fled, abandoning her friend in the fast-food restaurant's restroom. Later that night, Werstler died. It was her 20th birthday.
Now 23 and finally sober, Semler is slated to spend two decades in prison for sharing what turned out to be a fatal dose of heroin with her friend. In what has become an increasingly common - and controversial - way of responding to the opioid epidemic, prosecutors charged her with distribution of heroin resulting in death, a federal statute that carries a mandatory 20-year minimum sentence and was initially intended to crack down on drug dealers. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter sentenced her to 21 years in prison with six years of supervised release and a $2,500 fine.
To Margaret Werstler, Jenny's mother, the ruling was hardly a victory. "There is no winning family," she told the Inquirer, predicting that Semler's family would be devastated by the outcome.
"But they can at least visit her," she added.
Werstler and Semler, both from the Philadelphia suburbs, first met at rehab in 2013. Werstler, an only child who had recently graduated from high school and worked as a manager at the burger restaurant that her family owned, loved skiing and traveling, according to her obituary. Semler came from a family that had been wracked by divorce, her attorney wrote in a sentencing memo, and had developed a heroin addiction at the age of 15 after she was prescribed opiates for a major spinal surgery.
By 2014, as her 20th birthday approached, Werstler was living in a halfway house in Florida. She had a scheduled court date for drug paraphernalia charges, her parents told the Inquirer, and the judge demanded that she return to Pennsylvania. Fearful that being around her old friends would threaten her hard-won sobriety, her family pleaded for leniency, but their appeal was rejected. She flew home for the court hearing and went out to celebrate her birthday with friends the next day.
That day - May 9, 2014 - Werstler contacted Semler through Facebook Messenger to ask about getting some heroin, according to prosecutors. Semler replied that she knew a place that they could go, and promised to bring a syringe that Werstler could use. Accompanied by Semler's younger sister, they headed to West Philadelphia, which, like many other areas of the city, has been hit hard by the opioid crisis.
After Semler bought heroin from a dealer she knew, the three headed to a nearby KFC and began shooting up in the women's restroom. Werstler reportedly asked for a second dose because it was her birthday, then immediately began to show the telltale signs of an overdose. Instead of calling 911, Semler and her sister frantically cleaned the restroom to hide evidence of their drug use. Then, they hurried out of the KFC, leaving Werstler "alone and fighting for her life on the bathroom floor," prosecutors said.
A KFC employee later spotted Werstler's limp body and called 911. The 20-year-old died in the hospital that day.
"But they can at least visit her," she added.
Werstler and Semler, both from the Philadelphia suburbs, first met at rehab in 2013. Werstler, an only child who had recently graduated from high school and worked as a manager at the burger restaurant that her family owned, loved skiing and traveling, according to her obituary. Semler came from a family that had been wracked by divorce, her attorney wrote in a sentencing memo, and had developed a heroin addiction at the age of 15 after she was prescribed opiates for a major spinal surgery.
By 2014, as her 20th birthday approached, Werstler was living in a halfway house in Florida. She had a scheduled court date for drug paraphernalia charges, her parents told the Inquirer, and the judge demanded that she return to Pennsylvania. Fearful that being around her old friends would threaten her hard-won sobriety, her family pleaded for leniency, but their appeal was rejected. She flew home for the court hearing and went out to celebrate her birthday with friends the next day.
That day - May 9, 2014 - Werstler contacted Semler through Facebook Messenger to ask about getting some heroin, according to prosecutors. Semler replied that she knew a place that they could go, and promised to bring a syringe that Werstler could use. Accompanied by Semler's younger sister, they headed to West Philadelphia, which, like many other areas of the city, has been hit hard by the opioid crisis.
After Semler bought heroin from a dealer she knew, the three headed to a nearby KFC and began shooting up in the women's restroom. Werstler reportedly asked for a second dose because it was her birthday, then immediately began to show the telltale signs of an overdose. Instead of calling 911, Semler and her sister frantically cleaned the restroom to hide evidence of their drug use. Then, they hurried out of the KFC, leaving Werstler "alone and fighting for her life on the bathroom floor," prosecutors said.
A KFC employee later spotted Werstler's limp body and called 911. The 20-year-old died in the hospital that day.
Invented an extraconstitutional legal standard....
The Wayward Special Counsel
By RICH LOWRY
In the end, the by-the-book Robert Mueller wildly departed from the book.
He invented an extraconstitutional legal standard for his obstruction investigation and acted, at the very least, in violation of the spirit of the special counsel regulations.
His departing act was a public statement meant to influence the public debate in a manner inappropriate for a prosecutor, in part because the public report he wrote that was inappropriate for a prosecutor failed to achieve clarity despite its hundreds of pages.
A hallmark of the Trump era is that the norm-defying president goads everyone appalled by him to violate norms. The retired Marine and former G-man would seem least likely to fall prey to this dynamic, but here we are: He has put on a master class in how a prosecutor shouldn’t behave.
First and foremost, Mueller ditched the presumption of innocence, a bedrock of the American legal system. In the normal course of things, all of us are considered innocent unless a jury finds us guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mueller switched this around. Rather than finding conclusive evidence of Trump’s guilt, he had to find conclusive evidence of his innocence. Because he didn’t find this exculpatory evidence, he deemed Trump “not exonerated,” a standard heretofore unknown to the American system.
As he put it in his news conference, in surely one of the more gobsmacking utterances ever made by someone from a Justice Department podium, “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” (*THIS MEANS HE IS GUILTY...)
If this standard had been applied to any person other than Donald Trump, it would have been widely denounced and the American Civil Liberties Union would be crusading to keep it from ever emerging again in any context in America.
It is profoundly inimical to due process as understood under our Constitution and puts the burden of proof on the accused—exactly what our system seeks to avoid.
Naturally, Trump’s critics concluded from Mueller’s statement that if Trump hadn’t been found innocent, he must be guilty. The snarky headline on a New York magazine piece put it aptly enough, “Mueller: Trump is Not Not a Criminal.”
Well, you might say, of course Mueller departed from standard operating procedure—he’s a special counsel operating in novel circumstances that require novel approaches.
But this is not his writ. A special counsel, under the regulations, is not a freelancer making it up as he goes along. He has the “investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States attorney.” He is supposed to “comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.”
It is one of the those rules that has caused so much confusion over the obstruction portion of the Mueller report. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel has said a sitting president can’t be charged with a crime. Mueller explained in his public statement that this ruling led his office to conclude it could “not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”
So, Mueller by his own account, conducted a two-year investigation knowing from the beginning that he wouldn’t make the either/or decision that prosecutors exist to make. Attorney General William Barr was right when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “At the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no.” Mueller decided neither.
Mueller offered several reasons in his statement for conducting an obstruction investigation anyway. One was to preserve evidence. But for what? The idea that Trump, after losing reelection in 2020, would be prosecuted as a private citizen for firing FBI Director James Comey is manifestly absurd. Another was that a president can be accused of wrongdoing in “a process other than the criminal justice system,” i.e., impeachment by Congress.
Here, Mueller is basically describing Volume 2 as an impeachment referral. But this isn’t a purpose contemplated by the special counsel regulations, which, again, were written to tether special counsels to Justice Department practice.
The regulations say that the special counsel “shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions.” They don’t say a special counsel shall fail to reach a prosecution or declination decision, then write a long report for congressional consumption anyway and go out and make a public statement to catalyze congressional action if he thinks his report is being misread.
That Mueller was effectively conducting an impeachment inquiry from within the executive branch represented a significant distortion of our system. It should be up to Congress, not an inferior executive branch official who’s the functional equivalent of a U.S. attorney, to launch such an inquiry. Even more bizarrely, because Mueller considered Trump’s public statements as potential obstruction, any objections by the president to this quasi-impeachment inquiry were more evidence of alleged wrongdoing.
An institutionalist who lost his way, Mueller will be lionized for the duration because he’s been so useful to Trump’s opposition, but his performance won’t age well—and shouldn’t.
By RICH LOWRY
In the end, the by-the-book Robert Mueller wildly departed from the book.
He invented an extraconstitutional legal standard for his obstruction investigation and acted, at the very least, in violation of the spirit of the special counsel regulations.
His departing act was a public statement meant to influence the public debate in a manner inappropriate for a prosecutor, in part because the public report he wrote that was inappropriate for a prosecutor failed to achieve clarity despite its hundreds of pages.
A hallmark of the Trump era is that the norm-defying president goads everyone appalled by him to violate norms. The retired Marine and former G-man would seem least likely to fall prey to this dynamic, but here we are: He has put on a master class in how a prosecutor shouldn’t behave.
First and foremost, Mueller ditched the presumption of innocence, a bedrock of the American legal system. In the normal course of things, all of us are considered innocent unless a jury finds us guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mueller switched this around. Rather than finding conclusive evidence of Trump’s guilt, he had to find conclusive evidence of his innocence. Because he didn’t find this exculpatory evidence, he deemed Trump “not exonerated,” a standard heretofore unknown to the American system.
As he put it in his news conference, in surely one of the more gobsmacking utterances ever made by someone from a Justice Department podium, “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” (*THIS MEANS HE IS GUILTY...)
If this standard had been applied to any person other than Donald Trump, it would have been widely denounced and the American Civil Liberties Union would be crusading to keep it from ever emerging again in any context in America.
It is profoundly inimical to due process as understood under our Constitution and puts the burden of proof on the accused—exactly what our system seeks to avoid.
Naturally, Trump’s critics concluded from Mueller’s statement that if Trump hadn’t been found innocent, he must be guilty. The snarky headline on a New York magazine piece put it aptly enough, “Mueller: Trump is Not Not a Criminal.”
Well, you might say, of course Mueller departed from standard operating procedure—he’s a special counsel operating in novel circumstances that require novel approaches.
But this is not his writ. A special counsel, under the regulations, is not a freelancer making it up as he goes along. He has the “investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States attorney.” He is supposed to “comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.”
It is one of the those rules that has caused so much confusion over the obstruction portion of the Mueller report. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel has said a sitting president can’t be charged with a crime. Mueller explained in his public statement that this ruling led his office to conclude it could “not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”
So, Mueller by his own account, conducted a two-year investigation knowing from the beginning that he wouldn’t make the either/or decision that prosecutors exist to make. Attorney General William Barr was right when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “At the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no.” Mueller decided neither.
Mueller offered several reasons in his statement for conducting an obstruction investigation anyway. One was to preserve evidence. But for what? The idea that Trump, after losing reelection in 2020, would be prosecuted as a private citizen for firing FBI Director James Comey is manifestly absurd. Another was that a president can be accused of wrongdoing in “a process other than the criminal justice system,” i.e., impeachment by Congress.
Here, Mueller is basically describing Volume 2 as an impeachment referral. But this isn’t a purpose contemplated by the special counsel regulations, which, again, were written to tether special counsels to Justice Department practice.
The regulations say that the special counsel “shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions.” They don’t say a special counsel shall fail to reach a prosecution or declination decision, then write a long report for congressional consumption anyway and go out and make a public statement to catalyze congressional action if he thinks his report is being misread.
That Mueller was effectively conducting an impeachment inquiry from within the executive branch represented a significant distortion of our system. It should be up to Congress, not an inferior executive branch official who’s the functional equivalent of a U.S. attorney, to launch such an inquiry. Even more bizarrely, because Mueller considered Trump’s public statements as potential obstruction, any objections by the president to this quasi-impeachment inquiry were more evidence of alleged wrongdoing.
An institutionalist who lost his way, Mueller will be lionized for the duration because he’s been so useful to Trump’s opposition, but his performance won’t age well—and shouldn’t.
Austria female chancellor
Austria to get first female chancellor to lead caretaker Cabinet
Top court justice Brigitte Bierlein will be tasked with forming interim government until snap election.
By CARMEN PAUN
Top court justice Brigitte Bierlein was named to become Austria's first female chancellor Thursday, tasked with forming a caretaker government until September's snap election.
Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen announced the nomination of Bierlein, who has led Austria's Constitutional Court for over a year, calling her a "prudent" and "highly competent" individual.
The announcement comes after Van der Bellen consulted the three main political parties on Thursday, in the aftermath of Sebastian Kurz being forced out as chancellor after losing a no-confidence vote on Monday.
The crisis which led to the government collapse was triggered by a video that emerged earlier this month, showing Kurz's then-vice chancellor and leader of the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) Heinz-Christian Strache meeting a woman he believed to be the wealthy niece of a Russian oligarch on the island of Ibiza ahead of the 2017 Austrian election. In the video, Strache is seen attempting to trade lucrative public contracts for campaign support from the woman.
"This is an exceptional situation, and exceptional situations need exceptional determination to put oneself at the service of this republic at this moment," Van der Bellen said Thursday of Bierlein.
She will take over from Hartwig Löger, who has been serving as acting Austrian chancellor since Kurz's departure on Monday.
Top court justice Brigitte Bierlein will be tasked with forming interim government until snap election.
By CARMEN PAUN
Top court justice Brigitte Bierlein was named to become Austria's first female chancellor Thursday, tasked with forming a caretaker government until September's snap election.
Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen announced the nomination of Bierlein, who has led Austria's Constitutional Court for over a year, calling her a "prudent" and "highly competent" individual.
The announcement comes after Van der Bellen consulted the three main political parties on Thursday, in the aftermath of Sebastian Kurz being forced out as chancellor after losing a no-confidence vote on Monday.
The crisis which led to the government collapse was triggered by a video that emerged earlier this month, showing Kurz's then-vice chancellor and leader of the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) Heinz-Christian Strache meeting a woman he believed to be the wealthy niece of a Russian oligarch on the island of Ibiza ahead of the 2017 Austrian election. In the video, Strache is seen attempting to trade lucrative public contracts for campaign support from the woman.
"This is an exceptional situation, and exceptional situations need exceptional determination to put oneself at the service of this republic at this moment," Van der Bellen said Thursday of Bierlein.
She will take over from Hartwig Löger, who has been serving as acting Austrian chancellor since Kurz's departure on Monday.
Brace for multi-billion tariffs.....
EU told to ‘brace’ for multibillion Trump tariffs
US president targets aircraft parts in longstanding aviation subsidy dispute.
By HANS VON DER BURCHARD, JAKOB HANKE AND MAXIME SCHLEE
The Tariff Man is on track to hit hard again this summer, and it's bad news for EU companies ranging from Dutch cheesemakers to industrial heavyweight Airbus.
European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström warned the EU's trade ministers at a meeting on Monday that they need to steel themselves for U.S. President Donald Trump to hit billions of euros worth of European goods with tariffs, ramping up a decadeslong dispute over unwarranted subsidies for Airbus.
Three officials in the room said Malmström warned them that the U.S. has rejected attempts to negotiate a deal on aviation subsidies and added that Washington is now willing to proceed with the tariffs, which would be legal under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.
"We should brace for this," the officials cited Malmström as saying.
Although the WTO ruled that not only Airbus but also its American competitor Boeing benefited from illegal state aid, the U.S. case against Airbus is more advanced. Washington said last month it wants to levy retaliatory tariffs on up to $21 billion of European products, a decision that still needs to be confirmed by a WTO arbitrator. The verdict is expected to come in July.
"There is a big probability that the U.S. will apply these tariffs as soon as the WTO arbitrator has ruled," said one EU diplomat who attended Malmström's briefing. The diplomat added that the U.S. duties would likely hit the EU by the end of July or early August: "It's what this U.S. administration likes."
An official from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said that Washington has stressed throughout the dispute that it is seeking a negotiated outcome. “It is our hope and expectation that the additional duties, if needed, will provide an incentive for the EU, once and for all, to stop subsidizing Airbus in ways that have adverse effects on the United States,” the official said.
The likely incoming tariffs risk further souring transatlantic trade relations, which have already deteriorated over U.S. duties on European steel and aluminum exports, a pending threat to impose hefty auto tariffs as well as a stark disagreement on the scope for bilateral trade talks. One EU official described the U.S. approach as "hit first, talk later."
President Trump has expressed his willingness to impose the tariffs: "The World Trade Organization finds that the European Union subsidies to Airbus has adversely impacted the United States, which will now put Tariffs on $11 Billion of EU products!" he tweeted last month, adding: "The EU has taken advantage of the U.S. on trade for many years. It will soon stop!"
Although the $11 billion mentioned by Trump represents the harm caused by EU subsidies, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the list of targeted products actually covers $21 billion worth of European exports. The U.S. can choose products and then tax them at different rates in order to claw back the claimed $11 billion in damage.
'Unnecessary trade tensions'
Although the European Commission expects the WTO arbitrator to rule that the U.S. can only target a lower sum than requested, Brussels is nonetheless expecting a negative impact for exporters of iconic European foods such as Dutch Gouda and Edam cheese, French wine and Spanish olive oil.
"I cannot see any reason to make basically the U.S. cheese aficionados pay for the aircraft battle, since they would have to pay the higher prices for the dairy products from the EU," said Léa Vitali from the European Dairy Association.
A large coalition of winemakers from France, Italy and Spain wrote a letter to Malmström last week, urging both sides to work together and "reduce or eliminate wine tariffs, not raise them."
Besides food products, the U.S. tariffs also target high-value exports of European aircraft parts, which threatens the supply chains for Airbus investments in the U.S.: "The investment of Airbus in Mobile, Alabama would be deeply affected," a senior Commission official said last month, adding that this "would also destroy jobs in the U.S."
Airbus spokesperson Stefan Schaffrath called the proposed U.S. duties on supply parts "totally unjustified" and warned of "unnecessary trade tensions."
In addition to the economic impact comes the psychological damage, because the EU would for months be exposed to hefty U.S. tariffs that are completely legal under WTO rules without being able to retaliate. The U.S. could use this as leverage in trade negotiations.
Although Brussels has presented its own hit list targeting about $20 billion of U.S. exports in response to illegal state aid for Boeing — including airplanes, tractors, suitcases, frozen fish, fruits, wine, liquors and ketchup — the WTO arbitrator is unlikely to issue a decision on that retaliation before February or March next year. "The U.S. has an advantage here because their case is advanced by six to nine months," said the EU diplomat.
Even if Brussels is allowed to hit back at the U.S. with its own tariffs by early next year, the European Commission cautioned that an escalating trade battle would fail to address an emerging challenge from China. While the EU and U.S. were fighting, "others are heavily subsidizing aircraft in the world, elsewhere than in the United States and the EU," said the senior Commission official.
"The only reasonable solution is a negotiated settlement" between Brussels and Washington, said Airbus spokesperson Schaffrath.
US president targets aircraft parts in longstanding aviation subsidy dispute.
By HANS VON DER BURCHARD, JAKOB HANKE AND MAXIME SCHLEE
The Tariff Man is on track to hit hard again this summer, and it's bad news for EU companies ranging from Dutch cheesemakers to industrial heavyweight Airbus.
European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström warned the EU's trade ministers at a meeting on Monday that they need to steel themselves for U.S. President Donald Trump to hit billions of euros worth of European goods with tariffs, ramping up a decadeslong dispute over unwarranted subsidies for Airbus.
Three officials in the room said Malmström warned them that the U.S. has rejected attempts to negotiate a deal on aviation subsidies and added that Washington is now willing to proceed with the tariffs, which would be legal under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.
"We should brace for this," the officials cited Malmström as saying.
Although the WTO ruled that not only Airbus but also its American competitor Boeing benefited from illegal state aid, the U.S. case against Airbus is more advanced. Washington said last month it wants to levy retaliatory tariffs on up to $21 billion of European products, a decision that still needs to be confirmed by a WTO arbitrator. The verdict is expected to come in July.
"There is a big probability that the U.S. will apply these tariffs as soon as the WTO arbitrator has ruled," said one EU diplomat who attended Malmström's briefing. The diplomat added that the U.S. duties would likely hit the EU by the end of July or early August: "It's what this U.S. administration likes."
An official from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said that Washington has stressed throughout the dispute that it is seeking a negotiated outcome. “It is our hope and expectation that the additional duties, if needed, will provide an incentive for the EU, once and for all, to stop subsidizing Airbus in ways that have adverse effects on the United States,” the official said.
The likely incoming tariffs risk further souring transatlantic trade relations, which have already deteriorated over U.S. duties on European steel and aluminum exports, a pending threat to impose hefty auto tariffs as well as a stark disagreement on the scope for bilateral trade talks. One EU official described the U.S. approach as "hit first, talk later."
President Trump has expressed his willingness to impose the tariffs: "The World Trade Organization finds that the European Union subsidies to Airbus has adversely impacted the United States, which will now put Tariffs on $11 Billion of EU products!" he tweeted last month, adding: "The EU has taken advantage of the U.S. on trade for many years. It will soon stop!"
Although the $11 billion mentioned by Trump represents the harm caused by EU subsidies, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the list of targeted products actually covers $21 billion worth of European exports. The U.S. can choose products and then tax them at different rates in order to claw back the claimed $11 billion in damage.
'Unnecessary trade tensions'
Although the European Commission expects the WTO arbitrator to rule that the U.S. can only target a lower sum than requested, Brussels is nonetheless expecting a negative impact for exporters of iconic European foods such as Dutch Gouda and Edam cheese, French wine and Spanish olive oil.
"I cannot see any reason to make basically the U.S. cheese aficionados pay for the aircraft battle, since they would have to pay the higher prices for the dairy products from the EU," said Léa Vitali from the European Dairy Association.
A large coalition of winemakers from France, Italy and Spain wrote a letter to Malmström last week, urging both sides to work together and "reduce or eliminate wine tariffs, not raise them."
Besides food products, the U.S. tariffs also target high-value exports of European aircraft parts, which threatens the supply chains for Airbus investments in the U.S.: "The investment of Airbus in Mobile, Alabama would be deeply affected," a senior Commission official said last month, adding that this "would also destroy jobs in the U.S."
Airbus spokesperson Stefan Schaffrath called the proposed U.S. duties on supply parts "totally unjustified" and warned of "unnecessary trade tensions."
In addition to the economic impact comes the psychological damage, because the EU would for months be exposed to hefty U.S. tariffs that are completely legal under WTO rules without being able to retaliate. The U.S. could use this as leverage in trade negotiations.
Although Brussels has presented its own hit list targeting about $20 billion of U.S. exports in response to illegal state aid for Boeing — including airplanes, tractors, suitcases, frozen fish, fruits, wine, liquors and ketchup — the WTO arbitrator is unlikely to issue a decision on that retaliation before February or March next year. "The U.S. has an advantage here because their case is advanced by six to nine months," said the EU diplomat.
Even if Brussels is allowed to hit back at the U.S. with its own tariffs by early next year, the European Commission cautioned that an escalating trade battle would fail to address an emerging challenge from China. While the EU and U.S. were fighting, "others are heavily subsidizing aircraft in the world, elsewhere than in the United States and the EU," said the senior Commission official.
"The only reasonable solution is a negotiated settlement" between Brussels and Washington, said Airbus spokesperson Schaffrath.
Russian election meddling
Pelosi calls Facebook a ‘willing enabler’ of Russian election meddling
By CRISTIANO LIMA
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday blasted Facebook over its decision to keep up videos doctored to falsely depict her slurring her words, calling it proof that the social network isn't taking disinformation campaigns seriously.
During an interview with San Francisco radio station KQED, the Democratic leader responded for the first time to the company's decision to leave up the flurry of videos that had been slowed to make her appear inebriated.
"We have said all along, poor Facebook, they were unwittingly exploited by the Russians. I think wittingly, because right now they are putting up something that they know is false. I think it's wrong," she said. "I can take it. ... But [Facebook is] lying to the public."
She added: "I think they have proven — by not taking down something they know is false — that they were willing enablers of the Russian interference in our election."
A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on Pelosi's remarks.
The company said Friday it would not take down the videos, some of which have garnered millions of views, because its rules don’t prevent users from posting false information.
That justification quickly drew scorn from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who have long criticized the company for not doing enough to curb misinformation on its platform. House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) on Sunday called the manipulated videos a “sad omen of what is to come in the 2020 election season.”
The dust-up adds to a growing list of political headaches for Facebook in Washington and around the world. The company has said it expects a historic, multi-billion dollar fine from the Federal Trade Commission, and lawmakers are contemplating new privacy rules that would restrict how it collects user data.
In Canada, a parliamentary committee this week issued an open-ended summons for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and threatened to hold them in contempt if they don't appear to answer questions if they set foot in the country. And leaders from France to New Zealand are calling for the social network to be more accountable for terrorism-related content and other material that flows through its platform.
Facebook's treatment of the Pelosi video threatens to turn one of the most powerful members of Congress, who represents Facebook's home state of California, against the company.
Just last week, Pelosi was presented with a lifetime achievement award by the Internet Association, an industry lobbying group that counts Facebook as one of its members.
By CRISTIANO LIMA
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday blasted Facebook over its decision to keep up videos doctored to falsely depict her slurring her words, calling it proof that the social network isn't taking disinformation campaigns seriously.
During an interview with San Francisco radio station KQED, the Democratic leader responded for the first time to the company's decision to leave up the flurry of videos that had been slowed to make her appear inebriated.
"We have said all along, poor Facebook, they were unwittingly exploited by the Russians. I think wittingly, because right now they are putting up something that they know is false. I think it's wrong," she said. "I can take it. ... But [Facebook is] lying to the public."
She added: "I think they have proven — by not taking down something they know is false — that they were willing enablers of the Russian interference in our election."
A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on Pelosi's remarks.
The company said Friday it would not take down the videos, some of which have garnered millions of views, because its rules don’t prevent users from posting false information.
That justification quickly drew scorn from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who have long criticized the company for not doing enough to curb misinformation on its platform. House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) on Sunday called the manipulated videos a “sad omen of what is to come in the 2020 election season.”
The dust-up adds to a growing list of political headaches for Facebook in Washington and around the world. The company has said it expects a historic, multi-billion dollar fine from the Federal Trade Commission, and lawmakers are contemplating new privacy rules that would restrict how it collects user data.
In Canada, a parliamentary committee this week issued an open-ended summons for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and threatened to hold them in contempt if they don't appear to answer questions if they set foot in the country. And leaders from France to New Zealand are calling for the social network to be more accountable for terrorism-related content and other material that flows through its platform.
Facebook's treatment of the Pelosi video threatens to turn one of the most powerful members of Congress, who represents Facebook's home state of California, against the company.
Just last week, Pelosi was presented with a lifetime achievement award by the Internet Association, an industry lobbying group that counts Facebook as one of its members.
Court denies hearing
Supreme Court denies hearing on bitter Indian casino battle
By DAVID ROGERS
The legendary Comanche won’t be getting their day before the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices this week denied the tribe’s petition to be heard on legal issues arising from a bitter dispute over Washington’s handling of Indian casino applications in Oklahoma.
The fight stems from a 2017 Interior Department decision to go around the Comanche and approve — without any consultation — a rival casino project in Terral, Okla., within miles of the tribe’s ancestral lands near the Red River.
More than ever, the ensuing legal battle has exposed years of resentment over how Washington treats the poorer Plains tribes of western Oklahoma versus the more powerful and politically connected Five Civilized Tribes in the east.
Indeed, the newly-built, disputed casino is the 22nd such gaming operation in an already huge multibillion dollar empire controlled by the Chickasaw Nation, the richest of the Five.
In fact, the Comanche were blindsided that construction was already underway on the new Chickasaw casino before Interior published the required public notice in the summer of 2017. The result cost the Comanche precious time in seeking relief, and it’s haunted their efforts since in the federal courts.
Together with the Apache and other Plains tribes, the Comanche fear the Chickasaw’s westward expansion — with the blessing of Interior — threatens their more modest gaming operations and tribal income.
As it happens, the justices still have a second Indian law case pending before them that’s also rooted in Oklahoma. The legal arguments presented in the Comanche’s petition include a footnote directly referencing that case. And depending on how the court rules, the outcome could yet provide some legal footing for the Comanche in future litigation in the lower courts.
Nonetheless, the justices’ denial of the tribe’s petition this week is a setback for the Comanche, denying them a rare chance to air their grievances at a high level.
Still, any such petition for review — known as a writ of certiorari — is a long shot given the high court’s work load and the number of competing interests seeking to be heard as well.
As is typical in such cases, no explanation was given for the denial. But from the court’s website, it is known that the petition, filed in March, was scheduled for a conference of the justices on May 23. On Tuesday, it was listed as having been denied.
“Obviously the Nation is disappointed,” said Richard Grellner, the lead attorney for the Comanche and a veteran of many legal battles on behalf of the Plains tribes. Grellner, based in Oklahoma City, held out hope that a favorable high court ruling on the second Oklahoma Indian law case could give the Comanche’s claims “new life in the lower courts.”
“However, regardless of the outcome,” Grellner said, “the Nation believes Interior and the Chickasaw breached its fundamental obligations to ‘consult’ with the Comanche under a plethora of federal statutes and applicable regulations with respect to the Terral casino.”
By DAVID ROGERS
The legendary Comanche won’t be getting their day before the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices this week denied the tribe’s petition to be heard on legal issues arising from a bitter dispute over Washington’s handling of Indian casino applications in Oklahoma.
The fight stems from a 2017 Interior Department decision to go around the Comanche and approve — without any consultation — a rival casino project in Terral, Okla., within miles of the tribe’s ancestral lands near the Red River.
More than ever, the ensuing legal battle has exposed years of resentment over how Washington treats the poorer Plains tribes of western Oklahoma versus the more powerful and politically connected Five Civilized Tribes in the east.
Indeed, the newly-built, disputed casino is the 22nd such gaming operation in an already huge multibillion dollar empire controlled by the Chickasaw Nation, the richest of the Five.
In fact, the Comanche were blindsided that construction was already underway on the new Chickasaw casino before Interior published the required public notice in the summer of 2017. The result cost the Comanche precious time in seeking relief, and it’s haunted their efforts since in the federal courts.
Together with the Apache and other Plains tribes, the Comanche fear the Chickasaw’s westward expansion — with the blessing of Interior — threatens their more modest gaming operations and tribal income.
As it happens, the justices still have a second Indian law case pending before them that’s also rooted in Oklahoma. The legal arguments presented in the Comanche’s petition include a footnote directly referencing that case. And depending on how the court rules, the outcome could yet provide some legal footing for the Comanche in future litigation in the lower courts.
Nonetheless, the justices’ denial of the tribe’s petition this week is a setback for the Comanche, denying them a rare chance to air their grievances at a high level.
Still, any such petition for review — known as a writ of certiorari — is a long shot given the high court’s work load and the number of competing interests seeking to be heard as well.
As is typical in such cases, no explanation was given for the denial. But from the court’s website, it is known that the petition, filed in March, was scheduled for a conference of the justices on May 23. On Tuesday, it was listed as having been denied.
“Obviously the Nation is disappointed,” said Richard Grellner, the lead attorney for the Comanche and a veteran of many legal battles on behalf of the Plains tribes. Grellner, based in Oklahoma City, held out hope that a favorable high court ruling on the second Oklahoma Indian law case could give the Comanche’s claims “new life in the lower courts.”
“However, regardless of the outcome,” Grellner said, “the Nation believes Interior and the Chickasaw breached its fundamental obligations to ‘consult’ with the Comanche under a plethora of federal statutes and applicable regulations with respect to the Terral casino.”
Needs to be butt raped in prison...
Roy Moore hits back at Trump in defiant interview
The controversial former judge says the president ‘doesn’t control’ Alabama voters, and he can win despite Trump’s opposition.
By JAMES ARKIN
A defiant Roy Moore brushed aside Donald Trump’s warning not to run for Senate again, telling POLITICO on Wednesday that Alabama voters are capable of deciding for themselves whether he’s fit for office.
“The president doesn’t control who votes for the United States Senate in Alabama,” Moore said in a phone interview. “People in Alabama are smarter than that. They elect the senator from Alabama, not from Washington, D.C.”
The scandal-plagued former judge said he is “seriously considering” running for Senate again and plans to decide in a “few weeks.”
Moore's recalcitrance comes as Republicans, including Trump, are warning him to stay out of the race against Democratic Sen. Doug Jones. Republicans view the Alabama contest as a linchpin of their Senate majority — ousting Jones in 2020 would give the GOP a larger cushion with the party mostly on defense on the Senate map.
Jones narrowly defeated Moore in a special election in 2017 amid allegations of sexual misconduct by Moore with young girls decades ago. Those allegations emerged after Moore won the GOP nomination by defeating the Trump-endorsed candidate, then-interim Sen. Luther Strange.
Trump tweeted Wednesday morning that he has "NOTHING" against Moore, despite the sexual misconduct allegations against the former judge. But, he wrote, Moore “cannot win, and the consequences will be devastating.” That came after Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., also tweeted at Moore to steer clear of the race.
Top allies to Senate Republican leadership have made clear they view Moore as the best chance Democrats have to maintain the seat.
“We believe most Alabama Republicans realize that nominating Roy Moore would be gift wrapping this Senate seat for Chuck Schumer,” said Steven Law, president of Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Moore is convinced he could capture his party's nomination in the face of the president's opposition again. He said some Republicans are fearful that he still has support in the state.
“They know I'll win," he said. "That's why they're upset."
He also continues to deny the multiple allegations of inappropriate behavior against him that were reported on during the 2017 race. “It was fake news then, [and] it’s fake news now,” Moore said.
Republicans have believed for weeks that Moore was likely to run for Senate again. They also acknowledge there’s little they can do to stop him, and that he has a hard-core base of supporters in the state that likely gives him both a high floor and low ceiling of support. Alabama election laws require winning a majority of the vote to secure a party nomination, so Moore could have an opening to make a runoff in a crowded primary field.
Opposition to his potential candidacy has been fairly unified throughout the party. Sen. Todd Young of Indiana, the National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman, had spoken with Trump in recent weeks and raised concerns about Moore, according to two people familiar with the discussion.
Trump’s tweet Wednesday was widely praised by Republicans, who believe the president is uniquely able to chip away at Moore’s support given his popularity among the GOP base in deep-red Alabama.
The dynamics of the race "were different before the president weighed in, but they're fundamentally changed after the president weighed in,” said Josh Holmes, a top McConnell adviser. “I don't think Roy Moore could win a primary before the president weighed in, and I know he can't win one after the president weighed in.”
With or without Moore, the GOP contest appears wide open. Several Republicans are already running: Rep. Bradley Byrne, state Rep. Arnold Mooney, and Tommy Tuberville, the former head football coach at Auburn University.
Each of the candidates face hurdles to emerging from the field. Byrne, the first candidate in the race, had more than $2 million in the bank at the end of the first quarter. Though a potential problem looms: Byrne called on Trump to step aside from the presidential race in 2016 after the "Access Hollywood" tape. Though he eventually said he would vote for Trump and has been a staunch supporter since the president took office, it’s unclear whether he can clear the hurdles of his previous criticism.
Tuberville, meanwhile, has put together a strong campaign team of veteran consultants, but he's a first-time candidate without experience as a campaigner or fundraiser. Mooney, a staunch conservative, already earned the endorsement of Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — but as a state representative, he also faces a battle to prove fundraising ability and broader support.
Leaders of the conservative Club for Growth are watching the race closely and have met with Mooney and Tuberville, who could both receive a major boost from an endorsement. The group opposes Byrne and would not back Moore if he does run. David McIntosh, the Club president, said they had “good meetings” with both Mooney and Tuberville.
“We are waiting to see if either put together a great campaign and raise the money necessary to be competitive,” McIntosh said.
If Moore does run, as appears likely, Republicans' goal would be to defeat him outright and deny him a spot in a runoff. But given his potentially unshakable base of support in the state, some Republicans acknowledge it’s possible he could make a runoff again as he did in 2017. One Republican working on the race, who requested anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said polling had shown about 15 percent of the primary electorate views Moore “very" favorably. This Republican said in a crowded field, Moore would be unlikely to grow his support beyond that.
A second Republican involved in the race, however, said Moore has a “hard-core following” that could put him in a runoff. This Republican emphasized that Trump’s opposition would likely mean any opponent could defeat him one-on-one, but Moore making a runoff is a potentially disastrous scenario for Republicans given the unpredictability of those matchups.
“I think it's a disaster if it's misplayed,” this Republican said.
National Republicans are not yet picking a candidate to back, and the state GOP is staying out of the primary. Terry Lathan, the state party chair, said in a statement that they will remain neutral: “It is up to the candidates to make their case to the Republican primary voters to secure their support.”
The primary, set for next March, is still far away. The filing deadline is in December, leaving plenty of time for other candidates to enter the race. Even as the other candidates build their campaigns, Republicans in Washington plan to bash Moore, if he runs, as unelectable not just for the allegations of sexual misconduct, but for the other controversies in his past, including being twice removed from the state Supreme Court.
"Last time around was a sprint. This is a marathon,” said Jesse Hunt, a spokesperson for the NRSC. “Roy Moore has proven he's incapable of winning a general election, and no stone will be left unturned as it pertains to his background."
The controversial former judge says the president ‘doesn’t control’ Alabama voters, and he can win despite Trump’s opposition.
By JAMES ARKIN
A defiant Roy Moore brushed aside Donald Trump’s warning not to run for Senate again, telling POLITICO on Wednesday that Alabama voters are capable of deciding for themselves whether he’s fit for office.
“The president doesn’t control who votes for the United States Senate in Alabama,” Moore said in a phone interview. “People in Alabama are smarter than that. They elect the senator from Alabama, not from Washington, D.C.”
The scandal-plagued former judge said he is “seriously considering” running for Senate again and plans to decide in a “few weeks.”
Moore's recalcitrance comes as Republicans, including Trump, are warning him to stay out of the race against Democratic Sen. Doug Jones. Republicans view the Alabama contest as a linchpin of their Senate majority — ousting Jones in 2020 would give the GOP a larger cushion with the party mostly on defense on the Senate map.
Jones narrowly defeated Moore in a special election in 2017 amid allegations of sexual misconduct by Moore with young girls decades ago. Those allegations emerged after Moore won the GOP nomination by defeating the Trump-endorsed candidate, then-interim Sen. Luther Strange.
Trump tweeted Wednesday morning that he has "NOTHING" against Moore, despite the sexual misconduct allegations against the former judge. But, he wrote, Moore “cannot win, and the consequences will be devastating.” That came after Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., also tweeted at Moore to steer clear of the race.
Top allies to Senate Republican leadership have made clear they view Moore as the best chance Democrats have to maintain the seat.
“We believe most Alabama Republicans realize that nominating Roy Moore would be gift wrapping this Senate seat for Chuck Schumer,” said Steven Law, president of Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Moore is convinced he could capture his party's nomination in the face of the president's opposition again. He said some Republicans are fearful that he still has support in the state.
“They know I'll win," he said. "That's why they're upset."
He also continues to deny the multiple allegations of inappropriate behavior against him that were reported on during the 2017 race. “It was fake news then, [and] it’s fake news now,” Moore said.
Republicans have believed for weeks that Moore was likely to run for Senate again. They also acknowledge there’s little they can do to stop him, and that he has a hard-core base of supporters in the state that likely gives him both a high floor and low ceiling of support. Alabama election laws require winning a majority of the vote to secure a party nomination, so Moore could have an opening to make a runoff in a crowded primary field.
Opposition to his potential candidacy has been fairly unified throughout the party. Sen. Todd Young of Indiana, the National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman, had spoken with Trump in recent weeks and raised concerns about Moore, according to two people familiar with the discussion.
Trump’s tweet Wednesday was widely praised by Republicans, who believe the president is uniquely able to chip away at Moore’s support given his popularity among the GOP base in deep-red Alabama.
The dynamics of the race "were different before the president weighed in, but they're fundamentally changed after the president weighed in,” said Josh Holmes, a top McConnell adviser. “I don't think Roy Moore could win a primary before the president weighed in, and I know he can't win one after the president weighed in.”
With or without Moore, the GOP contest appears wide open. Several Republicans are already running: Rep. Bradley Byrne, state Rep. Arnold Mooney, and Tommy Tuberville, the former head football coach at Auburn University.
Each of the candidates face hurdles to emerging from the field. Byrne, the first candidate in the race, had more than $2 million in the bank at the end of the first quarter. Though a potential problem looms: Byrne called on Trump to step aside from the presidential race in 2016 after the "Access Hollywood" tape. Though he eventually said he would vote for Trump and has been a staunch supporter since the president took office, it’s unclear whether he can clear the hurdles of his previous criticism.
Tuberville, meanwhile, has put together a strong campaign team of veteran consultants, but he's a first-time candidate without experience as a campaigner or fundraiser. Mooney, a staunch conservative, already earned the endorsement of Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — but as a state representative, he also faces a battle to prove fundraising ability and broader support.
Leaders of the conservative Club for Growth are watching the race closely and have met with Mooney and Tuberville, who could both receive a major boost from an endorsement. The group opposes Byrne and would not back Moore if he does run. David McIntosh, the Club president, said they had “good meetings” with both Mooney and Tuberville.
“We are waiting to see if either put together a great campaign and raise the money necessary to be competitive,” McIntosh said.
If Moore does run, as appears likely, Republicans' goal would be to defeat him outright and deny him a spot in a runoff. But given his potentially unshakable base of support in the state, some Republicans acknowledge it’s possible he could make a runoff again as he did in 2017. One Republican working on the race, who requested anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said polling had shown about 15 percent of the primary electorate views Moore “very" favorably. This Republican said in a crowded field, Moore would be unlikely to grow his support beyond that.
A second Republican involved in the race, however, said Moore has a “hard-core following” that could put him in a runoff. This Republican emphasized that Trump’s opposition would likely mean any opponent could defeat him one-on-one, but Moore making a runoff is a potentially disastrous scenario for Republicans given the unpredictability of those matchups.
“I think it's a disaster if it's misplayed,” this Republican said.
National Republicans are not yet picking a candidate to back, and the state GOP is staying out of the primary. Terry Lathan, the state party chair, said in a statement that they will remain neutral: “It is up to the candidates to make their case to the Republican primary voters to secure their support.”
The primary, set for next March, is still far away. The filing deadline is in December, leaving plenty of time for other candidates to enter the race. Even as the other candidates build their campaigns, Republicans in Washington plan to bash Moore, if he runs, as unelectable not just for the allegations of sexual misconduct, but for the other controversies in his past, including being twice removed from the state Supreme Court.
"Last time around was a sprint. This is a marathon,” said Jesse Hunt, a spokesperson for the NRSC. “Roy Moore has proven he's incapable of winning a general election, and no stone will be left unturned as it pertains to his background."
Contradicts and even rebukes......
Mueller remarks put Barr back into harsh spotlight
Democrats and some Republicans saw a statement that 'contradicts' and even 'rebuke[s]' Trump's attorney general.
By ELIANA JOHNSON
Moments after Robert Mueller gave brief concluding remarks about his Russia probe on Wednesday, the former Republican New Jersey governor and sometime Trump adviser Chris Christie declared that the special counsel’s statement “definitely contradicts what the attorney general said when he summarized Mueller’s report.”
Christie wasn’t alone. The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff called Mueller’s statement a “direct rebuke of Attorney General William Barr,” arguing that Barr had “deliberately and repeatedly misled the American people.” And while she didn’t mention Barr by name, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she was “greatly disappointed with the Department of Justice for their misrepresentation of the Mueller report.”
Even though Mueller’s remarks focused on his findings about Russian election meddling and whether President Donald Trump obstructed his probe, it was clear that he had also thrown the klieg lights back on to his old friend Barr — rekindling anger over suspicions that Trump’s attorney general has been carrying water for the president.
And if Mueller was not engaging directly in a food fight, cable news networks did the job for him, playing side-by-side reels of Mueller and Barr’s seemingly conflicting statements nearly all of Wednesday afternoon.
Wittingly or not, Mueller spotlighted differences with Barr on several points. While Barr stated in his April news conference that there was “no evidence of collusion,” Mueller said Wednesday he found “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” And while Mueller gave a nod to Congress when he said that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Barr said he hoped Mueller hadn’t intended to leave the decision to Congress “since we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose.”
Those differences will help to ensure that Barr continues to be a central figure for the remainder of Trump’s term, a boogeyman to liberals who have called for his impeachment, and an increasing favorite of the president, who has long wanted a loyal attorney general and cheered Barr as he has initiated an investigation of the FBI’s Russia investigation.
Perhaps the most significant divergence between Barr and Mueller, who are longtime friends, dating back to their service at the Department of Justice during the George H.W. Bush administration, came on the explosive question of a potential indictment of Trump for obstructing justice. In Mueller’s telling, a Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted guided his investigation and informed his decision not to reach a conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice. Charging the president with a crime was “not an option,” Mueller said, and accusing him of committing one when he could not try the case in court, Mueller added, violated what he considered “principles of fairness.”
Barr, however, seemed to leave a different impression in his own public statements. Speaking to reporters before the release of Mueller’s report in April, and again to lawmakers earlier this month, Barr said Mueller had told him the DOJ policy was not the chief reason he did not charge the president with a crime. “Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us … that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction,” Barr told a Senate panel in early May. OLC, or the Office of Legal Counsel, is the Justice Department office whose legal guidance has typically been used to mediate between government agencies.
Mueller said nothing that wasn’t in his report, which was publicly released April 18. But many political and legal observers were struck by the emphasis he placed on his reasoning behind not bringing obstruction charges against Trump, and his assertion that if his team “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
“He devoted a third of his only public statement to explaining why the office didn’t charge the president with obstruction, which I think tells you something that was important both to clarify because he thought was important but also for the American public to understand,” said a former White House official interviewed by the special counsel’s office.
Both Barr and Mueller on Wednesday evening sought to tamp down the fury over their perceived split. In a rare joint statement from Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr, the two said, “The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.”
That may technically be true. But Barr’s critics insisted Wednesday that it was a misleading characterization, one that gave the impression that Mueller had said the evidence did not support indicting Trump. Schiff’s statement insisted that Mueller “made clear that, because of the Department’s own policy, it is left it to Congress — not the attorney general — to evaluate and further investigate the president’s misconduct.”
Mueller allies said they thought the special counsel was seeking to clarify why he declined to reach a conclusion on whether the president obstructed justice rather than to pick a fight with the attorney general.
“When I looked at his report there was one section that was open to interpretation,” said Philip Mudd, who worked closely with Mueller during his tenure as FBI director. “I think he looked at that and said, ‘I’m going to clarify that in 8, 9, 10 minutes.’ And that’s what he did. I don’t think Mueller is interested in a ‘He said, she said.’”
It’s not the first indication of tension between the two.
Mueller on Wednesday referred obliquely to a March 27 letter he had sent Barr, after the attorney general first announced his conclusions about Mueller’s then-unreleased report, urging the immediate release of executive summaries of it.
But Mueller seemed to backpedal from any confrontation over the issue by expressing his appreciation for Barr’s decision to make public the vast majority of the report. Mueller also said that he wasn’t questioning Barr’s “good faith” in deciding to wait until a more complete version of the report was ready for release.
Democrats and some Republicans saw a statement that 'contradicts' and even 'rebuke[s]' Trump's attorney general.
By ELIANA JOHNSON
Moments after Robert Mueller gave brief concluding remarks about his Russia probe on Wednesday, the former Republican New Jersey governor and sometime Trump adviser Chris Christie declared that the special counsel’s statement “definitely contradicts what the attorney general said when he summarized Mueller’s report.”
Christie wasn’t alone. The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff called Mueller’s statement a “direct rebuke of Attorney General William Barr,” arguing that Barr had “deliberately and repeatedly misled the American people.” And while she didn’t mention Barr by name, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she was “greatly disappointed with the Department of Justice for their misrepresentation of the Mueller report.”
Even though Mueller’s remarks focused on his findings about Russian election meddling and whether President Donald Trump obstructed his probe, it was clear that he had also thrown the klieg lights back on to his old friend Barr — rekindling anger over suspicions that Trump’s attorney general has been carrying water for the president.
And if Mueller was not engaging directly in a food fight, cable news networks did the job for him, playing side-by-side reels of Mueller and Barr’s seemingly conflicting statements nearly all of Wednesday afternoon.
Wittingly or not, Mueller spotlighted differences with Barr on several points. While Barr stated in his April news conference that there was “no evidence of collusion,” Mueller said Wednesday he found “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” And while Mueller gave a nod to Congress when he said that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Barr said he hoped Mueller hadn’t intended to leave the decision to Congress “since we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose.”
Those differences will help to ensure that Barr continues to be a central figure for the remainder of Trump’s term, a boogeyman to liberals who have called for his impeachment, and an increasing favorite of the president, who has long wanted a loyal attorney general and cheered Barr as he has initiated an investigation of the FBI’s Russia investigation.
Perhaps the most significant divergence between Barr and Mueller, who are longtime friends, dating back to their service at the Department of Justice during the George H.W. Bush administration, came on the explosive question of a potential indictment of Trump for obstructing justice. In Mueller’s telling, a Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted guided his investigation and informed his decision not to reach a conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice. Charging the president with a crime was “not an option,” Mueller said, and accusing him of committing one when he could not try the case in court, Mueller added, violated what he considered “principles of fairness.”
Barr, however, seemed to leave a different impression in his own public statements. Speaking to reporters before the release of Mueller’s report in April, and again to lawmakers earlier this month, Barr said Mueller had told him the DOJ policy was not the chief reason he did not charge the president with a crime. “Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us … that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction,” Barr told a Senate panel in early May. OLC, or the Office of Legal Counsel, is the Justice Department office whose legal guidance has typically been used to mediate between government agencies.
Mueller said nothing that wasn’t in his report, which was publicly released April 18. But many political and legal observers were struck by the emphasis he placed on his reasoning behind not bringing obstruction charges against Trump, and his assertion that if his team “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
“He devoted a third of his only public statement to explaining why the office didn’t charge the president with obstruction, which I think tells you something that was important both to clarify because he thought was important but also for the American public to understand,” said a former White House official interviewed by the special counsel’s office.
Both Barr and Mueller on Wednesday evening sought to tamp down the fury over their perceived split. In a rare joint statement from Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr, the two said, “The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.”
That may technically be true. But Barr’s critics insisted Wednesday that it was a misleading characterization, one that gave the impression that Mueller had said the evidence did not support indicting Trump. Schiff’s statement insisted that Mueller “made clear that, because of the Department’s own policy, it is left it to Congress — not the attorney general — to evaluate and further investigate the president’s misconduct.”
Mueller allies said they thought the special counsel was seeking to clarify why he declined to reach a conclusion on whether the president obstructed justice rather than to pick a fight with the attorney general.
“When I looked at his report there was one section that was open to interpretation,” said Philip Mudd, who worked closely with Mueller during his tenure as FBI director. “I think he looked at that and said, ‘I’m going to clarify that in 8, 9, 10 minutes.’ And that’s what he did. I don’t think Mueller is interested in a ‘He said, she said.’”
It’s not the first indication of tension between the two.
Mueller on Wednesday referred obliquely to a March 27 letter he had sent Barr, after the attorney general first announced his conclusions about Mueller’s then-unreleased report, urging the immediate release of executive summaries of it.
But Mueller seemed to backpedal from any confrontation over the issue by expressing his appreciation for Barr’s decision to make public the vast majority of the report. Mueller also said that he wasn’t questioning Barr’s “good faith” in deciding to wait until a more complete version of the report was ready for release.
First debate
First debate sparks Democratic scramble
Candidates still don’t know whom they will be debating against, or even which day they’ll be on the stage.
By DAVID SIDERS, NATASHA KORECKI and ELENA SCHNEIDER
Qualifying for the first Democratic presidential debate was the easy part. Now comes the challenge of preparing for it.
With the first debate in Miami now less than a month away, at least half-dozen major candidates have begun to block out time or lighten their schedules to prepare.
In telephone calls and conference rooms, advisers are peppering them with potential questions. The candidates are practicing tightening their answers, cognizant of the seven to 10 minutes of total speaking time they expect to be allotted. And they are watching clips of the 2016 Republican presidential primary debates to familiarize themselves with the dynamics of debating on a crowded stage.
All of it is taking place under the expectation that the first debate will represent the most significant milepost of the campaign to date, a make-or-break event that will likely lead to the first winnowing of the crowded 23-candidate primary.
For candidates accustomed to far more control over their circumstances, the run-up is proving to be an unsettling experience.
“This is not a scenario that any of them have been in,” said Philippe Reines, a longtime Hillary Clinton confidant who played the role of then-candidate Donald Trump in Clinton’s debate preparations in 2016. “It’s almost like a particle accelerator … It becomes a group dynamic that you can’t really control.”
Few candidates, if any, have debated 9 other rivals before. None of the contenders knows yet whether they will appear on June 26 or June 27 — as many as 20 candidates will be split over two debates on successive nights — or even whom they will be debating against. Those dynamics are combining to create a deep sense of uncertainty and frustration surrounding an evening likely to be marked by the largest national viewership yet of the campaign.
One campaign adviser to one top-tier campaign likened the unknowns surrounding the debate to a “black box.” An adviser to a different campaign said, “It definitely hurts how one prepares for a debate, especially since it’s your first introduction on the national stage … It’s tough when there is a ton of pressure to meet thresholds, and we can’t get more than two weeks to know who we will be on stage with.”
The campaigns plan to participate in a conference call on Thursday with Democratic National Committee officials, where questions about debate logistics and format are expected to be addressed.
But the candidates are unlikely to know on which night they will appear until about two weeks before the debate — and some candidates will continue to sweat out whether they will qualify at all.
In interviews with about a dozen campaigns, advisers said they are beginning to intensify their preparations. Several officials said they would hold campaign run-throughs with multiple people acting as proxies for rival candidates, though perhaps not with a full complement of nine actors representing nine candidates. Others are trying to anticipate from which opponents they might expect crossfire.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris are among those who recently started focusing on debate preparations. An aide to Sen. Elizabeth Warren told POLITICO that while it’s still too early to intensely strategize for the debate, it’s also a challenge “when we don't know who we will be on stage with until a few days out” and said it would be “hard to have a moment” with 10 people competing for airtime.
Another campaign highlighted the difficulty of not knowing who else would share the stage, saying staffers who would otherwise study old debate tapes of potential competitors to “get in their heads” are instead presenting a composite of multiple challengers in practice sessions.
"We’re preparing for a cross-section; there a lot of candidates who have similar positions on the big issues, we know where a lot of our peers are coming from,” an adviser to California Rep. Eric Swalwell said.
For lesser-known candidates such as Swalwell, the debates present an opportunity to gain a much-needed step in the primary.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has hired a debate director, Geoff Potter, and he and his advisers have held initial calls about how to approach the first debate. Unlike a congressional, gubernatorial or U.S. Senate debate — where the resulting media coverage can be more significant than the debate itself — millions of viewers are expected to be watching next month, amplifying the significance of a live performance.
In a recent call among Inslee’s advisers about the upcoming debates, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s criticism of President Donald Trump as a “chaos candidate” in 2016 came up as an example of how one-liners can fall flat. Several other candidates have made similar calculations, with one adviser to a lower-tier candidate saying, “You can’t be artificial about this … Voters see through it when candidates deliver a zinger.”
John Delaney, the former congressman from Maryland, has been watching recordings of both the Democratic and Republican primary debates in 2016. His communications director, Will McDonald, noted that, “For most people, this is going to be the first or second time they’re tuning into this contest.”
Advisers for campaigns that are clustered at the bottom of polls said part of their focus in the upcoming weeks will be navigating how lesser known candidates can distinguish themselves without coming across as combative.
Advisers to multiple candidates suggested that they are preparing to draw contrasts in the debate — but more likely with the rest of the Democratic field as a whole, not one any candidate in particular.
“Maybe you have three minutes in a debate, four minutes, what are you going to do? Are you going to try to swing for the fences, the way [Marco] Rubio did going after Trump? Or are you going to attack somebody else?” asked Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist for Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign. “It’s just an impossible situation … The Lincoln-Douglas debates, it wasn’t Lincoln, Douglas, Johnson, Smith, Harris, Fitzgerald, O’Reilly. It was Lincoln-Douglas.”
Lamenting the format, Stevens said the debate will not resemble a debate as much as a “multi-candidate press conference.”
“It’s crazy,” he said.
One rival everyone is preparing for — and who will not appear on stage — is Trump. He’s widely expected to tweet his reactions to the debates as they unfold, and Democratic strategists said it’s possible the debate’s moderators will ask some questions based on his tweets. For Democrats who have benefited politically from provoking the president in the past, the possibility of engaging with him in real time is widely viewed as a potential boon.
But several candidates are also preparing to defend themselves against criticism of their records. That could potentially come from other candidates — but more likely, their advisers believe, in the form of challenging prompts from the debate’s moderators. In part for that reason, several campaigns pointed to the proliferation of televised town halls as their most significant practice for the first debate.
“I think preparing for a debate is just like preparing for a town hall,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO recently. “You just want to be able to articulate what you’re for in a way that is concise, which is harder for me, and direct.”
Asked if she had been drilled on giving shorter answers by her staff, she said, “Not yet.” However, she added, “But I did practice it in my first town hall with MSNBC because every break we had, the producer would say, ‘OK, those were great answers, but shorter, shorter, shorter.’ I was like, ‘OK, OK, OK!’ So I think for my second town hall, CNN, I think, if you watched it, you’d see that the answers were shorter. So I’m getting better.”
Several advisers to candidates outside of the top tier said they hope to be on stage with former Vice President Joe Biden or Sen. Bernie Sanders — the two top polling contenders — either to guarantee they’ll get the most eyeballs, or to convey an immediate contrast. One adviser of a second-tier candidate relished the thought of being on stage with Biden: “I can offer you the younger alternative of what you’re looking at right now.”
“I want to be next to Joe Biden so the country can Google ‘who’s the Asian man next to Joe Biden’ and then they will discover Andrew Yang,” little-known entrepreneur Andrew Yang said. “I think that’s the ideal. I’ve done the math and I have approximately an 8 percent chance of standing next to Joe Biden.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told reporters in New Hampshire recently, “It’s going to be really interesting because you’re going to have so many people, and it’s luck of the draw which night you’re going to be, who you’re going to be standing next to — maybe going to be really tall, don’t know.”
The front-runners are feeling pressure in a different way than those still trying to make an introduction to a national audience. With so much attention on their age, Sanders and Biden cannot have a Rick Perry-like forgetful moment. Biden will be expected to be the adult in the room. And Warren’s reputation as a policy wonk means she’ll have added expectations to drive the discussion or at least have well thought out responses to most questions.
As the front-runner, Biden is widely considered the most likely to face a pointed challenge from his competitors in the debate. But advisers to many of his rivals remain wary of attacking him too sharply. Even if a competitor could wound Biden in the debate, in a multi-candidate field it is unclear who would benefit.
“In 2016, if Bernie attacked Hillary and he landed a blow, it’s possible those people came to Bernie,” Reines said. “And if Hillary landed a blow on Bernie, people came to her. Now you have a situation where Liz Warren might take a shot at Bernie Sanders, because they’re kind of fighting for the same pool, and a voter says, ‘I don’t like Bernie’s answer, but I don’t like the way Warren asked it, so I’m going to take a hard look at Kamala.’”
He said, “You’ve got a little bit of a Whac-A-Mole situation, and that’s going to play out on stage.”
Candidates still don’t know whom they will be debating against, or even which day they’ll be on the stage.
By DAVID SIDERS, NATASHA KORECKI and ELENA SCHNEIDER
Qualifying for the first Democratic presidential debate was the easy part. Now comes the challenge of preparing for it.
With the first debate in Miami now less than a month away, at least half-dozen major candidates have begun to block out time or lighten their schedules to prepare.
In telephone calls and conference rooms, advisers are peppering them with potential questions. The candidates are practicing tightening their answers, cognizant of the seven to 10 minutes of total speaking time they expect to be allotted. And they are watching clips of the 2016 Republican presidential primary debates to familiarize themselves with the dynamics of debating on a crowded stage.
All of it is taking place under the expectation that the first debate will represent the most significant milepost of the campaign to date, a make-or-break event that will likely lead to the first winnowing of the crowded 23-candidate primary.
For candidates accustomed to far more control over their circumstances, the run-up is proving to be an unsettling experience.
“This is not a scenario that any of them have been in,” said Philippe Reines, a longtime Hillary Clinton confidant who played the role of then-candidate Donald Trump in Clinton’s debate preparations in 2016. “It’s almost like a particle accelerator … It becomes a group dynamic that you can’t really control.”
Few candidates, if any, have debated 9 other rivals before. None of the contenders knows yet whether they will appear on June 26 or June 27 — as many as 20 candidates will be split over two debates on successive nights — or even whom they will be debating against. Those dynamics are combining to create a deep sense of uncertainty and frustration surrounding an evening likely to be marked by the largest national viewership yet of the campaign.
One campaign adviser to one top-tier campaign likened the unknowns surrounding the debate to a “black box.” An adviser to a different campaign said, “It definitely hurts how one prepares for a debate, especially since it’s your first introduction on the national stage … It’s tough when there is a ton of pressure to meet thresholds, and we can’t get more than two weeks to know who we will be on stage with.”
The campaigns plan to participate in a conference call on Thursday with Democratic National Committee officials, where questions about debate logistics and format are expected to be addressed.
But the candidates are unlikely to know on which night they will appear until about two weeks before the debate — and some candidates will continue to sweat out whether they will qualify at all.
In interviews with about a dozen campaigns, advisers said they are beginning to intensify their preparations. Several officials said they would hold campaign run-throughs with multiple people acting as proxies for rival candidates, though perhaps not with a full complement of nine actors representing nine candidates. Others are trying to anticipate from which opponents they might expect crossfire.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris are among those who recently started focusing on debate preparations. An aide to Sen. Elizabeth Warren told POLITICO that while it’s still too early to intensely strategize for the debate, it’s also a challenge “when we don't know who we will be on stage with until a few days out” and said it would be “hard to have a moment” with 10 people competing for airtime.
Another campaign highlighted the difficulty of not knowing who else would share the stage, saying staffers who would otherwise study old debate tapes of potential competitors to “get in their heads” are instead presenting a composite of multiple challengers in practice sessions.
"We’re preparing for a cross-section; there a lot of candidates who have similar positions on the big issues, we know where a lot of our peers are coming from,” an adviser to California Rep. Eric Swalwell said.
For lesser-known candidates such as Swalwell, the debates present an opportunity to gain a much-needed step in the primary.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has hired a debate director, Geoff Potter, and he and his advisers have held initial calls about how to approach the first debate. Unlike a congressional, gubernatorial or U.S. Senate debate — where the resulting media coverage can be more significant than the debate itself — millions of viewers are expected to be watching next month, amplifying the significance of a live performance.
In a recent call among Inslee’s advisers about the upcoming debates, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s criticism of President Donald Trump as a “chaos candidate” in 2016 came up as an example of how one-liners can fall flat. Several other candidates have made similar calculations, with one adviser to a lower-tier candidate saying, “You can’t be artificial about this … Voters see through it when candidates deliver a zinger.”
John Delaney, the former congressman from Maryland, has been watching recordings of both the Democratic and Republican primary debates in 2016. His communications director, Will McDonald, noted that, “For most people, this is going to be the first or second time they’re tuning into this contest.”
Advisers for campaigns that are clustered at the bottom of polls said part of their focus in the upcoming weeks will be navigating how lesser known candidates can distinguish themselves without coming across as combative.
Advisers to multiple candidates suggested that they are preparing to draw contrasts in the debate — but more likely with the rest of the Democratic field as a whole, not one any candidate in particular.
“Maybe you have three minutes in a debate, four minutes, what are you going to do? Are you going to try to swing for the fences, the way [Marco] Rubio did going after Trump? Or are you going to attack somebody else?” asked Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist for Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign. “It’s just an impossible situation … The Lincoln-Douglas debates, it wasn’t Lincoln, Douglas, Johnson, Smith, Harris, Fitzgerald, O’Reilly. It was Lincoln-Douglas.”
Lamenting the format, Stevens said the debate will not resemble a debate as much as a “multi-candidate press conference.”
“It’s crazy,” he said.
One rival everyone is preparing for — and who will not appear on stage — is Trump. He’s widely expected to tweet his reactions to the debates as they unfold, and Democratic strategists said it’s possible the debate’s moderators will ask some questions based on his tweets. For Democrats who have benefited politically from provoking the president in the past, the possibility of engaging with him in real time is widely viewed as a potential boon.
But several candidates are also preparing to defend themselves against criticism of their records. That could potentially come from other candidates — but more likely, their advisers believe, in the form of challenging prompts from the debate’s moderators. In part for that reason, several campaigns pointed to the proliferation of televised town halls as their most significant practice for the first debate.
“I think preparing for a debate is just like preparing for a town hall,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO recently. “You just want to be able to articulate what you’re for in a way that is concise, which is harder for me, and direct.”
Asked if she had been drilled on giving shorter answers by her staff, she said, “Not yet.” However, she added, “But I did practice it in my first town hall with MSNBC because every break we had, the producer would say, ‘OK, those were great answers, but shorter, shorter, shorter.’ I was like, ‘OK, OK, OK!’ So I think for my second town hall, CNN, I think, if you watched it, you’d see that the answers were shorter. So I’m getting better.”
Several advisers to candidates outside of the top tier said they hope to be on stage with former Vice President Joe Biden or Sen. Bernie Sanders — the two top polling contenders — either to guarantee they’ll get the most eyeballs, or to convey an immediate contrast. One adviser of a second-tier candidate relished the thought of being on stage with Biden: “I can offer you the younger alternative of what you’re looking at right now.”
“I want to be next to Joe Biden so the country can Google ‘who’s the Asian man next to Joe Biden’ and then they will discover Andrew Yang,” little-known entrepreneur Andrew Yang said. “I think that’s the ideal. I’ve done the math and I have approximately an 8 percent chance of standing next to Joe Biden.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told reporters in New Hampshire recently, “It’s going to be really interesting because you’re going to have so many people, and it’s luck of the draw which night you’re going to be, who you’re going to be standing next to — maybe going to be really tall, don’t know.”
The front-runners are feeling pressure in a different way than those still trying to make an introduction to a national audience. With so much attention on their age, Sanders and Biden cannot have a Rick Perry-like forgetful moment. Biden will be expected to be the adult in the room. And Warren’s reputation as a policy wonk means she’ll have added expectations to drive the discussion or at least have well thought out responses to most questions.
As the front-runner, Biden is widely considered the most likely to face a pointed challenge from his competitors in the debate. But advisers to many of his rivals remain wary of attacking him too sharply. Even if a competitor could wound Biden in the debate, in a multi-candidate field it is unclear who would benefit.
“In 2016, if Bernie attacked Hillary and he landed a blow, it’s possible those people came to Bernie,” Reines said. “And if Hillary landed a blow on Bernie, people came to her. Now you have a situation where Liz Warren might take a shot at Bernie Sanders, because they’re kind of fighting for the same pool, and a voter says, ‘I don’t like Bernie’s answer, but I don’t like the way Warren asked it, so I’m going to take a hard look at Kamala.’”
He said, “You’ve got a little bit of a Whac-A-Mole situation, and that’s going to play out on stage.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)