James Comey’s book, A Higher Loyalty, is finally out. It is, the former FBI director says, a treatise on ethical leadership. But it feels more like a 150-page build-up to a 100-page tell-all about Comey’s role in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails and his disastrous tenure in the first months after US president Donald Trump’s election.Comey offers plenty of details of his life and philosophical approach from before he found himself at the center of what was arguably the most complicated presidential transition in America’s history. But of course, that’s not what the readers who made the book a bestseller before it was even released are interested in. Much of that preamble reads like scene-setting for a defense of his actions in the Clinton investigation, and for his strong criticism of Donald Trump.Here are a few things to worth knowing about A Higher Loyalty—for people who won’t read it, have read it, or are pretending to have read it.Hillary Clinton, her staff, and the many millions who voted for her have little doubt that Comey’s last-minute reveal of an additional avenue of investigation into her emails turned the tide of the election and precipitated Trump’s victory. “I hope very much that what we did—what I did—wasn’t a deciding factor in the election,” Comey writes.Yet Comey, while conceding that “reasonable people might well have handled it differently” never really seems to ponder whether those reasonable people may be right. His logic leaves ample space for questions—he seems, for instance, more concerned with doing what he considers “right” than enforcing what is legal, essentially giving his own moral values priority over the law.This holier-than-thou tone persists throughout the book, which makes his occasional self-criticism feel less than genuine and his assessments of other people—whether accurate or not—come off as rather judgmental. For his own part, he seems to see little to regret in his own career or life.Still, Comey writes, “The stuff that gets me the most is the claim that I am in love with my own righteousness, my own virtue.”One of the threads running through the book is Comey’s experience with bullies. He learned to identify the traits of bullies early on, when he was bullied as a child (before he became the 6-foot-7 giant he is today). He spent his early career dealing with mafia bosses, and then working under former prosecutor and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani—and was therefore exposed to different brands of ego and bullying behavior.“Surviving a bully requires constant learning and adaptation. Which is why bullies are so powerful,” Comey writes, “because it’s so much easier to be a follower, to go with the crowd, to just blend in.”This bullying informed Comey’s understanding of the world, in which confidence is at the root of moral value. Those who are confident, he argues, are humble, kind, and strong. They are good. Those who are insecure are attention-seeking, bullies, and weak. They are not good.On the positive side of this divide, Comey places all his mentors, his wife, Robert Mueller, presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush and, naturally, himself. On the other are people like Giuliani, whose ego got in the way of his law enforcement judgement, in Comey’s view. And, needless to say, Trump.In describing the president, Comey doesn’t mince words: “This President is unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values,” he says. “His leadership is transactional, ego driven and about personal loyalty.”Comey goes so far as to compare the president to a mafia boss: ”The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth.”“A sense of humor strikes me as an important indicator—or ‘tell’—of someone’s ego,” writes Comey. Indeed, through his book he often highlights a sense of humor—his own, or that of the people he interacts with—as an important quality for leaders.Comey is proud of his own jokes, and respects people who can laugh—at themselves and at a situation. He says he likes to inject laughter and humor into the everyday life of overworked colleagues. He reports an episode in which he was made (by Robert Mueller, no less) to repeat a joke he had made about president Bush… in front of the president himself.In one of our daily morning terrorism meetings with the president, FBI director Bob Mueller told him that a suspected Al Qaeda operative named Babar, whom we were closely monitoring, had just gotten a second job in New York.Mueller, not known as a comedian, then paused, turned his head towards me and added “And then Jim said…”Bush looked at me, and so did Vice President Cheney. I froze. Before our meeting, I made a private joke to the FBI director that I hadn’t expected to repeat for the president, who could occasionally display a temper.Time slowed down, way down. I didn’t reply.The president prompted me. “What’d you say, Jim?”I paused and then, horrified, plunged in. “Who says you haven’t created any jobs; this guy’s got two.”To my great relief, Bush laughed heartily.(Cheney was not amused, Comey reports.)Comey spends some time unpacking Bush’s sense of humor, noting how it often had a slight edge, and would make the other person feel slightly demeaned. Obama’s sense of humor was very different, he says—more kind. “I never saw a belittling edge to Obama’s humor, which in my view reflected his confidence,” he writes.Comey remembers, for instance, how Obama asked to take a family photo with the Comeys without the older daughters’ boyfriends, as well as one with—”just in case.”He also recalls a brief interaction he had with Obama on the day of his nomination to FBI director—an episode all the more striking in light of the Trump’s requests for personal loyalty.With a serious look on his face, Obama turned to me and said, “Jim, there’s one thing I forgot to talk to you about.”While I looked confused, the president nodded toward Mueller. “Bob long ago made a commitment to me, and I need you to honor it.” What could this possibly be? The president had assured me of my independence. Now I was being asked for secret assurances?The president paused to signal the gravity of the moment. The he went on. “Bob has always allowed me to use the FBI gym to play basketball, and I need you to commit to continuing that.”There is no mention of Trump displaying humor. In Comey’s descriptions, the president appears self-serious and incapable of finding humor even in ridiculous things, such as the rumored “pee tapes.” In fact, he describes Trump denying the existence of the tape with great seriousness—”I’m a germaphobe, there’s no way I would let people pee on each other around me,” he recalls Trump telling him. “No way.”Comey broke into laughter after Trump said that, he recalls. Trump did not.Joking aside, Comey reports that Mueller does not mess around. He writes:Bob was not a jokester, and his severe demeanor intimidated most people. Word at the Bureau was that he had knee surgery not long after 9/11 and declined anesthesia in favor of biting on a leather belt.Comey’s descriptions of Trump rehash many of the liberal internet’s most tired jokes: The orange-ness of Trump, the size of his hands, the shape of his hair—they are all in the book, serving no higher purpose than belittling the man for his physical appearance.“His face appeared slightly orange with bright white half-moons under his eyes where I assumed he placed small tanning goggles, and impressively coifed, bright blond hair, which upon close inspection looked to be all his,” Comey writes. “I remember wondering how much it would take him in the morning to get done. As he extended his hand, I made a mental note to check its size. It was smaller than mine, but did not seem unusually so.”Comey also reports trivial episodes that make the president look less than sophisticated. At one dinner, he writes:The president began by admiring his own card, which he held up.“They write these things out one at a time, by hand,” he marveled, referring to the White House Staff.“A calligrapher,” I replied, nodding.He looked quizzical. “They write them by hand,” he repeated.This mockery looks a lot like bullying the bully. And by applying his own logic, it’s not a strategy that makes Comey look especially confident.

It means that Mr. Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid. Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes. But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper. It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power.If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground.Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.What goes for a mere lawyer at the N.L.R.B. goes in spades for the attorney general of the United States, the head of the Justice Department and one of the most important people in the federal government. It is one thing to appoint an acting underling, like an acting solicitor general, a post one of us held. But those officials are always supervised by higher-ups; in the case of the solicitor general, by the attorney general and deputy attorney general, both confirmed by the Senate.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will next week question Rod Rosenstein, the U.S. Justice Department official who oversees a special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and links between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Moscow, committee chairmen said on Thursday. FILE PHOTO: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appears with U.S. President Donald Trump at a roundtable on immigration and the gang MS-13 at the Morrelly Homeland Security Center in Bethpage, New York, U.S., May 23, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File PhotoThe Republican chairmen of two U.S. House of Representatives panels have accused the Justice Department of withholding documents in the probe. They have also wanted to interview Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general and No. 2 official at the Justice Department, about a New York Times report in September that he had discussed the idea of wearing a wire to record Trump and impeaching the president under a constitutional amendment. Rosenstein said the report was inaccurate. The report led to speculation Trump would fire Rosenstein, but Trump, a Republican, said last week he had no plans to replace Rosenstein. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy said in a statement that Rosenstein would sit for the closed-door interview on Oct. 24. Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lead the Russia probe after Trump fired Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey in May 2017. For months now, Republicans have issued subpoenas and sought documents in connection with the investigation. Republicans say the FBI made missteps when it applied to a special court for a warrant to conduct surveillance on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and questioned the FBI’s use of a confidential informant who reached out to several Trump campaign officials. In addition to Goodlatte and Gowdy, the top Democrats on the Oversight and Judiciary panels, Representatives Elijah Cummings and Jerry Nadler, respectively, will also attend the interview. The statement from Goodlatte and Gowdy said a transcript of the interview, which will be conducted under oath, would be publicly released after being reviewed by U.S. intelligence agencies. Russia has denied interfering in the election and Trump denies any collusion, frequently describing the Mueller investigation as a political witch hunt. Reporting by Eric Beech; editing by Grant McCoolOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida and one of the president’s most ardent supporters on Capitol Hill, praised Mr. Trump’s decision in a statement and said it came in the face of “unnecessary delays, redactions and refusals.”“These documents will reveal to the American people some of the systemic corruption and bias that took place at the highest levels of the D.O.J. and F.B.I., including using the tools of our intelligence community for partisan political ends,” Mr. Gaetz said.Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, accused the president of abusing his power “to intervene in a pending law enforcement investigation by ordering the selective release of materials he believes are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative.”In addition to parts of the application, Mr. Trump also ordered the director of national intelligence and law enforcement officials to declassify F.B.I. interviews about the case with Bruce G. Ohr, a Justice Department official who has been caught up in Mr. Trump’s attacks on national security officials.Mr. Ohr, a veteran prosecutor who fought Russian organized crime for years, met repeatedly with a British spy who specialized in Russia, Christopher Steele, who compiled a dossier of explosive, unverified claims about Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign. Mr. Steele was also an F.B.I. informant, but agents ended that relationship in late 2016 because he had spoken to journalists about the work he did for the bureau.Mr. Steele investigated ties between Mr. Trump and Russia for the same research firm, Fusion GPS, where Mr. Ohr’s wife was a contractor.Mr. Ohr met with Mr. Steele almost a dozen times from late 2016 to May 2017, according to congressional officials. F.B.I. agents interviewed Mr. Ohr after the meetings and documented the information.Mr. Ohr was the only current official singled out by Mr. Trump when he announced this summer that he was reviewing the clearances of several national security officials. Mr. Trump has also repeatedly attacked Mr. Ohr, calling for him on Twitter to be fired.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted on Tuesday of eight counts of financial wrongdoing, giving Special Counsel Robert Mueller a victory in the first trial arising from his investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election. After almost four days of deliberations, a 12-member jury found Manafort guilty on two counts of bank fraud, five counts of tax fraud and one charge of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. The jury in U.S. federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, said it could not reach a verdict on 10 of the 18 counts with which Manafort was charged. Judge T.S. Ellis declared a mistrial on those counts. While the charges against Manafort mostly predate his work on President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign, the guilty verdict triggered an outburst from Trump, who has repeatedly sought to distance himself from Manafort while denouncing the Mueller investigation as a “witch hunt”. “Paul Manafort is a good man. ... It doesn’t involve me, but I still feel - you know, it’s a very sad thing that happened,” Trump said before a rally in West Virginia on Tuesday night. “This has nothing to do with Russian collusion.” Manafort’s conviction on the eight counts came in the same hour that Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty in New York to campaign finance violations and other charges. Manafort stood quietly while the verdict was being read by the clerk. It represented a stunning fall for Manafort, a well-known figure in Republican politics for decades. Related CoverageFollow the money: how Mueller's team made the Manafort caseFactbox: Under investigation or convicted - current and ex-Trump aides facing scrutiny Manafort’s lawyer, Kevin Downing, told reporters afterward that his client was disappointed in the verdict and was evaluating his options. “He is trying to soak it all in,” Downing told Reuters. Mueller’s office declined comment on the verdict. Prosecutors accused Manafort of hiding from U.S. tax authorities $16 million he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine to fund an opulent lifestyle and then lying to banks to secure $20 million in loans after his Ukrainian income dried up and he needed cash. The two bank fraud charges on which he was convicted each carry a potential prison term of up to 30 years. But several sentencing experts predicted Manafort, 69, would receive a prison term of about 10 years. Mark Warner, the senior Democrat on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, warned that any attempt by Trump to use his presidential powers to pardon Manafort or interfere in Mueller’s probe “would be a gross abuse of power and require immediate action by Congress.” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said in a statement: “There have yet to be any charges or convictions for colluding with the Russian government by any member of the Trump campaign in the 2016 election.” FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort departs from U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., February 28, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File PhotoMoscow has denied interfering in the 2016 election and Trump has said there was no collusion. David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor in Miami, said the guilty verdict on eight of 18 counts was “a significant victory” for Mueller and that “the mistrial on the remaining 10 counts is a shallow victory for the defense.” Manafort was convicted on all five charges of filing false tax returns. Prosecutors provided evidence he did not report $16 million in overseas income from 2010 to 2014 but used it to purchase clothes and real estate and renovate his homes. The jury found him guilty for failing to report his overseas bank holdings in just one of the four years cited. Manafort’s lawyers sought to portray the law as complex and raised questions about whether Manafort willfully broke it, a notion that may have given some jurors pause. They were hung on three other related counts. Manafort was found guilty on two counts of bank fraud, one involving a $3.4 million mortgage on a Manhattan condominium and a $1 million business loan. In both cases, the evidence showed Manafort provided false information in order to get the loans. The jury was hung on seven other bank fraud counts, however, including all five conspiracy charges, possibly because the jurors doubted the credibility of Rick Gates, Manafort’s former right-hand man, who pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecution. One count on which the jury was hung was a $5.5 million loan that did not close. Ellis, who was hard on the prosecution throughout the trial, questioned in open court why the government was pursuing a charge on a loan that never materialized, a comment that drew criticism from legal experts and prompted an official complaint from Mueller’s team. Ellis gave the prosecution until Aug. 29 to decide whether to retry Manafort on the charges on which the jury deadlocked. As a result, the judge did not set a sentencing date for the charges on which Manafort was found guilty. Slideshow (6 Images)So far, no jurors have spoken to the media and their names were not made public so it is unclear how they determined their verdict. Manafort now faces a second trial on Sept. 17 in Washington in which he is charged with money laundering, failing to register as a lobbyist in the United States for his work for pro-Kremlin politicians in Ukraine, and obstruction of justice. The second trial promises to delve deeper into Manafort’s Russian connections, including his relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Ukranian-Russian political consultant who was indicted along with Manafort and who Mueller says has ties to Russian intelligence. Reporting by Karen Freifeld, Nathan Layne and Ginger Gibson in Alexandria, Va.; Additional reporting by Pete Schroeder and Katanga Johnson in Alexandria and Jonathan Landay in Washington; Writing by Warren Strobel and Alistair Bell; Editing by Bill Trott and Peter CooneyOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

WASHINGTON — Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director who was fired late Friday, kept contemporaneous memos about his interactions with President Trump and his conversations with the former director James B. Comey, a person close to Mr. McCabe said on Saturday.The memos could bolster the account of Mr. Comey, whose own memos and testimony describe repeated requests by Mr. Trump to clear his name. Mr. Comey said Mr. Trump also asked him to shut down a criminal investigation into his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Both matters are under investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is considering whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct justice.Mr. McCabe’s memos were left at the F.B.I., which means that Mr. Mueller’s investigators have access to them as they work to corroborate Mr. Comey’s account. Mr. Trump has denied pressuring Mr. Comey to end the Flynn investigation. Mr. Comey was fired last spring, and the revelation of his conversations with Mr. Trump helped lead to the special counsel’s appointment.Mr. McCabe is known to have had at least three meetings with the president. In one, he asked Mr. McCabe how he had voted in the presidential election. In each, he asked about Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill, who ran a failed campaign as a Democrat for the Virginia State Senate. Mr. McCabe has identified as a lifelong Republican but did not vote in the 2016 presidential race.

Welcome to Best of Late Night, a rundown of the previous night’s highlights that lets you sleep — and lets us get paid to watch comedy. If you’re interested in hearing from The Times regularly about great TV, sign up for our Watching newsletter and get recommendations straight to your inbox.‘We Have to Talk About It’James Comey sat down with Stephen Colbert on Tuesday and described the shock of being summarily fired from his position as F.B.I. director nearly a year ago. He also explained why he decided to write a book criticizing President Trump. Comey’s book, “A Higher Loyalty,” hit stores on Tuesday.Comey admitted to Colbert that he had been surprised by his firing, given that he was leading an investigation that had to do with the Trump campaign’s own dealings with Russia.COMEY: I actually was quite surprised, because I thought, ‘I’m leading the Russia investigation.’ Even though our relationship was becoming strained, there’s no way I’m going to get fired or whacked.COLBERT: Why? Why wouldn’t you get fired?COMEY: Because that would be a crazy thing to do. Why would you fire the F.B.I. director who is leading the Russia investigation?COLBERT: Because you’re leading the Russia investigation! I don’t know if you’ve dealt with mob bosses before, but they don’t like to be investigated.In recent days Trump has been furiously tweeting about Comey, even suggesting he should be put in jail. Comey told Colbert that the episode seemed to reflect the reasons he decided to write “A Higher Loyalty”: to remind the country that it should not take the president’s public acts too lightly.“My first reaction to those kinds of tweets is a shrug — like, ‘Oh, there he goes again.’ But actually then I caught myself and I said, ‘Wait a minute. If I’m shrugging, are the rest of the country shrugging? And does that mean we’ve become numb to this?’ It’s not O.K. for the president of the United States to say a private citizen should be in jail. It’s not normal, it’s not acceptable, it’s not O.K. But it’s happened so much, there’s a danger we’re now numb to it, and the norm has been destroyed. And I feel that norm destroying in my own shrug. So we can’t allow that to happen. We have to talk about it and call it out. It’s not O.K.” — JAMES COMEYTax HumorTuesday was Tax Day, and it was even more hectic than usual: The I.R.S. website malfunctioned for much of the day. Jimmy Fallon and James Corden made a few tax-related quips based on other news items.“In honor of Tax Day, Hardee’s offered free breakfast biscuits if you said the password ‘made from scratch.’ Arby’s had a similar deal: They gave you a free roast beef sandwich with the password ‘made from squirrel.’” — JIMMY FALLON“It’s Tax Day. Of course Stormy Daniels did her taxes. I thought this was interesting: She listed her hush money from Donald Trump under ‘gross income.’” — JIMMY FALLON“Some great news for Donald Trump, though: Between the constant firings in the White House, the porn-star scandal and the Russia investigation, he was able to write off this entire year as a total loss.” — JAMES CORDEN“The I.R.S. says they expect to receive 17 million tax returns this week. And get this: They think that one or even two of them may be filled out correctly.” — JAMES CORDENThe Punchiest Punchlines (Abstinence Edition)“The president is said to be furious about this book, because it combines the two things he hates most: criticism and reading.” — JIMMY KIMMEL, on “A Higher Loyalty”“I heard about an official in Japan who was arrested yesterday for taking out his garbage in the nude. Wow, when that guy takes out his junk he really takes out all of his junk.” — JIMMY FALLON“It was reported today that President Trump has been pushing for women’s health programs that are based on abstinence. Yeah, Trump said, ‘It was actually my wife’s idea.’” — CONAN O’BRIENThe Bits Worth WatchingHow do you describe a pizza bagel without saying the words “pizza” or “bagel”?Ice Cube seems really happy to be here.What We’re Excited About on Wednesday NightCynthia Nixon, the actress running for governor of New York, will talk to Colbert on Wednesday.Also, Check This OutEach year the Tribeca Film Festival brings a crippling array of choices for attendees. Here are the films — new and old — that the festival’s co-founder Robert De Niro would see if he were you, complete with commentary.

Jeffrey Epstein, the shady businessman accused of running a child sex ring that allegedly catered to some of the world’s richest and most famous men, is dead, reportedly from suicide in a Manhattan federal jail. It’s an infuriating, unjust end that leaves Epstein’s victims with justice undone and the many of us watching this case with questions unanswered. But the end of Epstein’s life can’t mean the end of the inquiry into his deeds – and those of the many people who allegedly looked the other way, or even partook.That Epstein was even able to die by suicide suggests a huge breach. He was the nation’s most notorious federal prisoner at the time he apparently took his life, and had reportedly attempted suicide just weeks earlier. The world’s eyes were on Jeffrey Epstein – but prison guards apparently looked the other way. The first step in seeking justice must be a thorough inquiry into what went wrong. Why was Epstein so loosely monitored? Why was he removed from suicide watch? Why was he in his cell alone, contrary to protocol? Guards were supposed to check on him every 30 minutes – why, that night, didn’t they? How is Epstein’s alleged co-conspirator, Ghislane Maxwell, reportedly somewhere overseas and unaccounted for? And most importantly, who were the decision-makers at the top? All those who enabled this absolute failure of incarceration should pay a significant professional price.Online, conspiracy theories now abound. Observers suggest Epstein was killed by one of the men who may have been implicated in his crimes – maybe Bill Clinton, according to the fringe right, or maybe Donald Trump, according to the fringe left. The entire Epstein case has been shrouded and illusory, which does suggest that there is something darker, and deeper, than we are all seeing. Why else did Epstein get such a sweetheart plea deal from Alex Acosta,a former US attorney from Florida and then Trump’s labor secretary – a deal that, because it did not inform Epstein’s victims, violated federal law? That Epstein evaded true justice for so long, and then managed to cobble his reputation back together after serving his (short and gentle) time, had already raised suspicions of which powerful people had an interest in his discretion. That he was able to end his own life while supposedly under federal watch in a secure facility only feeds into the perception that the shadowy and powerful are pulling some dangerous strings behind a facade of justice.This is dangerous even if it’s not true. America’s criminal justice system, like our government generally, only functions if the population trusts it. The official explanation for Epstein’s death comes down to rank incompetence. And it’s probably true. But of course in this broader context it is fueling conspiracy theories. Of course even those of us who are skeptical of conspiracy theories are pausing here to wonder how this guy got away with so much – and whether the secrets of a great many rich and powerful men will die with him.The only answer is to refuse to let this inquiry end with Epstein’s life. An independent investigating body must look at every decision that was made, and every person involved, in the lead-up to Epstein’s death. Federal prosecutors have already said that they will continue their criminal inquiries into anyone associated with Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking operation. I hope now that Epstein is dead, his accusers will push even harder in their civil cases against his estate (although of course his death may also create some uncertainty and fear in vulnerable young women).The saddest part of this story is that the many women who say they were abused by Epstein as girls are now unable to look him in the face and demand he answer for his alleged crimes. Thanks to Epstein’s death, we may never get the full story. But every person who contributed to this spectacular failure must be held accountable. And every entity that was going after Epstein, from federal prosecutors to lawyers in civil court, should redouble their efforts. Epstein, a narcissist and coward until the end, escaped his obligation to face down the consequences of his abuses. His enablers must not be similarly relieved. Topics Jeffrey Epstein Opinion comment

S9E59World News 03/22/18: Trump Loses Lead Attorney on the Russia Investigation20:08 | 03.22.18 | NR | CCHotel surveillance video shows Las Vegas gunman days before massacre; Disney's 'Frozen' makes its debut on Broadway

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House lawyers are trying to dissuade U.S. President Donald Trump from seeking to get rid of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, as Trump weighs options after the FBI raided his personal attorney’s office and home, two U.S. officials said on Tuesday. White House lawyers Ty Cobb and Donald McGahn have been telling Trump that firing Mueller would leave the president vulnerable to charges of obstruction of justice and have said that he must have “good cause” to order Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to oust Mueller, the officials said. The lawyers repeated those arguments after Monday’s raids targeting Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, but have made little or no progress persuading the president, the officials said. Aides said Trump was fuming on Tuesday over the raids but his future course of action remained unclear. The advice of the lawyers takes on greater significance following the departure of key aides, such as Hope Hicks, who recently resigned as White House communications director. Neither Cobb nor McGahn responded on Tuesday to requests for comment. The White House did not immediately reply to a request for comment about Cobb and McGahn trying to dissuade Trump. Related CoverageFactbox: Under investigation or indicted - the Trump aides facing scrutinyTimeline of Mueller probe of Trump campaign and RussiaTrump has called Mueller’s probe a “witch hunt.” Russia and Trump both deny any wrongdoing. The raids represent a dramatic escalation of a federal inquiry led by Mueller into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible collusion by Trump campaign aides. If Trump tries to scupper the probe, it could set in motion a series of events that eventually threaten his presidency. “The raid is seismic,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, a former federal prosecutor, told MSNBC, adding such searches by the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate the possibility a crime was committed. A source familiar with the matter said FBI agents were looking in Monday’s raids for information on payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Both said they slept with Trump while he was married. U.S. President Donald Trump holds a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque Daniels got $130,000 from Cohen in exchange for signing a non-disclosure agreement concerning her relationship with Trump. The New York Times, which first reported the news about the two women, said the search warrant for the FBI raids also sought information about McDougal, who was paid $150,000 by the parent company of The National Enquirer tabloid, which then withheld a story about her relationship with Trump. Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, has sued Cohen to be released from a nondisclosure agreement over an alleged one-night stand with Trump in 2006. McDougal has said she had a longer affair with him. Trump officials have denied he had relations with either woman. Investigators were also looking into whether there was a broader pattern of tax fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion, money laundering and other crimes in Cohen’s private dealings, including his work for Trump and some real estate transactions that involved Russian buyers and prices that appeared to be well above market values, the source said. Senior members of the U.S. Congress have repeatedly urged Trump not to fire the special counsel. Critics have said any Trump effort to remove Mueller would amount to interference in the investigation. A White House aide said Justice Department guidance that only Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, could fire Mueller did not apply to Trump, who has the authority to fire anyone in the executive branch. Asked on Monday after the FBI raids if he would fire Mueller, Trump replied, “We’ll see what happens.” Slideshow (3 Images)When asked about the issue, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a Tuesday briefing: “He certainly believes he has the power to do so.” Trump’s friends rallied to his defense. “This is about getting Donald Trump at all costs even if it means stretching the boundaries of exceptions to attorney-client privilege,” said former Trump campaign adviser Michael Caputo. Reporting by Jeff Mason and John Walcott; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Nathan Layne, Amanda Becker, Makini Brice; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Frances Kerry and Howard GollerOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Enlarge this image Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and current lawyer for President Trump, speaks to members of the media during a White House Sports and Fitness Day last month. Giuliani suggested Friday that presidential pardons could be given to people caught up in the Mueller investigation. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Alex Wong/Getty Images Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and current lawyer for President Trump, speaks to members of the media during a White House Sports and Fitness Day last month. Giuliani suggested Friday that presidential pardons could be given to people caught up in the Mueller investigation. Alex Wong/Getty Images Updated, 10:15 p.m. ETOn the same day that that President Trump's former campaign chairman was sent to jail, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani floated the idea that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation could be "cleaned up" with presidential pardons. Politics Judge Orders Paul Manafort Detained Amid Witness Tampering Allegations "When the whole thing is over, things might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons," Giuliani told the New York Daily News on Friday.The blunt remarks came the same day that Manafort was ordered to jail amid allegations of witness tampering. Manafort is facing charges including alleged money laundering, tax evasion and conspiracy stemming from Mueller's investigation into Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election and whether the Trump campaign and associates were involved. Trump himself tweeted that Manafort's treatment was "Very unfair!"The comments from Giuliani, the freewheeling former New York City mayor whose unscripted comments have caused the White House headaches since he joined the Trump legal team, are the clearest signal yet that Trump would consider pardoning his associates swept up in the Mueller probe — which could make them more reluctant to cooperate with investigators and raise questions of whether Trump is abusing his pardon power to obstruct justice.Giuliani later told CNN that he wasn't suggesting that the president should pardon anyone in the near-term, but that there was historical precedent for pardons once an investigation is done. Giuliani citing pardons issued by President Ford for those involved in Watergate, those issued by the first President Bush for those involved in Iran-Contra, by President Clinton in the Whitewater case, and others."Let me make it clear, right now, anybody listening," Giuliani told CNN's Chris Cuomo, "He is not going to pardon anybody in this investigation. But he is not, obviously, going to give up his right to pardon if a miscarriage of justice is presented to him after the investigation is over." Politics Trump's Moves May Mark A New Era Of The Celebrity Pardon Giulini also denied that Trump was trying to send a message by suggesting pardons for those who could potentially testify against him.Trump was asked Friday morning by reporters about the possibility of pardons, and he demurred."I don't want to talk about that. No, I don't want to talk about that," the president responded — though he did say "I do want to see people treated fairly." Law As Mueller Picks Up Pace, Capital Roils With Talk Of Pardons And Firing Trump has embraced using his pardon power, giving clemency to celebrities and controversial political figures. But to use it for political allies in such a potential way would be new legal ground.Constitutional scholar Cass Sunstein told NPR's Nina Totenberg last year that the Founding Fathers believed abusing the pardon power would, indeed, be an impeachable offense."If the president counsels crimes personally or participates in a crime personally," Sunstein said, "and then exercises the pardon power so as to shelter the people who engaged in those crimes, the Virginia debate is very clear. That is an impeachable offense."Other legal scholars say that while Trump could wield his pardon power in this way, it would be hard to prove intent to obstruct justice by pardoning his friends and aides — for instance, if he were to pardon his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is now cooperating with Mueller. Law Could Trump Pardon Himself? Probably Not "If Trump were to do that, Flynn could not avoid testifying by invoking his right not to incriminate himself. But without potential charges hanging over his head, what would prevent him from lying?" Totenberg reported last July.And it's not just Manafort and Flynn who could be up for potential pardons — Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen decided to separate from his attorney on Wednesday, and some reports suggest that he is considering cooperating with federal investigators in New York.Trump on Friday told reporters, "I always liked Michael Cohen. I haven't spoken to Michael in a long time." He added that he is not worried about Cohen cooperating because Trump says he himself has done nothing wrong.It's also unclear whom Mueller's probe could reach next — perhaps even Trump's own children.Another idea the president and Giuliani have discussed is whether Trump could pardon himself in the context of the Mueller probe."As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?" Trump tweeted earlier this month.That pre-emptive defense came after Giuliani said on ABC's This Week that Trump "has no intention of pardoning himself, but he probably — not to say he can't.""I think the political ramifications would be tough. Pardoning other people is one thing; pardoning yourself is tough."

James Comey’s book is called A Higher Loyalty. But judging from his blockbuster interview with ABC News, it should have been called The Art of the Possible. If only as the logical sequel to The Art of the Deal.Did Donald Trump consort with a golden shower of prostitutes in a Moscow hotel? “I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It’s possible, but I don’t know.”Do the Russians have something on Donald Trump, asked George Stephanopoulos?“I think it’s possible. I don’t know,” Comey said. “These are more words I never thought I’d utter about a president of the United States, but it’s possible.”Should he have denied Trump’s request to drop his investigation into his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn? “It’s possible that in the moment, I should – you know, another person would have said, ‘Sir, you can’t ask me that. That’s a criminal investigation. That could be obstruction of justice.’”Should he have waited for his FBI agents to look at Anthony Weiner’s emails before blowing up the election on its final weekend, not once but twice? “Well maybe,” he conceded. “And maybe another director might have done that.”How about that Trump demand for loyalty at a private dinner between the two of them in the White House? Was it a mistake to agree to give Trump “honest loyalty” instead?“Maybe, maybe,” said Comey. “Yeah, that’s fair feedback. Maybe I should’ve been tougher or more direct, especially given what I know now.”Possibly, maybe. Comey just can’t help having it both ways: Trump is possibly a lying mafia boss who might possibly destroy the US as Comey knows and loves it. But Comey couldn’t possibly have tipped the election to such a man because his actions possibly made no difference.This kind of hedging gets confusing when you’re warning about existential dangers to democracy. Except on one point, where Comey is unusually clear. Is Donald Trump unfit to be president?“I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president,” he said. “I think he’s morally unfit to be president. A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they’re pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it: that person’s not fit to be president of the United States on moral grounds.”Moral clarity may be Comey’s strength but he is in fact a slimeball. He is also not smart, and the worst FBI director in history. By far. We know all these things because the president of the US helpfully told us them a few hours before Comey’s interview was broadcast on Sunday.In the interests of completeness, you should know that it is the president’s considered opinion that Comey is a nobody (“I hardly even knew this guy”) and a writer of FAKE memos.These presidential statements are not at all fake. You see, Comey is actually part of a conspiracy whose breathtaking complexity and power will surely blow your mind. To wit: in a particularly convoluted corner of the president’s brain, Comey intervened in the final days of the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton – not against her – because he wanted a job from her. The fact that Comey’s email declarations helped Clinton lose the election, and the fact that Trump himself employed Comey, is neither here nor there. Talk about a slimeball!How can we tell what Trump really thinks about Comey, beyond his verbal evacuations on the Tweet machine? We can cross-check them against what he told his Russian besties just after firing the worst FBI director in history.“I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job,” he told them, according to the White House notes of the meeting. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” And they say honesty is such a lonely word. In Trump’s case, it just needs a little Russian company.For his part, Comey thinks of himself as the whistleblower-in-chief, calling attention to the high crimes and misdemeanors of the commander-in-chief. Like all the great whistleblowers, Comey is a deeply flawed human being with more than a little Messiah complex. It was this same delusion about saving the world that led him to break with the FBI and justice department’s longstanding policies not to mess with a presidential election. Comey believed his boss, the then attorney general Loretta Lynch wasn’t independent. He talks about this mysteriously in his book and in his ABC interview, citing classified information. According to the New York Times, his opinion was shaped in large part by a Democratic operative’s account, which was hacked by the Russians, of all people.Knowing all this super-secret stuff, and being so above reproach, Comey felt it was his duty to protect the sanctity of the election by blabbing his mouth to the media just before the election itself. As he likes to say now, he doesn’t know if his public disclosures affected the election, but he really thought they wouldn’t because the polls were so clear.What he really means is that he thought Clinton could survive the hit: a political calculation he wasn’t qualified to make, nor authorized to act upon in public.This is a man who thinks Lynch was trying to have it both ways by calling the email investigation “a matter” rather than “an investigation”.When he told senators he felt “mildly nauseous” that he might have impacted the election, Donald Trump was so pissed that he moved ahead with firing him. The rest of us just continued to feel severely nauseous.But having helped deliver the Trump presidency, Comey is now going out of his way to deliver the Trump impeachment proceedings. And that is clearly leaving his ex-boss feeling more than a little nauseous during most of his non-golfing hours. Comey recalls in some detail Trump’s response when he briefed the president-elect on the Steele dossier, complete with its urine-soaked account of Russian kompromat: “He interrupted very defensively and started talking about it, you know, ‘Do I look like a guy who needs hookers?’”Possibly maybe. More importantly, he now looks like a guy who needs an impeachment lawyer. Topics James Comey Opinion comment

In a striking admission after his unprecedented move to revoke former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance, President Donald Trump said in a new interview that his true motive for targeting Brennan was his role in the start of the Russia investigation. “I call it the rigged witch hunt, [it] is a sham,” Mr. Trump said in a Wednesday interview with The Wall Street Journal. “And these people led it. So I think it’s something that had to be done." Reading off a statement from the president from the briefing room podium prior to his interview, Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday the president's move to revoke Brennan's clearance was related to "risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior." "Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations – wild outbursts on the internet and television – about this Administration," according to the president's statement. "Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation’s most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos." Trump is also expanding his review of revoking potential clearances from nine other current and former officials, all with different levels of involvement in the government's ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion with members of Trump's campaign, Sanders added. In citing the Russia investigation as his motive for attacking Brennan, the move amounts to one of the rare instances since the firing of former FBI Director James Comey where Trump has shown a willingness to move beyond threats and actually use the powers of the presidency to punish people he believes had a role in the Russia probe. Brennan responded Wednesday to the news that his clearance was revoked by describing the act as part of "a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics."

AILSA CHANG, HOST: Former FBI Director James Comey is on a media blitz for the release of his memoir, "A Higher Loyalty." And he's been extremely candid in his criticism of the Trump administration. The first interview to air was an exclusive with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos.(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think the Russians have something on Donald Trump?JAMES COMEY: I think it's possible. I don't know. These are more words I never thought I'd utter about a president of the United States, but it's possible.CHANG: And Comey has a lot more interviews lined up this week, including with NPR. Comey is also a witness in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. So I wondered, what risks does Comey face by speaking out so publicly before the probe is over? We're going to put that question to someone who knows this sensitive territory all too well. John Dean was White House counsel for Richard Nixon, and his testimony at the Watergate hearings helped bring down the Nixon administration. But he turned down book deals and media appearances until the investigation was over. John Dean, welcome to the program.JOHN DEAN: Thank you.CHANG: So why wait? When you were in Comey's position in 1973, why did you decide to wait until it was all over before telling your story?DEAN: It wasn't that it wasn't tempting because I had offers dangled in front of me.CHANG: I'm sure.DEAN: That - as soon as I broke rank with the White House and left, there were offers. But I had long conversations with my criminal defense lawyer. And he said John - he said they're going to - inevitably, if you do a book, they're going to cross-examine you on everything in the book. They will - you'll, you know, book tour, make statements that may be slightly inconsistent, which they will make it seem greatly inconsistent. So he said, I'm just telling you you'd be smart not to do it. I thought that was good advice, and so I followed it. I didn't do a book. I didn't do interviews. I didn't do anything. In fact, I didn't even talk to the defense lawyers on the other side at my lawyer's advice.CHANG: So if you were Comey's lawyer, would you be worried right now? I mean, what are the potential pitfalls you see for Comey - that he'll just misremember things, and he won't be exactly consistent each and every case, each and every interview?DEAN: Exactly. The sooner he gets well-scripted, which is very difficult to do because - for example, he gave a five-hour conversation with George Stephanopoulos...CHANG: Right.DEAN: ...Before he did his interview. And I'm sure he doesn't remember exactly the way he phrased everything in that five-hour period. And that will be all used against him. So he's in for a rough ride. He's made the bed. He's going to have to lie in it. He's an experienced prosecutor, so he knows the problem. And I suspect he'll be appropriately cautious on the road.CHANG: Let me put you in the shoes of another lawyer, Robert Mueller. I mean, if you were running this investigation and you saw an important cooperating witness out there giving interview after interview on things coming up in the investigation, how concerned would you be?DEAN: I'm sure he's not happy, but they're friends. He probably has faith in Comey's competence. It was - I was certainly struck by what appeared a very truthful former FBI director Jim Comey, who hopefully will remember - mostly - the same way every time he repeats the stories he's asked.CHANG: Do you see any upsides to having someone as integral to the investigation as Jim Comey beating the drum out there?DEAN: I really don't.(LAUGHTER)DEAN: Other than the fact his family will get some money for the book - it's the only upside I can see.CHANG: So what advice would you give Jim Comey going forward? I mean, now that he's already decided to go public, what advice would you give him besides developing a photographic memory at this point?DEAN: (Laughter) To be very careful and to try to reach some agreements before he goes into interviews as to the parameters of the interviews. And use the basic interview he did with - that's now publicized by ABC - to put that out and become very familiar with it and stay right with it.CHANG: I mean, we don't know how long the Mueller investigation will last. And in the meantime, I know you practiced some restraint. But do you feel that, at some level, the American people deserve to hear details about Trump that only Comey knows?DEAN: Well, that's - yes, but those details will only get more interesting as he goes through the experiences - which I didn't appreciate initially - but having gone through trials, having been cross-examined, seeing how other lawyers handled me, what have you, was all part of the story. And it made for a better book.CHANG: Thank you. John Dean was former White House counsel during the Nixon administration. Thanks very much.DEAN: Thank you.Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

The US Supreme Court spelled out what it takes for Donald Trump to take full advantage of his broad powers on immigration policy.It wasn’t a lot.In a 5-4 vote, the court upheld the Trump administration’s ban on visitors from five Muslim-majority countries—plus North Korea and some Venezuelans—giving Trump one of the biggest victories of his term.The lead plaintiff, the state of Hawaii, had argued the travel ban exceeded the president’s powers because it overrode laws to deal with the very same problem Trump was trying to solve: unreliable information on foreign travelers from the seven targeted countries. Opponents also argued the president’s real intention was to discriminate on the basis of religion, offering Trump’s tweets about a Muslim ban as evidence.The majority of justices found that the president’s travel ban is “squarely within the scope of presidential authority.” Their 39-page opinion issued today (June 26) draws a blueprint for how Trump could come up with lawsuit-proof policies to bar all citizens from other countries. One potential target: the Central American migrants he has been trying to block at the border.Here is what the court established in its ruling:The president already had broad authority under immigration law. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the president can ban foreigners if he can “find” that letting them in “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”The first two versions of the travel ban had raised many questions of how far he could stretch that authority and in what circumstances. Both, as well as the third iteration upheld by the Supreme Court Tuesday, were shot down by the courts.That uncertainty has now been eliminated by the Supreme Court.Trump’s combative tweets didn’t matter, the majority suggested, because the anti-Muslim sentiments espoused in them were nowhere to be found in the executive order implementing the ban.“The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion,” it wrote.That gives Trump’s license to be as discriminatory as he wants in his tweets—as long as his policies avoid that same language.The majority gave a good indication of where it draws the line on the legitimacy of Trump’s actions under immigration law.To meet the court’s requirments in the future, the Trump administration can reproduce the process it spelled out in the 12-page executive order. It included seemingly run-of-the-mill government activities such as reviews and consultations between the Department of Homeland Security and various agencies, setting criteria that foreign governments must meet, and carrying out risk assessments.That was enough for the majority, which remarked that the document was the most detailed presidential order ever issued under the immigration law that the plaintiffs said the ban violated. “The Proclamation reflects the results of a worldwide review process undertaken by multiple cabinet officials and their agencies,” the ruling said.The court decided not to look very deeply into the administration’s motivations. The extent of its review of the policy was to determine whether it “plausibly related to the Government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes.”Courts usually apply that level of scrutiny, known as “rational basis review,” to government policies that don’t appear to be anywhere near violating a person’s fundamental rights, says Carolyn Shapiro, co-director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at the Illinois Institute of Technology. For example, that would be sufficient for a lawsuit challenging a state policy that grants drivers licenses to people 16 years and older. A policy that appears to be discriminatory, for example, one that granted licenses to women at 16 and men at 17, would require a higher level of scrutiny, she says.Under rational basis review, “it’s pretty easy to defend almost any government action,” she adds.Furthermore, justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted with the majority, said that courts don’t always have the authority to weigh in on the constitutionality of government policies. He suggested that the administration police itself to ensure it doesn’t violate the Constitution.“The very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise,” he wrote.The new bar set by the Supreme Court is still an improvement over the previous versions of the travel ban, according to Neal Katyal, the plaintiffs’ lawyer.“While we continue to believe that this third version fails that test, there is no question that by striking down the first two travel bans, the judiciary forced a recalcitrant administration to at least give its order the veil of constitutionality,” he said in a statement.

Enlarge this image Carter Page, former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, speaks to the media after testifying before the House intelligence committee on Nov. 2, 2017. Mark Wilson/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Mark Wilson/Getty Images Carter Page, former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, speaks to the media after testifying before the House intelligence committee on Nov. 2, 2017. Mark Wilson/Getty Images Updated at 7:43 p.m. ETPresident Trump has ordered the intelligence community to "provide for the immediate declassification" of several documents related to the FBI and the Department of Justice, the White House press secretary announced Monday. National Security Big Questions In Russia Case May Be Answered If FISA Documents Are Unredacted The documents in question are specific pages of the June 2017 FISA warrant application related to onetime Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, all FBI interview reports prepared in connection with all FISA warrant applications in connection with Page, and all FBI reports of interviews with Justice Department lawyer Bruce Ohr prepared in connection with the FBI's Russia investigation.Additionally, Trump has ordered the DOJ and the FBI to release all text messages related to the Russia investigation — in unredacted form — of former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page and Ohr."When the President issues such an order, it triggers a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House Counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America's national security interests," a spokesperson for the Department of Justice said in a statement. "The Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President's order."One of Trump's allies in the House cheered the president's decision. "I commend President Trump for his decision to declassify numerous documents, including several redacted pages of the Carter Page FISA application and important messages relating to the Russia investigation," Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said in a statement. "My colleagues in Congress and I have requested these documents for months, but have faced lengthy and unnecessary delays, redactions, and refusals from officials at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Gaetz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, added that he looks "forward to the forthcoming release of these documents, and reviewing them closely."But the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee criticized Trump's move. "President Trump, in a clear abuse of power, has decided to intervene in a pending law enforcement investigation by ordering the selective release of materials he believes are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in a statement that also raised concerns about the possibility that intelligence sources and methods could be compromised by the release ordered by Trump. Politics Trump Administration Releases Classified Warrants For FBI Wiretap Of Carter Page It is not clear from the statement when the declassification and release of the documents will occur. But when it does it would be the latest move by Trump and his administration to release previously secret documents at the heart of claims by the president's allies on Capitol Hill. Those allies, particularly conservative Republicans in the House, contend that the FBI's Russia investigation is biased against Trump at its core and from its early stages. National Security The Russia Investigations: 5 Takeaways About The Inescapable Nunes Memo In July the administration released the previously classified warrant application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court made by the FBI in 2016 seeking permission to surveil Page's communications. But those documents were heavily redacted, with entire pages blacked out. Earlier this year, in February, a memo by House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was also declassified and released. And later that same month, a countermemo by Democrats on the same committee was declassified and released in redacted form. National Security What You Need To Know About Russia Memo Mania: Minority Report Edition Although Monday's announcement had been anticipated, the news comes as the Trump administration is grappling with sexual-assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Politics Trump Revokes Clearance Of Ex-CIA Boss Brennan, Puts Other Critics On Notice A month ago, the president made headlines when he revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, a persistent Trump critic on TV and on Twitter, who played a role in referring information to the FBI that would spark the bureau's Russia investigation. The revocation of Brennan's clearance and the release by the White House of the names of a number of other individuals in federal law enforcement or the intelligence community whose clearances might also be in jeopardy occurred as prosecutors were wrapping up the presentation of their case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and as former Trump aide Omarosa Manigault Newman was on a media tour promoting a new book critical of Trump and his administration.In another headline-grabbing move Monday that had likewise been anticipated, the Trump administration announced it was imposing 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports, the latest salvo in the president's escalating trade dispute with China.

According to the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, UVMMC broke the law, and needs to change its staffing policy on abortion procedures. In a statement, a spokesperson for UVMMC wrote that the medical center “has robust, formal protections that strike the appropriate and legal balance between supporting our employees’ religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs, and making sure our patients are not denied access to safe and legal abortion.”This case is the latest signal that the Trump administration is pointedly championing the rights of religious Americans. As Roger Severino, the head of the Office of Civil Rights, told me in an interview, “Religious-freedom laws are the ones mentioned in the very first amendment to the Constitution—they have pride of place. And they have been neglected for too long.”Since taking over the Office for Civil Rights in 2017, Severino has consistently taken action to protect people’s religious rights in health-care settings. According to Severino, UVMMC’s alleged actions are part of a broader pattern at that medical center, and around the country, of health-care workers being forced to participate in procedures they find morally or religiously objectionable. When it comes to abortion and end-of-life procedures, these objections are often protected by law, including the Weldon Amendment and the Church Amendments. Severino claims that enforcement of these statues has been systematically neglected by previous administrations. In 2018, he established a new office dedicated to investigating claims made along these lines, and this spring, HHS finalized a rule designed to protect people with these kinds of objections.While Barack Obama–era officials have maintained that they took conscience complaints seriously but received relatively few of them, Severino said his office has seen “a surge of complaints” in the two and a half years since Trump’s election. In fiscal year 2018, according to numbers provided by HHS, the Office of Civil Rights received and dealt with more than 1,300 complaints alleging conscience violations or religious discrimination. Trump “has set the tone … that this is going to be taken seriously by the federal government,” Severino said. “If you don’t tell the world that you’re there to help, then people … get frustrated and have nowhere to turn.”In this case, the nurse at UVMMC approached a conservative legal firm that has been closely allied with the Trump administration, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the firm helped her get in touch with HHS. The nurse’s lawyer, Francis Manion, told me that her case is the most extreme example of this kind of discrimination he has encountered. “This is the first time we’ve ever represented somebody who was put in a position where she couldn’t escape from it, even though her employer knew she was a conscientious objector,” he said.

Brazil's leader has ordered the armed forces to fight forest fires in the Amazon, amid international outrage over rising deforestation.President Jair Bolsonaro deployed soldiers in nature reserves, indigenous lands and border areas beset by fires.The move is an apparent reversal from Mr Bolsonaro, who has been accused of emboldening miners and loggers.Other countries had threatened to target Brazil's economy if the nation did not act to stop the fires.France and Ireland have said they will not ratify a large trade deal with South American nations and Finland's finance minister has called on the EU to consider banning Brazilian beef imports.In a televised address to the nation on Friday, Mr Bolsonaro said forest fires "exist in the whole world" and "cannot serve as a pretext for possible international sanctions". Amazon fires: Ten of your questions answered In graphics: How bad are the Amazon fires? What is the 'historic' EU-Mercosur trade deal? Many of the fires are thought to have been started deliberately, with suspicion falling on farmers who may benefit by having more available land.Mr Bolsonaro has scorned environmental activists and declared staunch support for the clearing of areas of the Amazon for agriculture and mining. Experts and campaigners say his administration has given a green light to rainforest destruction.Environmental groups held protests in cities across Brazil on Friday to demand action to combat the fires, and protesters gathered outside the Brazilian embassies around the world.The largest rainforest in the world, the Amazon is a vital carbon store that slows down the pace of global warming. It is known as the "lungs of the world" and is home to about three million species of plants and animals, and one million indigenous people.In his televised address, Mr Bolsonaro confirmed that he had authorised the armed forces to help fight the fires. "I've learned as a military man to love the Amazon forest and I want to help protect it," he said.The decree itself was fairly vague in its wording, but specified that the military would be deployed to nature reserves, indigenous lands and border areas in the region.The deployment of soldiers would be left down to regional governors who can request "preventive action... against environmental crimes" and ask the army to "survey and combat fire outbreaks", it said.Defence Minister Fernando Azevedo e Silva said in a press conference on Saturday that 700 members of the armed forces would initially be sent to the Amazon region. Up to 28bn Brazilian reais ($6.8bn; £5.5bn) would be made available to put out the fires, he said.Mr Bolsonaro has faced deepening international criticism for his handling of the fires. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson have called the fires an international crisis.Ms Merkel called it an "acute emergency" and Mr Macron tweeted: "Our house is burning." Both said the issue must be discussed at this weekend's G7 summit in Biarritz.Amazon: Lungs of the planetSpeaking in Biarritz on Saturday, European Council President Donald Tusk said the EU "stands by the EU-Mercosur agreement but it is hard to imagine a process of ratification as long as the Brazilian government allows for the destruction" of the Amazon.UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Thursday: "In the midst of the global climate crisis, we cannot afford more damage to a major source of oxygen and biodiversity. The Amazon must be protected." US President Donald Trump said that he spoke to President Bolsonaro on Friday evening. "I told him if the United States can help with the Amazon Rainforest fires, we stand ready to assist!" Mr Trump tweeted.Brazil's president has hit back at criticism and accused leaders such as Mr Macron of meddling for "political gain".Earlier this week, he even suggested that non-governmental organisations had started fires in the rainforest - despite admitting he had no evidence for this claim.In his Friday television address, Mr Bolsonaro criticised those spreading "baseless information" about Brazil's commitment to preservation, insisting the country had "modern legislation" to protect most of its forest."We need to bear in mind that more than 20 million Brazilians live in that region," he said. "We need to give opportunity for development. It's not only about protection." He also described the wildfires as within an "average" range for the past 15 years."We are in a traditionally hot and dry season, with high winds, when every year we have wildfires," he said. "In hotter years, wildfires are more common."Satellite data published by the National Institute for Space Research (Inpe) has shown an increase of 85% this year in fires across Brazil, most of them in the Amazon region. It is the highest number of fires since 2010.Mr Bolsonaro has brushed off the latest data, arguing that it was the season of the "queimada", when farmers burn land to clear it before planting. But Inpe has noted that the number of fires is not in line with those normally reported during the dry season.Wildfires often occur in the dry season in Brazil but they are also deliberately started in efforts to illegally deforest land for cattle ranching.Conservationists say Mr Bolsonaro has encouraged loggers and farmers to clear the land. During his campaign, he pledged to limit fines for damaging the rainforest and to weaken the influence of the environmental agency.US space agency Nasa said this month that overall fire activity across the Amazon basin this year had been close to the average.However, it updated its position on Friday, saying satellite data now showed it was the "most active fire year in that region since 2010".This article initially stated there was a record number of fires in Brazil this year. After more satellite data was made accessible, it has been updated to reflect the fact the fires are instead the worst since 2010.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday pardoned former George W. Bush administration official Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who years ago was convicted of lying in an investigation of the unmasking of a CIA agent. Democrats immediately criticized the president’s move, drawing an arc running from the Iraq war to today and linking the Libby pardon to Trump’s bitter feud with James Comey, who Trump fired as FBI director last year, and to a widening investigation of possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The Libby pardon came just hours after Trump’s morning Twitter attack against Comey. The president called the ex-FBI chief a “weak and untruthful slime ball.” Excerpts of Comey’s new book due out Tuesday, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” slam Trump, calling him “unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values.” Before heading the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Comey was deputy attorney general during the Bush administration. During that time, he appointed a special counsel to prosecute a high-profile case that led to Libby’s guilty verdict in 2007. “I don’t know Mr. Libby,” Trump said in a White House statement, “but for years I have heard that he has been treated unfairly. Hopefully, this full pardon will help rectify a very sad portion of his life.” Libby could not immediately be reached for comment. Conservative Republicans had sought a pardon for Libby for years after former Vice President Dick Cheney was unable to persuade Bush to grant one late in his presidency. Bush did, however, commute Libby’s 2-1/2-year prison sentence. Libby, chief of staff to Cheney during the run-up and early years of the Iraq war, was found guilty in 2007 of lying and obstructing an investigation into who blew the cover of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Her husband Joseph Wilson, a former career U.S. diplomat, had criticized the Iraq war. “President Donald Trump has granted a pardon to I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby on the basis that he was ‘treated unfairly.’ That is simply false. Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury in a fair trial,” Plame said in a statement. House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement, “This pardon sends a troubling signal to the president’s allies that obstructing justice will be rewarded.” FILE PHOTO: Lewis "Scooter" Libby listens as his attorney speaks to the media at the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Washington March 6, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Bourg/FilesRepresentative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the Libby pardon was Trump’s way “of sending a message to those implicated in the Russia investigation: You have my back and I’ll have yours.” The Libby pardon coincided with the arrival in the White House of John Bolton as Trump’s new national security adviser. Bolton was a key Bush administration advocate, along with Cheney and Libby, of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. “I am grateful today that President Trump righted this wrong by issuing a full pardon to Scooter,” Cheney said in a statement. Bush spokesman Freddy Ford said, “President Bush is pleased for Scooter and his family.” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders, in a briefing with reporters, said on Friday that the pardon had nothing to do with Trump’s views on Mueller’s investigation. Trump has been attacking the FBI amid the investigation of his 2016 presidential campaign for possible links to Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, and a key Manafort associate are among those who have been indicted in the Russian meddling probe run by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. FILE PHOTO: Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, is greeted by photographers as he departs a federal courthouse at the end of the third day of his perjury trial in Washington,U.S., February 23, 2007. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/FilesWhite House aides said earlier this week that Trump was fuming over FBI raids related to the investigation on Monday of the office and home of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Trump has repeatedly called Mueller’s probe a “witch hunt” and he and Russia have both denied any wrongdoing. It was the second high-profile pardon of Trump’s tenure. Last year, he pardoned Joe Arpaio, a former Arizona sheriff who campaigned for Trump, less than a month after he was convicted of criminal contempt in a case involving racial profiling. Reporting by Steve Holland, Justin Mitchell and Makini Brice; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Bernadette Baum, Bill Trott and David GregorioOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The tabloid company agreed to identify those stories “so they could be purchased and their publication avoided,” the prosecutors said on Tuesday — an inverted role for a tabloid scandal sheet such as The Enquirer, which went on to savage Mr. Trump’s opponents while promoting and protecting him.That deal led to the arrangement with Ms. McDougal, which was struck in August 2016. It only came together, prosecutors said, after Mr. Cohen promised A.M.I. it would be reimbursed for the McDougal payment.But prosecutors also reported for the first time that A.M.I. was intimately involved in the arrangement with Ms. Clifford. The tabloid connected Mr. Cohen with the lawyer who had negotiated the McDougal contract, Keith Davidson. Mr. Davidson also had Ms. Clifford as a client and later hashed out the agreement for Ms. Clifford’s silence.Prosecutors said in court papers that when Mr. Cohen initially failed to finalize the deal, an editor at A.M.I. — a likely reference to Dylan Howard, the company’s chief content officer — alerted Mr. Cohen that there was a risk that Ms. Clifford would sell her story to another media company, one that would publish it.Mr. Cohen’s admission that he broke the law by paying off Ms. Clifford was a remarkable turnaround from the legal and publicity battle that he and his lawyers had waged against her. Ms. Clifford and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, have hounded Mr. Cohen since May, taunting him on social media and predicting his indictment.Mr. Cohen’s lawyers frequently fired back, accusing Mr. Avenatti of “fanning a media storm” and of “smearing” Mr. Cohen in a relentless series of televised appearances.“I predicted this a long time ago before the warrants were even executed,” Mr. Avenatti said on Tuesday. “We feel extremely vindicated.”