Almost every state attorney general in the country is now investigating Facebook, escalating the overlapping risks faced by the social media giant from multiple levels of government.A total of 47 states have now signed onto the roster of Attorneys General Offices that are probing Facebook for possible anti-competitive behavior, New York’s State Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the coalition, announced on Monday. Only eight other AGs were originally part of her office’s effort to scrutinize Facebook.All told, the breadth of the probe speaks to the political discomfort with Facebook from both Republicans and Democrats, although sometimes for different reasons. Support comes from political leaders as diverse as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is a Tea Party conservative, to Pennsylvania’s Democratic AG Josh Shapiro.“Our investigation now has the support of 47 attorneys general from around the nation, who are all concerned that Facebook may have put consumer data at risk, reduced the quality of consumers’ choices, and increased the price of advertising,” James said in a statement. “As we continue our investigation, we will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook’s actions stifled competition and put users at risk.”The AGs are discussing topics that include Facebook’s prior acquisitions of startups, including WhatsApp and Instagram, and how it handles user data, according to CNN.In response to the news of the expanded probe, Facebook stressed in a statement that it faced substantial competition both in the US and around the world.“We will work constructively with state attorneys general and we welcome a conversation with policymakers about the competitive environment in which we operate,” the company said.These attorneys general will primarily be looking at possible violations of state laws, but James’s probe is just one of the dizzying and multiplying array of investigations that Facebook has to handle. The Federal Trade Commission is also looking at Facebook for possible antitrust violations following a separate FTC settlement for $5 billion earlier this year over privacy violations.Congress and the Department of Justice have their own broad probes of Big Tech, including Facebook but also Apple, Amazon, and Google.Almost all state attorneys general are already looking into Google, a probe led by Paxton that similarly has help from 50 other state attorneys general.“We’re prepared for whatever the right thing to do is for consumers,” Paxton has said. “All of that’s on the table based on what we learn.”

New guidance warning federal workers not to discuss Donald Trump’s potential impeachment or the so-called “resistance” movement has sparked controversy, with some ethics advocates voicing concerns over what they see as an effort to crack down on free speech and limit dissent.A memo released by the Office of Special Counsel last week clarified what constitutes political activity at the federal workplace, stemming from Trump seeking re-election as president in 2020.In addition to avoiding topics that might suggest views favorable or unfavorable toward Trump, the document stipulated “strong criticism or praise of a presidential administration’s policies and actions” also amount to political activity.The move prompted immediate backlash from government watchdogs and unions, who said the interpretation of political activity is too broad and exposes more than 2 million federal employees to undue risk and could hurt their free speech rights.“This guidance is a broad reach that employees may find confusing. It could unnecessarily have a chilling effect on employees’ first amendment free speech,” said Tony Reardon, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 150,000 federal employees in 33 departments and agencies.At issue is the Hatch Act, a law dating back nearly eight decades that was designed to prevent federal employees from engaging in partisan politics at work or while in their official capacity as civil servants. The law has long been enforced by the OSC, an independent federal agency unrelated to special counsel Robert Mueller and the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.The office typically investigates complaints against employees accused of engaging in partisan activity at work, and can recommend disciplinary measures that could result in dismissal.Faced with criticism that its definition of political activity was too far-reaching, the OSC insisted there had been no substantive changes in how such scrutiny was being applied.The guidelines did not bar employees entirely from discussing what presidential conduct may warrant impeachment or sharing their thoughts on the matter, the office said. It noted that what would instead be inappropriate would be to advocate for – or against – the president’s impeachment while in the workplace.The reason behind the memo’s release, according to the OSC, were questions that arose from federal employees and ethics officers given the frequency of such conversations – particularly at a time when Trump would clearly be seeking re-election. In addition to impeachment and the idea of “resisting” Trump, the OSC noted that federal employees were prohibited from wearing, displaying or distributing items from Trump’s campaign, such as anything bearing his Make America Great Again slogan.Government watchdogs nonetheless saw a power grab; some made the case that talk of impeachment was not inherently linked to Trump’s re-election prospects, but instead a separate matter having to do with grounds for removal from office.“The OSC needs to stand down and recognize that the Hatch Act permits advocacy for and against Trump’s impeachment,” Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University who served as a government ethics lawyer in the DC attorney general’s Office, wrote in an op-ed this week.Others took issue with the notion that federal employees could not stake out a position for or against administration policy, which they said ignored the fact that some issues transcended politics.Ward Morrow, assistant general counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees, pointed to internal disagreement within the administration over the threat of global warming as an example.Trump recently dismissed a landmark climate change study, produced by his own administration, while casting doubt on the underlying science. Morrow said it would not be unreasonable for an employee at the Environmental Protection Agency to voice disagreement or push for deferring to the consensus of the scientific community, but questioned if doing so would now be grounds for punishment under the Hatch Act.“It’s not about someone running for office,” he said. “It may be a Trump policy, but it’s not about the Democratic or Republican party.”The rules do not apply to employees once they leave their place of work; they are free to discuss their political views or engage in political activity in their free time.But some argued that the Hatch Act had increasingly been misused to penalize workers, while instead ignoring the abuses of upper-level management.Earlier this year, the OSC confirmed that Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act on two occasions by advocating against political candidates while appearing on Fox News and CNN in her official capacity as counselor to the president.Conway’s comments were made ahead of the Alabama Senate election, when she stopped just short of endorsing the Republican candidate Roy Moore while blasting the record of his Democratic opponent, Doug Jones.The OSC referred its findings to Trump “for appropriate disciplinary action”, but the White House rebuked the report and no action against Conway was taken.Senior officials have previously violated the Hatch Act under Democratic and Republican administrations. But the Trump administration has routinely made headlines for ethics violations, from the White House to cabinet officials, further calling into question the disproportionately higher standard placed on workers.“The way it is under the law, and certainly the way it’s been enforced, has always been stacked against workers instead of managers throughout history,” said Steve Hollis, a former computer programmer at the US Department of Agriculture who retired in 2014.“We need a much bigger say from those who actually do the work,” he said.“The whole idea of workers having a say at work is to be able to criticize our bosses and disagree with them.” Topics US news Trump administration US politics news

Enlarge this image The U.S. has warned Germany about possible repercussions of using Huawei in its upcoming 5G mobile network, citing security concerns. Here, a billboard for the Chinese telecom giant is seen in the Berlin Hauptbahnhof railway station. Sean Gallup/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Sean Gallup/Getty Images The U.S. has warned Germany about possible repercussions of using Huawei in its upcoming 5G mobile network, citing security concerns. Here, a billboard for the Chinese telecom giant is seen in the Berlin Hauptbahnhof railway station. Sean Gallup/Getty Images The U.S. has apparently warned Germany that if Chinese tech companies such as Huawei help build the country's new 5G telecom infrastructure, U.S. agencies might not share as much intelligence with the German government as they currently do.That's the gist of a letter U.S. Ambassador Richard A. Grenell recently sent to German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier, according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the news."A U.S. Embassy spokesman told NPR in a statement that he would not comment on the contents of the letter," NPR's Joanna Kakissis reports from Munich. "But he added that the U.S. position on 5G network security is well-known."The U.S. has repeatedly urged Germany, Canada and other allies not to use Huawei — China's largest telecom equipment-maker — to build sophisticated new telecommunications networks, saying the company has possible ties to Chinese intelligence agencies. World Huawei Founder Denies His Firm Spies For China Huawei has denied that it spies for China. But suspicions have increased enough that the company's founder and CEO, Ren Zhengfei, tried to quash them earlier this year, when he said, "No law requires any company in China to install mandatory backdoors."Zhengfei said he wouldn't harm his customers' interests or his company's prospects.Altmaier apparently received the U.S. letter on Friday — one day after he said Germany doesn't want to put an outright ban on Huawei. Instead, he said, the country plans to "change its laws to guarantee all components used in the 5G networks are secure," as Deutsche Welle reports.The U.S. has been openly skeptical of Huawei's independence since at least 2012, when the House Intelligence Committee issued a report criticizing the tech company over its ties to China's communist government (and possibly the military) as well as a lack of transparency.In Germany, the U.S. Embassy spokesman told Kakissis that the circumstances raise questions about the confidentiality of sensitive communications, implying that information carried over Huawei's equipment could be at risk of being piped to Chinese intelligence agencies. Technology Facebook Data-Sharing Deals Include China's Huawei — Under U.S. Suspicion Since 2012 Last week, Huawei sued the U.S. government for banning federal agencies from purchasing Huawei equipment — a restriction in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.The tech company says the ban violates the Constitution's Bill of Attainder clause — which, as NPR's Matthew Schwartz reported, "prohibits Congress from singling out a company or individual for punishment without a trial."The U.S. clash with Huawei includes a deep disagreement over the arrest in Canada and possible extradition of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, who is also the founder's daughter. Meng appeared in a Canadian court last week; an extradition hearing is set for May 8 — a date that falls within U.S.-China trade talks to resolve ongoing trade disputes. Asia Polish Police Arrest Huawei Executive On Suspicion Of Spying For China As scrutiny of Huawei has grown, Australia and New Zealand have joined the U.S. in barring the company from their 5G networks. Italy and Japan are reportedly considering the same move. And other countries have issued security warnings about Huawei and China, including the Czech Republic and Lithuania. In January, Poland's Internal Security Agency arrested a Huawei executive on suspicion of spying for China, in a case that centers on the telecom company Orange Polska.

closeVideoThe Confirmation Chronicles: Vol. 3Democrats and their left-wing allies used unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault to tarnish the reputation of a distinguished judge in a failed attempt to block his confirmation to the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans aim to get President Trump’s nominee confirmed to the high court before Election Day in what’s expected to be a heated battle on Capitol Hill. The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice was once a time honored constitutional duty steeped in tradition and jurisprudence, but now it has become a bitter battleground of ideological dog fights, partisan lines and character assassination. In the episode “Sham! Brett Kavanaugh and His Accusers,” available for viewing on Thursday, Fox Nation details Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s heated confirmation hearings and the allegations of sexual assault and misconduct that nearly derailed his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.During the hearings, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., let loose on his Democratic colleagues over what he called the "sham" hearing to probe sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, in a display that earned him praise from the White House and scorn from the left.“Somebody had to intervene here because it was getting out of hand,” Graham said in the Fox Nation series as he recounted what happened during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “I could tell he [Graham] was fired up and I could tell that something significant was about to happen. In fact I had sent a text to my family saying, ‘You might want to watch this, Lindsey Graham is about to speak.” Graham blasted Democrats toward the end of the hearing with the Supreme Court nominee and accuser Christine Blasey Ford. She accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed and attempting to remove her clothes during a house party in Maryland when they were both were high school students in the 1980s.But Graham alleged the Democrats' handling was all about politics."This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics,” a visibily angry Graham said from the dais while pointing at Democratic senators. “And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy.”MARK PAOLETTA: BIDEN USED CHARACTER ASSASSINATION IN SENATE TO FIGHT GOP SUPREME COURT NOMINEES LIKE BARRETTGraham added: “Boy, y’all want power and I hope you don’t get it.”Graham personally addressed Kavanaugh to apologize for the questioning of his high school yearbook comments and his beer drinking habits.“If you’re looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time,” Graham said. “This is hell.”VideoDemocratic senators brought up Kavanaugh's yearbook as they questioned him about Ford's allegation of sexual assault when they were teens. Kavanaugh denied the allegation.The senior senator from South Carolina also had pointed words for any Republican senator who was considering not voting to confirm Kavanaugh.“To my Republican colleagues,” Graham said. “If you vote no, you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I’ve ever seen in my time in politics.”In front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh adamantly defended himself against all sexual misconduct allegations.“I swear today under oath before the Senate and the nation, before my family and God, I am innocent of this charge,” Kavanaugh said.Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., recalled that Kavanaugh “was mad” during the hearings.“He had been attacked, his wife had been attacked, his daughters were devastated,” Tillis said.To watch “The Confirmation Chronicles: Vol. 3” go to Fox Nation and sign up today. Fox News' Andrew O’Reilly, Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

So it looks like Bernie Sanders is going to win Iowa. Polls are still pretty close, but he’s been rising late and looks poised. If there’s a surprise, I would guess it’d be because of this whole second-choice thing they do. That is, you caucus for Cory Booker, he doesn’t get 15 percent, and then you move to your second choice. Sanders probably isn’t many Democrats’ second choice. If Joe Biden or one of the others pulls this out, that will probably be how.The contest there is all about the Las Vegas culinary union. Harry Reid has a lot of pull with that union. It’s also heavily Latino. Both of these factors suggest the union, which has not officially endorsed, will lean toward Biden, but all that may change after two Sanders wins. And if Sanders win Nevada, well, that’s a lot of momentum. He could win the nomination.The party establishment will be in mortal panic if Sanders goes 3-0, and many eyes will turn to Mike Bloomberg. They already are—that is, many people already assume that Biden just isn’t up to the job and that Bloomberg will be the only way to stop Sanders. We’ll see. Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. But it’s likely to be ugly. Worse than 2016. Much worse. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s eventual win (for the nomination) was never in any serious mathematical doubt, especially after March 15. So whatever happened, you always knew she was going to be the nominee in the end. This time, the result will be in doubt. It will be an angry movement versus a panic-stricken establishment. You thought it was a little far out that Rashida Tlaib booed Hillary Clinton over the weekend? Things are going to happen over the next four months to make that look like a love tap. And by the way: Clinton should not have used the language she did about Sanders in that documentary. It’s no secret that a lot of Sanders’ supporters are obnoxious and hyperbolic. But responding in kind, and in a contest she’s not running in, is not what someone of Clinton’s stature should be doing, and it probably helps Trump, who will use her sound bites endlessly if Sanders is the nominee.Anyway, the point, as the voting gets underway, is that this shows every sign of being the most divisive Democratic primary contest in decades. Or more likely, ever. The logical precedent is 1972 and the McGovern campaign. Lots of Democrats opposed McGovern’s candidacy and thought he was way too left to beat Richard Nixon (indeed, he lost 49 states). Hubert Humphrey was the top alternative (fun fact: Though McGovern won the lion’s share of the primaries, Humphrey actually received more votes than McGovern—something that could conceivably happen again this time.) But Twitter didn’t exist then, or cable news. A Sanders-Biden showdown that runs the course of March and April and drags into May, or a Sanders-Bloomberg one, will just be torture every day. And the storyline will be awful for the party and whoever it is playing the Biden-Bloomberg role. It will be that party establishment corporatist hacks are moving heaven and earth to thwart the pure insurgent, the man of the people. The Sanders army will push it, and so will Trump and Fox News and the Republican Party, because they want Sanders as their opponent (“They’re rigging the election against him again,” Trump told Sean Hannity in his Super Bowl interview). Fox is going to run more “poor Bernie” stories than Jacobin.Then we’ll get to the convention, which in all likelihood will line up to give the nomination to Biden-Bloomberg-whomever unless Sanders is clearly, unequivocally ahead and simply can’t be denied it. Then what? Civil war. If I were a cleverer person than I am, I’d have lined up a book deal last year about the 1852 election and the Whigs. Spoiler alert: It did not end well.No one has the power to stop this. Barack Obama? Please. To the Sanders army he’s just another corporatist hack. When he was president, he could have done more to change that perception. If he’d been more aggressive on some economic matters, taken a more populist tack toward the banks, fought for a public option in Obamacare, a few other things, maybe all that frustration on the left that Sanders tapped into and let loose wouldn’t have built up. Of course, if Obama had tried these things, most of it would have failed in the Senate, a lesson Bernie’s Army may learn one day the hard way. But at least he would have been seen by some as trying. Even that, though, wouldn’t have been enough. I’ve been watching all this very closely for a very long time. The left has played on the fringes of Democratic politics for decades, never fully participating. It’s different than the right. Right-wing people have tended to join the Republican Party and bore from within, as the old Marxist line has it. Left-wing people have not. They have contempt for Democrats and liberals and often hate them more than they hate conservatives. This explains why someone like Randy Credico, whom I used to know, would make common cause with Roger Stone against Hillary Clinton.Mainstream liberal Democrats used to be able to ignore the left because it was so small. Well, they can’t anymore. Three decades of obscene wealth concentration has made the left more appealing to millions of young people—and understandably so, I must say, even though I’m not a leftist myself. Are they enough people to elect a president? That’s a topic for another day, though in general, I doubt it. But it’s definitely enough people to matter in a primary process and help a party collapse. Which may indeed play a role in helping to elect a president, just not the one they had in mind.

Former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort broke his plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller by lying about five different subjects, Mueller’s team said in a court document filed today.Two of those five subjects related to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Manafort associate and alleged former Russian spy, whom Mueller has indicted for obstruction of justice. While he lied about five subject areas, the memo makes clear that Manafort lied many more than five times. These are the five areas:Manafort’s interactions with KilimnikKilimnik’s participation in the alleged obstruction of justiceA wire transfer of $125,000 to a firm that was working for ManafortInformation pertinent to another, unnamed, Department of Justice investigationManafort’s contact with Trump administration officials: He previously claimed he had no interaction with administration officials, but a colleagues said he had been in touch with a senior official as late as Feb. 2018Manafort has already been convicted of eight counts of bank and tax fraud.

Sen. Kamala Harris has suspended her presidential bid, bringing to a close her historic effort to secure the Democratic nomination."I’ve taken stock and looked at this from every angle, and over the last few days have come to one of the hardest decisions of my life. My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue," the California lawmaker wrote in a letter to supporters. "I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign. And as the campaign has gone on, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete. In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do. So, to you my supporters, it is with deep regret -- but also with deep gratitude -- that I am suspending my campaign today."Harris took a hard look at the campaign’s resources over the Thanksgiving holiday and made the decision Monday after discussing the path forward with her family and senior aides, a senior Harris aide told ABC News. She will travel to the early states this week to personally and privately thank staff and supporters there for their hard work and dedication to the campaign, the aide added.Harris' announcement comes after her campaign drastically cut her staff in October, funneling most of her campaign’s resources toward working on a strong victory in Iowa and leaving other early voting states such as New Hampshire and South Carolina with minimal staffing and funding.“I’m moving to Iowa,” the senator joked at rallies, as she vowed to campaign in the state each week.Still she plateaued in the polls in the single digits. In a recent ABC News and Washington Post poll, Harris only garnered 2% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents.Harris entered the race in January speaking before a crowd of 20,000 people, one of the largest in the 2020 cycle. The senator’s presidential hopes were amplified by a sudden boost of support after a breakthrough moment during the first Democratic presidential debate. On the debate stage, Harris, who is black and Indian American, challenged former Vice President Joe Biden on his past stances on busing policies."There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day. That little girl was me," Harris said.On Tuesday, Biden complimented Harris as a competitor."She is a first rate intellect, a first rate candidate and a real competitor," he told reporters at an event in Iowa. "I have mixed emotions about it because she is really a solid, solid person and loaded with talent. I’m sure she’s not dropping out on wanting to make the changes she cares about.”Those changes, Harris underscored on the trail and in her letter to supporters, centered on "fighting for people whose voices have not been heard or too often ignored."On the campaign trail, Harris’ record as district attorney of San Francisco and later attorney general of California, became a frequent area of criticism from her fellow presidential contenders.President Donald Trump weighed in on Harris' campaign suspension with a short tweeted response: "Too bad. We will miss you Kamala!"Earlier in the day, the Trump campaign and some of its staffers mocked Harris on social media over dropping out of the Democratic primary on Tuesday —including congratulating Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, a candidate with whom the California senator had differed on the debate stage."Somehow we will press on," Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh told ABC News when asked about Harris suspending her campaign.Harris responded to Trump on Twitter on Tuesday night with a promise: "Don’t worry, Mr. President. I’ll see you at your trial."For her part, Gabbard wished Harris well tweeting "Sending my best wishes to @KamalaHarris, her family & supporters who have campaigned so hard. While we disagree on some issues, we agree on others & I respect her sincere desire to serve the American people. I look forward to working together on the challenges we face as a nation."Others, such as former Democratic presidential nominee and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro also lauded Harris for her efforts."I’m so thankful for @KamalaHarris’s friendship and candidacy in this race. As a child of immigrants, she’s been a lifelong fighter for opportunity and justice for all Americans, and I’m glad she’ll keep fighting for an America where everyone counts," he tweeted.Former Democratic presidential nominee and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to offer words of encouragement to those who volunteer for candidates who end bids."To all the candidates, staff, and volunteers who have worked their hearts out for presidential campaigns that have ended—remember that fighting for what you believe in is always worth it," she tweeted.ABC News' MaryAlice Parks and Will Steakin contributed to this report.

China’s “debtbook diplomacy” uses strategic debts to gain political leverage with economically vulnerable countries across the Asia-Pacific region, the US state department has been warned in an independent report.The academic report, from graduate students of the Harvard Kennedy school of policy analysis, was independently prepared for the state department to view and assessed the impact of China’s strategy on the influence of the US in the region.The paper identifies 16 “targets” of China’s tactic of extending hundreds of billions of dollars in loans to countries that can’t afford to pay them, and then strategically leveraging the debt.It said while Chinese infrastructure investment in developing countries wasn’t “inherently” against US or global interests, it became problematic when China’s use of its leverage ran counter to US interests, or if the US had strategic interests in a country which had its domestic stability undermined by unsustainable debt.The academics identified the most concerning countries, naming Pakistan and Sri Lanka as states where the process was “advanced”, with deepening debt and where the government had already ceded a key port or military base, as well places including Papua New Guinea and Thailand, where China had not yet used its amassed debt leverage.Papua New Guinea, which “has historically been in Australia’s orbit”, was also accepting unaffordable Chinese loans. While this wasn’t a significant concern yet, the report said, the country offered a “strategic location” for China, as well as large resource deposits.While there was a lack of “individual diplomatic clout” in Cambodia, Laos and the Philippines, Chinese debt could give China a “proxy veto” in Asean, the academics said.They also warned that the 2023 expiration of the compact of free association between Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands could “threaten the unfettered basing access and right of strategic denial the US has enjoyed since world war two, and help the Chinese navy extend its reach past the first island chain into the blue-water Pacific”, it said.China’s methods were “remarkably consistent”, the report said, beginning with infrastructure investments under its $1tn belt and road initiative, and offering longer term loans with extended grace periods, which was appealing to countries with weaker economies and governance.Construction projects, which the report said had a reputation for running over budget and yielding underwhelming returns, make debt repayments for the host nations more difficult.“The final phase is debt collection,” it said. “When countries prove unable to pay back their debts, China has already and is likely to continue to offer debt-forgiveness in exchange for both political influence and strategic equities.”As a case study, the report cited specific concerns about Sri Lanka granting China an 85% stake in a 99-year lease on a major port in Hambantota.The deal, which the report described as “opaque and contentious”, came after a decade of deepening debt ties with China. In 2007 China offered financing for the $361m port at a time when other entities were concerned about human rights and commercial viability, and then loaned a further $1.9bn for upgrades and an airport.By 2017, when the port deal was signed, Sri Lanka owed more than $8bn to Chinese-controlled firms. The port, which was yet to generate a profit, became a “debt trap”.“Once Sri Lanka made the initial commitment, the sunk cost and need to generate profit to pay off the original loans drove it to take out additional loans, a cycle that repeated itself until it was finally cornered into giving up the port in a debt-for-equity swap,” it said.“This has sparked fears that Hambantota could one day become a Chinese naval hub, and sent a worrying signal to other debt-strapped developing nations.”China has invested in or financed infrastructure developments across the Asian and Pacific regions, including large-scale projects representing sizeable portions of host nations’ GDP. The loans often require that Chinese companies build the projects, and complaints that locals are overlooked for a fly-in Chinese workforce are frequent.It has also sought to expand its military presence, prompting warnings for nearby countries including Australia. Australia’s major parties have also voiced concern about the country’s diminishing influence in the Pacific. The report recommended that the US target and streamline its investments, strengthen alliances and manage debt burdens, including through bolstering India’s role as a regional leader.Last year India warned against China’s expanding BRI and urged financial responsibility with projects that didn’t create “unsustainable debt burden for communities”.Beijing said in response that the initiative “is not and will never be neocolonialism by stealth”. “Nor will China use the success of the initiative to undermine the influence of others and jeopardise the regional stability upon which the nation’s astonishing successes have been built.” Topics China Asia Pacific Sri Lanka Papua New Guinea South and Central Asia

Any communications he had with the White House about the testimony would have been important only insofar as there was a discussion of its content. The president would have had a keen interest. It is exceedingly unlikely that he did not know what members of his staff and his lawyers learned about what Mr. Cohen was prepared to say. We also know that Mr. Cohen lied about the Moscow hotel project.While in his plea agreement Mr. Cohen noted that he understood and sought with his lies to bolster one aspect of the president’s public messaging on Russia — namely, that he had no business dealings with the Putin government — he did not say anything inconsistent with the possibility that the president knew that Mr. Cohen planned to lie to Congress. Did Mr. Trump encourage Mr. Cohen directly, or through others, to lie about the hotel project, to protect his public account? Or did the president, knowing Mr. Cohen would tell a lie, acquiesce in the false testimony — signaling with this silence approval, or at least acceptance?A similar question is presented in the case of Paul Manafort. The memorandum filed by prosecutors set out Mr. Manafort’s breach of his cooperation agreement. Contrary to his express representations to the government, he was in contact with the White House, with a “senior administration official,” in 2018. The prosecutors make clear that they have evidence of multiple contacts. Who was Mr. Manafort communicating with, and about what? That he was bidding for a pardon is one possibility. Another is that he was making sure that the president knew that he was holding the line — against telling the truth about the matters under investigation.In the same week we learned that Michael Flynn, unlike Mr. Cohen and Mr. Manafort, was actively cooperating. It’s not yet in the public record, but one issue on which he is certain to have come clean are the circumstances in which he lied to the F.B.I. about discussions in December 2016 with the Russian ambassador. It is known that Sally Yates, then the deputy attorney general, briefed the White House counsel promptly about the problem with Mr. Flynn’s F.B.I. interview, and Mr. Trump’s press secretary later assured reporters that the president was immediately briefed about “the situation.”Yet weeks passed before the president fired Mr. Flynn, and when he did he did so, he cited lies told to the vice president, not investigators. In other words, Mr. Trump steered clear of holding Mr. Flynn responsible for the criminal offense. Mr. Flynn may have light to shed on the president’s motives for this reticence. Mr. Trump might have avoided addressing publicly the lie to the F.B.I. if he had any part in it — either by encouraging Mr. Flynn to lie, or because he has been willing to wait out the “situation” and see if Mr. Flynn could get away with it.

He Had Trouble Converting DocumentsIn February 2018, federal prosecutors unsealed a new indictment against the Manafort, accusing him and his associate Richard Gates of committing tax and bank fraud. Mueller’s team detected the scheme in part because Manafort needed Gates’ help converting a PDF to the Microsoft Word format.According to the indictment, in October 2016 Manafort created a fake financial statement for his company in order to obtain a loan. He first emailed Gates the real document, which showed $600,000 in losses, and asked Gates to convert the PDF to Word so he could edit it. He then added more than $3.5 million in income and emailed the file back to Gates, requesting he convert it again into a PDF. The emails made it easy for Mueller’s team to tell how and when the financial statement was doctored.He Stored Incriminating Messages in the CloudManafort apparently didn’t know that encryption is useless if you’re backing up your files to iCloud. In a court filing in June, Mueller accused Manafort of attempting to tamper with witnesses in his case by contacting them over the phone, through an intermediary, and using chat apps including Telegram and WhatsApp. The latter Facebook-owned messaging app is end-to-end encrypted but has a setting that can automatically back up messages to users’ iCloud accounts on iPhone. While the messages Manafort sent were encrypted, the backups he apparently kept were not. The FBI simply needed to serve Apple with a search warrant to access them. If Manafort had turned off iCloud backups on WhatsApp, he may not have run into this exact issue. He also could have used Signal, another encrypted messaging app that doesn’t back up any message history to iCloud. But Signal wouldn’t have solved all of his woes: Two witnesses turned over messages to the US government themselves.He Tried to Use an Old Email Trick but FailedAt a court hearing that same month, a federal attorney from Mueller’s office accused Manafort of using a technique called “foldering” to contact witnesses without getting caught. Essentially, he created an email account but never sent anything. Instead, he wrote his correspondence in the drafts and shared the account password with the intended recipients. They could sign in, read the messages, and delete them. The problem is the technique, favored by the terrorist group al Qaeda, is already familiar to federal prosecutors. Former CIA director David Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, also used foldering to send secret messages, which the FBI uncovered in 2012. The correspondence indicated the pair were having an affair.Of course, Manafort could have avoided this whole mess by not committing crimes in the first place. However, he also really struggled to cover them up.1 UPDATE 1/9/19, 11:15 AM EDT: This story was updated to include Manafort's Microsoft track changes incident from December 2017 after Garrett Graff, WIRED contributing editor and resident Robert Mueller expert, notified us that we had missed it.More Great WIRED StoriesHow Corning makes super-pure glass for fiber-optic cableHyundai's walking car concept reinvents the wheelGive yourself to the dark (mode) sideThe life-changing magic of peak self-optimizationWhat is XR, and how do I get it?👀 Looking for the latest gadgets? Check out our picks, gift guides, and best deals all year round📩 Get even more of our inside scoops with our weekly Backchannel newsletter

A federal judge ruled Saturday that the Trump administration must stop plans to halt in-person census counting early — at least temporarily. The long-term fight over the administration’s efforts to shorten the census data collection period will continue under the decision, which resulted in a temporary restraining order from US District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California. Koh’s order requires the administration to stop scaling back counting efforts until at least September 17, when another court hearing will help determine when counting will end. The potential consequences are vast: The census count influences not only the number of representatives each state gets in Congress, but how much federal funding each state receives — and how voting district lines are drawn for the next decade. Ahead of the coronavirus pandemic, census data collection was scheduled to conclude on August 15; however, it was extended until October 31 given the challenges the pandemic created, particularly around in-person outreach — a key way of ensuring hard-to-count populations are included in the final tally.In early August, the bureau announced it would end counting at the end of September instead, arguing doing so was necessary to meet the December 31 deadline to send the final numbers to Congress. Work to wind down counting is already underway, according to the associate director of the census, who said in court filings that the agency had already started firing temporary employees in some areas.A number of civil rights groups, local governments, and the Navajo Nation — among others — sued over the new deadline, and Koh determined communities would likely experience irreparable harm if the census count was cut short. “An inaccurate count would not be remedied for another decade,” Koh wrote. That “would affect the distribution of federal and state funding, the deployment of services, and the allocation of local resources for a decade.” If the census count is ended sooner than planned, it could bring lasting consequences. As of now, around 35 percent of households haven’t responded to the census. But the impact of that isn’t shared equally. Large swaths of the country lag behind the 2010 response rate, according to a research initiative led by the Center for Urban Research at the CUNY Graduate Center. Rural areas in Montana, Texas, Oregon, New York and elsewhere remain more than 10 percentage points behind their response rate a decade ago. Renters, low-income people, young children, and immigrants are among those who are the hardest to count. Overall, about 20 percent of homes were counted through a “followup,” which involves Census Bureau employees visiting homes in person or counting families using other records. But Rob Santos, vice president and chief methodologist at the Urban Institute and president-elect of the American Statistical Association, told Vox’s Nicole Narea that method relies in part on reports from neighbors, which aren’t as accurate, and on Social Security and IRS data. The federal government is less likely to have reliable administrative data on hard-to-count households than others. For example, unauthorized immigrants who do not have Social Security numbers may be less likely to file taxes with the IRS. These complications mean ending the census count early could leave immigrant and rural communities, as well as communities of color, without the financial, educational, and political resources their true populations would state they are due. Latino advocates in particular have been particularly vocal in raising the alarm about how an undercount could undercut the political power of Latino voters.But it’s not just civil rights advocates who are concerned. Four former census directors have asked the Trump administration to push the deadline to respond to the census even further out, until April 2021. Trump is no stranger to politicizing the census. He sought to include a question on citizenship status in the 2020 census; several states challenged it in court, arguing it would depress response rates. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor in 2019 because the administration had lied about why it had pushed to include the question. Instead of fighting that ruling, Trump issued an executive order that required the Census Bureau to use administrative records to create estimates on citizenship, and allowed the agency to collect more data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and Citizenship and Immigration Services. In July, it became clear why the administration hoped to get that data. Trump issued a memo excluding unauthorized immigrants from being included in the counts for congressional districts in 2021. That, too, has been challenged in court. More will become clear about the schedule for ending the census on September 17. But for now — with money and power on the line — the count will continue.Help keep Vox free for allMillions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work, and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. Contribute today from as little as $3.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Sen. Kamala Harris told supporters on Tuesday that she was ending her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, an abrupt close to a candidacy that held historic potential.“I’ve taken stock and looked at this from every angle, and over the last few days have come to one of the hardest decisions of my life,” the California Democrat said. “My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue.”A senior campaign aide said Harris made the decision Monday after discussing the path forward with family and other top officials over the Thanksgiving holiday. ADVERTISEMENTHer withdrawal marked a dramatic fall for a candidate who showed extraordinary promise in her bid to become the first black female president. Harris launched her campaign in front of 20,000 people on a chilly January day in Oakland, California. The first woman and first black attorney general and U.S. senator in California’s history, she was widely viewed as a candidate poised to excite the multiracial coalition of voters that sent Barack Obama to the White House.Her departure erodes the diversity of the Democratic field, which is dominated at the moment by a top tier that is white and mostly male.“She was an important voice in the race, out before others who raised less and were less electable. It’s a loss not to have her voice in the race,” said Aimee Allison, who leads She the People, a group that promotes women of color.Harris ultimately could not craft a message that resonated with voters or secure the money to continue her run. She raised an impressive $12 million in the first three months of her campaign and quickly locked down major endorsements meant to show her dominance in her home state, which offers the biggest delegate haul in the Democratic primary contest.But as the field grew, Harris’ fundraising remained flat; she was unable to attract the type of attention being showered on Pete Buttigieg by traditional donors or the grassroots firepower that drove tens of millions of dollars to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.In her note to supporters, Harris lamented the role of money in politics and, without naming them, took a shot at billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, who are funding their own presidential bids.“I’m not a billionaire,” she said. “I can’t fund my own campaign. And as the campaign has gone on, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete.”ADVERTISEMENTHarris suffered from what allies and critics viewed as an inconsistent pitch to voters. Her slogan “For the people” referenced her career as a prosecutor, a record that was viewed skeptically by the party’s most progressive voters.Through the summer, she focused on pocketbook issues and her “3 a.m. agenda,” a message that never seemed to resonate with voters. By the fall, she had returned to her courtroom roots with the refrain that “justice is on the ballot,” both a cry for economic and social justice as well as her call that she could “prosecute the case” against a “criminal” president.At times, she was tripped up by confusing policy positions; particularly on health care. After suggesting she would eliminate private insurance in favor of a fully government-run system, Harris eventually rolled out a health care plan that preserves a role for private insurance.Stumbles, often of the campaign’s making, continued to dog Harris into the winter, stymieing her ability to capitalize on solid moments. Harris kicked off November with a well-received speech at a massive Iowa dinner, just a day after her campaign announced it would fire staff at its Baltimore headquarters and was moving some people from other early states to Iowa.Her message was regularly overshadowed by campaign aides and allies sharing grievances with the news media. Several top aides decamped for other campaigns, one leaving a blistering resignation letter.“Because we have refused to confront our mistakes, foster an environment of critical thinking and honest feedback, or trust the expertise of talented staff, we find ourselves making the same unforced errors over and over,” Kelly Mehlenbacher wrote in her letter, obtained by The New York Times. Mehlenbacher now works for businessman Bloomberg’s campaign.With Harris’ exit, 15 Democrats remain in the race for the nomination. Several praised her on Tuesday.Former Vice President Joe Biden, who had a memorable debate stage tussle with Harris this summer, called the senator a “solid person, loaded with talent.”Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders commended Harris for “running a spirited and issue-oriented campaign.”New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, one of two black candidates still in the campaign, called Harris a “trailblazer.”Harris anchored her campaign in the powerful legacy of pioneering African Americans. Her campaign launch on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday included a nod to Shirley Chisholm, the New York congresswoman who sought the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination 47 years ago earlier. One of her first stops as a candidate was to Howard University, the historically black college that she attended as an undergraduate.She spent much of her early campaign focusing on South Carolina, which hosts the first Southern primary and has a significant African American population.But Harris struggled to chip away at Biden’s deep advantage with black voters who are critical to winning the Democratic nomination. Harris and her aides believe she faced an uphill battle — and unfair expectations for perfection — from the start as a woman of color. Her campaign speech included a line about what Harris called the “donkey in the room,” a reference to the thought that Americans wouldn’t elect a woman of color.Harris often suggested it was criticism she faced in her other campaigns — all of which she won.Her departure from the presidential race marks her first defeat as a political candidate.___Associated Press writers Steve Peoples in New York and Bill Barrow in Mason City, Iowa, contributed to this report.

Maybe China has hit on something here. At first, everyone in the West railed against China's IP policies - or rather, strategic lack of IP policies. Was is Balmer who said they were going to finally make China pay for Windows? At first everyone just assumed China couldn't compete and had to steal everyone else's IP, but that's not true - at least not any more. Something funny happened. China got cutthroat - all the millions of manufacturing houses there not only rip everyone else off, they rip each other off. And ruthlessly. Something interesting comes out with an interesting and novel way to use generally existing technology and there are 10 copycats tomorrow. So the only way for a Chinese company to truly get ahead is to make technology the others don't have yet. So the ruthless, cutthroat system in China is actually fueling innovation. And patents, which are supposed to drive innovation by securing investment, are just stalling it. The patent system is hopelessly broken because companies make overbroad claims on stuff that either doesn't really work or doesn't even really matter, and as soon as one keyword on one of those overbroad claims matches something in a later patent, boom. It's litigation forever. Patents were supposed to have the additional purpose of encouraging technology disclosure, but patents are now written by experts at disclosing just enough to secure the patent, but be vague enough that you can't actually do anything with what was disclosed. It's useless. And don't get me started on drug patents and the recent spate of companies buying out small-volume drug patents and jacking the prices by 10,000%.I'm not sure there is a cure for patents, because I'm not sure the good-faith users of the system are even in a majority. It may be time to simply scrap it. We are not getting true disclosure anyway, so if companies "turtle up" behind trade secrets, who cares? Let them innovate by making technology no one can duplicate.

The news for President Donald Trump this week on the impeachment inquiry was grim.Most significantly, a witness gave testimony to House committees that proved devastating to one of the White House’s key arguments — confirming that Trump personally seemed to link withholding military aid for Ukraine with his demand that Ukraine investigate his political opponents.That witness, Bill Taylor, was one of what’s rapidly becoming a parade of government officials who are testifying to the inquiry despite the White House’s order not to. That’s emblematic of a broader trend of Trump’s weakness and ineffectiveness in responding to the scandal. Republicans have struggled to effectively defend the president, and even Trump himself felt enough heat to drop his plan to hold the G7 conference at one of his properties.Meanwhile, reports suggested that Rudy Giuliani is in serious jeopardy from a criminal investigation that has already resulted in the arrest of two of his associates. And two Washington, DC, judges ordered the administration to turn over documents that are relevant for the impeachment inquiry. The latter of those rulings came down Friday afternoon, as Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the Trump administration had to turn over grand jury material from the Mueller investigation to House Democrats, because — and this is the key part — the House is, in fact, conducting a legitimate impeachment inquiry. This didn’t just cap off a week of bad news for Trump, it also undercut one of Republicans’ key talking points: their complaint that the inquiry isn’t valid until the whole House votes on it. By far the most important development of the week was Tuesday’s closed-door testimony by Bill Taylor, the top diplomat at the US embassy in Kyiv: It revealed important new information about what, exactly, happened between Trump and Ukraine.To set the stage: It’s been well documented by now that Trump tried to push Ukraine to launch investigations designed to serve his political needs — one into the origins of the FBI’s Russia investigation and one into Burisma (a gas company where Joe Biden’s son served on the board). It’s also been well documented that Trump officials linked this demand to something the Ukrainians wanted: a meeting between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House.But perhaps the biggest question at the heart of this scandal has been whether Trump’s decision to block about $400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine was tied to this pressure campaign as well. That’s what many believe is the most appalling allegation, that Trump was threatening Ukraine’s security by withholding assistance they needed for their continuing military conflict with Russia unless they helped him politically.And Taylor gave the clearest testimony yet suggesting that this was indeed what happened. Though Democrats haven’t released a transcript of his full testimony, in a detailed 15-page opening statement, Taylor said: That another official told him Gordon Sondland, the Ambassador to the European Union (and a close Trump ally), told a Ukrainian official “that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.” That when Taylor asked Sondland whether this was true, he said that it was. “Ambassador Sondland said ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,” Taylor said. “He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.” That later, Sondland told Taylor again that Trump “was adamant” that Zelensky make such a statement — but also that Trump said this wasn’t a “quid pro quo.” That Sondland told Zelensky that, if Zelensky didn’t “clear things up” regarding the investigations in public, they would be at a “stalemate.” (Taylor says he understood “stalemate” to mean that Trump would keep blocking the aid.) Taylor added that Sondland “tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman,” and “when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something ... the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.” All of this sounds exactly like a quid pro quo, despite Trump’s insistence that it isn’t one. (Taylor also adds that the analogy “made no sense” because “the Ukrainians did not ‘owe’ President Trump anything.”)All of this debunked Trump’s continued insistence that he didn’t link the aid to his demand for investigations. Taylor’s information suggests that, 1) yes he did, 2) the Ukrainians were told of it, and 3) it came from Trump personally. So his testimony makes the factual picture at the heart of the scandal look even worse for President Trump than it already did.Taylor’s appearance was part of a trend. Again and again, sitting government officials have turned up for these depositions in the impeachment inquiry — in stark defiance of the Trump administration’s instructions that they should not. Indeed, it was just a few weeks ago that White House counsel Pat Cipollone announced the Trump administration would not “participate” in what they called an unconstitutional impeachment inquiry. The move seemed like it could pose a problem to Democrats’ investigation.Except what ended up happening is that several government officials have just testified anyway. They’ve done so in response to Democratic subpoenas, but loquacious opening statements like those of Taylor and former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch suggest they’re not exactly reluctant to talk.And it’s possible Democrats could soon land their most famous witness yet. CNN’s Kylie Atwood and Veronica Stracqualursi reported Friday that former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who exited the administration on bad terms last month, has communicated with House committees through his lawyers about a potential deposition. Given his high-level White House access, his unimpeachable Republican credentials, and his falling-out with Trump, Bolton’s testimony could be explosive. If it happens, that is: late on Friday, a former Bolton aide filed suit asking the courts to clarify whether he must testify. Bolton is using the same lawyer as that aide, so the question of whether he appears may be decided by the courts in the end. As the scandal has worsened, meanwhile, Republicans predisposed to defend Trump have looked increasingly at a loss for how to do so.Apparently unable to straightforwardly defend what Trump did, the GOP’s primary focus this week was on criticizing how House Democrats have been conducting the inquiry. They profess to be deeply troubled, for instance, by the fact that recent witness interviews have been conducted behind closed doors rather than in public.This criticism comes off as phony for several reasons. For one, House Republicans have previously used closed-door depositions for several of their own investigations (for instance, investigations into the Benghazi attack and into the Justice Department’s handling of the Russia investigation). The critics also often omit the fact that Republicans who are on the relevant committees are permitted to attend these closed-door depositions. All this culminated in a stunt on Wednesday in which several fiercely pro-Trump House Republicans stormed the secure room in which Defense Department official Laura Cooper was scheduled to be deposed. It was a farcical move that involved ordering pizza and some Republicans bringing their cellphones into a room where such devices are banned. And in the end, it didn’t matter; proceedings were delayed for a few hours, but Cooper then testified anyway. In any case, Democrats are expected to move to public hearings in the coming weeks, so this talking point may soon be abandoned.In the Senate, meanwhile, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has come under pressure from Trump supporters for purportedly not doing enough to defend the president. His response was to draft a resolution condemning the House’s handling of the impeachment inquiry so far. But similarly, his criticisms were based on process. “I’m not here to tell you that Donald Trump’s done nothing wrong,” he said at a press conference Thursday.Graham has indeed been somewhat hesitant to launch an all-out defense of Trump, which has led to much squirming on his part during this scandal. Just days ago, he said that if “Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.” After Bill Taylor testified that he was told this was the case, Graham complained this was “hearsay” and that this needed to be “tested” by questioning other witnesses. Other witnesses are expected to confirm Taylor’s account next week, so we’ll have to wait and see what Graham’s next excuse will be.Meanwhile, the US federal district court for the District of Columbia gave Democrats two assists in their impeachment inquiry. First, on Wednesday, Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the State Department had to release various Ukraine-related records — particularly involving Rudy Giuliani’s communications with State officials — within 30 days. Cooper did so in response to a lawsuit brought by the group American Oversight.Then, on Friday afternoon, Chief Judge Beryl Howell sided with House Judiciary Committee Democrats in a separate suit. Howell ruled that the Justice Department has to hand over Mueller report materials that had been withheld due to grand jury secrecy — and she gave them a deadline of October 30 to do so.“The need for continued secrecy is minimal and thus easily outweighed by HJC’s compelling need for the material,” Howell wrote. She added: “Tipping the scale even further toward disclosure is the public’s interest in a diligent and thorough investigation into, and in a final determination about, potentially impeachable conduct by the President described in the Mueller Report.” (Recently, of course, Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has focused more on Ukraine than on the Mueller investigation, but getting more material can’t hurt.)Howell also refuted another common Republican process criticism of the impeachment inquiry: their complaint that the full House hasn’t held a vote to officially approve the inquiry. “A House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” she writes. Separately from the action unfolding in Congress, several news developments suggested that Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani is in increasing legal jeopardy from an investigation that has already ensnared two of his associates in the Ukraine caper (Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman) for campaign finance violations.We already knew that Giuliani was under scrutiny in this probe from the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. But Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn reported Friday that “the criminal division of the Justice Department in Washington has taken an interest in the former New York mayor, too, meaning an expansion of resources that indicates the politically sensitive probe into the president’s personal attorney is both broader and moving at a faster pace than previously understood.” Unsurprisingly, CNN reported that Giuliani has recently been “approaching defense attorneys for possible representation.”On Friday, then, the somewhat embarrassing news broke that Giuliani had accidentally left NBC News’ Rich Schapiro a voicemail in which he is heard discussing business with someone whose identity is unclear. “The problem is, we need some money,” Giuliani said on October 16, a few days after Parnas and Fruman’s arrests. “We need a few hundred thousand.” What he needs the money for isn’t clear, though a legal defense or some new business endeavor are two possibilities.Finally, this doesn’t relate to the Ukraine issue, but one of President Trump’s most controversial moves last week was his announcement that he would host the 2020 G7 meeting at one of his own properties in Miami.Democrats accused him of brazen corruption and Republicans once again struggled to defend it. And it even seemed possible that the impeachment inquiry could expand to cover this self-dealing as well.So it’s noteworthy that, on Saturday evening, two days after making the announcement, Trump backed down: ....Therefore, based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David, immediately. Thank you!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2019 It’s a sign that the president has been feeling some heat from his Republican allies behind the scenes — and that he calculated that, for the moment, this move was simply too controversial to defend.Ambassador William Taylor finally testified on Tuesday and it was a doozy.

“European regulators are using competition policy to pursue objectives that are unrelated to competition,” said Eline Chivot, a senior policy analyst in Brussels for the Center for Data Innovation, a group funded by a Washington think tank whose board includes representatives from Amazon, Apple and Microsoft. “It introduces uncertainty.”Facebook is appealing the German decision, arguing that it was transparent with users about how data is collected. The social network argues that its use of data helps improve the service and that German regulators singled it out for practices common across the internet.Even those who support Germany’s broader goals question whether its approach will be effective. The February ruling allows Facebook to continue sharing data between Instagram and WhatsApp if it gets users to click a new permission box. Many wonder how effective the ruling will be because most people will sign off without much thought.“It might be that you’ll end up in the same place you started,” said Jason Furman, a senior economic adviser in the Obama administration.Mr. Furman, a Harvard professor advising the British government on tech regulation, said that rather than relying on antitrust law alone, countries should create a dedicated regulator for the tech industry, to match those covering the banking, health and transportation sectors of the economy. He said a watchdog with expertise in the field could better review a company’s behavior and use of data on a case-by-case basis. He said new laws requiring companies to make some of their data available to rivals also could seed competition.In the United States, where antitrust law has a narrower scope than in Europe, experts say Germany’s approach won’t work because it relies on privacy and consumer protection rules that don’t exist in America. But lawmakers and federal regulators in Washington are studying new ways to account for data in regulating the digital economy.Mr. Delrahim, the head of the Justice Department antitrust division, said in a speech last month that lack of competition may be leading to weaker online privacy protections. “Diminished quality is also a type of harm to competition,” he said.

It is a deformity of the Trump presidency that Stephen Miller has the power that he currently wields. A little over a decade ago, Miller was writing vaguely obnoxious columns for the Duke student newspaper, complaining about the excesses of multiculturalism and identity politics. Now he is instrumental in transforming US immigration policy into a national disgrace, a cruel exercise in xenophobia.Miller has emerged as the ultimate, Trump “survivor.” Having been with the president since the day he took office, Miller has managed to weather the periodic purges that have claimed an unprecedented number of senior White House officials and executive appointees. Far from simply surviving, Miller has thrived in the Trump White House.In recent days, the president has given Miller power to oversee all matters involving border and immigration, and Miller has not been shy in its exercise. A shakeup in the leadership at the Department of Homeland Security has witnessed the departure of Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and the abrupt withdrawal of the nomination of Ron Vitiello to become the next head of Customs and Border Enforcement.Miller has been able to consolidate and expand his power because he is at once an extremely accomplished operator, able to successfully negotiate a highly toxic environment, and an ingratiating sycophant, who has mastered the art of telling his master what he wants to hear. If the president describes himself in a tweet as a certifiable genius, Miller can be counted on to go on national television to offer vociferous support of the truth of the description. Like a minister of propaganda, he is skilled at repeating, distilling and amplifying his master’s messages.In this, he is an altogether different animal than a Steve Bannon, who helped advance Miller’s career, and with whom Miller drafted Trump’s apocalyptic inaugural address and the doomed early draft of the Muslim ban. With his deconstructionist fantasies, crusader mentality and Leninist impulses, Bannon was never going to last in the White House, his style more suited to a night of long knives than to an afternoon of quiet political jockeying.Miller, by contrast, has no grand, burning vision. He is certainly an ideologue, but his ideology seems born of a pugilist glee in offending liberal sensibilities. He is more of a political tactician and infighter, and in that regard, arguably more dangerous than Bannon ever was.And he is certain not to repeat the error of Bannon, who fell from favor by hogging the spotlight from a narcissistic and prickly president. Irritated that Miller might be seen as the wizard behind the curtain, Trump on Wednesday was quick to remind everyone, “There’s only one person running immigration policy in this administration…It’s me”—a statement that Miller immediately affirmed.Alas, there is no denying the crisis on the southern border. It is estimated that as many as a million people will try to enter the United States through that border this year, many fleeing conditions of extreme poverty and violence. But rather than address this humanitarian crisis, the president and his trusted satrap seek only to exacerbate it for political gain.Talk of closing the border may sell well to Trump’s base, as may the promise to cut aid to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, the very countries whose desperate conditions are contributing to the crisis. But the threat of cuts and closures serve simply to increase the impulse to flee. Just as gun sales skyrocket in the wake of any news of possible regulation, the fear that the border will close has made the desire to come to the US only more urgent.Trump and Miller’s answer to this crisis follow a familiar litany: close the Mexican border. Separate parents from their children. Cut off the dreamers’ pathway to citizenship. Bar refugees of violence from entering the United States. Limit public benefits for legal residents. Eliminate birthright citizenship.These are cruel and indecent proposals that bring shame on our nation. Lawrence Douglas is the James J Grosfeld Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought, at Amherst College, Massachusetts. His most recent book is The Right Wrong Man: John Demjanjuk and the Last Great Nazi War Crimes Trial, published by Princeton Topics Opinion comment

closeVideoJudge Napolitano breaks down Supreme Court order allowing Trump asylum restrictions to take effectThe Supreme Court ends all injunctions that blocked a White House ban on asylum for anyone trying to enter the U.S. through a third country.The Supreme Court’s decision late Wednesday allowing the Trump administration to implement its policy making it harder for migrants to qualify for asylum in the U.S. is a victory not just for President Trump, but more importantly for the American people and for the rule of law.In its decision, which only saw two dissenting justices, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s right to require that people fleeing their own country claim asylum in the first safe country they enter.For example, the new Trump policy states that if migrants say their lives are in danger and they face persecution in Guatemala and flee to Mexico, they have to seek asylum in Mexico – not simply travel through Mexico and then seek asylum in the U.S. They can only seek asylum in the U.S. if Mexico turns down their request.JOHN YOO: SUPREME COURT MAKES RIGHT DECISION ALLOWING TRUMP ASYLUM POLICY TO TAKE EFFECTThe high court ruling is a matter of common sense. Asylum is meant for relief for persecution – not for the purpose of picking a country solely because it is more desirable and can provide migrants with better-paying jobs and a higher standard of living.With this win, President Trump will undoubtedly be able to reduce illegal immigration drastically – something the vast majority of U.S. citizens want.The Supreme Court’s decision is not a final ruling on a lawsuit challenging the Trump asylum policy. Rather, it says that while a lawsuit challenging the asylum policy goes to trial and then through the appeals process – likely winding up in the Supreme Court – the Trump administration can implement the policy.The high court ruling is a defeat for U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, who issued an order saying that until a final ruling in the lawsuit and appeals – which could take years – the new Trump asylum policy couldn’t go into effect anywhere in the United States.If Tigar would have been allowed to get away with this outrageous power grab, he could have singlehandedly blocked President Trump from carrying out the president’s duty to protect our nation from the threat of illegal immigration.In his 2016 election campaign, candidate Donald Trump made it very clear that he would enforce America’s immigration laws. He won the election in part because of that promise and has shown a fierce determination to keep it – unlike some other politicians who ignore campaign promises after Election Day.During my 22-year law enforcement career, Trump is the only president I’ve served under who refuses to take “no” for an answer. However daunting the task at hand, he continues to defy all odds as he fights on behalf of the American people.In April 2017, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended the fewest number of people crossing the border illegally in 45 years. The drop was predicated upon the belief that if you crossed the border illegally, you would be held in custody pending the outcome of deportation or asylum proceedings.Why did this happen? Because migrants understood that President Trump was serious about enforcing our immigration laws. He almost singlehandedly was responsible for the biggest drop in illegal immigration to the lowest levels in our recent history.Due to judicial activism and far-left policies, however, illegal border crossers were not held in custody but were released to disappear and never show up for their court appearances. This liberal policy is known as catch-and-release and it is what spurred the most recent crisis at the border.When confronted with activist judges and special interest groups, most politicians roll over and accept “no” for an answer. President Trump does not.With next to no help from Congress, and in the face of daunting odds, President Trump used business acumen to get Mexico to agree to the Migrant Protection Protocols, more commonly known as the Remain in Mexico policy.To get this agreement, President Trump played hardball and was accused by many on the radical left of “weaponizing” tariffs. In reality, he stayed within the laws and within his authority. He hammered out a deal that his predecessors would have loved to have but couldn’t make happen because they didn’t have President Trump’s political will or negotiating skills. Notwithstanding the president’s right to set immigration rules within the law, the most activist federal appellate court – the infamous 9th Circuit – struck down the president’s executive authority, upholding Tigar’s authority to block the Trump asylum policy in the states covered by the appeals court.The Supreme Court ruling against Tigar overrules the 9th Circuit decision.As is their custom, President Trump’s critics will cry foul. But because they don’t have the law or facts on their side, they will certainly resort to name calling.Instead of taking a moment to look at all of the good President Trump is doing for the United States or giving him credit for protecting the American public, they will call him a racist, a xenophobe, and all the other ridiculous buzz words they use as a first line of defense.And as usual, the mainstream media will run with sensational misleading headlines instead of reporting the facts and giving credit where credit is due.I am not worried about the mainstream media. I’ve had the opportunity to discuss border security with President Trump on many occasions and I can personally attest to the fact that his policies are not rooted in racism or xenophobia. Rather, they are based on his deep caring for our country and our citizens.Against all odds, the president keeps winning, and I’m confident that my fellow Americans will look at both the law and the facts and judge president Trump on his record of accomplishments and his obvious deep love for the United States.

Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what’s happening in the world. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions. House Democrats issued subpoenas Friday for several Trump administration officials who previously were reluctant to testify. [CNN / Jeremy Herb and Manu Raju] It was the latest development in a week filled with bad news for President Trump. [Vox / Andrew Prokop] The most significant was the testimony of William Taylor, ambassador to Ukraine, who told members of Congress on Tuesday there absolutely was a quid pro quo: Trump demanded Ukraine investigate the Bidens in order to release military aid. [Vox / Alex Ward] On Wednesday, a group of Republican members of Congress stormed the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, during a closed-door deposition at the Capitol, forcing the proceedings to stop. They then ordered pizza. [NYT / Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Nicholas Fandos] And Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed a resolution in that condemned the impeachment inquiry, getting 46 signatures. Constitutional scholars dismissed Graham’s proposal as “full of phony objections” and having “absolutely no substance.” [Newsweek / Shane Croucher] But all of this pushback doesn’t change that the investigation is continuing. National Security Council official Tim Morrison plans to testify Thursday, making him the first to speak while actively serving in the White House. [Politico / Kyle Cheney] And former National Security Adviser John Bolton is reportedly in discussions about potentially testifying to Congress. [Vox / Alex Ward] Support for impeachment among the American public has mostly held steady in the past couple weeks. It’s now at 49.1 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight, a 9-point increase since the Ukraine scandal “snowballed” last month. [FiveThirtyEight / Nathaniel Rakich] Demonstrators attempting to storm Baghdad’s Green Zone faced tear gas and security forces, in an escalation of protests that began on October 1. [Reuters / Ahmed Aboulenein] At least two Iraqis are dead and 95 wounded in the attempt to enter the fortified area where the Iraqi Parliament and several Western embassies reside in Baghdad. Iraq’s Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi made a televised speech talking about the government reshuffling in an attempt to placate the protesters. [CNN / Hamdi Alkhshali, Jaide Garcia, and Aimee Lewis] After the anti-government protests were suspended two weeks ago when nearly 150 protesters lost their lives as a result of security forces opening fire, the government investigated military and police commanders in connection with the shootings. Protesters, however, want more substantial change. [New York Times / Alissa J. Rubin] ”People are very upset about the ongoing lack of economic opportunities, basic services — such as water and electricity — and what they perceive to be a dysfunctional government that is looting the country of its money. Adding to their anger is the fact that in the first round of protests earlier this month, 149 protesters were killed,” said Al Jazeera correspondent Natasha Ghoneim. [Al Jazeera] “Nobody said anything. Nobody did anything”: Harvey Weinstein appeared at an invite-only event for young performers. An actor who confronted him described how that felt. [Vulture / Rachel Handler] How pop culture reference costumes worked their way into Halloween. [New York Times / Jennifer Harlan] The Tree of Life synagogue shooting brought fear of anti-Semitism to the forefront of many Jewish Americans, prompting conversations about how best to combat it and renew the Jewish sense of belonging in America. [Vox / Zack Beauchamp] In a messy, unpredictable decade, our sense of time appears to have warped completely. [BuzzFeed / Katherine Miller] The creepy crawlies celebrated on Halloween might be sticking around in homes for the other 364 days of the year. [Wall Street Journal / Jo Craven McGinty] “I’m sure he’s going to bring up the strike, the finances, the shootings — obviously because we’re his favorite punching bag among the cities. Part of that, I think, is because Obama was from here and anything Obama is radioactive to him.” [University of Chicago political scientist Christopher Mooney on President Trump’s upcoming visit to Chicago]Brexit is still chugging along, and with all of the latest developments, you might be wondering what’s next for the UK. The Worldly team has got you covered. [Spotify]And if you’d like your impeachment news in podcast form, check out the latest episode of Impeachment, Explained, on Saturday. Ezra Klein details why the Ukraine story is really a Russia story, too. “A man of noble and good heart”: Read Barack Obama’s eulogy for Elijah Cummings

SEATTLE -- Amazon has introduced new palm reading technology in a pair of Seattle stores and sees broader uses in places like stadiums and offices.“And it’s contactless, which we think customers will appreciate, especially in current times,” Kumar wrote in a blog post Tuesday.The company expects to roll out Amazon One as an option in other Amazon stores in the coming months, which could mean Whole Foods Market grocery stores. But Amazon believes the technology is applicable elsewhere.“In most retail environments, Amazon One could become an alternate payment or loyalty card option with a device at the checkout counter next to a traditional point of sale system,” Kumar wrote. “Or, for entering a location like a stadium or badging into work, Amazon One could be part of an existing entry point to make accessing the location quicker and easier.”People can sign up for an Amazon One account with a mobile phone number and credit card. An Amazon account isn't necessary.

Comments Related Extras Related Videos Video Transcript Transcript for Amazon Go store opens today In today's six nights the store of the future opens today Briere registered and check out line they have among those store in Seattle you scan an app when you enter and then you'll be charged automatically if you pick up items. All thanks to cameras and other sensors grocery store union to have been critical. But Amazon says if the idea catches on millions of cast your jobs in the US can be re purpose. If you enjoy audio books you'll soon have a new place to turn to. But Google placed formal soon be getting a dedicated audiobook section users reportedly get 50% off their first purchase. And talk about a power couple apple CEO Tim Cook and Nobel Peace Prize winner we'll all use SI are joining together to launch a campaign. Called think different to improve education for girls around the world. He recently met with Syrian refugees many whom talked about rebuilding their countries. We'll have more and this on Good Morning America the lizard tech sites have a great day. This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate. Is Amazon set to acquire Target? An influential analyst predicts Amazon will buy Target in 2018. Amazon reveals biggest holiday sellers The e-commerce giant confirmed that more than 1 billion items were ordered on Amazon this holiday season, with golf balls, the Instant Pot and a Nerf toy among the top sellers.