Context

log in sign up
Impeachment inquiry: Democrats say diplomat's testimony is a 'sea change'
James Jeffrey, the special envoy to Syria, said he wasn’t consulted on the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw troops. In a testimony before the Senate foreign relations committee, he said “I personally was not consulted before the decision.”He defended the administration, saying that Barack Obama and George W Bush both acted in Iraq without consulting him while he worked as an ambassador and a chargé d’affaires, respectively. “In my current job, I feel that my views, through Secretary Pompeo have been brought repeatedly and frequently and, I think in many cases, effectively,” he said. But lawmakers were incredulous. “Professionally are you indifferent to not being consulted about the matter that is in your lifelong expertise?” asked Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. “Whether you mind it or not, I mind not being consulted.”
2018-02-16 /
Twitter accounts of Obama, Biden, Musk and others compromised
Several prominent Twitter accounts, including those of former Vice President Joe Biden, former President Obama, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, were compromised Wednesday in what appears to be a bitcoin scam.The attack is likely the largest ever on Twitter's security system and may have already cost users ten of thousands of dollars.The accounts – which included other tech CEO's including Amazon's Jeff Bezos, celebrities such as Kanye WestKanye Omari WestLoser.com redirects to Trump's Wikipedia page Juan Williams: Too many men of color got conned by Trump Kardashian West celebrates after Biden-Harris victory MORE, and other political figures like former New York City Mayor Michael BloombergMichael BloombergBiden's great challenge: Build an economy for long-term prosperity and security The secret weapon in Biden's fight against climate change Sanders celebrates Biden-Harris victory: 'Thank God democracy won out' MORE – posted similar messages offering to double bitcoin payments sent to an address during a set period of time.The posts all included the address of the same bitcoin wallet, which has seen as much as $112,000 pour into it over the last few hours. It is unclear if this money came from unsuspecting users or the scammers themselves.Other major accounts that were hacked include companies such as Uber, Square's Cash App and Apple.All of the tweets were deleted soon after being posted, but, given the accounts' large followings, they have been viewed widely. While individual accounts – especially ones that do not use security measures such as two-factor authentication – are often hacked, the scope of this effort suggests a deeper security failure.Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a fervent critic of big tech companies, sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey raising concerns about the impacts of the platform being compromised.“I am concerned that this event may represent not merely a coordinated set of separate hacking incidents but rather a successful attack on the security of Twitter itself," he wrote. "As you know, millions of your users rely on your service not just to tweet publicly but also to communicate privately through your direct message service. A successful attack on your system’s servers represents a threat to all of your users’ privacy and data security.”Twitter support posted that "we are aware of a security incident impacting accounts on Twitter.""We are investigating and taking steps to fix it," it continued. "We will update everyone shortly."Verified accounts were briefly blocked from posting on Twitter later in the evening.We are aware of a security incident impacting accounts on Twitter. We are investigating and taking steps to fix it. We will update everyone shortly.— Twitter Support (@TwitterSupport) July 15, 2020A spokesperson for Biden's campaign told The Hill that Twitter locked down the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's account and removed the tweet "immediately following the breach.""We remain in touch with Twitter on the matter," they added.Updated: 6:43 p.m.
2018-02-16 /
Hong Kong protests: Shot fired and water cannon used
Hong Kong police have fired a gunshot during protests for the first time since demonstrations broke out in June.In another first, water cannon were deployed against protesters, who had earlier thrown projectiles at police, including bricks and petrol bombs.Police told local media that the gunshot was fired as a warning to protesters, and that several officers had been taken to hospital as a result of the clashes.But police Superintendent Leung Kwok-wing did not say where the shots had been aimed.
2018-02-16 /
Hong Kong's MTR subway faces pressure from China amid protests
Hong Kong’s extensive subway system transports millions of passengers everyday. Lately, it’s also been been whisking protesters to and from sites of demonstration across the city. And China is none too pleased about that.Since Hong Kong’s ongoing protests kicked off in June, the MTR has been protesters’ transit mode of choice. Ahead of mass rallies, stations become so crammed full of passengers that it can be almost impossible to enter or exit. And during more fluid and unpredictable protests, black-clad and helmet-wearing protesters zip around the city, appearing and dispersing quickly as they play a game of cat-and-mouse with the police. Protesters have also disrupted train services and held tense stand-offs at stations, and one train station was the site of a brutal armed mob attack against civilians in July.As China has increasingly expressed its displeasure at Hong Kong’s ongoing political turmoil, it has taken aim at companies that it deems to be deviating from the party line. The first major firm to take the hit was Cathay Pacific, which was slapped with crew restrictions by the China’s aviation regulators and whose CEO, Rupert Hogg, abruptly resigned under what many have seen as political pressure. The flagship carrier has had to crack down on its employees, too, including its budget arm’s labor union leader over Facebook posts that showed support for the protests.Last week, the Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily lashed out at MTR in a commentary, accusing it of being an “accomplice to rioters” by allowing them to “escape for free” after multiple incidences in which the railway operator dispatched special trains to pick up protesters late at night—never mind that those arrangements were often made at the request of the police. The company’s CEO has reportedly come under “tremendous pressure” from Beijing to get tough on protesters, according to the South China Morning Post.Just two days after the People’s Daily op-ed (link in Chinese), MTR made the unprecedented move of temporarily shutting down a number of stations over the weekend across two metro lines close to where legally authorized protests were scheduled to be held. While the firm said the move was meant to “ensure the safety of passengers and our staff,” critics saw it as a blatant violation of citizens’ freedom of assembly and speech, not to mention the inconvenience posed to tens of thousands of nearby residents who did not take part in protests. Addressing questions from the press today (Aug. 26), the transport minister denied that MTR’s weekend closures were a response to pressure from China.By targeting such a large transit company on which millions of people depend daily, it appears that China may be trying to divide and conquer by turning public sentiment against protesters. But so far, it’s unclear whether this strategy will play out in China’s favor. On Sunday (Aug. 25), a group of protesters stepped off a train to a hero’s welcome after a night of tense clashes with police. Meanwhile, protesters quickly took to calling the MTR “Communist Party Rail,” superimposing a hammer and sickle over its logo. The company drew further ire when it was revealed that it had arranged a special train service for police on Saturday (Aug. 24), even though the line was closed to the public.Like Cathay Pacific, MTR does business with the mainland Chinese market, though to a smaller degree. According to its 2018 annual report, it derived nearly 930 million Hong Kong dollars ($120 million) in revenue from its businesses in mainland China, accounting for 1.7% of its total revenues (.pdf, p.83). While not a significant percentage, MTR operates a number of lines and properties across major cities in China, including a 49% stake in four lines of Beijing’s subway system. Its earnings from businesses in China grew by more than 44% last year, and it’s actively looking to expand its investments and operations on the mainland, according to the 2018 report.
2018-02-16 /
Apple event 2020: Here's what we know about Tuesday's product launch
Though the line will most likely be led by a 6th-generation Apple Watch, Bloombergreported that new "low-end" models may be in the offing as well.What Android gets right that the iPhone gets so wrongOther rumors suggest a new watch could add features such asblood oxygen monitoring andlonger battery life.Health updates have become a key selling point for the watch, which has grown into a blockbuster product since it was first released in 2015. Last year, Apple sold 31 million watches, according to Strategy Analytics -- more than the entire Swiss watch industryin 2019.Rumblings suggestthat Apple may announce a new iPad or iPad Air on Tuesday.Bloomberg reported that Apple is readying a refreshed iPad Air with an edge-to-edge display. Meanwhile,various rumorsindicate that announcements will include a refreshed lower cost iPad model.It would be Apple's second iPad launch this year -- the company unveiled an update to itsiPad Pro line in March. Apple said at the time that it had sold 500 million iPads to date, and the product has remained the top selling tablet for 10 years.A new iPad would also have competition from one of Apple's biggest rivals: Samsung releasedtwo new tabletslast month, the Galaxy Tab S7 and S7+, which it claims are the "first tablets that support 5G available in the United States."Invitations for Tuesday's eventfueled rumorsthat it could announce the iPhone 12, too. However, Bloomberg reported that new iPhoneswon't launch until October, and Apple previously said new iPhones wouldship slightly later than usualthis year.The company has been widely expected to unveil an iPhone 12 with 5G capabilities this fall, which would be the first iPhone to connect to the new, ultra-fast wireless networks being rolled out by carriers.Analysts expect the 5G iPhone togenerate a "supercycle"of device upgrades, potentially prompting millions of people to buy the new device.
2018-02-16 /
As election day nears, what final dirty tricks could Trump turn to?
On 28 October 2016, the then director of the FBI, James Comey, dropped a bomb into the middle of the presidential race. With just 11 days to go until election day, he announced that his agents were investigating a newly discovered batch of emails from Hillary Clinton’s personal server.The highly irregular intervention led nowhere, but it was enough to wreak havoc in the final stretch of the contest, putting Clinton on the defensive and giving Donald Trump an artificial leg-up. To this day, many Democrats – and Republicans – are convinced it played a substantial role in Trump’s unexpected victory.Twenty days before election day 2020, the Trump campaign dropped what it hoped would be a similar bomb into the middle of the current race. On 14 October, the New York Post (owner: Rupert Murdoch) splashed with the screaming headline “Biden Secret Emails”.The paper alleged that a laptop had been discovered at a computer repair shop in Delaware, the home state of the Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden. On its hard drive, the Post said, were stored personal emails from Biden’s son Hunter Biden that pointed to inappropriate conflicts of interest between the younger Biden’s business interests in Ukraine and the elder’s diplomatic work as then vice-president.It was a case of Clinton emails redux. Like the 2016 saga, the Hunter Biden emails were flimsy in their contents and, in this case, of dubious provenance.The cast of characters involved in “discovering” the laptop was like a roll call of some of Trump’s most discredited associates. At the center of the ploy were Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who has been charged with fraud and money laundering related to the border wall with Mexico; and Rudy Giuliani, who has questions of his own to answer over his blush-inducing appearance in Sacha Baron Cohen’s new movie, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm.How the Hunter Biden story came to be put together from inside the New York Post also raised eyebrows. The New York Times reported that the journalist at the Post who wrote most of the account refused to attach his name to it because of doubts over the credibility of the material.The lead byline on the story, Emma-Jo Morris, recently worked as a producer on the Fox News Show of the Trump loyalist Sean Hannity. The second byline, Gabrielle Fonrouge, had little to do with the article and only learned her name was on it after it was published, the Times reported.Such machinations over a controversial story are nothing new within the Post’s newsroom, a former employee of the paper told the Guardian. “When I saw that Hunter Biden piece I had flashbacks to how shitty that place was. That’s happened to me there. I’d wake up and think, ‘I didn’t write that story,’” the journalist said.The Hunter Biden story was a transparent effort to replicate the undoubted success of the Clinton emails hit of 2016. But as a work of political dirty tricks, it was too obvious to impress many.“It’s blatant and it’s desperate,” was the assessment of Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. It was also tired. “The Hunter Biden allegations were fully aired during impeachment. If you want a real October surprise you have to come up with something new,” she said.If it failed to hit its mark, the Biden ruse did at least flag up the lengths to which Trump and friends are prepared to go to hang on to presidential power. Kamarck predicted that more dirty tricks are yet to come.“We have 10 days to go, who knows what else they could cook up. You have a president who has his back against the wall and is acting increasingly bizarrely,” Kamarck said.John Weaver, the chief strategist to John Kasich during his presidential battle with Trump in the Republican primaries in 2016 and now co-founder of the anti-Trump group of disaffected former Republicans, the Lincoln Project, urged the nation to brace itself for a wild ride in the final days. “The next two weeks are going to see dirty tricks on a scale we can’t imagine, nor would we want to.”Weaver pointed out that dirty tricks in American politics are as old as the nation. They can be traced all the way back to the 1796 contest.In that race between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, vying to replace George Washington as president, Alexander Hamilton, acting on behalf of Adams and their Federalist party, adopted the pseudonym of Phocion. He then wrote an article in the Gazette of the United States accusing Jefferson of having an affair with a female slave.That election was as nothing compared with what we are witnessing today, Weaver said. “What we are seeing from Trump is on a scale, and in the crossing of norms and willingness to blatantly make things up out, and the mean-spiritedness of it, on another level. Even when Hamilton and Jefferson were going after each other they had respect for the new institutions they had just helped put in place – there’s no respect for any institution now.”Hunter Biden is just the thin end of the wedge. The Trump coterie have also been trying to reheat the grotesque “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory that did the rounds in 2016 claiming that Hillary Clinton was at the center of a pedophile ring – this time with the Bidens the focus.The lie was aired this week by the Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo and alluded to by Trump when he refused to denounce the cult conspiracy theory QAnon in an NBC News town hall.The litany of dirty tricks pans out from there. They come in all shapes and sizes: doctoring digital material to create misinformation is a favorite. Dr Anthony Fauci, the top infectious diseases official in the US, found himself at the receiving end of that technique in a Trump re-election ad that crudely took his words out of context to make it appear he was endorsing the president.For Kamarck, the most insidious dirty tricks this cycle have targeted the election process itself. Trump has repeatedly and falsely depicted the US voting system, and mail-in voting in particular, as being riddled with fraud; in fact the amount of substantiated fraud is infinitesimally small.Ballot drop boxes where voters are encouraged to put their absentee ballots suspiciously began popping up in Los Angeles and other parts of California. They turned out to have been the work of the local Republican party which was duly ordered by state officials to remove them on grounds they are illegal.“Disinformation about how to vote is the worst dirty tricks I see,” Kamarck said. “Voting is already confusing in the pandemic, and if you add more confusion to that then efforts to suppress the vote could be successful in places.”While Trump and his allies are busily stepping up their efforts at distortion, an important contrast with 2016 is that there is much less sign of the tactics working this time around. The FBI has so far resisted White House pressure to do another Comey and announce an investigation of the Bidens, much to Trump’s fury.The media too has shown itself to be much more disciplined in dealing with Trump’s fireball of lies and misinformation. The Hunter Biden story was handled with care by most outlets, in stark contrast to the breathless treatment of the Clinton emails four years ago.If the mud that is being thrown at the wall isn’t sticking in the same way as it did then, it is possible that the underhand tactics will backfire for the increasingly beleaguered president. Every dirty trick that is pulled is a distraction from Trump’s core message on the economy.“Time is being wasted on Hunter Biden, QAnon and all this other circus activity,” Weaver said. “Voters don’t care about that stuff, and Trump is stepping on his own re-election chances every minute he devotes to it.”
2018-02-16 /
Kimberley Strassel: Democrats drop 'quid pro quo' from impeachment case to protect Joe Biden
closeVideoDemocrats drop 'quid pro quo' from impeachment case to protect Joe Biden: Kimberley StrasselCELEBRATING ONE YEAR OF FOX NATION -- FOR A LIMITED TIME, SIGN UP AND GET 35% OFF WITH PROMO CODE: CELEBRATEFox News Contributor and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel claimed Democrats did not include "bribery" or "quid pro quo" in their articles of impeachment against President Trump on Tuesday because they realized that the charge could backfire and bring down their own front-runner.In a news conference, House Democrats formally accused Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress regarding his interactions with Ukraine, but they notably dropped some language that they have been using for weeks.House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff told NPR during an interview in his Congressional office just last week, "I don't think there's any question that the uncontested facts show this president solicited a bribe." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has accused the president of "extortion.""It suddenly occurred to some members of the Democratic Party that the incredibly widespread definition -- this very broad definition that they had to manufacture in order to ensnare Donald Trump in it -- could ensnare, for instance, their own frontrunner for the Democratic nomination," Strassel told Fox Nation host David Webb on "Reality Check" on Tuesday."If you're going to define bribery the way Adam Schiff was defining it over the last couple of weeks, where it's supposedly anytime you asked for anything that could help you politically, you've engaged in bribery, well, of course, Joe Biden is guilty of the exact same thing. In fact, half of Washington probably engaged in an act like that yesterday," Strassel argued, pointing to the former vice president's claims that he withheld a billion-dollar loan guarantee to Ukraine until they fired their top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin.During a January 2018 event at the Council of Foreign Relations, Biden seemed to brag about his quid pro quo when he recounted a meeting he had in Ukraine, saying, "I looked at them and said, 'I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.' Well, son of a ----, he got fired.""Now instead, we get this watered down abuse of power charge," Strassel said, "which is equally mystifying, in that it's not even attached or related to any statute that I know of."Video"Well, maybe they didn't poll test that one. We know they've been poll-testing these various terms, 'bribery,' 'quid pro quo' and everything else," Webb said, in reference to reports that Democrats shifted their language during the impeachment inquiry after testing various words with focus groups.Strassel said the last-minute changes to the Democrats' case against the president shows that Pelosi's "worst fears" are coming true."Nancy Pelosi decided that she was going to try to protect her more moderate members who were demanding that this be more narrowly tailored," she said. "There is a reason that Nancy Pelosi didn't want to do impeachment -- resisted impeachment all the way up until the end of summer -- and it's because she did not believe it would be good for her party."To watch all of "Reality Check with David Webb" go to Fox Nation and sign up today.CELEBRATING ONE YEAR OF FOX NATION -- FOR A LIMITED TIME, SIGN UP AND GET 35% OFF WITH PROMO CODE: CELEBRATEFox Nation programs are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers. Go to Fox Nation to start a free trial and watch the extensive library from Tomi Lahren, Pete Hegseth, Abby Hornacek, Laura Ingraham, Ainsley Earhardt, Greg Gutfeld, Judge Andrew Napolitano and many more of your favorite Fox News personalities.
2018-02-16 /
Hong Kong protests end with clashes between police and demonstrators
Later, a water cannon was used against a makeshift barricade, marking the first time water cannon vans had ever been used in the city. Protesters were pushed back, but again the crowd didn't disperse.As the violence escalated, six officers drew their pistols after being surrounded by armed protesters and one officer fired a live shot into the air, police said. The Hong Kong police said in a statement that the officers were "surrounded, under attacks and facing threats to life" and one officer fired "a warning shot to the sky without any other choices."Riot police fire tear gas at protesters during a clash at an anti-government rally in Tsuen Wan district on August 25, 2019 in Hong Kong.In a statement, police said protesters' actions were "outrageous and have overstepped the bottom line of a civilized society," and added that they "will take relentless enforcement action to bring the persons involved to justice."In total, 86 people were arrested over the weekend for unlawful assembly, including a 12-year-old boy and a 51-year-old. The 12-year-old's arrest highlights the presence of young children at some violent scenes of the protest movement, days before the school semester begins. A Hong Kong spokesperson told CNN that it is possible for the child to be charged under Hong Kong laws.Police said that arrestees' offenses on Sunday included unlawful assembly, possession of offensive weapon and assaulting police officers.According to organizers on the messaging platform Telegram, the march was intended to reiterate protesters' core demands -- withdrawal of an extradition bill, the dropping of riot charges of those arrested, an independent inquiry into police and greater democratic reforms -- as well as express opposition to alleged police brutality.Protesters standoff with police during a clash at an anti-government rally in Tsuen Wan district on August 25, 2019 in Hong Kong.Violence also broke out Saturday, after thousands in the city's east Kwun Tong district marched for the movement's five demands, and against the government's installation of "smart" environmental monitoring lampposts, which have sparked privacy concerns.Demonstrators attemptedto tear down or dismantlesome of the city's 50 newly-installed so-called "smart lampposts" -- which have cameras and sensors -- in a protest against perceived government surveillance. The Hong Kong government said the lamp posts, which are intended to track data such as air quality and traffic flow, are not equipped with facial recognition software and "would not infringe upon personal privacy."Police arrested 32 people on Saturday -- 22 men and 10 women between the ages of 15 and 22 -- on suspicion of weapons possession, assault of police and unlawful assembly. The stand off brought an end to a week of relative calm in Hong Kong, which had seen numerous clashes between protesters and police since early summer. After tear gas was fired nearly every weekend in July, last weekend saw anestimated 1.7 millionpeople brave the heavy rain and heat to march peacefully. The calm continued through the week, with protesters peacefully creating a human chain across the cityon Friday -- the 30th anniversary of the Baltic Way human chain.Thousands of protesters gathered in Hong Kong's Tsuen Wan district on August 25, 2019.However, senior police officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said this week that officers had been targeted and exposed online even while there was temporary peace on the streets. The police said officers' personal data, contact information, home addresses and more had been shared online, and accused protesters of threatening officers' families.They called the doxxing tactic "a kind of psychological war," and said they had arrested 16 people on suspicion of disclosing personal data without consent and causing harm, and unauthorized access to a computer.Police fire tear gas in Tseun Wan in Hong Kong on August 25, 2019 in the latest opposition to a planned extradition law that has since morphed into a wider call for democratic rights in the semi-autonomous city. A group of Hong Kong Police relatives held their own rally on Sunday, calling for a communication platform between the police and the public "to mend the broken relationship," and asking the police to act "with malice or ill-will toward none," according toa Facebook post by organizers.The group of about 400 attempted to deliver a letter to Chief Executive Carrie Lam, saying that their relatives in the police force should not be "used as a shield" and that Lam should "settle the political issue with politics."The group did not denigrate the protest movement, instead said that the police force were "being pushed by political issues to confront the public."Why protests are becoming increasingly faceless "Moreover, the mismanagement within the HKPF (Hong Kong Police Force ) and malpractices of some frontline police officers all caused the police-civilian relationship to fall into a tragic abyss."Hong Kong has been protesting now for almost three months. It all began in June,sparked by a controversial bill that would have allowed extradition to mainland China. Although the bill has since been suspended, protesters' demands have evolved and expanded to include Lam's resignation, the full withdrawal of the bill, and universal suffrage.Lam has condemned violence and pledged greater communication with the public, but many feel that's not enough: some protesters say they will continue demonstrating until she responds to their demands.The nonstop protests have taken a toll on everyone involved -- on Saturday, Lam had posted alengthy statement on Facebook appealing for peace and dialogue."After more than two months, everyone is tired. Can we sit down and talk about it?" she said, acknowledging that there were deeper societal problems beyond the immediate violence that needed to be addressed. Correction: A homepage headline referring to this story and posted briefly on Aug. 25 inaccurately said Hong Kong police had used petrol bombs. In fact, police deployed water cannons and drew guns; protestors threw petrol bombs. The inaccuracy was not reported in this article or on this article page.
2018-02-16 /
Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance’s Trump Case Hinges on Tax Returns
The Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation of President Donald Trump and the Trump Organization hinges on tax returns at the center of a legal tug-of-war that is all but certain to wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.“The tax returns would provide the most solid blueprint for the case,” a person with knowledge of DA Cyrus Vance’s investigation told The Daily Beast. “They could potentially have irrefutable evidence that a crime was committed.”Prosecutors “assume what they are looking for is in there” and obtaining the financial records is the next step based on what investigators have learned from people who have been interviewed, the person added.The tax returns are a crucial part of the Vance team’s current legal strategy, and prosecutors would have to find a different way into the investigation if they are not able to gain access to the tax returns, the person said.A spokesperson for Vance’s office declined to comment for this story. But during a hearing Wednesday, an attorney for Vance made clear how important the tax records are to the case, saying investigators are “hamstrung significantly” without them and that subpoenaing tax returns in a financial crimes investigation is commonplace. Vance’s office is looking into whether state laws were broken through hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen made the secret payments but was reimbursed by Trump and the Trump Organization, and the DA wants to know if any business records were falsified in connection with the expenditure.To that end, Vance subpoenaed eight years’ worth of tax returns and other financial records from Mazars USA, the president’s long-time accounting firm, in late August.Prosecutors expect to “move fairly expeditiously” after they get the documents to determine if they have enough evidence to bring charges, the person familiar with the probe said. But the subpoena has been on hold since Trump’s lawyers filed a federal lawsuit against Vance and Mazars to quash the request, claiming that a sitting president should not be “subject to the criminal process” and that local prosecutors are “on a fishing expedition.”A federal judge ruled against Trump earlier this month, and the two sides went before an appeals panel in the Second Circuit on Wednesday to make oral arguments. Whatever the outcome, the case is expected to land before the Supreme Court. Judge Robert Katzmann, who is overseeing the panel, hinted as much during the one-hour proceeding, noting that “this case seems bound for the Supreme Court.”In a letter filed with the court on Monday and issued into the record Wednesday, both sides agreed that the losing side will petition the U.S. Supreme Court within 10 days of a decision by the appeals court panel. As part of the agreement, Vance has promised not to enforce the subpoena until after the high court either declines to take up the case or hears it and issues an opinion.Vance’s subpoena for Trump’s tax filing is one of four making their way through the courts. The other three were issued by various congressional committees seeking the returns from Mazars, two banks that loaned money to Trump, and the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service.The Manhattan DA’s subpoena was obtained in late August as part of a grand jury proceeding. Prosecutors also have lined up a number of witnesses, including Cohen, who is serving a three-year prison sentence for crimes that include his role in facilitating the hush-money payments, the person with knowledge of the investigation said. It was not immediately clear who else prosecutors have spoken with, but others with knowledge of payments have talked with prosecutors, the person said, declining to give names.It’s not clear if Cohen has testified before the grand jury. The challenge prosecutors face is that a convicted criminal is not an ideal witness—making other evidence, such as the tax returns, all the more crucial. Cohen told federal prosecutors in court that the payouts were made “at the direction” of then-candidate Trump and both the president and the Trump Organization funneled the hush money through him. Cohen has been helpful to Vance’s prosecutors during multiple interviews at the Manhattan DA’s office and the upstate New York prison where he is serving time, the person said. What the Manhattan DA’s office has learned “dovetails” with information Cohen gave to federal prosecutors, the person said.
2018-02-16 /
Read: Bill Taylor’s opening testimony outlining Trump’s Ukraine quid pro quo
William Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, used his opening statement in testimony for the congressional impeachment inquiry on Tuesday to say that there was, indeed, a quid pro quo. What’s more, President Donald Trump knew all about it and even ordered it.The ambassador told three Democratic-led House committees that Trump made military aid to Ukraine contingent on the new Ukrainian government publicly announcing it would reopen an anti-corruption probe into Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that Hunter Biden, Joe’s son, once sat on the board of.Taylor said Trump also wanted Kyiv to investigate a long-debunked 2016 election conspiracy theory: that a Democratic National Committee server was whisked away to Ukraine to hide the fact that the country interfered in that vote, not Russia.“Everything” — the much-needed military aid and even a meeting between the US and Ukrainian presidents — was dependent on Kyiv complying with Trump’s wishes, according to Taylor. “President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations,” Taylor recalled a colleague telling him in a September phone call.The career diplomat’s testimony is extremely devastating to Trump’s case that he did nothing wrong and that there was no quid pro quo. Now, more than ever, it’s clear there was one — which may only accelerate the timeline for Trump’s potential impeachment.You can read Taylor’s entire opening testimony here or below: Will you help keep Vox free for all? Millions of people rely on Vox to understand how the policy decisions made in Washington, from health care to unemployment to housing, could impact their lives. Our work is well-sourced, research-driven, and in-depth. And that kind of work takes resources. Even after the economy recovers, advertising alone will never be enough to support it. If you have already made a contribution to Vox, thank you. If you haven’t, help us keep our journalism free for everyone by making a financial contribution today, from as little as $3.
2018-02-16 /
German economy rebounding, faces risk from virus resurgence
The Ifo institute's index released Thursday rose to 93.4 points in September from 92.5 points in August. The index is based on a survey of thousands of businesses about their view of current conditions and expectations for the future.In this case the current assessment rose while the expectations part levelled off.After shrinking 9.7% in the second quarter, the worst quarterly figure on record, the economy is rebounding from the severe shutdowns and restrictions on activity and movement of March, April and May.Carsten Brzeski, chief eurozone economist at ING bank, said growth could rebound sharply with growth between 5% and 10% in the third quarter. But the recovery still faces hurdles and has a long way to go to regain its pre-pandemic footing.“Given the recent softening of leading indicators, however, there is a risk of a double-dip in the fourth quarter,” Brzeski wrote in a research note, “unless social distancing rules are eased further; a very unlikely scenario given the latest increase in new COVID-19 cases.”
2018-02-16 /
China Uses Its Regional Playbook in Hong Kong
“The more politically or economically open a country is, the more vulnerable it is,” she said. “Open societies are like limestone, and CCP tactics are like water—it will eventually find the cracks, and every society has cracks.”New Zealand, which felt economically abandoned by its main market, the U.K., after it grew closer to what was then the European Economic Community, eventually turned to China as a promising new export market nearly two decades ago. But, Brady said, while China has been a valuable market to the New Zealand economy, its importance has been overblown both by China and local media.“China accounts for 24.5 percent of our export market, but if you read the newspapers here, you’d think it was 80 percent,” Brady said, adding that campaign donations from CCP-connected individuals and Beijing’s co-opting of local Chinese-language media have also served the Chinese government’s interests.New Zealand’s previous timidity in questioning its relations with China is changing. One indication: the current Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into foreign interference, to which Brady has submitted a paper outlining CCP influence methods, as well as recommendations for a strategy going forward.“We’re trying to make ourselves resilient in a way that doesn’t attract attention,” she said.The PhilippinesIn 2016, the Philippines was one of the only Southeast Asian countries willing to speak out against China’s increasingly muscular regional presence. At the time, President Benigno Aquino’s administration challenged China’s claim to resources within the so-called nine-dash line, an unofficial border that Beijing uses to mark its vast territorial claims in the South China Sea, most of which are not recognized by other countries or international law. In July 2016, a UN tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, in what could have been a major opportunity for Southeast Asian countries to speak together against Chinese territorial claims in the region. One month earlier, however, Rodrigo Duterte had assumed the Philippines presidency, and he quickly made it clear that he was not interested in standing up to China. Duterte’s accommodation was effectively a gift to Beijing when the Philippines chaired ASEAN in 2017.“The Philippines squandered what leverage it might have had against China by shelving the arbitration during its chairmanship of ASEAN,” said Jay Batongbacal, director of the Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea at the University of the Philippines. “Without Philippine interest in putting the case on the agenda for discussion within ASEAN, none of the other countries within or outside this region would have a moral authority to invoke the ruling.”Beijing, in addition to supporting Duterte’s brutal drug war and offering Philippine government-media workers training in shaping public discourse, is actively challenging Philippine control over islands it has held for generations. In fact, the Philippines is unable to exercise its rights over its own resources for fear of provoking an adverse response, Batongbacal said.
2018-02-16 /
Pictures: Hong Kong police use water cannons and guns
Bursts of violence marked an uptick in tensions between protesters and riot police in Hong Kong during the twelfth consecutive weekend of pro-democracy demonstrations.Police brandished handguns and fired water cannons into crowds in response to protesters throwing petrol bombs. While the protests have been predominantly peaceful, tear gas has been frequently used by police to disperse crowds, and there have been several episodes of violence against demonstrators in the past few months.A warning shot fired yesterday by a Hong Kong police officer was the first since the protests began. The Hong Kong city government is urging peace, as increased violence would “push Hong Kong to the verge of a very dangerous situation,” officials said.The increased violence is occurring amid a larger Chinese military presence outside of Hong Kong. Chinese state media also issued an ominous warning on the government’s “authority, but also its responsibility to intervene when riots take place in Hong Kong.”
2018-02-16 /
Putin orders Russia to respond after US missile test
MOSCOW (AP) — President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian military on Friday to work out a quid pro quo response after the test of a new U.S. missile banned under a now-defunct arms treaty.In Sunday’s test, a modified ground-launched version of a U.S. Navy Tomahawk cruise missile accurately struck its target more than 500 kilometers (310 miles) away. The test came after Moscow and Washington withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.Speaking at a meeting of his Security Council, Putin charged that the U.S. waged a “propaganda campaign” alleging Russian breaches of the pact to “untie its hands to deploy the previously banned missiles in different parts of the world.”ADVERTISEMENTHe ordered the Defense Ministry and other agencies to “take comprehensive measures to prepare a symmetrical answer.”The U.S. said it withdrew from the treaty because of Russian violations, a claim that Moscow has denied.In an interview this week with Fox News, Defense Secretary Mark Esper asserted that the Russian cruise missiles Washington has long claimed were a violation of the now-defunct Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, or INF, treaty, might be armed with nuclear warheads.“Right now Russia has possibly nuclear-tipped cruise - INF-range cruise missiles facing toward Europe, and that, that’s not a good thing,” Esper said.The Russian leader noted that Sunday’s test was performed from a launcher similar to those deployed at a U.S. missile defense site in Romania. He argued that the Romanian facility and a prospective similar site in Poland could also be loaded with missiles intended to hit ground targets instead of interceptors.Putin has previously pledged that Russia wouldn’t deploy the missiles previously banned by the INF Treaty to any area before the U.S. does that first, but he noted Friday that the use of the universal launcher means that a covert deployment is possible.“How would we know what they will deploy in Romania and Poland — missile defense systems or strike missile systems with a significant range?” Putin said.A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Robert Carver, disputed Putin’s assertion that the land-based U.S. missile defense system in Romania could be used to launch ground-attack missiles. He said the U.S. launch system in Romania, known as Aegis Ashore, “does not have the capability to fire offensive weapons of any kind,” including a cruise missile like the Tomahawk variant used in the Aug. 18 U.S. test.“It can only launch the SM-3 interceptor, which does not carry an explosive warhead,” Carver said, adding that it would take “industrial-level construction to reconfigure it to fire offensive weapons. That reconfiguration would entail major equipment installation and software changes.”Russia long has charged that the U.S. launchers loaded with missile defense interceptors could be used for firing surface-to-surface missiles. Putin said that Sunday’s test has proven that the U.S. denials have been false.“It’s indisputable now,” the Russian leader said.He added the missile test that came just 16 days after the INF treaty’s termination has shown that the U.S. long had started work on the new systems banned by the treaty.ADVERTISEMENTWhile Putin hasn’t spelled out possible retaliatory measures, some Moscow-based military experts theorized that Russia could adapt the sea-launched Kalibr cruise missiles for use from ground launchers.The Interfax news agency quoted a retired Russian general, Vladimir Bogatyryov, as saying that Moscow could put such missiles in Cuba or Venezuela if the U.S. deploys new missiles near Russian borders.Putin said Russia will continue working on new weapons in response to the U.S. moves, but will keep a tight lid on spending.“We will not be drawn into a costly arms race that would be disastrous for our economy,” Putin said, adding that Russia ranks seventh in military spending after the U.S., China, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France and Japan.He added Russia remains open to an “equal and constructive dialogue with the U.S. to rebuild mutual trust and strengthen international security.”___Robert Burns in Washington contributed to this report.
2018-02-16 /
No Relief for Big Tech Under New EU Leadership
BRUSSELS—The leadership of the European Union is changing over the next few months, but the organization’s scrutiny of U.S. tech companies likely isn’t.The incoming head of the EU executive arm is promising new laws on artificial intelligence and the use of big data within 100 days of taking office on Nov. 1, as the bloc’s antitrust enforcer gathers evidence in its probes into the practices of companies including Facebook Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. The EU investigations, started by departing EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager, examine how Facebook and Amazon use data gathered on their platforms, and could eventually lead to multimillion-dollar fines. Both companies deny wrongdoing.In recent years, Alphabet Inc.’s Google has been fined a total of $9.4 billion in three separate EU probes. A fourth, relating to Google’s job-search service, is currently at a preliminary stage. As the new commission takes shape, President-elect Ursula von der Leyen and her team are sifting through internal proposals for stricter rules in areas from limiting facial-recognition technology to creating a dedicated multibillion-euro fund to prop up the European technology sector.
2018-02-16 /
Trump’s Defense Can’t Save Him
To the extent that the lack of testimony from these witnesses creates holes in the record, those are likely to be damning for Trump. Take Bolton, for example: According to Morrison, after meeting with Trump about the Ukraine aid, Bolton told Morrison that the president “wasn’t ready” to release the aid and that Morrison should “continue to look for opportunities” to convene a meeting with officials who could persuade Trump to do so. This doesn’t sound like Bolton was convinced that the president was legitimately concerned with addressing corruption in Ukraine.The House of Representatives has received some criticism for not slowing down to try to compel testimony from these witnesses before moving forward with articles of impeachment. The merits of the criticism are complicated. It’s understandable that the House doesn’t want to let the White House goad witnesses into forcing long delays through drawn-out litigation over the merits of a subpoena. But the evidentiary record is, as a result, weaker on the matter of intent than it likely would be if these witnesses were actually made to testify.Moreover, the failure to get testimony from these witnesses in House proceedings raises an odd possibility: that perhaps they will appear before Congress for the first time during the Senate’s impeachment trial. This is highly risky for whoever calls them to testify, whether that be the impeachment managers or, for some reason, Trump’s defense team. The last thing you want in litigation—and a Senate trial is, among other things, a high-stakes form of litigation—is to have key testimony from a witness, or multiple witnesses, you haven’t interviewed before and the parameters of whose stories are thus unknown.This may well be what happens. If the House impeachment managers who prosecute the case in the Senate try to call these witnesses, it is likely—though not certain—that they could be compelled to testify. Ditto if Trump’s lawyers are foolish enough to call them as defense witnesses. Under the Senate impeachment rules, their testimony could be challenged, and a majority of senators could vote to block it. But the Senate rules presume that, absent such a vote, both sides get to call witnesses with relevant information. In the case of these particular witnesses, there would be both executive-privilege questions and—in Giuliani’s case—potential attorney-client-privilege questions. So while the likeliest scenario is that we will hear something from these witnesses in the context of the Senate trial, it’s not clear how much they’ll actually say.But let’s imagine for a moment that the day comes when these men are compelled to testify—and that they tell the truth. Does anyone believe that the truth will set Trump free—that the real story here is that the president had long-standing concerns about corruption in Ukraine and earnest anxieties about Ukrainian intervention in the 2016 election, and that he asked for investigations out of a disinterested anti-corruption passion he has never exhibited before in his life?
2018-02-16 /
What’s next in Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination process
Step one on the all-but-certain path to Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the US Supreme Court — a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee — is officially complete.Her nomination to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat now heads to a committee vote next Thursday, and a full Senate vote shortly after that. Barring any significant changes in the interim, she’s widely expected to get confirmed, though Democrats are weighing some procedural maneuvers to express their opposition.Barrett’s testimony this week highlighted her past critiques of decisions holding up the Affordable Care Act and her reluctance to classify Roe as a super-precedent. But this isn’t expected to change many votes, if any. “This is probably not about persuading each other unless something dramatic happens,” Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said at the start of the hearing. “All Republicans will vote yes and all the Democrats will vote no.”Graham’s prediction, it seems, is likely to play out in the coming weeks. Because of Republicans’ 53-47 Senate majority, Barrett’s nomination is poised to go through with little fanfare. Unless four Senate Republicans break with their party — since Vice President Mike Pence can be the deciding vote in the case of a 50-50 tie — the GOP has the votes it needs to keep on rushing through her confirmation. The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Barrett’s nomination on October 22, and the full Senate is expected to do so the week of October 26. Despite ongoing concerns about coronavirus exposure in the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he plans to move “full steam ahead” on the confirmation process. Thus far, no Republicans have signaled that they will vote against Barrett’s nomination, and GOP lawmakers who have recently contracted coronavirus have indicated that they will likely be able to vote. Previously, there were questions about whether Republicans would have the numbers they needed to proceed if members with coronavirus were still quarantined when the floor vote was scheduled to take place. Given their presence at the hearing this week, Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) seem like they’ll be able to make it to a vote despite positive tests. And Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), who also tested positive, is vowing to cast his vote as well.Barrett’s vote could ultimately wind up breaking roughly along party lines. In the days after Ginsburg’s death, Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said that they opposed holding a vote before the election, and Collins has said she will vote against the nominee because of the timing. No other Republican senators have said that they would oppose the timing of the vote or the nomination itself, suggesting that even if the two of them defect from the conference, the GOP will still have a 51-person majority to confirm Barrett. Democrats, meanwhile, have a limited set of procedural tools available to complicate the process. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that Democrats will try to use their limited options to oppose the next steps in Barrett’s confirmation. In both the upcoming committee vote and the floor vote, Democrats are able to withhold a “quorum,” or the required number of members needed for business to proceed, though they won’t be able to halt the nomination altogether. “We will talk about when the actual vote occurs in committee and on the floor. Democrats will not supply the quorum. Period,” Schumer said last Sunday. In the Judiciary Committee, for example, at least two members of the minority party must be present, along with the majority of the 22-person panel, for votes on nominees to take place. It’s possible that Democrats just won’t attend next Thursday’s vote and provide the two members needed for committee business. If Democrats don’t show up, however, Republicans could also disregard these rules and move ahead anyway. (Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has effectively done this in the past in trying to advance immigration legislation.)Similarly, for a floor vote, at least 51 members of the Senate need to be there for a nomination to be considered, so a Democratic boycott would force Republicans to ensure that nearly all their members are present. While this could be inconvenient for some of the battleground senators who are out campaigning, the GOP’s 53-member majority means they won’t need Democrats to make the quorum and carry on with the vote. There aren’t a ton of procedural options Democrats can use to block Barrett’s nomination because the vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees was reduced to a simple majority by Senate Republicans in 2017 — after Democrats did the same for lower court nominees in 2013. To get the process rolling on a vote, McConnell needs to close debate on the nomination, a step known as invoking cloture. To do that, he’ll have to bring the Senate into an executive session, a move that requires a simple majority of votes — which Republicans are expected to have. At that point, he won’t need unanimous consent to move forward with a cloture vote or a confirmation vote, according to George Washington University political science professor Sarah Binder. “Democrats could object to unanimous consent requests here and there, but ultimately McConnell and the GOP will get to the motion to get to executive session and the nomination,” Binder tells Vox. “I can’t see Democratic tactics successfully delaying a vote until after the elections.”As such, Barrett is poised to be the next justice on the Supreme Court, and solidify a 6-3 conservative majority in the process. “We don’t have some special procedural way to stop this sham,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has said. Clarification: This article has been updated to reflect Sen. Susan Collins’s position on a vote on Barrett’s nomination. Will you help keep Vox free for all? Millions of people rely on Vox to understand how the policy decisions made in Washington, from health care to unemployment to housing, could impact their lives. Our work is well-sourced, research-driven, and in-depth. And that kind of work takes resources. Even after the economy recovers, advertising alone will never be enough to support it. If you have already made a contribution to Vox, thank you. If you haven’t, help us keep our journalism free for everyone by making a financial contribution today, from as little as $3.
2018-02-16 /
Apple Announces Apple Watch Series 6 With Ability To Measure Blood Oxygen Levels
Apple has announced theApple Watch Series 6, the latest in its line of popular smartwatches. The Series 6 model maintains the same overall design introduced with the Apple Watch Series 4 and continued with the Series 5, but it adds a variety of new sensors to allow for things like blood oxygen monitoring and better sleep tracking. From a report:Starts at $399.
2018-02-16 /
How to watch Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing
Despite the recent concerns about coronavirus exposure at the Capitol — and the fast-approaching general election — the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is still happening. The hearing will air Monday, October 12, through Thursday, October 15, beginning at 9 am each day. It will be accessible via a livestream on the Senate Judiciary Committee website, as well as via C-SPAN. Day one of the hearings will start with opening statements from Barrett as well as from every member of the committee, which is helmed by Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Meanwhile, questions for Barrett are slated to take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, and a panel of outside witnesses will testify about her nomination on Thursday. The hearings mark one of the key steps in Republicans’ efforts to rush through Barrett’s nomination just weeks ahead of the general election, and its set-up will be somewhat different from confirmations in the past. Some members, including Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), will be joining virtually given his recent coronavirus diagnosis, and others may opt to do so as well. Democrats have argued that, given the seriousness of the nomination, the hearings should be delayed until they can take place with the entire committee in person, but Graham has been intent on proceeding anyway. Barrett — if confirmed — could solidify a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court for decades, and would play a pivotal role in key decisions, including an upcoming one regarding whether the Affordable Care Act should be overturned. Senate Democrats intend to use their time to build a case against her nomination in the hope of swaying some Republicans to their side. Republican members, meanwhile, are likely to emphasize Barrett’s qualifications for the role and attempt to undercut opposition toward her nomination as attacks on her Catholic faith, a misleading characterization that stems from some Democrats’ botched handling of the subject in a previous confirmation hearing. The hearings are also a moment for lawmakers in both parties to gin up enthusiasm ahead of this November’s election: The focus on the Supreme Court is set to fire up the bases of both parties, and the hearings could provide important fodder for the campaigns of lawmakers on the committee including Graham’s fight for reelection and vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris’s ticket for the White House.Senate Republicans, ultimately, are intent on pushing Barrett’s nominee through. Currently, Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the upper chamber, meaning four lawmakers would have to defect from the party line in order for Barrett’s nomination to fail — since Vice President Mike Pence can break a 50-50 tie. It’s an unlikely scenario, but trying to convince a handful of their GOP colleagues to vote against the nomination will be a key aim of Democrats’ arguments in the hearing this week. “I’m going to fight like hell, but I think ultimately we need to present our case to the American people so they can stand up and speak out to our Republican colleagues,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told reporters on a media call last week. Barrett, currently a judge on the 7th Circuit Court, was nominated by President Donald Trump on September 26 to a vacancy left by the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If confirmed, Barrett, 48, would be the youngest Justice and the first mother of school-aged children — she has seven kids aged eight to 19 — to serve on the Supreme Court. She will also be among six justices on the court to subscribe to the Catholic faith.Senate Republicans’ decision to move forward with a Supreme Court nominee in 2020 has been a stark turnaround from how they approached this same question in 2016. In February of that year, Republicans said they wouldn’t consider a nominee until after the election, and this year — less than two months out from Election Day — they decided they would do all that they could to advance Barrett. Since then, Republicans have planned for an expedited confirmation process, with a Judiciary Committee vote on the hearings expected to take place on October 22, and a vote by the full Senate to follow shortly thereafter. As of last count, a majority of Republicans had said they’d support a vote on her nomination before the election, and a similar number are likely to support her confirmation. In addition to concerns about the process behind this nomination and its legitimacy, Democrats have raised the alarm about Barrett’s record on a wide range of issues including health care, reproductive rights, and gun control. As Vox’s Ian Millhiser has written, Barrett is a conservative justice and a favorite of the religious right who has the potential to roll back the Affordable Care Act, undo Roe v. Wade, and expand the interpretation of the Second Amendment if she were to ascend to the court. While she’s only been a judge for a few years, she’s critiqued the Court’s decisions to uphold the ACA in the past and contributed to opinions that signal openness to limiting abortion access. Before becoming a federal judge, Barrett was a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia. She’s a devout Catholic, and she has written in the past about how faith relates to judicial decisions about the death penalty. Senate Democrats are poised to focus on several issue areas including health care as part of their questioning of Barrett, with an eye toward emphasizing the impact of Supreme Court decisions — like the one involving the ACA case — on the millions of people it could affect. What’s still uncertain, however, is whether there will be a broader show of protest from Democratic lawmakers at the hearings in the same way there was at the Kavanaugh hearings in 2018. At the time, Senate Republicans released a trove of documents the evening prior to the hearings, and several Democrats argued as the panel was getting underway that it should be adjourned until they had adequate time to review them. There have been calls from activists to take action at the hearings, including a boycott, though there wasn’t much appetite from lawmakers to go that far. “I don’t think the Democrats can just show up and question a nominee as if it were normal,” Chris Kang, the chief counsel of Demand Justice, previously told Vox. An area that Democrats are expected to avoid is a focus on Barrett’s faith, which was a centerpiece of her 7th Circuit hearings, because she’s previously written about it in the context of possible judicial decisions, CNN reports. As Millhiser notes, however, some of the questions during those hearings — including a memorable one from Feinstein — came off as attacks on Barrett’s Catholicism rather than its relationship to her work. “It is fair game to criticize a nominee for their political beliefs, including their opposition to abortion. And it is fair game to criticize someone for political beliefs that are inspired by their religious faith,” writes Millhiser. “But, in a disastrous exchange with the future Judge Barrett during her 2017 confirmation hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared to go a step further — seeming to attack Barrett’s Catholicism itself.” Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet has noted, though, that it’s possible for lawmakers to ask Barrett about her previous writings about faith and capital punishment without “lapsing into anti-Catholicism.”Republicans, for their part, have spent much of their time talking up Barrett’s qualifications for this job including her time clerking for Scalia and her tenure as a law professor. Much as they did with Kavanaugh, they’ve also focused on her personal attributes, including her relationships with her family. “I anticipate she will get a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association. The president could not have picked a more outstanding nominee,” McConnell said in a recent interview. Expect lawmakers in both parties to use the hearings as a platform to rally voters — and speak to that pivotal group of swing senators — prior to a final vote on Barrett’s nomination. Will you help keep Vox free for all? Millions of people rely on Vox to understand how the policy decisions made in Washington, from health care to unemployment to housing, could impact their lives. Our work is well-sourced, research-driven, and in-depth. And that kind of work takes resources. Even after the economy recovers, advertising alone will never be enough to support it. If you have already made a contribution to Vox, thank you. If you haven’t, help us keep our journalism free for everyone by making a financial contribution today, from as little as $3.
2018-02-16 /
Pro Trump ‘Enemies List’ Smear Flops
Right RichterSee what's happening with the extreme right wing from the safety of your inbox.By Clicking "Subscribe" you agree to have read theTerms of UseandPrivacy PolicyDonald Trump’s allies in Congress and the pro-Trump media are scrambling to find a counter-narrative to the Ukraine impeachment investigation that can shore up Republican support, even crashing into closed hearings in some kind of misguided protest. In theory, finding allegations to throw back at Democrats shouldn’t be that hard for Trump’s media allies. They already have the playbook and pundits left over from the response to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. But this time around, the narrative keeps getting scrambled—new damning witness testimony comes out of another hearing, or chief of staff Mick Mulvaney badly botches a press conference. Now, with few appealing options, they’ve latched onto their the most ridiculous claim yet: portraying a mundane social media search tool as a deep-state conspiracy theory. For the past week, Trump ally and Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton and a chorus of conservative media voices have been fuming over a supposed “enemies list” compiled by the State Department and filled with right-wing Twitter characters. But it turns out that the supposed list, if it existed at all, was just a run-of-the-mill social media search on widely available web analytics tool CrowdTangle. Last week, Fitton started claiming that he had reason to believe that former United States ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch had “unlawfully monitored” a host of pro-Trump media personalities. Fitton claimed Yovanovitch had requested monitoring of an “enemies list” through “social media and other means,” only to be rebuffed because her request was “illegal.”Fitton cryptically said, on Twitter and via press releases, that his group had enough information to “investigate” the idea that Yovanovitch, who was pushed out her job under alleged pressure from Rudolph Giuliani, demanded the illicit surveillance of a list of Trumpworld luminaries. “They had an enemy’s list in the Ukrainian embassy—our embassy!” Fitton said. “Paid for with your tax dollars, in potential violation of the law.” The list supposedly included Donald Trump Jr., Pizzagate promoter Jack Posobiec, right-wing character Dan Bongino, and former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka—all, notably, people with big enough social media followings to boost Fitton’s story.Curiously, Fitton was incredibly vague about the origins of his information. In one post, Judicial Watch says Yovanovitch “reportedly” created the list, only to cite another, nearly identical Judicial Watch post as its proof. Fitton’s group didn’t respond to requests for comment.The allegation of illegal surveillance echoes Trump’s long disproven claim that Trump Tower was unlawfully wiretapped by the Obama administration. This time, though, the allegations were even more obscure. Fitton’s description of the supposed “enemies list” sounded a lot like a basic search of public social media posts, something that even Posobiec had to acknowledge in an appearance for his employer, pro-Trump cable channel One America News.“We’re not sure exactly yet what exactly the scope of this monitoring was, whether it was simply following on-air reports and tweets, or whether it included something further with government resources,” Posobiec said. “It’s essentially like Big Brother watching you!” the One America News host interviewing him replied. Fitton’s bogus story faltered early for a couple other reasons, too. He conceded early that Yovanovitch’s own name was on the list, suggesting that it could hardly be a list of Yovanovitch’s personal enemies. Another person on the alleged monitoring list is Michael McFaul—an Obama era ambassador to Russia, and an outspoken Trump critic. Asked by Fox News host Laura Ingraham why a supposed political enemies list would include McFaul, Fitton just shrugged.“Who knows?” Fitton said. “Maybe he was commenting on what was going on.”Despite the near-total lack of information about the supposed list, the claim shot through conservative media, earning mentions on Rush Limbaugh’s talk radio show and Fox News shows hosted by Tucker Carlson and Ingraham. At an anti-impeachment rally outside Congress last Thursday, Gorka claimed the mystery surveillance list was another deep-state scheme.“They will use every dirty trick in the book,” Gorka said. “We’ve just found this week, thanks to Judicial Watch, that Obama’s ambassador to the Ukraine was monitoring key conservatives illegally, me included, and Don Jr.”As it turns out, though, Fitton is getting all worked up over absolutely nothing. On Wednesday afternoon, Fitton revealed that the “enemies list” was just a social media search of public posts on CrowdTangle—a Facebook-owned social media analytics tool used by a variety of institutions, including media outlets. It’s still not clear even if the purported list even exists—Fitton hasn’t offered any proof beyond anonymous quotes, and the State Department didn’t respond to requests for comment. The State Department has said publicly before that it uses CrowdTangle to follow discussion of news topics, meaning that Fitton, despite all the hype in pro-Trump media, hadn’t exactly revealed a secret surveillance tool.
2018-02-16 /
previous 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 272 273 next
  • feedback
  • contact
  • © 2024 context news
  • about
  • blog
sign up
forget password?