Like any good millennial, I think about my smartphone, to the extent that I do at all, in terms of what it does for me. It lets me message friends, buy stuff quickly, and amass likes. I hardly ever think about what it actually is—a mass of copper wires, aluminum alloys, and lithium battery encased in glass—or where it goes when I upgrade.Chen Qiufan wants us to think about that. His debut novel, Waste Tide, is set in a lightly fictionalized version of Guiyu, the world’s largest electronic waste disposal. First published in Chinese in 2013, the book was recently released in the U.S. with a very readable translation into English by Ken Liu.Chen, who has been called “China’s William Gibson,” is part of a younger generation of sci-fi writers who have achieved international acclaim in recent years. Liu Cixin became the first Chinese to win the prestigious Hugo Award for his Three Body Problem in 2015. The Wandering Earth, based on a short story by Liu, became China’s first science-fiction blockbuster when it was released in 2018. It was the highest-grossing film in the fastest-growing film market in the world last year and was recently scooped up by Netflix.Chen Qiufan [Photo: Scifivan/Wikimedia Commons]Chen, 37, grew up a few miles from the real Guiyu. Mountains of scrap electronics are shipped there every year from around the world. Thousands of human workers sort through the junk for whatever can be reduced to reusable precious metals. They strip wires and disassemble circuit boards, soaking them in acid baths for bits of copper, tin, platinum, and gold. Whatever can’t be processed is burned. The water in Guiyu has been so contaminated it is undrinkable; the air is toxic. The workers, migrants from poor rural areas in China, have an abnormally high rate of respiratory diseases and cancer.For the decades China was revving its economic engine, authorities were content to turn a blind eye to the human costs of the recycling business. It was an economic win-win. For developed countries like the U.S., it’s cheaper to ship waste to places like China than trying to recycle it themselves. And these shipments create jobs and profits for the Chinese.Waste Tide highlights the danger of “throw-away culture,” says Chen, also known in English as Stanley Chan. When our personal electronics stop serving us, whether because they break or our lust for the newest specs get the better of us, we toss them. Hopefully we’re conscientious enough to bring them to local recyclers that claim they’ll dispose of them properly. But that’s likely the end of our engagement with the trash. Out of sight, out of mind.Refrigerator compressors being cut open with acetylene torches, CFCs vented to atmosphere and oils dumped in ground. Longtang, China. [Photo: Flickr user baselactionnetwork]“Somebody has to take care of the garbage, even though you don’t see it,” Chen says. “This book shows the disasters caused by our living style. It’s the negative impact of globalization.”Fiction, and science fiction in particular, is an apt medium for Chen to probe the consequences of this arrangement. “It’s not journalism,” he says. Instead, the story is an imaginative, action-packed tale of power imbalances, and the individual characters that think they’re doing good. Waste Tide culminates, expectedly, in an insurgency of the workers against their exploitative overlords.Guiyu has been fictionalized in Waste Tide as “Silicon Isle.” (A homophone of the Chinese character “gui” translates to “Silicon,” and “yu” is an island). The waste hell is ruled by three ruthless family clans, dominated by the Luo clan. They treat workers as slaves and derisively call them “waste people.”Technology in the near-future has literally become extensions of selves and only exacerbates class inequality. Prosthetic inner ears improve balance; prosthetic limbs respond to mental directives; helmets heighten natural senses. The rich “switch body parts as easily as people used to switch phones.” Those with fewer means hack discarded prosthetics to get the same kick. When they’re no longer needed, synthetic body parts contaminated with blood and bodily fluids are added to the detritus.Waste Tide by Chen QiufanAt the center of the story is Mimi, a migrant worker who dreams of earning enough money to return home and live a quiet life. She strikes up a relationship with Kaizong, a Chinese-American college graduate trying to rediscover his roots. But the good times are short-lived. The boss of the Luo clan becomes convinced that Mimi holds the key to rousing his son from his coma and soon kidnaps the hapless girl.For all the advanced science, there is a backwards superstition that animates Silicon Isle. The clan bosses subscribe to “a simple form of animism.” They pray to the wind and sea for ample supplies of waste. They sacrifice animals (and some humans) to bring them luck, and use local witches to exorcise evil spirits. Boss Luo has Mimi kidnapped and tortured in an effort to appease the gods in the hopes of waking up his comatose son. The torture of Mimi infects her with a mysterious disease that splits her consciousness. The waste people are enraged by her violation, which eventually sparks a war against the ruling clans.A parallel narrative involves an American, Scott Brandle, who works for an environmental company. While in town trying to set up a recycling facility, he stumbles onto the truth about the virus that may have infected Mimi: a chemical weapon developed and used by the U.S. years earlier. Invented by a Japanese researcher working in the U.S., the drug is capable of causing mass hallucinations and terror. When Brandle learns that Mimi may have been infected with this virus, he wants a piece of her too, so that scientists back home can study its effects.Despite portraying the future of China in a less-than-positive light, Waste Tide has not been banned–a common result for works that displease Beijing; instead, the book won China’s prestigious Nebula award for science fiction, and is about to be reprinted on the mainland. I recently spoke with Chen about the themes in his work, as well as the capacities of science fiction in an increasingly tumultuous, uncertain world. Our interview has been edited for clarity.Fast Company: What’s the role of science fiction when it comes to providing social commentary?Chen Qiufan: Science fiction as a genre is beyond the limits of realism because it has another layer: metaphor. It’s beyond time or exact location. Historically, science fiction was a tool to criticize society, to bring up serious issues. But its function is bigger now. We’re creating narratives that are deeply embedded with worries of everyone around the world about technology and science. The discourse involves not just politics, but also ecology, anthropology, sociology. It’s not just criticizing, but offering imaginative solutions to society.FC: It’s clear Waste Tide highlights the negative impacts of technology. Did you also intend for this story to be seen as a criticism of what’s happened in Guiyu? CQ: I didn’t intentionally criticize a specific city or the Chinese government. Every character thinks they’re doing right, but the result is injustice, so it’s not all black and white. Everyone is a murderer to Mother Earth. I tried to bring complexity and hyper-reality to reflect our postmodern life. At the end of the novel, there is a certain compromise on behalf of the different powers so that they might get to a peaceful outcome. I hope it tries to make everyone think about themselves and their living condition, and how they should change their own ways.Worker dismantling toner cartridges, covered with toner, in Guiyu, China. [Photo: Flickr user Basel Action Network]FC: Your stories are set in recognizable cities and locations. It’s similar with the works of Hao Jingfang, who writes about economic disparity in real cities like Beijing, in her Hugo Award-winning short story Folding Beijing. Why do you choose to do this?CQ: To me, the most important core of sci-fi is bringing up questions. These questions might strongly be related to social issues or readers’ real lives. That’s very critical to me. I don’t believe technology can solve everything, I don’t believe logic or rationality can be the ultimate solution to society. I didn’t simply criticize Chinese society or American living style, but wanted to show how complex the systems are. In this book, I wanted to bring some attention to the recycling industry, hopefully to bring more protection to the workers, or get more transparency.FC: I think what you do so well, in your short stories, too, is reflecting the reality of what’s happening really in China, and introducing consequences people might not think about. Like your story A History of Future Illness, (available in the anthology Broken Stars) deals with how iPad use will infect generations of babies with neurological diseases. How does the reality of China inspire you?CQ: I always try to create an atmosphere of the negative aspects of technology, even when it’s placed in good hands. Economically, China went through 40 years of fast development, whereas it happened in 200 years in the West. Everything happens so fast. We have no time or space to digest the impact of technology that makes your life more convenient, or to think about how it changes the way you interact with people. This all happened in the previous few decades. I think science fiction is a perfect genre to represent this kind of shock to our readers.FC: Liu Cixin is an engineer by training, which often explains his prowess at explaining scientific concepts in his novels. You majored in Chinese literature and film arts and have worked in marketing in big tech companies including Google and Baidu. How has your background influenced your fiction?CQ: China produces a lot of engineers; its leaders almost all have engineering degrees. The result is that the humanities were often ignored. You can see a lot of problems arising from thinking that engineers can solve all the issues using their techniques: a student died trying a medical treatment that Baidu listed at the top of its search results without checking; Didi [the popular ride-hailing company] was held responsible by the government when one of its users was raped and murdered. I don’t believe technology, logic, or rationality can solve everything in society. Humanity is always important in my work.I’ve changed a lot in recent years. I used to try to be cool and unemotional like Spock. But now I think he’s kind of lame, because you need to build strong connections to people. It’s very important to have a sense of empathy, which I think is the fundamental element of human civilization.FC: How technology can change bodies is a theme in Waste Tide. Why was this element important to you?CQ: Most people don’t realize how technology affects their physical body. I think in the near future, body modification will become real and it will change how we perceive and interact with the world and each other. It’s already happening. For example, previously, we learned how to write Chinese characters in stroke order. But now, in the digital era, we learn how to write in a Roman way, collecting Romanized letters to form Chinese characters. That’s just one tiny place where your brain, and your fingers, will change with technology.FC: Why are there so many backwards traditions in Silicon Isle, in a future that has so much advanced technology?CQ: I see a lot of similarities between old rituals and modern societies’ use of technology. One thousand years ago, our ancestors tried to connect to gods using shamans, drums, dancing and singing, and herbal drugs. Now, we seek the same feeling through concerts, techno music, and virtual reality. Chinese people might use new technology, but they use it to enhance their own power, class, or their own perspective. There are animal sacrifices, witches, rituals, but using new technology. Technology tries to bring the same state of mind, to have some sort of dialogue with a higher existence and to console some real-life anxiety or confusion. It’s also a reality I’m familiar with. Whereas Westerners might go see a therapist, Chinese people will go pray in a temple.FC: What’s been the response within China to your novel?CQ: A lot of readers have told me it helped them see a different reality. This book is more realistic than one with aliens. I think it changes the way readers perceive the genre, and how complicated this situation is. I don’t simply criticize a Chinese or American way of living, I show readers how complex the systems are.FC: How conscious are you, when you start writing a story, of the fact that books that displease the Chinese government get banned?CQ: We know there are some areas you don’t want to touch, like minorities, religion, directly criticizing government—those are beyond the limits. Otherwise, I think it’s okay. You can see some Cultural Revolution within the Three Body Problem. You will not put these themes criticizing certain parties. You always try to bring in questions during the narrative, because it’s not black and white.FC: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of China? How do you use your fiction to communicate this?CQ: I’m optimistic. I have some very young readers and friends. They have the power to shape the future. I think it’s more important to engage with the younger generation, because it’s so difficult to change the mind-set of older people. So I think we have to influence the future through science-fiction narratives, not in a radical way, but in a way to help young people be more imaginative. I’d like to tell them through my work: You have to be very independent, judge things by yourself, not according to the media, textbooks, the information you were told within your info cocoon. You have to reach out to build up some authentic connection to real, diverse people, and to be open.FC: How do you hope English speakers, most of whom are not familiar with Chinese culture, will receive your work?CQ: It’s important to bring the diversity and authenticity of China to Westerners because China is so huge. Different people in different parts speak different languages and have different perspectives. It’s important to never to make presumptions, such as thinking China as a whole is flat. Ken Liu did a fantastic job in his translation of representing the different topolects [or regional dialects], which bring in nuances of Chinese society. Topolects can show the hierarchy and power within the system. I think it’s very important to show this whole picture of Chinese culture to Westerners.FC: China has taken more steps to protect the environment in recent years. In the U.S., this has led to what some have called a recycling crisis. What do you hope the impact will be of your book on how people in the U.S. think about these issues? CQ: I hope Western readers will start to think carefully about throw-away behavior. If you dump your garbage into someone’s backyard, it creates some economic development but causes a huge disaster to the environment and to people. I hope this will spark some serious discussions on the topic from readers and even scientists, and that we’ll have some action on this issue. It might be easier outside of China to have certain level of action on e-waste—to bring global regulations, more protection to workers, more transparency.Chen’s Waste Tide is out in English translation by Ken Liu. Read an excerpt here.

The FAANG trade is losing its bite.Owning shares of Facebook Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Netflix Inc. and Google parent Alphabet Inc. has given investors little upside over the past 12 months, depriving the long-running bull market of one of its biggest drivers.All the stocks, with the exception of Alphabet, peaked last year and remain...

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn has completed his cooperation with the special counsel’s Russia investigation, although he is still aiding another federal probe, according to a court filing on Tuesday. FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn passes by members of the media as he departs after his sentencing was delayed at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File PhotoThe disclosure came in a joint court filing between Flynn’s lawyers and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in which they asked for another delay in Flynn’s sentencing, citing his ongoing cooperation with the other federal investigation. The other investigation is a case brought by prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) against Flynn’s former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian, for unregistered lobbying on behalf of Turkey. Rafiekian has pleaded not guilty and Flynn could be a witness at a trial scheduled to begin in July. “While the defendant remains in a position to cooperate with law enforcement authorities, and could testify in the EDVA case should it proceed to trial, in the government’s view his cooperation is otherwise complete,” Mueller wrote in the filing. The comment is the latest sign that Mueller may be winding up his 22-month probe into the links between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Flynn and Mueller’s office had been given a deadline of March 13 to update U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan about Flynn’s cooperation. The deadline was set in December when Sullivan excoriated Flynn, including by suggesting he may have committed treason, and recommended he put off Flynn’s sentencing until his cooperation was complete and he could get full credit for it. In Tuesday’s filing, Flynn’s lawyers asked to report back again to Sullivan in 90 days. Flynn has been cooperating with Mueller since pleading guilty in December 2017 to lying to FBI agents about his conversations in late 2016 with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador in Washington, about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. The conversations took place between Trump’s November 2016 election victory and his inauguration in January 2017. The indictment against Rafiekian accuses him of working with Turkish government officials on a secret plan to return Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, who is living in exile in Pennsylvania, to Turkey — all without registering as a lobbyist as is required by law. Flynn worked with Rafiekian, a former director at the U.S. Export-Import Bank, on that project. Reporting by Mohammad Zargham in Washington and Nathan Layne in New York; Editing by Sandra Maler and Leslie AdlerOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced on Thursday by a U.S. judge to less than four years in prison - far shy of federal sentencing guidelines - for financial crimes uncovered during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis imposed the surprisingly lenient 47-month sentence on Manafort, 69, during a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, in which the veteran Republican political consultant asked for mercy but expressed no remorse for his actions. Manafort was convicted by a jury last August of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. Ellis disregarded federal sentencing guidelines cited by prosecutors that called for 19-1/2 to 24 years in prison. The judge ordered Manafort to pay a fine of $50,000 and restitution of just over $24 million. Manafort, brought into the courtroom in a wheelchair because of a condition called gout, listened during the hearing as Ellis extolled his “otherwise blameless” life in which he “earned the admiration of a number of people” and engaged in “a lot of good things.” “Clearly the guidelines were way out of whack on this,” Ellis said. Manafort was convicted after prosecutors accused him of hiding from the U.S. government millions of dollars he earned as a consultant for Ukraine’s former pro-Russia government. After pro-Kremlin Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster, prosecutors said, Manafort lied to banks to secure loans and maintain an opulent lifestyle with luxurious homes, designer suits and even a $15,000 ostrich-skin jacket. The judge also said Manafort “is not before the court for any allegations that he, or anyone at his direction, colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.” The sentence was even less than the sentence recommended by Manafort’s lawyers of 4-1/4 to 5-1/4 years in prison. “These are serious crimes, we understand that,” said Thomas Zehnle, one of Manafort’s lawyers. “Tax evasion is by no means jaywalking. But it’s not narcotics trafficking.” Related CoverageManafort's luxurious life nowhere in sight at sentencingTimeline: Big moments in Mueller investigation of Russian meddling in 2016 U.S. electionLegal experts expressed surprise over the sentence. “This is a tremendous defeat for the special counsel’s office,” former federal prosecutor David Weinstein said. Manafort’s sentence was less than half of what people who plead guilty and cooperate with the government typically get in similar cases, according to Mark Allenbaugh, a former attorney with the U.S. Sentencing Commission. “Very shocking,” he said. Ellis, appointed to the bench by Republican former President Ronald Reagan, called the sentence “sufficiently punitive,” and noted that Manafort’s time already served would be subtracted from the 47 months. Manafort has been jailed since June 2018. Manafort’s legal troubles are not over. He faces sentencing next Wednesday in Washington in a separate case for two conspiracy charges involving lobbying and money laundering to which he pleaded guilty last September. Legal experts said the light sentence from Ellis could prompt U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to impose a sentence closer to the maximum of 10 years in the Washington case, and order that the sentence run after the current one is completed rather than concurrently. Jackson was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama. Before the sentencing, Manafort expressed no remorse but talked about how the case had been difficult for him and his family. Manafort, who opted not to testify during his trial, told Ellis that “to say I have been humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement.” He described his life as “professionally and financially in shambles.” The judge told Manafort: “I was surprised I did not hear you express regret for engaging in wrongful conduct.” Manafort, with noticeably grayer hair than just months ago, came into the courtroom in a wheelchair holding a cane, wearing a green prison jumpsuit emblazoned with the words “Alexandria Inmate” on the back. It was a far cry from Manafort’s usual dapper appearance and stylish garb. During a break shortly before the sentence was handed down, Manafort turned around and blew his wife, Kathleen, a kiss. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort appears for sentencing in this court sketch in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S., March 7, 2019. REUTERS/Bill HennessyThe case capped a stunning downfall for Manafort, a prominent figure in Republican Party circles for decades who also worked as a consultant to such international figures as former Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Yanukovych. Ellis had faced criticism by some in the legal community for comments he made during the trial that were widely interpreted as biased against the prosecution. Ellis repeatedly interrupted prosecutors, told them to stop using the word “oligarch” to describe people associated with Manafort because it made him seem “despicable,” and objected to pictures of Manafort’s luxury items they planned to show jurors. “It isn’t a crime to have a lot of money and be profligate in your spending,” Ellis told prosecutors during the trial. Prosecutor Greg Andres urged Ellis to impose a steep sentence. “This case must stand as a beacon to others that this conduct cannot be accepted,” Andres told the hearing on Thursday. Jackson ruled on Feb. 13 that Manafort had breached his agreement to cooperate with Mueller’s office by lying to prosecutors about three matters pertinent to the Russia probe including his interactions with a business partner they have said has ties to Russian intelligence. Manafort is the only one of the 34 people and three companies charged by Mueller to have gone to trial. Several others including former campaign aides Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen have pleaded guilty, while longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone has pleaded not guilty. Trump, a Republican who has called Mueller’s investigation a politically motivated “witch hunt,” has not ruled out giving Manafort a presidential pardon, saying in November: “I wouldn’t take it off the table.” “There’s absolutely no evidence that Paul Manafort was involved with any collusion with any government official from Russia,” Kevin Downing, another Manafort lawyer, said outside the courthouse. The Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, quickly accused Downing of making “a deliberate appeal for a pardon” from Trump. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani said after the sentencing: “I believe Manafort has been disproportionately harassed and hopefully soon there will be an investigation of the overzealous prosecutorial intimidation so it doesn’t happen again.” Slideshow (6 Images)Mueller is preparing to submit to U.S. Attorney General William Barr a report on his investigation into whether Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia and whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe. Trump has denied collusion and obstruction and Russia has denied U.S. intelligence findings that it interfered in the 2016 election in an effort to boost Trump. Manafort worked for Trump’s campaign for five pivotal months in 2016 that included the Republican National Convention where Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination, three of them as campaign chairman. Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Andy Sullivan and Jan Wolfe; Additional reporting by Nathan Layne, Eric Beech and Makini Brice; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Peter CooneyOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The ongoing federal investigation into collusion between the Kremlin and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is the most complex, far-ranging criminal investigation of our lifetimes. The story of Trump-Russia collusion crosses so many continents, decades and areas of expertise – and has swept into its net so many hundreds of public officials and private citizens from nations around the world – that it can be difficult to understand any one piece of reporting on the scandal without having access to the context provided by several dozen others.This historic complexity makes the Trump-Russia story exceptionally difficult to report on using conventional methods alone. And it has led some members of the public and the press to misunderstand the significance of parts of Mueller’s investigation, or even doubt its importance – a fact which Trump and his cronies have tried to capitalize on by calling the probe a witch-hunt, a hoax and fake news.In these respects, Trump-Russia shares a lot with other defining contemporary events, from gun violence to climate change. Such phenomena are massively distributed in time and space, and powerful interests often have a stake in misrepresenting them. Making sense of them requires new modes of journalism – ones that build on and amplify traditional models of news gathering, and which might help to restore Americans’ faith in the media.In 2018, there are actually more reliable news reports than ever before, as there are now more responsible media outlets online and in print than there ever have been – a fact that often gets lost in debates over “fake news”. The digital age has also internationalized hard news reportage, meaning that readers have access to high-quality reports from around the world with an ease that was impossible before the advent of the internet.But this sudden expansion in focused, reliable news coverage has coincided with some of the largest and most prestigious media outlets cutting resources for investigative reporting. The upshot of all this is that reporters have less time or ability than ever before to review the growing archive of prior reporting before they publish what they’ve uncovered.Invariably – and especially in the case of highly complex stories – context is lost, and new reporting focuses on the present or the recent past to the detriment of a longer view of events and their implications. This is where emerging models of journalism, like “curatorial journalism”, are needed.Curatorial journalism on Trump-Russia brings together news reports relevant to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation from as far back as 30 years ago and from reporters working in the United States, Russia and over a dozen other countries. By connecting the output of reporters who often work under tight deadlines and, consequently, without having read all the prior reporting relevant to their research, curatorial journalists find the gaps and blindspots in scattershot or even excellent reporting and then fill them in with reliable, germane reporting from other sources.In the case of the Trump-Russia investigation, the benefits of curatorial journalism are already evident. The significance of Trump’s 31 March 2016 national security meeting at the Trump International Hotel in DC was not publicly known until curatorial journalism connected it to a single statement made by a Trump national security adviser at the Republican national convention. The associations between Israeli business intelligence expert Joel Zamel and Mike Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Cambridge Analytica and Russian oligarchs linked to the Kremlin was revealed only by connecting obscure Israeli news reports with widely discussed American ones. The volume of evidence compiled by British media in support of the Steele dossier’s claims of Russian kompromat on Trump was largely invisible to American readers until curatorial journalism ferreted it out.Collating so many disparate facts allows curatorial journalists to establish an overall timeline of events, which in turn makes possible a holistic yet dynamic “theory of the case” – the investigative term for the narrative that best explains an emerging pattern of facts. The result is an understanding of complex events that is at once more retrospective, adaptive and predictive than any one news article or single-source series of articles could ever be.For instance, the American media has often uncritically reported White House claims that candidate Trump lacked much connection to Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Flynn or Papadopoulos – all of whom have since been convicted of charges brought against them by Mueller. But these reports don’t exhibit an awareness of the full stories of how Trump came to know each of these men, and of their respective roles in Trump’s campaign – stories which, together with other facts, establish that Trump colluded with the Russians and, in doing so, violated of a number of federal criminal statutes.Oversights like this are not the result of media incompetence, laziness or malfeasance, however. The truth is more banal: the archive of prior relevant reporting that any reporter could review before they publish their own research is now so large and far-flung that more and more articles are frustratingly incomplete or even accidentally erroneous than was the case when there were fewer media outlets, a smaller and more readily navigable archive of past reporting for reporters to sift through, and a less internationalized media landscape.While in another era consumers might be thought incapable of catching such errors, now social media crowdsourcing immediately detects and magnifies journalistic missteps. The result is a media ecosystem in which reporters feel disrespected and consumers poorly served.Curatorial journalism intervenes in this unhealthy tug-of-war by reinvigorating individual media reports – showing how, even when they are incomplete, they can do critical work if placed in conversation and collaboration with other articles. At the same time, curatorial journalism distills for newsreaders the key connections between the reports they’re being bombarded with on a daily basis, and does so in a way that makes the heterogeneity and frenetic pace of contemporary media seem like a positive development.Proof of Collusion, my just-released book on the Trump-Russia investigation, is a work of curatorial journalism that began with an attempt to master the timeline of the Trump-Russia case, continued on Twitter to a daily curation of relevant news sources the world over, and culminated in the development of a “theory of the case” that relies entirely on well-sourced facts and evidence rather than my own opinions or speculation.That theory holds that years before the announcement of Trump’s presidential candidacy, the Kremlin, anticipating the New York City businessman’s political future, successfully bribed him into adopting a foreign policy distinctly beneficial to Russia and harmful to America. Once in-campaign, this money-for-policy quid pro quo led to a series of collusive meetings and agreements that both aided and abetted Russian cyberwarfare against the United States and illegally solicited monetary and in-kind donations (including stolen digital materials) from both Kremlin agents and Russian cutouts.This theory of the case might seem unduly speculative to those who read only a handful of news sources. But Proof of Collusion contains over 1,600 endnotes and nearly 2,000 citations, directing readers to hundreds of media outlets and investigative reports from around the globe in support of its encompassing metanarrative.What I do on Twitter and in my book many others are now doing in other media, such as podcasting and cable television. The Mueller, She Wrote podcast has become an indispensable source of curatorial journalism for many Trump-Russia watchers, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is undoubtedly one of the most popular and instructive curatorial journalists of the Trump-Russia era. Curatorial journalists like me are increasingly sought out by conventional reporters hoping for a broader understanding of the stories they have been chasing down.My hope is that something similar can be replicated for other complex conundrums, such as America’s ongoing healthcare crisis; the scourge of gun violence oppressing our elementary, middle and high school students; and the slough of increasingly dire global climate changes that will, in short order if not already, be irreversible.In each of these cases, what is needed is not just a recitation of facts but an encompassing, reliably sourced, readily digestible narrative that establishes how and why we have come to the point we have – without sacrificing the complexities of the subject. Done well, the result of all this compiling, connecting and synthesizing will be not just a thorough history but also the production of new knowledge on each of these critical topics.In this way, curatorial journalism can help ameliorate the deficits of understanding our digital age inevitably produces, leaving us not just better informed but also more trusting of the work done by our most deeply committed investigative reporters. Here’s hoping this new subgenre of new media journalism continues to inform us at this critical juncture in history and perhaps, in time, gets its due. Seth Abramson is an assistant professor of communication arts and sciences at University of New Hampshire and the author of 10 books, most recently Proof of Collusion: How Trump Betrayed America (Simon & Schuster, 2018). A graduate of Harvard Law School, he worked for many years as a public defender in New Hampshire and Massachusetts Topics Trump-Russia investigation Opinion Newspapers & magazines Donald Trump Investigative journalism Russia Trump administration comment

President Donald Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen has been under criminal investigation for months, largely centering around his business dealings, federal prosecutors in New York said in court documents obtained by ABC News. Today, prosecutors acknowledged publicly for the first time Friday that they seized records this week from Cohen. The revelation came as Cohen and Trump sought a court order barring federal prosecutors from accessing the records they took during raids on his home and office Monday morning. Lawyers for Cohen and Trump, neither of whom was present in court, argue that at least some of the records are subject to attorney-client privilege and should not be viewed by prosecutors until they, or an independent third party appointed by the court, have a chance to review the material. Cohen "applied [Thursday] evening for an opportunity to take the first cut" at determining whether the documents are privileged or relevant to the investigation, Judge Kimba Wood said. "Both parties recognize the search of an attorney's devices and offices are subject to special consideration." A hearing Friday in Manhattan federal court was put on hold until Monday after an attorney for Trump intervened and requested additional time. "He as an acute interest in these proceedings," said Joanna Hendon, an attorney for the president who said she was hired Wednesday night. Hendon noted the "exceptional nature" of her client and expressed concern about the prosecutors' internal "taint team" that separates evidence that is privileged from evidence that is available for prosecutors to view. "We don't need to rush," Hendon said. "There is an appearance of fairness problem." A taint team is a group of people who help determine what falls under attorney-client privilege and should not be shared with investigators. It's standard when searching a lawyer's office. “The government’s use of a filter team appropriately protects applicable privileges," the court documents obtained by ABC News state. Monday’s search was broader than previously reported: in addition to Cohen's home and office, there were court-authorized searches of a safety deposit box and two cellphones. Cohen “is being investigated for criminal conduct that largely centers on his personal business dealings,” according to court documents. The federal prosecutor’s office “has already obtained search warrants -- covert until this point -- on multiple different email accounts maintained by Cohen, and has conducted a privilege review of the materials obtained pursuant to those warrants,” the court documents state. That review, prosecutors said, showed that Cohen "is in fact performing little to no legal work and that zero emails were exchanged with President Trump." Cohen has not been charged with anything. He has not responded to news he is under investigation, declining to comment when contacted by ABC News. Thomas McKay, one of the prosecutors handling the case, said the president's attorney-client privileges are no different than anyone else's. He accused the president and Cohen of delay tactics but promised prosecutors would not view any of the seized material until the judge makes her ruling following the hearing on Monday. Also at issue was how much of this dispute will happen in open court. News organizations objected to parts of the hearing -- originally scheduled without notice -- taking place outside of public earshot. “I don’t take this position lightly,” said Wood. Rachel Strom, an attorney for ABC News, successfully argued to keep most of the hearing open to the public. "This is the most important hearing that’s happening today and the public has a right to know how the court is going to handle the search of the president’s lawyer’s documents," Strom said.

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Donald Trump attacked James Comey as a “weak and untruthful slime ball” on Friday after the fired former FBI director castigated him as an unethical liar and likened him to a mob moss in a searing new memoir. The president fired Comey last May while his agency was investigating potential collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 U.S. election in a move that led the Justice Department to appoint Special Counsel Robert Mueller to take over a probe that has hung over his presidency. “This president is unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values,” Comey said in the book due out Tuesday, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters. Trump has often publicly criticized Comey since firing him, but escalated his attacks in response to the book. “It was my great honor to fire James Comey!” Trump said in one of a series of scorching Twitter messages, adding that Comey - now one of the Republican president’s fiercest critics - had been a terrible FBI director. The tirade followed news accounts of Comey’s book, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” which paints a deeply unflattering picture of Trump, comparing him to a mob boss who stresses personal loyalty over the law and has little regard for morality or truth. Mueller is looking into whether Trump has sought to obstruct the Russia probe, and Comey could be a key witness on that front. Comey last year accused Trump of pressuring him to pledge loyalty and end a probe involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with Moscow. “James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR,” Trump wrote. Trump accused Comey of lying to Congress, but did not specify was he was referring to, and said the former FBI chief should be prosecuted for leaking classified information. Related CoverageTrump's 'slime ball' tweet sparks rush to online dictionaryHighlights from former FBI Director James Comey's new bookTrump has denied any collusion and has called Mueller’s investigation a witch hunt. Comey is conducting a series of media interviews before the book’s official release. Copies of the book were obtained by news outlets on Thursday. The interviews are Comey’s first public comments since he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last June, when he accused Trump of firing him to undermine the FBI’s Russia investigation. Just days after Trump fired Comey, the president said he did it because of “this Russia thing.” Trump has launched a series of attacks since last year against U.S. law enforcement leaders and institutions as the Russia probe pressed forward, in addition to Comey and Mueller. “People will rot in hell for besmirching the reputation the integrity and the professional history of these two men,” Democratic U.S. Representative Jim Himes said on CNN, referring to Comey and Mueller, himself a former FBI director. In an offshoot of the Mueller probe, Trump’s longtime personal lawyer’s office and home were raided by the Federal Bureau on Investigation on Monday. In an interview broadcast on Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Comey discussed his initial encounters last year with Trump, who took office on Jan. 20, 2017. He described Trump as volatile, defensive and concerned more about his own image than about whether Russia meddled in the presidential election. A combination of file photos show U.S. President Donald Trump in the White House in Washington, DC, U.S. April 9, 2018 and former FBI Director James Comey on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 8, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria, Jonathan Ernst/File Photos American intelligence agencies last year said Russia interfered in the election through a campaign of propaganda and hacking in a scheme to sow discord in the United States and help get Trump elected. Moscow has denied meddling. Comey said he cautioned Trump against ordering an investigation into a salacious intelligence dossier alleging an 2013 encounter involving prostitutes in Moscow. The dossier was compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele about Trump’s ties to Russia and included an allegation that involved prostitutes urinating on one another in a hotel room while Trump watched. Trump denied the allegations and said he might want the FBI to investigate allegations in the dossier to prove they were untrue, Comey told ABC. “I said to him, ‘Sir that’s up to you but you want to be careful about that because it might create a narrative that we’re investigating you personally and, second, it’s very difficult to prove something didn’t happen,’” Comey said. Asked to describe that Jan. 6, 2017 meeting two weeks before Trump took office, Comey said: “Really weird. It was almost an out-of-body experience for me.” Comey was asked if he believed the dossier’s allegations. “I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013,” Comey told ABC. “It’s possible, but I don’t know.” Comey said the dossier’s allegations had not been verified by the time he left the FBI. Before Trump and Comey met alone, U.S. intelligence chiefs briefed Trump and his advisers about the Russian election meddling. What struck him most, Comey told ABC, was that the conversation moved straight into a public relations mode, what they could say and how they could position Trump. A copy of former FBI director James Comey's book "A Higher Loyalty" is seen in New York City, New York, U.S. April 13, 2018. REUTERS/Soren Larson“No one, to my recollection, asked, ‘So what’s coming next from the Russians, how might we stop it, what’s the future look like?’” Comey said. (GRAPHIC: Major milestones in the Mueller probe - tmsnrt.rs/2GTgtnX) Reporting by Doina Chiacu in Washington and Angela Moore in New York; Additional reporting by Justin Mitchell in Washington; Editing by Frances Kerry and Will DunhamOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

closeVideoMike Pompeo defends Soleimani strike, says Iranian general was on US radar for awfully long timeMultiple U.S. embassies were deemed at risk when decision was made to take out Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, says Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.Attorney General William Barr on Monday said President Trump had consulted the Department of Justice before ordering an airstrike that killed Iran’s top military general earlier this month. The comments came after growing questions about what led to the Jan. 3 airstrike that took out Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force. Attorney General William Barr speaks to reporters at the Justice Department in Washington, Monday, Jan. 13, 2020. (AP)Democrats have criticized Trump’s decision to conduct an airstrike, claiming he did not properly notify Congress in advance and warning about the risk of escalating violence in the region. Barr said that Soleimani was a “legitimate military target” and the strike was a “legitimate act of self-defense.” “The Department of Justice was consulted and frankly I don’t think it was a close call,” the attorney general said. “I believe the president clearly had the authority to act as he did on numerous different bases.” VideoDuring an appearance on Fox News’ ‘The Ingraham Angle,’ Trump said the airstrike that killed Soleimani was a deterrence to an imminent threat from Iran that involved planned attacks on four U.S. embassies. Asked specifically what was targeted, Trump responded: “We will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad.” But the scale of the supposed threat was called into question Sunday after Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he hadn’t seen hard evidence that four American embassies were under possible threat. “I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies,” Esper told reporters. Asked whether he thought Trump had embellished the threat he said: “I don’t believe so.” As the debate over the threat level continued Monday, Trump went on the defensive, blasting the “Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners” for trying to determine whether a future attack by Soleimani was “imminent,” and whether the Trump administration was in agreement over the airstrike. “The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!” Trump tweeted. Speaking to reporters outside Air Force One later Monday, Trump referred to Soleimani as the “number one terrorist in the world” and “a very bad person” who “killed lots of Americans, killed a lot of people.” “When Democrats try to defend him, it’s a disgrace to our country. They can’t do that,” Trump said. “And let me tell you, it’s not working politically very well for them. We killed the number one terrorist in the world, Soleimani, and it should have been done 20 years ago.” Separately, a senior State Department official told Fox News, “We still have concerns about Iranian proxy groups in the region... The United States has made clear that we plan on being disproportional in our response to Iranian aggression. That hopefully... will result in the deterrence that we’re looking for.”Fox News’ Rich Edson, Joshua Nelson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Washington Post via Getty Images WASHINGTON, Aug 26 (Reuters) - The U.S. House Judiciary Committee will subpoena former White House aide Rob Porter to testify about alleged efforts by President Donald Trump to impede a federal probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to a person familiar with the panel’s plans. Porter, who will be the third former Trump advisor to draw a congressional subpoena in two weeks, will receive a subpoena directing him to testify before the Democrat-led panel as part of a congressional investigation that could ultimately lead the House of Representatives to impeach Trump. On August 15, the panel subpoenaed Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn to testify about the president’s alleged efforts to pressure then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to direct U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation away from the 2016 Trump campaign. Whether the White House will seek to block the testimony of Porter and Dearborn is not clear, as it has that of former White House Counsel Don McGahn and other one-time Trump White House aides. Lewandowski, a Trump confidante who has never served on the White House staff, has said he will testify on September 17. Porter, who was White House staff secretary, appeared in Mueller’s 448-page investigation report as a witness to an episode involving former White House Counsel Don McGahn. Democrats view the Sessions and McGahn episodes as evidence that Trump is guilty of obstructing justice. McGahn told Mueller that Trump repeatedly instructed him to have the special counsel removed and then asked him to deny having been so instructed when news of the action emerged in press reports. McGahn did not carry out either instruction. According to the Mueller report, Trump turned to Porter to pressure McGahn into writing a letter of denial. “If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him,” the Mueller report quotes Trump as telling Porter.The report said Porter recalled that the president referred to McGahn as a “lying bastard.” Trump also asked Porter to stay in touch with former Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, whom Porter knew, as a possible replacement for Sessions after the attorney general recused himself from the Russia probe and refused Trump’s demands that he reverse his decision. “In asking him to reach out to Brand, Porter understood the president to want to find someone to end the Russia investigation or fire the special counsel, although the president never said so explicitly,” the Mueller report said. Porter left the White House in February 2018 after accusations of domestic abuse from his former wives. (Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Steve Orlofsky) RELATED... House Democrats Subpoena Corey Lewandowski Ahead Of Trump Rally Rob Porter's Ex-Wife: Me Too Career Comebacks Need To Be 'Earned,' Not 'Given' Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost

(Reuters) - Here is a timeline of significant developments in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and contacts between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Moscow. May 17 - U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints former FBI Director Mueller as a special counsel to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and to look into any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and people associated with Republican Trump’s campaign. The appointment follows Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey on May 9. Days later, Trump attributed the dismissal to “this Russia thing.” June 15 - Mueller is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, the Washington Post reports. Oct. 30 - Veteran Republican political operative and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who worked for the campaign for five pivotal months in 2016, is indicted on charges of conspiracy against the United States and money laundering, as is his business partner Rick Gates, who also worked for Trump’s campaign. - Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleads guilty to a charge of lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials. Dec. 1 - Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser who also had a prominent campaign role, pleads guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI about his discussions in 2016 with the Russian ambassador to Washington. Feb. 16 - Mueller secures an indictment of 13 Russian individuals and three firms, including a Russian government propaganda arm called the Internet Research Agency, accusing them of tampering in the presidential race to support Trump and disparage Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The accused “had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election” according to the court document filed by Mueller. - An American, Richard Pinedo, pleads guilty to identity fraud for selling bank account numbers after being accused by prosecutors of helping Russians launder money, buy Facebook ads and pay for campaign rally supplies. Pinedo was not associated with the Trump campaign. Feb. 22 - Manafort and Gates are charged with financial crimes, including bank fraud, in Virginia. Feb. 23 - Gates pleads guilty to conspiracy against the United States and lying to investigators. He agrees to cooperate and testify against Manafort at trial. April 3 - Alex van der Zwaan, the Dutch son-in-law of one of Russia’s richest men, is sentenced to 30 days in prison and fined $20,000 for lying to Mueller’s investigators, becoming the first person sentenced in the probe. April 9 - FBI agents raid home, hotel room and office of Trump’s personal lawyer and self-described “fixer” Michael Cohen. April 12 - Rosenstein tells Trump that he is not a target in Mueller’s probe. April 19 - Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump supporter in the election campaign, joins Trump’s personal legal team. June 8 - Mueller charges a Russian-Ukrainian man, Konstantin Kilimnik, a Manafort business partner whom prosecutors say had ties to Russian intelligence, with witness tampering. July 13 - Federal grand jury indicts 12 Russian military intelligence officers on charges of hacking Democratic Party computer networks in 2016 and staged releases of documents. Russia, which denies interfering in the election, says there is no evidence that the 12 are linked to spying or hacking. July 16 - In Helsinki after the first summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump publicly contradicts U.S. intelligence agencies that concluded Moscow had interfered in the 2016 election with a campaign of hacking and propaganda. Trump touts Putin’s “extremely strong and powerful” denial of meddling. He calls the Mueller inquiry a “rigged witch hunt” on Twitter. Aug. 21 - A trial jury in Virginia finds Manafort guilty of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failure to disclose a foreign bank account. - Cohen, in a case brought by U.S. prosecutors in New York, pleads guilty to tax fraud and campaign finance law violations. Cohen is subsequently interviewed by Mueller’s team. Aug. 31 - Samuel Patten, an American business partner of Kilimnik, pleads guilty to unregistered lobbying for pro-Kremlin political party in Ukraine. Sept. 14 - Manafort pleads guilty to two conspiracy counts and signs a cooperation agreement with Mueller’s prosecutors. Nov. 8 - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigns at Trump’s request. He had recused himself from overseeing the Mueller inquiry because of his contacts with the Russian ambassador as a Trump campaign official. Trump appoints Sessions’ chief of staff Matthew Whitaker, a critic of the Mueller probe, as acting attorney general. Nov. 20 - Giuliani says Trump submitted written answers to questions from Mueller, as the president avoids a face-to-face interview with the special counsel. Nov. 27-28 - Prosecutors say Manafort breached his plea deal by lying to investigators, which Manafort denies. Trump says he has not ruled out granting Manafort a presidential pardon. Nov. 28 - Giuliani says Trump told investigators he was not aware ahead of time of a meeting in Trump Tower in New York between several campaign officials and Russians in June 2016. Nov. 29 - Cohen pleads guilty in the Mueller investigation to lying to Congress about the length of discussions in 2016 on plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. “I made these misstatements to be consistent with individual 1’s political messaging and out of loyalty to individual 1,” says Cohen, who previously identified “individual 1” as Trump. The president criticizes Cohen as a liar and “weak person.” Dec. 12 - Two developments highlight growing political and legal risks for Trump: Cohen is sentenced to three years in prison for crimes including orchestrating hush payments to women in violation of campaign laws before the election; American Media Inc, publisher of National Enquirer tabloid, strikes a deal to avoid charges over its role in one of two hush payments. The publisher admits that the payment was aimed at influencing the 2016 election, contradicting Trump’s statements. Jan. 25 - Longtime Trump associate and self-proclaimed political “dirty trickster” Roger Stone is charged and arrested at his home in Florida. Stone is accused of lying to Congress about statements suggesting he may have had advance knowledge of plans by Wikileaks to release Democratic Party campaign emails that U.S. officials say were stolen by Russia. Feb. 14 - The Senate votes to confirm William Barr, Trump’s nominee to replace Sessions, as attorney general. Barr assumes broad authority over how much of the Mueller report to release. Feb. 22 - Manhattan district attorney’s office is pursuing New York state criminal charges against Manafort whether or not he receives a pardon from Trump on federal crimes. Trump cannot issue pardons for state convictions. Feb. 27 - Cohen tells U.S. House Oversight Committee Trump is a “racist,” a “con man” and a “cheat” who knew in advance about a release of emails by WikiLeaks in 2016 aimed at hurting rival Clinton. Trump directed negotiations for a real estate project in Moscow during the campaign even as he publicly said he had no business interests in Russia, Cohen testifies. March 7 - Manafort is sentenced in the Virginia case to almost four years in prison. The judge also ordered Manafort to pay a fine of $50,000 and restitution of just over $24 million. March 13 - Manafort is sentenced to about 3-1/2 more years in prison in the Washington case, bringing his total prison sentence in the two special counsel cases to 7-1/2 years. - Shortly after his sentencing in Washington, the Manhattan district attorney announces a separate indictment charging Manafort with residential mortgage fraud and other New York state crimes, which unlike the federal charges cannot be erased by a presidential pardon. March 22 - Mueller submits his confidential report on the findings of his investigation to U.S. Attorney General William Barr. March 24 - Barr releases a summary of the “principal conclusions” of Mueller’s report and wrote that the investigation did not establish that members of Trump’s election campaign conspired with Russia. Mueller did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice, said Barr, who himself concluded the inquiry had not found sufficient evidence to warrant criminal obstruction charges against Trump. March 25 - Democratic lawmakers demand that Barr send the full Mueller report and any underlying documents to Congress by April 2 and say the attorney general’s summary is not sufficient. The deadline is not met. April 3 - The Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary Committee voted to enable its chairman, Jerrold Nadler, to subpoena the Justice Department to obtain Mueller’s unredacted report and all underlying evidence as well as documents and testimony from five former Trump aides. April 18 - This date is announced by the Justice Department for the release of a redacted version of the Mueller report. Compiled by Grant McCool in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis, Bill Trott and Will DunhamOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump, his White House staff and the Republican National Committee escalated their attacks on Monday against the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who called Trump a “morally unfit” leader in an interview. James Comey, who was fired by Trump last year amid an FBI investigation of possible ties between Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election and Trump’s 2016 campaign, made his comments in an interview with ABC News on Sunday, saying Trump may be vulnerable to blackmail by Russia. Comey has written a book to be released on Tuesday that also is highly critical of Trump. During the weekend the president had tweeted that Comey was a “slimeball,” “a leaker & liar” and a terrible FBI director. On Monday, he returned to Twitter to accuse Comey and “others” of committing “many crimes.” Trump provided no evidence of a crime and Comey has not been accused of wrongdoing by legal authorities. He may be a witness for any charges of obstruction of justice under consideration by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Both Moscow, Trump and the White House deny any wrongdoing. Trump’s latest Twitter broadside was part of a series of attacks by Republicans and the White House against Comey, who they have attempted to discredit and paint as a disgruntled employee. “This is somebody who’s giving a revisionist version of history ... The president is confounded that this person is always able to divert the spotlight to him,” White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said in an interview with ABC News on Monday. The Republican National Committee also created a website, https://lyincomey.com, using an insult first used in a tweet by Trump, to attack Comey. Slideshow (5 Images)“This is somebody who wants a payday,” said Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, told CNN. “He has taken his private conversations with the president and monetized them. I think that is something that is discrediting and we’re going to push back,” McDaniel said. Comey’s book, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” has been on Amazon best-seller lists for the past four weeks and, as of Monday morning, is No. 20 on the retailer’s top nonfiction sales. Reporting by Makini Brice; Editing by Bill TrottOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

US president Donald Trump is considering firing Robert Mueller, the Federal Bureau of Investigation special counsel investigating Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election. He told reporters he’s mulling the possibility today after his personal attorney’s hotel room was raided by investigators.“I think it’s a disgrace what’s going on,” Trump said at the White House, in response to a reporter asking why he hasn’t fired Mueller. “We’ll see what happens,” he said. “Many people have said ‘you should fire him.'” Firing Mueller could kick off a constitutional crisis in the US, and would spark hundreds of pre-planned protests across the country.Agents from the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York raided the New York hotel room of Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen earlier today, acting on a referral from the FBI, Cohen’s lawyer said in a statement. They spent several hours in the room, and the raid resulted in an “unnecessary seizure of protected attorney-client communications between a lawyer and his clients,” Cohen’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, said.Trump was asked for his reaction hours later, as he hosted a military leadership meeting at the White House. Flanked by vice president Mike Pence and new national security advisor John Bolton, Trump called the situation “disgraceful” and a “witch hunt” before answering the question about Mueller, according to the White House press pool.So I just heard they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys. … It’s a disgraceful situation. It’s a total witch hunt. I’ve been saying it for a long time. I’ve wanted to keep it down. I’ve given over a million pages in documents to the special counsel. They continue to just go forward and here we are talking about Syria, we’re talking about a lot of serious things … and I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now. Actually it’s much more than that. You could say right after I won the nomination it started.When I saw this, when I heard about it, that is a whole new level of unfairness.Trump referred to the investigators, or perhaps the FBI, as the “most biased group of people,” and said they have “the biggest conflicts of interest I have ever seen.” He referred to them as “Democrats—all,” before correcting himself and saying they included “a couple of Republicans who worked for president Obama.” (Mueller is a lifelong Republican).Investigators should be looking at the “other side,” Trump said, explaining he meant Hillary Clinton, before promising “we’ll be talking about it more.” If he had known attorney general Jeff Sessions was going to recuse himself from the investigation, Trump added “we would have put a different attorney general in.” Sessions “made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country,” he said.Trump’s exchange on firing Mueller came afterward. Here it is in its entirety, according to the official White House transcript:Q Why don’t you just fire Mueller?THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t I just fire Mueller?Q Yeah, just fire the guy.THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it’s a disgrace what’s going on. We’ll see what happens. But I think it’s really a sad situation when you look at what happened. And many people have said, “You should fire him.” Again, they found nothing. And in finding nothing, that’s a big statement. If you know the person who’s in charge of the investigation, you know about that. Deputy Rosenstein—Rod Rosenstein—he wrote the letter, very critical, of Comey.One of the things they said: “I fired Comey.” Well, I turned out to do the right thing, because if you look at all of the things that he’s done and the lies, and you look at what’s gone on at the FBI with the insurance policy and all of the things that happened—turned out I did the right thing.But he signed—as you know, he also signed the FISA warrant. So Rod Rosenstein, who’s in charge of this, signed a FISA warrant, and he also signed a letter that was essentially saying to fire James Comey. And he was right about that. He was absolutely right.So we’ll see what happens. I think it’s disgraceful, and so does a lot of other people. This is a pure and simple witch hunt.

Enlarge this image President Trump's longtime attorney Michael Cohen is the subject of an ongoing federal criminal investigation, prosecutors disclosed in court documents on Friday. Mary Altaffer/AP hide caption toggle caption Mary Altaffer/AP President Trump's longtime attorney Michael Cohen is the subject of an ongoing federal criminal investigation, prosecutors disclosed in court documents on Friday. Mary Altaffer/AP President Trump's longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen was the subject of a months-long criminal investigation before the FBI raided his home and office this week, according to court documents.Federal prosecutors made that disclosure on Friday in responding to a request by Cohen for a judge to restrict the government's ability to review the evidence the FBI collected in those raids. Judge Kimba Wood shouldn't agree, contended the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. A Justice Department "filter team" should go ahead, prosecutors argue, in reviewing the evidence and determining which is protected under attorney-client privilege and which could be material in a potential future criminal case. Law Does FBI Raid On Trump Lawyer Cohen Mean Attorney-Client Privilege Is 'Dead'? Prosecutors have been working with a grand jury to investigate Cohen for months, they write, and they have obtained secret warrants on his "multiple different email accounts."Although the U.S. Attorney's Office conceded on Friday that it has not yet filed charges, prosecutors wrote they are "constrained from disclosing certain facts that would provide the court with a more complete factual background." Even so, prosecutors said they have provided Cohen and his lawyers with documents that describe the federal criminal statutes under which Cohen is being investigated. The court documents on Friday say that investigators have been focused on Cohen's "personal business dealings," not his work as an attorney on behalf of Trump. Only attorney-client materials are shielded by the privilege — and then there are exceptions involving crime or fraud — and prosecutors say they have not recovered any communications between Cohen and Trump. Politics Trump Blasts 'Total Witch Hunt' After FBI Raids His Longtime Attorney's Office "Although Cohen is an attorney, he also has several other business interests and sources of income," prosecutors wrote. "The searches are the result of a months-long investigation into Cohen and seek evidence of crimes, many of which have nothing to do with his work as an attorney, but rather relate to Cohen's own business dealings." Accordingly, they argue, most of the material seized by the FBI does not involve attorney-client privilege and could figure in a future court case. Trump complained this week after the Cohen raid that the FBI's actions meant attorney-client privilege was "dead" and that he was the victim of a "TOTAL WITCH HUNT!!!"Cohen's attorney said this week that the New York investigators and attorneys who have been working on the case were referred by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, who is based in Washington, D.C. It isn't clear yet, however, whether the business dealings described in court documents on Friday might have any connection to Mueller's investigation into whether any Americans conspired with Russia's attack on the 2016 presidential election.

The future of strike-hit Air France hangs in the balance following the departure of its chief executive over a continuing strike over pay, the French economy minister warned on Sunday.The airline’s trade union members are planning to walk out for a 14th day on Monday as they press for a 5.1% pay increase this year from their loss-making employer.Jean-Marc Janaillac, chief executive of parent company Air France-KLM, announced his resignation on Friday after workers rejected a pay deal worth 7% over four years. “I call on everyone to be responsible: crew, ground staff, and pilots who are asking for unjustified pay hikes,” France’s economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, told BFM television. “Be responsible. The survival of Air France is in the balance.”The crisis at Air France has coincided with other strike action in the country as rail workers also press on with walk-outs to protest against President Emmanuel Macron’s planned overhaul of the state-run train operator SNCF. French travellers have faced transport chaos since early April, and Le Maire said the strikes had wiped 0.1 percentage points off economic growth with areas such as tourism and the transport of raw materials badly hit. Strikes have already cost Air France €300m (£265m) with walk-outs by pilots, ground staff and other workers due to resume on Monday and Tuesday.He warned that the state, which owns 14.3%, could not be relied upon to rescue the airline. “Air France will disappear if it does not make the necessary efforts to be competitive.“We’re minority shareholders ... those that think that whatever happens the state will come to Air France’s rescue and soak up Air France’s losses are mistaken.”Despite the strike, the company says it will be able to maintain 99% of long-haul flights on Monday, 80% of medium-haul and 87% of short-haul. “Air France deplores the decision to go ahead with the strikes as we enter a period that will not enable negotiations to continue in order to put an end to it,” the carrier said. Topics Air France/KLM France Airline industry Europe Netherlands Unions Emmanuel Macron news

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer was forced on Monday to reveal in a New York federal court that Fox News personality Sean Hannity, one of Trump’s most ardent defenders, was also on his client list. Michael Cohen, Trump’s fiercely loyal and pugnacious lawyer, disclosed Hannity’s name through one of his own lawyers at the order of the judge. Stormy Daniels, an adult-film actress who says she had a sexual encounter with Trump, watched from the public gallery. Daniels, in a separate civil case, is fighting a 2016 non-disclosure agreement arranged by Cohen in which she got $130,000 to stop her from discussing her claim she had sex with Trump a decade earlier, something Trump has denied. Hannity, 56, said on Monday that he had never paid for Cohen’s services or been represented by him, but had sought confidential legal advice from him. The conservative host often uses his weeknight broadcast on Fox News to defend the president against what he sees as biased attacks by the media. Sometimes Trump praises Hannity in return. Cohen was in court to ask the judge to limit the ability of federal prosecutors to review documents seized from his offices and home last week as part of a criminal investigation, which stems in part from a probe into possible collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. (Full Story) The Russia investigation has frustrated the White House as it has spread to enfold some of Trump’s closest confidantes. Judge Kimba Wood spent more than 2-1/2 hours listening to arguments by Cohen’s lawyers, prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan and a lawyer representing Trump in the hearing. She is expected to rule later. She ordered prosecutors to give Cohen’s lawyers a copy of the seized materials before the next hearing. The unexpected naming of Hannity made him the latest prominent media personality to be drawn into the investigation’s cast of unlikely supporting characters. Related CoverageSean Hannity says he never retained Trump lawyer Michael CohenFactbox: How does U.S. attorney-client privilege rule apply to FBI raid on Trump's lawyer?Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was another. As she arrived at the courthouse dressed in a lavender suit, photographers knocked over barricades as they scrambled to get pictures. Daniels sat with her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, who told reporters they were there to help ensure protection for the integrity of the seized documents, some of which they believe pertain to the Daniels agreement. Cohen, dressed in a dark suit, at times looked tense, folding and clasping his hands in front of him. Cohen has argued that some of the documents and data seized from him under a warrant are protected by attorney-client privilege or otherwise unconnected to the investigation. But Judge Wood said she would still need the names of those other clients, and rejected his efforts to mask the identity of Hannity, a client Cohen had said wanted to avoid publicity. “I understand if he doesn’t want his name out there, but that’s not enough under the law,” Wood said, before ordering the name disclosed. Stephen Ryan, a lawyer for Cohen, drew gasps and laughter from the public gallery when he named Hannity as the client. FILE PHOTO: Fox News Channel anchor Sean Hannity poses for photographs as he sits on the set of his show "Hannity" at the Fox News Channel's studios in New York City, October 28, 2014. REUTERS/Mike Segar After his identity was revealed, Hannity said on his syndicated radio show, and again later on his Fox News program, that he had “occasional, brief discussions” with Cohen in which he sought out Cohen’s “input and perspective.” Hannity said he assumed those discussions were covered by attorney-client privilege, and insisted that none involved any matter between himself and a third party. He also said his talks with Cohen “almost exclusively focused on real estate.” Legal advice can be considered privileged even if given by a lawyer for free. Hannity, the top-rated personality on the most watched U.S. cable news network, told his viewers on April 9 that the raid on Cohen was part an effort by federal investigators to wrongly impeach the president. He never mentioned his association with Cohen during that broadcast. On Monday’s show, Hannity expressed amusement at the firestorm of media coverage unleashed by the disclosure that he and Trump shared a legal adviser in Cohen, playing a 45-second, rapid-fire montage of various TV commentators and anchors uttering his name on the air throughout the day. Cohen has asked the court to give his own lawyers the first look at the seized materials so they can identify documents that are protected by attorney-client privilege. (Full Story) Failing that, they want the court to appoint an independent official known as a special master, a role typically filled by a lawyer, to go through the records and decide what prosecutors can see. But prosecutors want the documents to be reviewed for attorney-client privilege by a “taint team” of lawyers within their own office, who would be walled off from the main prosecution team. “I have faith in the Southern District U.S. Attorney’s Office that their integrity is unimpeachable,” making a taint team “a viable option,” Judge Wood said. But she also said that to help ensure fairness and the perception of fairness, “a special master might have some role here.” Slideshow (11 Images)After the hearing, Cohen left without comment. Daniels, in contrast, stepped up to the bank of microphones set up on the sidewalk, telling reporters that Cohen had thought he was above the law. “My attorney and I are committed that everyone finds out the truth and the facts of what happened, and I will not rest until that happens,” she said. Reporting by Brendan Pierson, Karen Freifeld and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles Writing by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Susan Thomas and Rosalba O'BrienOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

But after that buildup, Mr. Mueller stopped short of pronouncing any conclusion about what all that evidence added up to. He instead demurred with a bland truism: “Judgments about the nature of the president’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.”The gap between the implications of Mr. Mueller’s rationale for stopping short of rendering any legal conclusion and the impression Mr. Barr had created last month by declaring that Mr. Mueller’s demurral “leaves it” to him, as the attorney general, to make that determination was a critical takeaway from the disclosure of the obstruction component of Mr. Mueller’s report.Mr. Barr left out of his letter that Mr. Mueller had decided it was inappropriate for prosecutors to decide whether the evidence met the standard for charging Mr. Trump because the president could receive no trial for now.Instead, Mr. Barr cited a fragment of Mr. Mueller’s rationale in what appears to be a subtly misleading way. In his letter, Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as seeing unspecified “difficult issues” of law and fact in saying that the special counsel declined to decide the obstruction question “one way or the other.”In fact, Mr. Mueller made clear that he would have pronounced Mr. Trump cleared on obstruction if the evidence exonerated the president.“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mr. Mueller wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.”Against that backdrop, Mr. Mueller explained that it would be unfair to analyze the evidence for now because it created the risk that he would conclude that Mr. Trump committed a crime with no possibility of a speedy trial to resolve whether that was true.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. prosecutor on Friday attacked a claim by President Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen that many of the materials seized this week in FBI raids on Cohen’s office and home as part of a criminal investigation should remain private. Prosecutors also confirmed in a court filing on Friday that they have been investigating Cohen for months, largely over his business dealings rather than his legal work. Uncertainty over exactly what FBI agents seized from Cohen comes as Trump faces an intensifying probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into whether his presidential campaign colluded with Russia. The raids were partly a referral by Mueller’s office. U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood in Manhattan ordered Cohen to appear in court on Monday afternoon, after holding three hearings on Friday into his request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking prosecutors from reviewing seized materials. Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom McKay accused Cohen of trying to invoking “wildly overbroad” claims of attorney-client privilege to avoid the disclosure of thousands of allegedly privileged communications related to the president and other cases. These could include claims by Stormy Daniels, the adult film star who claimed to have had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford, wants to be freed from a nondisclosure agreement under which she was paid $130,000 shortly before the 2016 presidential election to keep quiet about that encounter. Cohen wants Wood to let them or a “special master” review the seized materials to decide what can be turned over, without violating the right of his clients to shield communications with their lawyers. “We’re pretty confident there are thousands of privileged communications,” Cohen’s lawyer Todd Harrison told the judge. But “the attorney-client privilege can’t at the same time be used as a sword and as a shield,” McKay told Wood. “What they are trying to do is use attorney-client privilege as a sword to challenge the government’s ability to review evidence” obtained lawfully, McKay added. He called Cohen’s failure to provide “basic facts” about what might be privileged was “fatal” to his request for a TRO. U.S. President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen exits a hotel in New York City, U.S., April 13, 2018. REUTERS/Jeenah MoonMichael Avenatti, a lawyer for Daniels, suggested at one of the hearings that his client might be the subject of some of the seized materials, and her interests needed protection as well. The judge also heard from a new lawyer for Trump, Joanna Hendon, who said the president had “an acute interest” in the case. Hendon, who said Trump hired her on Wednesday evening, urged Wood not to decide who gets first shot to review seized documents until after she files a brief by Sunday night. “I’m not trying to delay anything but nor do I see a particular rush,” Hendon said. In Friday’s filing, prosecutors said it would be “unprecedented” to allow Cohen’s lawyers to decide what it is privileged, and that the government should be allowed to use its own “taint team,” or “filter team,” to do the job. They also downplayed the scope of potential privilege, saying they had before Monday secretly searched multiple email accounts belonging to Cohen, and which they said indicated that Cohen “is in fact performing little to no legal work.” Slideshow (7 Images)The raids infuriated Trump, who tweeted “Attorney-client privilege is dead!” on Tuesday. McKay said Trump’s ability to invoke the privilege is “no different” from anyone else’s. FBI agents who conducted the raids were seeking information on payments to Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who also claims to have had a sexual relationship with Trump, a person familiar with the matter has said. Investigators have also looked for a possible broader pattern of fraud, tax evasion, money laundering and other crimes in Cohen’s private dealings, including his work for Trump and real estate purchased by Russian buyers, the person said. Reporting by Karen Freifeld, Brendan Pierson and Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Frances Kerry and Clive McKeefOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

(Reuters) - The following is a timeline of significant developments in the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller into U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help get Donald Trump elected: FILE PHOTO: Special Counsel Robert Mueller departs after briefing the U.S. House Intelligence Committee on his investigation of potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 20, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein/File PhotoMay 17 - U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints former FBI Director Mueller as a special counsel to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and to look into any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and people associated with Republican Trump’s campaign. The appointment follows President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey on May 9 and days later Trump attributed the dismissal to “this Russia thing.” June 15 - Mueller is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, the Washington Post reports. Oct. 30 - Veteran Republican political operative Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign chairman for five months at crucial junctures in the run-up to the election, is indicted on charges of conspiracy against the United States and money laundering as is his business partner Rick Gates. - Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleads guilty to a charge of lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials. Dec. 1 - Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser for less than a month and who had a prominent campaign role, pleads guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI about his discussions in 2016 with the Russian ambassador to Washington. Feb. 16 - Federal grand jury indicts 13 Russians and three firms, including a Russian government propaganda arm called the Internet Research Agency, accusing them of tampering to support Trump and disparage Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The accused “had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election” according to the court document filed by Mueller. - An American, Richard Pinedo, pleads guilty to identity fraud for selling bank account numbers after being accused by prosecutors of helping Russians launder money, buy Facebook ads and pay for campaign rally supplies. Pinedo was not associated with the Trump campaign. Feb. 22 - Manafort and Gates charged with financial crimes, including bank fraud, in Virginia. Feb. 23 - Gates pleads guilty to conspiracy against the United States and lying to investigators. He agrees to cooperate and testify against Manafort at trial. April 3 - Alex van der Zwaan, the Dutch son-in-law of one of Russia’s richest men, is sentenced to 30 days in prison and fined $20,000 for lying to Mueller’s investigators, becoming the first person sentenced in the probe. April 9 - FBI agents raid home, hotel room and office of Trump’s personal lawyer and self-described “fixer” Michael Cohen. April 12 - Rosenstein tells Trump that he is not a target in Mueller’s probe. April 19 - Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump supporter in the election campaign, joins Trump’s personal legal team. June 8 - Mueller charges a Russian-Ukrainian man, Konstantin Kilimnik, a Manafort business partner whom prosecutors suspect of having ties to Russian intelligence, with witness tampering. July 13 - Federal grand jury indicts 12 Russians whom prosecutors describe as military intelligence officers, on charges of hacking Democratic Party computer networks in 2016 and staged releases of documents. Moscow, which denies interfering in the election, says there is no evidence that the 12 are linked to spying or hacking. July 16 - In Helsinki after the first summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump publicly contradicts U.S. intelligence agencies, says no reason for Russia to meddle in election. He calls the Mueller inquiry a “rigged witch hunt” on Twitter. Aug. 21 - A trial jury in Virginia finds Manafort guilty on eight counts of fraud. - Cohen, in a case brought by U.S. prosecutors in New York, pleads guilty to tax fraud and campaign finance law violations. Cohen is subsequently interviewed by Mueller’s team. Aug. 31 - Samuel Patten, an American business partner of Kilimnik, pleads guilty to unregistered lobbying for pro-Kremlin political party in Ukraine. Sept. 14 - Manafort pleads guilty to some charges and signs a cooperation agreement with Mueller’s prosecutors. Oct. 22 - Giuliani says Manafort’s lawyer has kept Trump informed about Manafort’s meetings with prosecutors and Manafort has not said anything damaging against the president. Nov. 8 - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigns at Trump’s request. He had recused himself from the Mueller inquiry because of his contacts with the Russian ambassador as a Trump campaign official; Trump appoints Sessions’ chief of staff Matthew Whitaker, a critic of the Mueller probe, as acting attorney general. Nov. 20 - Giuliani says Trump submitted written answers to questions from Mueller. Nov. 27-28 - Prosecutors say Manafort breached his plea deal by lying to investigators, which Manafort denies; Trump says he has not ruled out granting Manafort a presidential pardon. Nov. 28 - Giuliani says Trump told investigators he was not aware ahead of time of a meeting in Trump Tower in New York between several campaign officials and Russians in June 2016. Nov. 29 - Cohen pleads guilty in the Mueller investigation to lying to Congress about the length of discussions in 2016 on plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. “I made these misstatements to be consistent with individual 1’s political messaging and out of loyalty to individual 1,” says Cohen, who previously identified “individual 1” as Trump. - The president criticizes Cohen as a liar and “weak person.” Dec. 12 - Two developments highlight growing political and legal risks for Trump: Cohen sentenced to three years in prison for crimes including orchestrating hush payments to women in violation of campaign laws before the election; American Media Inc, publisher of National Enquirer tabloid, strikes deal to avoid charges over its role in one of two hush payments. Publisher admits payment was aimed at influencing the 2016 election, contradicting Trump’s statements. Jan. 25 - Longtime Trump associate and self-proclaimed political “dirty trickster” Roger Stone charged and arrested at his home in Florida. Stone is accused of lying to Congress about statements suggesting he may have had advance knowledge of plans by Wikileaks to release hacked Democratic Party campaign emails. Feb. 21 - U.S. judge tightens gag order on Stone, whose Instagram account posted a photo of the judge and the image of crosshairs next to it. Feb. 22 - Manhattan district attorney’s office is pursuing New York state criminal charges against Manafort whether or not he receives a pardon from Trump on federal crimes, a person familiar with the matter says. Trump cannot issue pardons for state convictions. Feb. 23 - Mueller’s office recommends no leniency in sentencing for Manafort for charges brought in federal court in Washington, describing him as a “hardened” criminal who repeatedly broke the law. Manafort, 69, is likely to spend the rest of his life in prison when he is sentenced in his Virginia case on March 7 with prosecutors recommending 19 -1/2 years to 24 -1/2 years. Feb. 24 - Senior Democratic U.S. Representative Adam Schiff says Democrats will subpoena Mueller’s final report on his investigation if it is not given to Congress by the Department of Justice, and will sue the government and call on Mueller to testify to Congress if necessary. Feb. 27 - Cohen tells U.S. House Oversight Committee Trump is a “racist,” a “conman” and a “cheat” who knew in advance about a release of emails by WikiLeaks in 2016 aimed at hurting rival Clinton. Trump directed negotiations for a real estate project in Moscow during the campaign even as he publicly said he had no business interests in Russia, Cohen testifies. March 7 - Manafort was sentenced in the Virginia case to almost four years in prison. The judge also ordered Manafort to pay a fine of $50,000 and restitution of just over $24 million. Compiled by Grant McCool in New York; editing by Jonathan OatisOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer was forced on Monday to reveal in a New York federal court that Fox News personality Sean Hannity, one of Trump’s most ardent defenders, was also on his client list. Michael Cohen, Trump’s fiercely loyal and pugnacious lawyer, disclosed Hannity’s name through one of his own lawyers at the order of the judge. Stormy Daniels, an adult-film actress who says she had a sexual encounter with Trump, watched from the public gallery. Daniels, in a separate civil case, is fighting a 2016 non-disclosure agreement arranged by Cohen in which she got $130,000 to stop her from discussing her claim she had sex with Trump a decade earlier, something Trump has denied. Hannity, 56, said on Monday that he had never paid for Cohen’s services or been represented by him, but had sought confidential legal advice from him. The conservative host often uses his weeknight broadcast on Fox News to defend the president against what he sees as biased attacks by the media. Sometimes Trump praises Hannity in return. Cohen was in court to ask the judge to limit the ability of federal prosecutors to review documents seized from his offices and home last week as part of a criminal investigation, which stems in part from a probe into possible collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. (Full Story) The Russia investigation has frustrated the White House as it has spread to enfold some of Trump’s closest confidantes. Judge Kimba Wood spent more than 2-1/2 hours listening to arguments by Cohen’s lawyers, prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan and a lawyer representing Trump in the hearing. She is expected to rule later. She ordered prosecutors to give Cohen’s lawyers a copy of the seized materials before the next hearing. The unexpected naming of Hannity made him the latest prominent media personality to be drawn into the investigation’s cast of unlikely supporting characters. Related CoverageSean Hannity says he never retained Trump lawyer Michael CohenFactbox: How does U.S. attorney-client privilege rule apply to FBI raid on Trump's lawyer?Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was another. As she arrived at the courthouse dressed in a lavender suit, photographers knocked over barricades as they scrambled to get pictures. Daniels sat with her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, who told reporters they were there to help ensure protection for the integrity of the seized documents, some of which they believe pertain to the Daniels agreement. Cohen, dressed in a dark suit, at times looked tense, folding and clasping his hands in front of him. Cohen has argued that some of the documents and data seized from him under a warrant are protected by attorney-client privilege or otherwise unconnected to the investigation. But Judge Wood said she would still need the names of those other clients, and rejected his efforts to mask the identity of Hannity, a client Cohen had said wanted to avoid publicity. “I understand if he doesn’t want his name out there, but that’s not enough under the law,” Wood said, before ordering the name disclosed. Stephen Ryan, a lawyer for Cohen, drew gasps and laughter from the public gallery when he named Hannity as the client. FILE PHOTO: Fox News Channel anchor Sean Hannity poses for photographs as he sits on the set of his show "Hannity" at the Fox News Channel's studios in New York City, October 28, 2014. REUTERS/Mike Segar After his identity was revealed, Hannity said on his syndicated radio show, and again later on his Fox News program, that he had “occasional, brief discussions” with Cohen in which he sought out Cohen’s “input and perspective.” Hannity said he assumed those discussions were covered by attorney-client privilege, and insisted that none involved any matter between himself and a third party. He also said his talks with Cohen “almost exclusively focused on real estate.” Legal advice can be considered privileged even if given by a lawyer for free. Hannity, the top-rated personality on the most watched U.S. cable news network, told his viewers on April 9 that the raid on Cohen was part an effort by federal investigators to wrongly impeach the president. He never mentioned his association with Cohen during that broadcast. On Monday’s show, Hannity expressed amusement at the firestorm of media coverage unleashed by the disclosure that he and Trump shared a legal adviser in Cohen, playing a 45-second, rapid-fire montage of various TV commentators and anchors uttering his name on the air throughout the day. Cohen has asked the court to give his own lawyers the first look at the seized materials so they can identify documents that are protected by attorney-client privilege. (Full Story) Failing that, they want the court to appoint an independent official known as a special master, a role typically filled by a lawyer, to go through the records and decide what prosecutors can see. But prosecutors want the documents to be reviewed for attorney-client privilege by a “taint team” of lawyers within their own office, who would be walled off from the main prosecution team. “I have faith in the Southern District U.S. Attorney’s Office that their integrity is unimpeachable,” making a taint team “a viable option,” Judge Wood said. But she also said that to help ensure fairness and the perception of fairness, “a special master might have some role here.” Slideshow (11 Images)After the hearing, Cohen left without comment. Daniels, in contrast, stepped up to the bank of microphones set up on the sidewalk, telling reporters that Cohen had thought he was above the law. “My attorney and I are committed that everyone finds out the truth and the facts of what happened, and I will not rest until that happens,” she said. Reporting by Brendan Pierson, Karen Freifeld and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles Writing by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Susan Thomas and Rosalba O'BrienOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Donald Trump’s bitter confrontation with his political opponents continued to intensify on Monday, after House Democrats set up a vote to hold his attorney general, William Barr, in contempt of Congress.The president has repeatedly lashed out at Democrats as they pursue Barr over what they say was his biased and misleading interpretation of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.Jerrold Nadler, Democratic chair of the House judiciary committee, proposes to hold Barr in contempt after the justice department refused to provide the panel with an unredacted version of Mueller’s report. The committee had given Barr until 9am on Monday to comply.“Even in redacted form, the special counsel’s report offers disturbing evidence and analysis that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice at the highest levels,” Nadler said. “Congress must see the full report and underlying evidence to determine how to best move forward with oversight, legislation and other constitutional responsibilities.”He added: “The attorney general’s failure to comply with our subpoena, after extensive accommodation efforts, leaves us no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings in order to enforce the subpoena and access the full, unredacted report.”Should the committee vote on Wednesday morning to hold Barr in contempt, the resolution will move to the House floor for a full vote to authorise legal proceedings which could drag on for months or years.The fight between Barr and the Democratic-led House has been escalating. The attorney general failed to attend a hearing with the judiciary committee last week, amid a dispute over how he would be questioned. One Democrat, Steve Cohen, protested by eating from a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken, telling reporters: “Chicken Barr should have showed up today.”Hours later, House speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believed the attorney general had lied about his communications with Mueller in testimony last month, which she said was a “crime”. Justice department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec called Pelosi’s accusation “reckless, irresponsible and false”.Critics have accused Barr of acting more like Trump’s personal lawyer than the attorney general of the nation, raising fresh fears over erosion of the rule of law. Some Democrats have called on him to resign.Trump has been enraged by Democrats’ unwillingness to move on from the Mueller investigation, which he falsely claims exonerated him entirely. On Monday he railed against possible impeachment, tweeting: “… there are ‘No High Crimes & Misdemeanors,’ No Collusion, No Conspiracy, No Obstruction. ALL THE CRIMES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE, and that’s what the Dems should be looking at, but they won’t. Nevertheless, the tables are turning!”Reactions to the Mueller report, and Barr’s handling of it, have proved a litmus test of Washington’s partisan polarisation. Monday was no different.The top Republican on the House judiciary committee, Doug Collins of Georgia, said: “Democrats have launched a proxy war smearing the attorney general when their anger actually lies with the president and the special counsel, who found neither conspiracy nor obstruction.”“The Mueller report,” the statement said, “describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming”.Collins described the Wednesday House judiciary vote on Barr and the Mueller report, as “illogical and disingenuous since negotiations are under way with the justice department for access”.A contempt vote would carry symbolic force but it would not compel Barr to hand over the report. The full House would need to approve it, sending a criminal referral to the US attorney for the District of Columbia – a justice department official likely to defend the attorney general.Democrats argue they need to see the full report, including underlying materials, in order to conduct a complete review of Mueller’s investigation. Nadler said the committee wants to see witness interviews and “items such as contemporaneous notes” that are cited in the report. He also asked that all members of Congress be allowed to review an unredacted version.As the conflict with Barr has worsened, Democrats have been in negotiations to hear from Mueller himself. Trump complicated those negotiations on Sunday when he tweeted that he would oppose Mueller’s testimony. Trump had previously said he would leave the question to Barr, who has said he has no objection to Mueller testifying.Nadler said last week the committee was “firming up the date” for Mueller’s testimony, hoping it would be 15 May. Topics William Barr US politics Donald Trump US Congress House of Representatives Democrats news