image copyrightGetty ImagesFour men found guilty of the gang-rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman on a bus in the Indian capital, Delhi, seven years ago have been hanged.The hangings were the last step in the brutal December 2012 rape case that stunned India, brought thousands of protesters out on the streets and made global headlines for weeks.It also forced the authorities to bring in more stringent laws, including the introduction of the death penalty in rare cases.The judges perceived this particular crime fit for awarding the death penalty and on 20 March, the convicts were executed.media captionDelhi Nirbhaya rape death penalty: How the case galvanised IndiaDespite the outcry over the crime and the government's promise to deliver quick justice, the case had meandered through courts for more than seven years.The hangings have been welcomed by the victim's family. Her mother, Asha Devi, who had become the face of the campaign to carry out the death sentences, has said that justice has finally been done. There have been celebrations outside the prison where the executions took place with many chanting "death to rapists".But will it make women any safer in India?A short answer to that question would be: No.And that's because despite the increased scrutiny of crimes against women since December 2012, similar violent incidents have continued to make headlines in India. Hyderabad case: Why Indians are celebrating the killingsHow Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi both made rape a political issueAccording to government data, thousands of rapes take place every year and the numbers have been consistently rising over the years.Recently-released figures from the National Crime Records Bureau show police registered 33,977 cases of rape in 2018 - that's an average of 93 every day. And statistics tell only a part of the story - campaigners say thousands of rapes and cases of sexual assault are not even reported to the police.I personally know women who have never reported being assaulted because they are ashamed, or because of the stigma associated with sexual crimes, or because they are afraid that they will not be believed.Even so, the daily newspapers are full of horrific reports of violations and it seems no-one is safe - a victim could be an eight-month-old or a septuagenarian, she could be rich or poor or middle class, an assault could take place in a village or the big city, inside her own home or on the street. The rapists do not belong to a particular religion or caste, they come from different social and financial backgrounds. image copyrightGetty Imagesimage captionThe Delhi bus rape victim's mother Asha Devi had become the face of the campaign to carry out the death sentenceAnd they are everywhere - lurking in homes, playgrounds, schools and the streets - waiting for an opportunity to strike.In November, a 27-year-old vet was gang-raped and murdered in the southern city of Hyderabad. Later, her body was set on fire. A few days later, in Unnao district in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, a woman was set on fire while she was on her way to testify against her alleged rapists. She sustained 90% burns and died in hospital three days later.Another woman, also in Unnao, was seriously injured in a car crash in July after she accused a ruling party lawmaker of rape. Two of her aunts were killed in the crash, and her lawyer was seriously injured. Was Delhi gang rape India's #Metoo moment?India court blames 'promiscuous' rape survivorShe alleged that the police had ignored her complaints for months preceding that. In fact, she alleged they had colluded with the alleged rapist and arrested her father who then died in custody.The legislator was arrested only after she threatened to kill herself, and the national press began reporting on her allegations. In December, a court pronounced him guilty and sentenced him to life in jail. All these cases, the brutality of the abuse, the entitlement displayed by men in power, do not give women much confidence.Some say strict punishment, swiftly delivered, will instil a fear of the law in the public mind and deter rape, but experts say the only permanent solution to the problem is to dismantle the hold of patriarchal thinking, the mindset that regards women as being a man's property.They say the family and wider society need to recognise their role in making India a safer place for women; that parents, teachers and elders must deal with every transgression, however minor, and not indulge bad behaviour with "boys-will-be-boys" remarks.Last year, the government said they had started gender sensitisation programmes in schools to teach boys to learn to respect women. The idea, they said, was to catch them young, in their formative years, to make them better men.image copyrightGetty ImagesThis could definitely help, but one of the major problems with such ideas is their patchy implementation and the long time they take to show results. Until that happens, how do women and girls in India ensure their safety? By doing what we always do - that is, by restricting our own freedoms. The Delhi gang-rape victim couldn't be named under Indian law so the press dubbed her Nirbhaya - the fearless one. But as most women will tell you, that's not how we really feel.We dress modestly while going out, we don't stay out late, we keep looking over our shoulders at all times, we drive with our doors locked and windows rolled up. And sometimes, safety comes at a cost too. Like when two years back I had a flat tyre while driving home at night, I didn't stop until I reached my regular petrol station where I knew the mechanics. By then, my tyre had been shredded to pieces. Next day, I had to pay for a new tyre, but I think I got away cheaply.Read more from Geeta PandeyThe women eating with their families for the first timeCalling your husband by name for the first timeThe Indian women saying no to forced tattoosWas Delhi gang rape India's #Metoo moment?

Federal district courts are still operating because they have revenue from court fees and other sources aside from congressional appropriations. But those funds may run out as soon as next Friday, leaving it up to judges to decide which cases are critical and must be heard and which will be delayed. Criminal cases are likely to be prioritized.At federal prisons, which employ roughly 36,000 people, corrections officers who struggle during normal times to cover their bills are now expecting that next week’s paycheck will not arrive. Guards who normally take home $1,000 to $1,400 per biweekly check are scrambling to figure out how to pay for child care, rent and medications.[Read more: With no end in sight to the shutdown, 800,000 federal workers have been sent home or are working without pay.]Eric Young, the national president of prison locals for the American Federation of Government Employees, said he had heard from one prison worker in Florida who needs $200 for his supply of insulin injections. “People are having to decide whether to keep the lights on or pay for their insulin,” Mr. Young said. “It’s depressing. And it’s just unconscionable to know that the federal work force is being penalized because of politics between the parties.”About four out of every five Justice Department employees are expected to keep working, because so many are employed in law enforcement or national security jobs, including at the F.B.I., the D.E.A., and the Bureau of Prisons. But none are expected to be paid during the shutdown, unless their offices have a funding source separate from congressional appropriations.

ImageParamedics transported a patient who overdosed on heroin in Delray Beach, Fla. Americans are more likely to die of an opioid overdose than in a car crash.Credit...Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesThe opioid crisis in the United States has become so grim that Americans are now likelier to die of an overdose than in a vehicle crash.That’s according to a new report by the National Safety Council that analyzed the causes of preventable deaths in the country in 2017. The probability of dying from an opioid overdose, according to the report, is one in 96. The chances of dying in a vehicle crash? One in 103.Most Americans are still most likely to die of natural causes, chiefly heart disease (a one in six chance) or cancer (one in seven). But the report shows, in stark numbers, that everyday events — such as falling down — might be effectively more dangerous than rare ones, such as getting hit by lightning.“Human beings, we just are not good at estimating our own risk,” said Ken Kolosh, manager of statistics at the National Safety Council, who oversaw the report. “We tend to fixate or focus on the rare, startling event, like a plane crash or a major flood or a natural disaster, but in reality, when you look at the numbers, the everyday risks that we face and have become so accustomed to form a much greater hazard.”Medicine has improved our ability to combat fatal illnesses. But while deaths from natural causes have gone down, deaths from preventable causes have ticked up, and the result is that Americans’ life expectancy has actually decreased over the past few years, Mr. Kolosh said.Here’s a look at the trends, and the top 10 causes of preventable deaths.Opioids: One in 96An influx of illegal fentanyl has worsened the opioid crisis.The total number of deaths from opioid overdoses first surpassed the total number of deaths from vehicle crashes years ago. But the report found that 2017 was the first year in which accidental opioid deaths exceeded the number of accidental vehicle crashes. (Intentional overdoses or vehicle crashes were counted as suicides.)“Something that was a nonissue 30 years ago now looms as this incredible monster of an issue,” Mr. Kolosh said. Overdoses of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, have been driving the increase, according to data on opioid deaths from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Pedestrian deaths: One in 556They are becoming more frequent.Car crashes continue to be a leading cause of preventable death, with pedestrians accounting for a bigger proportion of the fatalities, especially in urban areas. While Mr. Kolosh said the reasons behind the increase have not been thoroughly studied, distracted driving is widely considered to be a factor. When it comes to deadly car crashes, the report made a notable finding: About half of the people who died in the crashes studied were not wearing seatbelts.Falls: One in 114Falling can be risky, especially if you’re older.The probability of dying in a fall increased to one in 114. Mr. Kolosh attributed the uptick to the fact that more older adults are reporting falls. Some of them at first might not seem particularly serious.“They’re slipping or tripping in their bathrooms, or in their kitchens,” Mr. Kolosh said. But researchers are finding that even some of these minor falls may lead to hospitalization and a chain of events that may then result in death.Among the ways to prevent falls, according to the CDC: Exercise that focuses on strength, flexibility and balance.The Top 10 Odds of Dying: Heart disease: one in sixCancer: one in sevenLower respiratory disease: one in 27Suicide: one in 88Opioid overdose: one in 96Car crash: one in 103Fall: one in 114Gun assault: one in 285Pedestrian incident: one in 556Motorcycle crash: 1 in 858Here’s the full list.

leoHello?bianca giaeverHey, Leo. Can you hear me O.K.?leoYeah.bianca giaeverSo I heard that you are interested in the impeachment. Is that true?leoYes. I’m trying to figure out a lot more about it, so I can — yeah, I’m very interested in it.leoMost of it. Most of it.motherNo, Macy. Stop, stop, stop.bianca giaeverI was thinking that since you have more questions, you could come to The New York Times and talk to one of our political reporters.leoI can ask my mom about that.bianca giaeverI talked to her, and she said it’s O.K.leoYeah? O.K. Then, yeah.bianca giaeverI was thinking the person you could talk to is this political reporter named Mike Schmidt.leoO.K.leoMike Smich, S-M-I-T-C-H. The New York Times.leoPul — Pulitzer — Pulitizzer.leoWhat is “quid pro quo?” How many people are listening when the president makes a phone call? What are the hearings?leoWhat’s the temperature out tomorrow?siriExpect a high of 50 and a low of 21.leoI’m gonna wear long sleeves with long pants.bianca giaeverHi, Leo. Welcome to The New York Times.leoThank you.bianca giaeverHow are you feeling?leoGood.bianca giaeverDid you work on your questions anymore or just —motherHe did.bianca giaeverYeah?leoI practiced them once.bianca giaeverGreat. Well, so Mike is on a train from Washington, D.C. that gets in right at 10:00, and he’s going to rush here. And so yeah, do you want to come in? Great. O.K., this is us. So are you feeling nervous?leoYes.bianca giaeverYou remember the name of the host?leoUh, Michael —it starts with a B. Michael — I forget. Bar-barb?leoIt’s Wednesday, November 13th.michael barbaroBravo.Do you feel like you’re at the right height? Do you want anything?leoNo, I’m O.K.michael barbaroO.K. You’re a very unfussy guest. So how is it that you got interested in the impeachment?leoWell, I was in the car with my mom, and I was driving to my grandma’s house, and she was listening to the radio, and I heard them talking about it on the radio.michael barbaroMm-hm.leoI asked my mom about it, and I think I asked, like, can you explain what’s happening to me is? Because I don’t really understand it.michael barbaroMm-hm.leoThere were a lot of words I didn’t really know.michael barbaroMm-hm.leoAt first I didn’t know what the whistleblower was.michael barbaroThat word?leoYeah. She explained it in a really good way, so now I know.michael barbaroMm-hm. What’s your understanding of what a whistleblower is?leoIt could be anyone. Whistleblower can be anyone, who was either in the room or doing something that let him hear what the president was saying to the president of Ukraine.michael barbaroMm-hm.leoAnd he knew it’s very bad. He can’t threaten another president to help him win the next election. So he reported it to the House of Representatives.michael barbaroDo you know where that phrase comes from, whistleblower?leoOh, because, for example, in sports, if someone does something wrong, like breaking the rules of the game, they would blow a whistle or something like that and —michael barbaroRight.leoThey would m you can’t do that. That’s wrong.michael barbaroRight.leoYeah.michael barbaroYeah, I have the image of being at a pool with the lifeguard. And the lifeguard’s like —leoYeah, yeah. [WHISTLES]michael barbaroHey, knock it off.leoI was at Delaware Beach once, and we saw dolphins. Someone tried to go swim after them, and he had to blow his whistle and say, you can’t go that far. Come back.michael barbaroRight, same concept. Do not chase after dolphins. Do not ask the president of Ukraine to do you a political favor. Right.bianca giaeverLeo, do you want to show Michael the drawings of the impeachment you made?leoO.K.michael barbaroYeah, what do you have in this bag?leoI only did one, but — [UNZIPPING]There’s all of this.michael barbaroHey, can you tell me what this is from your backpack?leoThis?michael barbaroYeah.leoIt’s a book about the parts of the government.michael barbaroWhat’s it called?leoWhat Are The Parts of Government.michael barbaroAnd where did you get it from?leoThe library.michael barbaroWas it in high demand? Was there a competition to get it?leoNo.michael barbaroNo.leoBarely anyone who was even in the aisle.michael barbaroDo you have other people in your life friends, classmates, who are also interested in the impeachment?leoNo.michael barbaroNo. Like your brother, right?leoYeah, he doesn’t really care.michael barbaroWhat does he care about?leoHe really likes animals, especially reptiles.michael barbaroHmm. Which is why this is exactly the right place for you to be. Because we are very interested.leoYeah. Yeah, if you want to like at — do you want to look at that questions?michael barbaroYeah, sure, let me review them for you.leoThese are questions for Mike.michael barbaroThese are questions for Mike Schmidt?leoThis was the original one, but then I typed it.michael barbaroSmart thinking.Great. These are great questions.So I think Mike is close. So maybe we’ll have you do the “we’ll be right back” thing. Do you want to try that?leoO.K. “We’ll be right back.”michael barbaroNice job.Mike Schmidt.michael schmidtHi, guys.bianca giaeverHi.leoHi.michael schmidtHi. What’s happening? How are you?leoGood.michael schmidtNice to meet you.leoNice to meet you.michael schmidtThanks for coming in.leoYou’re welcome.michael schmidtThanks for waiting for me. I’m sorry I’m late.leoIt’s O.K.michael barbaroYeah.michael schmidtIt’s good to see you, too. [LAUGHTER]michael barbaroWelcome. Leo, Mike. Mike, Leo.michael schmidtWhat grade are you in, Leo?leoThird.michael schmidtThird? What do you learn in third grade?leoI learn division and, um —michael schmidtDivision, as in math?leoYes.michael schmidtNot the division of the country.leoNo.michael barbaroLeo, you have these questions for Mike. Do you want to read some of them?leoYeah.michael barbaroGo.leoSo first, how many presidents have been impeached? I think it’s three.michael schmidtSo it’s two. It’s Clinton.leoOh, yes. Bill Clinton.michael schmidtBill Clinton. And it’s Andrew Johnson.leoYeah.michael schmidtI think I know why you think that it was three, because there was this other President, Richard Nixon, who —leoYeah, he did something very bad, and he knew he was going to get impeached. So he quit being president, because he knew even if he didn’t quit, he would be impeached. So —michael schmidtNailed it.leoHe quit before he could even get impeached.michael schmidtRight. Do you know what a quid pro quo is?leoThat’s actually one of my questions, but now I know. I heard it on a podcast. It means “this for that.”michael schmidtThat’s right.michael barbaroYeah, it’s the Latin.michael schmidtThat’s right.leoYeah, it’s in Latin.michael schmidtFavor for a favor.leoI don’t really think it is, because the president of Ukraine is really just doing a favor for Trump. He just said that if you don’t, then he’ll stop giving you money. So he’s basically threatening the president.michael barbaroSo you don’t — it’s interesting, Mike. I wonder if you’d agree with this. It feels like what Leo is saying is, I’m not so sure this is a quid pro quo, because it’s more like a threat without a favor back to Ukraine.michael schmidtNo, you hit on one of the biggest criticisms of how this thing is described. Which is essentially that a quid pro quo doesn’t really capture what it’s all about. A quid pro quo is like, hey, if I do this for you, I’ll give you my Cheeze-Its, and you give me half of your peanut butter and jelly sandwich. This is not that good of a deal. This is more like, I’ve been giving you lunch money every day. But if you want me to keep giving you lunch money, you have to go throw this banana peel on the ground, so this person I don’t like will come along and slip and fall.leoYes, it’s not fair to the president of Ukraine.michael schmidtAnd when you heard about it, what was your first reaction to it? What did you think?leoI thought that, well, it’s a bad thing to do, what Trump’s doing. And also, I thought about who the whistleblower was, if it’s a boy or a girl, or who or what.michael schmidtDo you know if it’s a boy or a girl?leoNo, that’s actually one of my questions.michael schmidtO.K.michael barbaroBut you do know?michael schmidtI do know.leoReally?michael schmidtYeah. It’s a boy.leoO.K.michael schmidtThe whistleblower worked for the C.I.A., and at one point worked inside the White House.leoYeah, Mike, one of my questions was, does the whistleblower work for government?michael schmidtHe does. So Leo, why do you think that it is that Ukraine isn’t saying they’re upset with Trump?leoWell, the president of Ukraine might be kind of scared, because they need the money. And when Donald Trump threatens the Ukrainian president that he’s not going to give them money anymore, they get kind of scared. If he says that and reports it and Trump gets in trouble, he’ll get really mad, and he can say — while he’s still in office, he can say I’ll stop giving you money. Which I think the president of Ukraine is scared of, because he wants the people in Ukraine to be safe and feel safe there.michael schmidtThat’s really smart analysis, Leo.leoBut this is a question. Does other countries, other than America, Ukraine, and Russia, do they know about this, that they could also go to Trump and do what Ukraine could do?michael schmidtTotally. It’s almost certainly being heard around the world by other countries. But you raise a good question, which is, hey, if this is going on with Ukraine, why wouldn’t it go on with any of the other dozens or hundreds of countries in the world?leoAnd also, has this happened to other countries before?michael schmidtWe don’t know. I mean, the funny thing is that we even forget that in the middle of this whole story. Donald Trump came out and basically said that the Chinese should do the same thing that he wanted the Ukrainians to do. But I had forgotten about that.michael barbaroWhich is to investigate connections between Joe Biden and China.michael schmidtCorrect.michael barbaroAnd Hunter Biden.michael schmidtHe said it right outside the White House.leoI didn’t know. That’s new to me. I didn’t know that yet.michael schmidtWhat do you think of that?leoSo he’s trying to get China to do what he tried to get Ukraine to do?michael schmidtYes.leoInvestigate Joe Biden?michael schmidtJoe Biden’s son.leoAll right. When and why did America start giving Ukraine money? And all the other countries, too.michael schmidtSo a few decades ago, there was this big thing called the Cold War. And the United States wanted to help the Ukrainians. Ukraine had been part of the U.S.S.R., which was the old version of Russia. And the Ukrainians were sort of going out on their own and trying to become their own country. And the United States went to them and said, hey, we can help you. We can help create a democracy in your country, and we can give you money to get off the ground to sort of build yourself up as a country.michael barbaroAnd protect yourself from Russia.michael schmidtCorrect. Well, it was to strengthen the country. It’s not until many, many years later that we start giving them military aid, this whole thing that’s come up in the quid pro quo call. But we were becoming friends with them. We thought if we could create more democracies in Europe and next to Russia. we could contain the Russians and help people have the same freedoms that we do.leoAll right, what are the hearings? The next one’s good.michael schmidtSo the hearings start today. And the hearings are these public events, where the Democrats are going to bring different witnesses, people that were working in the government on Ukraine issues. The Democrats are going to bring them forward in public on TV and ask them questions. so they can say what they knew what was going on with Ukraine and the aid and Trump pressuring them. Does that make sense?leoYeah.michael barbaroWhy are they public? And why is that important?michael schmidtThe Democrats are trying to build an argument for the country that there is a good reason to impeach the president. And they think doing it in public where we can all watch on TV will have a greater impact.leoYeah, all right.michael schmidtDoes that make any sense?leoKind of. [CHUCKLING]michael schmidtI get confused, too. I get confused, too. What do you think about the fact that the Democrats think they need to have public hearings to convince people that what Trump did was wrong, that a lot of people in the country don’t think that’s a problem?leoBecause they think that it’s just doing like one thing. They know it’s bad, but they don’t think it’s bad enough for him to get kicked out of office.michael schmidtMm-hm.leoThey know it’s bad. They definitely know it’s bad, but I don’t think they don’t think it’s bad enough.michael schmidtI think the most recent argument from Republicans would be that simply doing what he did is not enough to remove him from office.michael barbaroDo you have any more questions for Mike?leoUh, all right. So when will we know if the president gets impeached? If he does get impeached, when will the public find out?michael schmidtMy editors ask me this question every day. I think we may have an answer by December or January. So just a couple of months away. And if he’s impeached, then this would be sent to the Senate, where there would be a trial, six days a week, national television, the senators deciding whether to take out Trump.michael barbaroAnd when would that be decided by?michael schmidtWell, early next year. But the problem, Leo, is, in Washington, everything always takes longer than we think it’s going to. So maybe it’s the spring when we get some clarity.michael barbaroLeo, I want you to ask this question, which I think might be one of our last questions in this conversation with Mike, do you mind asking that?leoWhat are we going to see this week, in the coming weeks?michael schmidtWe’re going to see hearings. We’re going to see the first one on Wednesday, where a senior State Department official, who had big concerns about what Trump was doing, is going to testify publicly. And then on Friday, another State Department official who was involved in all this stuff is going to testify in public again. And then next week, we’ll see the same thing but with different witnesses. And this will be the Democrats trying to argue to the country why this is so important and why the president should be impeached.michael barbaroLeo, I have to leave and head to Washington to cover the first hearing that Mike just described, but I’m curious, what has been the most interesting thing that you have learned here today from Mike Schmidt?leoI think it’s — I learned this, and I didn’t know it until today. I didn’t know about the Cold War.michael barbaroHm!leoBetween America and Russia. I found that really interesting.michael barbaroYeah, it’s a big part of the story, actually.michael schmidtLeo, what’s your prediction about what’s going to happen at the hearings?leoYeah, I think he’s going to get impeached in the House, but he’ll be O.K. He won’t — not enough people will vote in the Senate.michael schmidtSo you think he’s going to end up staying in office?leoYes.michael schmidtSo that’s your prediction?leoYes.michael schmidtThat’s what I think, too, unless something big changes.leoYeah.michael schmidtLeo, I think you know as much as I do now. So I think we’re done here. You say some of this stuff in a clearer way than anyone else I’ve heard.michael barbaroDo you want to show Mike the impeachment drawing?leoO.K.michael schmidtOh. [CHUCKLING]leoThat’s a person. It’s a person in a suit blowing a whistle.michael schmidtWith Donald Trump’s hair.leoThat’s Donald Trump’s hair?michael schmidtI don’t know. I thought so at first. So this is the whistleblower, and he’s blowing his whistle.michael barbaroAnonymous no more.michael schmidtWith the words “squee” coming out of his mouth. [LAUGHTER]michael barbaroMike, thank you very much. Leo, thank you so very much. It was a pleasure to meet you, and I look forward to some day coming on your podcast. Get it. [CHUCKLING] We’ll speak soon.leoThank you.michael barbaroThank you.

European countries seeking to protect workers from Covid-19 are overwhelmingly looking to Germany.Across the continent, countries are rolling out their own version of Kurzarbeit, a German program that translates literally to “short-time work.” Under the program, financially distressed employers can drastically reduce worker hours, and the government will pay most of their lost wages. The goal is to help companies preserve jobs, making it easier for them and the broader economy to recover later.Kurzarbeit has existed for more than a century, but it gained international attention during the 2008 financial crisis, when the number of workers enrolled in it climbed from around 50,000 to more than 1.5 million in a year (pdf, p. 35). The program is widely credited with helping Germany weather the crisis and recover relatively quickly; economists believe unemployment would have risen by twice as much (pdf) without it. Kurzarbeit’s long history and acceptance by both firms and workers is one reason why it works so well in Germany. And because layoffs must clear a higher bar under German law than in a market like the US, making them more onerous and costly, companies are eager to avoid them.

The nearly thousand-page Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday, the culmination of a three-year bipartisan investigation, leaves no room for doubt: Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign exposed our country to significant counterintelligence risks. While partisans can argue about whether or its report’s findings constitute “collusion” with the Kremlin, the report flatly states that the Trump campaign “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities.”One operative who exploited the chaos was Paul Manafort, who had worked closely with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska between 2004 and 2009. The Intelligence Committee found that Deripaska “conducts influence operations,” in coordination with and under the direction of the Russian government. Manafort, who had run multi-million dollar influence campaigns for Deripaska “in numerous countries” of interest to Russia, volunteered in 2016 to work as Trump’s campaign chairman—for free. While a normal campaign might have found Manafort’s ties to Deripaska troubling, the Trump campaign did not. Manafort, of course, was later convicted of bank fraud, tax violations and related crimes unrelated to the Trump campaign. The report states that Manafort worked closely with Konstantin Kilimnik, whom it describes unequivocally as “a Russian intelligence officer.” Special Counsel Robert Mueller had concluded only that Kilimnik had “ties” to Russian intelligence. The report also states that “the Committee obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the (Russian intelligence service’s) hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election.” According to the report, Manafort repeatedly shared secret campaign information with Kilimnik. Like Mueller, however, the committee was unable to determine why—in part because Manafort and Kilimnik covered their tracks. For example, Manafort and Kilimnik used a technique called “foldering,” in which they used the same email account, left messages for each other in the “drafts” folder and then read the messages without sending them. The committee found that Manafort's presence on the campaign and proximity to Trump “created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign.” Manafort's “willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat.” The committee also found that the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between senior campaign advisers and Russians also exposed the campaign to even more foreign influence than previously known. Manafort, along with Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner, met with Russian contacts for the purpose of obtaining incriminating information about Hillary Clinton. One of the Russians at the meeting was lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. According to the report, her connections to Russian intelligence “were far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known,” noting that information she used at the meeting was also used in an operation with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that the Trump Tower meeting was part of an effort coordinated by Russia. This meeting had been planned in a series of email messages offering documents and information harmful to Clinton as “part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.” In response, Trump, Jr., famously replied, “If it’s what you say, I love it.” The meeting was a product of the Trump family’s relationship with another Russian oligarch, Aras Agalarov, and his son, a musician, whom Trump had met at the Miss Universe pageant in 2013. The committee concluded that the senior Agalarov was “likely” acting at the behest of the Russian government. Rather than reporting this outreach to the FBI, the Trump campaign officials met with the Russians. It appears that the meeting ended without the promised information, but Trump, Jr., exposed the campaign to blackmail by responding to the email, and compounded the error by taking the meeting. George Papadopoulos, a campaign foreign policy adviser, also exposed the campaign to counterintelligence risk by seeking to secure a meeting between Trump and Putin. The committee found that Papadopoulos’s efforts introduced him to individuals who raised counterintelligence concerns, and made him an unwitting “prime intelligence target and potential vector for malign Russian influence.”In addition to creating vulnerabilities by using inexperienced or shady campaign staff, the Trump campaign also actively welcomed assistance through the hacked and stolen emails of the Clinton campaign. The report found that Trump campaign staff sought advance notice about releases of stolen emails by WikiLeaks, “created messaging strategies” in anticipation of their release and encouraged further leaks. The Trump campaign also “publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.”In stark contrast to Attorney General William Barr’s characterization of these events before the House Judiciary Committee as the “bogus Russiagate scandal,” the Senate report reaches the same conclusions as Mueller—that the Russian government attacked our election to help Trump become president, and some members of Trump’s campaign welcomed the assistance from a hostile foreign adversary. But this report goes further by demonstrating how Trump’s win-at-all cost strategy and reckless practices exposed his campaign, and our election, to foreign influence. Among the report’s recommendations is one that campaigns notify the FBI of all foreign offers of assistance and to reject the use of foreign material, especially if it has been obtained through the violation of U.S. law.With another election right around the corner, both parties would be wise to set aside politics and acknowledge the threat posed by Russia to interfere in our election.

Thousands of documents detailing $2 trillion (£1.55tn) of potentially corrupt transactions that were washed through the US financial system have been leaked to an international group of investigative journalists.The leak focuses on more than 2,000 suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed with the US government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).Banks and other financial institutions file SARs when they believe a client is using their services for potential criminal activity.However, the filing of an SAR does not require the bank to cease doing business with the client in question.The documents were provided to BuzzFeed News, which shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.The documents are said to suggest major banks provided financial services to high-risk individuals from around the world, in some cases even after they had been placed under sanctions by the US government.According to the ICIJ the documents relate to more than $2tn of transactions dating from between 1999 and 2017.One of those named in the SARs is Paul Manafort, a political strategist who led Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign for several months.He stepped down from the role after his consultancy work for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was exposed, and he was later convicted of fraud and tax evasion.According to the ICIJ, banks began flagging activity linked to Manafort as suspicious beginning in 2012. In 2017 JP Morgan Chase filed a report on wire transfers worth over $300m involving shell companies in Cyprus that had done business with Manafort.The ICIJ said Manafort’s lawyer did not respond to an invitation to comment.A separate report details over $1bn in wire transfers by JP Morgan Chase that the bank later came to suspect were linked to Semion Mogilevich, an alleged Russian organised crime boss who is named on the FBI’s top 10 most wanted list.A JP Morgan Chase spokesperson told the BBC: “We follow all laws and regulations in support of the government’s work to combat financial crimes. We devote thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars to this important work.”According to BBC Panorama, the British bank HSBC allowed a group of criminals to transfer millions of dollars from a Ponzi scheme through its accounts, even after it had identified their fraud.HSBC said in a statement: “Starting in 2012, HSBC embarked on a multi-year journey to overhaul its ability to combat financial crime across more than 60 jurisdictions.” It added: “HSBC is a much safer institution than it was in 2012.”In a statement released earlier this month FinCEN condemned the disclosure of the leaked documents and said it had referred the matter to the US Department of Justice.“The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is aware that various media outlets intend to publish a series of articles based on unlawfully disclosed suspicious activity reports (SARs), as well as other sensitive government documents, from several years ago,” it stated.“As FinCEN has stated previously, the unauthorised disclosure of SARs is a crime that can impact the national security of the United States, compromise law enforcement investigations, and threaten the safety and security of the institutions and individuals who file such reports.”

China’s military has expanded its bomber operations in recent years while “likely training for strikes” against the United States and its allies, a Pentagon report released on Thursday has said.The assessment was contained in an annual report that highlighted China’s efforts to increase its global influence, with defence spending that the Pentagon estimates exceeded $190bn in 2017.“Over the last three years, the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] has rapidly expanded its overwater bomber operating areas, gaining experience in critical maritime regions and likely training for strikes against US and allied targets,” the report said, noting how China is pushing its operations out into the Pacific.In August 2017, six Chinese H-6K bombers flew through the Miyako Strait in the south-west of the Japanese islands, and then for the first time turned north to fly east of Okinawa, where 47,000 US troops are based.The report comes as China and the United States plan to hold trade talks, offering hope they might resolve an escalating tariff conflict that threatens to degenerate into an all-out trade war.The report said that while the PLA had continued to extend operations, it was not clear what message Beijing was seeking to send by carrying out the flights “beyond a demonstration of improved capabilities”.The Chinese embassy in Washington could not immediately be reached for comment.This year China’s air force landed bombers on islands and reefs in the South China Sea as part of a training exercise in the disputed region.In January the Pentagon put countering Beijing, along with Russia, at the centre of a new national defence strategy.While Washington and Beijing maintain a military-to-military relationship aimed at containing tensions, this has been tested in recent months, notably in May when the Pentagon withdrew an invitation to China to join a multinational naval exercise.In June, US defence secretary Jim Mattis became the first Pentagon chief to visit China since 2014.The Pentagon report said that despite a projected slowdown in economic growth, China’s official defence budget would be more than $240bn by 2028.The Pentagon report also said China’s space program was progressing rapidly.“The PLA continues to strengthen its military space capabilities despite its public stance against the militarisation of space,” it said.This month, President Donald Trump’s administration announced an ambitious plan to usher in a new “Space Force” as the sixth branch of the military by 2020.One of the arguments in favour of developing such a force is that American rivals like China appear increasingly ready to strike US space-based capabilities in the event of a conflict. Topics China US military Asia Pacific South China Sea

By October 20, Trump’s approval rating had tumbled all the way to … 41.5 percent.That’s not a huge surprise—the number hasn’t budged more than about a point and a half since spring 2017—and from that angle, it was just another week in the strange stasis of Trump’s America, where nothing works, but no one’s mind ever changes. If even such a catastrophic seven-day stretch is only good for a 0.7 slide in approval, surely nothing can change until at least Election Day 2020.But there’s another story: Support for impeachment has gone up sharply over a few weeks, settling in the low-to-mid-50s in the past few days. This suggests that, even though the approval and disapproval ratings are barely changing, something important is happening.Trump’s disapproval numbers, like his approval, have been uncannily stable for years. The people who approve of Trump are largely monolithic: They will support Trump no matter what. The disapprovers are more varied. Some of them are as fervently anti-Trump as the approvers are pro-Trump, and they have long wanted him removed from office. But some of them have disliked what Trump was doing, but still didn’t favor an impeachment inquiry or removing him from office.Something has changed for this group over the past few weeks, and 10 to 15 percent of them have decided they back impeachment after all. Their precise reason is hard to discern. Was it the Ukraine-call transcript? The whistle-blower complaint? Foreign policy? The launch of an inquiry? Or simple fatigue with the endless parade of bad news from the White House? Some of them have multiple or varying reasons.As Philip Bump of The Washington Post noted last week, Gallup has only once found support for impeachment as high as it was last week—and that was days before Richard Nixon resigned. But as Nixon’s resignation approached, his approval rating sank; Trump’s has remained stable, which is one reason there’s been no sign of his resignation anytime soon. He still hasn’t lost his base.But with impeachment looming, members of Trump’s base aren’t the people whose sentiments the president needs to track most closely. Should the House impeach him, it’s senators who will vote on whether to remove him. Republicans have the edge in the chamber, and none of them—not even Mitt Romney—has signaled they’d vote to remove Trump, much less enough GOP senators to get to the two-thirds required to convict.In a set of new polls last week, Morning Consult found that five of the most vulnerable Republican senators up for reelection in 2020 have seen their approval slide over the past few months. They’re all doing better than Trump in their respective states, too—a sign that he is a drag on them. The reality is that few Republican senators have ever been enthusiastic about Trump. As long as it’s good politically for them to stick with him, they may do so. But if it proves politically advantageous to break with him, why wouldn’t they? (Question their morals, but not their math.)This is still an extreme scenario at the moment, but it’s the weakness in Trump’s impeachment firewall, and it’s big enough that Fox News’s Chris Wallace reported on Sunday that one top Republican sees the chance of Trump being removed at one in five. Maybe nothing can make Trump’s base abandon him. But maybe that doesn’t matter. David A. Grahamis a staff writer atThe Atlantic.Connect Facebook Twitter

During North and South Korea’s historic summit on Friday, China was notably quiet. Chinese officials and state media focused instead on president Xi Jinping’s meeting with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and a visit by Xi to China’s Yangtze river. After the summit, China’s ministry of foreign affairs released a short statement saying Beijing “welcomed” the results of the talks. “China stands ready to continue to play its positive role to this end,” it added, according to Xinhua news agency. Then, on Monday, China’s foreign ministry announced it was sending its top diplomat, foreign minister Wang Yi, to visit North Korea this week.The visit comes as China, North Korea’s most powerful ally, moves to reassert itself in quickly moving peace talks with the formerly isolated Korean state. China has long said that North Korea’s nuclear programme is for Washington and Pyongyang to work out between themselves. But now warming ties between North Korea and the US could dramatically alter the power structure in the region, leaving Beijing on the outside.Kim said on Friday he is willing to give up nuclear weapons if the US promises not to invade and commits to a formal end to the Korean War that ended with an armistice in 1953. Kim and US president Donald Trump could meet within the next month.“It can be argued that China has chosen to be ‘sidelined’. However, the quick warm up of [the Pyongyang-Seoul] relationship and possible denuclearisation and reunification could change regional power structures and have long-term impacts on Chinese foreign policy,” said Weiqi Zhang, an assistant professor focusing on North Korea at Suffolk University in Boston. China, which accounts for more than 90% of North Korea’s trade, has seen relations with its communist brother fray over the last several years. When Kim visited Beijing last month for an “unofficial visit” it was the first time the North Korean leader had met Xi. China has implemented crippling sanctions on North Korea over its nuclear bomb and missile tests.In the ongoing talks, China has been relegated to the background. Zhang Liangui, a Korea expert at China’s Central Party School, said this was inevitable. “The stance of China’s foreign ministry has been that [the North Korean nuclear crisis] is none of its business and that North Korea and the US should be communicating directly,” Zhang told the South China Morning Post. “So now things are out of China’s control and it is no surprise that it is being excluded from the discussions.”While talks between North and South Korea and Washington fit China’s interest in stability on the Korean peninsula, Beijing is also worried about an unfavourable regional strategic balance unfolding.“[Beijing] doesn’t want Washington and Pyongyang to get too close, and doesn’t want unification on purely South Korean and US terms,” said Michael Kovrig, a senior adviser for north-east Asia at the International Crisis Group, an independent conflict-prevention organisation. China will still be part of any discussions over a formal peace treaty to replace the armistice signed by China, the US and North Korea in 1953, ending more than three years of fighting between the North and the South. A trilateral summit in May between Japan, South Korea, and China will also provide Beijing another chance to exert influence, according to Kovrig. “Politically, I think China is being careful to give North and South Korea the space to advance the diplomatic process, because that’s in Beijing’s interest. Watching closely and working behind the scenes to position itself,” said Kovrig. Topics China North Korea Asia Pacific analysis

Enlarge this image Security personnel stand guard as an ambulance carrying the bodies of four executed men enters Deen Dayal Upadhyay hospital in New Delhi Friday. Money Sharma/AFP via Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Money Sharma/AFP via Getty Images Security personnel stand guard as an ambulance carrying the bodies of four executed men enters Deen Dayal Upadhyay hospital in New Delhi Friday. Money Sharma/AFP via Getty Images Shortly before dawn on Friday at a high-security prison on the outskirts of New Delhi, four men were hanged for the December 2012 gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman who became known as "Nirbhaya," or the fearless one. The widely publicized crime prompted large street demonstrations and a reform of India's laws on sexual assault."Today, justice has been done after seven years," Reuters quotes the victim's mother as telling reporters outside the prison. "I salute Indian judiciary and thank god for hearing our prayers ... my daughter's soul can now rest in peace."No other state execution had taken place in India since 2015, and it was the first time since 2004 that the death penalty was carried out in a case of rape and murder. The gang rape occurred when the victim and her male companion, who had just gone to see Life of Pi at a movie theater, boarded a private bus. They were then assaulted by six men aboard the bus as it traveled through the streets of New Delhi. The woman, a physiotherapy intern, was raped and severely battered with an iron bar before she and her companion, who was also beaten, were dumped along a road. She died 13 days later in a Singaporean hospital after being moved there for more advanced medical care. Goats and Soda What Headlines And Protests Get Wrong About Rape In India All six of the men were convicted of rape and murder in 2013. One, who at the time of the attack was 17, was released from a juvenile facility in 2015; he had served the maximum three-year sentence allowed in India for a juvenile. Another, the driver of the bus, died in what appeared to be a suicide while imprisoned in 2013.The public outcry in India that followed the grisly crime led within days to the formation of the three-member Verma Committee. Its report, issued a month later, recommended broadening the legal definition of rape to include "any non-consensual penetration of a sexual nature." Rape and sexual assault, the committee noted, "are not merely crimes of passion, but an expression of power."Lawmakers subsequently codified an expanded definition of rape to include forced penetration by any object in any orifice. India's chief justice inaugurated fast-track courts to deal with rape cases. And a sex-crimes ordinance increased penalties for rape.However, official crime statistics show that reported cases of rape have actually increased since 2017, the year India's Supreme Court upheld death sentences against the four men who were hanged. The most recent data from India's government indicate that in 2018 there were 91 rapes reported daily and a total of almost 34,000 for the year. But those numbers are tiny for a country of more than 1 billion people.Most rape and sexual assault is believed to go unreported. Asia India Sets Executions For The 4 Men Convicted In New Delhi Bus Rape And Murder Some Indian officials have acknowledged not enough has been done to address rape in their society."We get disturbed as and when the incidents happen and forget about them later," Indian Vice President Venkaiah Naidu lamented two years ago. "What is required is not a bill alone, but political will, administrative skill to kill the social evil. ... There is a need for a change of mindset of men."Women in India say little has changed for them despite the outrage over the gang rape and murder that led to Friday's quadruple hanging."How do women and girls in India ensure their safety? By doing what we always do — that is, by restricting our own freedoms," says the BBC's Geeta Pandey."We dress modestly while going out, we don't stay out late, we keep looking over our shoulders at all times, we drive with our doors locked and windows rolled up."

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Former FBI Director James Comey's memoir runs 304 pages, pages that paint a damning portrait of Donald Trump's presidency and character. The book is officially out next Tuesday. But some reporters are already speed-reading, among them The Washington Post's Philip Rucker, who joins me now. Hey, Phil.PHILIP RUCKER: Hi.KELLY: So much for the book embargo, I guess. Which upsets you as the headline here?RUCKER: Well, you know, there are a number of headlines. But the most interesting thing, the newest thing that I found reading the book was that President Trump, according to Comey's account, was fixated on the most sensitive allegations in an intelligence dossier regarding his trip to Moscow in 2013 and the...KELLY: The Steele dossier, as we've come to know it. Right.RUCKER: The Steele dossier. Yes, that infamous dossier. And it is that the allegation - which is not confirmed, by the way - is that the Russians had filmed Trump interacting with prostitutes in that hotel room in Moscow. And the president repeatedly brought this up with Comey, tried to convince Comey it wasn't true, even asked Comey to have the FBI investigate the dossier allegations in order to prove that they were not true so that Trump would be vindicated with the public.KELLY: And part of this, according to Comey's account, is that President Trump was allegedly really, really concerned about the first lady's reaction to all of this. That's a new detail.RUCKER: He was. He repeatedly told Comey that this had been very painful for first lady Melania Trump. And at one point he said that it bothered him - President Trump said it bothered him if his wife believed - had any - had even 1 percent chance that this story was true. It just gnawed at the president. And it came up every time they met just about, according to the account in Comey's book.KELLY: I gather there's also a detailed account about the February 2017 meeting in the Oval Office. This is where Trump asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to clear the room. He wanted to speak one-on-one with Comey. And the subject, as Jim Comey recounts, is the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. What new details did we learn about that that we didn't already know?RUCKER: Well, we learned in that part of the account that - we already knew that President Trump had asked Comey to try to let Flynn go, to let it go, that he was a good man. But what's new is the interaction that Comey had later after the fact with the attorney general Sessions. Comey explained to Sessions, according to his book, that he can't be kicked out of the room. You can't let me be alone with the president. That's just not appropriate between an FBI director and the president of the United States.And according to Comey's observations that he recounts in this book, Sessions said nothing in this meeting. He just sort of cast his eyes down, darted back and forth. And Comey interpreted from that posture and his facial expressions that there was nothing Sessions could do to help him.KELLY: So lots of new information here about lots of relationships inside the Trump administration. Phil Rucker, as somebody who's covered the Trump administration closely, does Comey's account ring true?RUCKER: Well, it does ring true. One thing that we know that's important for the listeners to understand is that Comey wrote this memo based on contemporaneous notes. He took very detailed notes, almost like diary entries, after all of these interactions that he had with President Trump as well as with the attorney general and others. And so he's not creating this out of his memory from a year ago. He's creating it based on his real notes in real time.KELLY: Phil, thanks very much.RUCKER: Thank you.KELLY: Philip Rucker of The Washington Post talking there about former FBI Director Jim Comey's new memoir, which officially is out on Tuesday.Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

In mid-August, Taylor was told that not only was the money delayed, but that Donald Trump didn’t want to deliver it at all. Taylor prepared to resign in protest, though he still didn’t understand the reasons for the hold. Then Tim Morrison, the top Russia expert at the National Security Council, told him that the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, had told a Zelensky adviser that the security assistance was dependent on Ukraine launching an investigation into Burisma, the natural-gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served.“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meetings are conditioned on investigations?” a horrified Taylor asked Sondland via text. Sondland told Taylor to call him. (Sondland had already shown signs of cloak-and-dagger methods, Taylor testified, including being adamant that a June call not be transcribed.) On the phone, Sondland told Taylor that Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly promise to investigate Burisma and a Ukrainian role in the 2016 U.S. election. “Everything” was dependent on this, Sondland told Taylor.Taylor talked with Sondland on September 8. Sondland said that Trump had insisted it was not a “quid pro quo,” but that if Zelensky did not “clear things up,” the two sides would reach a “stalemate” on security assistance. Sondland also told Taylor that Trump was a businessman, and that before he signed any deal, he wanted to make sure he got what he was paying for.Taylor didn’t buy that for a moment, pointing out that Ukraine didn’t “owe” Trump anything, especially interference in an election. The next day Taylor texted Sondland, “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Sondland replied, five hours later, “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”Of course it was a quid pro quo. Trump was smart enough to claim that what he was asking for was not a quid pro quo, but asking for something in exchange for something else is … the definition of a quid pro quo. When Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that the U.S. had been involved in a quid pro quo, it was, then, a classic Kinsley gaffe: a politician accidentally telling the truth.Mulvaney tried to take back his admission, but Taylor’s account shows he was right the first time—as though the testimony of other diplomats and a plain reading of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky weren’t already evidence enough. Taylor’s testimony reportedly elicited “sighs and gasps” in the closed-door hearing, and it’s clear why. There ought to be no need for a smoking gun by now, because Trump has all but admitted to the crime, but just in case it was necessary, Taylor’s testimony delivered a still-warm pistol with Trump’s fingerprints all over it to congressional investigators. David A. Grahamis a staff writer atThe Atlantic.Connect Facebook Twitter

He’s never been a fan of impeachment, but he’s an expert on the process and the politics, having helped President Clinton navigate his way through a highly partisan impeachment in 1999. Now pollster Mark Penn is sharing his strategy—and his polling data—with President Trump, assuring him, in an account of their meeting first reported by The Washington Post, that the Republican-controlled Senate will not remove him from office. That’s hardly news about the Senate, but coming from Penn in an Oval-Office sit-down with Trump last Monday, it’s the equivalent of Karl Rove huddling with Joe Biden to advise how to handle the touchy subject of Hunter Biden and his role with a Ukrainian energy company. Penn was at the White House at the president’s invitation, which was conveyed through Andrew Stein, a former New York City Council president who chairs Democrats for Trump. What could go wrong? “Unbelievable, what the (expletive) is he doing,” says former lobbyist and longtime Democratic strategist Paul Equale. “He’s gone through the looking glass down the rabbit hole and then he drank the Kool Aid. If there was any question that he wasn’t a self-important opportunist, it’s now been answered.”“None of this is about politics,” Equale thundered on. “It’s about what our mothers and fathers taught us—and certainly anyone who claims to have a credential as a Democrat of any stripe who gives advice to this president—particularly relating to impeachment—has political myopia and self-induced blindness.” Equale urged me to contact people with names bigger than his to get even more blistering quotes about Penn’s apostasy. “I wonder what Hillary would say,” he mused. Penn was Clinton’s pollster and, for a time, chief strategist in her 2008 bid for the presidency. He had urged her to “slander” Obama for his “lack of American roots,” advice Clinton didn’t take, recalls Jonah Blank, a former Senate Foreign Relations committee aide. “He was promoting a racist ‘birther’ dog-whistle strategy long before Trump found it,” Blank told The Daily Beast. Penn had written in a 2007 memo to Clinton that Obama’s diverse, multicultural boyhood in Indonesia and Hawaii “exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn has long been considered a “malign” force by Democrats, as one put it to me in an email, part of the cast of characters like pollster Dick Morris who had sway over the Clintons in the 1990s. Together with Morris, Penn gained notoriety for “triangulation,” steering Bill Clinton away from House Democrats and closer to the Republicans who won control of Congress two years into his presidency. The ploy angered Democrats, but it worked: Clinton got re-elected. But over time—accelerated by Hillary’s loss to the insurgent Obama in ’08—Penn’s centrist approach to politics lost its luster in a party moving to the progressive left. When Clinton ran again in 2016, she did not hire Penn, leaving him on the outside for yet another presidential cycle. Democrats theorize that Penn was angry about that, but his exile from Hillaryland put a mark on him. He ended up accepting an offer from Fox News, appearing regularly to opine about how Democrats were going off the rails, and to suggest Hillary might be readying another White House run. After learning that Penn had met with Trump, Obama strategist David Axelrod tweeted, “All that bootlicking on Fox News finally paid off for Mark Penn. He’s finally a White House insider again.” ““Quite frankly, I was nauseated that he would consent to consult for Trump,” one source said.”Shortly after meeting with Penn, Trump flew to Florida for a rally where he called the House impeachment inquiry “bullshit.” Thousands of his supporters gleefully chanted the word. He also said, “I’m working my ass off,” which could be read as a tip of the MAGA hat to Penn, who told Trump to do what Bill Clinton did and focus on governing. Penn quoted Clinton to make the point. Whether Trump takes Penn’s advice is not the issue, says one Clinton insider who did not want to be quoted on the record. “Quite frankly, I was nauseated that he would consent to consult for Trump,” this source said. “Worse that he would actually go to the White House. This man who is not only a Clinton Democrat but who ran Hillary’s campaign. And hasn’t he actually said recently that Hillary might still jump in? Is he playing both sides or is he just coocoo?”With so much vitriol from Democrats, I wondered if Penn still considered himself a Democrat, and how he might respond to his critics. This is what he said in an email to The Daily Beast: “When the president of either party wants to meet, I think you should meet with them. What is nonpartisanship or bipartisanship about if just meeting with the president, at his request, is such a lightning rod. I am not working for him or paid by him nor will I be and only discussed publicly available data I talk about on TV and elsewhere. I am a lifelong Democrat and the president’s policies on immigration, abortion, equality and many other issues are far removed from mine. “After spending a year helping to defend Bill Clinton against perjury and obstruction,” Penn’s email continued, “I came to see the problems and divisions created by impeachments that can’t win two-thirds in the Senate anyway. They can be bad politics and can backfire. Investigate, give air and let the voters decide is my view.” For Democrats, Penn’s meeting with Trump provides a sense of moral equivalence to two very different impeachments. Not every president is the victim of partisanship, and if any president is to be saved by bipartisanship or nonpartisanship, it shouldn’t be Trump. And Clinton’s pollster shouldn’t be helping.

Faced with accusations at home that he had betrayed America’s Kurdish allies in Syria, Trump tried to reframe the decision as removing American troops from harm’s way. “I would much rather focus on our Southern Border which abuts and is part of the United States of America,” he tweeted. (Never mind that in the chaos of the rushed withdrawal, American troops were shot at by Turkish-aligned militias, left camps in the hands of marauding Russians, and were forced to bomb munitions dumps to prevent their capture.) But today brings news that Trump now wants to leave 200 members of the military in Syria.He allowed an invasion, then fumed when it happened. He said he was bringing the troops home, then said he’d leave them in place.The flip-flops aren’t just in matters of foreign policy, and the G7 reversal wasn’t even the only U-turn to emerge from Mulvaney’s press briefing Thursday. Asked whether the United States had demanded a quid pro quo from the Ukrainian government—investigate a phantom conspiracy theory about the 2016 election in exchange for American aid—Mulvaney said it sure had. “We do that all the time with foreign policy,” he said. Within hours, Mulvaney had issued a statement denying that he’d said what he’d said.James Hohmann argues these cases show that conservatives have more leverage over the president than they seem to believe. But it isn’t obvious why Trump is going wobbly now. Yes, Trump needs Republican support, especially with impeachment looking ever more likely. But his first major move after Democrats veered toward impeachment was the Syria withdrawal, which of course antagonized Republicans in Congress. His reversal only brings him back to even at best.Trump’s equivocations are rich for a president whose selling point has always been that, like it or not, he tells it like it is. “I will present the facts plainly and honestly,” Trump promised at the 2016 Republican National Convention. More often these days, he’s telling it like it ain’t. “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening,” he told an audience recently. It’s an apt disclaimer for any statement from the White House.We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to [email protected]. David A. Grahamis a staff writer atThe Atlantic.Connect Facebook Twitter

The constellation of federal investigators, attorneys, prosecutors and judges orbiting Donald Trump in the last three years have a unique, shared history.Relatively unknown to the American public is the fact that before many of them became household names, cast as either the heroes or villains of the Trump saga (depending on where you stand on Trump), they were colleagues in the trenches of some of America’s biggest terrorism cases. They crossed paths numerous times in courtrooms and at crime scenes, often united by a single case. From my perch working for the House Intelligence Committee, at the FBI as a congressional liaison, and then on the 9/11 Joint Inquiry, I observed what in many respects were their finest achievements, how those played out politically, how they fought their turf battles at home and with foreign governments, how they learned to communicate with the American public after each tragedy—and ultimately, fundamentally how they changed America’s approach to national security. In the 1990s, as hundreds of Americans were being slaughtered in acts of terrorism from Oklahoma City to Kenya to lower Manhattan—and while Donald Trump was hosting teenage beauty pageants—these men helped capture, extradite, prosecute, and put away for life some of the worst mass murderers of American citizens in our nation’s history. But now they have become caricatures and cable news fodder—and their reputations are part of the professional carnage that comes to almost everyone who is part of the Donald Trump story. They are known to the American public primarily for the things they have said, for one reason or the other, about Trump—and even more to the point, for what he has said about them.“They have become caricatures and cable news fodder—and their reputations are part of the professional carnage that comes to almost everyone who is part of the Donald Trump story”Rudy Giuliani, James Comey, Robert Mueller, William Barr, James Kallstrom, and Louis Freeh have all taken divergent paths over the past few years. But in the more than two decades that preceded Trump’s descent down the golden escalator on election night 2016, their résumés overlapped as they worked to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice in such cases as Pan Am 103, a 747 blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland; the devastated Federal Building in Oklahoma City; the Khobar Towers full of American personnel, blown up in Saudi Arabia; the Atlanta Olympics bombing; the devastated American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya; the attack on the USS Cole at anchor in Yemen; then, of course 9/11. And it’s a sad fact that the work they did during their impressive law enforcement careers got lost in the noise created by Trump’s presidency.Most interesting of all, however, is the fact that for most of these men, what they thought of Trump in 2016 had a lot to do with their opinion of the occupants of the White House—Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton—during those years their lives had intersected. Those opinions proved to be enduring and consequential. THE DIRECTORIn September 1993, Federal Judge Louis J. Freeh walked out of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and into FBI Headquarters as its new Director. Both his youth, 43 years of age, and his background as a former FBI agent, made him an inspired choice to lead the Bureau when nominated by the new American President, Bill Clinton. Freeh’s predecessor, William Sessions, had not completed his 10-year term as director before a report alleging ethical improprieties was released by President George H. W. Bush’s Attorney General William Barr (yes, the same William Barr who is today Trump’s Attorney General).Sessions refused to exit his position voluntarily, so it was left to Clinton’s new attorney general, Janet Reno, to fire him. Clinton may wish he had held on to Sessions. The new president and the new FBI Director would soon be at loggerheads. “FBI agents walked around the halls dispirited, talking about their affection for George H.W. Bush and their disdain for the dirty campaign they felt the Clintons had waged against him.”Although there was still a sense of excitement in Washington over the generational shift that the 1992 election represented, the fact was the Clinton administration began as an unmitigated disaster. It seemed undisciplined and chaotic to Freeh, and its early days were consumed with FBI investigations into Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers, and even an investigation into China’s attempts to meddle in the 1992 elections. And, most mysteriously, there was the investigation into the shocking suicide of Bill and Hillary’s long-time friend from Arkansas, Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster. FBI agents walked around the halls dispirited, talking about their affection for George H.W. Bush and their disdain for the dirty campaign they felt the Clintons had waged against him. While Clinton came off cool (playing sax on The Arsenio Hall Show, for example), “The Wimp Factor” tagline stuck to George H.W. Bush—a man who had flown 50 combat missions during World War II, had been one of the Navy’s youngest aviators and was a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross. Freeh, who had been appointed a federal judge by the senior Bush, had a deep affection for him. He accepted the job as FBI Director even though he believed not only that the wrong man had won the presidency, but was firmly convinced that the winner, Clinton, was dirty. In those years, the FBI’s antipathy towards the Clintons flowed from the top down—and would become ingrained in its organizational culture. “Freeh and Clinton would not speak for four years.”For his part, had Clinton wanted an FBI Director who would do his bidding and sweep his scandals under the rug (which the current president seems to believe is part of the job description), he knew damn well it wouldn’t be Freeh. Yet, he courted Freeh. Freeh, considered tough and clean as a hound’s tooth, would give the new Clinton Administration a patina of ethical validity it desperately needed. But Freeh’s FBI was immediately immersed in investigating Clinton’s skeletons. Freeh gave back his White House pass that had allowed him unlimited, unrecorded, access to the White House believing it would pose a conflict of interest while the Clintons were under investigation. Clinton, now realizing Freeh would be breathing down his neck, was not happy with this slap in the face. But during his entire administration, and with the endless ethical clouds that hung over him, Clinton did not dare fire Freeh.Freeh and Clinton would not speak for four years, until the bombing of the USS Cole.THE HILLFreeh was an instant darling with Members of Congress, and was accorded great deference and latitude. He would need it. The FBI Freeh walked into had a plethora of problems and investigations of its own to contend with. His earnest demeanor served him well—and he was complemented by his equally earnest Congressional liaison chief, John Collingwood, who was spectacularly effective at putting out the FBI’s fires. Without a drop of arrogance and possessing a deep belief in the mission of the Bureau, Collingwood was also a master at turning every FBI screw-up into an opportunity—for more resources or more law enforcement authorities. He was perhaps the greatest asset the Bureau had when facing its many challenges with Congress. When I worked in his office, I learned from Collingwood a simple formula for dealing with the Hill that most federal agencies refused to learn: Congress can be your best friend if you don’t treat its members and staff like the enemy. Give them (most of) what they ask for, be personable and on a first-name basis with staffers, and give them a heads-up to important stories before they hit the media—even if its means calling them at home at 2 a.m. (which we often did). If trust is built, Congressional staffers will, in turn, give you a heads up to potential problematic or embarrassing issues that could otherwise blindside the Director at an oversight hearing. (The first rule of any good staff work, anywhere: never, ever allow your boss to be surprised by bad news.)Collingwood could wrap his arm around the shoulder of Senator Robert Byrd (the most powerful man in Congress at the time), and Byrd would feel the entire goodwill of the FBI in that gesture—especially after Byrd made it possible for the FBI to move its badly outdated Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) to Clarksburg, West Virginia, Byrd’s home state. The CJIS is the largest division of the FBI responsible for, among other things, its automated fingerprint identification lab and national instant criminal background check system. Byrd was known as “the king of pork” for his ability to shovel millions of dollars to West Virginia. The FBI was smart enough to seize on the opportunity Byrd was offering, thus giving him a stake in the sustainability of the FBI, as well as much needed jobs for West Virginians.“Freeh took charge of an FBI still reeling from its role in the carnage that occurred at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas.”And the FBI’s sustainability was not a given. Freeh took charge of an FBI still reeling from its role in the carnage that occurred at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas. Both locations had been the site of standoffs between citizens and federal agents, and Waco and Ruby Ridge had become rallying cries for anti-government militias. The overly aggressive actions of federal agents had left 83 Americans dead. The country’s faith in federal law enforcement was at an all-time low. Armed, anti-government militia groups were sprouting up across the nation. At the same time, far removed from Ruby Ridge and Waco, in lower Manhattan an even more insidious threat was about to make itself known. On Feb. 26, 1993, a rental truck carrying 1,400 pounds of ammonium nitrate exploded under the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Six people were killed in an attack right in the heart of America’s financial center.The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had energized the jihadist movement around the world. After the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, mujahideen veterans and fellow-travelers seemed to replace their anti-Soviet fervor with an extreme anti-American ideology. Many began congregating in Islamic centers and mosques across the U.S., including New York and New Jersey. Although American military assistance had helped turn the tide for the mujahideen in their war against the Soviets, they now turned their sights toward the U.S. This was known as “blowback.” But blowback would not be coming just from Afghanistan’s jihadists. It was also developing in America’s heartland.OKLAHOMA CITYThe security guard sitting outside the offices of the House Intelligence Committee stopped me and pointed to the television on his desk. On the screen was a horrific scene coming out of Oklahoma City. A building was sheared in half. Under tons of rubble lay an unknown number of bodies. A moon-like crater was obvious in the street where a Ryder rental truck had detonated 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate—a much bigger and more powerful bomb than the one used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. When Timothy McVeigh was apprehended, the motive for the carnage became clear. The date of the slaughter was April 19, 1995, exactly two years after the federal standoff at David Koresh’s compound in Waco, Texas. This was McVeigh’s revenge—blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people, including 19 children.The scale of the Oklahoma City attack, the very audacity of it, the very cruelty of it, committed by an American against other Americans, seemed like evil incarnate. Here was an “all-American white boy,” as people said, brutally killing fellow innocent Americans and children right in America’s heartland because of his hatred for federal agencies. If this level of anger existed out there in the country, how and where else might it express itself? “Without reasonable cause, there was little the FBI could do to surveil American citizens traipsing through the woods with legally owned firearms playing weekend warrior.”Federal law enforcement and the media became obsessed and slightly hysterical over the idea of anti-government militias, even though McVeigh had no formal ties to any of them. Ultimately, however, McVeigh’s actions had an effect opposite to the one he intended. Instead of adding fuel to the anti-government movement, militia members resented the fact that the Feds would now be breathing down their necks. And they certainly were disgusted by the killing of so many innocent children. Some militia members began cooperating with the Feds, alerting them to possible violent extremists in their midsts. The FBI created a Domestic Terrorism Planning Section which found itself handling mostly threats against abortion clinics and crimes committed by radical animal rights groups, like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Without reasonable cause, there was little the FBI could do to surveil American citizens traipsing through the woods with legally owned firearms playing weekend warrior. They couldn’t be arrested simply for their views. But after Oklahoma City, the FBI drafted a wish list of expanded authorities to monitor potential terrorists domestically. A coalition of left and right civil libertarians on the Hill thwarted attempts to pass these measures. (Some of the expanded authorities gained new life after 9/11 when they became part of The Patriot Act.)THE SAUDI MIRROROne again the terror spotlight was about to shift. On June 26, 1996, just weeks after the FBI had successfully concluded an 81-day standoff with the anti-government Freeman group in Montana, a truck bomb exploded in a housing complex in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Air Force personnel who were there to enforce the no-fly zone imposed on the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Hezbollah in the Hijaz (or “Saudi Hezbollah”) took credit for the attack. The Saudis knew more than they let on to the FBI about this group, but getting information from the Saudis involved a very delicate diplomatic dance—something FBI agents abhor. The deference paid to the Saudis after Khobar would never be accorded to another country within whose borders American servicemen had been killed. Less than a year before the Khobar bombing, another bomb had exploded in Riyadh, killing five U.S. Defense Department contractors. But before the FBI could interrogate the suspects, the Saudis extracted confessions from them and had them beheaded. Now 19 American airmen had been killed in Saudi Arabia, and the United States was once again saying “pretty please” to Saudi royals to get them to share information. “Boss, they’re blowing smoke up your ass.”— FBI Counterterror Chief John O'Neill, speaking of the SaudisIt’s hard to determine whether it was Freeh’s strained relationship with the Clinton administration, or the Clinton administration’s hope for a rapprochement with Iran that led to other roadblocks in the Khobar investigation. Iran was clearly behind Saudi Hezbollah, but it was the Saudis, and the Saudis alone, who held the key to the investigation. With the information they possessed on the attack the year before, Khobar might have been prevented. To shake information loose from the Saudis, and with less than enthusiastic support from the Clinton Administration, Freeh turned again to his friend, former President George H.W. Bush, who had liberated Kuwait from Saddam’s occupation and guaranteed the security of Saudi Arabia four years earlier. Freeh also weighed in with his own pal, the flamboyant Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. As Lawrence Wright reported in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Looming Tower, John O’Neill, the chief of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Section, had angered Freeh (who valued his relationship with Bush, Prince Bandar, and his ability to gain access to Saudi Arabia without help from the Clinton White House) by telling him on a flight home from the Kingdom, “Boss, they’re blowing smoke up your ass.” The FBI did finally get access of sorts to the Khobar detainees held by the Saudis—but only by watching behind a two-way mirror as members of the Mabahith, the Saudi secret police, asked the questions. PRECEDENTSTo understand how the Bureau developed its response to terrorist attacks you’d have to go back to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. Pan Am 103 was the first major terrorist attack against American civilians. A Hezbollah bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon three years earlier had killed 220 Marines and 21 civilians. But Pan Am 103 was a watershed: 190 passengers had been American citizens on their way home for the Christmas holidays; 43 were British, and at least 19 other nationalities were represented among the lost. Among those killed were 35 students from Syracuse University returning to the U.S. after a semester studying in London. The U.N. Commissioner for Namibia, the CEO for Volkswagen America, the CIA’s Beirut Deputy Station Chief and a group of other U.S. Intelligence specialists were on that flight, raising suspicion that it might have been specially targeted. Legislation was passed giving the FBI extraterritorial jurisdiction over investigations wherever Americans were killed, and the Pan Am 103 investigation would be handled by the Justice Department’s Criminal Division—headed by one Robert S. Mueller—a recent Bush 41 appointee. Mueller had been overseeing the prosecution of Manuel Noriega and mob boss John Gotti, but Pan Am 103 had the greatest emotional impact on him. “Time may dull the deepest wounds; it cannot make them disappear.”— Robert Mueller speaking in 2018 to relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 in 1988As recently as 2018, Mueller met once again with family members of that ill-fated flight, including the now-adult children of victims, telling them, “There are those who say that time heals all wounds. But you know that not to be true. At its best, time may dull the deepest wounds; it cannot make them disappear.” On Nov. 19, 1991, Acting Attorney General William Barr (yes, the same William Barr who is attorney general today), announced the indictments of two Libyan intelligence operatives for placing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103. A trial would not begin until 2000. In 2003, Libya would pay $2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the victims. The man found guilty, Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, would ultimately die at home in Tripoli in 2017.But in 1988, never having dealt with a terrorist attack on the scale of Pan Am 103, the Bureau received very poor marks for its outreach to the grieving families. So when the Khobar Towers bombings occurred, Freeh would go out of his way to promise justice to the victims’ families—a justice that would, however, have to be finessed to suit Saudi sensibilities.In his 2005 memoir, My FBI, Freeh credits the ultimately successful indictments of the Khobar Tower suspects to his hand-picked choice as prosecutor, James B. Comey. (Yes, that James Comey.) “I will always be grateful for his leadership and pursuit of justice,” Freeh wrote of Comey, who was responsible for a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia returning a 46-count indictment against 14 defendants charged with the bombing of the Khobar Towers.But the Bureau barely had time to catch its breath. Just three weeks after the Khobar Towers attack, the genuine, overwhelming desire by the FBI to convince grieving families they would receive justice would be tested in unimaginable ways. On July 17, 1996, TWA 800 exploded over the Atlantic shortly after taking off from JFK airport, killing 240 people.END OF PART ONETOMORROW: CONSPIRACIES AND DISASTERS

Two years ago, Amazon introduced the idea of high-tech, cashierless shopping with a store that was a cross between a 7-Eleven and a Pret A Manger sandwich shop. Now, Amazon is bringing the same concept to its full-size supermarket. On Tuesday, Amazon willopen the doors to a 10,000-square-foot Amazon Go Grocery store in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood, less than a mile from the tech giant's downtown Seattle headquarters. From a report: It'll be stocked with 5,000 different products -- from organic fruit to grass-fed beef -- and outfitted with cameras, sensors, and computer vision that eliminate the need for shoppers to fork over cash or plastic before walking out the door with their groceries. The new store, which is the first of its kind in the US, highlights Amazon's unsated appetite for gobbling up market share in the $900 billion US grocery industry, even after spending nearly $14 billion in 2017 to acquire Whole Foods and making same-day grocery delivery a free perk for Prime members last year. At the same time, the expansion of the cashierless store concept raises the question of when -- not if -- the technology will be ready for installation in Whole Foods stores, and what might happen to the chain's thousands of cashiers when it is.

There are currently 12 wildfires burning in the state of California this morning according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.On Saturday a wildfire, known as the Horseshoe Fire. broke out in Riverside County, California, caused mandatory evacuations that have now been lifted. The fire is currently 30% contained and has burned 490 acres of land so far.On Sunday, a fire dubbed the Bautista Fire also broke out in Riverside County. The fire has burned 50 acres and is 0% contained.Dry brush and gusty winds were helping to spread these wildfires.There is also fire danger in the east of California near the Nevada border including most of the state Nevada and into Utah where winds could gust from 40 to 60 mph today.The good news is that much cooler air will be moving into central and northern California with rain so the risk of wildfires should go down dramatically later today there.Elsewhere, Hurricane Humberto is now a Category 1 hurricane with winds at 85 mph and is moving northeast away from the U.S. coastline. The only threat to the U.S. will be large waves of up to 7 feet high and rip currents along the coasts of Florida and the Carolinas.Humberto will pass to the north of Bermuda on Wednesday night into Thursday morning bringing some heavy rain to the island but the good news is that Bermuda is not expecting to suffer a direct hit.

Amazon has opened its first-ever full-size, "cashierless" grocery store, providing shoppers an experience that does not require any human interaction.The project, called Amazon Go Grocery, has been in development for five years. Starting Tuesday, customers can scan a QR code from Amazon's mobile app, walk into the Seattle store, take any item they want to purchase and walk out without paying at a cashier station.Amazon said it is employing technology that senses when a product is taken from or returned to a shelf and keeps track of items in a virtual cart. When a customer leaves, they are sent a receipt and their Amazon account is charged.The first and so far only Amazon Go Grocery store sits at 10,400 square feet, while a typical grocery store averages 40,000 square feet, CNBC reported.The new store contains nearly 5,000 items, including produce, dairy, packaged seafood, meats, baked goods, meal kits, household items and a full liquor selection.It includes some items sourced from Whole Foods providers, though an executive told CNBC that the Amazon Go Grocery story aims to complement brands that can be found at Whole Foods.The same cashierless scanning technology has previously been used at several Amazon Go locations, designed to service business centers with breakfast and lunch foods.The new Amazon Go Grocery is created for consumers to fill their pantries with items to cook meals at home, not just premade food.Cameron Janes, the vice president of Amazon's physical retail division, told CNBC that fine-tuning the scanners to detect shoppers grabbing and bagging their items in the store was the "biggest incremental challenge ... to enable customers just to shop and not have to worry about the technology.""We're just getting started here," Janes said. "I think what we're trying to do here — and with all of our physical stores — is really work backwards from the customer, and deliver some differentiation."The store will have several employees on staff to start, helping with stocking shelves and aiding any shoppers who may need assistance.A report from The Information said Amazon's predicted annual revenue, from $28 million in 2018 to above $639 million in 2020, has proved to be lower than anticipated. Amazon declined to comment to CNBC about the numbers."We believe we can be profitable," Janes said in regard to Amazon's grocery division.The physical retail unit for the company was the only division to report a sales slowdown during the fourth quarter, with revenue declining 1 percent year over year to $4.36 billion.

Enlarge this image Paramedic Larrecsa Cox (center) and her quick-response team, including police Officer Stephanie Coffey (left) and Pastor Virgil Johnson (right), check in at the home in Huntington, W.Va., of someone who was revived a few days before from an overdose. Sarah McCammon/NPR hide caption toggle caption Sarah McCammon/NPR Paramedic Larrecsa Cox (center) and her quick-response team, including police Officer Stephanie Coffey (left) and Pastor Virgil Johnson (right), check in at the home in Huntington, W.Va., of someone who was revived a few days before from an overdose. Sarah McCammon/NPR Larrecsa Cox is a paramedic, but instead of an ambulance with flashing lights and sirens, she drives around in an old, white sedan.Her first call on a recent day in Huntington, W.Va, was to a quiet, middle-class neighborhood."He overdosed yesterday," Cox says. "And I think we've been here before. I'm almost 100 percent sure we've been to this house before."Cox is the only full-time member of Huntington's new quick-response team — a collaborative project involving law enforcement, the county's medical first responders and several drug treatment providers. Shots - Health News What To Make Of A Head-To-Head Test Of Addiction Treatments The goal in this community ravaged by the opioid epidemic is simple: Track down people who've recently survived drug overdoses; visit them at home, a hospital or even in jail; and tell them how to get help.Many rural Americans say drug addiction and abuse is the most urgent health problem facing their local community, according to a new poll by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The issue is particularly acute in Appalachia, our poll finds; 41 percent of people there called it the "biggest problem" facing their community, compared with 21 percent who said economic concerns were the biggest problem. Loading... (Don't see the graphics above? Click here.)Cox never knows quite what to expect on these house calls. Flanked by a police officer in plain clothes and a local pastor who's volunteering with the team, she knocks at the door and waits. When there's no response, she tries calling a family member whose phone number is in her files. Still no luck. The team eventually moves on, promising to come back another time.At the next stop, trash is piled high on a curb outside what looks like an old storefront; it's now a makeshift residence. Cox warns that the place is filthy inside.She has visited several people at this home, only one of whom entered treatment."A lot of people seem to hang out here," Cox says. "I really don't know what to say about it."The narrow alleyway along the building smells of urine. It leads to a back porch strewn with pieces of trash. A sleeping man is slumped in a chair.Through an open door on the side, we see in the darkened room a stained mattress piled with bedding.Cox calls out to a man inside: "Is David here?"He says something I can't quite hear."What about Mary? Has Mary been back?" Enlarge this image Cox is the only full-time member of the quick-response team. A drug user's turnaround is rarely quick, she finds, but still she returns with offers of help. It seems to be working. Overdose calls are down by about a third since the teams began making visits last year. Sarah McCammon/NPR hide caption toggle caption Sarah McCammon/NPR Cox is the only full-time member of the quick-response team. A drug user's turnaround is rarely quick, she finds, but still she returns with offers of help. It seems to be working. Overdose calls are down by about a third since the teams began making visits last year. Sarah McCammon/NPR "I ain't seen Mary in three months," the man inside says.Cox leaves behind a card with information on how she can be contacted, then heads back to the car.These bleak interactions are part of the quick-response team's process, says Connie Priddy, a registered nurse with Cabell County Emergency Medical Services. She says it can take time to convince people who have overdosed that they need help."Overdosing and having to be revived may not be the bottom for someone," Priddy says.Priddy coordinates the quick-response teams, which got off the ground late last year with about $1.2 million from two federal grants. Community leaders were looking for solutions, she says, after more than two dozen people overdosed on a single day in August 2016. They modeled the teams after a similar program in Ohio.The teams visit patients, provide information about clean needle programs, hand out supplies for stopping overdoses and, if at all possible, provide information on enrolling in treatment programs. Some patients ask about residential programs, while an increasing number are opting for outpatient, medication-assisted treatment that allows them to continue working or going to school."We leave them our information. We'll go back a couple of days later and talk to them again," Priddy says. "We'll call them; we'll text them. So if they're not ready, they're not ready — but we keep going back."That follow-up after an overdose is a key step in helping people finally get into treatment, says Dr. Alexander Walley, an internist and associate professor at Boston University School of Medicine and the director of an addiction medicine fellowship at Boston Medical Center. He says programs similar to Huntington's are popping up in other communities.Walley sees relying on such teams as a promising, if challenging, approach."If you've just overdosed a day or two ago, and now you have a police officer knocking on your door, that first inclination among a marginalized, stigmatized population might not be so welcoming," Walley says. "And so how exactly to make that contact, I think, is really important." Enlarge this image Anthony Dooley, 32, successfully graduated from an addiction recovery program recently. He credits Cox's team with visiting him in the hospital and walking him through his options. Sarah McCammon/NPR hide caption toggle caption Sarah McCammon/NPR Anthony Dooley, 32, successfully graduated from an addiction recovery program recently. He credits Cox's team with visiting him in the hospital and walking him through his options. Sarah McCammon/NPR Police officers on Huntington's quick-response teams wear civilian clothing and are under instructions not to make arrests unless children are at risk.The program boasts some success stories, like Anthony Dooley, whom Cox calls its "poster child." Dooley had struggled with drugs including alcohol, cocaine and crystal meth and had spent some time in jail before winding up in a hospital earlier this year."It was a point in my life to where I was lost; felt hopeless," Dooley says. "I felt that, pretty much, where I was in life was the best that I was ever going to get."Dooley, 32, recently graduated from an inpatient addiction treatment program in Huntington. He says Cox's team visited him in the hospital and walked him through his options."I was just so far gone," Dooley says. "I was sleeping on the hospital bed. ... She sat there with me the whole time, made sure the paperwork was done, and got me some help."Officials in Huntington are optimistic that the quick-response teams are beginning to push back on some of the effects of the opioid epidemic. Overdose calls in the area are down by about a third since the teams began making visits last year.Community leaders say they're now beginning to talk about how to fund the program after the grants run out in 2020.