A quieter week on the data front lies ahead, following Friday’s monthly U.S. jobs report. The U.S. Labor Department will issue figures on inflation and the Federal Reserve will post minutes from its last meeting. Germany will release data on manufacturing orders.MONDAYAmid a global manufacturing pullback, German manufacturers have especially suffered as export orders in particular have declined sharply. Monday’s data on new orders may point to a stabilization in August, although that would fall short of any hint of a significant rebound in overseas or domestic sales. Economists expect to see manufacturing orders up 0.2% from the previous month, while remaining 2.7% down on a year earlier. However, as weak orders continue to flow through factory floors, they expect figures to be released Tuesday and Wednesday will show a 0.1% drop in industrial production in the same month, and a narrowing of Germany’s trade surplus.WEDNESDAYThe Federal Reserve releases minutes from its Sept. 17-18 meeting, when officials voted to cut interest rates by a quarter-percentage point for the second time in as many months. Investors will look for additional insight into how Fed officials are thinking as discussions of another rate cut remain on the table.

President Donald Trump spent most of his United Nations speech blasting China — for its handling of the coronavirus, for its contributions to pollution, for its trade policy. China’s President Xi Jinping, who spoke shortly afterward, did not mention the United States directly. Instead, he talked about Beijing’s commitment to global cooperation and the humanitarian response to the Covid-19 pandemic.Both speeches misrepresented the realities of their countries, and the world, right now. But 75 years after the United Nations was founded, China, not the United States, has shown it knows how to work the multilateral system to its advantage. Trump’s dismissiveness of international cooperation has been a theme of his presidency, culminating in his fourth (and maybe final) United Nations speech, where he once again revisited the greatest hits of “America First.” Or as Trump put it in his short, prerecorded address: “But only when you take care of your own citizens will you find a true basis for cooperation. As president, I have rejected the failed approaches of the past, and I am proudly putting America first, just as you should be putting your countries first.” “We must hold accountable the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world: China,” Trump said, referring to the coronavirus. “In the earliest days of the virus, China locked down travel domestically while allowing flights to leave China — and infect the world.”He accused the World Health Organization, which the Trump administration announced this summer it was withdrawing from, of being too greatly influenced by China. He demanded the “United Nations must hold China accountable for their actions.”A representative for China, speaking to introduce his leader Xi, rejected the US’s characterizations, but in contrast to Trump’s adversarial tone, China tried to paint a picture where they were the good guys just trying to defeat the pandemic responsibly. “We should follow the guidance of science, give full play to the leading role of the World Health Organization, and launch a joint international response to beat this pandemic,” Xi said in his address, through an interpreter. “Any attempt of politicizing the issue of stigmatization must be rejected.”“We will never seek hegemonic expansion or sphere of influence,” Xi said in his speech, clearly a nod to Trump’s accusations. “We have no intention to fight either a cold war or a hot one with any country. We will continue to narrow differences and resolve disputes with others through dialogue and negotiation.”Xi is framing China as a sort of responsible global partner and humble participant in the global order; he didn’t try to go tit-for-tat with the US. Instead, the leader of a country that is interning 1 million of its Uighur Muslim minority population, and has stifled democracy in Hong Kong, talked about the need “to join hands to uphold the values of peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom shared by all of us.”The Trump administration isn’t wrong to call out China its misdeeds. (Trump did not mention Hong Kong or the Uighurs directly, though he warned against “religious persecution, and the ethnic cleansing of religious minorities.”) But the US also failed to offer an alternative vision of global leadership other than everyone looking out for themselves. In rejecting global institutions, Trump then wants these global institutions to change — a proposition that seems doomed to fail. At least for the United States.The UN and its agencies like the WHO are really the sum of their parts, which is a collective of member states. That makeup is also reflective of the geopolitical realities of the world: The richest and most powerful states tend to have the most leverage. That is, still, the United States, even as it doesn’t always claim to have that role.The United States, for example, is far and away the largest donor to the UN. While China’s contributions are increasing, in fiscal year 2019, the US’s commitments to the UN’s regular budget were nearly double China’s. (China is the biggest donor to UN peacekeeping missions.) As for the World Health Organization, in 2018 and 2019, the US’s contributions dwarfed China’s in both assessed and voluntary contributions. There’s no doubt China’s influence is growing, but it is slightly overblown. But when the United States walks away from cooperative bodies — from the Paris climate accord to the WHO — it leaves behind a vacuum. China has hastened to fill it, and that, more than anything, is bolstering Beijing’s rise and influence. It gives China a chance to be a good guy — say, pledging $30 million to the WHO when the US threatened to withdraw, a fraction of the money the US provides annually. The Trump administration, in abandoning institutions for being too China-centric, is allowing them to become just that. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Again, this is not to say the US doesn’t have legitimate criticisms of the WHO, or China. But by refusing to work within the system, it is actively ceding leverage and losing credibility. Last week, in a discussion with reporters about the implications of the US leaving the WHO, Elizabeth Cousens, the president and CEO of the UN Foundation, said that even as the US is trying to push the WHO to reform, it’s “losing influence in that conversation because they’ve stepped off the field.”The US can’t officially withdraw from the WHO until July 2021 because it must fulfill certain financial commitments through then. But that undermines trust in the United States as a reliable partner. China is happy to try to fill that gap.And Trump’s anger at some of these multilateral institutions is somewhat misplaced. For all his “America is the best” rhetoric, he’s suggesting the United Nation has powers that it just doesn’t have, in part because powerful member states don’t want it to. It’s not as though the US likes supranational bodies getting involved in its affairs.The UN system is far from perfect. But as Stewart Patrick, an expert on global governance at the Council on Foreign Relations, told me before Trump’s speech, past presidents used to criticize the United Nations “more in sorrow than in anger” — in other words, this body is imperfect and needs to be reformed. But Trump’s wholesale rejection doesn’t achieve those ends. If America wants UN bodies to work for its interests, then it has to work within them, rally support, defend, and make the case for them. That’s what China tried to do on Tuesday.China might not succeed in this because global cooperation is as much a means to an end, in this case to build up China as a great power. Take the quest for an effective and safe Covid-19 vaccine. In Trump’s speech, he said: “We will distribute a vaccine. We will defeat the virus. We will end the pandemic. And we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity, cooperation, and peace.” What he notably didn’t mention were any specific commitments to the rest of the world. Alternatively, Xi claimed China had a “safe and effective vaccine,” then added that “there is a particular need in terms of leadership for the leaders of this movement to cooperate and collaborate with the most vulnerable countries.” He also pledged $50 million to help the UN’s Covid-19 humanitarian response. But here’s the thing: Neither the United States nor China is among the 156 countries participating in a WHO-linked initiative to invest in Covid-19 treatments and vaccines and distribute them equitably around the world. You might understand that from Trump’s speech, but not necessarily China’s. And that’s the point: Actions matter. If the US wanted to make the case that China isn’t a good global partner, putting its weight behind a vaccine project would show China isn’t the responsible actor it claims to be. It would also be using multilateral institutions in the US’s interests. But the Trump administration has not done so — and it’s not stopping China from doing it, either. 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. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world: Contribute today from as little as $3.

The thousand-page fifth volume doesn’t definitively settle the question, in part because the SSCI was unable to procure a full record of events. The White House engaged in gamesmanship, invoking executive privilege to deny witnesses and block access to a paper trail. A slew of important witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment. Others, such as Paul Manafort, lied relentlessly to investigators. The election of 2016 is one of the most closely studied events of recent memory, yet even the best-informed students of Russian interference don’t have a comprehensive understanding of it.When Mueller’s prosecutors appeared in court, in February 2019, they implied that the most troubling evidence they had uncovered implicated Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman. This wasn’t a surprising admission. Throughout their filings, Mueller’s team referred to Manafort’s Kyiv-based aide-de-camp, Konstantin Kilimnik, as an active Russian agent. Manafort had clearly spoken with Kilimnik during the campaign, and had even passed confidential campaign information to him, with the understanding that the documents would ultimately arrive in the hands of oligarchs close to the Kremlin.One of the great disappointments of the Mueller Report is that it fails to provide narrative closure after building so much anticipation for the Kilimnik story line. Mueller did not fully explain why Manafort’s relationship with his Ukraine-based adviser so bothered his prosecutors. Why had Manafort passed along the documents? And what did the oligarchs want with them?The committee fills in the gaps somewhat. It reports that Manafort and Kilimnik talked almost daily during the campaign. They communicated through encrypted technologies set to automatically erase their correspondence; they spoke using code words and shared access to an email account. It’s worth pausing on these facts: The chairman of the Trump campaign was in daily contact with a Russian agent, constantly sharing confidential information with him. That alone makes for one of the worst scandals in American political history.The significant revelation of the document is that Kilimnik was likely a participant in the Kremlin scheme to hack and leak Clinton campaign emails. Furthermore, Kilimnik kept in close contact with the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a former client of Manafort’s. The report also indicates that Deripaska was connected to his government’s hacking efforts. This fact is especially suggestive: Deripaska had accused Manafort of stealing money from him, and Manafort hoped to repair his relationship with the oligarch. Was Manafort passing information to him, through Kilimnik, for the sake of currying favor with an old patron?As maddeningly elliptical as this section of the report may be—and much of it is redacted—it still makes one wonder why Mueller would cut a deal with an established prevaricator like Manafort before pursuing his investigation of Kilimnik to more concrete conclusions.

Enlarge this image A view of the Supreme Court from Capitol Hill September 28, 2018. The Court begins its new term on Monday one justice short while the Senate remains stuck in a confirmation fight over Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who's been accused of sexual assault. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images A view of the Supreme Court from Capitol Hill September 28, 2018. The Court begins its new term on Monday one justice short while the Senate remains stuck in a confirmation fight over Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who's been accused of sexual assault. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images As the Senate remains in a pitched battle over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court on Monday will begin its new term with far less fanfare.The high court is launching its nine-month term evenly divided — with four conservative and four liberal justices — as an F.B.I. investigation into sexual misconduct allegations lodged against Kavanaugh delays a full Senate vote on the nomination. Kavanaugh was nominated to fill the vacancy created by the retirement this past summer of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often cast the pivotal swing vote on cases. Analysis Republicans Push Kavanaugh Nomination Forward, But At What Cost? Whereas last term the high court decided several landmark cases with 5-4 decisions, such as Trump's travel ban, limitations on how public-sector unions can collect fees and the privacy rights of cellphone users, for now there are fewer high-profile cases awaiting the justices this fall. Here's a look at some of the upcoming cases that might be considered by an evenly-divided Supreme Court. Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceThe very first case the Court will take up concerns a frog species that is threatened with extinction: the dusky gopher frog. Weyerhaeuser., a large timber company, is challenging the federal government's classification of Louisiana timberland as a "critical habitat" for the dusky gophers. There are only 75 dusky gopher frogs left in the wild and they are protected by the Endangered Species Act. Politics FBI Contacts Deborah Ramirez, Kavanaugh Accuser, As Investigation Begins Lawyers for Weyerhaeuser argue that a parcel of Louisiana land should not be considered a habitat for the frogs, since they don't even live there yet. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the only way to save the frog is to relocate them to newly constructed ponds in pine forests throughout the South, like the one owned by Weyerhaeuser. Madison v. Alabama On Tuesday, the justices will hear death penalty case involving Alabama death row inmate Vernon Madison. He has spent nearly half of his life awaiting execution after being convicted in the killing of an Alabama police officer who was responding to a domestic disturbance in the mid-1980s. Madison shot and killed the officer and also fired at his then-girlfriend, who survived the shooting. Advocates for Madison say he now suffers from dementia and cannot remember the fatal shooting that sent him to death row. About 30 minutes before Madison was supposed to be executed by lethal injection in January, the high court issued a temporary stay. The central question raised by the case is whether the state of Alabama would violate the Constitution's 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment by executing a man whose dementia is so severe that he cannot recall committing any crimes. Nielsen v. Preap This case, scheduled for argument on Oct. 10, is about whether the federal government can detain immigrants awaiting deportation after finishing a prison sentence over a crime unrelated to their legal status. The Trump administration is appealing a lower court ruling that the White House says makes it more difficult to deport those in the country illegally. After an immigrant who is a convicted criminal finishes a a prison sentence and is released, the federal government cannot then re-apprehend that person and hold them indefinitely for possible deportation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled. Trump officials are appealing that decision. It is an important case to the Trump administration, which has pursued a hard line policy on immigration.Meanwhile, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union counter that allowing the indefinite detentions without a bond hearing would encourage "arbitrary detention."It is the second immigrant detention case the court has taken up in recent months. In February, the court ruled that immigrants held in detention — sometimes for years — are not entitled to a bail hearing, where they could win their release. It was a win for the Trump administration and it overturned a lower court ruling.

WASHINGTON -- The “three amigos” used to stand for one thing in Washington — the pack of globe-trotting senators led by John McCain who brought American idealism to the world’s trouble spots.Now it refers to another trio, the Trump envoys who pushed Ukraine to pursue investigations of Democrats and former Vice President Joe Biden.The shift represents more than the appropriation of a name. It also marks a departure from efforts by the late Arizona senator to build bipartisan alliances and further broad foreign policy ideals pursued by Republican presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. That approach is unrecognizable today as the GOP has become the party of Donald Trump and his "America First" approach.“I knew the ‘three amigos’ and believe me, these are not three amigos like we were,” said Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic, then independent senator from Connecticut who was part of the original group with Republicans McCain and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.Lieberman said he believes McCain, his longtime friend, would be “really upset about what’s happening in Ukraine now.”The House impeachment inquiry has detailed how the self-described “three amigos” — European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland, outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry and former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker — operated an “irregular” foreign policy channel that was pushing Ukraine to announce the investigations Trump wanted. In return, the White House would release $400 million in military aid the Eastern European ally needed to counter Russian aggression and would arrange a coveted Oval Office visit with Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.Led by Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, the trio assembled as a loose contingent of envoys whose activities were initially unseen by others in the administration specializing in Ukraine issues. But as their actions became known, the ``amigos’’ set off alarms among diplomats and officials who described them as pursuing the president’s political agenda over U.S. national security interests.Fiona Hill, a former Russia adviser to the White House, testified before the impeachment inquiry that at one point she confronted Sondland to ask on whose authority he was operating in Ukraine.The president, Sondland responded, according to Hill.State Department official David Holmes testified that Sondland, Perry and Volker “styled themselves as the three amigos and made clear they would take the lead on coordinating our policy and engagement with for the Zelenskiy administration.”Holmes said that ``over the following months, it became apparent that Mr. Giuliani was having a direct influence on the foreign policy agenda that the three amigos were executing on the ground in Ukraine.”Presidents have often used back channels to facilitate foreign policy and leverage U.S. resources to achieve their policy goals, experts say. The difference is that Trump’s approach, as outlined in the impeachment inquiry, appears to be mobilizing U.S. policy and resource for personal political gain.The Ukrainian matter is but one way the foreign policy landscape has shifted dramatically in the Trump era. As the White House pursues an “America First” agenda, the U.S. is seen as retreating from its traditional role of international engagement and democracy building and Trump is aligning himself with some of the world’s more autocratic leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin.Richard Fontaine, a former McCain national security aide who is now chief executive officer at the Center for New American Security, said the broader, bipartisan agreement on the U.S. role in the world has now become a “debate over fundamentals.”Fontaine said McCain’s ``amigos’’ believed that “when the U.S. could act for the betterment of people, it should act ... rather than trying to keep our nose out of things.”It was former Army Gen. David Petraeus who called McCain’s group the “three amigos” as the senators made frequent visits to Afghanistan and Iraq. They became the chief proponents of the troop increase that Bush proposed in 2006 and that Democrats and some Republicans derided as prolonging the unpopular war in Iraq.But the trio also traveled broadly, including in Ukraine, where McCain repeatedly addressed democracy activists as the former Soviet state reached to the West.Volker, who recently stepped down from his position at the McCain Institute at Arizona State University, distanced himself from his new title as one of Trump’s amigos.“Much has been made of the term ‘three amigos’ in reference to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland and myself,” Volker said in opening remarks before the impeachment inquiry.“I never used that term — and frankly cringe when I hear it because for me, the ‘three amigos’ will always refer to Sen. John McCain, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, in reference to their work to support the surge in Iraq.”Brian Katulis, a national security expert at the Center for American Progress, said McCain’s “amigos” are all but gone in the Trump era.“They stood for a certain vision of America’s role in the world — one that was more predictable and reliable — and one we don’t have today,” he said.“That was certainly McCain’s legacy,” he said. “Like a lot of things in the GOP, it’s so far gone because Trump has obliterated a lot of the ideals.”

Saturday Night Live opened its show this week at CNN’s Equality Town Hall, featuring an early cameo from Pose’s Billy Porter, who introduced the 2020 presidential candidates one by one. And one by one, they were each faced with concerns about their problematic pasts, beginning with Chris Redd’s Cory Booker, who expertly dodged a question about his evolution on same-sex marriage. Asked how he responds to those who say he’s not gay enough, Colin Jost’s Pete Buttigieg replied, “You know, I've heard that, but there's no wrong way to be gay… unless you're Ellen this week.” Kate McKinnon’s Elizabeth Warren fared a lot better. “If someone doesn't want to serve gay people at their small business, I bet that's not the only thing that's small,” she said. “And when people say gay and trans people shouldn't be included in civil rights protections, well, I wish their parents had used protection.” And then there was Hamilton creator Lin Manuel-Miranda debuting his Julian Castro impression. He strode out onto the stage to cheers before apologizing for not being gay. “However, I am Latino, which we can all agree is something,” he said, nicknaming himself “Latinobama.” Finally, season premiere host Woody Harrelson made his triumphant return to SNL as Vice President Joe Biden and managed to be only slightly more awkward than Biden was at the actual CNN event earlier this week.“The vast majority of people in America are not homophobic,” he said. “They're just scared of gay people.” “That’s what homophobic means, Joe,” Alex Moffat’s Anderson Cooper replied. “Look, you know me, I went to bat for marriage equality and I believe we’re all equal,” Biden added, “whether you're gay, lesbie, transgenital or queef, you're OK with Joe.” Then, to prove just how gay friendly he is, he planted a kiss on Cooper. “You just helped me win a bet, Joe,” the CNN host said. “I think we’re done here.”

Enlarge this image Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh walks to meet with senators on Capitol Hill last month. He faces days of questioning from senators beginning Tuesday. Jose Luis Magana/AP hide caption toggle caption Jose Luis Magana/AP Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh walks to meet with senators on Capitol Hill last month. He faces days of questioning from senators beginning Tuesday. Jose Luis Magana/AP The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is often a major event that ripples through American law for decades. But Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, which opens Tuesday, is especially historic because, if confirmed, Kavanaugh is expected to solidify a hard-right majority on the nation's highest court, a majority the likes of which has not been seen since the early 1930s, and which is likely to dominate for a generation or more. Politics WATCH LIVE: Kavanaugh Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Begin The almost-week-long hearing will have both more and less drama than Neil Gorsuch's last year — more because Kavanaugh has a longer record in public life and a paper trail to match, and less because the Republicans changed the Senate rules last year to allow confirmation with a simple majority, instead of 60 votes.With a one-vote GOP majority in the Senate, and no indication so far that any Republican will defect, the outcome would seem a foregone conclusion. Still, anything can happen in a confirmation hearing.So, here is a crib sheet highlighting six of the issues that will come up this week:1. Abortion: Will Kavanaugh overturn Roe v. Wade?Expect Kavanaugh to be asked repeatedly about the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision, Roe v. Wade. And expect him to follow in the footsteps of Republican nominees over the last 30 years, refusing to say whether he would overrule or restrict the Supreme Court's decision holding that women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy in the first two trimesters. Law Who Is Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's Pick For The Supreme Court? Kavanaugh has written only two decisions involving abortion. In 2017, he dissented from an appeals court decision ordering the Trump administration to temporarily release an undocumented 17-year-old from custody, so that she could get an abortion.The minor had been detained seven weeks earlier after crossing the border illegally. While in custody, she received clearance from a Texas judge for an abortion, which would be paid for by a third-party organization. Nonetheless, the Office of Refugee Resettlement refused to release her for the abortion, and the ACLU went to court on her behalf. In Garza v. Hargan, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered her temporary release in order to obtain the abortion when she was, at that point, 15 weeks pregnant.Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that it was not an unconstitutional "undue burden" on the girl's rights to allow more time for authorities to find a sponsor for her, so that when she obtained the abortion, the government would not be facilitating it. Kavanaugh accused the majority of essentially allowing "abortion on demand."In a second case, unrelated to Roe but involving abortion, Doe ex rel. Tarlow v. D.C., Kavanaugh authored a majority opinion permitting the D.C. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration to make medical decisions for persons deemed mentally incompetent. The case was brought on behalf of three individuals, two of whom had been forced to have abortions without their consent.The challengers maintained that even if they were incompetent to make medical decisions, they should have been consulted. In his opinion, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that the Constitution does not require that an agency consider the consent of incompetent people when making medical decisions on their behalf. Such a right, he said, is not "deeply rooted in this nation's history" nor "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."In addition to his abortion opinions, Kavanaugh recently delivered two speeches in which abortion played an indirect role. One speech was about the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the other about the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In both, Kavanaugh singled out their dissenting decisions in major abortion cases for favorable comments.2. Guns: Outlawing them is "equivalent to a ban" on speech?As a judge, Kavanaugh has staked out an unusually strong position in favor of gun rights. In 2011, for example, he disagreed with his conservative colleagues, writing a 52-page dissent from a decision that upheld a Washington, D.C. ban on assault weapons and magazines of more than 10 rounds, plus broad registration requirements.A ban on a class of arms, he said, is "equivalent to a ban on category of speech." Law Kavanaugh Could Tip Supreme Court Against Gun Control Laws Moreover, as he put it, it is not for judges to weigh public safety in evaluating whether a gun law is constitutional. Rather, he maintained that because rapid-fire weapons "are in common use today" and "have not been traditionally banned," the Constitution does not allow that they be banned now."I've been be a lonely voice," Kavanaugh said of his position on gun regulation during a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in 2016.3. Investigating the president The shadow of President Trump's legal difficulties will play at least some role in the hearings. That's because Kavanaugh has, for nearly two decades, been a critic of these investigations. That, despite the fact that he was one of the lead authors of the Clinton impeachment report submitted to Congress by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr in 1998.A year later, however, Kavanaugh strongly suggested that the Supreme Court had been wrong in 1974 to uphold a special prosecutor's subpoena for President Nixon's infamous and incriminating tapes. He argued that by enforcing a subpoena for evidence of a crime, the Supreme Court "took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch." And he contended that the president's power as chief law enforcement officer "was diminished dramatically" by the the ruling. In 2016 his tone was different in a Catholic University Law Review article when he listed the Nixon tapes case as among "some of the greatest moments in American judicial history ... when judges stood up to the other branches." Law What A Justice Kavanaugh Could Mean For The Mueller Investigation And Trump Two years ago, he said that he would like to "put the final nail in" the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in 1988 upholding the post-Watergate independent counsel law. And in a 2009 law review article, Kavanaugh suggested that Congress should forbid all criminal investigations or prosecutions of a sitting president, as well as all civil lawsuits.4. Executive power and national securityKavanaugh, who was in the White House on 9/11, is a staunch advocate of broad and muscular national security powers for the President. While on the D.C. Circuit, he saw the Supreme Court repeatedly limit some of the Bush administration's rules for dealing with enemy combatants.The Supreme Court ruled first that U.S. citizens, and later that all detainees, could not be held indefinitely without having access to a lawyer and without having a chance to challenge their detentions in court. The high court left it to the D.C. Circuit to deal with these cases on an individual basis, and the appeals court largely agreed on how to handle most, though not all, of the cases.Kavanaugh was the leader of a small group of conservative judges who critics said sometimes sought to undermine the Supreme Court's rulings. In Al-Bihani v. Obama, for instance, Kavanaugh played a central role regarding whether the government's detention authority was subject to international law. The Obama administration agreed that it was, but Kavanaugh maintained that, as a general matter, courts should not be bound by international norms or treaty obligations unless specifically required by statute or "self-executing" treaties. Politics Senate Democrats Threaten Lawsuit Over Kavanaugh Documents That viewpoint is very controversial in light of the fact that the Supreme Court's opinion upholding the government's power to detain people captured on the battlefield rested on international law.Kavanaugh has been a key player on the D.C. Circuit in upholding the power of military tribunals to try detainees for offenses that are not deemed war crimes, namely conspiracy charges. Until now, the Supreme Court has only blessed military tribunals for war crimes. But proving that an individual was involved in a specific crime, a specific terrorist episode, for instance, is very difficult, whereas proving that an individual was involved with others who did commit such offenses is much easier. Both the Bush and Obama administrations argued that military tribunals can try people for conspiracy alone, and Judge Kavanaugh has been a leading judicial defender of that approach.5. His views of the "administrative state," regulations and presidential authority within the Executive BranchKavanaugh has, throughout his career on the bench and off, been deeply skeptical of any limits on the president's power to hire or fire at will. That has sometimes conflicted with the structure and powers of quasi-independent regulatory agencies, and congressionally enacted solutions to current problems, like the 2008 financial crash and the mortgage crisis that followed.Most recently, Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit upheld the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created after the crash to protect consumers' financial arrangements. Kavanaugh would have ruled the law creating the bureau unconstitutional, because it was run by a single individual whose independence was protected; he or she could only be fired for cause, meaning unethical or illegal behavior. Law Is Trump About To Be Able To Say 'You're Fired' To A Lot More People? Kavanaugh's views on the so-called "administrative state" harken back to pre-New Deal times. He does not, for instance, believe that the Environmental Protection Agency should be able to deal with climate change, because when Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, it didn't know about greenhouse gases and climate change, so it didn't specifically authorize the agency to regulate in that area.Kavanaugh's position is that if Congress wants to amend the law, it should do that, while his adversaries believe that an agency like the EPA was created to deal with emerging problems and new science.Kavanaugh's views are widely applauded by business and condemned by environmentalists. Statistics compiled by the liberal group Public Citizen suggest both sides are right in their predilections: in split decisions, Kavanaugh sided with business 18 times on regulatory issues, and four times against business. On environmental protection, he sided 11 times with business, and twice with environmental groups. And on workers' rights, 15 times with business and twice with workers.The Trump administration trumpets that record. Indeed, the White House issued a one-page unsigned memo this summer proclaiming that "Judge Kavanaugh has overruled federal agency action 75 times," adding that the judge "helped kill President Obama's most destructive new environmental rules.""Judge Kavanaugh has overruled federal agency action 75 times," it said, adding that the judge "helped kill President Obama's most destructive new environmental rules."6. Campaign contribution limits — and a fight over documents Enlarge this image Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois outlines what he sees as a "black hole" in Kavanaugh's record because of documents during Kavanaugh's time in the White House that have not been released. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois outlines what he sees as a "black hole" in Kavanaugh's record because of documents during Kavanaugh's time in the White House that have not been released. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Democrats have waged a fight for more of Kavanaugh's documents from the time he was in the George W. Bush White House. They argue the hearings shouldn't proceed until all of the documents have been released.Part of that is because you never know what's going to be in them. For example, a document released Friday night found that Kavanaugh raised questions about the constitutionality of campaign contribution limits. Individual contributions are currently set at $2,700 per person and limits were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1976."I have heard very few people say that the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional, although I for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems," Kavanaugh wrote in an email in 2002.There are some three million documents from Kavanaugh's six years in the White House. Fewer than a third have been produced, and President George W. Bush's lawyers are running the process of what gets released and doesn't. That has Democrats crying foul. Republicans note accurately that more Kavanaugh documents have been produced than for any other nominee.But that's likely because there are more, and Democrats counter that whatever the number, its less than 20 percent of Kavanaugh's total White House documents. The National Archives has not endorsed the way the documents have been screened — by lawyers for President Bush, but the archives said it could not go review the documents for public disclosure — as it has for other Supreme Court nominees — before the early confirmation date set by Senate Republicans. As a result, the documents from Kavanaugh's first two years in the Bush White House, as an associate counsel, were reviewed by President Bush's lawyer, who at one time worked for Kavanaugh in the White House. Still, it was President Trump that late last week invoked executive privilege, barring disclosure of 100,000 documents that had been reviewed. That still left, as well, all the documents from Kavanaugh's time as staff secretary for President Bush.So what's in all these undisclosed documents? That's the question Democrats are asking. "I'm willing to wager there's a smoking gun here," said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Judiciary Committee. "What are they concealing? What are they afraid the American people will see?"Republicans portray the whole document controversy as a ploy. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa contends the Democrats "are diverting attention from his extreme qualifications to be on the Supreme Court ... because they don't have anything else to pick at."NPR's Domenico Montanaro contributed to this report.

“It feels like Alice in Wonderland around here today,” Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat, said during the Senate judiciary committee’s meeting on US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. “It’s almost surreal.”The fantastical nature of things was not lost on his colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, who attempted to wax eloquent today (Sept. 28) and find creative ways to describe the contentious process led by Republican chair Chuck Grassley.Louisiana Republican John Kennedy called it “an intergalactic freak show” and a “grotesque carnival.” Kennedy, referencing Cormac McCarthy’s novel No Country for Old Men, said, “This is no country for creepy old men, or young men, or middle-aged men.”And while Republicans and Democrats seem unable to agree on almost anything, they concurred on the Kavanaugh confirmation process marking a turning point in US politicial history.This is the end of the rule of law,” Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said, “the beginning of a process that will tear this country apart.” Looking to the future, he said, “There’s the process before Kavanaugh and the process after Kavanaugh.” Graham echoing Kavanaugh from earlier in the week, likened this new world to “the Twilight Zone.”Leahy wasn’t far from that assessment when he said, “This judiciary committee is no longer an independent branch of government…we are an arm, and a very weak arm, of the Trump White House. Every semblance of independence has just disappeared. It’s just gone. That is something historians will look at and they will call it a turning point in this country. Republican John Cornyn of Texas hearkened to history and referred to the communist-hunting McCarthy era of the 1950s, describing the current “circus-like atmosphere.” He called it “disgraceful,” a ”scandal,” “and cruel, reckless, indecent.” All of this stems from, according to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the tribalization of the US, a deepening right-left ideological political divide. “We’re living in a divided time,” Cruz said. “There is an enormous amount of anger. There is rage. There is hatred, reflecting that rage, reflecting that anger…our polarized society is almost tribalized.”Ranking Democratic member Dianne Feinstein, too, noted the high drama. She called the Kavanaugh vote “a real test for the US Senate and for our country, to see how we treat women and especially women who are victims of sexual assault.”Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Democrat, warned that the “Supreme Court is flying all the warning flags of a captured agency.” He said confirming Kavanaugh “will be a disaster for the court.” Whitehouse argued that Kavanaugh’s “partisan screed yesterday was telling.” He added, “Kavanaugh dodged and dissembled, ranted and raved, filibustered and prevaricated…I did not find him credible…I am horrified by what the committee has done.”Whitehouse called the letter offered by Kavanaugh’s high school friend, Mark Judge, implicated in the alleged sexual assault of Christine Blasey Ford, saying he does not recall the incident, “a fig leaf,” concluded that the process was “botched.”New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker, calling the confirmation process “a sham,” said, “This is not about partisanship. This is a moral moment in our nation…This toxic culture, this pernicious patriarchy in this country has to stop. They are watching this body right now,” Booker said of millions of sex-abuse victims. “The seat on the Supreme Court is not an entitlement…I cannot stomach that we are going to move forward.”Orin Hatch, Republican of Utah, early in the morning, already shown had little patience for the process, saying, “We’ve had enough time on this to choke a horse.”That’s something only one side might call a myth.

President Trump on Friday renewed his attacks on the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, kicking off a morning Twitter barrage by once again accusing Mr. Comey of leaking classified information and lying to cover it up, even as the leaders of North and South Korea held a historic meeting hours earlier.In a tweet, Mr. Trump called Mr. Comey “either very sick or very dumb,” saying his fired F.B.I. chief did not understand the severity of his actions in having details about his interactions with the president provided to a reporter. “Remember sailor!” Mr. Trump added, a month after he pardoned a United States sailor who had pleaded guilty to illegally retaining national defense information and obstruction of justice.The sailor had taken cellphone photos in restricted areas on a nuclear submarine and destroyed them when he learned he was under investigation.Is everybody believing what is going on. James Comey can’t define what a leak is. He illegally leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION but doesn’t understand what he did or how serious it is. He lied all over the place to cover it up. He’s either very sick or very dumb. Remember sailor!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2018 Fifteen minutes after he tweeted about Mr. Comey, the president turned to the news of the morning: He applauded the remarkable development on the Korean Peninsula, where Kim Jong-un became the first North Korean leader to set foot in South Korea. “KOREAN WAR TO END!” he tweeted, a few minutes after saying that “good things are happening” on the Korean Peninsula, “but only time will tell!”Mr. Comey has been a favorite target of Mr. Trump’s in recent weeks as the former F.B.I. director has dominated news headlines while promoting a book he wrote about ethical leadership.Mr. Comey is not under federal investigation for leaking classified information or lying. The memos he kept about his interactions with the president are believed to be evidence in a possible obstruction of justice case against Mr. Trump being pursued by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Trump’s firing of Mr. Comey last May ultimately led to the appointment of Mr. Mueller.Republican lawmakers have said that light redactions made to Mr. Comey’s memos by the Justice Department before their public release this month are proof that he leaked classified information. The Justice Department’s internal watchdog is reviewing whether classified information in the memos was handled appropriately.In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Mr. Comey pushed back against the accusation that he had leaked classified information. “That memo was unclassified then, it’s still unclassified,” Mr. Comey said.Mr. Comey said Mr. Trump was the one who was making a “false statement.” He said: “He’s just wrong. Facts really do matter.”Conservatives have seized on one of Mr. Comey’s proclamations in a Jan. 28, 2017, memo in which he wrote: “I said I don’t do sneaky things. I don’t leak. I don’t do weasel moves.”In one of his memos, Mr. Comey described a conversation he had with Mr. Trump in which he told the president that leaks of classified information, specifically details of Mr. Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders, were “terrible.” Reports about Mr. Trump’s conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia roiled the White House during his first month in office.“I said they were classified and he needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence,” Mr. Comey wrote in a Feb. 14, 2017, memo. Mr. Comey added, “[NOTE: because this is an unclassified document, I will be limited in how I describe what I said next].”

The US justice department is opening a broad antitrust review into major technology firms, as criticism over the companies’ growing reach and power heats up.The investigation will focus on growing complaints that the companies are unlawfully stifling competition. “The Department’s review will consider the widespread concerns that consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs have expressed about search, social media, and some retail services online,” the Department of Justice said in a statement.“Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsive to consumer demands,” added the assistant attorney general Makan Delrahim, of the antitrust division.The review will investigate practices of online platforms including Facebook, Alphabet’s Google, Amazon and Apple.The investigation comes amid calls from lawmakers, including Democratic presidential candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, that the companies should face more scrutiny.Last week, Facebook, Google, and Amazon faced a grilling before the House subcommittee on antitrust, commercial and administrative law over their hold on markets including digital advertising, e-commerce and cloud computing.Lawmakers questioned Amazon over the fees it levies against third-party sellers on the platform and whether this creates a monopoly of power. They also questioned Facebook executives over practices of targeting startups for acquisition and copying features of companies that decline to be acquired.Lawmakers also grilled Facebook this month over its plans to launch a global cryptocurrency, called Libra. In the hearing, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio said Facebook showed “breathtaking arrogance” in attempting to launch a digital financial service after a number of major privacy scandals.In July, the Federal Trade Commission approved a $5bn fine against Facebook for its handling of user data surrounding the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018.“Facebook is dangerous,” Brown said, likening the company to a toddler playing with matches. “It has burned the house down repeatedly and called every attempt a learning experience. Do you really think people should trust you with their bank accounts and their money?”The Department of Justice investigation is already under way, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday. The department hosted a private presentation from critics of big technology companies, who walked legislators through concerns and arguments for breaking up the firms.Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon and Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Topics Technology Silicon Valley Facebook Google Amazon Apple Alphabet news

closeVideoRep. Doug Collins on what to expect from impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary CommitteeGeorgia Congressman Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, joins Chris Wallace on 'Fox News Sunday.'House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., is gearing up for his committee’s role in the impeachment inquiry of President Trump, and the first witness he plans on calling is the man who led the first phase in the process, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.Schiff is in the middle of preparing a report on his committee’s findings after conducting closed-door interviews and public hearings featuring a number of current and former Trump administration officials connected to the administration’s policies and relationship with Ukraine. Republicans have questioned Schiff's credibility due to contact that an anonymous whistleblower had with his staff before filing a complaint which led to the impeachment inquiry, and now they want to question him before the Judiciary Committee.“My first and foremost witness is Adam Schiff,” Collins told “Fox News Sunday.” He claimed that if Schiff does not make himself available for questioning, it will reflect poorly on his credibility and the work he has done so far.“If he chooses not to, then I really question his veracity and what he’s putting in his report. I question the motive of why he’s doing it,” Collins said. Collins specifically said he wants Schiff to discuss what he and his staff knew about the whistleblower’s complaint, and Schiff’s own interactions with Ukraine.He also claimed that Schiff has withheld documents relevant to the inquiry.“If they think they have such a case, give us all the materials,” he said.Collins also called out Democrats for the time crunch they have imposed on Republicans and the White House, along with a lack of information regarding the next stage in the impeachment process, which will begin with House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring constitutional scholars on December 4. Collins claimed that the committee’s chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., did not give Trump or Republicans enough time to determine how to move forward.“Chairman Nadler sent a letter asking us by Friday to present this list and present all the things that we would like to do. However, we’re not going to see the Schiff report, as it is going to be known, out of committee until Tuesday night, possibly Wednesday morning before we get to see it.”In a letter to the president sent Friday, Nadler gave Trump until December 6 to decide whether to have counsel present at hearings and to state which privileges he will invoke. Collins claimed that this does not give Trump time to prepare, as Schiff’s report will not be released until soon beforehand.“As an attorney, if you have a case going forward you want to know exactly what you’re facing,” Collins said.The Republican also addressed what he believes to be an unfair process when it comes to Wednesday’s hearing featuring constitutional law experts who will be weighing in on possible impeachment. Three of the witnesses will be called by the Democratic majority, with one called by the GOP.“Why don’t we at least have more witnesses?” Collins asked. Last week he sent Nadler a letter calling for additional witnesses besides the four academics, citing precedent for a “robust slate” of witnesses.“For example, during the impeachment inquiry of President William J. Clinton, the Committee assembled two panels of ten and nine academics, respectively, to help the Committee grapple with impeachment,” the letter said. Collins did not specify who should be added to the list, but suggested that both parties be able to choose.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, was the product of more than 200 witness interviews and nearly a million documents. It's the only bipartisan account of how the Trump campaign embraced Russia’s intelligence operation in 2016 designed to hurt Democrat Hillary Clinton and help Trump.Much of the report covers old ground, albeit with more detail than ever before. But there are some important new revelations. Here are some of them:Trump’s campaign chairman was consorting with a Russia spyThe report says — in a first — that Konstantin Kilimnik, an associate of then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, was a “Russian intelligence officer.” It also says Manafort was meeting regularly and sharing information with Kilimnik, including internal Trump campaign polling data.But because the men used encrypted communications, and because Manafort never truly cooperated with investigators, the committee was unable to determine exactly what the pair were up to.The report says there is information, blacked out in the document, suggesting both Kilimnik and Manafort may have had some link to the Russian operation to steal and leak Democratic emails. Whatever it was, it wasn’t enough for Mueller to bring charges.That fact pattern alone led the committee to label Manafort, who is serving prison time for unrelated offenses, a "grave counterintelligence threat.” Whether he actually “colluded” with the 2016 Russian intelligence operation may never be determined.Trump almost certainly talked to Roger Stone about WikileaksThe committee — including some key Trump allies — determined that Trump knew his campaign was communicating about Wikileaks, even though he told Mueller he didn’t recall that.Trump, in written responses to the special counsel’s office, stated: "I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign."Trump further claimed that he had "no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016 and November 8, 2016."Despite Trump's recollection, the report says, “the Committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions.”That puts Trump in the middle of his campaign’s eager embrace of material he knew had been stolen by a foreign intelligence agency.The report doesn’t accuse Trump of lying, but it lays out a pattern of discussions with Stone that makes it difficult to believe Trump didn’t remember.The dossier by a British intelligence officer was deeply flawedThe Senate investigation didn’t try to verify or disprove the allegations included in the Steele dossier, a set of memos about Trump compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, but it did examine Steele’s work process and whether the FBI should have viewed the dossier credibly.The committee found that Steele’s tradecraft in the dossier was “generally poor” compared to the intelligence community’s standards, often relying on sources “several steps removed from the information they provided.” The senators also said there were “several opportunities for interested parties to insert disinformation” – a conclusion that buttresses concerns that elements of Russian disinformation may have made their way into the dossier amid other accurate portions.The committee also found multiple links between Steele and Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, and indications that Deripaska had early knowledge of Steele's work. Yet Steele and his subsources appear to have neglected to include or missed in its entirety Deripaska’s business relationship with Manafort, which appeared to be a significant tie between the Trump campaign and Russia.Steele refused to talk to the committee, other than to answer written questions, the report says.Two participants in the Trump Tower meeting had extensive Russian connectionsAt least two participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials and Russians in the Trump Tower had “significant connections to the Russian government, including Russian intelligence services… far more extensive than what had been publicly known.”Although the meeting was set up to deliver dirt on Clinton to the Trump campaign, no such information was transmitted, the committee found. But the committee assessed that two participants in the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, have "significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services.""Those connections, particularly regarding Veselnitskaya, were far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known, and neither Veselnitskaya nor Akhmetshin were forthcoming with the committee regarding those connections," the report said. "Both Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin may have sought, in some cases, to obfuscate the true intent of their work in the United States.”Veselnitskaya has acknowledged working to repeal sanctions on Russia.Akhmetshin’s lawyer, Michael Tremonte, said in a statement that his client is no spy, and did not ”obfuscate” anything in his testimony. “It is unfortunate that the Committee would stoop to trafficking in politically-motivated innuendo, which undermines the Committee’s integrity and disserves the American public,” Tremonte said.The idea that Ukraine interfered in the campaign originated with Russian intelligenceKilimnick, a Russian intelligence operative, “almost certainly helped arrange some of the first public messaging” that Ukraine interfered in the election, an idea that Trump embraced, the report said. One example cited was his email to a Financial Times reporter, who subsequently wrote a story headlined, “Ukraine's leaders campaign against 'pro-Putin' Trump.”Carter Page may have been wronged by the FBI, but the committee found him suspiciousThe Justice Department inspector general found that the FBI made serious errors in applying for surveillance on Page, a former Trump campaign aide, and an FBI lawyer had admitted to a crime as a result. Page was never charged in the investigation, but the committee was not pleased with what he had to say to lawmakers. FBI scrutiny of Page was justified, the report says."The Committee had significant challenges in its attempt to understand Page's activities, including his role as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump Campaign. After weeks of negotiation and an eventual Committee subpoena, Page produced some electronic documents, some of which included his own annotations and alterations to the original document form, and sat for an interview that lasted six and a half hours."Page's responses to basic questions were meandering, avoidant, and involved several long diversions. Despite the meticulous records Page kept on his personal hard drive detailing his daily routines, he was unable to recall any details of his trips to Moscow, or the names of senior Russian officials with whom he met, despite using his engagements with them to build his credentials within the Campaign."In a footnote, the report adds, “The Carter Page FISA order and renewals are examined in detail in the DOJ OIG FISA Report. While there were several problems with the FBI's FISA renewals for Page, the Committee assesses that Page's previous ties to Russian intelligence officers, coupled with his Russian travel, justified the FBI's initial concerns about Page."

Protests have erupted in India over the death of a young woman two weeks after she was dragged from a field and allegedly gang-raped and tortured.The 19-year-old was attacked while she was out cutting grass on 14 September in Hathras, a district in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The attackers allegedly pulled her into a field with her shawl, sexually assaulted her and tried to strangle her.The woman was found by her family naked, bleeding and paralysed, her tongue split and her spine broken. She was taken to hospital in the city of Aligargh and this week she was transferred to a facility in Delhi, where she died from her injuries on Tuesday morning. Four men have been arrested in connection with her death.The woman was a Dalit, meaning she was from the lowest Indian caste. The suspects lived next door to her family and were from a higher caste.On Tuesday, more than 300 protesters from the Bhim Army, a party championing the rights of Dalits, gathered outside the hospital in Delhi demanding justice.The woman’s family have alleged that their lower social status meant the police initially did not take the case seriously until it gained traction in the media. Hathras police have denied their response was slow.The use of sexual violence as a tool of oppression against lower castes has been on the rise in India, particularly in Uttar Pradesh. Since September in the state there have been at last three other cases of young Dalit women and girls being raped and killed by upper-caste men. The youngest victim was three years old. Statistics show that each day in India at least four Dalit women are raped.“The horrific gang rape and death of this young Dalit woman once again demonstrates the close relationship between sexual violence and India’s discriminatory caste system,” said Divya Srinivasan, south Asia consultant for women’s rights organisation Equality Now.Srinivasan said that despite repeated flare-ups of outrage in India in response to cases of extreme sexual violence and cruelty, still “nothing is addressed at the grassroots”.“It is time that India’s government and criminal justice system step up to start effectively dealing with the epidemic of sexual and gender-based violence being inflicted on Dalit women and girls,” she said.India remains the most dangerous country in the world in which to be a woman. In 2012 protests erupted across the country following the fatal gang-rape of a woman on a bus in Delhi, and last year there was more unrest after the rape and murder of a young vet in Hyderabad.The introduction of harsher penalties for rape and sexual assault has done little to curb the attacks. Topics India South and Central Asia news

A day after both he and James Comey made their cases on Fox News, Donald Trump tweeted on Friday that the man he fired as FBI director was “either very sick or very dumb”.On Thursday, Trump called into the morning show Fox & Friends. Comey appeared on Special Report with Bret Baier.The same day, the Republican-led Senate judiciary committee approved a measure to protect special counsel Robert Mueller, investigating Russian election interference and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow, from being fired by the president. That came shortly after Trump, speaking to Fox & Friends, blasted the department which oversees the special counsel. “I am very disappointed in my justice department,” he said. “But because of the fact that it’s going on, and I think you’ll understand this, I have decided that I won’t be involved.” But then he said: “I may change my mind at some point, because what’s going on is a disgrace.” Comey said: “I hope he didn’t mean that he is going to decide by executive fiat to direct the actions of what is supposed to be an impartial law enforcement function. Lady justice has a blindfold. It should stay on.”Comey, who was fired last May, created a series of contemporaneous memos – some classified, some not – to document his interactions with Trump. He wrote in the memos that Trump repeatedly brought up allegations contained in an unverified document, compiled by a former British spy in 2016, that explored ties between Trump’s orbit and Russia. Comey caused content from the memos to reach the New York Times and wrote about them in his bestselling book, A Higher Loyalty. On Fox, he said Trump’s accusations of leaking were “just wrong”. “Facts really do matter,” he said, “which is why I’m on this show to answer your questions. That memo was unclassified then, it’s still unclassified, it’s in my book. The FBI cleared that book before it could be published. That’s a false statement.”On Friday, regardless, Trump tweeted: “Is everybody believing what is going on. James Comey can’t define what a leak is. He illegally leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION but doesn’t understand what he did or how serious it is. He lied all over the place to cover it up. He’s either very sick or very dumb. Remember sailor!”It was not immediately clear which sailor Trump was referring to, although he has pardoned a US navy sailor, Kristian Saucier, for taking photographs inside a restricted area of a nuclear submarine.Comey has acknowledged that the justice department inspector general, who has been investigating FBI actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, was examining whether he complied with FBI policy in producing and storing the memos. That inquiry was not looking at whether he mishandled classified information, he said. “The bottom line is, I see no credible claim by any serious person that that violated the law,” Comey said on CNN on Wednesday. Four Republicans joined Democrats in a 14-7 vote to approve the Senate measure to protect Mueller. Nearly all Republican senators say Trump should not fire the special counsel. But the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has said he will not bring the legislation up for a full Senate vote.Trump has increased his criticism of the Russia investigation since FBI raids on an office and hotel room used by Michael Cohen, his personal attorney who is under federal criminal investigation for business dealings reportedly including a payment to an actor in pornographic films who claims to have had a relationship with Trump.On Fox & Friends, Trump again called the Mueller investigation “a witch-hunt” and insisted there was “no collusion”. He called Comey “a leaker” and “a liar”. Among the most salacious parts of the private research dossier compiled in 2016 is an unverified claim that Trump consorted with prostitutes overnight during the Miss Universe pageant in 2013. Trump has denied the claim. Comey wrote in his memos that Trump told him he had never stayed the night in Moscow. Flight records and social media posts from the week concerned indicate Trump did spend at least one night in Russia. “He said I didn’t stay there a night,” Trump told Fox & Friends. “Of course I stayed there. I stayed there a very short period of time but of course I stayed.”Comey said on CNN on Wednesday he was always concerned when someone lied to the FBI, particularly if it was about something an agent never asked about, as he said was the case with Trump.“It tends to reflect consciousness of guilt as we would say in law enforcement,” Comey said. “If they bring things up you didn’t ask about, and if they bring it up and make a false statement about it, it’s not definitive, but it certainly makes you very concerned about what might be going on there.” Mueller has indicted several former Trump officials, including the former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is charged with financial crimes, which he denies. On Friday a federal judge in Washington threw out a civil lawsuit brought by Manafort that sought to challenge the authority of the special counsel. Manafort has made similar arguments in moving to dismiss the two criminal cases against him. Trump, who recently added the former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani to his legal team, has not committed to sitting for an interview with Mueller. Topics Donald Trump James Comey US politics Trump-Russia investigation US Congress Republicans news

US Senator Cory Booker berated Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen for saying she could not remember President Trump's explicit words at an immigration meeting last week, where he reportedly referred to Haiti and African nations as "shithole countries". “Your silence and your amnesia is complicity," he told her.

WASHINGTON -- The Latest on U.S. regulation of technology companies (all times local):6:25 p.m.The Justice Department says its new review of Big Tech's market power will delve into competition "in an objective and fair-minded manner."The agency says it wants to ensure that Americans have access to free markets and that companies compete on merits. The Justice Department says it will take into account the "widespread concerns" about social media, search engines and online retail services expressed by consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs. Its antitrust division is seeking information from the public, including those in the tech industry.In a statement Tuesday, top antitrust official Makan Delrahim worries that without meaningful competition, "digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsive to consumer demands."The focus of the investigation closely mirrors a bipartisan probe of Big Tech undertaken by the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust. Its chairman, Democrat David Cicilline of Rhode Island, has sharply criticized the conduct of Silicon Valley giants and said legislative or regulatory changes may be needed. He has called breaking up the companies a last resort.The Justice Department didn't name any companies, but the targets are most likely Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook. All four were the subject of congressional hearings last week.———6:15 p.m.A longtime digital advertising executive and antitrust expert says American consumers and news publishers need competitive tech markets.Dina Srinivasan spoke Tuesday after the Department of Justice announced a broad antitrust investigation into big tech companies. She says increased competition could help solve wide-ranging privacy concerns in tech.But Blair Levin, a former leading Federal Communications Commission staffer, says it's not clear that antitrust regulations would solve all, or even any, of the other concerns.Tech companies are facing scrutiny that ranges widely from privacy concerns to protection of children to political interference. Levin says regulators need to carefully line up which institutions can address which issues — and antitrust likely won't take care of all of them.———6:05 p.m.One Wall Street analyst believes the Justice Department's announced review of technology companies will lead to business model tweaks and fines rather than broader structural changes such as breaking up the companies.Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities says any resulting probe would likely take many years, and that the government would ultimately fail to break up the companies without changes to antitrust laws. He says that's unlikely.The Justice Department says it is opening an investigation into whether big online companies have hurt competition or innovation.The Justice Department didn't name any companies, but the targets are most likely Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook. All four were the subject of congressional hearings last week.Shares of Facebook, Amazon and Apple are down slightly in after-hours trading, while Google's stock is unchanged. All four had closed up for the day.———5:55 p.m.A Harvard professor who worked in the Obama administration says one challenge with the Justice Department's announced probe of big tech companies is to avoid politicizing it.Jason Furman, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama, says the antitrust scrutiny on the companies is long overdue. He just hopes it's "fast and effective enough that it can actually improve the functioning of the market."As for whether any outcome could be expected before next year's presidential elections, Furman says these cases take a long time to investigate, let alone litigate.The probe announced Tuesday will include an examination into whether powerful companies such as Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon have been stifling innovation and competition.———5:45 p.m.An antitrust expert believes a Justice Department investigation into whether major technology companies are abusing their market power may prompt regulators to interpret the law in new ways.The probe announced Tuesday will include an examination into whether powerful companies such as Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon have been stifling innovation and competition.University of Pennsylvania law professor Herbert Hovenkamp says one possible way the companies have been doing that is by collectively buying hundreds of startups in recent years to devour their technology and prevent them from growing into formidable rivals.Traditionally, antitrust regulators have only sought to block acquisitions involving two big companies. But Hovenkamp says U.S. antitrust law is broad enough for regulators to consider the potential damage wrought by relatively small deals too.———5:30 p.m.Major tech companies facing congressional antitrust scrutiny have no comment on the Justice Department's just announced probe.The department says it is opening sweeping antitrust investigation of Big Tech and whether the online platforms have hurt competition, suppressed innovation or otherwise harmed consumers. It did not name any specific companies in its announcement.Amazon had no comment. Facebook also did not have an immediate comment.Google directed requests for comments to the testimony its director of economic policy, Adam Cohen, made to the House Judiciary Committee last week. Cohen reiterated the company's benefits to consumers.Apple referred to comments from CEO Tim Cook, who told CBS last month he doesn't think "anybody reasonable" would call Apple a monopoly.———5:15 p.m.The U.S. Justice Department says it is opening a sweeping antitrust investigation of big technology companies and whether their online platforms have hurt competition, suppressed innovation or otherwise harmed consumers.It comes as a growing number of lawmakers have called for stricter regulation or even breaking up of the big tech companies, which have come under intense scrutiny following a series of scandals that compromised users' privacy. President Donald Trump also has relentlessly criticized the big tech companies by name in recent months.———4:50 p.m.The Washington Post is reporting that the Federal Trade Commission will allege that Facebook misled users about its privacy practices as part of an expected settlement.The federal business watchdog will reportedly find that Facebook deceived users about how it handled phone numbers it asked for as part of a security feature and provided insufficient information about how to turn off a facial recognition tool for photos.Advertisers were reportedly able to target users who provided their phone number as part of a two-factor authentication security feature.The FTC didn't respond immediately to a request for comment. Facebook had no comment.The complaints will reportedly be detailed in a settlement on Wednesday. Facebook won't be required to admit guilt but will have to submit to federal oversight, the newspaper reported.

The United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine reportedly testified to House lawmakers on Tuesday that President Donald Trump held up military aid to Ukraine until its president agreed to investigate Joe Biden ― effectively confirming a quid pro quo demand on the part of the White House. Acting Ambassador Bill Taylor’s private testimony for the House impeachment inquiry said it was “crazy” to make the military aid contingent on investigations of Trump’s political rivals, according to The Washington Post. Democrats who were in the room said Taylor’s testimony described a clear connection between U.S. foreign policy and Trump’s political goals, and called it the most damaging account yet for the president, The New York Times reported. “I recognize that this is a rather lengthy recitation of the events of the past few months told from my vantage point in Kyiv,” Taylor said in his opening statement, obtained by the Post. “But I also recognize the importance of the matters your Committees are investigating, and I hope that this chronology will provide some framework for your questions.” Taylor was called to testify in the impeachment probe earlier this month, after Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine until his recent resignation, revealed text messages between himself, Taylor and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. In a Sept. 1 text, Taylor expressed concern about a possible quid pro quo between the U.S. and Ukraine. Sondland responded by telling Taylor to “call me.” “During that phone call, Amb. Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election,” Taylor said Tuesday in his statement, using an alternative spelling of Zelensky’s name. Biden, who was vice president to Barack Obama, is running for president in 2020, and until recently was leading in the Democratic primary. Biden’s son Hunter was a board member of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma until earlier this year. “Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations,” Taylor said. “In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.” “He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations,” Taylor continued. The question of a quid pro quo is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, relating to a July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky in which the U.S. president pressured the Ukrainian leader to “do us a favor” and investigate the Biden family. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed earlier this month that he was on the call, which came soon after Trump suspended nearly $400 million in already approved military aid to Ukraine. Taylor was informed on July 19 that Volker had met with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to discuss Ukraine. “This caught me by surprise. The next day I asked Ambassador Volker about that meeting, but received no response,” Taylor said in the statement. “I began to sense that the two decision making channels ― the regular and irregular ― were separate and at odds.” Taylor described himself as part of the “regular” channel from the U.S. to Ukraine, while Volker, Sondland and Giuliani were part of the “irregular” channel. “By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections,” Taylor said in his opening statement. “It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani.” Wow -- > Bill Taylor’s testimony totally contradicts Amb. Sondland’s claim that he recalls “no discussions” with anyone at the State Department or White House about Biden or his son. Taylor says Sondland heard about Biden directly from Trump:https://t.co/mkmJWgSbjz pic.twitter.com/7xXzBJAd5E— John Hudson (@John_Hudson) October 22, 2019 Democrats on Tuesday said that Taylor’s testimony vastly contrasted with Sondland’s, who appeared last week before the House and recalled “no discussions” with anyone at the State Department or the White House about the Bidens. But Taylor, according to his statement, said Sondland directly heard about Biden from Trump himself. “President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a ‘quid pro quo,’” Taylor said. “But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) told reporters on Tuesday that Taylor “drew a direct line” with the hearing, which she said included documents, timelines and records of individual conversations. “I do not know how you would listen to today’s testimony from Ambassador Taylor and come to any other [conclusion] except that the president abused his power and withheld foreign aid,” Wasserman Schultz said. Republicans reportedly declined to share details of Taylor’s testimony, but said Democrats are exaggerating about the level of damaging information provided. “I don’t know that any of us, if we are being intellectually honest, are hearing revelations that we were not aware of,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said, according to the Times. “The bottom line is no one has yet to make the case for why the aid was withheld or even if the Ukrainians knew about it.” The White House responded later Tuesday denying a quid pro quo and calling the impeachment inquiry an unconstitutional “coordinated smear campaign” from Democratic lawmakers. “Today was just more triple hearsay and selective leaks from the Democrats’ politically-motivated, closed door, secretive hearings,” press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement. “Every day this nonsense continues more taxpayer time and money is wasted.” Last week, Trump’s chief of staff Mick Mulvaney acknowledged a quid pro quo in Trump’s call to Ukraine, telling reporters to “get over it.” Mulvaney later tried to walk back his statement, but the comments already resulted in some Republicans growing concerned with the Trump administration’s defense against the impeachment inquiry. Read Taylor’s opening statement here: S.V. Date contributed to this report. This has been updated with a response from the White House. Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost Voting Made Easy Register to vote and apply for an absentee ballot today Register now

"We are committed to joining hands with the US to work for non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation."A senior official in the Trump administration official told reporters thatPence's speechreflects a US decision to take a more assertive approach in dealing with China that is more "constructive and results oriented."The official said the re-evaluation came after China failed to respond as expected to the offer of greater political engagement by improving human rights and relaxing restrictions on markets and intellectual property.The Trump administration is planning to release a report Friday that accuses China of seeking to undermine the US industrial base, and of posing a risk to the supply of materials and components for the US military.JUST WATCHEDWho is the bigger threat: Russia or China?ReplayMore Videos ...MUST WATCHWho is the bigger threat: Russia or China? 03:27In his speech, Pence portrayed China as a country determined to use all the tools at its disposal, linking issues around military, trade and domestic politics, to counter current US policy."As we speak, Beijing is employing a whole-of-government approach, using political, economic, and military tools, as well as propaganda, to advance its influence and benefit its interests in the United States," he said.Relations between Washington and Beijing have soured precipitously in recent months in large part due to military tensions and a trade war between the two countries. President Donald Trump has moved to levy tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports, part of an effort to negotiate new trading terms between the world's two largest economies. China has enacted its own tariffs on US goods in response."We don't want China's markets to suffer. In fact, we want them to thrive. But the United States wants Beijing to pursue trade policies that are free, fair, and reciprocal," Pence said."Sadly, China's rulers have refused to take that path -- so far."While Pence and President Donald Trump have been publicly critical of China, Pence's broadside Thursday was unprecedented in that he portrayed the United States and China as two countries locked in an inevitable direct competition with each other.Analysts say that Chinese leaders have long feared that Washington policy in the Asia Pacific region was designed to box in China and contain its rise, and believe that Pence's speech is likely to fuel those concerns.JUST WATCHEDUS Navy ship, Chinese destroyer nearly collideReplayMore Videos ...MUST WATCHUS Navy ship, Chinese destroyer nearly collide 02:16The vice president's speech also touched on the sensitive topic of Taiwan, which Beijing considers an integral part of its territory despite the island being self-governed for almost 70 years.Under the "One China Policy," Washington officially recognized Beijing and removed its embassy from Taiwan, though it continues to regard the sovereignty status of the island as unresolved.Pence said Thursday that "while our administration will continue to respect our One China Policy ... Taiwan's embrace of democracy shows a better path for all the Chinese people."Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen responded to Pence's comments Friday by tweeting her thanks. "I thank @VP @mike_pence for recognizing #Taiwan's democratization achievements & the importance of stability in the Taiwan Strait. Working together with the #US, we look forward to the continued promotion of peace & stability in the region," she posted on Twitter.

BERLIN -- German factory orders, an important indicator for Europe's biggest economy, dropped for the second consecutive month in August — led by lower demand from domestic customers.The Economy Ministry said Monday that orders were 0.6% lower compared with the previous month. That followed a 2.1% decline in July.There was a 2.6% drop in orders from inside Germany, while demand from foreign customers improved. Orders from other countries in the eurozone rose 1.5% and those from elsewhere were up 0.4%.German industrial data have been largely disappointing for months. The economy contracted slightly in the second quarter and is widely believed to have shrunk further in the just-concluded third quarter, which would put it in a technical recession.

The transcript summary of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky released on Wednesday makes one thing perfectly clear: Ukraine has replaced Russia as the foreign nation that will most be on Americans’ lips in the weeks ahead.Trump is embroiled in a crisis about whether he improperly used his position to try to coerce Zelensky into investigating Trump’s 2020 political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden — perhaps by withholding military aid to the Eastern European country.That seems possible based on the call summary, which shows Zelensky asking for US-made weaponry to fend off Russia and Trump immediately responding, “I would like you to do us a favor though” — then suggesting Attorney General William Barr get in contact with Ukrainian officials.On the surface it may seem odd that Ukraine, one of Europe’s poorest countries, has become so central to the latest Trump drama. But the truth is that the country has been involved in Trump scandals since the very beginning.“Ukraine has certainly been a through line in a number of Trump investigations: the Republican National Committee platform, Russian ambitions, NATO commitments, and now this,” says Andy Wright, a former White House lawyer in the Obama administration. And that doesn’t even touch on former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort’s lobbying work on behalf of a previous pro-Russian Ukrainian president or the wild conspiracies on the right that have led some (including, apparently, Trump himself) to believe Hillary Clinton’s infamous email server is currently in Ukraine.In other words, the Ukraine-Trump connection isn’t new. It’s always been there. We’ve mostly just forgotten because so much has happened that it’s hard to keep track of everything. So here’s a reminder of how Ukraine has played into the various Trump scandals from the very beginning.One of the earliest controversies surrounding Trump’s presidential campaign centered on a disappearing section of the Republican Party’s 2016 platform.Initially, the document had reportedly stated that the party — and thereby Trump, as the party’s official nominee — supported sending lethal aid to Ukraine. That would be an important signal for officials in Kyiv looking for help in their fight against Russia, which invaded the country’s east and south in 2014. Russia is a far more powerful country with more troops and equipment. US assistance, then, is essential to Ukraine’s effort to defend itself against Russia.But the final version of the GOP platform only said the US would provide “appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine” in a Trump administration — a major softening of the language.So what happened? Well, Trump campaign officials quietly worked behind the scenes to change the position, even hosting multiple events during the party’s convention in Cleveland to ensure the GOP wouldn’t back shipping arms that Ukrainians could use against Russians. Many Republican Party members were concerned by the change in language. “This is another example of Trump being out of step with GOP leadership and the mainstream in a way that shows he would be dangerous for America and the world,” Rachel Hoff, a platform committee member, told the Washington Post at the time.Oddly, Trump ended up overturning the Obama administration’s ban on selling lethal weapons to Ukraine in 2017. That move allowed the US to sell the country anti-tank missiles and other advanced weapons that would help Ukraine better fight back against Russia, and it ingratiated the Trump administration with many in Ukraine.Zelensky, who wants to end the war in the country, surely cares deeply about keeping military aid coming from the United States — a fact that Trump could use as leverage if he wanted to.It seems like forever ago, but it’s worth remembering that the person in charge of Trump’s campaign for a while — Paul Manafort — had important relationships in Ukraine.Before he joined Trump’s team, Manafort was already well known for his decades of Republican campaign and lobbying work. By around 2004, Manafort sought even grander paydays abroad by advising fantastically rich oligarchs in the former Soviet Union on how to master tumultuous democratic politics. He advised a Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska, but eventually his efforts focused on Ukraine — where he landed a hefty contract to advise the country’s pro-Russian political party.When Manafort got the gig, the Party of Regions and its leader Viktor Yanukovych were unpopular and in the opposition. But over the next few years, Manafort would help orchestrate the party’s return to power and Yanukovych’s 2010 election as president. Once Yanukovych was in office, Manafort became an enormously influential adviser to the regime — the Atlantic’s Franklin Foer wrote last year that Manafort had “walk-in” privileges, and billed “outrageous amounts” to the Ukrainians while advising on both domestic politics and lobbying in the US.But it all fell apart in 2014, when Ukrainians took to the streets to force Yanukovych out of power and he fled to Russia. Manafort and Deripaska, meanwhile, had a falling out that ended in a lawsuit, with Deripaska claiming Manafort cheated him of millions. He’d lost his biggest client and had serious cash flow problems, and the FBI looked into his Ukrainian money. Former campaign manager for President Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, leaves District Court after pleading not guilty following his indictment on federal charges in Washington, DC, on October 30, 2017. Win McNamee/Getty Images Manafort’s work in Ukraine became a major focus of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Trump-Russia ties. And what Mueller’s team uncovered ended up landing Manafort in prison.First, Manafort had moved $30 million of his Ukrainian lobbying money from foreign shell companies into the US — but he didn’t disclose this income on his tax forms, pay taxes on it, or fill out legally required disclosures of his foreign accounts. That’s illegal. Second, Mueller’s team focused on what Manafort did once he lost his Ukrainian income after the country’s president was deposed. They found he tried to conjure up more cash via bank fraud.Manafort eventually pleaded guilty to a broad “conspiracy against the United States” — in which he admitted unregistered lobbying and money laundering related to the Ukraine work. He received sentences of more than seven years combined in prison. According to the Washington Post, part of the reason why Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has become so interested in getting close to the Ukrainian government is because he wants to punish those who put Manafort behind bars. It seems Giuliani will continue to deal with Ukranians in an effort to dig up dirt on anti-Trump Democrats and others the administration accuses of being the real colluders with Ukraine.On Trump’s now-infamous phone phone call with Zelensky, Trump cryptically asked Zelensky about a computer server in Ukraine and the American cybersecurity company CrowdStrike. “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people ... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation,” he said.It appears Trump was referring to a long-debunked conspiracy theory that the firm has covered up the fact that Ukraine — not Russia — interfered in the 2016 election.Give your head a second to stop spinning, and then read on.CrowdStrike was hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 to look into who hacked into their networks during the election. The firm determined that it was two Russian groups with Kremlin ties. Case closed, right? Not exactly.Trump seems to believe — and has often mentioned — that a DNC server with the real information on it has gone missing, and that CrowdStrike (and the FBI) is somehow involved in its disappearance. He brought the issue up during his Helsinki meeting alongside Putin.“You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server,” the president said during the July 2018 press conference. “Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying?” President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands before a meeting in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images But here’s the problem: There is actually no missing physical server associated with the DNC breach to speak of. Instead, the roughly 140 servers — most of them cloud-based — are already out of use. What’s more, in a 2017 interview with the Associated Press, for example, Trump said CrowdStrike was “Ukraine-based” — even though its headquarters are in California. “I heard it’s owned by a very rich Ukrainian, that’s what I heard,” he continued. That’s incorrect. The company’s co-founder, the Russian-born US citizen Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, which receives funding from Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. But that flimsy connection is a far cry from the firm he started being secretly run by an Eastern European billionaire.(Disclosure: Before coming to Vox I worked at the Atlantic Council and interacted with Alperovitch on a few cybersecurity-related events and projects.)CrowdStrike denies any wrongdoing in a statement to reporters: “With regards to our investigation of the DNC hack in 2016, we provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI. As we’ve stated before, we stand by our findings and conclusions that have been fully supported by the US Intelligence community.”It’s still unclear just where Trump got this idea in his head, but it’s ingrained enough that he mentioned it on a call with Ukraine’s president.So if you put the three elements together — Trump’s pro-Russia sentiments, Manafort’s past work, and the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory — it becomes clear that the question isn’t “Why is Ukraine in the news?” The question really is: “Why wasn’t Ukraine in the news sooner?”