MTV is launching its first-ever midterm election drive to encourage young people to register and vote, hoping fans make voting a communal effort with their friends.

The youth-centric network will first publicize the effort Monday at its annual Video Music Awards being held at Radio City Music Hall.

The effort hearkens back to MTV’s “Choose or Lose” campaign when Bill Clinton was first elected in 1992. The interest in social activism this year among its audience convinced MTV to target the issue in a non-presidential election year, said Chris McCarthy, network president. Voter turnout in those years is typically depressed, particularly among young people.

MTV designed its campaign around the concept of shared experiences after noting the importance young people place in them, he said. For example, it is working with the Ford Foundation on a mobile unit where people can register, then check whether their friends are registered and encourage them to do so if they aren’t.

The network is also looking to host some 1,000 parties of different sizes across the country on election day, including larger ones with the participation of yet-to-be-named musicians.

“Voting is important,” McCarthy said. “It matters. But voting with a friend matters even more.”

MTV isn’t the cultural force that it once was. But McCarthy has engineered a turnaround in the network’s fortunes this past year, betting on reality shows and familiar brands. The network’s audience has also aged somewhat, enough so that 86 percent of its typical viewer at any time is 18 or over, or voting age.

MTV is only the latest group to commit to turning out the youth vote in November. Liberal activist and billionaire Tom Steyer has promised to spend at least $31 million on voter organization, believed to be the largest campaign ever targeted to young people. Activists seeking gun control legislation are making similar efforts, buoyed by the work of students following the Parkland school shooting in Florida.

MTV isn’t saying how much it will spend on its campaign, called “+1thevote” in a reference to the phrase for bringing a guest to a concert.

While the other groups are clearly invested in trying to change Republican control of Congress, McCarthy said MTV’s effort is non-partisan. Still, it is being launched at a time Democrats seem more active and engaged.

MTV says its measure of success will be an increase in the percentage of young people voting. During the 2010 midterm election in President Barack Obama’s first term, only 18 percent of people aged 18-to-20 voted, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University.

“MTV’s mission is to engage and entertain and celebrate the spirit of youth – everything from activism to escapism and all the messy stuff in between,” McCarthy said.

 
 
…

Top Senate Democrats and their liberal allies in environmental, abortion rights and other groups are united in wanting to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court vacancy.

But with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings two weeks off, some cracks are showing.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is methodically trying to build arguments that would help vulnerable Democratic senators in Trump-loving states vote “no.” He’s also avoiding explicitly pressing them in hopes of giving them comfort in opposing Kavanaugh, while not putting them in an untenable position should they eventually vote “yes.”

But left-wing activists say Schumer is not being aggressive enough in rallying Democratic lawmakers to unify against the nomination. They say that’s inhibiting the momentum needed to galvanize voters.
…

Former CIA Director John Brennan is threatening to sue President Donald Trump to stop him from stripping security clearances from other officials who criticize him.

“If my clearances — and my reputation, as I’m being pulled through the mud now — if that’s the price we’re going to pay to prevent Donald Trump from doing this against other people, to me, it’s a small price to pay,” Brennan told NBC television’s Meet the Press Sunday.

“I am going to do whatever I can personally to try to prevent these abuses in the future and if it means going to court, I will do that,” he added.

Trump revoked Brennan’s security clearance last week because the president said he had to do something about what he calls the “rigged” investigation into alleged collusion between his campaign and Russian election interference.

Trump said he believes Brennan, who served during the administrations of former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, is one of those responsible for the investigation.

Brennan was among a group of intelligence officials who spoke with Trump before his inauguation about evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

The president also said he plans to or is thinking about stripping nine other current and former senior intelligence officials of their clearances.

More than 75 U.S. intelligence officers have spoken out, saying they have the right to criticize and administration without having to pay a penalty.

Brennan, CIA director during President Barack Obama’s second term, has been a familiar face on television talk shows as one of Trump’s severest critics.

He called Trump’s behavior at the joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki “treasonous.”

He said on NBC that he is not a Democrat or a Republican, instead calling himself just someone who wants to be heard like any private citizen.

“(Trump) is bringing the country down on the global stage. … He’s fueling and feeding divisiveness within our country. He continually lies to the American people,” Brennan said on Meet the Press.

Appearing on the same NBC broadcast, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani called Brennan’s charge that Trump committed treason “extraordinary” and said Brennan has no information on whether Trump conspired with Putin.

Giuliani called Brennan a “totally unhinged character who shouldn’t have a security clearance.”
…

Women are not just running for office in record numbers this year — they are winning.

More women than ever before have won major party primaries for governor, U.S. Senate and House this year — setting a U.S. record and paving the way for November battles that could significantly increase the number of women in elected office and change the public debate on issues such as health care, immigration, abortion rights, education and gun control. Some of these candidates could also play a pivotal role in whether Democrats are able to take control of the U.S. House.

Most of these female hopefuls are Democrats, some of whom are first-time candidates who say their motivation to run sprang from President Donald Trump’s election and Republican control of Congress. But other developments factor in, too. The #MeToo movement. Women’s marches. Trump’s nomination of conservative appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“Part of the reason I thought this race was possible, even despite great odds, was because of all the women who are so engaged in my community in a new way,” said Democrat Mikie Sherrill, a former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor who looks to capture a GOP congressional seat in New Jersey.

Sherrill is one of some 200 women who have won their primaries for U.S. House, with 94 of these candidates surviving crowded fields with three or more candidates, according to an analysis of election results. Previously, the most women who had advanced were 167 in 2016, according to records kept by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

In the Senate, a record 19 women have won their primaries. And for the first time, 13 women have been nominated for gubernatorial races in a single election year.

And all these numbers are likely to grow with nine states yet to hold their primaries. Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo and U.S. Rep. Gwen Graham of Florida are among nine women running for governor who will face primary voters in coming weeks. No more than nine women have ever led states at the same time.

“We are seeing a level of enthusiasm among women voters that we haven’t seen in a long time,” said Democrat Laura Kelly, who is running for governor in Kansas and will need women, independents and moderate Republicans in her bid against Republican Kris Kobach.

There are few instances in which women — in a sense — have already won. For instance, two women will be competing to replace GOP Rep. Steve Pearce in New Mexico and the same is happening in races in Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Michigan. But overall gains will also be dependent on how well the 71 congresswomen running for re-election fare in November.

Success in November will go a long way to improving the nation’s dismal record of female representation. Currently, women account for just a fifth of 535 U.S. representatives and senators, and one in four state lawmakers. Six of the nation’s 50 governors are female. Meanwhile, women comprise slightly more than half the U.S. population.

Women appear to be running strong so far. As of mid-August, some 49 percent of women running for the House have advanced to the general election, with about 40 percent in the Senate and about 25 percent running for governor, according to an analysis of election results.

But that’s no guarantee of victory this fall. Many of the women, particularly Democrats, are running in long-held Republican congressional districts or states where Republicans have consolidated support.

One thing women have accomplished already is changing the tone and content of campaigns. They bring their children to rallies and some want their campaign money to pay for child care so they can run. On this count, Liuba Grechen Shirley, the Democratic candidate challenger to Republican Rep. Peter King, has succeeded. In May, the Federal Election Commission voted unanimously to allow the expenditure.

“I was told that with two kids, a husband who worked full time and no child care, that it was impossible,” Grechen Shirley says in an online ad, noting her effort to change the policy. “Well, it wasn’t impossible. It’s just really hard.”

Experienced combat veterans running for Congress this year are featuring their families in their ads as they speak with authority on national security and foreign policy.

“The old model is a little bit like trying to fit women into the mold of male candidates,” said Deborah Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “Women had a very narrow path that they could navigate as candidates: What was appropriate to wear, what was appropriate to say. They also were asked: If you win, who is going to take care of your children? This is not a question that men are confronted with.”

Beyond gender, these women are poised to usher in a wave of diversity next year.

Michigan will likely send the nation’s first Muslim-American woman to Congress, after Rashida Tlaib beat a crowded field of Democrats for the 13th Congressional District. No Republican is running in November for the heavily Democratic seat.

There are nearly 50 black women running for Congress this year, from Democrat Lucy McBath who is challenging GOP Rep. Karen Handel in Georgia to Republican Rep. Mia Love’s bid for a third term in Utah.

In Georgia, Stacey Abrams is aiming to become the nation’s first black female governor while Paulette Jordan would be the first Native American governor in U.S. history if she wins her race in Idaho. And Democratic voters in Vermont recently selected Christine Hallquist as their nominee, making her the first transgender candidate to win a major-party gubernatorial nomination.

Black women are competing — and winning — not only in districts with a majority black electorate, but also in diverse districts across the country. Each victory is a vote of confidence in their leadership for those who step up, said Kimberly Peeler-Allen, co-founder of Higher Heights for America, which supports black female candidates and galvanizes black women as voters.

“In addition to black women wanting to be part of history, people are realizing that regardless of what you look like, the leadership of the country has been predominantly white and male for far too long,” Peeler-Allen said. “Seeing the value of having diverse voices around decision-making tables is not limited to one demographic group, but includes people who want a more reflective democracy.”

 
…

11:50 a.m.

 
Move over, alternative facts. Now, truth isn’t truth.

President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani used the line Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd.

Giuliani was trying to make the case that having Trump sit down for an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team wouldn’t accomplish much because of the he-said-she-said nature of witnesses’ recollections.

Giuliani says it’s “silly” to say Trump should testify “because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry” because “it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth.”

Todd insisted: “Truth is truth,” Giuliani responded: “Truth isn’t truth.” The comment left Todd flummoxed.

Trump and his aides have been criticized for spreading lies and disinformation. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway famously referred to it as “alternative facts.”

8:35 a.m.

President Donald Trump is insisting that White House lawyer Don McGahn isn’t “a John Dean type ‘RAT.’”

Trump in a series of Sunday morning tweets is responding to a New York Times story reporting that McGahn has given hours of testimony to the special counsel investigating Russian election meddling.

Dean was White House counsel for President Richard Nixon during Watergate. He ultimately cooperated with prosecutors and helped bring down the Nixon presidency, though he served a prison term for obstruction of justice.

Trump says he allowed McGahn and others to testify. He says, “I didn’t have to. I have nothing to hide……”

Trump is also calling the investigation “McCarthyism at its WORST,” a reference to indiscriminate allegations made by Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s to expose communists.

 
…

The White House’s top lawyer has cooperated extensively with the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, sharing detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the inquiry into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

Citing a dozen current and former White House officials and others briefed on the matter, the newspaper said White House Counsel Donald McGahn had shared information, some of which the investigators would not have known about.

McGahn voluntarily cooperated with Mueller’s team as a regular witness, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters, as the White House asked many staffers to do. He was not subpoenaed nor did he speak to them under any kind of proffer or cooperation agreement.

The person also said he did not believe McGahn provided Mueller with incriminating information about Trump. McGahn provided the facts but nothing he saw or heard amounts to obstruction of justice by Trump, the person told Reuters.

According to the New York Times, McGahn in at least three voluntary interviews with investigators that totaled 30 hours over the past nine months, described Trump’s furor toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which the president urged McGahn to respond to it.

The newspaper reported McGahn’s motivation to speak with the special counsel as an unusual move that was in response to a decision by Trump’s first team of lawyers to cooperate fully.

But it said another motivation was McGahn’s fear he could be placed in legal jeopardy because of decisions made in the White House that could be construed as obstruction of justice.

McGahn, the newspaper said, shared information on Trump’s comments and actions during the firing of the F.B.I. director, James Comey, and the president’s obsession with putting a loyalist in charge of the inquiry, including his repeated urging of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to claim oversight of it.

The newspaper said McGahn was also centrally involved in Trump’s attempts to fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller, which investigators might not have discovered without him.

McGahn cautioned to investigators he never saw Trump go beyond his legal authorities.

A source close to the president told Reuters on Saturday the extent of McGahn’s cooperation was “a tactical or strategic mistake” instigated by Trump’s first legal team and it should not have been allowed to happen because McGahn should have been covered by executive privilege. The person also said Trump is not worried because he does not feel he did anything wrong.

One lawyer familiar with the matter said McGahn could have been subpoenaed to testify to the grand jury if he did not cooperate with Mueller voluntarily and might have lost legal battles if he tried to invoke executive privilege.

William Burck, McGahn’s personal lawyer, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s former personal lawyer, John Dowd, told Reuters on Saturday he was aware McGahn had spoken extensively with Mueller’s team.

“Lot to cover,” Dowd said in text message. “Did a great job. McGahn was a strong witness for the President according to Burck and debriefs of DM (Donald McGahn). Not aware of any of the alleged apprehensions manufactured by the NYT.”

Dowd said a decision was made by the president’s legal team for McGahn to cooperate with the investigation.

Rudy Giuliani, who joined the president’s outside legal team after Dowd resigned, told Reuters on Saturday that Trump’s lawyers had been in contact with McGahn’s counsel after he was interviewed and possessed “emails that say he provided nothing that was damaging or incriminating to the president.”

Giuliani said McGahn’s cooperation with Mueller was part of a legal strategy. As an officer of the court, he added, McGahn would have had to resign if he thought the president did anything illegal.

Giuliani said he did not believe McGahn was cooperating against the president, noting Trump’s lawyers and McGahn’s have a joint defense agreement that would have otherwise ended.

Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb, who resigned in May after joining the administration last summer to assist the president with the Russia probe, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, declined to comment. Trump has repeatedly denounced the investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow as a “witch hunt.”

“The president and Don have a great relationship,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, said in a statement. “He appreciates all the hard work he’s done, particularly his help and expertise with the judges, and the Supreme Court” nominees.

Others in the White House have described the relationship as strained. 
…

Twitter users are blocking companies like Pepsi, Nike and Uber on Twitter to pressure the social media firm to permanently ban American broadcaster Alex Jones for what they say are his abusive tweets.

Meanwhile, Twitter reportedly is facing a shutdown in Pakistan because of a government request to block what it deems objectionable content.

The moves come as U.S. internet companies take a harder look at their policies that have promoted free expression around the world. The companies have a mostly hands-off policy when it comes to curtailing speech, except when it comes to inciting violence and pornography. But that largely permissive approach is getting a new look.

​Twitter and Alex Jones

Twitter recently slapped a seven-day ban on conservative American radio host Jones for violating its policy on abusive speech, when he appeared to call for violence against the media, something he denies.

On his show this week, Jones noted that Twitter had removed his videos.

“They took me down,” he said. “Because they will not let me have a voice.”

Earlier this month, Apple, Spotify, Facebook, YouTube and other social media limited Jones and his InfoWars media company from their sites. But InfoWars’ live-streaming app can still be found at Google and Apple’s app stores. The on-air personality has put forth conspiracy theories calling some U.S. mass shootings hoaxes.

WATCH: Tech Companies Struggle With How to Curtail Offensive Speech

No more hands off

Internet firms are moving away from the long-held position that they didn’t want to monitor expression on their sites too closely, Irina Raicu, director of the Internet Ethics Program at Santa Clara University, said.

“The companies are stuck in the middle and no longer trying to avoid responsibility in a way that I think they were even a few years ago when they were saying we are just neutral platforms,” Raicu said. “They are increasingly taking a more open role in determining what content moderation looks like.”

It’s not just in the U.S. where the internet companies are having to make hard decisions about speech. The firms are also grappling with extreme speech in other languages.

Comments on Facebook have been linked to violence in places like Myanmar and India. A recent article by the Reuters news agency reports that negative messages about Myanmar’s Rohingya minority group were throughout its site.

Some call on social media companies to do more to target and take down hate messages before they lead to violence.

“If Facebook is bent on removing abusive words and nudity, they should be focused on removing these words as well,” said Abhinay Korukonda, a student from Mumbai, India, who is studying at the University of California, Berkeley. “This comes under special kinds of abusive terms. They should take an action. They should definitely remove these.”

Objective standards

Ming Hsu studies decision-making at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. He is researching how to come up with objective standards for determining whether certain speech could lead to real-world dangers against people both in the U.S. and across the globe.

“We don’t have actionable standards for policymakers or for companies or even lay people to say, ‘This is crossing the boundaries, this is way past the boundaries and this is sort of OK,’” Hsu said.

Those calls are even harder when looking at speech in other languages and cultures, he added.

“We don’t really have any intuition for who’s right, who is wrong and who is being discriminated against,” Hsu said. “And that gets back to relying on common sense and how fragile that is.”

Tech companies are known for constantly tweaking their products and software. Now it seems they are taking the same approach with speech as they draw the line between free expression and reducing harm.

VOA’s Deana Mitchell contributed to this report.
…

According to a CNN report, munitions experts say a U.S.-made bomb was used by the Saudi-led coalition in a recent airstrike in Yemen that hit a busload of children in a marketplace, killing 51 people, including 40 children.

CNN said Friday that the experts identified the bomb used in the attack from images taken of a piece of shrapnel shortly after the deadly strike.

According to CNN, the numbers on the shrapnel indicated the explosive was a 227-kilogram, laser-guided MK 82 bomb manufactured by top U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

Seventy-nine people were also wounded in the strike, including 56 children.

A spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition said earlier this month the airstrike targeted Houthi rebels in the market and conformed with international and humanitarian law.

U.S. President Barack Obama banned the sale of precision-guided weaponry to Saudi Arabia in 2016 after Saudi Arabia used a similar bomb in another deadly attack.

The Trump administration, however, overturned the ban last year.

Liz Throssel, a spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said after the August 9 airstrike that hit the bus that “any attack which directly targets civilians not directly taking part in hostilities or civilian objects amounts to a war crime.”

She said the perpetrators must be identified, brought to justice and held accountable no matter where, when, or by whom the violations or abuses were committed.
…

A former Trump campaign adviser should spend at least some time in prison for lying to the FBI during the Russia probe, prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller said in a court filing Friday that also revealed several new details about the early days of the investigation.

The prosecutors disclosed that George Papadopoulos, who served as a foreign policy adviser to President Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 presidential race, caused irreparable damage to the investigation because he lied repeatedly during a January 2017 interview.

Those lies, they said, resulted in the FBI missing an opportunity to properly question a professor Papadopoulos was in contact with during the campaign who told him that the Russians possessed “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of emails.

Professor slipped away

The filing by the special counsel’s office strongly suggests the FBI had contact with Professor Joseph Mifsud while he was in the U.S. during the early part of the investigation into Russian election interference and possible coordination with Trump associates.

According to prosecutors, the FBI located the professor in Washington about two weeks after Papadopoulos’ interview and Papadopoulos’ lies “substantially hindered investigators’ ability to effectively question” him. But it doesn’t specifically relate any details of an interview with the professor as it recounts what prosecutors say was a missed opportunity caused by Papadopoulos.

“The defendant’s lies undermined investigators’ ability to challenge the professor or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States,” Mueller’s team wrote, noting that the professor left the U.S. in February 2017 and has not returned since.

“Had the defendant told the FBI the truth when he was interviewed in January 2017, the FBI could have quickly taken numerous investigative steps to help determine, for example, how and where the professor obtained the information, why the professor provided the information to the defendant, and what the defendant did with the information after receiving it,” according to the court filing.

Difficult interviews

Prosecutors also detail a series of difficult interviews with Papadopoulos after he was arrested in July 2017, saying he didn’t provide “substantial assistance” to the investigation. Papadopoulos later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI as part of a plea deal.

The filing recommends that Papadopoulos spend at least some time incarcerated and pay a nearly $10,000 fine. His recommended sentence under federal guidelines is zero to six months, but prosecutors note another defendant in the case spent 30 days in jail for lying to the FBI.

Papadopoulos has played a central role in the Russia investigation since its beginning as an FBI counterintelligence probe in July 2016. In fact, information the U.S. government received about Papadopoulos was what triggered the counterintelligence investigation in the first place. That probe was later take over by Mueller.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Friday he plans to revoke the security clearance of Bruce Ohr, a Justice Department official whose wife was employed at the company that was involved in producing the dossier on Trump’s links to Russia.

Trump called Ohr a “disgrace” outside the White House and said, “I suspect I will be taking it away very quickly.”

Ohr is under intense Republican scrutiny for his contacts with Glenn Simpson, who co-founded the opposition research firm Fusion GPS.

The president also suggested he may revoke Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s security clearance, and said, “Mr. Mueller has a lot of conflicts also, directly himself.” Trump said, nevertheless, that Mueller should be allowed to finish a report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Trumps remarks came after he revoked the security clearance earlier this week of former CIA Director John Brennan.

Twelve former senior intelligence officials have issued a statement on what they call “the ill-considered and unprecedented remarks and actions by the White House regarding the removal of John Brennan’s security clearances.” 

“The president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech,” the statement released late Thursday said. It was signed by six former CIA directors, five former CIA deputy directors and a former director of National Intelligence.

“We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool as was done in this case. Beyond that, this action is quite clearly a signal to the former and current officials,” the statement said.

Retired admiral’s challenge

In another development, the former U.S. Navy admiral who led the operation to kill terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is challenging Trump to revoke his security clearance.

In an open letter to Trump in The Washington Post, Retired Admiral William McRaven wrote he would consider it an “honor.”

“Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation,” McRaven wrote.

The retired admiral called Brennan “one of the finest public servants I have ever known.”

Trump’s explanation

Trump contradicted the official White House explanation of why he took the action against Brennan.

He told The Wall Street Journal he believes Brennan is one of those responsible for Mueller’s probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump obstructed justice by trying to derail the investigation.

Trump repeated his belief the probe is a “rigged witch hunt … a sham … and these people led it,” referring to Brennan and nine other past and current government security officials whose clearances he is considering revoking.

“So, I think it’s something that had to be done,” Trump said of taking away Brennan’s clearance.

The president said he does not trust “many of those people on that list” and does not think they are “good people.” 

​White House explanation

Hours earlier, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders denied that Brennan and others are being singled out because they are critics of Trump.

She only cited what she called Brennan’s “erratic conduct and behavior” that “has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him.” She also questioned Brennan’s “objectivity and credibility.”

Brennan’s reaction

Brennan said he believes Trump stripped his security clearance for political reasons and wants to “silence others who might dare to challenge him.”

He wrote in Thursday’s New York Times that Trump “clearly has become more desperate to protect himself and those close to him.

He called Trump’s assertion there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia “hogwash.”

“The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of ‘Trump Incorporated’ attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets,” Brennan wrote.

The White House said Wednesday that security clearances are under review for former U.S. National Intelligence director James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, former Obama administration National Security advisor Susan Rice, former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

Brennan has been a familiar face on television news shows where he has made scathing attacks on the president. He called Trump’s performance at a joint news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki “treasonous.”

Brennan on Twitter described Trump’s action on Wednesday as part of a broader effort “to suppress freedom of speech and punish critics,” adding that it “should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out.”

VOA’s Jeff Seldin contributed to this report.
…

As a jury deliberates a second day on a verdict in the trial of U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump said the trial was “sad.”

“I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad, when you look at what’s going on there,” Trump told reporters Friday at the White House. “He worked for me for a very short period of time,” Trump said, adding, “but you know what? He happens to be a very good person. And I think it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort.”

The six-man, six-woman jury met for about seven hours Thursday in a Virginia courthouse, during which they asked the judge four questions, including clarification of the meaning of “reasonable doubt.” Under U.S. law, the guilt of the accused must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” or there can be no conviction.

Other questions delved into specific details of the tax and bank fraud case.

Earlier in the day, Judge T.S. Ellis gave a final summary to the jury before they started considering the case behind closed doors.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers presented their closing arguments Wednesday, the prosecution arguing Manafort’s life was “littered with lies” as he bought palatial mansions, expensive suits, cars, electronics and other high-priced items.

“Mr. Manafort lied to keep more money when he had it, and he lied to get more money when he didn’t,” prosecutor Greg Andres said.

But defense attorney Richard Westling told the jury Manafort should be acquitted because the government had not met its burden to prove that he was “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Westling said that is the reason the defense decided to rest Its case without calling any witnesses to testify, including Manafort himself.

Westling attacked the government’s contention that Manafort hid millions of dollars in offshore accounts to avoid U.S. taxes so he could fund the luxurious purchases. He said Manafort had an adjusted net worth of $21.3 million at the end of 2016.

“Given this evidence, how can we say he didn’t have money?” Westling said.

Westling also attacked the prosecution’s star witness — Manafort’s former deputy chairman in the Trump campaign, Rick Gates — as a liar and a thief.

Gates had already pleaded guilty before Manafort’s trial to helping him hide millions in income from U.S. tax authorities and is awaiting sentencing.

Along with hours of testimony about Manafort’s finances, Gates acknowledged he stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Manafort, in part to finance an extra-marital affair in London, and lied about his own role in hiding money in offshore accounts.

Prosecutor Andres alleges that overall, Manafort “failed to pay taxes on more than $15 million” in income.

Much of the money, the government alleges, came from Manafort’s lobbying for deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was toppled in a popular 2014 uprising in Kyiv before fleeing to exile in Russia.

But Andres alleged that when the stream of money from Yanukovych dried up four years ago, Manafort financed his lifestyle by securing about $20 million in bank loans in the U.S. by lying about his assets and debts on loan applications.

“He lied and lied again,” Andres said.

Prosecutors for special counsel Robert Mueller presented two weeks of testimony against Manafort, accusing him of hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts he earned while lobbying for Yanukovych in the years before Manafort joined Trump’s campaign.

The case has drawn particular interest in the U.S. because it is the first trial conducted by Mueller’s prosecutors in their wide-ranging investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

They are probing whether Trump associates conspired with Russia to help Trump win the White House and whether Trump, as president, obstructed justice by trying to thwart the investigation.

However, the case against Manafort, a long-time Washington lobbyist, only peripherally touched on the campaign. Instead, it dealt almost totally on accusations about his financial transactions and what he did with the money from Yanukovych and the bank loans.
…

Grassroots organizing is the key to building a movement, and much of it today is done online. Connections made through social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter bring supporters to rallies, and dozens of online sites help politicians and activists manage vast amounts of data, disseminate their message and connect with supporters.

Several candidates in last year’s French presidential election turned to a U.S.-based company called NationBuilder for digital tools to manage their outreach. The election’s surprise winner, 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron, did not, but he later turned to the company to build a legislative majority in the National Assembly.

His field of candidates in the legislative election in June 2017 included many political novices, but Macron gained a majority of the assembly’s 577 seats, securing 350 seats for his La Republique En Marche! party with coalition partner Mouvement Democrate.

“Macron ended up using us to field an entire government, to run his legislative elections,” said NationBuilder CEO Lea Endres at the company’s headquarters in Los Angeles. “There are people all over the world in 112 countries” who do the same, she said, “political parties and political candidates, nonprofit organizations, small businesses, large businesses.”

Causes across the spectrum

The company is one of dozens of sources for the digital tools that activists use. Others include the open-source CiviCRM for nonprofit management and the petition-writing site Change.org.

NationBuilder says it attracts people across the political spectrum, from Republicans in Maryland and several southern U.S. states to Jagmeet Singh, the newly elected leader of Canada’s left-leaning New Democratic Party. A Sikh, Singh is the first member of an ethnic minority group to serve as permanent leader of a major Canadian party.

Brexit

The debate surrounding Brexit, the 2016 vote to withdraw Britain from the European Union, spurred activists on the “remain” side. They used NationBuilder to target supporters, sending targeted emails to supporters in specific parts of the country “to set up a campaign group or support one that’s already there, or promote an action that’s happening locally,” said James MacCleary, campaign director for the European Movement UK.

“It gives an ability to be very flexible with our data and get away from global email blasts,” he said. The group is pressing for a national referendum on the final Brexit agreement.

For any organization or cause, supporters receive targeted emails that help to build relationships, according to Ryan Vaillancourt, director of sales enablement at NationBuilder.

For environmental groups, an email might say “you told us six months ago that you want to get involved in this organization and the reason that you cared about this campaign is that you’re passionate about the environment,” Vaillancourt explained. “We’ve got an event coming up, it’s down the street from you, and we’d love to see you there.”

Adapts to technology

With a presence in more than 100 countries, the company adapts to local needs in places like Africa, where “they’re not about long email lists and long newsletters,” said Toni Cowan-Brown, NationBuilder’s vice president for European Business Development. “They want to be able to communicate with people on their smartphones because that’s the biggest and richest technology source that they have right now,” she said.

From political parties to nonprofits, promoting a cause or building a movement are all about people, and the tools to connect and motivate them, these tech developers say, are found today online.
…

A jury in Virginia completed its first day of deliberations on Thursday in the bank and tax fraud trial of Paul Manafort, U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, after asking the judge for the definition of “reasonable doubt.”

The six men and six women held around seven hours of discussions behind closed doors in the federal courthouse in Alexandria where Manafort, 69, is being tried on 18 counts brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The case is the first to go to trial stemming from Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election, although the charges largely predate Manafort’s five months working on Trump’s campaign, including three as chairman.

Before wrapping up their work for the day, the jurors asked U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis four questions, including clarification of the meaning of “reasonable doubt.” To convict Manafort, the standard the jury must use is to find he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The government is not required to prove beyond all possible doubt,” Ellis told lawyers in the courtroom before the jury entered, explaining how he intended to answer. Ellis added that reasonable doubt was “doubt based on reason.”

The other questions delved into details of the case. One involved the government’s requirement for taxpayers filing a report regarding the existence of a foreign bank account.

Another centered on the definition of a “shelf company,” a term referring to a type of inactive company, and legal filing requirements for one. The last question involved how the list of exhibits was numbered.

Trump has called Mueller’s investigation a witch hunt and has complained about Manafort’s treatment.

If convicted on all counts, Manafort could face a sentence of up to 305 years in prison based on the maximum for each count, with the most serious charge carrying up to 30 years.

However, if convicted, he likely would be given between seven and 12 years, according to a range of estimates from three sentencing experts interviewed by Reuters.

‘Can’t Talk’

Ellis began the jury instructions on Wednesday after the prosecution and defense delivered closing arguments, and finished on Thursday morning. “You can’t talk about the case unless all 12 of you are present,” Ellis told the jurors, adding that they could take as long as they like to reach a verdict.

Prosecutors called 27 witnesses during about two weeks of testimony in the closely watched trial. The defense called no witnesses, arguing that prosecutors failed to prove their case.

The case involved millions of dollars Manafort received from pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine for work as a political consultant. Prosecutors accused Manafort of concealing more than $16 million in income from U.S. tax authorities and fraudulently securing $20 million in bank loans.

Witnesses described how Manafort routed $16 million in income hidden in foreign bank accounts to U.S. vendors to purchase real estate, expensive clothing and antique rugs, income he is charged with omitting from his tax returns.

Manafort, a veteran political consultant and prominent figure in Republican circles for decades, made his fortune helping to bring pro-Russian politician Viktor Yanukovych to power in Ukraine in 2010. When Yanukovych fled Ukraine in 2014, the political work dried up and Manafort lied about his finances to get loans from banks, prosecutors said.

The defense attacked the credibility of key prosecution witness Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime right-hand man who also worked for Trump’s campaign and inauguration team. Gates was indicted by Mueller but pleaded guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors.

On Thursday, Ellis invited others in the courtroom to remain while the jury deliberated and other cases were heard. He then called on a “Mr. Trump,” prompting laughter and a smile from Manafort. Jim Trump, a federal prosecutor involved in another case, responded.
…

The U.S. Senate on Thursday unanimously adopted a resolution affirming support for a free press and declaring that “the press is not the enemy of the people.”

The nonbinding resolution approved by voice vote was a rebuke to President Donald Trump who for more than 18 months has frequently called reporters “the enemy of the people.”

The resolution “reaffirms the vital and indispensable role that the free press serves to inform the electorate, uncover the truth, act as a check on the inherent power of the government, further national discourse and debate, and otherwise advance the most basic and cherished democratic norms and freedoms of the United States.”

The vote comes after more than 350 U.S. newspapers on Thursday launched a coordinated defense of press freedom and a rebuke of President Donald Trump for denouncing some media organizations as enemies of the American people.

“A central pillar of President Trump’s politics is a sustained assault on the free press,” said the editorial by the Boston Globe, which coordinated publication among more than 350 newspapers.

Trump has frequently criticized journalists and described news reports that contradict his opinion or policy positions as fake news.

He lashed out again Thursday, tweeting “THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA IS THE OPPOSITION PARTY. It is very bad for our Great Country….BUT WE ARE WINNING!”

At a Senate hearing, Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai again said he did not agree that the press was “the enemy of the people” but declined to offer a view of Trump’s anti-press rhetoric.

“We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, including the First Amendment,” said Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat and an author of the resolution. “Today, every senator upheld that oath by sending a message that we support the First Amendment, and we support the freedom of the press in the face of these attacks.”

The White House did not immediately comment on the Senate action.
…

A military parade requested by U.S. President Donald Trump that had been planned for November in Washington has been postponed until at least next year, the Defense Department said on Thursday.

“We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019,” Defense Department Spokesman Colonel Rob Manning said in a statement.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was unclear exactly what caused the postponement but the increased cost of the event had caused concern and could be one reason.

The parade to honor U.S. military veterans and commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I could cost more than $90 million, the U.S. official said, citing provisional planning figures that were nearly three times an earlier White House estimate.

The official said the cost estimate of about $92 million had not yet been approved by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and could still be changed and more options could be included.

In February, Trump asked the Pentagon to explore a parade in celebration of American troops, after the Republican president marveled at the Bastille Day military parade he attended in Paris last year.

Earlier this year, the White House budget chief said the parade would cost U.S. taxpayers between $10 million and $30 million.

It was not immediately clear why the recent cost estimate was so much higher than the earlier one, and what exactly it included.

A Pentagon memo from March said the Washington parade route would have a “heavy air component at the end of the parade.”

“Include wheeled vehicles only, no tanks – consideration must be given to minimize damage to local infrastructure,” the memo said.

Critics say the government should not spend money on a costly display of troops and weapons when the Pentagon is struggling to cover the expenses of training, support and personnel.

The District of Columbia Council had ridiculed the idea of a parade on Pennsylvania Avenue, the 1.2-mile (1.9-km) stretch between the Capitol and the White House that is also the site of the Trump International Hotel.

Military parades in the United States are generally rare.

Such parades in other countries are usually staged to celebrate victories in battle or showcase military might.

In 1991, tanks and thousands of troops paraded through Washington to celebrate the ousting of President Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces from Kuwait in the Gulf War.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan. We take a look at what that means.

What is a security clearance?

A security clearance allows a person access to classified national security information or restricted areas after completion of a background check. The clearance by itself does not guarantee unlimited access. The agency seeking the clearance must determine what specific area of information the person needs to access.

What are the different levels of security clearance?

There are three levels: Confidential, secret and top secret. Security clearances don’t expire. But, top secret clearances are reinvestigated every five years, secret clearances every 10 years and confidential clearances every 15 years.

Who has security clearances?

According to a Government Accountability Office report released last year, about 4.2 million people had a security clearance as of 2015, they included military personnel, civil servants, and government contractors.

Why does one need a security clearance in retirement?

Retired senior intelligence officials and military officers need their security clearances in case they are called to consult on sensitive issues.

Can the president revoke a security clearance?

Apparently. But there is no precedent for a president revoking someone’s security clearance. A security clearance is usually revoked by the agency that sought it for an employee or contractor. All federal agencies follow a list of 13 potential justifications for revoking or denying a clearance, which can include criminal acts, lack of allegiance to the United States, behavior or situation that could compromise an individual and security violations.
…

The fate of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chief Paul Manafort is in the hands of the jury.

The six men and six women will start deliberating Thursday on whether Manafort is guilty of tax and bank fraud. 

Manafort’s life was “littered with lies” as he pursued a lavish lifestyle, a U.S  prosecutor said in his closing argument  Wednesday. 

“Mr. Manafort lied to keep more money when he had it, and he lied to get more money when he didn’t,” prosecutor Greg Andres said.

Defense doesn’t call any witnesses

But defense attorney Richard Westling told the jury Manafort should be acquitted. He said the government had not met its burden to prove that Manafort was “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard for a conviction in the U.S. legal system.

Westling said that is the reason the defense decided to rest Its case without calling any witnesses to testify, including Manafort himself.

Westling attacked the government’s contention that Manafort hid millions of dollars in offshore accounts to avoid U.S. taxes so he could fund luxurious purchases. He said Manafort had an adjusted net worth of $21.3 million at the end of 2016.

“Given this evidence, how can we say he didn’t have money?” Westling said.

Westling also attacked the prosecution’s star witness — Manafort’s former deputy chairman in the Trump campaign Rick Gates — as a liar and a thief. 

Gates had already pleaded guilty before Manafort’s trial to helping him hide millions in income from U.S. tax authorities and is awaiting sentencing.

Along with hours of testimony about Manafort’s finances, Gates acknowledged he stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Manafort in part to finance an extra-marital affair in London and lied about his own role in hiding money in offshore accounts.

Prosecutor Andres alleges that overall, Manafort “failed to pay taxes on more than $15 million” in income. It is money the government claims he used to buy palatial mansions,  elaborate landscaping, fancy suits and jackets, electronics and other high-priced items. 

Much of the money, the government alleges, came from Manafort’s lobbying for deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was toppled in a popular 2014 uprising in Kyiv before fleeing to exile in Russia.

But Andres alleged that when the stream of money from Yanukovych dried up four years ago, Manafort financed his luxurious lifestyle by securing about $20 million in bank loans in the U.S. by lying about his assets and debts on loan applications.

“He lied and lied again,” Andres said.

Prosecutors offer two weeks of testimony

Prosecutors for special counsel Robert Mueller presented two weeks of testimony against Manafort, accusing him of hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts he earned while lobbying for Yanukovych in the years before Manafort joined Trump’s campaign.

The case has drawn particular interest in the U.S. because it is the first trial conducted by Mueller’s prosecutors in their wide-ranging investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

They are probing whether Trump associates conspired with Russia to help Trump win the White House and whether Trump, as president, obstructed justice by trying to thwart the investigation.

However, the case against Manafort, a long-time Washington lobbyist, only peripherally touched on the campaign. Instead, it dealt almost totally on accusations about his financial transactions and what he did with the money from Yanukovych and the bank loans.
…

The security clearance of a former Central Intelligence Agency director was revoked Wednesday by U.S. President Donald Trump, who said in a statement that John Brennan had been sowing “division and chaos” about his administration.

The clearances of other former officials also were under review, including those of former U.S. National Intelligence Director James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. 

“Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked, and those who have already their lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said to reporters Wednesday, reading out the statement in the president’s name.

Sarah Sanders Reads Trump Statement Revoking Clearances

Sanders, responding to reporters’ questions, denied that Brennan and others were being singled out because they were critics of Trump.

The president’s statement accused Brennan of “erratic conduct and behavior” that “has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him.” It also accused Brennan of “a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.” 

Brennan has been extremely critical and outspoken about the president’s conduct. For example, he called Trump’s performance at a joint press conference last month with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Finland ​ “nothing short of treasonous.”

Brennan, on Twitter, termed Trump’s action Wednesday part of a broader effort “to suppress freedom of speech and punish critics,” adding that it “should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out.”

Brennan, who spent 25 years with the CIA, concluded: “My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent.” 

“Two things, in my view, are true at the same time,” Carmen Medina, former CIA deputy director of intelligence,  told VOA. “It was unwise for Brennan to be so vitriolic in his comments — unwise but not illegal. And it is an abuse of power for Trump to revoke clearances, unless he can prove misuse of classified information, which I don’t think he can.”

Such former top officials, as a matter of courtesy, retain their government clearances so that they may be able to consult with current government officials or take outside positions for contracted entities that are involved with sensitive intelligence matters.

An official with knowledge of the process told VOA that senior intelligence officials “had no hand in this, no role in this.” 

Both the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency referred to the White House all questions from VOA about the matter.

Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, applauded the president’s action, saying he had urged the president to do so because Brennan’s “behavior in government and out of it demonstrate why he should not be allowed near classified information.”

“He participated in a shredding of constitutional rights, lied to Congress, and has been monetizing and making partisan political use of his clearance since his departure,” Paul said in a statement.

​Danger seen to free speech, security

But critics of the move to strip Brennan’s clearance called it a threat to free speech and even national security.

“It’s unprecedented. I don’t know of a case where this has ever been done in the past,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on CNN. 

Clapper, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who had been appointed to top intelligence posts by both Republican and Democratic presidents, called Trump’s action “an infringement of our right to speak and apparently the appropriateness of being critical of this president, in which one degree or another all of us have been.”

Clapper noted he’d had no access to intelligence information since he left government on the day Trump was inaugurated, succeeding Barack Obama.

The threat to pull his security clearance, Clapper added, would not silence him. “I don’t plan to stop speaking when I’m asked my views on this administration,” Clapper said on CNN.

Retired General Michael Hayden, who headed both the CIA and NSA during his career, said losing his clearance would “have a marginal impact” on the work he’s doing now. He also said fear of losing that clearance wouldn’t stop him from speaking his mind.

“With regard to the implied threat today that I could lose my clearance, that will have no impact on what I think, say or write,” he said in an emailed statement.

Most of the names on the list that Sanders read “have been open or outspoken about the administration or have directly run afoul of it,” Clapper said.

The current administration has questioned the loyalties of such officials, viewing their comments as attacks against the president, especially those focusing on the intelligence findings that Russia intervened in the 2016 election won by Trump.

Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA officer now with Georgetown University in Washington, told VOA that arguments could be made for and against former senior officials retaining security clearances after they’ve left those positions.  But he added that the decision should not be made because of opinions they express.

Politicization of process

“Deciding on such a basis represents a corruption and politicization of an important national security process,” Pillar said. “The harm to U.S. national security comes from that corruption, much more so than from not being able to get advice in classified channels from John Brennan or any other former official. What’s to stop Trump from politicization of the clearance process for currently serving officials?”

A former CIA deputy director, John McLaughlin, speaking on MSNBC after Sanders read the names, said, “The message that goes out is: Be careful what you say” about Trump. 

McLaughlin said it was critical for intelligence professionals, especially those still in their jobs, to be able to deliver unpleasant news to a president, and he expressed hope that Trump’s action would not have a chilling effect on those who brief the president.

“This has zero to do with national security. This is an Official Enemies List. The offense: exercising 1st Amendment rights,” tweeted Michael Bromwich, a former inspector general of the Justice Department, which oversees federal law enforcement.
…

The foundation of Democrat Ilhan Omar’s historic primary election win to represent Minnesota’s 5th District in the U.S. Congress was built on a simple campaign message.

“I am a millennial with student debt,” the 35-year-old state lawmaker told an audience in a crowded auditorium at the University of Minnesota’s Hubert Humphrey School of Public Affairs during a pre-election forum with two of her competitors, both of them older.

“And a renter,” she added, someone who isn’t ready, or can’t yet afford, to purchase a home.

It was a simple yet effective message by Omar, conveying that — despite her origins in Somalia and the hijab upon her head — she was just like the many younger, progressive and liberal voters she needed to court in the Congressional district she seeks to represent.

It was ultimately a winning message, both now… and two years ago when she first made history in her election (which her campaign says saw increased voter turnout by 37 percent) to the Minnesota state House of Representatives.

“Before Ilhan, I think a lot of us didn’t know what type of government we had, but now that she was elected, a lot of us started paying attention,” says 25-year-old Somali American Khalid Mohamed. “She represented us at the state level and we saw how productive she was.”

Mohamed is just one of the tens of thousands of Somali Americans who voted on this primary election day for Ilhan Omar, who is one step closer to making history as the first elected refugee from the African continent — and the second Muslim American woman — to join the body. She follows in the footsteps of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim American in Congress, who currently represents this Minneapolis Congressional District, but stepped down to pursue the state’s Attorney General’s office — an election which he too also won the same night as Omar.

“Around America it might seem odd that one of the whitest states in the country would be sending its second Muslim to Congress,” says University of Minnesota Professor Larry Jacobs. “But not so in Minnesota,” a state that is home to the largest number of Somali refugees in the United States. But Jacobs says their votes are only part of Ilhan’s success story.

“That is not enough to prevail in a district in which Somalis really numerically are not a large number and in this race were split with another Somali candidate,” Jacobs told VOA. “What Omar has been able to do for the second time now in a few years is build a broad coalition that includes progressives who agree with her Bernie Sanders light agenda and people who believe the Democratic Party needs to become more diverse and welcome in new voices.”

New voices that have new — and old — challenges to face.

“Right now I am well equipped to organize against an administration that is using the politics of fear to further their divisive and destructive policies at a time when our nation is at a dangerous crossroads,” Omar explained to the crowd during the candidate forum. She is the Democrat’s Assistant Minority leader in the Minnesota House of Representatives, and has spoken out against family separations at the U.S. border. She is also a critic of the Trump administration’s so-called “Muslim Ban.”

Khalid Mohamed agrees with Omar’s policy positions, and hopes her personal experience coming from a Kenyan refugee camp will shape the ongoing debate in Congress over U.S. immigration policy.

“As a refugee,” says Mohamed, “she had experienced the struggles of being a refugee, and the vetting process, and something Donald Trump has not understood quite well.”

“In my last race I talked about what that win would mean for that eight year old girl in that refugee camp,” Ilhan Omar emotionally explained to the jubilant crowd gathered for her primary election night victory party, acknowledging her improbable journey from Kenyan refugee camp to the doorstep of the U.S. Capitol. “And today, I still think about her. I think about the hope and optimism, of all those 8 year olds out of the country. And around the world.”

Many in Minnesota’s Somali Muslim American community are refugees like her, and Omar’s election represents an opportunity to change public perceptions — and misperceptions — about their circumstances, and their faith.

“Often our community are deemed as not very supportive of in terms of gender, especially towards females or women,” says 25-year-old voter Khalid Mohamed. “It would show the world and everyone in the state of Minnesota, that we often uplift and encourage Somali women, Muslim women, to run for offices… to be part of the democracy that we have here in America… to participate and also to vote. It will showcase that often the media portrays us that we oppress our women as a Muslim community – we always tell them what to do and they don’t have a freedom – but that would totally tell a different narrative today.”

Mohamed also believes that Omar’s election sends a message of hope to not just a larger religious community, but an entire continent.

“For her to be the first African born congresswomen, I think it’s a big deal on the continent,” he said. “It sends a message to everyone from Africa… that you might be a refugee, you might have come here as an immigrant, but you have rights, and you can be whoever you want as long as you put the work in.”

Work that begins for Omar after a November general election that she is also likely to win, as the district she seeks to represent heavily favors Democratic candidates.
…

The races for U.S. political offices became further defined Tuesday with the latest round of primary elections setting up congressional battles in the battleground states of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

In Wisconsin, Republicans chose state lawmaker Leah Vukmir to go up against Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin, who is trying to earn a second term in office.

Vukmir has the support of President Donald Trump, who just ahead of Tuesday’s primaries also voiced approval for Governor Scott Walker in his re-election campaign. Democrat Tony Evers won the Democratic primary to face Walker in November.

Republican voters chose Bryan Steil, a former aide to House Speaker Paul Ryan, as their candidate to replace Ryan when he retires at the end of the current term. Steil will face Democratic candidate Randy Bryce to represent the congressional district in a suburb of Milwaukee.

Democrats seem to be particularly energized in Wisconsin, where Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate to win in 32 years, although by one percentage point, in the 2016 elections.

In the November election, all 435 House of Representatives seats, 35 of 100 Senate seats, and 36 of 50 governors’ offices will be up for election. Democrats must win 23 seats in the House and two seats in the Senate to gain control of those chambers.

In Minnesota, former Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has been critical of Trump, saw his campaign to reclaim his old job end Tuesday as the one-time favorite in the race lost the Republican primary to county commissioner Jeff Johnson. Democrats chose Congressman Tim Walz as their candidate for governor.

Rep. Keith Ellison won the Democratic nomination for Minnesota’s attorney general on Tuesday after his campaign was rocked by recent allegations of domestic violence.

Ellison is the first Muslim elected to Congress, and in the race to fill the seat he is vacating Democrats picked state representative Ilhan Omar, the nation’s first Somali-American legislator as their candidate. She will go up against Republican Jennifer Zielinski for a seat Democrats have held since 1960.

Senator Tina Smith won the Democratic primary to seek her first full term after taking office to replace fellow Democrat Al Franked who resigned in December amid multiple allegations of unwanted sexual touching. Smith will face Republican state senator Karin Housley.

Primary contests were also held in the heavily Democratic northeastern states of Vermont and Connecticut.

Democrats selected Christine Hallquist as their nominee for governor in Vermont as he tries to become the nation’s first transgender governor. She will face Republican incumbent Phil Scott, who has strong support in his re-election bid.

And Sen. Bernie Sanders, who ran for president in 2016, won the Democratic primary for his seat, but is expected to turn down that nomination and continue as an independent.
…

A Democratic Supreme Court justice in the U.S. state of West Virginia said hours after she was impeached Tuesday that she was retiring, triggering a special election for her replacement and denying the Republican governor a chance to name her successor.

The citizens of West Virginia now “will be afforded their constitutional right to elect my successor in November,” Justice Robin Davis said as she announced her departure at the state capital.

Davis announced her resignation after being impeached for committing wrongful acts, including spending $500,000 on office renovations.

The House of Delegates voted Monday to impeach all four remaining justices over spending issues. They will be brought to trial in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, as is the House.

Davis said their impeachment was a travesty of justice and a brazen attempt by one branch of government to seize control over another.

Justice Menis Ketchum retired earlier this year. Any of the three remaining justices who are considering resigning must do so by the Tuesday deadline in order for their replacements to be decided in a November special election. Gov. Jim Justice will appoint replacements who will serve until the election.

All four justices were impeached for failing to control expenses and for not maintaining policies over matters involving state vehicles, working lunches and the use of office computers at home.

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump unleashed new attacks Tuesday on Attorney General Jeff Sessions and fired FBI agent Peter Strzok, blaming them for the investigation of Russian links to his 2016 U.S. presidential campaign that has consumed his presidency.

The U.S. leader said on Twitter, “If we had a real Attorney General, this Witch Hunt would never have been started! Looking at the wrong people.”

Trump’s attack on the country’s top law enforcement official came days after he described Sessions as “scared stiff” and “missing in action.”

Trump has long been critical of Sessions but has stopped short of firing Sessions for recusing himself from oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller’s criminal investigation into whether Trump associates conspired with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign, and whether Trump, as president, has obstructed justice by trying to thwart the probe.

Under Justice Department rules, Sessions was required to remove himself from overseeing Mueller’s operation because of conflicts of interest, Sessions’ own 2016 contacts with Russia’s then-ambassador to Washington and his staunch support of Trump’s presidential candidacy.

Trump also assailed Strzok, who was a key investigator in Mueller’s probe until Mueller removed him when text messages Strzok wrote disparaging Trump were uncovered. The FBI fired him last week, although an earlier Justice Department inspector general’s report had concluded there was no evidence that Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the woman with whom he was corresponding, acted on their anti-Trump views to try to stop Trump’s election.

Trump tweeted, “Fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok is a fraud, as is the rigged investigation he started. There was no Collusion or Obstruction with Russia, and everybody, including the Democrats, know it.”

Trump claimed, without elaboration, “The only Collusion and Obstruction was by Crooked Hillary, the Democrats and the DNC!” using his favorite pejorative for his 2016 challenger, Democrat Hillary Clinton.

He added, “Strzok started the illegal Rigged Witch Hunt – why isn’t this so-called ‘probe’ ended immediately? Why aren’t these angry and conflicted Democrats instead looking at Crooked Hillary?”

On Monday, Trump praised Strzok’s dismissal from the FBI after a 22-year career, tweeting, “Agent Peter Strzok was just fired from the FBI – finally.”

Last month, Strzok told a House of Representatives hearing that the anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with Page reflected his personal opinions and that he had never let his beliefs interfere with his work for the FBI.

In the key exchange between Strzok and Page, she texted him that Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok replied, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

Mueller’s investigation is now in its 15th month.

He has secured guilty pleas from several Trump associates, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn and ex-foreign affairs adviser George Papadopoulos, both of whom pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about their contacts with Russia.

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is currently on trial for bank and tax fraud in connection with his lobbying efforts for Ukraine that predated his work on Trump’s campaign.

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump resumed his attacks Tuesday on a former adviser, Omarosa Manigault Newman, calling her a “dog” who deserved to be fired.

In a Twitter comment, the U.S. leader praised his chief of staff, John Kelly, for dismissing her late last year. She was a long-time contestant on Trump’s one-time reality television show, “The Apprentice,” before Trump named her to a $179,700-a-year White House position, noting that she “only said GREAT things about me.”

“When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out,” Trump tweeted. “Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!”

Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign filed for arbitration against Manigault Newman, claiming she violated a non-disclosure agreement she signed by writing a new book, “Unhinged,” that is highly critical of Trump and his White House operations.  It was published Tuesday.

While promoting her book, Manigault Newman, who was the highest-ranking African-American serving in the White House, has released audio tapes the last two days she recorded in the White House, one of Kelly firing her and a second of Trump seeming surprised that she had been ousted.

Trump’s newest attack on her came a day after he described her as “Wacky Omarosa” and said she “was vicious, but not smart.”

“Wacky Omarosa, who got fired 3 times on the Apprentice, now got fired for the last time,” Trump tweeted Monday. “She never made it, never will. She begged me for a job, tears in her eyes, I said Ok. People in the White House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. I would rarely see her but heard really bad things. Nasty to people & would constantly miss meetings & work. When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems. I told him to try working it out, if possible, because she only said GREAT things about me – until she got fired!…”

Later, he half-apologized for his comments about her.

“While I know it’s ‘not presidential’ to take on a lowlife like Omarosa,” he said, “and while I would rather not be doing so, this is a modern day form of communication and I know the Fake News Media will be working overtime to make even Wacky Omarosa look legitimate as possible. Sorry!”

Trump’s Monday tweets about Manigault Newman came a couple hours after she played an audio recording of a conversation she had with Trump seeming to show that the president was surprised that Kelly had fired her last December.

“Omarosa, what’s going on?” Trump said on the brief recording aired on NBC’s “Today” show. Manigault Newman said the phone call occurred the day after Kelly ousted her. “I just saw on the news that you’re thinking about leaving. What happened?” Trump said.

“General Kelly came to me and said that you guys wanted me to leave,” Manigault Newman replied.

But Trump said, “No. Nobody even told me about it. You know, they run a big operation, but I didn’t know it. I didn’t know that. (expletive).”

“I don’t love you leaving at all,” he added, while not doing anything to block her dismissal.

On Sunday, Manigault Newman released a recording of Kelly firing her in the Situation Room, the supposedly secure inner sanctum of the White House where U.S. presidents discuss crucial national security issues and aides are supposed to leave electronic devices outside.

As he fired her, according to the recording, Kelly told Manigault Newman, “I think it’s important to understand that if we make this a friendly departure, we can all be, you know, you can look at your time here in the White House as a year of service to the nation. And then you can go on without any type of difficulty in the future, relative to your reputation.”

Manigault Newman claims that she was offered a $15,000-a-month retainer as she left the White House to not criticize Trump or Vice President Mike Pence and their wives, but that she turned it down. She says she has other tapes she secretly made at the White House.

Trump’s spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said Sunday, “The very idea a staff member would sneak a recording device into the White House Situation Room shows a blatant disregard for our national security — and then to brag about it on national television further proves the lack of character and integrity of this disgruntled former White House employee.”

The Republican Party tweeted: “Omarosa is … ‘Unbelievable.’ ‘Not credible.’ ‘Unethical.’”
…

U.S. President Donald Trump signed a $716 billion defense policy bill on Monday that authorizes military spending and includes watered-down controls on U.S. government contracts with China’s ZTE and Huawei Technologies.

Trump signed the law at the U.S. Army’s Fort Drum base in upstate New York on his way back to Washington after a 12-day working vacation at his golf club in New Jersey. The bill was named for one of Trump’s political critics, the ailing U.S. Senator John McCain of Arizona, but he did not mention McCain’s name.

McCain said in a statement he was “humbled” the bill was named after him, adding that it will address “a growing array of threats.”

Trump later made a reference to McCain at a political fundraiser in Utica, New York, knocking him – as Trump does repeatedly – for voting against a bill to repeal parts of President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform law last year.

Even though Trump said the bill “is the most significant investment in our military and our war-fighters in modern history,” Obama’s first three defense budgets were larger, when adjusted for inflation, according to Todd Harrison at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Weak on China

Some lawmakers wanted to use the bill to reinstate tough sanctions on ZTE to punish the company for illegally shipping products to Iran and North Korea, but the restrictions included in the final National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, that passed Congress were weaker than earlier versions of the bill.

Trump has lifted an earlier ban on U.S. companies selling to ZTE, allowing China’s second-largest telecommunications equipment maker to resume business and putting him at odds with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

Leaders of U.S. intelligence agencies have said they are concerned that ZTE, Huawei Technologies and some other Chinese companies are beholden to the Chinese government or Communist Party, raising the risk of espionage.

The White House opposed putting stronger measures against the companies in the bill, and the measures were softened before lawmakers held their final vote.

The NDAA does strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews proposed foreign investments to weigh whether they threaten national security.

That measure was seen as targeting China.

Separately, the NDAA authorizes spending $7.6 billion for 77 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, made by Lockheed Martin.

The bill also directs the Secretary of Defense to study whether Turkey’s planned deployment of the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system will risk the security of several U.S.-made weapons used by Turkey, including the F-35 jet. The mandate to produce a study came after an earlier version proposed to bar the delivery of F-35s to Turkey.

Prior to the ceremony Trump watched an air assault demonstration by U.S. troops at Fort Drum.
…