Guatemalan Yeni González is one of the few mothers able to see their children after they were separated earlier this year under the Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy when they tried to cross the southern U.S. border illegally. VOA’s Celia Mendoza reported last week when González traveled to New York to see her children at the Cayuga Care Center, where they remain until reunification can be arranged. In this third installment, Mendoza goes to the Guatemalan village where Yeni González used to live and spoke with her relatives about why the mother of three decided to embark on such a dangerous journey.
…

The investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election took another serious turn Friday when the Justice Department announced the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers for conspiring to interfere in the elections. The charges come just days before President Donald Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and on the same day that Trump once again dismissed the Russia probe as a “witch hunt.” VOA National correspondent Jim Malone reports from Washington.
…

A vendor that provides key services for Maryland elections has been acquired by a parent company with links to a Russian oligarch, state officials said Friday after a briefing a day earlier from the FBI.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller and House Speaker Michael Busch made the announcement at a news conference in the Maryland State House, a gathering that included staff members of Gov. Larry Hogan.

“The FBI conveyed to us that there is no criminal activity that they’ve seen,” Busch said. “They believe that the system that we have has not been breached.”

In a letter Friday, Hogan, Busch and Miller asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for technical assistance to evaluate the network used by the elections board.

“It is with concern that I learned that information provided to the Maryland State Board of Elections by federal law enforcement this week indicates that a vendor contracted by the Board to provide a number of services, including voter registration infrastructure, had been acquired by a parent company with financial ties to a Russian national,” Hogan said in a statement.

Miller and Busch also said they have asked Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh to review existing contractual obligations of the state, and asked for a review of the system to ensure there have been no breaches.

Vendor statement 

The vendor, ByteGrid LLC, was purchased by a Russian investor in 2015 without knowledge of Maryland state officials, officials said.

In a statement released late Friday the company said, “ByteGrid’s investors have no involvement or control in company operations.”

It also said, “We stand by our commitment to security in everything we do, and do not share information about who our customers are and what we do for them.” ByteGrid encouraged people to read the company’s Maryland elections contract, which is a public record.

State officials said ByteGrid hosts the statewide voter registration, candidacy, and election management system; the online voter registration system; online ballot delivery system; and unofficial election night results website.

Public trust

Hogan said in his statement that while the information relayed by the FBI did not indicate “any wrongdoing or criminal acts have been discovered,” he noted that even the appearance of the potential for “bad actors” to have any influence on the state’s election infrastructure could undermine public trust in the election system.

“That is why it is imperative that the State Board of Elections take immediate and comprehensive action to evaluate the security of our system and take any and all necessary steps to address any vulnerabilities,” Hogan said.

In a statement, the state elections board said the FBI told officials that ByteGrid is financed by AltPoint Capital Partners, whose fund manager is a Russian, and its largest investor is a Russian oligarch named Vladimir Potanin. The board said that in response, it has been working with various federal and state officials to ensure that voter data and the state’s election systems are secure.

Busch described the leading investor as being “very close to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin.”

Miller said Maryland officials decided it was “imperative that our constituents know that a Russian oligarch has purchased our election machinery, and we need to be on top of it.”

Maryland officials made the announcement hours after the Justice Department released a grand jury indictment against 12 Russian military intelligence officers for computer hacking offenses during the 2016 U.S. election. Miller said that announcement convinced Maryland officials to disclose the FBI briefing, even if the agents who briefed them were not eager to make the information public.

“They weren’t really anxious for us to come forward, but after today we felt we had an obligation to share it with you and share it with our constituents that this has occurred and we want the public to know this as well,” Miller said.

Maryland and US indictment

In a statement, Maryland’s elections board said it was not the state election office mentioned in the federal indictment. The board also said no Maryland election official has used or is using services provided by the vendor referenced in the indictment.

Busch said there was no indication the company had anything to do with a voter registration error at the state’s Motor Vehicle Administration that created the potential for tens of thousands of voters to require provisional ballots in last month’s primary.

Maryland was one of the states with suspicious online activities before the 2016 election, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

In August 2016, the state board says “unusual activity” was observed on the state’s online voter registration and ballot request system, and the board immediately responded. The board says it provided log files to the FBI, one of the state’s cybersecurity vendors and another cybersecurity firm, and all three independently reviewed the transactions related to the activity and found nothing suspicious.
…

As farmer Brian Duncan gently brushes his hands over the rolling amber waves of grain in the fields behind his rural Illinois home, this picturesque and idyllic American scene belies the dramatic hardship he currently faces.

“We’re in trouble,” he told VOA.

Wheat is just one product that grows on Duncan’s diverse farm, also home to about 70,000 hogs annually, which Duncan said “were projected to be profitable this year.”

Were, but not anymore.

Pork is now subject to a 62 percent Chinese tariff, and demand is drying up in one of the world’s largest pork markets.

“Once that tariff went on, the pork stopped going into China. Not going to Taiwan, either. Not finding other routes. That market just disappeared,” said Duncan, who expected to see a $4 to $5 profit on each pig, then watched it become a $7 to $8 loss per head.

“The difference between making and losing money in the hog industry is exports,” said Duncan, acknowledging that for most hog farmers, exports are key to profits. A lack of competitive access to international markets could spell long-term financial hardship, particularly for independent pork producers like Duncan.

“The reality is 95 percent of the world population is outside these borders. We need them … as markets and trading partners,” Duncan said.

Tariffs begin to bite

U.S. farmers like Duncan are beginning to feel the effects of such tariffs imposed by China in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum.

As the trade dispute continues, Duncan, who also serves as vice president of the Illinois Farm Bureau, is losing money on virtually everything growing on his farm because of imposed or impending tariffs.

“Soybeans were a buck and a half higher than they are now,” he told VOA. “Corn was 50 to 70 cents higher than it is now. So, certainly the attitude has changed here in the last two to three weeks.”

So has Duncan’s mood.

“Frustrated. This was preventable. This was predictable — the outcome. There was a better way to go about this,” he said.

​Long-term loss of market

“Tariffs are kind of a last resort for a really specific instance or really serious breach of a contract and not something that you would lob out there to try to make progress in a trade agreement, and I think that’s what surprised farmers a bit,” said Tamara Nelsen, senior director of commodities with the Illinois Farm Bureau.

Nelsen said history shows the long-term impact of tariffs and trade embargoes is a loss of market access and competitiveness for U.S. products.

“In every event, we lost market share, or we encouraged production somewhere else of that same product. And it took U.S. agriculture 20, 30 years to get some of those markets back. And in some cases, we haven’t gotten those markets back.”

For Duncan, the long-term impact on the reputation of U.S. agricultural products is his biggest concern.

“How are we going to be seen? Is a country going to look at us and say, ‘Why would I sign an agreement with them, anyhow? If they don’t like something we do, are they just going to put a bunch of tariffs up and blow things up?’ How are we seen going forward in the next five, 10, 15, 20 years? For me, that is the biggest issue more than the here and now.”

Farm income at risk

But in the here and now is the difficult reality that farmers are also experiencing their fifth year of declining income.

“We’ve seen farm income cut in half in the last four years for various reasons. We could easily see it cut in half again if we lost all our export markets,” which Duncan said could increase dependence on government aid at a time when lawmakers in Washington debate new Farm Bill legislation that the agriculture industry needs to provide security.

All of the uncertainty has him evaluating his options the next time he heads to the ballot box.

“It’s the economy, stupid. My vote will depend an awful lot on the farm economy,” he said. That’s just the world I live in.”

A world that is now more connected — and dependent on international trade — than ever before.
…

As farmer Brian Duncan gently brushes his hands over the rolling amber waves of grain in the fields behind his rural Illinois home, this picturesque and idyllic American scene belies the dramatic hardship he currently faces.

“We’re in trouble,” he told VOA.

Wheat is just one product that grows on Duncan’s diverse farm, also home to about 70,000 hogs annually, which Duncan said “were projected to be profitable this year.”

Were, but not anymore.

Pork is now subject to a 62 percent Chinese tariff, and demand is drying up in one of the world’s largest pork markets.

“Once that tariff went on, the pork stopped going into China. Not going to Taiwan, either. Not finding other routes. That market just disappeared,” said Duncan, who expected to see a $4 to $5 profit on each pig, then watched it become a $7 to $8 loss per head.

“The difference between making and losing money in the hog industry is exports,” said Duncan, acknowledging that for most hog farmers, exports are key to profits. A lack of competitive access to international markets could spell long-term financial hardship, particularly for independent pork producers like Duncan.

“The reality is 95 percent of the world population is outside these borders. We need them … as markets and trading partners,” Duncan said.

Tariffs begin to bite

U.S. farmers like Duncan are beginning to feel the effects of such tariffs imposed by China in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum.

As the trade dispute continues, Duncan, who also serves as vice president of the Illinois Farm Bureau, is losing money on virtually everything growing on his farm because of imposed or impending tariffs.

“Soybeans were a buck and a half higher than they are now,” he told VOA. “Corn was 50 to 70 cents higher than it is now. So, certainly the attitude has changed here in the last two to three weeks.”

So has Duncan’s mood.

“Frustrated. This was preventable. This was predictable — the outcome. There was a better way to go about this,” he said.

​Long-term loss of market

“Tariffs are kind of a last resort for a really specific instance or really serious breach of a contract and not something that you would lob out there to try to make progress in a trade agreement, and I think that’s what surprised farmers a bit,” said Tamara Nelsen, senior director of commodities with the Illinois Farm Bureau.

Nelsen said history shows the long-term impact of tariffs and trade embargoes is a loss of market access and competitiveness for U.S. products.

“In every event, we lost market share, or we encouraged production somewhere else of that same product. And it took U.S. agriculture 20, 30 years to get some of those markets back. And in some cases, we haven’t gotten those markets back.”

For Duncan, the long-term impact on the reputation of U.S. agricultural products is his biggest concern.

“How are we going to be seen? Is a country going to look at us and say, ‘Why would I sign an agreement with them, anyhow? If they don’t like something we do, are they just going to put a bunch of tariffs up and blow things up?’ How are we seen going forward in the next five, 10, 15, 20 years? For me, that is the biggest issue more than the here and now.”

Farm income at risk

But in the here and now is the difficult reality that farmers are also experiencing their fifth year of declining income.

“We’ve seen farm income cut in half in the last four years for various reasons. We could easily see it cut in half again if we lost all our export markets,” which Duncan said could increase dependence on government aid at a time when lawmakers in Washington debate new Farm Bill legislation that the agriculture industry needs to provide security.

All of the uncertainty has him evaluating his options the next time he heads to the ballot box.

“It’s the economy, stupid. My vote will depend an awful lot on the farm economy,” he said. That’s just the world I live in.”

A world that is now more connected — and dependent on international trade — than ever before.
…

U.S. farmers are beginning to feel the effects of tariffs imposed by China in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum. As VOA’s Kane Farabaugh reports, while the short-term concern for farmers is the impact on profits this year, the bigger worry is the longer term consequences of the escalating trade dispute.
…

U.S. farmers are beginning to feel the effects of tariffs imposed by China in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum. As VOA’s Kane Farabaugh reports, while the short-term concern for farmers is the impact on profits this year, the bigger worry is the longer term consequences of the escalating trade dispute.
…

Lourdes de León is among the mothers who have been deported by the U.S. government without their children after being separated on the southern border of the United States. Since her return to Guatemala, de León’s only objective is to be reunited with her 6-year-old boy, who is still in New York. VOA’s Celia Mendoza spoke Lourdes de León at her home in San Pablo, San Marcos.
…

Lourdes de León is among the mothers who have been deported by the U.S. government without their children after being separated on the southern border of the United States. Since her return to Guatemala, de León’s only objective is to be reunited with her 6-year-old boy, who is still in New York. VOA’s Celia Mendoza spoke Lourdes de León at her home in San Pablo, San Marcos.
…

Porn actress Stormy Daniels was arrested at an Ohio strip club and is accused of letting patrons touch her in violation of a state law, her attorney said early Thursday.

While Daniels was performing at Sirens, a strip club in Columbus, some patrons touched her in a “nonsexual” way, her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, told The Associated Press. 

An Ohio law known as the Community Defense Act prohibits anyone who isn’t a family member to touch a nude or semi-nude dancer. 

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was in police custody early Thursday morning and was expected to face a misdemeanor charge, Avenatti said. 

“This was a complete set up,” he said. “It’s absurd that law enforcement resources are being spent to conduct a sting operation related to customers touching performers in a strip club in a nonsexual manner.”

A Columbus police spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment. A person who answered the phone at the strip club declined to comment. 

Daniels has said she had sex with President Donald Trump in 2006 when he was married, which Trump has denied. She’s suing Trump and his former longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and seeking to invalidate a nondisclosure agreement that she signed days before the 2016 presidential election.
…

Porn actress Stormy Daniels was arrested at an Ohio strip club and is accused of letting patrons touch her in violation of a state law, her attorney said early Thursday.

While Daniels was performing at Sirens, a strip club in Columbus, some patrons touched her in a “nonsexual” way, her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, told The Associated Press. 

An Ohio law known as the Community Defense Act prohibits anyone who isn’t a family member to touch a nude or semi-nude dancer. 

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was in police custody early Thursday morning and was expected to face a misdemeanor charge, Avenatti said. 

“This was a complete set up,” he said. “It’s absurd that law enforcement resources are being spent to conduct a sting operation related to customers touching performers in a strip club in a nonsexual manner.”

A Columbus police spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment. A person who answered the phone at the strip club declined to comment. 

Daniels has said she had sex with President Donald Trump in 2006 when he was married, which Trump has denied. She’s suing Trump and his former longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and seeking to invalidate a nondisclosure agreement that she signed days before the 2016 presidential election.
…

Embattled FBI official Peter Strzok appeared before Congress on Thursday, rejecting Republican criticisms that a series of text messages he exchanged with FBI lawyer Lisa Page during the 2016 presidential campaign were evidence of bias against President Donald Trump. 

Strzok, a deputy assistant FBI director who led the bureau’s 2016 investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and briefly worked on the Russia investigation team, testified he never let his personal views interfere with his work for the bureau.

“Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath: Not once in my 26 years of defending my nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took,” Strzok told a joint hearing by the House judiciary and government oversight committees. 

Strzok’s first public testimony came after he met behind closed doors with members of the two panels for nearly 11 hours last month.

The session got off to a tense start after Strzok declined to answer questions about the Russia investigation, leading the chairman of the judiciary panel, Bob Goodlatte, to threaten holding him in contempt of Congress. Democrats on the panel interjected, accusing Republicans of harassing Strzok. 

Strzok, a 22-year FBI counterintelligence veteran who also served in the Army for four years, headed the bureau’s Clinton email investigation and briefly worked on the Russia election interference investigation team led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Strzok was removed from the team, however, after the disclosure of his text messages.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, last month released a report about the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, criticizing Strzok and Page for exchanging text messages that “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”

Strzok and Page were romantically involved at the time. In one text message uncovered by the inspector general, Strzok wrote to Page, “No. No, he won’t. We’ll stop it,” in response to Page’s question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

The inspector general wrote that Strzok’s response “is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.”

Pressed about the text message, Strzok explained that he sent the message late at night out of revulsion at then-candidate Trump’s denigration of the family of a U.S. service member killed in Iraq. The text, he said, reflected his personal view of the “horrible, disgusting behavior” of the candidate.

Trump has seized on Strzok and Page’s texts to denounce the Mueller probe as nothing more than a “rigged witch hunt.”

Strzok said he was removed from the Russia investigation team and reassigned to the FBI’s human resources department not because of his anti-Trump “bias” but because Mueller was concerned about the “appearance of potential bias” created by the text messages.

Strzok said he was one of a “handful” of people at the FBI with knowledge of the Russian interference probe in the 2016 presidential election and yet he declined to disclose it. 

“This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump,” he said. “But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

Page, who recently was subpoenaed to testify, has agreed to appear before the committees on Friday and Monday, Goodlatte’s office announced.

Trump lashed out directly at Page in a Twitter post Thursday from Brussels.

​
…

As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week, lawmakers from Trump’s Republican Party offer differing accounts of their visit to Moscow. While one U.S. senator called for the U.S. to lift sanctions against Russia, another compared dealing with Moscow to dealing with the mafia. VOA Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine looks at what appears to be a shift among many in the Republican Party, which traditionally has taken a hard line on Russia.
…

The Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to confirm a lawyer who briefly represented a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin to head the Justice Department’s criminal division.

The confirmation of Brian Benczkowski came two days after Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee urged President Donald Trump to pull his nomination, saying Benczkowski’s lack of prosecutorial experience and representation of Alfa Bank disqualified him for the job.

As a partner in the Washington office of the Kirkland & Ellis law firm, Benczkowski, 48, represented Alfa Bank early last year when it was being investigated by the FBI over a series of data transmissions between computer servers linked to the bank and the Trump Organization during the 2016 presidential election.

The data transmissions have not revealed any evidence that Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s largest financial institutions, served as a link between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Nevertheless, the controversy dogged Benczkowski’s nomination.

‘Demonstrated poor judgment’

The 10 Democrats on the judiciary panel wrote in a letter on Monday that Benczkowski “demonstrated poor judgment” by representing Alfa Bank at a time he was under consideration to head the criminal division.

“At a time when we need the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division to help uncover, prevent and deter Russian interference in our democracy, Mr. Benczkowski’s choices so far have not inspired confidence that he is the right person to lead the fight,” they wrote.

Despite Democratic opposition, Benczkowski’s nomination drew support from former Justice Department officials, with five former heads of the criminal division recently urging the Senate to confirm the nod, praising him for his “professional experience, temperament and integrity.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions praised Benczkowsi as “an outstanding lawyer with a diverse public service and criminal law background spanning more than 20 years.”

“At a time like this — with surging violent crime and an unprecedented drug epidemic — this position is especially important,” Sessions said in a statement.

Committee work

Before joining Kirkland & Ellis, Benczkowsi served in a number of senior positions on Senate and House committees, as well as in the Justice Department.

The criminal division, one of the Justice Department’s largest units, oversees federal criminal investigations and prosecutions.
…

The Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to confirm a lawyer who briefly represented a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin to head the Justice Department’s criminal division.

The confirmation of Brian Benczkowski came two days after Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee urged President Donald Trump to pull his nomination, saying Benczkowski’s lack of prosecutorial experience and representation of Alfa Bank disqualified him for the job.

As a partner in the Washington office of the Kirkland & Ellis law firm, Benczkowski, 48, represented Alfa Bank early last year when it was being investigated by the FBI over a series of data transmissions between computer servers linked to the bank and the Trump Organization during the 2016 presidential election.

The data transmissions have not revealed any evidence that Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s largest financial institutions, served as a link between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Nevertheless, the controversy dogged Benczkowski’s nomination.

‘Demonstrated poor judgment’

The 10 Democrats on the judiciary panel wrote in a letter on Monday that Benczkowski “demonstrated poor judgment” by representing Alfa Bank at a time he was under consideration to head the criminal division.

“At a time when we need the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division to help uncover, prevent and deter Russian interference in our democracy, Mr. Benczkowski’s choices so far have not inspired confidence that he is the right person to lead the fight,” they wrote.

Despite Democratic opposition, Benczkowski’s nomination drew support from former Justice Department officials, with five former heads of the criminal division recently urging the Senate to confirm the nod, praising him for his “professional experience, temperament and integrity.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions praised Benczkowsi as “an outstanding lawyer with a diverse public service and criminal law background spanning more than 20 years.”

“At a time like this — with surging violent crime and an unprecedented drug epidemic — this position is especially important,” Sessions said in a statement.

Committee work

Before joining Kirkland & Ellis, Benczkowsi served in a number of senior positions on Senate and House committees, as well as in the Justice Department.

The criminal division, one of the Justice Department’s largest units, oversees federal criminal investigations and prosecutions.
…

President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser H.R. McMaster has signed a book deal. 

Battlegrounds will cover the retired lieutenant general’s 34-year military career and his time in the Trump administration. 

The book is expected to be released in 2020, when Trump is expected to run for a second term in office.

McMaster had a tumultuous one year on Trump’s staff. He was picked to replace Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign after it was revealed that he’d lied about his dealings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

McMaster resigned in March and was replaced by John Bolton.

The book is expected to take a harsher view of the administration than books by former Trump staffers Sean Spicer and Anthony Scaramucci.

Publisher Harper Collins released a statement by McMaster in which he said he was “looking forward to researching and writing about the greatest challenges to the free world and how we can work together with like-minded nations to seize opportunities, defeat threats to security and preserve our way of life.”

Battlegrounds will be the second book by McMaster, who in 1997 wrote Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Lies that Led to Vietnam. 
…

President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser H.R. McMaster has signed a book deal. 

Battlegrounds will cover the retired lieutenant general’s 34-year military career and his time in the Trump administration. 

The book is expected to be released in 2020, when Trump is expected to run for a second term in office.

McMaster had a tumultuous one year on Trump’s staff. He was picked to replace Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign after it was revealed that he’d lied about his dealings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

McMaster resigned in March and was replaced by John Bolton.

The book is expected to take a harsher view of the administration than books by former Trump staffers Sean Spicer and Anthony Scaramucci.

Publisher Harper Collins released a statement by McMaster in which he said he was “looking forward to researching and writing about the greatest challenges to the free world and how we can work together with like-minded nations to seize opportunities, defeat threats to security and preserve our way of life.”

Battlegrounds will be the second book by McMaster, who in 1997 wrote Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Lies that Led to Vietnam. 
…

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai described as “cruel” a policy launched by U.S. President Donald Trump to separate children of illegal

immigrants from their families, during her first visit to South America to promote girls’ education.

More than 2,300 children were separated from their parents after the Trump administration began a “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigrants in early May, seeking to prosecute all adults who cross the border illegally from Mexico into the United States. Trump stopped separating families last month

following public outrage and court challenges.

“This is cruel, this is unfair and this is inhumane. I don’t know how anyone could do that,” Yousafzai told Reuters on Wednesday. “I hope that the children can be together with their parents.”

Her stern words contrasted with her effusive praise last year for Canada’s embrace of refugees under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, Malala also questioned Trump’s record on women’s rights.

Yousafzai, known widely by her first name, was visiting Rio de Janeiro to kick off the expansion of her education charity, the Malala Fund, into Latin America, starting with Brazil.

Her aim in Brazil, Latin America’s largest economy, is to advocate for more public spending on education, a tall task after the country passed a constitutional amendment freezing federal spending in real terms for two decades in order to reduce public debt.

More girls in school

She also hopes to get an estimated 1.5 million girls currently not in school into the classroom, with a special focus on minority groups who lag behind white children on key indicators like literacy and secondary school completion.

“It is important for us to reach the indigenous and the Afro-Brazilian population in Brazil. Those girls are facing many challenges,” Malala said in an interview.

In 2014, Malala was made the world’s youngest Nobel laureate, honored for her work with her foundation, a charity she set up to support education advocacy groups with a focus on Pakistan, Nigeria, Jordan, Syria and Kenya.

The group’s Brazil presence kicked off with a $700,000 three-year grant for three Brazilian female activists focused on education issues. Malala says she hopes to expand elsewhere in Latin America.

Earlier this year, the 20-year-old returned home to Pakistan for the first time since a Taliban gunman shot her in the head in 2012 over her blog advocating girls’ education.

Weeks ahead of presidential elections in Pakistan, Malala is ruling out politics for herself for now.

“I’m still talking to leaders and ensuring that they prioritize education in their policy,” she said. “It’s easier that way than when you’re on the inside.”
…

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai described as “cruel” a policy launched by U.S. President Donald Trump to separate children of illegal

immigrants from their families, during her first visit to South America to promote girls’ education.

More than 2,300 children were separated from their parents after the Trump administration began a “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigrants in early May, seeking to prosecute all adults who cross the border illegally from Mexico into the United States. Trump stopped separating families last month

following public outrage and court challenges.

“This is cruel, this is unfair and this is inhumane. I don’t know how anyone could do that,” Yousafzai told Reuters on Wednesday. “I hope that the children can be together with their parents.”

Her stern words contrasted with her effusive praise last year for Canada’s embrace of refugees under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, Malala also questioned Trump’s record on women’s rights.

Yousafzai, known widely by her first name, was visiting Rio de Janeiro to kick off the expansion of her education charity, the Malala Fund, into Latin America, starting with Brazil.

Her aim in Brazil, Latin America’s largest economy, is to advocate for more public spending on education, a tall task after the country passed a constitutional amendment freezing federal spending in real terms for two decades in order to reduce public debt.

More girls in school

She also hopes to get an estimated 1.5 million girls currently not in school into the classroom, with a special focus on minority groups who lag behind white children on key indicators like literacy and secondary school completion.

“It is important for us to reach the indigenous and the Afro-Brazilian population in Brazil. Those girls are facing many challenges,” Malala said in an interview.

In 2014, Malala was made the world’s youngest Nobel laureate, honored for her work with her foundation, a charity she set up to support education advocacy groups with a focus on Pakistan, Nigeria, Jordan, Syria and Kenya.

The group’s Brazil presence kicked off with a $700,000 three-year grant for three Brazilian female activists focused on education issues. Malala says she hopes to expand elsewhere in Latin America.

Earlier this year, the 20-year-old returned home to Pakistan for the first time since a Taliban gunman shot her in the head in 2012 over her blog advocating girls’ education.

Weeks ahead of presidential elections in Pakistan, Malala is ruling out politics for herself for now.

“I’m still talking to leaders and ensuring that they prioritize education in their policy,” she said. “It’s easier that way than when you’re on the inside.”
…

President Donald Trump has nominated career diplomat David Hale to be the next under secretary of state for political affairs. 

Hale has been serving as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan since 2015. Before that he was the ambassador to Lebanon and Jordan. 

He has also served in Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations. 

In Washington, Hale served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Israel, Egypt and the Levant; director for Israel-Palestinian Affairs and executive assistant to former Secretary of State Madeline Albright.

He speaks Arabic, is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, and a native of New Jersey.
…

President Donald Trump has nominated career diplomat David Hale to be the next under secretary of state for political affairs. 

Hale has been serving as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan since 2015. Before that he was the ambassador to Lebanon and Jordan. 

He has also served in Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations. 

In Washington, Hale served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Israel, Egypt and the Levant; director for Israel-Palestinian Affairs and executive assistant to former Secretary of State Madeline Albright.

He speaks Arabic, is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, and a native of New Jersey.
…

Battle lines began to form Tuesday in Washington for the upcoming Senate confirmation fight over President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Republicans have embraced Kavanaugh as a nominee who could shift the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction for a generation. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has more from Washington.
…

President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee may not have to wait too long for controversial cases if he is confirmed to the job, with disputes involving abortion, immigration, gay rights, voting rights and transgender troops possibly heading toward the justices soon.

Republicans are hoping Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative U.S. appeals court judge selected on Monday by Trump to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, will be confirmed by the Senate before the next Supreme Court term opens in October.

There are no blockbusters among the 38 cases already on the docket for the justices, but they could add disputes on controversial issues being appealed from lower courts.

Abortion

Legal battles are developing over state laws restricting abortion including one in Arkansas that effectively bans medication-induced abortions. The justices in May opted not to intervene in a case challenging that law, waiting instead for lower courts to rule, but it could return to them in the future.

Other abortion-related cases could reach the court within two years.

These involve laws banning abortions at early stages of pregnancies, including Iowa’s prohibition after a fetal heartbeat is detected. There is litigation arising from plans by certain states including Louisiana and Kansas to stop reimbursements under the Medicaid insurance program for the poor for Planned Parenthood, a national abortion provider.

There also are challenges to state laws imposing difficult-to-meet regulations on abortion providers such as having formal ties, called admitting privileges, at a local hospital.

Kavanaugh’s judicial record on abortion is thin, although last year he was on a panel of judges that issued an order preventing a 17-year-old illegal immigrant detained in Texas by U.S. authorities from immediately obtaining an abortion.

Gay Rights

Another issue expected to return to the court is whether certain types of businesses can refuse service to gay couples because of religious objections to same-sex marriage.

The high court in June sided, on narrow legal grounds, with a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two men because of his Christian beliefs, but sidestepped the larger question of whether to allow broad religious-based exemptions to anti-discrimination laws.

That issue could be back before the justices as soon as the court’s next term in a case involving a Washington state Christian florist who similarly spurned a gay couple.

Kennedy, who wrote the baker ruling, cast decisive votes backing gay rights four times, most notably in 2015 when the court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. It is not known how Kavanaugh would vote on those issues as he has not been involved in any gay rights cases during his 12 years as a judge.

Transgender People in the Military

Trump’s bid to ban transgender people from the military has been challenged in lower courts. That issue could make its way to the Supreme Court.

After lower courts blocked Trump’s ban last year, he announced in March he would endorse Defense Secretary James Mattis’ plan to restrict the military service of transgender people who have a condition called gender dysphoria. Trump’s administration has asked courts to allow that policy to go into effect, but so far to no avail.

Sharon McGowan, a lawyer with gay rights group Lambda Legal, said she saw no evidence Kavanaugh would be any less conservative on gay and transgender rights than Trump’s other appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch.

Immigration

On immigration, litigation is continuing over Trump’s plan to rescind a program created under Democratic former President Barack Obama that protected from deportation hundreds of thousands of young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

Lower courts blocked Trump’s plan to scrap the program.

Congress has failed to agree on a plan to replace it.

Gerrymandering

Kavanaugh could have to deal with cases involving a practice called partisan gerrymandering in which state legislators redraw electoral maps to try to cement their own party in power. In June, the justices avoided a broad ruling on whether partisan gerrymandering violates the constitutional rights of voters and whether federal judges can intervene to rectify it.

Democrats have said Republican gerrymandering has helped Trump’s party keep control of the U.S. House of Representatives and various state legislatures.

Kennedy previously kept his conservative colleagues from closing the door to litigation in federal court challenging partisan gerrymandering.

The partisan gerrymandering case most likely to return to the Supreme Court involves claims that Republican legislators in North Carolina manipulated the boundaries of the state’s 13 U.S. House districts to ensure lopsided wins for the party.

Attorney Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center, which represents the North Carolina plaintiffs, said they had been focused on trying to convince Kennedy to rule in their favor, and now will try to convince Chief Justice John Roberts, seen as the next-most-moderate of the conservative justices. Smith viewed Kavanaugh as likely voting with the court’s most conservative justices to reject gerrymandering challenges.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is taking his first step Tuesday toward securing his place on the high court, when he begins meeting with senators to shore up support for his nomination ahead of a major confirmation battle.

In what is likely to be one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency, Trump selected Kavanaugh to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“There is no one in America more qualified for this position, or more deserving,” the president said of Kavanaugh during Monday night’s prime-time television announcement from the White House East Room. He called Kavanaugh a “brilliant jurist” who has “devoted his life to public service.”

Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old conservative-leaning federal judge for the past 12 years, is no stranger to executive branch politics and controversy.

Prior to his time as a judge he oversaw an investigation into the death of a deputy counsel for President Bill Clinton. It was ruled a suicide, but conspiracy theorists were not so certain. Kavanaugh also did preliminary work that led to Clinton’s impeachment for an affair with a White House intern. And he worked on the vote recount in the state of Florida that made George W. Bush president. After that he became a staff secretary for Bush, often traveling with the president.

Swift partisan reaction

Kavanaugh’s selection was met with predictable reaction from both Republicans and Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the appellate judge as “an impressive” nominee who is “extremely well qualified” to sit on the nation’s highest court.

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on Kavanaugh’s nomination before it goes to a vote before the full Senate, echoed McConnell’s sentiments, calling him a “superb mainstream candidate worthy of the Senate’s consideration.”

Concerns that Kavanaugh will join with the court’s other four conservative members to overturn Rove versus Wade, the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized abortion in the United States, prompted Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to announce he would try to defeat his nomination “with everything I have.”

Outside the Supreme Court building, scores of demonstrators led by Democratic party Senators Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren, protested Kavanaugh’s selection. The two Democrats cited Kavanaugh’s written opinion that a president should not be subject to civil litigation or criminal prosecution while in office in opposing his nomination.

Observers believe if Special Counsel Robert Mueller tries to compel the president to testify in his investigation of the Trump campaign’s possible links to Russia, or even bring charges against the president, the issue will go all the way to the Supreme Court, which could return to its 5-4 conservative majority if Kavanaugh is confirmed.

‘Humbled’

Kavanaugh, whose wife and two daughters were with him Monday night, said he was “deeply humbled” by the nomination. He described how his mother was a trailblazer who went to law school, became a prosecutor and then a trial judge. His father went to law school at night, he added.

“Tomorrow I begin meeting with members of the Senate,” he said. “I will tell each senator I revere the constitution. … If confirmed by the Senate, I will keep an open mind in every case.”

With Republicans hoping to confirm a justice before the court resumes its session in October, as well as prior to the upcoming midterm congressional election in November, many perceived the timing as critical. “Trump did not move too fast in naming a nominee,” said Trevor Burrus, a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.

What is almost certain — and those across the political spectrum agree — is that Kavanaugh’s selection will spark a major confirmation battle in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow 51-49 majority and opposition Democrats say they will fight to prevent the high court from swinging further to the right.

A handful of Senate Democrats running for re-election in states that Trump won handily in 2016 could face a difficult vote on the court nominee, potentially providing Republicans with an additional buffer if they decide to support the president.

Kennedy was often a member of five-to-four majority decisions on the high court. Those included a number of high-profile cases, including same-sex marriage and upholding a woman’s right to an abortion.

No middle position

Kennedy’s departure “leaves the court in a calcified state of a hardened left and right with nobody in that middle position,” says Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University constitutional law professor.

“Most of the time Kennedy swung to the conservative side, especially on questions of the limits of congressional power, the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment,” Burrus, who also is managing editor of the Cato Supreme Court Review, tells VOA. “He swung to the other side on the question of gay rights and abortion, and those are the particular issues that concern those on the left.”

The Supreme Court, sitting atop one of the three branches of American government, ”has grown in importance over the past few decades,” Burrus said. “This is partially due to the cases it has been asked to decide, such as the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and it is partially due to the divided nature of American politics.”

Unlike presidents or members of Congress, however, Supreme Court justices in the United States do not have terms — they usually serve until they resign or die, giving presidents who select them a judicial legacy sometimes lasting decades beyond their terms in office.

Kennedy, who is 81, had been nominated for the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Trump, just days after becoming president in January of last year in a similar televised event, selected the reliably conservative Neil Gorsuch to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had died at the age of 79 in February 2016.

Jim Malone contributed to this report.
…