Defense attorneys for onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort inadvertently revealed Tuesday that their client stands accused of sharing polling data with a suspected former Russian intelligence officer, according to court documents filed publicly in Washington D.C. Interested in Russia Investigation? Add Russia Investigation as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Russia Investigation news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Russia Investigation Add Interest As part of a document meant to defend Manafort against accusations that he lied to federal prosecutors after signing onto a cooperation agreement with special counsel Robert Mueller, his defense counsel failed to adequately redact sections of their filing. Those sections were meant to remain secret and reflect information that has not previously been disclosed. One passage that was meant to be redacted reveals that Mueller’s prosecutors, tasked with probing Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, have accused Manafort of sharing 2016 campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime business associate whom the special counsel has identified as a former Russian intelligence officer.(MORE: Paul Manafort and special counsel reach tentative plea deal: Sources) “The Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign,” defense counsel wrote, was “not at the forefront of Mr. Manafort’s mind during the period at issue and it is not surprising at all that Mr. Manafort was unable to recall specific details prior to having his recollection refreshed.” Special counsel prosecutors accused Manafort in November of breaking a plea deal by lying to the special counsel’s office. At a hearing in December, the federal judge overseeing Manafort’s case in Washington D.C. asked the government to provide some “underlying evidence” to support the scant details they’ve offered about the content of his alleged lies. Mueller’s team and attorneys for Manafort agreed in court last month to conduct informal discussions about the alleged lies before defense counsel responded. At the time, Manafort’s team said they did not have enough information from the government about their client’s alleged lies to reply.(MORE: Tensions rising between Mueller, Manafort over level of cooperation: Sources) After leveling that accusation, prosecutors filed a heavily-redacted court document describing five areas in which Manafort is accused of lying to government investigators, including misleading statements about his contacts with Trump administration officials. He was also accused of lying about his interactions with Kilimnik and another unspecified Justice Department investigation. But on Tuesday, Manafort’s team sought to rebut those accusations point by point. “Mr. Manafort provided complete and truthful information to the best of his ability,” Manafort’s lawyers wrote. “He attempted to live up to the requirements of his cooperation agreement and provided meaningful cooperation relating to several key areas under current government investigation.” Defense counsel for Manafort claim their client “did not recall having a conversation” with two Trump administration officials and that his recollection about contacts with Kilimnik is “unsurprising,” because “these occurrences happened during a period when Mr. Manafort was managing a U.S. presidential campaign and had countless meetings, email communications, and other interactions with many different individuals, and traveled frequently.” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told ABC News that Tuesday’s revelation “raises more questions than answers.” “The question is why? Why would Russians be interested in polling data on an American campaign? Why would that be of value? How would the Russians make use of that?” Schiff asked. “And of course one question above all is why did Manafort lie about it?” With Democrats back in the majority in the House, Schiff said he plans to reinvigorate his panel’s investigation into possible Russian collusion, telling ABC News Tuesday he hopes to “get the answers to all these questions.”(MORE: Paul Manafort plea deal includes 'broad' cooperation with special counsel) Manafort was found guilty in August on eight counts of tax and bank-fraud in a Virginia case related in part to his work as an unregistered foreign lobbyist. Sentencing in that case – which could result in a lengthy prison term – is scheduled for next month. In September, on the eve of a second trial in Washington, D.C., Manafort struck a plea deal with prosecutors that allowed him to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for “broad” cooperation. But prosecutors in the Washington, D.C., case say he reneged on that agreement by lying during interviews. Manafort is scheduled for sentencing in that case on March 5. But speculation that President Trump may consider pardoning his onetime campaign chairman has grown. In November, asked by the New York Post about a possible pardon for Manafort, Trump said he “wouldn’t take it off the table.” On Thursday, when a reporter asked, "Did you know Paul Manafort was sharing polling data from your campaign with the Russians? Trump responded, "No. I didn’t know anything about that." ABC News' Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Brazilian prosecutors have moved to ban President Jair Bolsanaro's son from becoming ambassador to the US.The public prosecutor's office filed an injunction on Monday asking a federal court to rule on the experience needed for anyone to serve as a diplomat.Opposition lawmakers have also asked the Supreme Court to block the appointment, calling it nepotism.It comes days after Mr Bolsonaro said US President Donald Trump had approved the appointment of his son, Eduardo.However, the nomination still requires approval from Brazil's Senate.According to Brazilian magazine Epoca, prosecutors asked a court in Brasilia to rule on the "merits and services" required for any non-diplomats serving as ambassadors.The prosecutors added that there would be "danger of harm if a person is nominated without adequate preparation".Eduardo Bolsonaro, 35, is a congressman who heads the foreign affairs committee in the lower house.He has no previous diplomatic experience, but has been dubbed Brazil's "shadow foreign minister" because of the strong influence he has on his father's foreign policy, BBC Americas editor Candace Piette reports.Earlier this year, he joined his father in a private meeting with US President Trump during a diplomatic trip to Washington.Both the president and his son have a pro-US stance, breaking with Brazil's traditionally more cautious position. Eduardo is openly pro-Israeli, whereas in the past Brazil has been careful not to offend Arab nations. What are Jair Bolsonaro's policies? Who is Brazil's new leader Jair Bolsonaro? Is the honeymoon period over for Brazil's Bolsonaro? President Bolsonaro has defended Eduardo's nomination as ambassador, saying his son is a friend of the Trump family, which would help strengthen ties between the two countries.Last week, the Brazilian president said he had received a handwritten letter from President Trump approving the nomination, describing it as "a great appointment".Mr Bolsonaro uses several of his relatives as advisers. His eldest son, Flavio, is a senator, while Carlos Bolsonaro is a Rio de Janeiro city council member.Mr Trump is also known for appointing family members to political positions. On the White House website, his daughter Ivanka Trump is listed as an adviser to the president, focusing on "the education and economic empowerment of women and their families as well as job creation and economic growth".

China’s efforts to control the narrative about Hong Kong’s protests have gone from censorship to state-run reports that appear aimed at fanning public anger (paywall) against the demonstrators. And that disinformation has also made its way to Twitter and Facebook.Twitter on Monday (Aug. 19) said it had found “a significant state-backed information operation focused on the situation in Hong Kong, specifically the protest movement.” It’s suspended 936 accounts originating from within China that “were deliberately and specifically attempting to sow political discord in Hong Kong, including undermining the legitimacy and political positions of the protest movement on the ground.” It also created an archive of the accounts for further research.Twitter’s announcement came after a thread from Maciej Cegłowski, the outspoken developer behind the @Pinboard Twitter account, as well as news reports, which flagged promoted messages from Chinese state-run news media such as Xinhua showing up in users’ feeds. Twitter is blocked in China, but the platform said that some of the accounts were using unblocked IP addresses originating in mainland China.Twitter also said it was updating its advertising policies to stop taking ads from state-controlled news media; the policy will not apply to publicly funded but independent news broadcasters. In recent years, as Chinese state news media have expanded overseas, governments and platforms have grappled with whether to treat them as press entities—or foreign agents.Facebook also announced Monday, based on a tip from Twitter, that it had removed seven pages, three groups, and five accounts linked to “coordinated inauthentic behavior” on the Hong Kong protests.The 11 weeks of mass protests in Hong Kong began in June against an extradition bill that would have allowed people to be sent from Hong Kong to mainland China to face trial, and have been largely peaceful up until last week. In a protest at the airport, demonstrators tied up and beat two men believed to be undercover mainland agents, an incident that has prompted soul-searching in the leaderless movement in recent days, and apologies from demonstrators. One turned out to be a reporter for the Chinese state-run tabloid, Global Times.Protesters (and innocent bystanders) have also faced violence from groups of thugs, and been arrested by undercover police dressed as protesters.State-run media have been actively shaping how people in mainland China, where access to most overseas news sites is blocked by a firewall, see Hong Kong’s protest.Soon after one of the largest anti-extradition protests in June, China Daily reported instead on the supposedly large numbers of people that were voicing support for the proposed extradition bill. Chinese news reports have also accused foreign “black hands” of instigating the protests. More recently state-run news media shared a poem that riffed off First They Came, the famous words written by German pastor Martin Niemöller about complicity with Nazi rule, to criticize the Hong Kong protesters.While many efforts are explicitly state-linked, other groups, including the patriotic forum Di Ba, and members of China’s “fan girl” community, have also crossed the firewall to express their love of China and criticize the protesters.

India’s tough stance on cryptocurrencies has irked the American billionaire and venture capitalist Tim Draper.On July 17, Draper, best known for his investments in companies such as Baidu, Hotmail, Skype, and Tesla, lashed out on India’s Narendra Modi government calling it “pathetic and corrupt” for its disapproval of bitcoin.Draper’s reaction came after blockchain lawyer Varun Sethi circulated the supposed draft for banning cryptocurrencies that proposes a 10-year prison term for those who “mine, generate, hold, sell, transfer, dispose, issue or deal in cryptocurrencies.”The document makes one exception for this rule, which is the “digital rupee,” a sovereign token issued and backed by India’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), for local transactions.Currently, there is no official ban on cryptocurrencies in India, but the RBI has choked the burgeoning ecosystem by barring all dealings. Already, a bunch of exchanges like Koinex and Coinome has been forced to shut shop.Several experts believe that in developing countries, virtual money can give people an alternative to local currencies and the dollar to store wealth and invest.So, Draper, who recently advocated bitcoin to the government of Argentina, is certainly not alone in his dislike for India’s strict regulation.Barry Silbert, venture capitalist and founder-CEO of Digital Currency Group (DGC), took to Twitter on June 7 to say such moves will “have the opposite of the desired effect on bitcoin awareness and interest in the country.”Computer scientist and crypto advocate John McAfee has said banning bitcoin is futile. “Banning the invisible, used by the anonymous. Wake up world! Crypto is the mythical Pandora’s box come to life,” he wrote on July 16.Meanwhile, Draper is fighting a strong backlash from Indians on Twitter.In India, Draper is best known for his Silicon Valley entrepreneurship college, the Draper University, which has incubated several Indian entrepreneurs in recent years. Two years ago, Draper Ventures partnered with Blume Ventures to fund Indian startups.Though these programmes have been lauded, his criticism to a possible bitcoin ban wasn’t well-received in the country.There was pushback from some Indians on the microblogging site, who said Draper was acting in self-interest and supported the Indian government’s views owing to the volatile nature of the currency.Others stressed that the outsize reaction is unwarranted since this is just a draft bill and may never even see the light of day.

Donald Trump hit out again at “slimeball” James Comey on Sunday with a characteristic flurry of furious early-morning tweets in which he also reiterated his concerns over the raid on the offices of his lawyer Michael Cohen.Comey – whom Trump fired as director of the FBI in May last year because of his investigation into “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia” – is about to release a book including chapters on working for Trump, A Higher Loyalty, advance extracts from which have enraged the president. Comey will appear on Sunday night on ABC in his first televised interview to promote the book. In his tweets on Sunday morning, Trump predicted that “slippery” Comey would “go down as the WORST FBI Director in history, by far”, claimed he was “not smart”, and took issue with several points raised by Comey in his book.“Unbelievably, James Comey states that Polls, where Crooked Hillary was leading, were a factor in the handling (stupidly) of the Clinton Email probe,” the president wrote on Twitter, a reference to Comey’s suggestion in A Higher Loyalty that his decision to announce the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been resumed was influenced by a belief the Democratic candidate was going to win the 2016 election.“Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the justice department or her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of an FBI investigation?” Comey asks in the book.“In other words, he was making decisions based on the fact that he thought she was going to win, and he wanted a job,” wrote Trump on Sunday. “Slimeball!”Asked about this section of his book in a clip from the upcoming ABC interview released on Saturday, Comey said: “I don’t remember consciously thinking about that, but it must have been because I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump, and so I’m sure that it was a factor.”He added: “I don’t remember spelling it out, but it had to have been, that she’s going to be elected president and if I hide this from the American people, she’ll be illegitimate the moment she’s elected, the moment this comes out.”Trump also rattled through a series of questions he said were not answered in what he called “Comey’s badly reviewed book”: “How come he gave up Classified Information (jail), why did he lie to Congress (jail), why did the DNC refuse to give Server to the FBI (why didn’t they TAKE it), why the phony memos, McCabe’s $700,000 & more?”Comey said during congressional testimony last year that he helped to leak details of a memo about Trump to the New York Times, but he denied that it contained classified information.“McCabe’s $700,000” refers to money given to the Virginia state senate campaign of Jill McCabe, the wife of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe from groups associated with Virginia’s governor, Terry McAuliffe, an ally of Clinton’s. Andrew McCabe, a frequent target of Trump’s attacks, was fired last month. Trump also claimed he had never asked for Comey’s “Personal Loyalty” – contradicting a statement the ex-FBI chief made to the Senate intelligence committee in 2017, in which Comey claimed Trump had said to him: “I need loyalty.” The president also claimed contemporaneous memos Comey says he compiled of his meetings with Trump were “self serving and FAKE”.Also weighing on Trump’s mind were the raids on the offices and home of his personal attorney Cohen, which some commentators have suggested may represent a more significant legal threat to Trump than the Russia collusion investigation that special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to lead after Comey’s firing. Repeating criticisms he made immediately after the raids, Trump lamented: “Attorney Client privilege is now a thing of the past.”And in a seeming response to reports he has had difficulty finding attorneys to represent him, the president added: “I have many (too many!) lawyers and they are probably wondering when their offices, and even homes, are going to be raided with everything, including their phones and computers, taken. “All lawyers are deflated and concerned!” he concluded.Cohen is due to appear in federal court on Monday in New York for arguments over last week’s raids. His attorneys want prosecutors ordered to temporarily halt an examination of the seized material, arguing that it is protected by attorney-client privilege.Comey issued a relatively rare tweet on Sunday, using the president’s favourite medium to get in a dig at his former boss. “My book is about ethical leadership & draws on stories from my life & lessons I learned from others,” the former FBI chief wrote. “3 presidents are in my book: 2 help illustrate the values at the heart of ethical leadership; 1 serves as a counterpoint.”Meanwhile the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, was asked on ABC on Sunday whether Trump had any plans to fire Mueller or his superior, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein.“I’m not aware of any plans to make those movements,” she said. But she added: “We do have some real concerns with some of the activities and some of the scope that the investigation has gone.”She repeated her denial of collusion with Russia in its interference in the election, and said: “It really is getting time to move on.” Topics Donald Trump James Comey US politics Michael Cohen news

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is on trial on tax and bank fraud charges, had $16.5 million in unreported taxable business income between 2010 and 2014, a U.S. Internal Revenue Service agent testified on Wednesday. Paul Manafort (L), former campaign chairman for U.S. President Donald Trump, in Washington, DC, U.S., December 11, 2017, and Rick Gates, former campaign aide to Trump, in Washington, U.S., December 11, 2017 are pictured in this combination photograph. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File PhotoIRS agent Michael Welch told a jury that Manafort’s unreported income includes foreign wire transfers to U.S. vendors like landscapers and clothiers, wire transfers to buy property, and income improperly reclassified as loans. Welch’s testimony came as prosecutors sought to refocus the courtroom’s attention on Manafort’s alleged financial crimes after his defense attorneys spent hours trying to undermine the credibility of their star witness, former Manafort business partner Rick Gates. Welch said he arrived at the $16.5 million figure based on an accounting method used by Manafort. During his review, he said, he discovered that many of the foreign wire transfers did not appear on general ledgers for Manafort’s political consultancy and therefore, “I was not able to trace it into the tax return.” Gates ended three days of testimony earlier on Wednesday, the trial’s seventh day, after admitting he lied, stole money and cheated on his wife, as lawyers for Manafort attacked his character. Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing got in a final shot in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, raising the possibility Gates had not one, but four extramarital affairs. Prosecutors objected and Gates never answered the question. In cross-examination on Tuesday and Wednesday, Downing fired questions at Gates for several hours as he sought to portray him as an inveterate liar and thief to undermine his credibility with the jury. Meanwhile, Downing on Wednesday afternoon tried to draw the jury’s attention back to admissions by Gates that he had embezzled funds from Manafort, asking Welch if his client could claim a business embezzlement deduction. While businesses can deduct losses from theft, Welch said on redirect by one of the prosecutors: “If money is stolen from money that is untaxed, there is no deduction.” Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. According to trial testimony, he used the accounts to receive millions of dollars in payments from Ukrainian oligarchs. Manafort, a longtime Republican political consultant, is the first person to be tried on charges brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Manafort made millions of dollars working for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians before he took an unpaid position with the Trump campaign that lasted five months. Gates, who worked as Manafort’s right-hand man for a decade, served as deputy chairman of the Trump campaign. He pleaded guilty to charges in February and is cooperating for the possibility of a reduced sentence. He testified at length about how he and Manafort doctored and backdated financial documents, hid foreign income and falsified tax returns. He said he engaged in the wrongdoing at Manafort’s direction. He also admitted to leading a “secret life,” embezzling funds from his former boss Manafort, and getting involved in other shady dealings. And the defense has tried to pin much of the blame for the financial crimes on him. After Gates left the stand on Wednesday, the jury heard from Morgan Magionos, a forensic accountant with the FBI. She said she had identified 31 accounts located in Cyprus, the Grenadines and the United Kingdom belonging to Manafort. She explained how she traced payments for luxury items back to those hidden bank accounts, describing documents from banks and corporations and how the corporate entities and offshore accounts were linked to Manafort. Prosecutors also introduced emails from Manafort to vendors of luxury items he bought in which he promises payment via wire transfers from “my” account, citing some of the offshore entities he is accused of using to hide his wealth. A conviction of Manafort would undermine efforts by Trump and some Republican lawmakers to paint Mueller’s inquiry as a political witch hunt, while an acquittal would be a setback for the special counsel. Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Trump, on Wednesday again called for Mueller to end his inquiry “without further delay.” Prosecutors have said they hope to finish presenting their case by the end of the week. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis has repeatedly prodded them to move swiftly while seemingly giving the defense more latitude. He also has repeatedly made comments that some legal experts say may prejudice the jury against the prosecution. The judge has belittled and yelled at prosecutors in front of the jury and made comments that could undercut the prosecutor’s case and help the defense. Washington attorney Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor in Virginia who has appeared before Ellis hundreds of times, said the comment was “classic Judge Ellis injecting his views into the courtroom.” If he is too tough, Rossi said, the jury might “start to feel sorry for the prosecution.” Although questions tied to the Trump campaign have been severely limited at trial, Manafort remains a central figure in the broader inquiry into the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia, including a 2016 Trump Tower meeting at which Russians promised “dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and his role in watering down the 2016 Republican Party platform position on Ukraine. Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Nathan Layne and Karen Freifeld; Writing by Doina Chiacu and Warren Strobel; Editing by Grant McCool and Lisa ShumakerOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

FILE PHOTO: Rick Gates, former campaign aide to U.S. President Donald Trump, departs after a hearing at U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, U.S., December 11, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File PhotoWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The government’s star witness in the tax and bank fraud trial of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort finished testifying on Wednesday after three days in which defense lawyers sought to chip away at his character and credibility. Rick Gates, who also worked on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, was dismissed by a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, after admitting he stole money from his former boss Manafort and helped falsify documents to avoid taxes. Defense lawyers tried to paint him as a liar, asking about extramarital affairs and funds he embezzled from Manafort. Reporting by Nathan Layne, Sarah N. Lynch, Karen Freifeld; Writing by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Franklin PaulOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is on trial on tax and bank fraud charges, had $16.5 million in unreported taxable business income between 2010 and 2014, a U.S. Internal Revenue Service agent testified on Wednesday. Paul Manafort (L), former campaign chairman for U.S. President Donald Trump, in Washington, DC, U.S., December 11, 2017, and Rick Gates, former campaign aide to Trump, in Washington, U.S., December 11, 2017 are pictured in this combination photograph. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File PhotoIRS agent Michael Welch told a jury that Manafort’s unreported income includes foreign wire transfers to U.S. vendors like landscapers and clothiers, wire transfers to buy property, and income improperly reclassified as loans. Welch’s testimony came as prosecutors sought to refocus the courtroom’s attention on Manafort’s alleged financial crimes after his defense attorneys spent hours trying to undermine the credibility of their star witness, former Manafort business partner Rick Gates. Welch said he arrived at the $16.5 million figure based on an accounting method used by Manafort. During his review, he said, he discovered that many of the foreign wire transfers did not appear on general ledgers for Manafort’s political consultancy and therefore, “I was not able to trace it into the tax return.” Gates ended three days of testimony earlier on Wednesday, the trial’s seventh day, after admitting he lied, stole money and cheated on his wife, as lawyers for Manafort attacked his character. Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing got in a final shot in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, raising the possibility Gates had not one, but four extramarital affairs. Prosecutors objected and Gates never answered the question. In cross-examination on Tuesday and Wednesday, Downing fired questions at Gates for several hours as he sought to portray him as an inveterate liar and thief to undermine his credibility with the jury. Meanwhile, Downing on Wednesday afternoon tried to draw the jury’s attention back to admissions by Gates that he had embezzled funds from Manafort, asking Welch if his client could claim a business embezzlement deduction. While businesses can deduct losses from theft, Welch said on redirect by one of the prosecutors: “If money is stolen from money that is untaxed, there is no deduction.” Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. According to trial testimony, he used the accounts to receive millions of dollars in payments from Ukrainian oligarchs. Manafort, a longtime Republican political consultant, is the first person to be tried on charges brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Manafort made millions of dollars working for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians before he took an unpaid position with the Trump campaign that lasted five months. Gates, who worked as Manafort’s right-hand man for a decade, served as deputy chairman of the Trump campaign. He pleaded guilty to charges in February and is cooperating for the possibility of a reduced sentence. He testified at length about how he and Manafort doctored and backdated financial documents, hid foreign income and falsified tax returns. He said he engaged in the wrongdoing at Manafort’s direction. He also admitted to leading a “secret life,” embezzling funds from his former boss Manafort, and getting involved in other shady dealings. And the defense has tried to pin much of the blame for the financial crimes on him. After Gates left the stand on Wednesday, the jury heard from Morgan Magionos, a forensic accountant with the FBI. She said she had identified 31 accounts located in Cyprus, the Grenadines and the United Kingdom belonging to Manafort. She explained how she traced payments for luxury items back to those hidden bank accounts, describing documents from banks and corporations and how the corporate entities and offshore accounts were linked to Manafort. Prosecutors also introduced emails from Manafort to vendors of luxury items he bought in which he promises payment via wire transfers from “my” account, citing some of the offshore entities he is accused of using to hide his wealth. A conviction of Manafort would undermine efforts by Trump and some Republican lawmakers to paint Mueller’s inquiry as a political witch hunt, while an acquittal would be a setback for the special counsel. Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Trump, on Wednesday again called for Mueller to end his inquiry “without further delay.” Prosecutors have said they hope to finish presenting their case by the end of the week. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis has repeatedly prodded them to move swiftly while seemingly giving the defense more latitude. He also has repeatedly made comments that some legal experts say may prejudice the jury against the prosecution. The judge has belittled and yelled at prosecutors in front of the jury and made comments that could undercut the prosecutor’s case and help the defense. Washington attorney Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor in Virginia who has appeared before Ellis hundreds of times, said the comment was “classic Judge Ellis injecting his views into the courtroom.” If he is too tough, Rossi said, the jury might “start to feel sorry for the prosecution.” Although questions tied to the Trump campaign have been severely limited at trial, Manafort remains a central figure in the broader inquiry into the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia, including a 2016 Trump Tower meeting at which Russians promised “dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and his role in watering down the 2016 Republican Party platform position on Ukraine. Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Nathan Layne and Karen Freifeld; Writing by Doina Chiacu and Warren Strobel; Editing by Grant McCool and Lisa ShumakerOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Welcome to Best of Late Night, a rundown of the previous night’s highlights that lets you sleep — and lets us get paid to watch comedy. If you’re interested in hearing from The Times regularly about great TV, sign up for our Watching newsletter and get recommendations straight to your inbox.‘So Mad … So Proud’Trevor Noah has been relishing the news coming out of the trial of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager charged with tax and bank fraud.His former right-hand man, Rick Gates, said under oath this week that he had committed crimes with Manafort — and that he had even stolen from him.“This is hilarious. He’s confessing to stealing from the same guy that he was committing crimes with. Like, Manafort must have been so mad — but also at the same time, so proud.” — TREVOR NOAH“Just today, Gates confessed that he also may have stolen from Trump’s inauguration committee. Yeah, and not just the money — I think he took some of the people, too.” — TREVOR NOAH, showing a picture of the crowds at President Trump’s inaugurationRally Actors?Rosie O’Donnell suggested in an interview that she thinks many of the people at Trump’s rallies are paid actors. That idea was a bridge too far for Jimmy Kimmel.“The idea that Trump is paying these people? Sorry Rosie, but that is ridiculous. He doesn’t pay anybody, why would he start with them?” — JIMMY KIMMEL‘He May Need a New Job Soon’Jimmy Fallon has a theory about why Trump met with a handful of chief executives Tuesday at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.“President Trump is still on vacation at his New Jersey golf club, and I saw that tonight he had dinner with a group of C.E.O.s. He didn’t want their input, he wanted to network, because he may need a new job soon.” — JIMMY FALLON“One of the other C.E.O.s at the dinner was from FedEx. At first, Trump was nervous because those are the two things that cause him the most stress: the feds and his exes.” — JIMMY FALLONThe Punchiest Punchlines (Tax Fraud Edition)“According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen is being investigated for tax fraud. Which is surprising, because usually he’s hired for tax fraud.” — SETH MEYERS“Trump’s advisers are urging him not to tweet about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his campaign and the Russians. In response, Trump was like, ‘I wasn’t gonna, but now that you tell me not to, it’s all I can think about.’” — JIMMY FALLONThe Bits Worth WatchingKimmel tried a novel approach to get Trump to care about climate change.There were some secrets Kris Jenner didn’t want to reveal. She was even willing to drink a sardine smoothie for the right to keep quiet.What We’re Excited About on Wednesday NightJim Acosta, the White House correspondent who has become a symbol of Trump’s testy relationship with CNN, will sit down with Stephen Colbert on Wednesday.Also, Check This OutThe West Hollywood City Council has passed a motion urging the removal of Trump’s star — which has been vandalized repeatedly in recent months — from the Hollywood Walk of Fame. But here’s the catch: The star isn’t in West Hollywood.Plus, Ideas for What to Watch Tonight:The Best Movies on Netflix Right NowBinge-Worthy Sitcoms to StreamThe 25 Best Films of the 21st Century (So Far)

National Democrats have long dreamed of recapturing Texas, and Congressman Beto O’Rourke’s bid to unseat Republican senator Ted Cruz has seemingly given them reason for hope. O’Rourke has raised record-breaking amounts of cash ($38m in his latest haul), drawn large crowds of supporters at rallies across the Lone Star state and been fawningly profiled in nearly every major publication in the country.But there is a fatal flaw in the 46-year-old El Paso congressman’s strategy. O’Rourke is betting that increased voter turnout among Texas Democrats, rather than the persuasion of Republicans, will propel him to victory. Appealing to disgruntled Republicans and independents by tacking to the center on key issues – gun control, abortion, taxes – isn’t part of O’Rourke’s strategy, even if he pays lip service to the idea in his impassioned rhetoric and populist pose.To understand why this no-compromise, no-persuasion approach is likely to fail (O’Rourke is trailing in the latest polls), you have to understand how Texas became so Republican in the first place. Today Texas is known for being a GOP bastion, but it wasn’t always. Like much of the American south, Texas was firmly in the hands of the Democratic party from the end of reconstruction until the end of the 20th century.And then things began to change. The first sign that the Democrats’ hold on Texas was beginning to loosen was the election of Republican John Tower to the US Senate in 1961. Tower narrowly won a special election to fill the seat vacated by vice-president Lyndon B Johnson, and he did it by appealing to conservative Democrats who were disillusioned with the leftward drift of their party. By emphasizing his conservative position on issues like spending, the national debt, foreign policy and private enterprise, Tower drew enough conservative Democrats away from his opponent to claim an unprecedented victory.Indeed, the modest gains of the GOP in Texas throughout the 1960s and ‘70s had as much to do with the emergence of a more competitive Republican party as it did with emergence of a more liberal the Democratic party. In Tower’s case, he defeated a conservative Democrat opposed by large numbers of liberal Democrats, who simply didn’t show up to vote. His victory represented the beginning of an entirely new GOP rising in Texas. The political establishment couldn’t see it yet, but 15 years later, the new political landscape was impossible to ignore when Ronald Reagan swept the 1976 Republican primary in Texas.Reagan’s victory deprived incumbent president Gerald Ford of even a single Texas delegate. It shocked the entire country. Ford’s people in particular didn’t see it coming, in part because they didn’t believe Reagan would appeal to mainstream Texas Republicans and in part because they didn’t think there were large numbers of conservative Texas Democrats willing to cross over and vote for a Republican.Yet that’s exactly the gamble Reagan’s activists and campaign organizers had made. Throughout the primary campaign, their insistent message to conservative Texans, Republicans and Democrats alike, was that their respective parties had abandoned them, had become too liberal – on the Soviet Union, labor unions, welfare spending – and that their true political home was in a more conservative GOP led by Reagan. The gamble worked. Large numbers of Democrats switched parties in 1976 and voted for Reagan in the primary – the same voters who would send Reagan to the White House four years later.In other words, the growth of the Texas Republican party was driven by a concerted, sustained effort to draw out the ideological differences between the two major parties and convince conservative Democrats that based on their values and policy preferences, they actually belonged in the GOP. Eventually, the strategy worked. George W Bush won the governorship in 1994, Republicans took control of the state senate two years later, and in 2002 they won the state house. Ever since, the Texas GOP has maintained control of both legislative chambers and nearly every statewide political office.How is all this relevant to the Cruz-O’Rourke race? Because if O’Rourke wants to become the first Democratic senator from Texas in 30 years, he’s going to have to do what Texas Republicans did in the 1970s and 80s: convince significant numbers in the opposing party to cast a ballot for him.O’Rourke’s big problem is that during a time of deep partisan divisions in America, he’s not making the slightest effort to persuade Texas Republicans to vote for a Democrat. Instead, he’s simply betting that demographics and voter turnout will carry him to victory.At his rallies, O’Rourke is fond of talking about overcoming party labels and bringing Texans of all political stripes together, but his policy preferences reflect orthodox – that is, progressive – Democratic policies. He supports gun control, abortion and higher taxes, all of which are badly out of step with the vast majority of Republican voters in Texas. Rather than compromise on any one of these or other issues, O’Rourke is hoping to outmuscle GOP voters at the polls.In the end, maybe it will work. Texas has notoriously low voter turnout, and increasing the total number of people at the polls will almost certainly help O’Rourke. But given the electoral history of Texas, it’s a long-shot strategy. If O’Rourke – or any Democrat, for that matter – really wants to win in Texas, they will probably have to do it the old-fashioned way: persuade erstwhile opponents to come over to their side. Topics US politics Opinion Texas Ted Cruz US Senate Republicans Democrats Beto O'Rourke comment

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is on trial on tax and bank fraud charges, had $16.5 million in unreported taxable business income between 2010 and 2014, a U.S. Internal Revenue Service agent testified on Wednesday. Paul Manafort (L), former campaign chairman for U.S. President Donald Trump, in Washington, DC, U.S., December 11, 2017, and Rick Gates, former campaign aide to Trump, in Washington, U.S., December 11, 2017 are pictured in this combination photograph. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File PhotoIRS agent Michael Welch told a jury that Manafort’s unreported income includes foreign wire transfers to U.S. vendors like landscapers and clothiers, wire transfers to buy property, and income improperly reclassified as loans. Welch’s testimony came as prosecutors sought to refocus the courtroom’s attention on Manafort’s alleged financial crimes after his defense attorneys spent hours trying to undermine the credibility of their star witness, former Manafort business partner Rick Gates. Welch said he arrived at the $16.5 million figure based on an accounting method used by Manafort. During his review, he said, he discovered that many of the foreign wire transfers did not appear on general ledgers for Manafort’s political consultancy and therefore, “I was not able to trace it into the tax return.” Gates ended three days of testimony earlier on Wednesday, the trial’s seventh day, after admitting he lied, stole money and cheated on his wife, as lawyers for Manafort attacked his character. Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing got in a final shot in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, raising the possibility Gates had not one, but four extramarital affairs. Prosecutors objected and Gates never answered the question. In cross-examination on Tuesday and Wednesday, Downing fired questions at Gates for several hours as he sought to portray him as an inveterate liar and thief to undermine his credibility with the jury. Meanwhile, Downing on Wednesday afternoon tried to draw the jury’s attention back to admissions by Gates that he had embezzled funds from Manafort, asking Welch if his client could claim a business embezzlement deduction. While businesses can deduct losses from theft, Welch said on redirect by one of the prosecutors: “If money is stolen from money that is untaxed, there is no deduction.” Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. According to trial testimony, he used the accounts to receive millions of dollars in payments from Ukrainian oligarchs. Manafort, a longtime Republican political consultant, is the first person to be tried on charges brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Manafort made millions of dollars working for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians before he took an unpaid position with the Trump campaign that lasted five months. Gates, who worked as Manafort’s right-hand man for a decade, served as deputy chairman of the Trump campaign. He pleaded guilty to charges in February and is cooperating for the possibility of a reduced sentence. He testified at length about how he and Manafort doctored and backdated financial documents, hid foreign income and falsified tax returns. He said he engaged in the wrongdoing at Manafort’s direction. He also admitted to leading a “secret life,” embezzling funds from his former boss Manafort, and getting involved in other shady dealings. And the defense has tried to pin much of the blame for the financial crimes on him. After Gates left the stand on Wednesday, the jury heard from Morgan Magionos, a forensic accountant with the FBI. She said she had identified 31 accounts located in Cyprus, the Grenadines and the United Kingdom belonging to Manafort. She explained how she traced payments for luxury items back to those hidden bank accounts, describing documents from banks and corporations and how the corporate entities and offshore accounts were linked to Manafort. Prosecutors also introduced emails from Manafort to vendors of luxury items he bought in which he promises payment via wire transfers from “my” account, citing some of the offshore entities he is accused of using to hide his wealth. A conviction of Manafort would undermine efforts by Trump and some Republican lawmakers to paint Mueller’s inquiry as a political witch hunt, while an acquittal would be a setback for the special counsel. Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Trump, on Wednesday again called for Mueller to end his inquiry “without further delay.” Prosecutors have said they hope to finish presenting their case by the end of the week. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis has repeatedly prodded them to move swiftly while seemingly giving the defense more latitude. He also has repeatedly made comments that some legal experts say may prejudice the jury against the prosecution. The judge has belittled and yelled at prosecutors in front of the jury and made comments that could undercut the prosecutor’s case and help the defense. Washington attorney Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor in Virginia who has appeared before Ellis hundreds of times, said the comment was “classic Judge Ellis injecting his views into the courtroom.” If he is too tough, Rossi said, the jury might “start to feel sorry for the prosecution.” Although questions tied to the Trump campaign have been severely limited at trial, Manafort remains a central figure in the broader inquiry into the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia, including a 2016 Trump Tower meeting at which Russians promised “dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and his role in watering down the 2016 Republican Party platform position on Ukraine. Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Nathan Layne and Karen Freifeld; Writing by Doina Chiacu and Warren Strobel; Editing by Grant McCool and Lisa ShumakerOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Enlarge this image This courtroom sketch depicts defense lawyer Kevin Downing questioning of Rick Gates, as former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort (bottom front left) listens. Dana Verkouteren/AP hide caption toggle caption Dana Verkouteren/AP This courtroom sketch depicts defense lawyer Kevin Downing questioning of Rick Gates, as former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort (bottom front left) listens. Dana Verkouteren/AP Updated at 7:05 p.m. ETPaul Manafort's former business partner Rick Gates concluded three sometimes punishing days of testimony in Manafort's bank and tax fraud trial on Wednesday as prosecutors and defense lawyers battled over his credibility.Gates spent the early part of the week corroborating prosecutors' version of events, but Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning, he endured a bruising cross-examination by Manafort's defense that touched on his admitted financial crimes and an extramarital affair. Gates, who spent years as Manafort's right-hand man, says he and Manafort used offshore bank accounts and wire transfers to hide money from the IRS to avoid paying taxes. Prosecutors also say the men falsified documents to lie to banks to qualify Manafort for loans.Manafort is charged with 18 counts of bank and tax fraud, and his trial in Alexandria, Va., is the first to result from indictments brought by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.Gates has pleaded guilty to similar charges in exchange for leniency as part of a deal with prosecutors that put him into the position of testifying against his former boss. Cross-examinationManafort's defense team says it was Gates who committed the financial crimes, without Manafort's knowledge. They argue he manipulated Manafort's finances so he could line his own pockets. Gates has admitted to embezzling from Manafort, but he says he helped Manafort evade taxes and lie to banks — at Manafort's direction.In cross-examination, defense lawyer Kevin Downing guided Gates and the jury through a wide array of lies Gates has acknowledged and crimes he has committed. Downing sought to paint Gates as a man who can't be trusted. Gates testified Tuesday that he had an extramarital affair a decade ago and that he embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from Manafort. On Wednesday, Downing seemed to indicate that Gates had more than one affair. Downing asked Gates about whether he, in cooperating with special counsel investigators, told them "that you actually engaged in four extramarital affairs?" Prosecutors quickly objected. After a brief conference with Judge T.S. Ellis III, Downing instead asked if Gates' "secret life" encompassed the years 2010-2014, to which Gates answered: "it did."The affair Gates testified about on Tuesday lasted for around five months in 2008, he said.As part of his plea agreement to cooperate with prosecutors, Gates also admitted to lying to investigators from the special counsel's office — a fact Downing has also seized upon. Politics Rick Gates Has Told Many Lies. On Tuesday, Manafort's Defense Seized On Them "This jury is just supposed to believe you after all the lies that you've told and the fraud you've committed?" asked Downing on Tuesday."Yes, because I'm here to tell the truth and take responsibility for my actions," Gates said. "Mr. Manafort had the same path. I'm trying to change."Prosecutors redirectWhile the defense's strategy seemed focused on destroying Gates' credibility in the eyes of the jury, prosecutors built a document trail that corroborates testimony from witnesses, including Gates, so their case is not reliant only on him. On Wednesday, they got another chance to question Gates after the defense completed its cross-examination. Prosecutor Greg Andres focused his questions on the fundamentals of the case — the bank and tax fraud charges, including failure to report foreign bank accounts.Andres walked Gates through a set of questions, having Gates repeat that he and Manafort had offshore bank accounts, including in Cyprus. Andres asked Gates whether he had reported those bank accounts to the IRS, and when Gates said no, Andres asked why."Paul Manafort directed me not to," Gates said.Andres asked whether it took an expert to know that Cyprus is a foreign country — Gates said no. Andres asked whether it took an expert to know that the accounts Manafort had there were bank accounts — Gates again said no.A 2014 interviewAndres also had Gates rebut a point the defense had tried to make: that Manafort and Gates were not trying to hide their offshore bank accounts because they disclosed them to the FBI in an interview in 2014.Gates had testified that he did tell the FBI about the accounts, but he told Andres that the FBI did not ask whether he and Manafort disclosed them to the IRS. So while he told the FBI about the bank accounts, he did not disclose that they were not paying taxes on the income flowing through them.Gates testified for a total of about 10 hours this week, before his testimony ended around 11 a.m. Wednesday.The word "my"Prosecutors then called to the stand an FBI forensic accountant, Morgan Magionos, and an IRS revenue agent.Their testimony was part of a broader strategy by the government to use documents and testimony from those familiar with Manafort's finances to prove fraud and intent, as opposed to relying only on the word of Gates.During Magionos' testimony, the jury was shown emails sent by Manafort to the staff of the lawyer Manafort had engaged in Cyprus. Prosecutors say Manafort and Gates used the lawyer as a middleman to make financial transactions so their names would not be involved.In the emails, Manafort explicitly referenced wire transfers he wanted made involving his overseas bank accounts and shell companies, and he referred to the accounts using the word "my."The government spent last week calling to the stand accountants who worked with Manafort and vendors who testified about how Manafort paid for his luxury goods, including cars and custom suits, by using direct wire transfers from secret accounts overseas.Those who dealt with Manafort's taxes said that when they asked Manafort whether he maintained any bank accounts overseas, he told them no.Cindy Laporta, a tax accountant for Manafort, testified Monday under immunity that she helped file falsified bank loan applications for him even though she knew they were inaccurate. She said even though she worked with Gates a lot, it was clear to her that Manafort "knew what was going on" in most instances.That is important to prosecutors, who need to prove not only that Manafort skimped on paying millions of dollars in taxes but also that he did so with intent and not by mistake.

Enlarge this image President Trump and first lady Melania Trump greet members of the U.S. military during an unannounced trip to al-Asad Air Base in Iraq on Wednesday. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images President Trump and first lady Melania Trump greet members of the U.S. military during an unannounced trip to al-Asad Air Base in Iraq on Wednesday. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Updated at 5:20 a.m. ET on ThursdayPresident Trump and first lady Melania Trump traveled to Iraq to visit U.S. troops on the day after Christmas, an unannounced trip about which the president nonetheless had been hinting for some time.The Trumps' arrival at Al Asad Air Base followed the president's recent orders to pull back on U.S. troop deployments elsewhere — orders that have come under intense scrutiny.The trip to Iraq was announced on Twitter by press secretary Sarah Sanders. It's the president's first such visit since taking office nearly two years ago. National Security Trump Says Jim Mattis Will Leave By Jan. 1, Announces Acting Defense Secretary The president and the first lady spent about three hours at Al Asad, in western Iraq. Air Force One landed back at Joint Base Andrews outside of Washington, D.C. at 5:13 a.m. ET on Thursday.At al Asad, Trump delivered a speech and defended his decision to withdraw American forces from Syria.The president described how he gave commanders multiple six-month extensions to get out of Syria, according to a pool report.Trump said: "They said again, recently, 'Can we have more time?' I said, 'Nope. You can't have any more time. You've had enough time.' "The work fighting the Islamic State is finished, Trump said. "We've knocked them out. We've knocked them silly."Trump suggested that Turkey's military might take up the fight against the Islamic State."I will tell you that I've had some very good talks with President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan who wants to knock them out also and he'll do it. And others will do it, too. Because we are in their region. They should be sharing the burden of costs, and they're not." It isn't clear what Turkey has committed to Trump or what the American withdrawal will mean for the Kurdish fighters who have been fighting in northern Syria with American support.Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford and other top defense officials have said the United States needs to train tens of thousands of fighters in Syria to be able to establish order there. That work is a long way from complete.Trump said he viewed the United States as having been taken advantage of by regional free-riders. Turkey and Saudi Arabia and other powers must do more, he said, and the United States is finished carrying the load it has borne unfairly in the Middle East."America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on Earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all," Trump said. "If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price and sometimes that's also a monetary price. So we're not the suckers of the world. We're no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren't looking at us as suckers."No meeting with Iraqi leaderTrump didn't meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi because the president had asked the Iraqi leader to travel from the capital, Baghdad, to meet Trump in Al Asad, Iraqi political sources told NPR. The president's request was viewed by Iraqis as disrespectful of their sovereignty. The president and the first lady did meet with American troops. They visited a dining hall and posed for photos and signed autographs. Al Asad was an Iraqi regime air base until the 2003 U.S. invasion, when it became a centerpiece of U.S. Marine Corps and coalition operations in Anbar province. The base continues to host smaller detachments of American forces supporting the Iraqi government's war against the Islamic State as well as American operations in Syria.U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are there primarily to help Iraqi forces stabilize the country after its years-long battle against the Islamic State. The total number of U.S. troops in Iraq numbered about 5,200 as of Oct. 31.Al Asad hosts a large number of special operations forces, including Army, Navy and Air Force personnel.Low-profile departure, closely watched flightAir Force One departed in darkness and under a shroud of secrecy at 12:06 a.m. Rather than park on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base as is standard for presidential trips, the iconic jetliner remained in a hangar until takeoff. Aviation enthusiasts using open-source flight tracking software began to deduce on Wednesday that something might be up. Radar and tracking logs showed an aircraft that appeared to be a U.S. Air Force Boeing 747 on its way out of Andrews and over the ocean. And at least one spotter in the United Kingdom appeared able, based on the online feeds, to photograph Air Force One as it passed over northern England. Online trackers appeared to lose the trail over Eastern Europe, but the evidence was sufficient for some users to deduce that Air Force One was headed for somewhere in the Middle East, if not its specific destination.Meanwhile, Trump's profile on Twitter had fallen unusually silent. Trump was asked whether he had any concerns about the circumstances of the trip. He said this, according to the pool report:"I had concerns about the institution of the presidency. Not for myself personally. I had concerns for the first lady, I will tell you. But if you would have seen what we had to go through in the darkened plane with all the windows closed with no light anywhere ... pitch-black. I've been on many airplanes. All types and shapes and sizes ... So did I have a concern? Yes, I had a concern." Booster of troops, opponent of their operationsAs commander in chief, Trump has been an outspoken promoter of America's armed forces and veterans but has expressed opposition to the very military operations he now oversees.Until now, Trump also hadn't taken a trip to visit any American forces in a combat zone, as his predecessors had.President Barack Obama made one trip to Iraq during his presidency and four trips to Afghanistan. President George W. Bush visited Iraq four times and Afghanistan twice.In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday in November, Trump was asked why he hasn't visited the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan."Well, I think you will see that happen," he said. "There are things that are being planned. We don't want to talk about it because of — obviously because of security reasons and everything else. But there are things that are planned. As you know, I was very much opposed to the war in Iraq. I think it was a tremendous mistake, should have never happened."Trump also explained that he had an "unbelievable busy schedule." Politics Lawmakers Sound Bipartisan Alarm After Resignation By Defense Secretary Jim Mattis Trump's claim to have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning was a key part of his campaign pitch — proof, he suggested, of his foreign policy instincts, even if he lacked experience. But numerous fact checks found no proof of the early and vocal opposition to the war that Trump has claimed.Trump's skepticism of foreign entanglements, however, is real. He recently ordered the drawdown of several thousand troops in Afghanistan and ordered all troops withdrawn from Syria, a move that sparked an immediate and forceful backlash from within his own Republican Party."We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency," Trump announced on Twitter a week ago.Backlash within backlashThe Syria and Afghanistan decisions appear to have been the final straw for Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who resigned in protest the next day. Mattis objected to Washington breaking faith with its allies also involved in the conflicts.Brett McGurk, the U.S. envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, also resigned late last week. Trump went after McGurk on Twitter and announced Mattis would be leaving two months ahead of schedule, replaced by his deputy on an interim basis.The accelerated departure of Mattis brought criticism even within the broader criticism about the Syria and Afghanistan decisions."It is a mistake for President Trump to deny the country an opportunity to have a stable transition to a new secretary of defense in this fashion," said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the likely new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.Other critics, including many congressional Republicans, said Trump's decision to abruptly withdraw troops would alienate and endanger U.S. allies and embolden ISIS, Russia, Iran and the Syrian regime. Trump rejected that, tweeting: "If anybody but your favorite President, Donald J. Trump, announced that, after decimating ISIS in Syria, we were going to bring our troops back home (happy & healthy), that person would be the most popular hero in America," Trump tweeted. "With me, hit hard instead by the Fake News Media. Crazy!"While it is true that ISIS has lost control of the wide swaths of territory it once held in Syria and Iraq — the so-called caliphate — proclamations of the group's total defeat are premature, officials inside and outside the administration have said.Earlier this month, McGurk said it would be "reckless" to consider ISIS defeated and unwise to bring American forces home."Even as the end of the physical caliphate is clearly now coming into sight, the end of ISIS will be a much more long-term initiative," McGurk told reporters on Dec. 11. Politics The Next Commander In Chief? Democrats Hone Foreign Policy Pitches A Department of Defense Inspector General's report from last month described complicated conditions on the ground in Syria and Iraq, with ISIS operating an insurgency in both countries and maintaining some of the bureaucratic structures of the caliphate it temporarily formed. "According to the Department of Defense (DoD), ISIS has lost control of all the territory it once controlled in Iraq, and remains in control only of an estimated 1 percent of territory it once held in Syria. However, both the DoD and a United Nations (UN) Security Council monitoring committee report stated that an effective clandestine ISIS organization appears to be taking hold in both countries. "The DoD reported to the DoD Office of Inspector General (OIG) that ISIS's retention of desert terrain along the Iraq-Syria border bolsters its ability to operate underground in Syria and to plan and carry out attacks against both U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the northeast and against pro-Syrian regime forces elsewhere. Moreover, the UN committee report and the DoD stated that at least some of ISIS's bureaucratic structures remained intact, and ISIS continued to derive revenue from multiple sources, including drug trafficking, extortion, and cash reserves. The report also said that a lower than expected outflow of foreign ISIS fighters suggested that many of them were hiding in sympathetic local communities in Iraq and Syria." NPR's Jane Arraf reported earlier this month from an area of Iraq where the Iraqi military, in cooperation with the U.S. and other coalition partners, is working to flush out what remains of ISIS."ISIS has made a comeback in the mountains and along the border with where Iraqi forces have recently sent thousands of soldiers. An entire division — more than 10,000 soldiers — are deployed now near the Syrian border, along with the militias that are part of Iraqi security forces," she reported. Arraf's story concluded that "ISIS has been driven out of the cities, but the battle isn't quite over yet." World Months Of Protests Roil Iraq's Oil Capital Basra In Iraq, the country's security forces are "years, if not decades" away from ending their "reliance on Coalition assistance," according to the inspector general's report. "The DoD reported to the DoD OIG that Iraq's security forces continued to exhibit systemic weaknesses this quarter, including poor intelligence fusion, operational insecurity, ongoing corruption, and overly centralized leadership, among other problems."Scott Horsley contributed to this report.

A Russian man who is said to have ties to Moscow’s intelligence services will be receiving renewed scrutiny from special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian 2016 election interference, according to former federal prosecutors.Mueller is investigating Konstantin Kilimnik with assistance from three Kilimnik associates, including Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who mentored Kilimnik as a political operative for pro-Kremlin figures in Ukraine.Kilimnik, an elusive 48-year-old, has already been charged by Mueller with witness tampering. His most recent business partner has been charged with illegally funneling $50,000 from a wealthy Ukrainian into Trump’s inauguration fund.Kilimnik was also caught up in Manafort’s apparent intentions in 2016 to use his position at Trump’s side to settle multimillion-dollar debts claimed by their ex-client Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.In addition to Manafort, Mueller’s team is also making use of plea agreements with Manafort’s former deputy, Rick Gates, and with the lobbyist Sam Patten, both of whom were Kilimnik business associates and must cooperate with investigators.Chuck Rosenberg, a former US attorney in Virginia, said: “It’s a safe bet that prosecutors will be asking the cooperators about conversations they had with Kilimnik and others, and would also likely ask about their knowledge of Kilimnik’s dealings with people like Deripaska.”Nick Akerman, a former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, said: “If there’s anybody who might provide a connection between the campaign and the Russian government it could be Kilimnik. If anybody can explain the ties, if any, between the campaign and the Russian government, it would be Manafort.”Interviews with Kilimnik associates, congressional sources, Russia and Ukraine experts, and reviews of records have disclosed previously unreported details about Kilimnik’s work with Manafort and Patten, and other ties to Deripaska, the Russian oligarch friendly with Putin:• Kilimnik used a jet owned by Deripaska for at least one leg of an oddly timed and brief trip to New York to meet Manafort in early August 2016, according to two sources familiar with congressional investigations. Their meeting took place soon after a meeting that Kilimnik has said he had in Moscow with Deripaska.• During the decade he worked with Manafort in Ukraine as a translator and fixer, Kilimnik and his boss used a Deripaska plane several times for Moscow trips to meet the oligarch and his associates, according to a former colleague. Manafort made at least 18 trips to Moscow between 2005 and 2011, as McClatchy first reported. Kilimnik accompanied Manafort on most of these trips, which were made primarily for meetings with Deripaska and his associates, according to the former colleague.• Kilimnik’s work with Manafort dates back longer than is widely known. When Kilimnik was fired from his job heading the International Republican Institute’s (IRI) office in Moscow in early 2005, after he was caught secretly working part-time for Manafort, the pair had been working together for almost a year, two former colleagues said.• In February 2014, as Ukraine’s pro-Kremlin president Viktor Yanukovych was poised to flee to Russia after a violent crackdown on protests, Kilimnik worked with Patten on a new project. The two arranged meetings in Washington with US officials and other influential figures for Serhiy Lyovochkin, then Yanukovych’s recently departed chief of staff, according to a Ukrainian official. Lyovochkin became a leader of Opposition Bloc, a successor to Yanukovych’s party, and was allegedly the source of the $50,000 that Patten helped illegally funnel into Trump’s inaugural coffers.Kilimnik did not respond to emails from the Guardian requesting comment, including specific queries about whether he used a Deripaska plane. A reporter who tried to approach Kilimnik’s home in Moscow was turned away by security guards. A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment.Kilimnik, a fluent English speaker and graduate of a Russian military school who is barely 5ft tall, is recalled by former colleagues as sharp-minded and politically conservative. “He talked a lot about the US,” said one. “He was strongly Republican-leaning.”Over the years, he helped Manafort rake in tens of millions of dollars for political consultancy and lobbying in eastern Europe. Their big-money clients included Ukrainian oligarchs, Yanukovych’s pro-Moscow party and the Russian oligarch Deripaska, an industrial tycoon estimated to be worth $3bn.While working for the IRI – a non-profit funded by the US government – Kilimnik began working on political side-projects backed by Deripaska, according to former associates. They said the extra cash allowed Kilimnik to upgrade his lifestyle with a stylish car and trips to London for parties featuring vodka ice sculptures.But he was careful to leave little trace of his activities. Colleagues said he was known for avoiding email and photographs, and wiped IRI computer systems on his way out. Some now wonder if it was a product of training. The FBI assesses that Kilimnik “has ties to a Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016”, Mueller’s team said in a court filing, in March, in which Kilimnik was described only as “Person A”.The filing also said Gates, who worked closely with Manafort and Kilimnik in Ukraine, privately specified to an associate in 2016 that Kilimnik was “a former Russian intelligence officer with the GRU”, the agency accused of waging “information warfare” against US politics using social media and email hacking.Senior justice department veterans told the Guardian that Mueller’s allegation against Kilimnik would have required significant evidence and could be a central area of inquiry for the special counsel’s team.“It means that intelligence analysts have integrated information from a wide range of sources, considered the reliability of and any uncertainties regarding the information, and explored alternatives,” said Mary McCord, who formerly led the DoJ’s national security division, and is now teaching at Georgetown University Law Center. “I would not expect the special counsel to rely on an intelligence assessment in a court filing unless he had confidence in the assessment.”Rosenberg thought likewise. “Prosecutors have a duty of candor to the court and would only make representations that they know or believe to be true,” he said.Some former Kilimnik colleagues are unfazed by Mueller’s allegations. Philip Griffin, who helped hire Kilimnik as a translator for IRI and then lured him away to work for Manafort, told the Guardian that Kilimnik’s intelligence ties during his years working with him in Ukraine never worried him.“It never occurred to me that it would be a big deal if he was reporting to Moscow,” Griffin said. “Is there such a thing as an ex-spy? It didn’t concern me.” Griffin said Kilimnik served as a key strategist for Manafort: “He helped Paul have an insight into the Russian mind.”A key question for Mueller’s prosecutors is whether Kilimnik played a role, and if so what, in a Russian cyber-operation aimed at sowing discord in the 2016 elections and – according to the conclusions of US intelligence – helping Trump win.As Mueller’s interest in Kilimnik increased last year, Kilimnik abruptly left Kiev with his wife and two children and moved to Moscow, where he had lived in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He is now living in a gated community in Khimki, the same Moscow suburb that houses the GRU unit accused by Mueller in an 11-count indictment in July of spearheading the hacking of Democratic emails in 2016.Kilimnik is known to have visited the US in May and August 2016 to see Manafort, reportedly to discuss outstanding financial issues with their Ukraine work. Deripaska has alleged in a lawsuit in New York that he is owed $25m by Manafort and Gates after they used his money in a failed cable investment in Ukraine on which Kilimnik worked.Right after Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016, he and Kilimnik began emailing and brainstorming about avenues to escape the Deripaska litigation threat and improve ties with the powerful oligarch, who according to the AP once was paying them $10m annually.Soon after Manafort was hired by Trump – initially to help round up enough party delegates to win the Republican nomination – he emailed Kilimnik to make sure Deripaska knew of his key role and suggesting they find a way to make themselves “whole” with him.In July 2016 emails first disclosed by the Washington Post, Manafort floated a scheme to offer the oligarch “private briefings” on the Trump campaign, and told Kilimnik to pass along the proposal to Deripaska, apparently in an effort to gain favor with the oligarch and settle Deripaska’s lawsuit. Manafort, Kilimnik and Deripaska have all said no such proposal was ever formally made.Just before meeting Manafort in New York in early August, Kilimnik said in an email to his former boss that he had met with Deripaska for five hours in Moscow and that the oligarch had raised important issues about his “country’s future” that they needed to discuss.Kilimnik didn’t identify Deripaska in his email to Manafort by name, but coyly referred to the “guy who gave you your biggest black caviar jar several years ago”, according to the email, which the Atlantic first reported.Seeming to take pains to be discreet, Kilimnik proposed a quick trip to meet with Manafort to brief him on the talks with Deripaska. “We spent about 5 hours talking about his story, and I have several important messages from him to you. He asked me to go and brief you on our conversation.”Kilimnik added that he told Deripaska he had to “run it by you first”, but is ready to come “provided that he buys me a ticket. It has to do about the future of his country, and is quite interesting.”And Kilimnik said he could come quickly, “even next week”. Manafort replied that Tuesday 2 August would be best, and the two men reportedly met that day at the Grand Havana Room, a cigar bar in in midtown Manhattan.Congressional investigators have been interested in the coincidence that a Deripaska owned Gulfstream G550 jet arrived the airport in Newark, New Jersey, very early on 3 August and departed later that day. Two sources familiar with the inquiries said they have “reason to believe” Kilimnik was on the flight back to Moscow.Deripaska rejects this. Asked whether Kilimnik used a Deripaska jet for his trip, a spokesperson for the Russian oligarch said: “We vigorously deny all these allegations and false information which has no ground and is being plotted by someone who for more then (sic) a year has been unsuccessfully trying to develop a story which does not exist.” It was not clear who was being blamed for the alleged plot.Previously, a Deripaska spokesperson told Vice News that the plane was only used by the oligarch’s family members to make a quick shopping trip to the US.Deripaska’s spokesperson also flatly denied earlier that the oligarch “directly or indirectly communicated with Manafort in 2016”, an assertion that is at odds with Mueller’s court filings and Kilimnik’s July emails with Manafort.The close proximity of Kilimnik’s New York and Moscow meetings is a logical area for Manafort and Gates to be questioned about by Mueller’s office, said Akerman, the former prosecutor.Two and a half weeks after Kilimnik’s New York meeting, Manafort abruptly left the campaign on 19 August, after reports of a secret ledger in Ukraine showing $12.7m in off-the-books cash payments that Manafort received over several years from Yanukovych’s party.In September 2016, Deripaska was visiting New York where he had a surprise visit from FBI agents who tried unsuccessfully to get his cooperation with their initial inquiries into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, as the New York Times first reported.This April, Deripaska and some of his companies were among seven Russian oligarchs, 12 companies they owned or controlled, and 17 Russian government officials who were hit by treasury department sanctions for “malign activity” worldwide “including attempting to subvert western democracies, and malicious cyber activities”.Deripaska’s company, Basic Element, has its own Russian intelligence ties. An aluminum and energy giant, Basic Element has long employed a former high-level intelligence operative with Russia’s FSB, who this year became the company’s chief executive. The executive, Valery Pechenkin, served in a key security position for more than a decade with Basic Element before his promotion.Mike Carpenter, a top Russia policy official in the Pentagon during Barack Obama’s administration, said the case exemplified how the public and private sectors had been “captured by the ex-KGB elite” in Russia.“Pechenkin is a former KGB officer who served as FSB deputy director for counterintelligence when Putin was the agency’s director,” said Carpenter. “Basic Element certainly benefits from having a close, symbiotic relationship with the siloviki – the ex-security officials who currently serve as Kremlin power brokers.”Mueller’s team is also likely to have grilled Patten for everything he knows about Kilimnik. In August, prosecutors announced Patten had admitted to using a US company that he and Kilimnik formed to illegally funnel $50,000 from Lyovochkin, the wealthy pro-Russian Ukrainian politician, to Trump’s inauguration fund. As part of a plea deal, Patten agreed to cooperate fully with Mueller’s investigation.Patten, a fellow veteran of the IRI in Moscow, formed the company with Kilimnik in Washington in 2015. Together they did political consultancy work in Ukraine and unregistered lobbying in the US, according to court filings, and were paid more than $1m in all. A spokesperson for Lyovochkin denied he had supplied the funds. Kilimnik was not charged in Patten’s case.Investigators will also be reviewing emails and other communications sent by Kilimnik since 2016. When charging Kilimnik in June with obstructing justice, Mueller published more than a dozen messages Kilimnik sent to a pair of witnesses early this year over the encrypted messaging applications WhatsApp and Telegram.“My friend P is looking for ways to connect to you to pass you several messages,” Kilimnik wrote in one message. “Can we arrange that.” Kilimnik and Manafort are charged with conspiring to urge two associates to lie in order to cover up unregistered lobbying work in the US by influential European figures they had recruited in a secret scheme to help Yanukovych bolster his image in America.Before that, Mueller’s team caught Kilimnik and Manafort emailing about ghost-writing an article defending Manafort, which was to be published in the name of a former Ukrainian government spokesman while Manafort awaited trial in Virginia this year. The discovery led a judge to reprimand Manafort, who was ultimately convicted on eight counts of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial misdeeds.Another Kilimnik link with Manafort was highlighted during the trial, when testimony indicated the Russian was listed as the beneficial owner on some of the 31 offshore accounts that were used by Manafort in his financial scheming.Perhaps significantly, Mueller court filings also revealed that Kilimnik had numerous contacts with Gates in the weeks just before the 2016 election.John Herbst, a former US ambassador to Ukraine, who now directs the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, said he thought it “highly likely” that Kilimnik retained his ties to Russian intelligence through the 2016 elections. “It would be in his interest to keep them informed and channel information to them,” said Herbst. Additional reporting by Andrew Roth in Moscow Topics Trump-Russia investigation Paul Manafort Russia Donald Trump Europe Trump administration news

China is “in a league of its own” when it comes to human rights violations, the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said on Wednesday as he unveiled the state department’s annual report on human rights around the world.Pompeo also highlighted abuses in Iran, South Sudan and Nicaragua but singled out Beijing for its mass detention of members of Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang region.China, often seen as the main strategic adversary of the United States in the long term and locked in thorny trade talks with Washington, “is in a league of its own when it comes to human rights violations”, he said.The report said that authorities in the region have arbitrarily detained 800,000 to possibly more than 2 million Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs and other Muslims in internment camps designed to erase religious and ethnic identities.“For me, you haven’t seen things like this since the 1930s,” said Michael Kozak, the head of the state department’s human rights and democracy bureau.“Rounding up, in some estimations ... in the millions of people, putting them into camps, and torturing them, abusing them and trying to basically erase their culture and their religion and so on from their DNA. It’s just remarkably awful.”Kozak said China had initially denied there even were camps, and is now saying “there are camps, but they’re some kind of labor training camps and it’s all very voluntary”.The report came hours after a senior official in Xinjiang hinted that the system of internment centres – which China describes as vocational training centres – may one day be phased out.“In general there will be fewer and fewer students in the centres. If one day our society doesn’t need them, the education and training centres will disappear,” said Shohrat Zakir, the governor of the region and its most senior Uighur official.Zakir’s comments come after months of mounting international criticism, and signal what could be a new phase in China’s campaign in Xinjiang, as the costs prove unsustainable for local governments and a significant portion of the population passes through the camps.The state department report said government officials in China had claimed the camps were needed to combat terrorism, separatism and extremism. However, international media, human rights organizations and former detainees have reported that security officials in the camps abused, tortured and killed some detainees, it said.“It is one of the most serious human rights violations in the world today,” said Kozak.Pompeo also said the Iranian government had killed more than 20 people and arrested thousands without due process for protesting for their rights “continuing a pattern of cruelty the regime has inflicted on the Iranian people for the last four decades”.In South Sudan, he said that military forces inflicted sexual violence against civilians based on their political allegiances and ethnicity, while in Nicaragua, peaceful protesters had faced sniper fire and government critics had “faced a policy of exile, jail or death”.The report also revised its usual description of the Golan Heights from “Israeli-occupied” to “Israeli-controlled”.A separate section on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, areas that Israel captured along with the Golan Heights in a 1967 war in the Middle East, also did not refer to those territories as being “occupied”, or under “occupation”. Topics Human rights China Mike Pompeo Asia Pacific Race news

(Contains offensive language in paragraph 3.) A man reacts as he finds a Nike store closed in Johannesburg, South Africa, August 22, 2018. REUTERS/Siphiwe SibekoBy Ed Stoddard JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Some Nike (NKE.N) stores were closed in South Africa on Wednesday after public outcry over a racist comment by a man that local media said had links to the sportswear company. Nike declined to comment on the store closures, but issued a statement reiterating its “long-standing commitment to diversity, inclusion and respect”, adding that the man seen in a video posted online was not a company employee. In the video, taken at a beach resort, a white man with a South African accent says: “And not one kaffir in sight. Fucking heaven on earth.” The “K word” as it is known in South Africa is apartheid-era slang for a black person and is regarded as a deeply offensive slur on a par with the “N word” in America. Times Live online news service said the man in the video was married to a merchandising director at Nike. A Nike spokeswoman in London declined to comment and Reuters was unable to independently verify the person’s identity. South African media reported Nike stores had closed their doors. Reuters witnesses confirmed that two were shut at a mall in the Sandton district of Johannesburg. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), a party known for its hard-left and African nationalist positions, said it would file a criminal complaint against the man in the video. In January, protesters led by the EFF trashed six H&M stores (HMb.ST) over an ad by the retail chain which featured a black child modeling a sweatshirt with the slogan “coolest monkey in the jungle.” South Africa remains deeply scarred by its apartheid and colonial past, with the racial reconciliation embraced by the late president Nelson Mandela frequently marred by racist incidents. Additional reporting by Patricia Aruo; Editing by James Macharia and Robin PomeroyOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Senior Republicans led a chorus of public warnings that the special counsel Robert Mueller must be allowed to continue his Russia investigation after Donald Trump finally fired his attorney general, Jeff Sessions.As Trump replaced Sessions with a senior aide, Matthew Whitaker, a critic of Mueller’s inquiry, Senator Susan Collins was among the first Republicans to warn: “It is imperative that the administration not impede the Mueller investigation … Special Counsel Mueller must be allowed to complete his work without interference.”Mitt Romney, who won the race on Tuesday to become a senator for Utah, aimed his first broadside at Trump, tweeting: “It is imperative that the important work of the Justice Department continues, and that the Mueller investigation proceeds to its conclusion unimpeded.”As progressives activated a plan for mass protests across the United States, starting at 5pm on Thursday in all time zones, the former CIA chief John Brennan predicted that it was likely Mueller had already completed his report for the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who was yesterday relieved of his duty overseeing the investigation into Russian election interference and any collusion with the Trump campaign.Brennan told MSNBC: “If there are some major indictments coming down the pike, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re going to see it very soon. Generally the report that the special counsel will draft and deliver to Rod Rosenstein, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is ready to go.”Sessions looked close to tears as he was applauded by justice department staff on his way out of the building on Wednesday night.His departure came hours after he received a White House call ordering him to resign.He was replaced by his former chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, who has previously called for Mueller’s investigation to be defunded and reined in.Trump said in a tweet on Wednesday afternoon that Whitaker had been appointed acting attorney general and that a permanent replacement would be nominated later.Whitaker, 49, will take charge of the inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with Trump’s campaign. Sarah Isgur Flores, a justice department spokeswoman, said in an email: “The acting attorney general is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice.”Democrats expressed concern that the president was moving to sabotage Mueller’s investigation, which has obtained guilty pleas to federal criminal charges from Trump’s former campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, White House national security adviser and campaign foreign policy adviser.Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said in a statement that Whitaker should recuse himself from the Russia issue in light of “his previous comments advocating defunding and imposing limitations on the Mueller investigation”.Trump’s decision concluded a long-running public feud between the president and his beleaguered attorney general.Sessions said in an undated letter to Trump released on Wednesday: “At your request, I am submitting my resignation.” He took credit for reversing a recent rise in violent crime. He was later applauded by staff as he left the department’s headquarters.“We thank Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his service, and wish him well,” Trump said.A US official said on Wednesday that Sessions was told he had to resign in a telephone call from John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, rather than Trump himself.Sessions, a former US senator for Alabama, was one of the earliest supporters of Trump’s presidential campaign, but ran into trouble soon after being confirmed to the new administration.He enraged Trump by recusing himself in March 2017 from investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, following revelations that he had two undisclosed meetings with Sergey Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador to the US.Sessions had not disclosed the discussions when asked under oath during his Senate confirmation hearing in early 2017 about contacts between Trump’s campaign and Moscow. Following his recusal, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, took over responsibility for Russia matters.In May 2017, after Trump fired the FBI director, James Comey, Rosenstein shocked the White House by appointing the former FBI chief Robert Mueller as a special counsel to investigate Russia’s interference and any coordination with Trump’s campaign team.That investigation has since continued without Sessions being involved, leaving Trump deeply frustrated. Trump has publicly lambasted Sessions for recusing himself, claiming he ought instead to have protected Trump against what the president has termed a “witch-hunt” over Russia. Sessions and Rosenstein have defended Mueller’s integrity.Whitaker’s view on the investigation appears to be in more line with the president’s. He has publicly proposed choking off funding for Mueller’s investigation and wrote an article for CNN last year declaring that the special counsel was “going too far” and needed to be brought under control.“The president is absolutely correct,” Whitaker said, after Trump suggested Mueller would exceed his remit by looking into the president’s finances. “Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.”Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, the likely new chairman of the House judiciary committee, said the American public “must have answers immediately” on Trump’s reasons for firing Sessions.“Why is the president making this change and who has authority over Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation? We will be holding people accountable,” Nadler said on Twitter.Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, urged senators from both parties to “speak out now and deliver a clear message” to Trump that he must not interfere with Mueller’s investigation.Legal analysts said that Trump’s decision, announced soon after a lengthy and chaotic post-midterm election press conference at the White House, may set off a long-feared constitutional crisis over the fate of the inquiry, which followed a conclusion by US intelligence agencies that Russia intervened to help Trump win in 2016.Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, said Trump’s replacement of Sessions with Whitaker was arguably an impeachable offence in itself. “This rule of law crisis has been a slow-motion train wreck for a long time,” said Tribe.In any case, the firing of Sessions will conclude a bitter public dispute between the attorney general and his president that is unprecedented in recent times.In August, Trump sharply criticised Sessions in a television interview the day after the president’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort was convicted of fraud – both cases having stemmed from the Mueller investigation.Trump said: “I put in an attorney general that never took control of the justice department.”Sessions struck back with a statement that said: “I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in … While I am attorney general the actions of the department will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Topics Jeff Sessions Trump administration Donald Trump US politics Trump-Russia investigation Russia Robert Mueller news

The former son-in-law of Paul Manafort, the onetime chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, has cut a plea deal with the justice department that requires him to cooperate with other criminal investigations, two people with knowledge of the matter said. The guilty plea agreement, which is under seal and has not been previously reported, could add to the legal pressure on Manafort, who is facing two indictments brought by the special counsel Robert Mueller in his inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Manafort has been indicted in federal courts in Washington and Virginia with charges ranging from tax evasion to bank fraud and has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Jeffrey Yohai, a former business partner of Manafort, was divorced from Manafort’s daughter last August. Yohai has not been specifically told how he will be called on to cooperate as part of his plea agreement, but two people familiar with the matter say they consider it a possibility that he will be asked to assist with Mueller’s prosecution of Manafort. Legal experts have said that Mueller wants to keep applying pressure on Manafort to plead guilty and assist prosecutors with their investigation. Manafort chaired the Trump campaign for three months before resigning in August 2016. Both Trump and Russia have denied allegations they colluded to help Trump win the election. Hilary Potashner, a public defender who is representing Yohai, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Manafort’s spokesman, Jason Maloni, declined to comment. Andrew Brown, a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, had been overseeing an investigation into Yohai’s real estate and bank dealings in California and New York several months before Mueller was appointed to his post in May 2017. Yohai’s agreement, which was concluded early this year, included him pleading guilty to misusing construction loan funds and to a count related to a bank account overdraft. While the deal was cut with Brown’s office, the federal government “can ask for help at any time”, said one of the people familiar with the matter. A spokesman for Brown did not respond to a request for comment and a spokesman for Mueller declined to comment. Manafort is to go on trial later this year to fight the two indictments. The charges against him range from failing to disclose lobbying work for a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party to bank fraud. As a close business partner, Yohai was privy to many of Manafort’s financial dealings, according to two people familiar with the matter and court filings in the bankruptcies of four Los Angeles properties in 2016. In addition to co-investing in California real estate, the two cooperated in getting loans for property deals in New York, Manafort’s indictments show. Mueller sent a team of prosecutors to interview Yohai last June, asking him about Manafort’s relationship with Trump, his ties to Russian oligarchs, and his borrowing of tens of millions of dollars against properties in New York, Reuters reported in February, citing people with knowledge of the matter. Topics Paul Manafort Donald Trump US elections 2016 Robert Mueller Trump-Russia investigation US politics news

On Tuesday morning, Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s embattled chief executive, finally held a press conference in response to the latest protests in the region. Speaking about the controversial extradition law with China that she had tried to ram through the legislative council, she declared: “The bill is dead.”Such a proclamation may suggest that the government no longer has any intention of passing the law – but this may well prove to be mere words designed to placate Hong Kongers and divert the unwanted attention of the international community.According to the legislative council’s rules and procedures, the proper way for Lam to give up the legislation is to formally withdraw it and make an announcement during a meeting in that body. Until she does so, she is only provoking more doubts and speculation instead of alleviating public concerns. Being “dead” is otherwise empty rhetoric with no legal meaning.One month earlier, on 9 June, the world watched as one million people took to the streets in Hong Kong to march against the bill. The extradition law would have threatened our freedoms by removing the firewall protecting us from Beijing’s political prosecution of dissidents – or anyone deemed an enemy of the state. Only 35 out of 70 legislative council seats are directly elected by the people: this means the pro-Beijing camp consistently holds a majority of seats, so the law seemed almost certain to pass. Lam was forced to acknowledge the protest against her agenda, but insisted a second reading of the bill would take place in three days.And then the unthinkable happened. Protesters retook Harcourt Road – the landmark main site of the pro-democracy “umbrella movement” in 2014 – outside the legislative council, preventing lawmakers from convening. Facing pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets, we stood our ground. Lam made a compromise to delay the bill, but this only emboldened people, with two million taking to the streets to demonstrate: the single largest protest in our history.Anything short of a full withdrawal of the hated new law did not, and would not, quell widespread mistrust and anger. Other episodes of civil disobedience followed: the most controversial of these occurred on 1 July, when young men and women stormed into the legislative council complex and read out a statement while occupying the chamber.Even though this was an aggressive move, with some public property damaged, popular opinion remained optimistic about the peaceful and restrained nature of the movement as a whole. Some commentators labelled the action as violence, but many Hong Kongers see it in another perspective: it demonstrated our sense of helplessness in the face of the government’s hardline rule – and the simple fact that the legislative council has become a tool to facilitate Beijing’s interference in Hong Kong’s affairs. Occupying the council building was a political statement – not senseless destruction.Distrust of our government is not spontaneous but has deep roots in Hong Kong. After the umbrella movement ended without winning any concessions toward democratisation, Hong Kong seemed to have disappeared from the international spotlight. But behind the veneer of calm were numerous instances in which our way of life was slowly diminishing. International rankings for rule of law and press freedom have placed Hong Kong lower and lower down the list every year, and democratically elected legislators have been disqualified and demonstrators imprisoned: I have been a victim of both these actions.The current anti-extradition movement can therefore be considered as retaliation for years of infringements on our freedoms – a massive explosion of public discontent against both the Hong Kong and Chinese governments. Many of us, especially younger generations, are determined to keep fighting for the human rights and democracy we all deserve.Some international reporters have wondered why protests persist now Lam seems to have backed down – in what is widely considered a major setback for the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. The simple fact is that people in Hong Kong have been fighting for democracy for almost 40 years, and we have never come so close to forcing our leaders to commit to genuine political reform.Others have argued that we should back down now that Lam is showing mercy. But this is a facade: she insists on calling protesters “rioters” and rejects calls for an independent investigation into alleged police brutality, while arrests of those who participated in various recent acts of civil disobedience are ongoing. Most importantly, if we stop now, we are only letting future generations down.What have we gained since the protest last month? Not a lot. In any true democracy, a quarter of the entire population demonstrating on the same day would have been fatal to the political careers of its leaders. Alas, the source of Lam’s power comes not from Hong Kong but from Beijing. So even if the extradition bill is “dead” – we wait to see if it is actually withdrawn – the structural problems that created our present political crisis still exist.That is why there was a rally last Sunday and why two more are planned this weekend. We shall continue to fight on.• Nathan Law is a politician and activist in Hong Kong, and the founding chair of Demosistō Topics Hong Kong Opinion China Protest comment

(Reuters) - A juror who voted to convict Paul Manafort and who is also a supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump has some advice for Trump if he is considering whether to pardon his former campaign chairman: don’t do it. Paula Duncan is so far the only juror to speak out since Manafort was found guilty of 8 out of 18 counts of financial wrongdoing on Tuesday. “He should absolutely not pardon him. I think it would be a big mistake,” Duncan, 54, told Reuters after an on-camera interview on Friday, adding that she believed it would be a mistake from both a moral and a political perspective. “If President Trump pardons him without him doing any time at all it would look like President Trump was saying it’s OK that you broke the law. It’s not OK to break the law.” Trump weighed in on Manafort’s plight while the jury was still in deliberations, calling the tax and bank fraud case against him “very sad” and lauding him as a “very good person.” Those comments, along with tweets following the verdict, have heightened speculation that Trump may look to pardon Manafort. When asked directly about the prospect, Trump has not ruled it out. While Duncan feels Manafort should pay for his crimes, she said she believes he was targeted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading a probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. “I don’t think that Mr. Manafort would have been on trial had not the Special Counsel been looking for information on Russian collusion in the last election,” Duncan said in the TV interview. “He’s still guilty ... and he now needs to pay for the laws he broke.” Duncan said that she and 10 other jurors wanted to convict Manafort on all 18 counts of tax and bank fraud and failing to declare his foreign bank accounts that he faced in the trial. It was one holdout who caused the jury to hang on 10 of the 18 counts after nearly four days of deliberations, she said. “We had some people that were very wrapped up in it and really didn’t want to stop deliberating,” Duncan said. “In the end we knew we were never going to change her mind.” Slideshow (2 Images)Even with instructions to avoid media coverage of the trial, Duncan said she and her fellow jurors would had to have been “brain dead to not know” the scrutiny on the case and said they were “all very overwhelmed with the importance of our job.” And even though she believes Manafort is guilty, Duncan said she agrees with Trump that it was time to shut down Mueller’s probe. “I just think the whole thing is a waste of taxpayer money and a way to harass the president,” she said. Reporting by Warren Strobel in Washington and Nathan Layne in Wilton, Connecticut, Editing by Rosalba O'BrienOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.