SEATTLE — A federal appeals court on Friday gave President Trump a rare legal victory in his efforts to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities, upholding the Justice Department’s decision to give preferential treatment in awarding community policing grants to cities that cooperate with immigration authorities.The 2-to-1 opinion overturned a nationwide injunction issued last year by a federal judge in Los Angeles. The appeals court said awarding extra points in the application process to cities that cooperate was consistent with the goals of the grant program created by Congress.“The Department is pleased that the Court recognized the lawful authority of the Administration to provide favorable treatment when awarding discretionary law-enforcement grants to jurisdictions that assist in enforcing federal immigration laws,” the Justice Department said in an emailed statement.Federal courts have blocked some efforts by the administration to withhold money from sanctuary cities, including an executive order issued by the president in 2017 that would have barred them from receiving federal grants “except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes.”Courts also barred the Justice Department from imposing new immigration enforcement-related conditions on Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, the biggest source of federal funding to state and local jurisdictions.The ruling Friday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Seattle, concerned a different program, Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, grants, which are used to hire police officers. Previously, the Justice Department had given extra points to cities that agreed to hire veterans; that operated early intervention systems to identify officers with personal issues; or that had suffered school shootings.In 2017, under the attorney general then, Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department for the first time decided extra points would go to cities that listed immigration enforcement as a priority or that certified they would cooperate with federal immigration authorities by allowing them access to detainees in city jails and giving them 48 hours’ notice before an undocumented immigrant was released from custody.Los Angeles applied for a grant that year, but declined to list immigration enforcement as a priority — it listed building community trust instead — or to make the certification. It failed to win the grant and sued.The Justice Department had introduced conditions that impermissibly coerced grant applicants to enforce federal immigration law, the city said. It also said that the immigration-related conditions were contrary to the goals for which Congress had approved the grant money: to get more police officers on the beat, developing trust with the public.The judges in the majority Friday, Sandra Ikuta and Jay Bybee, both appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican, rejected that argument.“Cooperation relating to enforcement of federal immigration law is in pursuit of the general welfare, and meets the low bar of being germane to the federal interest in providing the funding to ‘address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise ... enhance public safety,’” Judge Ikuta wrote.Several other jurisdictions did win funding without agreeing to the Justice Department’s immigration enforcement preferences, she noted.Judge Kim Wardlaw, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, dissented, calling the majority’s opinion “Orwellian” in the way it tried to equate federal immigration enforcement with enhanced community policing.“Nothing in the congressional record nor the Act itself remotely mentions immigration or immigration enforcement as a goal,” she wrote. “In the quarter-century of the Act’s existence, Congress has not once denoted civil immigration enforcement as a proper purpose for COPS grants.”The Los Angeles city attorney’s office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Friday.Supporters of sanctuary cities say that encouraging local police departments to participate in federal immigration enforcement is counterproductive: People will be less likely to report crimes if they believe they will be deported for doing so.But the Ninth Circuit’s opinion found that to be a question of policy, not law, said David Levine, a professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law.“What the Justice Department was doing before, they were trying to force sanctuary cities to do things, and yank money from them retroactively if they didn’t,” Mr. Levine said. “They’ve gotten a little more sophisticated now. They’re saying, ‘You don’t have to take this money, but if you want it, it comes with strings attached.’“That’s a well-understood way the federal government gets states to do things,” he added. “You don’t use a stick, you use a carrot.”

WASHINGTON — China, Russia and Iran are using state-sponsored media to attack the U.S. over the George Floyd killing and the resulting civil unrest, but there is no evidence of a covert online influence operation similar to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, according to a report released Wednesday by a private firm.The U.S. adversaries are using the turmoil on traditional and social media “in a way that furthers their existing narratives, rather than stoking American divisions,” says the report by Graphika, which uses artificial intelligence to analyze huge volumes of social media traffic.All three countries used their substantial online editorial presences to criticize the Floyd killing, the police reaction to protests, and President Donald Trump. But their aims appeared to be different, the report says.Click here to read the report.“China’s primary goal appears to be to discredit U.S. criticism of China’s crackdown on Hong Kong. Iran’s primary goals appear to be to discredit U.S. criticism of Iran’s human-rights record and to attack U.S. sanctions,” the report says. “Russian state-controlled outlets largely focused on the facts of the protests, in line with a longstanding practice of covering protests in the West; some individual pieces of editorial content also attacked Kremlin critics and the mainstream media.”On Saturday, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, drew attention to the issue of foreign social media activity when he tweeted:Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings."Tonight seeing VERY heavy social media activity on #protests & counter reactions from social media accounts linked to at least 3 foreign adversaries. They didn’t create these divisions. But they are actively stoking & promoting violence & confrontation from multiple angles."A congressional aide later said the committee had received information from Graphika. But Graphika said it did not find evidence of a concerted disinformation effort by U.S. adversaries.“There is no evidence as yet to suggest a large-scale, covert interference campaign like those the Russian Internet Research Agency waged against the United States from 2014 until at least early 2020,” the report said.China, for example, blasted the U.S. for alleged hypocrisy in a series of editorials in state-sponsored media.One editorial in the People’s Daily newspaper saw the unrest and the official reaction as “a vivid demonstration of American ‘double standards’ and the country's deteriorating political environment. On the one hand, protests over the death of an unarmed African American man in Minneapolis police custody have spread around the U.S.; on the other, the U.S. has threatened to impose economic sanctions on Hong Kong.”But Graphika found “no indication in the map, or in any of our current investigations to date, of a substantial covert online influence operation stoking divisions in the United States or pushing Chinese government propaganda by masquerading as Americans.”The report added, “It should be noted that the ​latest ​known pro-Chinese government messaging ​information operations on social media have been marked by their clumsy and spammy approach; such covert operations would be unlikely to play a substantial role in stoking the American protests on the ground.”Iranian accounts also openly criticized the U.S. and drew attention to the Floyd killing, embracing the hashtag #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd. But Graphika did not find evidence of a secret campaign.Russian state media “focused on the facts on the ground, in line with a practice of highlighting genuine grievances and protests in the West; some editorials focused on prominent Kremlin critics, notably the mainstream media, former U.S. President Barack Obama, and human-rights NGO Human Rights Watch,” the report said.A graphic in the state-sponsored Sputnik newspaper said, “America 2020: Where anti-racists are terrorists and racists are president.”The report noted that Russian covert information operations have a long history of targeting African American grievances, including in 2016, when the Internet Research Agency focused heavily on the Black Lives Matter movement.However, Graphika said: “As yet, there is no evidence to support the claim of covert Russian interference in the protests. It is important that such claims not be made or amplified unless there is evidence to support them, as they can be used to falsely discredit and de-legitimize genuine activists.”

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker took aim at former vice president Joe Biden at Wednesday evening’s Democratic presidential debate over marijuana policy—and even accused him, facetiously, of smoking it.“I heard him literally say ‘I don’t think we should legalize marijuana,’” Booker said of Biden. “I thought you might have been high when you said it.”Biden responded that he supports decriminalizing marijuana, “and anyone who has a record should be let out of jail, their record expunged, be completely zeroed out.” But in the exchange Booker landed a clean hit on the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in the latter stages of Wednesday’s debate in Atlanta.Biden said at a campaign event in Las Vegas over the weekend that he supports decriminalizing marijuana for recreational use, but “before I legalize it nationally, I want to know a lot more about the science behind it.” He reiterated that position at the debate.Booker cast that position as legitimizing the war on drugs, which he described as “a war on black and brown people.”“Marijuana in our country is already legal for privileged people,” Booker said. “There are people in Congress right now that admit to smoking marijuana, while there are people—our kids are in jail right now for those drug crimes.”The exchange came in the midst of a discussion about how candidates would attempt to speak and appeal to the African American community. “I have a lifetime of experience with black voters,” Booker quipped. “I’ve been one since I was 18.”Biden sought, as he has repeatedly on the campaign trail, to tie his candidacy to Barack Obama’s legacy and popularity, particularly among African Americans.“I’m part of the Obama coalition,” Biden said. “I come out of the black community in terms of my support. If you notice, I have more people supporting me in the black community, that have announced for me, because they know me, they know who I am.”Biden has indeed dominated the Democratic field in black support. But on the issue of marijuana legalization, his views appear to trend more conservative than most Democratic voters. According to a Pew survey published last week, nearly four in five Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents favor full legalization.

Last month, former presidential hopeful Andrew Yang launched a new initiative called the Data Dividend Project that would force social media companies to compensate users for the use of their data. As Yang told the Verge, “That first day that people get paid their dividend through DDP for All is going to be such a great day.” But the second day, as platform users and advertisers adjust to the new costs, is sure to be a mess.Yang isn’t the only one calling for social media users to share in platform revenues. In 2019, California governor Gavin Newsom also called for creating a digital dividend. “California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data,” he said. Two years earlier, in 2017, the Minnesota State Legislature introduced a bill that would force telecom and internet service providers to pay consumers for using their information obtained from the internet. The Senate Banking Committee has also toyed with schemes that would force companies to pay platform users. These efforts are sure to fail for three reasons.WIRED OPINIONABOUTWill Rinehart (@WillRinehart) is a senior research fellow for the Center for Growth and Opportunity and Utah State University. (The Center for Growth and Opportunity receives contributions for general operational support from a number of corporations, including Facebook.)First, Yang vastly underestimates the difficulty in valuing data. DDP aims to build off the successes of the Consumer Privacy Act to establish a digital dividend. (The CCPA went into effect July 1 and provides Californians baseline privacy protections.) But the state of California has already made rules around this law. It lists seven possible methods to calculate the value of data as well as a catchall for “any other practical and reliable method of calculation.” Each method yields widely different valuations in practice, one of them would price accounts at $140, another at fractions of a cent. Companies would immediately select into the lowest cost option, defeating the purpose of a dividend payment.Second, it is clear that Yang’s digital dividend, which he says would be “something like $20, $50, or $100,” is far too steep. After subtracting business costs, the average Facebook user only nets about $7 in income. Forcing Facebook to send out checks of $20 each year to its US users would evaporate about a quarter of the global bottom line and rearrange the entire business. Facebook would have to make deep cuts across the company, including the already beleaguered content moderation and customer service teams.Third and most importantly, Yang wants to force Facebook and other firms to become cash payment business models, which would be a death sentence. The idea has been tried countless times with no success. In the late 1990s, the pay-to-surf business model seemed to be the next thing, but AllAdvantage and its peers were rightly swept away after the dotcom crash forced sobriety on everyone’s bottom line. Firms like Handshake and Datacoup have tried the model in recent years, and they too have faltered. While the idea has acolytes, no entrepreneur has made it successfully work.Part of the problem rests in the language of “free” and “value.” While services like Facebook might not involve cash, users freely give up their time to browse the service. Tallying up all of the wage time spent on the platform suggests that US consumers already see nearly $1 trillion in value every year in using the site.Yang wants to shift the value proposition and ensure these companies “will no longer be able to get away with hoarding the gains made off your data.” But consumers have already done that by logging off entirely or spending less time on the site. Since the Cambridge Analytica story broke, roughly 15 million people have left Facebook, and those that have stayed on spend four fewer minutes per day on the site. In other words, consumers have taken back nearly $200 billion of their time.Digital dividends seem clever at first, but become far less appealing when thinking through implementation. Converting the implicit benefit of an online experience into an explicit cash payment is a difficult model to sustain in the real world. In the end, foisting a digital dividend is sure to create spectacular failures of successful companies.WIRED Opinion publishes articles by outside contributors representing a wide range of viewpoints. Read more opinions here. Submit an op-ed at [email protected] Great WIRED StoriesGlobal warming. Inequality. Covid-19. And Al Gore is ... optimistic?Linkin Park T-shirts are all the rage in China5G was going to unite the world—instead it’s tearing us apartHow to passcode-lock any app on your phoneThe seven best turntables for your vinyl collection👁 The therapist is in—and it's a chatbot app. Plus: Get the latest AI news🏃🏽‍♀️ Want the best tools to get healthy? Check out our Gear team’s picks for the best fitness trackers, running gear (including shoes and socks), and best headphones

Two Brits and one curious American talk Brexit in a group chat.Simon Montlake (Brexit reporter, Brit): Hello from cloudy London where I’ve just had a long lunch. Peter Ford (senior global correspondent, Brit): Lovely day in Paris. Is the U.K. already suffering from Brexit?Rebecca Asoulin (engagement editor, American): Ah – well I am secretly obsessed with British food (and overdone meat apparently) – so I am envious of the lunch! Shall we pivot to the meat of the issue? Oct. 31 is inching closer and Britain is still set to leave the European Union on that date – deal or no deal. Half a year ago now (which is, what, like 10 in Brexit years?) we chatted and you two made some predictions about where we’d be by now. Did you get it right?Peter: I’ll fess up first. I said I thought there would be an election and there hasn’t been one, so I was wrong. But it is uncanny how similar the situation today is to the situation when we last talked seven months ago. Then we were 10 days away from a deadline that got pushed back. Same today. Then I set out the four possible futures: Is the economy running fast or slow? It depends where you look.1) Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal passes 2) A second referendum in which the people vote on Brexit again3) A national election for Members of Parliament4) A no-deal BrexitSubstitute ‘Boris Johnson’s deal’ for ‘Ms. May’s deal’ and those are the same four options we are still looking at seven months on... Simon: There’s one more option: a Brexit reversal. Give it up as a bad idea. The Liberal Democrat party has adopted this as their platform for the next election. However, the Liberal Democrat party won’t have a majority. Plus it would be incredibly controversial to backtrack on the 2016 referendum result. Rebecca: So it’s not quite groundhog day for this chat – because of the main difference to the options Peter laid out. It’s not Ms. May’s deal anymore that’s an option, right?Simon: No, step forward Boris Johnson, prime minister!Rebecca: Tell me more about him and how he changed the Brexit equation. Is he really the U.K.’s Donald Trump? Simon: Let me go first... Boris Johnson has been auditioning for the job for many years. He’s finally made it, having helped defeat Theresa May’s attempt to deliver Brexit. The Trump comparison holds true for his political persona and his malleability, but there are big differences too. Boris plays up the goofball image when it suits him. But I have to give him credit for pivoting to a serious negotiation with the EU that has produced a compromise deal. Some believed he was just posturing and wanted the U.K. to crash out of the EU without a deal. Instead we are within striking distance of a Brexit deal, at least the first stage. Peter: Boris can carry all the Brexiters, including those who were skeptical about Ms. May’s deal, because he has been the Brexit standard bearer since the referendum campaign began. If he says it’s a good Brexit deal, hardly anybody on the Brexit side will dare argue with him.Rebecca: And that new deal he struck was supposed to be voted on Saturday. Simon – you were reporting for the Monitor in the House of Commons over the weekend. What happened?Simon: Super Saturday! Was more of a souffle Saturday, if we extend the culinary metaphors. It rose up and fell back to Earth.Peter: Sounds like my efforts in the kitchen...Simon: It was quite a day. There was a huge march to Parliament Square by supporters of a second referendum, essentially a pro-EU crowd. Inside Parliament, the MPs crowded in for a debate and a vote, which was highly unusual. The last time Parliament sat on a weekend was 1982 and Britain was on the verge of war with Argentina over the Falklands Islands. This time it was Boris seeking approval for his freshly minted U.K.-EU withdrawal agreement. And he didn’t quite get what he wanted. What happened was parliamentary chicanery of the highest order: an amendment to the motion. And it passed by a slim majority, which basically meant the postponement of MPs having to vote up/down on the withdrawal agreement.Rebecca: Wait, so they didn’t vote on the deal itself, they voted on an amendment to the motion on the deal?Simon: Yes, they amended the motion, all in the name of preventing any chance of a no-deal Brexit on Oct. 31, which is still the official deadline for the U.K. to leave. What the amended motion did was insist that Parliament passes all the necessary laws to effect an orderly Brexit. And that’s where we are this week. The big question is whether Parliament can legislate before Oct. 31, or if another hurdle will arise to prevent Johnson’s deal going ahead.Peter: There are a number of spanners [i.e. wrenches] that could be put in the works of Parliament this week. One option as the government tries to get approval for its deal is that somebody might amend the motion to tack on a condition: OK, we approve this deal, but only if it is also approved by a confirmatory referendum.Rebecca: In other words, only if people vote again to leave the EU with this deal. Peter: Right. Very controversial, as Simon said earlier. And although the country seems split down the middle on Brexit, with an apparent slight tilt towards ‘Remain,’ it is hard to see Parliament voting for that. But someone else could also introduce amendments that would make Brexit much ‘softer’ than the hard break with the EU that Mr. Johnson wants, and maintain close economic ties. That idea might attract majority support, but the prime minister would not stand for that. So that’s another possible route to a new election. (I will be right on this in the end...)Simon: The key to Brexit predictions: Eventually, you could be right. An election is coming!Rebecca: I think I’ll keep being right for a while. The only thing I kept predicting was Brexit would drag on with extension after extension!Simon: It’s time to talk extensions – and extension letters. Peter: Or non-letters. Since Parliament withheld its approval of Johnson’s deal on Saturday, the prime minister was obliged (by a law passed earlier designed to forestall no-deal) to ask the EU for another extension till Jan. 31, 2020. Johnson had said he would ‘rather be dead in a ditch’ than do that, but the law is the law. So he did ask for an extension, but only by sending Brussels a photocopy of the legislation spelling out what he had to ask for, and not signing it.Then he sent another letter – signed, sealed, and delivered – telling the EU to ignore what he had just sent them and not to give the U.K. any extra time. Diplomatic legerdemain (i.e. sleight of hand, Peter’s been in Paris too long!) or a silly schoolboy prank? Observers are divided....Simon: Of course, the EU must decide on the extension request. But I don’t see them rejecting it if the result is a no-deal Brexit that causes chaos and disruption on all sides, which means that we could be looking at a January 2020 Brexit deadline.Peter: You are absolutely right, Simon. The EU’s top priority is to avoid a disorderly Brexit. But at the same time EU leaders are fed up to the back teeth with what is going on in Britain, and increasingly worried about what another few months of uncertainty would do to business confidence across the continent. If they don’t give an extension, the thinking goes, the pressure on Parliament to approve the deal on the table will be intense because the alternative would be no deal. But these are high stakes to play for.Rebecca: What comes next if the deal does pass?Peter: Aha! You thought you could sit back and relax, didn’t you? No such luck. If the deal passes, we all move on to a year – or possibly three years – of negotiations between London and Brussels about the exact nature of the U.K.’s new relationship with the EU, on trade and all sorts of other things. These talks will keep you on the edge of your seat, guaranteed...Simon: I think Johnson will go for an election. He will campaign as the Man Who Delivered Brexit – but, the problem is that elections are unpredictable and the electorate has grown very fickle. It’s not a two-party system any longer, if it ever was, and we don’t know how much Brexit will be yesterday’s news, so what will be the pitch to voters?Rebecca: Do you think the British people will ever feel like Brexit is yesterday’s news? How do you think they will react to a deal passing? Simon: I think people are desperate to move on and talk about something else. If Johnson’s deal does pass I think it will be due to fatigue on all sides. Fatigue and momentum go together, in a curiously British way. One sign I saw at Saturday’s rally: “Down With This Sort Of Thing.”Peter: That’s right. Brexit has been such a terribly divisive question and has sucked all the oxygen out of British political life for so long, I think that a deal – any deal – would probably be greeted with a huge sigh of relief on all sides. But in fact economists are unusually unanimous in predicting that Brexit of any flavor will be bad for the British economy and make the country’s citizens poorer than they would have been inside the EU. That has got lost in the wash. Simon: We made it this far without mentioning Northern Ireland or the cast-off backstop. Back to the backstop? No forward to the front stop.Rebecca: What’s the short version of how Boris’ deal deals with Northern Ireland?Peter: Northern Ireland will be both in the EU and out of it. In law (de jure) it will be part of the U.K. In fact (de facto) it will be in the EU customs union and single market for most goods. And subject to the European Court of Justice. When the EU proposed such an idea two years ago Mr. Johnson called it a constitutional outrage. But it was his only way out so he took it.Simon: The idea is to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Which this deal does, by treating Northern Ireland differently. The irony is that Northern Ireland gets a special status that allows it access to EU markets for goods. Which the rest of the U.K. won’t have, not under Johnson’s vision of future trade. But the Unionists in Northern Ireland are set against any special status that pushes them closer to Ireland, and over time weakens their ties to the rest of the U.K., aka Great Britain. Alas, no way to keep everyone happy. That is Brexit.Ah and speaking of no one being happy, the House of Commons speaker just blocked Parliament from voting on Johnson’s deal today. (at 3:30 p.m. GMT Oct. 21) – as expected. Rebecca: I’m watching his statement right now as we chat. Do members of Parliament laugh and make so much noise all the time during sessions?Peter: Yes. It’s a bear pit.Simon: As a reporter who sits in the press gallery, looking down on the bear pit, I can assure you that it’s the best theater seat in town.Rebecca: So the short version of what just happened is Parliament won’t vote on the deal again today because they already voted on it Saturday. And there is a rule (dating back to the early 1600s, apparently!) that Parliament won’t debate the same issue twice in the same session. Simon: It often feels like Britain has been debating Brexit since 1600. Rebecca: It does feel like Brexit moves both too slow and too fast at once. Peter: And goes round in circles sometimes.Rebecca: Well we will see if Halloween proves to be the end of the beginning or just more of the beginning of this process. Simon: One more sign from Saturday’s rally that made me laugh: ‘Make Halloween Unbrexity Again.’ I predict the U.K. will not leave on Oct. 31. But I will stick my neck out and say that Brexit will happen before Christmas, followed by a spring election.Peter: I will leave Simon’s neck on the block. And my Halloween resolution is to make no more Brexit predictions. Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. Rebecca: Fair! Thank you both for chatting!This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length. Jacob Turcotte and Peter Ford/Staff; Photos: Associated Press

In the Senate, Mr. Booker has been one of the most aggressive critics of the Trump administration, breaking with Senate precedent and testifying against the nomination of a fellow senator, Jeff Sessions, for attorney general. He also vigorously criticized a top Trump official, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, for concealing a racist comment made by Mr. Trump.Using his perch on the Judiciary Committee, he has been a forceful opposing voice to many of Mr. Trump’s key nominations, releasing confidential emails during the confirmation hearing of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and, more recently, questioning the attorney general nominee William P. Barr’s record and past statements on race and criminal justice.Mr. Booker has a relatively thin record of signature legislative accomplishments in the Senate. He did notch a major victory in co-sponsoring and pushing for a bipartisan criminal justice bill signed by Mr. Trump at the end of 2018, capping a long effort of advocating criminal justice reform in the Senate.Though he has been courting political operatives in Iowa and New Hampshire for months, Mr. Booker will likely focus heavily on South Carolina and other southeastern states with large black voting populations.His first campaign events as a candidate will be a two-day swing through Iowa on Feb. 8, followed by two days in South Carolina. He plans to visit New Hampshire over Presidents’ Day weekend.Mr. Booker, who visited a church in Newark on Thursday night to pray before his announcement, said that he hadn’t quite settled on a campaign theme song, though Kirk Franklin’s “Stand” had been in heavy rotation.“This last week, leading up to this day,” Mr. Booker said on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show,” “all I’ve been listening to is gospel.”

How Democrats Can Replace Trump’s Failing Foreign Policy‘WORLDS APART’Three very different new surveys find that Americans don’t understand our approach to the world now. It’s time to change that.Will MarshallPublished Nov. 02, 2019 5:13AM ET BEAST INSIDEopinionPhoto Illustration by The Daily Beast/GettyIt’s hard to know what kind of foreign policy Americans want today. The evidence is mixed. On the other hand, what they don’t want is growing clearer every day—Donald Trump’s brand of self-dealing, morally vacant diplomacy. That Trump views U.S. foreign policy as a vehicle for advancing his political and business interests is evident from the shocking Ukraine revelations and his brazen bid to award a lucrative contract for a G-7 summit to one of his floundering golf clubs. Meanwhile, his Syrian bugout has sparked a rare display of bipartisan outrage on Capitol Hill, and most Americans believe it’s damaged our global reputation as a reliable ally. Even the administration’s successful strike on ISIS leader Abu Bakr Baghdadi underscores Trump’s strategic cluelessness. That attack had to be launched from Iraq, thanks to his decision to leave only enough U.S. troops in Syria to guard oil wells—a dubious mission in the face of warnings that Syria remains “the world’s largest terrorist haven.”

closeVideoTrump calls Trudeau 'two-faced' after video appears to show him being mocked at NATOPresident Trump responds to surfaced video from the NATO summit that appears to show Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron laughing about him.Sen. Cory Booker said Wednesday the now-infamous video of world leaders appearing to laugh at the expense of President Trump at a NATO event on London is proof America “cannot be trusted” by its allies.The New Jersey Democrat was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe" when he criticized Trump for calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau "two-faced."“On the world stage, [Trump] just insulted, called the leader of Canada, our most essential ally who has been there with us in every conflict since 9/11, standing in partnership with us in so many ways, to just throw out a school-yard taunt, or punch, like that… [it] stunned me,” Booker said. Sen. Cory Booker said the video of world leaders appearing to laugh at the expense of President Trump is proof American “cannot be trusted” by its allies. “Morning Joe” co-host Willie Geist then said Trump’s “two-faced” remark was in response to the viral video of Trudeau, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and French President Emmanuel Macron and others appearing to laugh at Trump during a Buckingham Palace discussion on Tuesday.“It appears that they’re making fun of President Trump,” Geist said. “Put that together with the way we’ve seen some of these leaders push back on President Trump at this NATO summit. What picture does it paint of where we are in the world right now?”Booker, who's running for president, responded, “America, right now, cannot be trusted.”“Our allies no longer trust us. It is weakening the fabric of democracies at a time when the planet Earth is seeing the rise of totalitarianism or authoritarian government,” he said. “This president seems to be weakening western and democratic alliances.”Booker added, “Republicans know this... they know what’s going on.”Geist didn’t ask a follow-up question and host Joe Scarborough quickly asked about Sen. Kamala Harris D-Calif, dropping out of the 2020 presidential race.The news-making video of some of the world’s most powerful leaders appearing to poke fun at Trump was shared by the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC). When Trump was asked about it during a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he said of Trudeau, “He’s two-faced.”Trudeau appeared to be at the center of the video joking about Trump’s impromptu press conference on Tuesday.

Underneath a white tarpaulin roof, behind razor wire and barking police dogs, Wendy Ramírez Penosa and her two teenage sons stood before an immigration judge sitting 30 miles (48km) away from them. Through tears, they begged the court to keep them safe.“My children have been threatened with kidnap,” Ramírez said through a translator on Monday afternoon, describing threats both in Mexico and in Honduras, her home country. “They said I would be forced to work in a brothel.”“I don’t want to be taken back to Mexico. They killed my father [in Honduras]. That is why we are fleeing.”Ramírez was pleading her case at one of Donald Trump’s newly built tent immigration courts, erected a few feet from the US-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas. These makeshift courts, constructed last September, have been inaccessible to the public, but play a central role in the president’s “Remain in Mexico” (Migrant Protection Protocols) policy, which advocates describe as an attempt to curtail the right to asylum in the US by sending migrants back to Mexico as their cases are processed. The immigration court tents in Laredo, Texas. Photograph: Veronica Cardenas/ReutersOf the 56,000 cases brought under MPP only 117, or 0.2% of cases, have so far led to asylum relief for applicants, according to data from a monitoring project at Syracuse University. On Tuesday, House Democrats launched an investigation into the process, describing it as “a dangerously flawed policy that threatens the health and safety of legitimate asylum seekers – including women, children, and families” that “should be abandoned”.The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which is the arm of the justice department overseeing immigration court, declined to answer certain questions for this report, citing “pending litigation”. They referred other questions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who did not respond despite multiple requests.The Guardian is one of the first media organizations to observe proceedings in Brownsville after the tent courts here, and others in Laredo, were opened to the public at the end of last week.The court in Brownsville, a sprawling complex of white tents, is built on a parking lot next to a US Customs port of entry that is attached to a bridge over the Rio Grande, which links the US to Mexico. Asylum seekers are bussed in by DHS officials, and line up, single file along floors covered in artificial grass, many holding babies and toddlers, and are then ushered into a courtroom under guard. They are sent back to Mexico after the proceedings, often carrying belongings in clear plastic bags.Judge Barbara Cigarroa appeared via video link on a large TV screen inside a portable building that was listed as Courtroom C. The judge, softly focused on the monitor, sat at an immigration court in the city of Port Isabel. The voice of a government lawyer was audible on the link up, but their face could not be seen by the roughly 23 asylum seekers present for the afternoon session.“I’m sorry to hear that,” said Cigarroa to Ramírez as she articulated her fears. The judge encouraged her to find an attorney to assist with her asylum application.But, like the vast majority of those seeking asylum in the US, Ramírez could not afford one – of the 5,596 cases completed at this court in Brownsville, just 81 people had a lawyer, according to public records.“I prefer that you send me back to Honduras and my children to the US,” she said. “Even if they kill me, I don’t care. As long as my boys are OK.” Of the 56,000 cases brought under Migrant Protection Protocol, only 117 have resulted in asylum relief for applicants. Photograph: Eric Gay/Associated PressThe judge set her next hearing date for 10 March, and instructed DHS to interview her and her children after they articulated their fears of returning to Mexico.Advocates suggest anecdotally that around a third of asylum seekers in these courts express fears of returning to Mexico, where extortion and threats from cartels in border areas is common. But for those without attorneys, it is unheard of to be taken out of the Remain in Mexico program and held in the US despite articulation of fears, said Andrew Udelsman, a legal fellow at the Texas Civil Rights Project who is monitoring the Brownsville tent court.“The purpose of this policy [MPP] is absolutely to deter people from seeking asylum, making it as inconvenient, difficult and dangerous as possible,” Udelsman said. “This is the next development on from the child separation policy – designed to deter people from coming to this country.”The justice department and DHS would not comment on Ramírez’s case and did not provide the numbers of asylum seekers in the Remain in Mexico program articulating fears of return. The Guardian has been unable to verify if Ramírez, and at least six other asylum seekers who articulated fears of returning to Mexico – two others citing kidnap or forced prostitution threats – were returned to Mexico after their hearings on Monday.Although the tent courts are now technically open to the public, their operations remain shrouded in opacity.The Guardian was not allowed to move between courtrooms during a visit on Monday, and was escorted into a single public gallery by private security guards. The Guardian was earlier held in a separate waiting area, under guard, away from other members of the public. Udelsman was blocked from entering the facility on Monday because he brought a pen and paper, which an armed Department of Homeland Security police officer outside the facility said was a security risk.The Guardian was allowed to enter with stationary, but was prevented from viewing the court’s docket list, meaning the spelling of names and the number of cases before the courts could not be verified. Only initial hearings, known as Master Calendars, were open to the public, leaving merits hearings – where an asylum case is finally decided – inaccessible.Across the Rio Grande, in the Mexican town of Matamoros, an encampment of about 2,500 asylum seekers has been erected since the start of the policy. Dr Dairon Rojas, a 28 year-old Cuban seeking asylum, works in a makeshift medical clinic in an encampment in Matamoros, Mexico. Photograph: Oliver Laughland/The GuardianThe hundreds of tents are home to mostly central Americans waiting for their days in court. Aid has been slow to arrive here, and there remains no official Mexican or US government presence. Instead, volunteers and NGOs have established makeshift schools, legal centers, sanitation services and a medical clinic offering support to migrants. Many of these facilities are being staffed by asylum seekers themselves.Dr Dairon Rojas, a 28-year-old Cuban seeking asylum, works as a general practitioner as he awaits his next court hearing on 27 February. He said there remain ongoing health concerns related to the spread of bacterial infections due to the closed quarter living conditions.“Sometimes we don’t have everything a patient needs. Blood tests. X-rays. We can’t do that here,” he said, adding that complicated cases are referred to Mexican health authorities.But, at the back of his mind, Rojas continued to worry about his own case as well.“You can’t imagine the stress,” he said. “All I want is to live and work in the US.”

But as white men, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Rourke do not reflect the gender and racial diversity of many Democratic candidates and swaths of the electorate that dominated the 2018 midterms. Ms. Harris, Ms. Warren, Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Booker, by contrast, would instantly make the 2020 Democratic field the most diverse array of presidential candidates in history. And they might well scramble the early polling leads held by Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders, who benefit from strong name recognition but would be in their late 70s by Election Day 2020, at a moment when some in the party are agitating for generational change.The four senators hope that jumping into the race early will give them some organizational advantages in a contest that will almost certainly grow to more than a dozen candidates.This kind of early frenetic activity — almost two years before the election — has happened before in primaries without a clear front-runner. At this time four years ago, many Republicans began preparing campaigns, wooing supporters and tacitly permitting fund-raising by allies in the wide-open race for the 2016 nomination, a contest that would ultimately attract more than a dozen candidates within months.Already, at least two of the senators have nearly settled on close political lieutenants to serve as campaign managers, turning to male aides with whom they have deep and trusting personal relationships. Ms. Gillibrand is eyeing Jess Fassler, her current top aide, who is leaving his role in the Senate early in 2019, as a leading contender to manage her campaign. Ms. Harris is expected to name Juan Rodriguez, who helmed her campaign for the Senate in 2016, as her manager.In a further sign of how developed her plans are, Ms. Harris’s aides are close to selecting Baltimore or Atlanta for her headquarters, according to people who have met with her team. She is likely to maintain a sizable office on the West Coast, perhaps in her native Oakland, but her political advisers have concluded that for practical reasons it is essential that she have a base in the Eastern Time zone.Ms. Warren is expected to install Dan Geldon, her former chief of staff who was once her student at Harvard Law School and left her Senate office to plan her likely campaign, in a senior role directing campaign strategy. She has a head start on staffing: During the midterm campaign, Ms. Warren deployed staff to the four early primary states and a number of general election battlegrounds to elect other Democrats. Many of those organizers stayed involved after her re-election, leaving her with a staff of several dozen total.

That same indecision was on display Saturday. “I have been waving signs for all the candidates, as have most people on the floor,” said State Representative Kris Schultz, a progressive leader who said that her top choices were Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Booker — adding that the New Jersey senator is “amazing.” “Lots of people remain undecided.”And for all of the enthusiasm for Ms. Warren, some attendees continued to have reservations about her ability to defeat Mr. Trump. “Senator Warren is probably the best campaigner out there, but in order to get elected against Trump I think she’s going to have to moderate some of her priorities,” said New Hampshire State Representative David Karrick Jr. Ahead of the event, activists and other voters rattled off lists of their top three choices, but repeatedly stressed that their rankings could shift. For at least one voter, they changed in a matter of moments.“Pete, Warren and then Biden,” said Tim Ashe of Somersworth, N.H., referencing Mr. Buttigieg. “That may change.”When asked why Mr. Buttigieg was his first choice, he replied, “I was looking at a Pete sign when I said it.”“If I had to vote today,” he added, “it would probably be for Warren.”His wife, Laurie Ashe, said that she had supported John Kasich, the former Republican governor of Ohio, in the primary in 2016 and then voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election. Now, she said, she is supporting Ms. Warren, because “regular people cannot work their way into the middle class anymore.”Jonathan Martin contributed reporting from Bow, N.H.

Much has been made about China’s role and profile in Africa and the factors underlying its activities on the continent. Less debated is the spread and depth of Russia’s contemporary presence and profile in Africa.There was a strong Russian influence in Africa during the heyday of the Soviet Union. The post-independence governments of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda and Benin at some point all received diplomatic or military support from the Soviet Union.But this began to change after the superpower started to collapse in December 1991. More than a quarter of a century later Russia’s president Vladimir Putin seems to have new aspirations in Africa. This is in line with his desire to restore Russia to great power status.Trade and investment between Russia and Africa has grown exponentially by 185% from 2005 to 2015.Putin places a high premium on geopolitical relations and the pursuit of Russian assertiveness in the global arena. This includes reestablishing Russia’s sphere of influence, which extends to the African continent. Like Beijing, Moscow’s method of trade and investment in Africa is without the prescriptions or conditionalities of actors like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Russia is gradually increasing its influence in Africa through strategic investment in energy and minerals. It’s also using military muscle and soft power.Increasingly, the pressing question is: is the relationship between China and Africa as good for Africa as it is for China? The same question applies to Russia-Africa relations.Interaction between Russia and Africa has grown exponentially this century, with trade and investment growing by 185% between 2005 and 2015.Economically, much of Russia’s focus in Africa centers on energy. Key Russian investments in Africa are in the oil, gas and nuclear power sectors.The fact that 620 million people in Africa don’t have electricity provides Russia’s nuclear power industry with potential markets. Several Russian companies, such as Gazprom, Lukoil, Rostec and Rosatom are active in Africa. Most activity is in Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Nigeria and Uganda. In Egypt, negotiations have already been finalized with Moscow for the building of the country’s first nuclear plant .These companies are mostly state-run, with investments often linked to military and diplomatic interests.Moscow’s second area of interest is Africa’s mineral riches. This is particularly evident in Zimbabwe, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Namibia and the Central African Republic.In Zimbabwe, Russia is developing one of the world’s largest deposits of platinum group metals.Russia has also been reestablishing links with Angola, where Alrosa, the Russian giant, mines diamonds. Discussions between Russia and Angola have also focused on hydrocarbon production.Uranium in Namibia is another example.Russia’s current controversial involvement in the Central African Republic (CAR) began in 2017, when a team of Russian military instructors and 170 “civilian advisers” were sent by Moscow to Bangui to train the country’s army and presidential guard. Shortly after that, nine weapons shipments arrived in the CAR.Interest in the country has focused on exploring its natural resources on a concession basis. The murder of three Russian journalists in a remote area of the country last year focused the world’s attention on what looked like a Kremlin drive for influence and resources.Russia is the second largest exporter of arms globally, and a major supplier to African states. Over the past two decades it has pursued military ties with various African countries, such as Ethiopia, Nigeria and Zimbabwe.Military ties are linked to bilateral military agreements as well as providing boots on the ground in UN peacekeeping operations. Combined, China and Russia outnumber the other permanent members of the UN Security Council in contributing troop to UN peacekeeping efforts.Russia has also been actively supporting Zimbabwe. Shortly after it was reported in 2018 that China had placed new generation surface-to-air missiles in Zimbabwe, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced that his country was pursuing military cooperation.Significantly, Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa has said that his country may need Russia’s help with the modernization of its defense force during a recent visit to Moscow.Both Russia and China are keen to play a future role in Africa. The difference between these two major powers is that China forms part of the Asian regional economy. This will surpass North America and Europe combined, in terms of global power – based on GDP, population size, military spending and technological investment.China and India have sustained impressive economic growth over many years. And, their enormous populations make them two world powers of extraordinary importance. Growth prospects for the Russian economy, on the other hand, remain modest – between 1.5% and 1.8% a year for 2018-2010, against the current global average rate of 3.5% a year.Still, Russia remains a major power in global politics. For African leaders, the key word is agency and the question is how to play the renewed Russian attention to their countries’ advantage, and not to fall victim to the contemporary “geopolitical chess” game played by the major powers on the continent.Theo Neethling, Professor and Head: Political Studies and Governance in the Humanities Faculty, University of the Free StateThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cory Booker sounded more like a preacher than a presidential candidate as he urged Democrats to vote for someone who could unite America, not just chase Donald Trump from the White House. “Beating Donald Trump is the floor; it is not the ceiling,” Booker said, his voice soaring. “It gets us out of the valley; it doesn’t get us to the mountaintop. I am running for president because I want to get to the mountaintop!”Murmurs of “yes!” and “mmm-hmm” rose from the audience of 80 or so, as if they were seated at a Sunday service and not a bowling alley in this speck of a town on Iowa’s Raccoon River. Several pledged to support Booker in the Feb. 3 caucuses that start the 2020 presidential balloting.But the affirmation and Booker’s exuberant performance last week belied the candidate’s perilous standing in the Democratic race. Presidential candidates flock to Iowa, where the race is volatile and voters undecided Presidential candidates flock to Iowa, where the race is volatile and voters undecided Iowa’s pull, always powerful, is stronger than ever this time because the presidential race there is one of the most volatile in years. The New Jersey senator has been a politician to watch for nearly two decades, ever since his insurgent bid for Newark mayor was chronicled in a 2002 Hollywood documentary. However, now that he is seeking the White House, Booker has fallen well short of expectations as his message, grounded in sweetness and light, collides with the sentiments of Democrats who want to see President Trump not just beaten in 2020 but battered.“We are not living through a normal political conversation here. This is not Barack Obama going for an open seat talking about hope and change,” said Sue Dvorsky, a former Iowa Democratic Party chairwoman who has been neutral in the race since her preferred candidate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, dropped out. “It doesn’t seem like a message of love and hope and rising is resonating. These are dark and dangerous times.”Jeff Link, a veteran Iowa Democratic strategist, was blunter still: “Can you really love Trump to death?” Cory Booker speaks to Iowans last week.(Charlie Neibergall / Associated Press) Booker, 50, is widely considered a better orator than former Vice President Joe Biden, and more charismatic than fellow Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. He has considerably more governing experience than Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Ind., a city with less than half the population of Newark.Still, Booker is running far behind the leaders in Iowa as well as other early-voting states. His poor standing in polls cost him a place in last week’s presidential debate in Los Angeles, and it’s questionable whether he will make the stage on Jan. 14, when Iowa hosts the next face-to-face meeting.The candidate, ever smiling, is undeterred. He sprinkles his speeches with uplift — scripture, quotes from Langston Hughes, Martin Luther King Jr. — and flatly dismisses those who say his talk of “love, grace and decency” is not just ineffective but politically tone-deaf.“I just think that’s so wrong,” Booker told supporters at his Urbandale campaign office, before jumping on the phone and chatting merrily with several potential caucusgoers. Signs on the wall read, “Hope, hype, hustle” and “Love chooses Cory.”Supporters agree that, in the end, the heart can win out. Bridget Carberry Montgomery finds Cory Booker “so inspiring” and believes his message can win in 2020.(Charlie Neibergall / Associated Press) Bridget Carberry Montgomery said there were few policy differences between the Democratic candidates, so character is important as she chooses among them. “I’m really looking for candidates that inspire me and will inspire our country and bring our country together,” she said.“I am a student of faith,” the 44-year-old stay-at-home mom continued, “and he is so inspiring, and everything he says is just so on message.”Logan Brittain, 49, was undecided until he saw Booker speak last week amid the bowling lanes and tenpins at Adel’s Family Fun Center.“I just committed to Cory,” said Brittain, a medical device salesman here in west-central Iowa, who had been choosing between Booker, Biden and Klobuchar. “It’s just his message of unity, bringing the country back together.”The problem is that backers like Montgomery and Brittain are relatively few and far between. Can you really love Trump to death? Iowa Democratic strategist Jeff Link Part of the reason, apart from a message some find cloying, is Booker’s lack of a solid toehold in the crowded field. “He’s not angry enough; the angry vote is divided between Warren and Sanders,” said Jim Hodges, a former South Carolina governor. “He’s not new enough; Mayor Pete has the ‘new’ vote. Biden has the establishment. He’s sort of been elbowed out of the race.”South Carolina votes fourth in the nominating process — after Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada — and its large black population was supposed to give Booker, who is African American, a significant boost. But he’s running far behind Biden in the Palmetto State and his chances of overtaking the front-runner, Hodges suggested, rest entirely on how well Booker does before the contest reaches South Carolina. Climate change is affecting wildfires. But Newsom and legislators still need to do more Climate change is affecting wildfires. But Newsom and legislators still need to do more It’s time for the governor to start blaming mismanagement of the forests as much as climate change for these horrendous wildfires, columnist George Skelton writes. New poll finds shaky support for Proposition 16 to restore affirmative action in California New poll finds shaky support for Proposition 16 to restore affirmative action in California The Public Policy Institute of California poll released Wednesday night found that just 31% of likely California voters surveyed said they would vote for the proposal, Proposition 16, while 47% said they oppose it. The remainder, 22%, were undecided. Trump rebukes CDC chief for his cautions on a coronavirus vaccine and masks Trump rebukes CDC chief for his cautions on a coronavirus vaccine and masks Concerns over a vaccine for COVID-19 dominated the 2020 race Wednesday, as Biden criticized Trump for politicizing science and Trump undermined his own advisors. More Coverage Trump fuels spread of doctored Biden video Trump fuels spread of doctored Biden video, tweeting it twice Trump fuels spread of doctored Biden video, tweeting it twice President Trump twice tweeted a video doctored to make it appear Joe Biden played an N.W.A song disparaging police, the latest case of Trump sowing disinformation. “If he’s going to do anything here, he’s going to have to have some unexpected success in either Iowa or New Hampshire,” said Hodges, who is unaligned in the presidential race. “If he doesn’t have any success in those two races, he might as well get out of the race.”Booker and his strategists are mindful of his endangered status and the need for a strong Iowa showing. The senator was among the first candidates to build a team in the state and has spent more than a year establishing relationships with influential activists. Polling shows that more than half of likely Democratic caucus-goers have a favorable opinion of Booker and only about 1 in 4 have definitely committed to a candidate, meaning there is considerable room for growth.Booker, in the midst of a recent 11-county, four-day bus tour, invoked former President Obama and former Sen. John F. Kerry — both of whom were far behind in Iowa before surging and winning the Democratic nomination — as he predicted a similar surprise.“If you’re somebody polling really well ... be a little worried, because that’s not what determines the outcome,” he told reporters in a bit of rose-tinted analysis. “The polls never really have.” Candidates’ talk of ‘Medicare for all’ makes some unions nervous. Here’s why Candidates’ talk of ‘Medicare for all’ makes some unions nervous. Here’s why Some unions with top-tier benefits are nervous about talk of ‘Medicare for all’ in the Democratic presidential primary, fearing it would reduce control of their hard-won healthcare. Although Booker said he would like to take part in January’s debate in Des Moines, he insisted it wouldn’t be a “death knell” for his campaign if he didn’t make the cut. Cory Booker talks with his girlfriend, actress Rosario Dawson, for a Christmas singalong on the campaign trail.(Seema Mehta / Los Angeles Times) The prospect certainly didn’t do anything to dampen his high spirits, which were much in evidence as he motored across Iowa in a luxury bus with his name emblazoned on one side and hundreds of red, white and blue stickers with the names of donors on the other.He bowled two spares at the Family Fun Center, marveled over the Broadway show “Dear Evan Hansen” while discussing the production with reporters, and grazed on popcorn as he took in the new Star Wars movie in Ottumwa. He tried to coax the media into a holiday singalong and, after most reporters demurred, he FaceTimed his girlfriend, actress Rosario Dawson, who led the willing in a chorus of “Silent Night.” Life will be just fine, Booker said with characteristic buoyancy, if he fails to win the nomination. Already, he and Dawson have begun to make plans just in case. Topping the list: more Broadway shows.Mehta reported from Iowa and Barabak from Los Angeles.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Monday suspended his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, saying he no longer has a path to victory in the race to challenge President Donald Trump. “Our campaign has reached the point where we need more money to scale up and continue building a campaign that can win – money we don’t have, and money that is harder to raise because I won’t be on the next debate stage and because the urgent business of impeachment will rightly be keeping me in Washington,” Booker wrote in an email to supporters. Booker’s departure from the race, which comes not long after former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro dropped out, means only a handful of candidates of color remain in the race — and none are considered serious contenders for the nomination. The next Democratic primary debate, scheduled for Tuesday, will feature only white candidates. Booker, a former mayor of Newark, New Jersey, officially entered the race on Feb. 1, 2019, the first day of Black History Month. Throughout his campaign, he routinely spoke more pointedly about the plight of Black Americans than any other candidate. In a video kicking off his run, Booker introduced himself by discussing his parents’ experience with housing discrimination as they sought a middle-class life for him and his brother in New Jersey. Booker had a similar tact with issues like gun violence and education, speaking broadly about the impact these issues have on all Americans while also discussing the ways they acutely affected Black people. The Booker campaign also largely shaped the primary’s debate around gun violence. The senator was the first candidate to call for a federal gun licensing program, something more than a dozen other candidates eventually said they supported. But in polls, Booker’s support hovered stubbornly in the low single digits, and the candidate struggled to broaden his support among Black voters. Although Booker frequently drew praise from activists and polling indicated many Democratic voters had a favorable opinion of him, he struggled to convince voters he should be their first choice. ERIC THAYER / Reuters Sen. Cory Booker at the SEIU's Unions for All summit in Los Angeles in October. Booker repeatedly tried to draw distinctions between himself and former Vice President Joe Biden. In a July debate, Booker criticized Biden, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, for having endorsed the 1994 crime bill seen by many as a driver of mass incarceration. “This is one of those instances where the house was set on fire and you claimed responsibility for those laws,” Booker said. “And you can’t just now come out with a plan to put out that fire. We have got to have far more bold action on criminal justice reform.” But Booker occasionally struggled to strike the right tone with some of his zingers. In another volley with Biden, he accused the former vice president of not knowing the facts about his record on criminal justice. “Mr. Vice President, there’s a saying in my community: ‘You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don’t even know the flavor,’” Booker said. The line earned raucous applause in the debate hall, but it was received coolly online. Booker often found himself in a political never-never land of sorts, stuck in the middle of ideological war between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on the left and Biden and host of other candidates in the center. He tried to focus his campaign on love and unity, a message that was sometimes out of sync with the fighting approach many Democrats hope a nominee would bring to a general election battle with Trump. With his exit, Booker returns to the Senate, where he is expected to defend his seat in the 2020 election. RELATED... Democratic Candidates Together Doubled Trump's 2020 Fundraising Numbers New Poll Shows It’s Anybody’s Race In Iowa The ACLU Is Reminding Voters Joe Biden Hasn’t Taken Stances On Key Issues Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost

If you want to know who will win the presidency in 60 days, the real question may be this: What crazy story will dominate the news between now and then?In politics, the battle isn’t just over which candidate you prefer. Often, that determination is downstream from a more urgent question: What issue are you thinking about when you go to the ballot box? This explains why “October surprises' ' (think James Comey reopening his investigation into Hillary’s e-mails) can be definitive (especially for swing voters), and it explains why politicians, at the risk of looking like phonies, parry questions and change the subject. Let’s say it’s Nov. 3, and the question on everyone’s mind before voting is, “Why are 1,000 people dying every day from COVID-19?” In that scenario, Joe Biden is the clear favorite. But if the question is, “Why is there so much left-wing rioting in liberal cities,” then Donald Trump still has a chance. As you can see, a lot of what a campaign is about is fighting over which topic matters most. And while Joe Biden still has the edge, Trump’s ability to drive media narratives and change the subject (and distract the public) means you can never count him out. Part of the problem for Biden may be that (for political purposes) COVID-19 happened too soon, while civil unrest is a newer development (and fresh on the minds of voters). The media coverage reflects this. As I write this, the “above-the-scroll” news stories on The New York Times website are about Joe Biden visiting Wisconsin, Facebook trying to limit election chaos in November, and Trump trying to reframe the election as being about “law and order.” (There is one opinion piece about Gerald Ford rushing out a vaccine.) See what I mean? COVID-19 is old news. They haven’t forgotten it, but this is not the screaming headlines we might expect. This invisible enemy is harder to photograph or capture on video than a city on fire (or a hurricane, for that matter). As Never Trumper Charlie Sykes recently pointed out on his Bulwark podcast, if a thousand people a day were dying in plane crashes, nobody would accept it as inevitable. We would freak-out. It would receive wall-to-wall coverage. Anyone accountable or responsible would be driven from office. Yet, amazingly, Trump (and the fast pace of modernity) has managed to inure us to the COVID-19 death count. It has been, to some degree, normalized. Baked in the cake. Fear of the virus seems to have declined, while fear of street violence has probably increased. Trump has changed the subject to civil unrest—an important issue, to be sure, but an issue where the body count is significantly smaller.Aside from the potential of alienating his progressive base, this explains Joe Biden’s reluctance to focus on “law and order.” Every day that Biden is talking about looting and violence, after all, is a day he is helping Trump change the subject from issues that Biden wins on (COVID-19 and the economy)—to an issue that Trump has a chance to win on (civil unrest). This makes sense, and we do it in all realms of life. If you’re single, it might even boil down to this: “If you’re looking for a guy who’s 6’3”, look elsewhere. But if you’re looking for a guy who’s funny, then I’m your date.” Or if you’re in the job market, maybe it’s this: “If they’re looking for someone with a prestigious degree, then I’m not your guy. But if they’re looking for someone who will hustle and work long hours, then hire me.” You’ve probably heard about how smart candidates “stay on message,” but what makes it their message? One exercise for determining that is called the “Leesburg Grid.” Essentially, it trains you to put the issues that benefit you in one quadrant, while the issues that benefit your opponent go in another quadrant. Let’s say you are George W. Bush, and it’s the year 2000. If you are discussing the issue of experience, you are losing. It doesn’t matter what you say, if that’s the question—if that’s the issue voters care about on election day—you lose. Conversely, if the question is about who will “restore honor and integrity to the office of the White House,” then Bush wins no matter what Gore says. (It’s ironic that this time it’s Democrat Joe Biden who is arguing that he’s the guy to restore honor and integrity in the White House.)Now, imagine it’s 2008. If a debate question is “How can you bring about change?” then Barack Obama is going to win. But if the debate moderator says, “Talk about a time when you sacrificed for your country,” then it’s difficult to imagine how John McCain—a former P.O.W.—could lose. This is why the question is usually more important than the answer, and it’s also why having a fair debate moderator is crucial. You can see how this will relate to the upcoming debates. Again, though, this isn’t just about winning a given debate question. It’s about winning the argument and, therefore, winning the election. So, the real question is: what are people going to care about on Nov. 3 (or in the weeks leading up to it, given the number of people voting early via mail)? I applauded Biden for forcefully and clearly condemning the looting and street violence, because it blocks what is essentially Trump’s only argument. But there is a danger in getting too bogged down engaging in this debate and looking like he’s responding to Trump’s criticisms. He’s playing a road game—he is playing on Trump’s turf. Now, controlling the topic doesn’t always work for Trump. We were probably talking endlessly about caravans of migrants heading toward the border in 2018, and that didn’t stop Democrats from swamping Republicans in the midterms. So, it’s not a cure-all. But whoever can drive the narrative is, at the very least, formidable. By almost every logical metric, Joe Biden should win this race. But Donald Trump is a master of changing the subject, altering reality, and driving media narratives. The more you consider the importance of the candidate controlling the ballot question (here, I mean the question people are thinking about when they vote), the more seriously you will entertain the possibility that Trump may pull off another miracle.

Paul Manafort and an alleged Russian intelligence operative hatched a plan for the future of Ukraine during the 2016 presidential election campaign that continued even after Manafort was criminally charged, prosecutors indicated on Tuesday.The office of Robert Mueller, the special counsel, said in a court filing that Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, communicated with Konstantin Kilimnik between August 2016 and March 2018 about a topic that was blacked out from public view.But an exhibit included with the heavily redacted court filing showed that Manafort worked on a Microsoft Word document titled “new initiative for peace” in February 2018 as part of his continuing discussions with Kilimnik.Attorneys for Manafort, 69, revealed in a separate court filing last week that he is accused by Mueller of discussing a “Ukraine peace plan” with Kilimnik “on more than one occasion” – and then lying about it when questioned by investigators.The allegations, if confirmed, would mean that Trump’s campaign chief was working on a plan to settle Russia’s conflict with Ukraine on terms favourable for the Kremlin while the Russian government was interfering in the 2016 US election to help Trump.US intelligence chiefs concluded that the Russian interference operation was ordered by Vladimir Putin to benefit Trump’s campaign and harm Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent. Mueller is investigating whether Trump associates were involved in the Russian activities.Kilimnik, 48, trained at a university connected to Russia’s military intelligence agency, formerly known as the GRU, which allegedly spearheaded the Kremlin’s effort to disrupt the 2016 election.Mueller has said Kilimnik was described as “a former Russian intelligence officer with the GRU” by Rick Gates, Manafort’s deputy on the Trump campaign. Kilimnik denies that he worked for Russian intelligence.Manafort and Gates were indicted on financial crimes in October 2017 in Washington and for further offences in Virginia in February 2018. Gates struck a plea deal with Mueller’s team. Manafort was convicted in Virginia on eight counts and later pleaded guilty to charges in Washington.The filing by Mueller’s team on Tuesday was intended to support its allegations that Manafort lied about several subjects even after he pleaded guilty and began cooperating with the investigation. The alleged lies prompted Mueller to tear up a deal that promised Manafort favourable treatment when he is sentenced.Manafort’s attorneys deny that he intentionally lied. They blamed his false statements on a failure to recall certain details and his lack of access in jail to records that could jog his memory.Mueller alleges that Manafort lied when he said he had no communication with members of Trump’s administration after they entered office in January 2017. Tuesday’s filing said Gates told investigators Manafort boasted that month that he was getting people “appointed in the administration” via an intermediary.On 28 May 2018, according to Tuesday’s filing, Manafort was sent a text message by an associate, who asked: “If I see POTUS one on one next week am I ok to remind him of our relationship?” Manafort allegedly replied: “Yes” and “even if not one on one”.Manafort joined Trump’s campaign at the end of March 2016 and was promoted to campaign chairman that May. Following revelations that he received millions of dollars in illicit funds from Ukraine’s pro-Kremlin former president, the campaign announced on 19 August 2016 that Manafort was leaving.Mueller’s team said on Tuesday that Manafort and Kilimnik discussed the Ukraine peace plan in person and in messages from 2 August 2016. Kilimnik has previously said the pair met in New York around that date. Topics Paul Manafort Trump-Russia investigation Donald Trump Russia US elections 2016 news

A CLOTHING WORKSHOP, with just two sewing machines, established long ago on the outskirts of Lima, Peru’s capital city, may be one of the world’s most influential companies, even though it never started operating—and was never intended to do so. The business was conceived as an experiment by Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian economist, who commissioned a team to go through the motions of setting up the firm. Their aim was to find out how long it would take to comply with all the laws and regulations required to start a business. The answer was 289 painstaking days.The answer now is a mere 26 days, according to the World Bank’s latest report on the ease of doing business around the world. Inspired in part by de Soto’s example, the bank each year asks thousands of lawyers, accountants and other experts how easy it would be for a company to obtain an electricity connection, transfer the title of a warehouse, enforce a debt contract, pay its taxes and so on. Based on the answers, the bank then ranks countries, from New Zealand at the top to Somalia at the bottom.The report has its critics. Since it ignores infrastructure, price stability, workforce skills and the reliability of suppliers, among other things, it is not really a summary measure of the ease of doing business in a country. It is instead a snapshot of the cost of complying with formal regulations for companies that are not small enough to dodge the law or big enough to bend it. In one edition, the report described itself as a “cholesterol test”. But it is sometimes interpreted as a full medical.It has nonetheless become hugely influential. Costing less than 0.25% of the bank’s operating budget, it has caught the attention of some of the world’s most powerful people. Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, has resolved to lift his country into the ranks of the top 50 by 2020. It climbed to 63rd place this year, from 142nd when he took office. The country’s success may have helped galvanise a similar effort in China (which improved this year to 31st place) and in Pakistan, which was also heralded this year as one of the ten most reformed economies.But the biggest improvement in score was awarded to Saudi Arabia. Once ranked tenth, it had slipped to 94th place by 2016. This year it bounced back to 62nd. It is now the cheapest (and third-easiest) place to transfer a property title to a buyer. Firms can get an electricity connection in 35 days, little more than half the time it took in 2018. The government has also set up an online one-stop shop, where an entrepreneur can jump through many of the hoops required to start a business, instead of traipsing around multiple ministries and offices, for commerce, labour, social insurance, tax and Zakat (a religious tithe).The kingdom’s reform efforts were overseen by a dedicated committee, bringing up to 50 government bodies together, that met every Wednesday at 1pm. The committee also included business folk who explained how regulations feel to the regulated. The structure left the bureaucracy with nowhere to hide. “You have to come and either say you’ve done it; or if you didn’t do it what’s stopped you,” says Dr Eiman Al-Mutairi, head of the country’s National Competitiveness Centre. Any roadblock that lasted more than a week was referred up to Muhammad bin Salman, the kingdom’s crown prince.Not all reforms have won favour with business. Companies no longer need a government stamp on their registration certificates, for example. But many firms want one anyway, because it looks good on their papers. It’s not easy to cut red tape when firms treat it like a ribbon and bow. ■This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline "First across the tape"Reuse this contentThe Trust Project

New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, has announced the launch of a multi-state investigation into Facebook’s market dominance and “potential anticompetitive conduct stemming from that dominance.”James is leading a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general, including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. “We will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook’s actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers’ choices, or increased the price of advertising,” she said in a statement.The notion that Facebook might be a monopoly, unlawfully using its market power, isn’t shocking. As Dina Srinivasan, author of a 2019 Berkeley Business Law Journal article about the antitrust case against Facebook, puts it, “Colloquially, and in the press, Facebook is a monopoly. Members of Congress, reporters, academics, and even initial founders of Facebook are speaking of Facebook’s monopoly power and questioning the need for regulation.”Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department have already been looking at how a few tech giants—Facebook, Google and Amazon, especially—quickly gathered and consolidated power in recent years, using their growing domination to quell competition. Massachusetts senator and Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has often expressed the desire to break up technology companies that dominate the marketplace.Last year, a coalition of left-leaning groups launched an ad campaign arguing for the break up of Facebook. Months earlier, United Nations investigators noted that in Myanmar, where anti-Rohingya sentiment has led to violence and ethnic cleansing—Facebook played a role in promoting hate because it is the main source of local information, essentially making up the internet there. “Social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media,” Marzuki Darusman, chairman of the UN fact-finding mission explained.So why haven’t regulators acted faster and why doesn’t James’ statement regarding the states’ investigation sound more certain of the antitrust case against Facebook? Because Facebook is a new kind of company and proving it’s a monopoly is difficult, under traditional antitrust law.Srinivasan argues that regulators and academics have struggled to even know how to think about an antitrust case against Facebook, because it offers a “free” service. Traditionally, there is direct and indirect evidence of monopoly power. For example, price hikes without competition could be direct evidence. And a company’s share of the industry could be indirect evidence. However, since Facebook has always been “free” to users, it cannot be argued that it has driven up prices and driven out competitors by dominating the marketplace. She explains:In digital markets where consumers do not pay a price, antitrust enforcement must become comfortable with a paradigm that focuses on quality. Never before have we had to grapple with one of the most valuable companies in the world, a half trillion-dollar market cap company, that provides important communications services to over 2 billion consumers but charges no price.Still, that doesn’t mean Facebook is immune to antitrust claims. As Srinivasan points out, shifts in quality of service, like price, are another indicator of a company’s monopoly power. Her paper lays out the ways that the social media platform began attracting users in 2004 by promising quality in the form of privacy protections that more popular platforms at the time, like MySpace, did not.Facebook accumulated users and power by offering privacy protections but it wasn’t always straightforward about how it was collecting data or what it was using it for. It became adept at surveilling users with assistance from other websites and because it was so popular, few could resist.Despite promises not to track users beyond Facebook or when they logged off, the company was able to do just that, partly with the help of other companies, like publishers, who were competing with the social media giant for advertising dollars but also putting Facebook plug-ins on their websites in order to promote their own content to the ever-growing Facebook audience. Those plug-ins allowed the social media platform to collect more and more data about individual users and to sell the value of having that information to advertisers.By 2014, a decade after its launch, Facebook was the dominant platform and had few competitors (no more MySpace, Friendster, Mixi, Cyworld, hi5, BlackPlanet, Yahoo’s 360, AOL’s Bebo, or Google’s Orkut, say). At that point, more than a billion users were on Facebook and people didn’t feel they could leave or refuse to join given how much communication was happening there, nor could other companies avoid cooperating with the giant without risking becoming irrelevant. “For Facebook, these circumstances— the exit of competition and the lock-in of consumers—greenlit a change in conduct,” Srinivasan argues. From there, despite articulating concerns about privacy, the company was actually collecting and using consumer data for profit, sometimes dishonestly and against users’ will, and consolidating its monopoly power.She believes that an antitrust case against Facebook can be made by showing its ability to extract surveillance in its interactions with consumers and likens this to the extraction of monopoly rents in more traditional antitrust situations. By luring consumers with a promise of privacy—its alleged service quality—that it did not keep but wasn’t clear about, Facebook’s power grew. As it gained more users, it defeated competitors and locked down the market, offering lower and lower quality as it dominated.The fact that Facebook has a lot of users and few competitors is not, in and of itself, problematic from an antitrust perspective. What may be problematic, however, is the way it achieved that dominance.“You could defend your market position just by offering consumers better value, offering a better service,” Martin Gaynor, professor of economics and former chief economist at the Federal Trade Commission, told Quartz in an interview about tech monopolies. “But if you’re doing things that put competitors at a disadvantage, if you’re making it difficult to impossible for new firms to enter and get it into the market, if you’re snapping up potential competitors before they can actually get into the market and compete with you, things like that are potentially causes for concern.”Because Facebook, in addition to perhaps deceiving users with a false promise of privacy, is also famous for snatching up potential competitors, like WhatsApp and Instagram, and trying to acquire others, like Snapchat and the video chat app Houseparty, its current market dominance is suspicious.Investigators have a lot of work ahead of them, and Facebook has a lot of money and power to throw around if, ultimately, it is charged with antitrust violations by the state attorneys general. But there is certainly a strong argument that it’s a monopoly and that its dominance isn’t based purely on honestly offering a great free service while engaging in healthy competition.

Amazon has purchased the naming rights to Seattle's KeyArena, which will now be known as Climate Pledge Arena.The arena, which is currently under redevelopment, is set to be the home of an unnamed Seattle-based NHL team which is planning to join the league for the 2021-2022 season.Amazon's announcement on Instagram highlighted the company's commitment to sustainability: it plans for the arena to produce zero waste and heavily reduce its current use of plastics, and will also be powered by renewable energy as it seeks to eliminate its carbon footprint."It will be the first net zero carbon certified arena in the world, generate zero waste from operations and events, and use reclaimed rainwater in the ice system to create the greenest ice in the NHL," Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos wrote in the Instagram post.Tod Leiweike, CEO of NHL Seattle, told The Seattle Times that his organization was excited for the chance to feature sustainability in the arena, which he said was a goal of the team before Amazon's investment.“I never dreamed that we would have this type of platform,” he told the Times.

Fox News host Melissa Francis on Monday reacted to the news that Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) had ended his presidential campaign by suggesting he’s lazy, citing unnamed Democrats who have been on her show and have worked with the lawmaker.After failing to make yet another Democratic primary debate stage, Booker announced on Monday morning that he will suspend his campaign. The senator, whose run focused largely on unity, struggled to gain any traction in national polls. His departure from the race leaves former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick as the lone black candidate remaining in the Democratic field.During Monday’s broadcast of Fox News chat show Outnumbered, anchor Harris Faulkner wondered aloud why Booker’s campaign was unable to break through despite “enthusiastic crowds and an impressive pile of endorsements.”“Well, he really did not have a message to begin with,” Fox News contributor Lawrence Jones, the show’s lone male guest host, responded. “He talked about a lot of progressive ideas, but he kind of was under the radar, most of the debates. He did not have a breakout moment. I don’t think his campaign was really organized.”After Jones added that Booker “tanked” because he leaned too far left and “got away from himself,” Francis then offered up another possible reason.“Jeanne, we’ve had Democrats on the couch who’ve worked with him who say that he’s lazy,” Francis said to fellow co-host Jeanne Zaino. Francis did not offer specific names or examples of Democratic colleagues saying that Booker is lazy.“Cory Booker?” a somewhat surprised Zaino asked, prompting Francis to confirm, “Yeah.” “I would not suggest that Cory Booker is lazy,” Zaino, a political consultant, continued, “but I do think the campaign from the beginning—he could not find his footing.”