In the wake of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida, students launch the Never Again movement, demanding far stronger gun laws in the US. Just five weeks after the shooting, they organized the March for Our Lives, attended by an estimated one million people across the globe. As Sama Dizayee reports, the students say it’s just the beginning.
…

In the wake of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida, students launch the Never Again movement, demanding far stronger gun laws in the US. Just five weeks after the shooting, they organized the March for Our Lives, attended by an estimated one million people across the globe. As Sama Dizayee reports, the students say it’s just the beginning.
…

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday he had no reservations or concerns about President Donald Trump’s incoming national security adviser, John Bolton, a hawk who has advocated using military force against North Korea and Iran.

Amid speculation the two men will clash on a host of major national issues, Mattis said he would meet Bolton for the first time later this week at the Pentagon with the goal of forging a partnership.

“We’re going to sit down together [this week], and I look forward to working with him. No reservations. No concerns at all,” Mattis told a group of reporters at an impromptu briefing.

“Last time I checked, he’s an American and I can work with an American. OK? I’m not the least bit concerned with that sort of thing.”

Trump has shaken up his core national security team in the past two weeks, replacing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and firing Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state.

The moves within a small group of just a handful of advisers have raised questions about whether Mattis could find himself increasingly isolated in his views and outmaneuvered by Bolton, an inveterate bureaucratic infighter whose 2007 memoir is titled: Surrender Is Not an Option.

Mattis had forged a close relationship with both McMaster and Tillerson as he successfully advocated to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan and strengthen ties with NATO, despite Trump’s skepticism about both the 16-year-old war and the trans-Atlantic alliance supporting it.

Warning about the horrors of a war on the Korean peninsula, Mattis has also promoted a diplomatically-led strategy to pressure North Korea over its efforts to build a nuclear-tipped missile capable of striking the United States.

Cautious communicator

Mattis has also been a cautious communicator.

After Trump announced plans to talk with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Mattis was so concerned he might say something to upset the process that the defense secretary opted earlier this month to stop making any substantive public remarks about North Korea at all.

“Right now, every word is going to be nuanced and parsed apart across different cultures, at different times of the day, in different contexts,” Mattis said at the time.

On the other hand, Bolton, a 69-year-old Fox News analyst and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in the past has called for regime change in North Korea and has previously been rejected as a negotiating partner by Pyongyang.

In 2003, on the eve of six-nation talks over Pyongyang’s nuclear program, he lambasted then-North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in a speech in Seoul, calling him a “tyrannical dictator.”

North Korea responded by calling Bolton “human scum.”

More recently, Bolton described Trump’s plan to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “diplomatic shock and awe” and said it would be an opportunity to deliver a threat of military action.

‘Solemn responsibilities’

Bolton has been downplaying his aggressive rhetoric in his initial conversations with some current and former U.S. officials, and sought guidance on how to approach Mattis, sources familiar with those conversations told Reuters.

Barry Pavel, a U.S. national security expert at the Atlantic Council think-tank, said it was too soon to predict Bolton’s style or draw conclusions about how he would run the National Security Council.

“When you’re in a position like he’s going into, it’s a very, very solemn set of responsibilities … and those have a restraining factor,” Pavel said.

Asked by Reuters about the split between his world views and Bolton’s, Mattis sought to dismiss concerns, suggesting lively debate would help ensure Trump has a wide array of options.

“Well, I hope that there’s some different world views. That’s the normal thing you want unless you want groupthink,” Mattis said. “You know, don’t worry about that. We’ll be fine.”
…

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday he had no reservations or concerns about President Donald Trump’s incoming national security adviser, John Bolton, a hawk who has advocated using military force against North Korea and Iran.

Amid speculation the two men will clash on a host of major national issues, Mattis said he would meet Bolton for the first time later this week at the Pentagon with the goal of forging a partnership.

“We’re going to sit down together [this week], and I look forward to working with him. No reservations. No concerns at all,” Mattis told a group of reporters at an impromptu briefing.

“Last time I checked, he’s an American and I can work with an American. OK? I’m not the least bit concerned with that sort of thing.”

Trump has shaken up his core national security team in the past two weeks, replacing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and firing Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state.

The moves within a small group of just a handful of advisers have raised questions about whether Mattis could find himself increasingly isolated in his views and outmaneuvered by Bolton, an inveterate bureaucratic infighter whose 2007 memoir is titled: Surrender Is Not an Option.

Mattis had forged a close relationship with both McMaster and Tillerson as he successfully advocated to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan and strengthen ties with NATO, despite Trump’s skepticism about both the 16-year-old war and the trans-Atlantic alliance supporting it.

Warning about the horrors of a war on the Korean peninsula, Mattis has also promoted a diplomatically-led strategy to pressure North Korea over its efforts to build a nuclear-tipped missile capable of striking the United States.

Cautious communicator

Mattis has also been a cautious communicator.

After Trump announced plans to talk with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Mattis was so concerned he might say something to upset the process that the defense secretary opted earlier this month to stop making any substantive public remarks about North Korea at all.

“Right now, every word is going to be nuanced and parsed apart across different cultures, at different times of the day, in different contexts,” Mattis said at the time.

On the other hand, Bolton, a 69-year-old Fox News analyst and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in the past has called for regime change in North Korea and has previously been rejected as a negotiating partner by Pyongyang.

In 2003, on the eve of six-nation talks over Pyongyang’s nuclear program, he lambasted then-North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in a speech in Seoul, calling him a “tyrannical dictator.”

North Korea responded by calling Bolton “human scum.”

More recently, Bolton described Trump’s plan to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “diplomatic shock and awe” and said it would be an opportunity to deliver a threat of military action.

‘Solemn responsibilities’

Bolton has been downplaying his aggressive rhetoric in his initial conversations with some current and former U.S. officials, and sought guidance on how to approach Mattis, sources familiar with those conversations told Reuters.

Barry Pavel, a U.S. national security expert at the Atlantic Council think-tank, said it was too soon to predict Bolton’s style or draw conclusions about how he would run the National Security Council.

“When you’re in a position like he’s going into, it’s a very, very solemn set of responsibilities … and those have a restraining factor,” Pavel said.

Asked by Reuters about the split between his world views and Bolton’s, Mattis sought to dismiss concerns, suggesting lively debate would help ensure Trump has a wide array of options.

“Well, I hope that there’s some different world views. That’s the normal thing you want unless you want groupthink,” Mattis said. “You know, don’t worry about that. We’ll be fine.”
…

U.S. President Donald Trump, who campaigned against economic agreements he considered unfair to America has his first trade deal.

The United States and South Korea have agreed to revise their sweeping six-year-old trade pact which was completed during the administration of Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama.

The agreement “will significantly strengthen the economic and national security relationships between the United States and South Korea,” according to a senior administration official in Washington.

Trump had threatened to scrap the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), calling it “horrible.” But officials of his administration on Tuesday confirmed key aspects of the agreement which officials in Seoul had announced the previous day.

“When this is finalized it will be the first successful renegotiation of a trade agreement in U.S. history,” according to a senior U.S. official.

The tentative agreement between the United States and its sixth largest trading partner and a critical security ally in Asia comes at a time of fast-moving developments on the Korean peninsula.

In exchange for terms more favorable to American automakers, South Korea — the third largest steel exporter to the United States — is being exempted for recently announced heavy tariffs on steel rolled out by Trump. South Korea will also limit to about 2.7 tons per year shipments of steel to the United States.

“This is a huge win,” a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters on a conference call Tuesday evening.

Trump last week also temporarily excluded other trade partners, including Canada, the European Union and Mexico from the announced import duties of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum, which came into effect on Friday.

Under the revisions to be made the KORUS FTA, South Korea is to allow American carmakers to double to 50,000 the number of vehicles that meet U.S. safety standards to Korea annually even though they do not comply with various local standards.

“The revisions to the KORUS FTA benefit both countries as they addressed the United States’ primary concern in autos trade, opening the South Korean market to additional exports of U.S. autos,” Troy Stangarone, the senior director of congressional affairs and trade at the Korea Economic Institute in Washington, tells VOA. “For South Korea, they addresses concerns in the dispute settlement process, while the overall revisions remained relatively narrow in scope. The agreement also takes a potentially contentious issue off of the table as the United States and South Korea prepare for critical talks with North Korea.”

Vehicle emissions standards will also be eased for U.S. vehicles imported from 2021 to 2025.

The Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association immediately called on Seoul to also ease environmental and safety standards for domestic vehicle manufacturers “to offer a level playing field.”

The balance is heavily in favor of South Korea. According to U.S. government statistics, Americans bought $16 billion  worth of passenger cars while such purchases made by South Koreans totaled just $1.5 billion.

The United States, under the revised deal, will also maintain tariffs on exports of South Korean pick-up trucks until 2041, an extension from the previously agreed 2021. However, no South Korean manufacturer is currently exporting such vehicles to the U.S. market.

U.S. officials also say that South Korea has agreed to recognize U.S. standards for auto parts.

“They will reduce some of the burdensome labeling requirements when it comes to auto parts,” a senior U.S. official told reporters.

The apparent settlement of the trade dispute comes before a planned meeting between the leaders of rival South and North Korea. Trump has also accepted an invitation relayed by the South from the North’s leader, Kim Jong Un, to meet with the U.S. president. The White House on Tuesday said planning for such a summit is still proceeding but no location or date has been decided. State Department official say they are unsure it will happen by May as previously announced.

The rival Koreas have no diplomatic relations and technically remain at war since a 1953 armistice signed by armies of China and North Korea with the United Nations Command, led by the United States.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump, who campaigned against economic agreements he considered unfair to America has his first trade deal.

The United States and South Korea have agreed to revise their sweeping six-year-old trade pact which was completed during the administration of Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama.

The agreement “will significantly strengthen the economic and national security relationships between the United States and South Korea,” according to a senior administration official in Washington.

Trump had threatened to scrap the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), calling it “horrible.” But officials of his administration on Tuesday confirmed key aspects of the agreement which officials in Seoul had announced the previous day.

“When this is finalized it will be the first successful renegotiation of a trade agreement in U.S. history,” according to a senior U.S. official.

The tentative agreement between the United States and its sixth largest trading partner and a critical security ally in Asia comes at a time of fast-moving developments on the Korean peninsula.

In exchange for terms more favorable to American automakers, South Korea — the third largest steel exporter to the United States — is being exempted for recently announced heavy tariffs on steel rolled out by Trump. South Korea will also limit to about 2.7 tons per year shipments of steel to the United States.

“This is a huge win,” a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters on a conference call Tuesday evening.

Trump last week also temporarily excluded other trade partners, including Canada, the European Union and Mexico from the announced import duties of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum, which came into effect on Friday.

Under the revisions to be made the KORUS FTA, South Korea is to allow American carmakers to double to 50,000 the number of vehicles that meet U.S. safety standards to Korea annually even though they do not comply with various local standards.

“The revisions to the KORUS FTA benefit both countries as they addressed the United States’ primary concern in autos trade, opening the South Korean market to additional exports of U.S. autos,” Troy Stangarone, the senior director of congressional affairs and trade at the Korea Economic Institute in Washington, tells VOA. “For South Korea, they addresses concerns in the dispute settlement process, while the overall revisions remained relatively narrow in scope. The agreement also takes a potentially contentious issue off of the table as the United States and South Korea prepare for critical talks with North Korea.”

Vehicle emissions standards will also be eased for U.S. vehicles imported from 2021 to 2025.

The Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association immediately called on Seoul to also ease environmental and safety standards for domestic vehicle manufacturers “to offer a level playing field.”

The balance is heavily in favor of South Korea. According to U.S. government statistics, Americans bought $16 billion  worth of passenger cars while such purchases made by South Koreans totaled just $1.5 billion.

The United States, under the revised deal, will also maintain tariffs on exports of South Korean pick-up trucks until 2041, an extension from the previously agreed 2021. However, no South Korean manufacturer is currently exporting such vehicles to the U.S. market.

U.S. officials also say that South Korea has agreed to recognize U.S. standards for auto parts.

“They will reduce some of the burdensome labeling requirements when it comes to auto parts,” a senior U.S. official told reporters.

The apparent settlement of the trade dispute comes before a planned meeting between the leaders of rival South and North Korea. Trump has also accepted an invitation relayed by the South from the North’s leader, Kim Jong Un, to meet with the U.S. president. The White House on Tuesday said planning for such a summit is still proceeding but no location or date has been decided. State Department official say they are unsure it will happen by May as previously announced.

The rival Koreas have no diplomatic relations and technically remain at war since a 1953 armistice signed by armies of China and North Korea with the United Nations Command, led by the United States.
…

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has announced the next count of every resident in the country will include a question about citizenship status.

The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the survey every 10 years, with the next set to come in 2020. The deadline for finalizing the questions is Saturday.

Ross said in a memo late Monday that he chose to add the citizenship question after a request from the Department of Justice, which said the move was necessary to get data to better enforce a law that protects minority voting rights.

The decision brought criticism from those who say the citizenship question will cause people to not participate in the census because of concerns about how the government could use the information, resulting in an undercount of the population.

The census figures determine the number of seats each state is allocated in the U.S. House of Representatives as well as how the federal government distributes hundreds of billions of dollars in funding for various programs.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the state would file a lawsuit challenging what he called an “illegal” move.

“Innocuous at first blush, its effect would be truly insidious,” he wrote in a joint op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle with the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who now serves as chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said his organization will also challenge the decision in court, calling it “motivated purely by politics.”

“This question will lower the response rate and undermine the accuracy of the count, leading to devastating, decade-long impacts on voting rights and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funding,” Holder said. “By asking this question, states will not have accurate representation and individuals in impacted communities will lose out on state and federal funding for health care, education, and infrastructure.”

He also said that in his experience leading the Department of Justice, asking the citizenship question on the census “is not critical to enforcing the Voting Rights Act.”

The census has included a citizenship question in the past. Ross said in his memo the last time it was included was in 1950, but that other surveys by the Census Bureau do currently ask the question.

Ross noted the concerns about lower response rates, including from the Census Bureau itself, but said his department’s own review “found that limited empirical evidence exists about whether adding a citizenship question would decrease response rates materially.”

The Census Bureau plans to allow people to respond to the survey on a paper form, through the internet or by telephone. When people do not respond, teams attempt to follow-up with those households.

Ross said the higher cost of having to do more follow-ups in the case of a lower response rate was a factor he considered, but that “the need for accurate citizenship data” outweighs concerns about the potential for fewer responses.
…

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has announced the next count of every resident in the country will include a question about citizenship status.

The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the survey every 10 years, with the next set to come in 2020. The deadline for finalizing the questions is Saturday.

Ross said in a memo late Monday that he chose to add the citizenship question after a request from the Department of Justice, which said the move was necessary to get data to better enforce a law that protects minority voting rights.

The decision brought criticism from those who say the citizenship question will cause people to not participate in the census because of concerns about how the government could use the information, resulting in an undercount of the population.

The census figures determine the number of seats each state is allocated in the U.S. House of Representatives as well as how the federal government distributes hundreds of billions of dollars in funding for various programs.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the state would file a lawsuit challenging what he called an “illegal” move.

“Innocuous at first blush, its effect would be truly insidious,” he wrote in a joint op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle with the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who now serves as chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said his organization will also challenge the decision in court, calling it “motivated purely by politics.”

“This question will lower the response rate and undermine the accuracy of the count, leading to devastating, decade-long impacts on voting rights and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funding,” Holder said. “By asking this question, states will not have accurate representation and individuals in impacted communities will lose out on state and federal funding for health care, education, and infrastructure.”

He also said that in his experience leading the Department of Justice, asking the citizenship question on the census “is not critical to enforcing the Voting Rights Act.”

The census has included a citizenship question in the past. Ross said in his memo the last time it was included was in 1950, but that other surveys by the Census Bureau do currently ask the question.

Ross noted the concerns about lower response rates, including from the Census Bureau itself, but said his department’s own review “found that limited empirical evidence exists about whether adding a citizenship question would decrease response rates materially.”

The Census Bureau plans to allow people to respond to the survey on a paper form, through the internet or by telephone. When people do not respond, teams attempt to follow-up with those households.

Ross said the higher cost of having to do more follow-ups in the case of a lower response rate was a factor he considered, but that “the need for accurate citizenship data” outweighs concerns about the potential for fewer responses.
…

The Trump White House was on the defensive Monday, the day after adult film star Stormy Daniels spoke about her alleged affair with President Donald Trump back in 2006. Daniels detailed her involvement with Trump in an interview with the CBS program, “60 Minutes.” VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has more from Washington.
…

The Trump White House was on the defensive Monday, the day after adult film star Stormy Daniels spoke about her alleged affair with President Donald Trump back in 2006. Daniels detailed her involvement with Trump in an interview with the CBS program, “60 Minutes.” VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has more from Washington.
…

White House officials are looking into whether $500 million in loans that went to Trump administration senior adviser Jared Kushner’s family real estate company may have spurred ethics or criminal law violations, according to the head of the federal government’s ethics agency.

David J. Apol, acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, said in a letter sent late last week to Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi that the White House Counsel’s office told him that officials were probing the loans to Kushner Cos. and whether “additional procedures are necessary to avoid violations in the future.”

Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, had asked Apol on March 1 about a New York Times report in February that Kushner Cos. accepted $184 million in loans from Apollo Global Management and $325 million from Citigroup last year over a span of several months after Kushner met with officials from the two firms. As President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and key adviser, Kushner plays an influential role in domestic and foreign policy decisions.

Both companies have insisted their officials did nothing wrong in meeting with Kushner. Both firms had financial interests overseen by the federal government at the time and both firms – either independently or through industry groups – backed elements of the tax reform legislation that passed Congress last year with support from Trump.

In one case cited by the Times, Citigroup lent $325 million to Kushner Cos. in spring 2017 shortly after Kushner met with Citi’s chief executive, Michael Corbat. Last week, Citigroup’s general counsel told several Democratic lawmakers in a letter that the loan was “completely appropriate.”

In a second case, Kushner met several times with Apollo co-founder Joshua Harris and discussed a possible White House job – followed by Apollo’s loan of $184 million to the Kushner family firm. An Apollo spokesman previously told The Associated Press that Harris “never discussed with Jared Kushner a loan, investment, or any other business arrangement or regulatory matter involving Apollo.”

In the letter to Krishnamoorthi, Apol responded to several of her questions about Kushner’s conduct during the period when his family’s real estate firm received the two loans. Apol was careful not to offer legal opinions on Kushner’s behavior, instead noting that “the White House is in a position to ascertain the relevant facts related to possible violations and is responsible for monitoring compliance with ethics requirements.”

Apol said he raised those questions with White House officials “to ensure that they have begun the process of ascertaining to determine whether any law or regulation has been violated.” During the conversations, “the White House informed me that they had already begun this process,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Kushner Cos. said Monday night that the firm had not received any correspondence or other notifications from the White House or OGE.

A spokesman for Jared Kushner at the White House was not immediately available to comment on Apol’s confirmation of the probe.
…

White House officials are looking into whether $500 million in loans that went to Trump administration senior adviser Jared Kushner’s family real estate company may have spurred ethics or criminal law violations, according to the head of the federal government’s ethics agency.

David J. Apol, acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, said in a letter sent late last week to Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi that the White House Counsel’s office told him that officials were probing the loans to Kushner Cos. and whether “additional procedures are necessary to avoid violations in the future.”

Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, had asked Apol on March 1 about a New York Times report in February that Kushner Cos. accepted $184 million in loans from Apollo Global Management and $325 million from Citigroup last year over a span of several months after Kushner met with officials from the two firms. As President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and key adviser, Kushner plays an influential role in domestic and foreign policy decisions.

Both companies have insisted their officials did nothing wrong in meeting with Kushner. Both firms had financial interests overseen by the federal government at the time and both firms – either independently or through industry groups – backed elements of the tax reform legislation that passed Congress last year with support from Trump.

In one case cited by the Times, Citigroup lent $325 million to Kushner Cos. in spring 2017 shortly after Kushner met with Citi’s chief executive, Michael Corbat. Last week, Citigroup’s general counsel told several Democratic lawmakers in a letter that the loan was “completely appropriate.”

In a second case, Kushner met several times with Apollo co-founder Joshua Harris and discussed a possible White House job – followed by Apollo’s loan of $184 million to the Kushner family firm. An Apollo spokesman previously told The Associated Press that Harris “never discussed with Jared Kushner a loan, investment, or any other business arrangement or regulatory matter involving Apollo.”

In the letter to Krishnamoorthi, Apol responded to several of her questions about Kushner’s conduct during the period when his family’s real estate firm received the two loans. Apol was careful not to offer legal opinions on Kushner’s behavior, instead noting that “the White House is in a position to ascertain the relevant facts related to possible violations and is responsible for monitoring compliance with ethics requirements.”

Apol said he raised those questions with White House officials “to ensure that they have begun the process of ascertaining to determine whether any law or regulation has been violated.” During the conversations, “the White House informed me that they had already begun this process,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Kushner Cos. said Monday night that the firm had not received any correspondence or other notifications from the White House or OGE.

A spokesman for Jared Kushner at the White House was not immediately available to comment on Apol’s confirmation of the probe.
…

A top fundraiser for President Donald Trump received millions of dollars from a political adviser to the United Arab Emirates last April, just weeks before he began handing out a series of large political donations to U.S. lawmakers considering legislation targeting Qatar, the UAE’s chief rival in the Persian Gulf, an Associated Press investigation has found.

George Nader, an adviser to the UAE who is now a witness in the U.S. special counsel investigation into foreign meddling in American politics, wired $2.5 million to the Trump fundraiser, Elliott Broidy, through a company in Canada, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. They said Nader paid the money to Broidy to bankroll an effort to persuade the U.S. to take a hard line against Qatar, a long-time American ally but now a bitter adversary of the UAE.

A month after he received the money, Broidy sponsored a conference on Qatar’s alleged ties to Islamic extremism. During the event, Republican Congressman Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced he was introducing legislation that would brand Qatar as a terrorist-supporting state.

In July 2017, two months after Royce introduced the bill, Broidy gave the California congressman $5,400 in campaign gifts — the maximum allowed by law. The donations were part of just under $600,000 that Broidy has given to GOP members of Congress and Republican political committees since he began the push for the legislation fingering Qatar, according to an AP analysis of campaign finance disclosure records.

Broidy said in a statement to AP that he has been outspoken for years about militant groups, including Hamas.

“I’ve both raised money for, and contributed my own money to, efforts by think tanks to bring the facts into the open, since Qatar is spreading millions of dollars around Washington to whitewash its image as a terror-sponsoring state,” he said. “I’ve also spoken to like-minded members of Congress, like Royce, about how to make sure Qatar’s lobbying money does not blind lawmakers to the facts about its record in supporting terrorist groups.”

While Washington is awash with political donations from all manner of interest groups and individuals, there are strict restrictions on foreign donations for political activity. Agents of foreign governments are also required to register before lobbying so that there is a public record of foreign influence.

Cory Fritz, a spokesman for Royce, said that his boss had long criticized the “destabilizing role of extremist elements in Qatar.” He pointed to comments to that effect going back to 2014. “Any attempts to influence these longstanding views would have been unsuccessful,” he said.

In October, Broidy also raised the issue of Qatar at the White House in meetings with Trump and senior aides.

The details of Broidy’s advocacy on U.S. legislation have not been previously reported. The AP found no evidence that Broidy used Nader’s funds for the campaign donations or broke any laws. At the time of the advocacy work, his company, Circinus, did not have business with the UAE, but was awarded a more than $200 million contract in January.

The sanctions bill was approved by Royce’s committee in late 2017. It remains alive in the House of Representatives, awaiting a review by the House Financial Services Committee.

Meetings probed

The backstory of the legislative push is emerging amid continuing concerns about efforts by foreign governments or their proxies to influence American politics. While reports about possible Russian links to Trump’s campaign and his presidential administration have been making headlines since 2016, questions are now arising about efforts during the Trump era to influence U.S. policy in the Middle East.

The U.S. has long been friendly with Saudi Arabia and the UAE as well as Qatar, which is home to a massive American air base that the U.S. has used in its fight against the Islamic State. But as political rifts in the Gulf have widened, the Saudis and Emiratis have sought to undercut American ties with Qatar.

Qatar and UAE have also exchanged allegations of politically motivated hacks. Scores of Broidy’s emails and documents have leaked to news organizations, drawing attention to his relationship with Nader. Broidy has alleged that the hack was done by Qatari agents and has reported the breach to the FBI.

“It’s no surprise that Qatar would see me as an obstacle and come after me in the way it has,” he said in a statement.

A spokesman for the Qatari embassy, Jassim Mansour Jabr Al Thani, denied the charges, calling them “diversionary tactics.” Representatives of the UAE did not respond to requests for comment.

The timeline of the influx of cash wired by Nader, an adviser to Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the de facto leader of the UAE, may provide grist for U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team as it probes the activities of Trump and his associates during the 2016 campaign and beyond. However, it is not clear that Mueller has expanded his investigation in that direction.

Mueller’s investigators are looking into two meetings close to Trump’s inauguration attended by Nader and bin Zayed. The pair joined a meeting at New York’s Trump Tower in December 2016 that included presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, who was Trump’s chief strategist at the time. A month later, Nader and bin Zayed were a world away on the Seychelles island chain in the Indian Ocean, meeting with Erik Prince, the founder of the security company Blackwater, and the Kremlin-connected head of a large Russian sovereign wealth fund, Kirill Dmitriev.

Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman, agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s team after investigators stopped him at Dulles International Airport, according to a person familiar with his case.

That person and others who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity said they could not be identified because of the sensitivity of the issues surrounding the Mueller investigation.

A lawyer for Nader declined to comment for this story.

Policy push

Broidy and Nader first met at Trump’s presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Both men have checkered legal histories. Nader was convicted in a Czech Republic court in 2003 of multiple counts of sexually abusing minors. Broidy, a businessmen and prolific Republican fundraiser, was sidelined for a few years after he pleaded guilty to bribery in a case stemming from an investment scheme involving New York state’s employee pension fund.

Broidy later re-emerged as a player in GOP politics. During the 2016 Republican presidential primary, he raised money for U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz. After Cruz bowed out of the race, Broidy signed on to help Trump during the 2016 election and beyond, co-hosting fundraisers across the country.

The meeting between Broidy and Nader at the dawn of Trump’s presidency soon led the two to work together in an effort to shift U.S. policies on the Middle East.

On April 2, 2017, Nader asked Broidy to invoice his Dubai-based company for $2.5 million, according to someone familiar with the transaction who spoke on condition of anonymity.

On the same day, Broidy attached an invoice for that amount from Xiemen Investments Limited, a Canadian company directed by a friend. The money was forwarded to his own account in Los Angeles from the Canadian account, the person said. It was marked for consulting, marketing and advisory services, but was actually intended to fund Broidy’s Washington advocacy regarding Qatar, two people familiar with the transaction said. The financial transaction and the White House meetings were first reported by The New York Times.

It was on May 23, 2017, when Royce, a 13-term Congressman, appeared at a conference on Qatar’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and announced that he was introducing the sanctions bill that would name Qatar a state sponsor of terrorism.

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a think tank that hosted the conference, said Broidy had approached it about organizing the event. Broidy bankrolled that conference and contributed to the financing of a second conference hosted on a similar theme in October by another think tank, the Hudson Institute.

Both organizations said Broidy said that no money from foreign governments was involved. FDD says it does not accept money from foreign governments and Hudson only accepts money from Democratic countries allied with the U.S.

“As is our funding policy, we asked if his funding was connected to any foreign governments or if he had business contracts in the Gulf. He assured us that he did not,” FDD said in a statement.

Broidy donated millions of his own money to efforts to fight Qatar, in addition to the $2.5 million from Nader, according to someone close to him, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss Broidy’s private finances.

Broidy’s behind-the-scenes efforts unfolded as animosity was growing between the UAE and Qatar. These tensions came to a head when the UAE and Saudi Arabia launched an embargo with travel and trade restrictions against Qatar less than two weeks after Royce introduced the sanctions legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Weeks later, Trump himself waded into the fracas, accusing Qatar of funding extremism in tweets on June 6.

Royce and a staff member met with Broidy at Washington’s Capitol Hill Club to discuss the bill, according to someone who was at the meeting. An associate, who Broidy paid for some of the work, also had frequent contact with congressional staff.

Strong language

Broidy’s effort to cultivate allies in Congress extended beyond Royce.

Broidy has personally given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans over the past decade or more. But he gave nothing during the 2012 and 2014 election cycles and just $13,500 during the 2016 cycle. Things changed after Trump’s election as Broidy ramped up his advocacy on Middle East policy. Broidy has given nearly $600,000 to GOP candidates and causes since the beginning of last year when he began his advocacy push— more than in the previous 14 years combined.

Campaign finance records going back two decades show Broidy had not given any money to Royce — until he gave the lawmaker a pair of $2,700 donations on July 31, 2017.

By then, the sanctions bill was on a fast track.

The original draft considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee contained language singling out Qatar as a supporter of Hamas, a Palestinian organization that has been designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

“Hamas has received significant financial and military support from Qatar,” the draft bill states.

Soon Qatar was lobbying hard to have that language excised. Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, declared in a statement to the committee that Qatar does not fund Hamas.

According to two people familiar with the committee deliberations, both Republican and Democratic staff members reached a consensus that because of the tensions in the Gulf, the language would look like the lawmakers were taking sides. They agreed to take it out of the bill.

Qatari officials and lobbyists thought the matter had been settled, according to one lobbyist and a committee staffer. But just before the bill was to be put up for debate ahead of the committee’s vote, Royce ordered the language on Qatar not only reinstated, but strengthened, they say. The bill was approved by the committee in November with the stronger language on Qatar intact.

A Royce aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, denied that Royce had ever considered removing the Qatar language.

In January, Royce announced that he would not seek re-election, saying that he wanted to focus on his committee in the last year of his chairmanship rather than a political campaign.

In the same month, Broidy’s company signed the hefty contract with the UAE government for gathering intelligence, according to someone familiar with the work.

 
…

A top fundraiser for President Donald Trump received millions of dollars from a political adviser to the United Arab Emirates last April, just weeks before he began handing out a series of large political donations to U.S. lawmakers considering legislation targeting Qatar, the UAE’s chief rival in the Persian Gulf, an Associated Press investigation has found.

George Nader, an adviser to the UAE who is now a witness in the U.S. special counsel investigation into foreign meddling in American politics, wired $2.5 million to the Trump fundraiser, Elliott Broidy, through a company in Canada, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. They said Nader paid the money to Broidy to bankroll an effort to persuade the U.S. to take a hard line against Qatar, a long-time American ally but now a bitter adversary of the UAE.

A month after he received the money, Broidy sponsored a conference on Qatar’s alleged ties to Islamic extremism. During the event, Republican Congressman Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced he was introducing legislation that would brand Qatar as a terrorist-supporting state.

In July 2017, two months after Royce introduced the bill, Broidy gave the California congressman $5,400 in campaign gifts — the maximum allowed by law. The donations were part of just under $600,000 that Broidy has given to GOP members of Congress and Republican political committees since he began the push for the legislation fingering Qatar, according to an AP analysis of campaign finance disclosure records.

Broidy said in a statement to AP that he has been outspoken for years about militant groups, including Hamas.

“I’ve both raised money for, and contributed my own money to, efforts by think tanks to bring the facts into the open, since Qatar is spreading millions of dollars around Washington to whitewash its image as a terror-sponsoring state,” he said. “I’ve also spoken to like-minded members of Congress, like Royce, about how to make sure Qatar’s lobbying money does not blind lawmakers to the facts about its record in supporting terrorist groups.”

While Washington is awash with political donations from all manner of interest groups and individuals, there are strict restrictions on foreign donations for political activity. Agents of foreign governments are also required to register before lobbying so that there is a public record of foreign influence.

Cory Fritz, a spokesman for Royce, said that his boss had long criticized the “destabilizing role of extremist elements in Qatar.” He pointed to comments to that effect going back to 2014. “Any attempts to influence these longstanding views would have been unsuccessful,” he said.

In October, Broidy also raised the issue of Qatar at the White House in meetings with Trump and senior aides.

The details of Broidy’s advocacy on U.S. legislation have not been previously reported. The AP found no evidence that Broidy used Nader’s funds for the campaign donations or broke any laws. At the time of the advocacy work, his company, Circinus, did not have business with the UAE, but was awarded a more than $200 million contract in January.

The sanctions bill was approved by Royce’s committee in late 2017. It remains alive in the House of Representatives, awaiting a review by the House Financial Services Committee.

Meetings probed

The backstory of the legislative push is emerging amid continuing concerns about efforts by foreign governments or their proxies to influence American politics. While reports about possible Russian links to Trump’s campaign and his presidential administration have been making headlines since 2016, questions are now arising about efforts during the Trump era to influence U.S. policy in the Middle East.

The U.S. has long been friendly with Saudi Arabia and the UAE as well as Qatar, which is home to a massive American air base that the U.S. has used in its fight against the Islamic State. But as political rifts in the Gulf have widened, the Saudis and Emiratis have sought to undercut American ties with Qatar.

Qatar and UAE have also exchanged allegations of politically motivated hacks. Scores of Broidy’s emails and documents have leaked to news organizations, drawing attention to his relationship with Nader. Broidy has alleged that the hack was done by Qatari agents and has reported the breach to the FBI.

“It’s no surprise that Qatar would see me as an obstacle and come after me in the way it has,” he said in a statement.

A spokesman for the Qatari embassy, Jassim Mansour Jabr Al Thani, denied the charges, calling them “diversionary tactics.” Representatives of the UAE did not respond to requests for comment.

The timeline of the influx of cash wired by Nader, an adviser to Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the de facto leader of the UAE, may provide grist for U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team as it probes the activities of Trump and his associates during the 2016 campaign and beyond. However, it is not clear that Mueller has expanded his investigation in that direction.

Mueller’s investigators are looking into two meetings close to Trump’s inauguration attended by Nader and bin Zayed. The pair joined a meeting at New York’s Trump Tower in December 2016 that included presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, who was Trump’s chief strategist at the time. A month later, Nader and bin Zayed were a world away on the Seychelles island chain in the Indian Ocean, meeting with Erik Prince, the founder of the security company Blackwater, and the Kremlin-connected head of a large Russian sovereign wealth fund, Kirill Dmitriev.

Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman, agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s team after investigators stopped him at Dulles International Airport, according to a person familiar with his case.

That person and others who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity said they could not be identified because of the sensitivity of the issues surrounding the Mueller investigation.

A lawyer for Nader declined to comment for this story.

Policy push

Broidy and Nader first met at Trump’s presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Both men have checkered legal histories. Nader was convicted in a Czech Republic court in 2003 of multiple counts of sexually abusing minors. Broidy, a businessmen and prolific Republican fundraiser, was sidelined for a few years after he pleaded guilty to bribery in a case stemming from an investment scheme involving New York state’s employee pension fund.

Broidy later re-emerged as a player in GOP politics. During the 2016 Republican presidential primary, he raised money for U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz. After Cruz bowed out of the race, Broidy signed on to help Trump during the 2016 election and beyond, co-hosting fundraisers across the country.

The meeting between Broidy and Nader at the dawn of Trump’s presidency soon led the two to work together in an effort to shift U.S. policies on the Middle East.

On April 2, 2017, Nader asked Broidy to invoice his Dubai-based company for $2.5 million, according to someone familiar with the transaction who spoke on condition of anonymity.

On the same day, Broidy attached an invoice for that amount from Xiemen Investments Limited, a Canadian company directed by a friend. The money was forwarded to his own account in Los Angeles from the Canadian account, the person said. It was marked for consulting, marketing and advisory services, but was actually intended to fund Broidy’s Washington advocacy regarding Qatar, two people familiar with the transaction said. The financial transaction and the White House meetings were first reported by The New York Times.

It was on May 23, 2017, when Royce, a 13-term Congressman, appeared at a conference on Qatar’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and announced that he was introducing the sanctions bill that would name Qatar a state sponsor of terrorism.

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a think tank that hosted the conference, said Broidy had approached it about organizing the event. Broidy bankrolled that conference and contributed to the financing of a second conference hosted on a similar theme in October by another think tank, the Hudson Institute.

Both organizations said Broidy said that no money from foreign governments was involved. FDD says it does not accept money from foreign governments and Hudson only accepts money from Democratic countries allied with the U.S.

“As is our funding policy, we asked if his funding was connected to any foreign governments or if he had business contracts in the Gulf. He assured us that he did not,” FDD said in a statement.

Broidy donated millions of his own money to efforts to fight Qatar, in addition to the $2.5 million from Nader, according to someone close to him, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss Broidy’s private finances.

Broidy’s behind-the-scenes efforts unfolded as animosity was growing between the UAE and Qatar. These tensions came to a head when the UAE and Saudi Arabia launched an embargo with travel and trade restrictions against Qatar less than two weeks after Royce introduced the sanctions legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Weeks later, Trump himself waded into the fracas, accusing Qatar of funding extremism in tweets on June 6.

Royce and a staff member met with Broidy at Washington’s Capitol Hill Club to discuss the bill, according to someone who was at the meeting. An associate, who Broidy paid for some of the work, also had frequent contact with congressional staff.

Strong language

Broidy’s effort to cultivate allies in Congress extended beyond Royce.

Broidy has personally given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans over the past decade or more. But he gave nothing during the 2012 and 2014 election cycles and just $13,500 during the 2016 cycle. Things changed after Trump’s election as Broidy ramped up his advocacy on Middle East policy. Broidy has given nearly $600,000 to GOP candidates and causes since the beginning of last year when he began his advocacy push— more than in the previous 14 years combined.

Campaign finance records going back two decades show Broidy had not given any money to Royce — until he gave the lawmaker a pair of $2,700 donations on July 31, 2017.

By then, the sanctions bill was on a fast track.

The original draft considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee contained language singling out Qatar as a supporter of Hamas, a Palestinian organization that has been designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

“Hamas has received significant financial and military support from Qatar,” the draft bill states.

Soon Qatar was lobbying hard to have that language excised. Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, declared in a statement to the committee that Qatar does not fund Hamas.

According to two people familiar with the committee deliberations, both Republican and Democratic staff members reached a consensus that because of the tensions in the Gulf, the language would look like the lawmakers were taking sides. They agreed to take it out of the bill.

Qatari officials and lobbyists thought the matter had been settled, according to one lobbyist and a committee staffer. But just before the bill was to be put up for debate ahead of the committee’s vote, Royce ordered the language on Qatar not only reinstated, but strengthened, they say. The bill was approved by the committee in November with the stronger language on Qatar intact.

A Royce aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, denied that Royce had ever considered removing the Qatar language.

In January, Royce announced that he would not seek re-election, saying that he wanted to focus on his committee in the last year of his chairmanship rather than a political campaign.

In the same month, Broidy’s company signed the hefty contract with the UAE government for gathering intelligence, according to someone familiar with the work.

 
…

Washington is watching President Donald Trump’s makeover of his national security team to include more outspoken hardliners when it comes to America’s posture on the world stage. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, days after nominating CIA director Mike Pompeo to become his new secretary of state, Trump tapped John Bolton, a former Bush administration diplomat known for unflinchingly bellicose rhetoric, to serve as national security adviser.
…

Washington is watching President Donald Trump’s makeover of his national security team to include more outspoken hardliners when it comes to America’s posture on the world stage. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, days after nominating CIA director Mike Pompeo to become his new secretary of state, Trump tapped John Bolton, a former Bush administration diplomat known for unflinchingly bellicose rhetoric, to serve as national security adviser.
…

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump before he was elected president, told the CBS news show 60 Minutes that she was threatened when she tried to tell her story and accepted hush money through a Trump attorney because she was scared for her family.

Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said in the highly anticipated interview Sunday that she was on her way to a fitness class with her infant daughter when she was approached by  a stranger.

“A guy walked up on me and said to me, Leave Trump alone. Forget the story,’ ” Daniels told journalist Anderson Cooper. “And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.”

The incident, in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011, occurred shortly after she first tried to sell her story to a tabloid magazine.  She said the incident made her fearful for years and that she thought she was doing the right thing when she accepted $130,000 from Trump attorney Michael Cohen to stay quiet.

After The Wall Street Journal reported on the payment, Daniels told Cooper that she lied when she signed a statement denying the affair.  When asked why, Daniels said she was bullied into it. “They made it sound like I had no choice,” she said. While there was not any threat of physical violence at the time, she said, she was worried about other repercussions. “The exact sentence used was, ‘They can make your life hell in many different ways.'”

She said she didn’t know who could make her life hell, but that she believed “it to be Michael Cohen.”  

Cohen has denied threatening Daniels, and refused a request to appear on 60 Minutes.

Daniels’ appearance represents back-to-back trouble for Trump after an interview broadcast last week on CNN with former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who described a 10-month long affair with Trump starting in 2006.

McDougal has sued to break free of a confidentiality agreement that was struck in the months before the 2016 election, for which she was paid $150,000.

Daniels sued the president on March 6, stating Trump never signed an agreement for her to keep quiet about their relationship.   

Both women say their relationships with Trump began in 2006 and ended in 2007 and that they were paid for their silence in the months before the 2016 presidential election.

Representatives of Trump have dismissed the allegations of McDougal and Daniels, saying that the affairs never happened and that Trump had no knowledge of any payments.

Ahead of the interview, the president and first lady have opted to be in different states. Trump returned to Washington from Palm Beach on Sunday, while Melania will remain in Florida on a pre-scheduled spring break, her communicators director said.
…

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump before he was elected president, told the CBS news show 60 Minutes that she was threatened when she tried to tell her story and accepted hush money through a Trump attorney because she was scared for her family.

Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said in the highly anticipated interview Sunday that she was on her way to a fitness class with her infant daughter when she was approached by  a stranger.

“A guy walked up on me and said to me, Leave Trump alone. Forget the story,’ ” Daniels told journalist Anderson Cooper. “And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.”

The incident, in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011, occurred shortly after she first tried to sell her story to a tabloid magazine.  She said the incident made her fearful for years and that she thought she was doing the right thing when she accepted $130,000 from Trump attorney Michael Cohen to stay quiet.

After The Wall Street Journal reported on the payment, Daniels told Cooper that she lied when she signed a statement denying the affair.  When asked why, Daniels said she was bullied into it. “They made it sound like I had no choice,” she said. While there was not any threat of physical violence at the time, she said, she was worried about other repercussions. “The exact sentence used was, ‘They can make your life hell in many different ways.'”

She said she didn’t know who could make her life hell, but that she believed “it to be Michael Cohen.”  

Cohen has denied threatening Daniels, and refused a request to appear on 60 Minutes.

Daniels’ appearance represents back-to-back trouble for Trump after an interview broadcast last week on CNN with former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who described a 10-month long affair with Trump starting in 2006.

McDougal has sued to break free of a confidentiality agreement that was struck in the months before the 2016 election, for which she was paid $150,000.

Daniels sued the president on March 6, stating Trump never signed an agreement for her to keep quiet about their relationship.   

Both women say their relationships with Trump began in 2006 and ended in 2007 and that they were paid for their silence in the months before the 2016 presidential election.

Representatives of Trump have dismissed the allegations of McDougal and Daniels, saying that the affairs never happened and that Trump had no knowledge of any payments.

Ahead of the interview, the president and first lady have opted to be in different states. Trump returned to Washington from Palm Beach on Sunday, while Melania will remain in Florida on a pre-scheduled spring break, her communicators director said.
…

President Donald Trump’s favorite TV network is increasingly serving as a West Wing casting call, as the president reshapes his administration with camera-ready personalities.

Trump’s new national security adviser, John Bolton, is a former U.N. ambassador, a White House veteran – and perhaps most importantly a Fox News channel talking head. Bolton’s appointment, rushed out late Thursday, follows Trump’s recent attempt to recruit Fox guest Joseph diGenova for his legal team.

Bolton went on Fox to discuss his selection and said it had happened so quickly that “I think I’m still a Fox News contributor.”

Another recent TV-land addition to the Trump White House is veteran CNBC contributor Larry Kudlow as top economic adviser. Other Fox faces on Trump’s team: rising State Department star Heather Nauert, a former Fox News anchor; communications adviser Mercedes Schlapp and Treasury Department spokesman Tony Sayegh. The latter two are both former Fox commentators.

“He’s looking for people who are ready to be part of that television White House,” said Kendall Phillips, a communication and rhetorical studies professor at Syracuse University. “This is the Fox television presidency all the way up and down.”

DiGenova, who has accused FBI officials of trying to “frame” Trump for nonexistent crimes, will not be joining the legal team because of “conflicts,” said Trump counsel Jay Sekulow on Sunday. Sekulow, however, said diGenova and his wife, attorney Victoria Toensing, also a frequent commentator on Fox, would not be prevented from helping Trump “in other legal matters.”

Trump’s affinity for Fox News is by now well-documented. He has bestowed more interviews on the network than any other news outlet and is an avid viewer. People close to the president say he thinks Fox provides the best coverage of his untraditional presidency. It also provides him a window into conservative thinking, with commentary from Republican lawmakers and right-wing thinkers – many of who are speaking directly to the audience in the Oval Office.

On-air personalities Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham are favorites of the president, who also speaks to them privately. This past week Trump promoted Hannity on Twitter, saying: “@seanhannity on @foxandfriends now! Great! 8:18 A.M.”

The president’s early-morning tweets often appear to be reaction to Fox programming. On Friday, for example, Trump tweeted he was “considering” a veto of a massive spending bill needed to keep the government open not long after it was assailed on “Fox and Friends” as a “swamp budget.”

The critic in question was contributor Pete Hegseth, a favorite of the president who has been rumored to be a possible replacement for embattled Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin.

Fox News came in for criticism this past week from CNN chief Jeff Zucker, who on Thursday attacked the rival network by saying it has become a propaganda machine that is “doing an incredible disservice to the country.”

Zucker spoke at the Financial Times Future of News conference two days after a former Fox military analyst quit, claiming he was ashamed at the way the network’s opinion hosts were backing Trump. Zucker said that analyst, Ralph Peters, voiced what a lot of people have been thinking about Fox in the post-Roger Ailes era.

Still, in Trump’s Washington, lawmakers and influence-seekers know that the best way to get in Trump’s ear is often to get on Fox. Legislators routinely seek to get airtime when they are trying to push legislation or policy ideas, said congressional aides who sought anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private thinking.

“A year ago, everyone was trying to figure out how to get into the building; now everyone is trying to figure out how to get on TV,” said Republican consultant Alex Conant.

This past week, for example, conservative lawmakers unhappy with the spending bill moving through Congress took to Fox. “This may be the worst bill I have seen in my time in Congress,” said Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday.

And when the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, prompted a national conversation on gun laws, Fox contributor Geraldo Rivera used his platform to urge the president to support raising the age requirement to buy assault-type weapons.

“You’ve gotta let me give my pitch,” he said on “Fox and Friends” several weeks ago, noting that he would see Trump that night. “Here in Florida and most states a kid cannot buy a beer … and yet he could buy an AR-15 legally.”

The hosts quickly pushed back. “Tell him to let the teachers carry concealed,” said one.

While the coverage varies by show, “Fox and Friends” tends to be Trump-friendly, with the chipper morning show spotlighting his achievements and bashing the “mainstream media.” On Friday, they featured a teen from the Florida high school where the shooting occurred who opposes gun control efforts, as well as a young conservative activist who interviewed Trump at a White House event the day before.

Also appearing Friday was White House counselor Kellyanne Conway – herself a constant presence on cable news – who pushed back at the idea Trump was focused on hiring TV personalities.

“The irony is not lost on me that you have a lot of quote ‘TV stars’ calling Larry Kudlow and John Bolton ‘TV stars,'” Conway said.
…

President Donald Trump’s favorite TV network is increasingly serving as a West Wing casting call, as the president reshapes his administration with camera-ready personalities.

Trump’s new national security adviser, John Bolton, is a former U.N. ambassador, a White House veteran – and perhaps most importantly a Fox News channel talking head. Bolton’s appointment, rushed out late Thursday, follows Trump’s recent attempt to recruit Fox guest Joseph diGenova for his legal team.

Bolton went on Fox to discuss his selection and said it had happened so quickly that “I think I’m still a Fox News contributor.”

Another recent TV-land addition to the Trump White House is veteran CNBC contributor Larry Kudlow as top economic adviser. Other Fox faces on Trump’s team: rising State Department star Heather Nauert, a former Fox News anchor; communications adviser Mercedes Schlapp and Treasury Department spokesman Tony Sayegh. The latter two are both former Fox commentators.

“He’s looking for people who are ready to be part of that television White House,” said Kendall Phillips, a communication and rhetorical studies professor at Syracuse University. “This is the Fox television presidency all the way up and down.”

DiGenova, who has accused FBI officials of trying to “frame” Trump for nonexistent crimes, will not be joining the legal team because of “conflicts,” said Trump counsel Jay Sekulow on Sunday. Sekulow, however, said diGenova and his wife, attorney Victoria Toensing, also a frequent commentator on Fox, would not be prevented from helping Trump “in other legal matters.”

Trump’s affinity for Fox News is by now well-documented. He has bestowed more interviews on the network than any other news outlet and is an avid viewer. People close to the president say he thinks Fox provides the best coverage of his untraditional presidency. It also provides him a window into conservative thinking, with commentary from Republican lawmakers and right-wing thinkers – many of who are speaking directly to the audience in the Oval Office.

On-air personalities Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham are favorites of the president, who also speaks to them privately. This past week Trump promoted Hannity on Twitter, saying: “@seanhannity on @foxandfriends now! Great! 8:18 A.M.”

The president’s early-morning tweets often appear to be reaction to Fox programming. On Friday, for example, Trump tweeted he was “considering” a veto of a massive spending bill needed to keep the government open not long after it was assailed on “Fox and Friends” as a “swamp budget.”

The critic in question was contributor Pete Hegseth, a favorite of the president who has been rumored to be a possible replacement for embattled Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin.

Fox News came in for criticism this past week from CNN chief Jeff Zucker, who on Thursday attacked the rival network by saying it has become a propaganda machine that is “doing an incredible disservice to the country.”

Zucker spoke at the Financial Times Future of News conference two days after a former Fox military analyst quit, claiming he was ashamed at the way the network’s opinion hosts were backing Trump. Zucker said that analyst, Ralph Peters, voiced what a lot of people have been thinking about Fox in the post-Roger Ailes era.

Still, in Trump’s Washington, lawmakers and influence-seekers know that the best way to get in Trump’s ear is often to get on Fox. Legislators routinely seek to get airtime when they are trying to push legislation or policy ideas, said congressional aides who sought anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private thinking.

“A year ago, everyone was trying to figure out how to get into the building; now everyone is trying to figure out how to get on TV,” said Republican consultant Alex Conant.

This past week, for example, conservative lawmakers unhappy with the spending bill moving through Congress took to Fox. “This may be the worst bill I have seen in my time in Congress,” said Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday.

And when the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, prompted a national conversation on gun laws, Fox contributor Geraldo Rivera used his platform to urge the president to support raising the age requirement to buy assault-type weapons.

“You’ve gotta let me give my pitch,” he said on “Fox and Friends” several weeks ago, noting that he would see Trump that night. “Here in Florida and most states a kid cannot buy a beer … and yet he could buy an AR-15 legally.”

The hosts quickly pushed back. “Tell him to let the teachers carry concealed,” said one.

While the coverage varies by show, “Fox and Friends” tends to be Trump-friendly, with the chipper morning show spotlighting his achievements and bashing the “mainstream media.” On Friday, they featured a teen from the Florida high school where the shooting occurred who opposes gun control efforts, as well as a young conservative activist who interviewed Trump at a White House event the day before.

Also appearing Friday was White House counselor Kellyanne Conway – herself a constant presence on cable news – who pushed back at the idea Trump was focused on hiring TV personalities.

“The irony is not lost on me that you have a lot of quote ‘TV stars’ calling Larry Kudlow and John Bolton ‘TV stars,'” Conway said.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday rebuffed the notion he is having trouble assembling a top legal team to defend him in the Russia probe, even as two lawyers announced as joining Trump’s defense won’t be after all.

A former federal prosecutor, Joseph DiGenova, and his wife, Victoria Toensing, agreed last week to help represent the U.S. leader. But within hours of Trump saying in a Twitter remark that he is “very happy” with his legal team, his personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, said that DiGenova and Toensing would not be among the lawyers defending Trump against allegations that his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia to help him win and then obstructed justice to thwart the investigation.

“The president is disappointed that conflicts prevent Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing from joining the president’s special counsel team,” Sekulow said in a statement. “However, those conflicts do not prevent them from assisting the president in other legal matters. The president looks forward to working with them.”

The latest shuffling of Trump’s legal team came days after his lead lawyer, John Dowd, quit, while another top Washington lawyer, Theodore Olson, declined to join Trump’s defense.

On Twitter, Trump said, “Many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case. Don’t believe the Fake News narrative that it is hard to find a lawyer who wants to take this on. Fame & fortune will NEVER be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted. Problem is that a new lawyer or law firm will take months to get up to speed (if for no other reason than they can bill more), which is unfair to our great country — and I am very happy with my existing team.

“Besides, there was NO COLLUSION with Russia, except by Crooked Hillary and the Dems!” Trump added, employing his favorite epithet for the Democratic challenger he defeated, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating the Trump campaign for months. He indicted 13 Russians on charges of carrying out an online campaign to sow discord in American democracy, while securing guilty pleas from two Trump aides, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and foreign affairs adviser George Papadopoulos, for lying to federal investigators about their contacts with Russian officials.

Mueller’s office and Trump’s defense attorneys have been negotiating over terms of possible testimony by Trump about his actions linked to Russia and the ensuing investigation. Trump says he wants to do the interview, but no agreement on his questioning has been reached.

Mueller is believed to particularly want to question Trump about his knowledge of a mid-2016 meeting his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., set up at Trump Tower in New York, with a Russian attorney on the premise that she was going to hand the Trump campaign incriminating information about Clinton, as well as Trump’s role while president in helping draft a misleading statement about the meeting.

In addition, Mueller’s lawyers want to question Trump about his firing of Flynn in the first month of his presidency and later his ouster of FBI chief James Comey, whom Trump fired while Comey was leading the Russia probe. Mueller, another former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was named shortly thereafter, over Trump’s objections, to take over the Russia investigation.

In other Twitter remarks, Trump defended his reluctant approval Friday of $1.3 trillion in funding for government operations through the end of September.

Trump had sought $20 billion or more to pay for construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border to thwart illegal immigration, but had to settle for $1.6 billion.

“Much can be done with the $1.6 Billion given to building and fixing the border wall,” Trump said. “It is just a down payment. Work will start immediately. The rest of the money will come.” He blamed Democrats for not agreeing to a bigger wall deal with a companion agreement to block the deportation of 1.8 million young people who years ago were brought illegally into the country by their parents.

Trump said with $700 billion in funding for defense, “many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense.

“Build WALL through M!,” with Mexico paying for it, Trump implored, revisiting one of his favorite pledges from the 2016 campaign.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday rebuffed the notion he is having trouble assembling a top legal team to defend him in the Russia probe, even as two lawyers announced as joining Trump’s defense won’t be after all.

A former federal prosecutor, Joseph DiGenova, and his wife, Victoria Toensing, agreed last week to help represent the U.S. leader. But within hours of Trump saying in a Twitter remark that he is “very happy” with his legal team, his personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, said that DiGenova and Toensing would not be among the lawyers defending Trump against allegations that his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia to help him win and then obstructed justice to thwart the investigation.

“The president is disappointed that conflicts prevent Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing from joining the president’s special counsel team,” Sekulow said in a statement. “However, those conflicts do not prevent them from assisting the president in other legal matters. The president looks forward to working with them.”

The latest shuffling of Trump’s legal team came days after his lead lawyer, John Dowd, quit, while another top Washington lawyer, Theodore Olson, declined to join Trump’s defense.

On Twitter, Trump said, “Many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case. Don’t believe the Fake News narrative that it is hard to find a lawyer who wants to take this on. Fame & fortune will NEVER be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted. Problem is that a new lawyer or law firm will take months to get up to speed (if for no other reason than they can bill more), which is unfair to our great country — and I am very happy with my existing team.

“Besides, there was NO COLLUSION with Russia, except by Crooked Hillary and the Dems!” Trump added, employing his favorite epithet for the Democratic challenger he defeated, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating the Trump campaign for months. He indicted 13 Russians on charges of carrying out an online campaign to sow discord in American democracy, while securing guilty pleas from two Trump aides, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and foreign affairs adviser George Papadopoulos, for lying to federal investigators about their contacts with Russian officials.

Mueller’s office and Trump’s defense attorneys have been negotiating over terms of possible testimony by Trump about his actions linked to Russia and the ensuing investigation. Trump says he wants to do the interview, but no agreement on his questioning has been reached.

Mueller is believed to particularly want to question Trump about his knowledge of a mid-2016 meeting his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., set up at Trump Tower in New York, with a Russian attorney on the premise that she was going to hand the Trump campaign incriminating information about Clinton, as well as Trump’s role while president in helping draft a misleading statement about the meeting.

In addition, Mueller’s lawyers want to question Trump about his firing of Flynn in the first month of his presidency and later his ouster of FBI chief James Comey, whom Trump fired while Comey was leading the Russia probe. Mueller, another former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was named shortly thereafter, over Trump’s objections, to take over the Russia investigation.

In other Twitter remarks, Trump defended his reluctant approval Friday of $1.3 trillion in funding for government operations through the end of September.

Trump had sought $20 billion or more to pay for construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border to thwart illegal immigration, but had to settle for $1.6 billion.

“Much can be done with the $1.6 Billion given to building and fixing the border wall,” Trump said. “It is just a down payment. Work will start immediately. The rest of the money will come.” He blamed Democrats for not agreeing to a bigger wall deal with a companion agreement to block the deportation of 1.8 million young people who years ago were brought illegally into the country by their parents.

Trump said with $700 billion in funding for defense, “many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense.

“Build WALL through M!,” with Mexico paying for it, Trump implored, revisiting one of his favorite pledges from the 2016 campaign.
…

With the passage of an enormous budget bill, the GOP-controlled Congress all but wrapped up its legislating for the year. But will it be enough to persuade voters to give Republicans another term at the helm?

In two big ways, Republicans have done what they promised. They passed a long-sought tax overhaul bill that slashed tax rates. They’ve rolled back regulations, in ways they claim are boosting the economy. In the Senate, they confirmed a justice to the Supreme Court.

But there are signs Americans wanted more: immigration reforms, gun control legislation, even an infrastructure plan that President Donald Trump promised voters. Tax cuts, for now, will have to do.

“It’s very clear that tax reform was going to be the biggest legislative crown jewel of this Congress,” said Matt Gorman, the spokesman for the House GOP’s campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee. “That is a massive centerpiece of our campaign.”

​Mixed messages

But polls swing wildly these days, strategists said. Voters are rarely focused for too long on single issues that can make or break campaigns, as when Republicans seized control of the House in 2010 amid the economic downturn or Democrats pushed to the majority in 2006 over opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and congressional ethics scandals.

Trump’s mixed messages on the GOP’s accomplishments only make the campaigning more difficult. At the White House on Friday, he toyed with a veto of the $1.3 trillion budget package, complaining it lacked his immigration deal and smacked of overspending, before ultimately signing it. Such shifting views leave Republicans without a reliable partner as they try to push through political headwinds in what’s expected to be a tough battle for majority control of the House and Senate.

Lawmakers left town for a two-week recess that marks the unofficial end of the legislating season having shelved resolution of other issues.

Leftovers: health care, DACA

Congress failed to pass legislation to curb rising health insurance premiums or protect young immigrants known as Dreamers from deportation, two issues that have stirred voters this year. And before the nationwide “March for Our Lives” protests against gun violence, lawmakers took modest steps to boost school safety funds and improve compliance with the federal gun purchase background check system.

Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the measures are “just not enough.”

“The American people have been screaming from the rooftops for real, bold change to fight against” tragedies such as the Florida and Las Vegas shootings, Brown said. “We have seen the consequences of Congress’s inaction.”

A modest agenda

Congress’ spring agenda is thin. It includes modest plans to finish a banking bill that rolls back some of the regulations put in place after the financial crisis and pass a big farm bill that sets agriculture and school nutrition policies. The Senate also has to begin confirmation hearings for Trump’s nominees for secretary of state and CIA director.

The one legislative lift will be another spending bill when the one Trump signed into law expires at the end of September. But it may bring more political risk than reward for Republicans, since conservatives largely sided with the president against this one, and could pose a more serious threat of voter revolt in the fall.

Strategists say it will be up to candidates to make the case that the GOP’s signature legislative accomplishment is worth their re-election.

Democrats have been hammering on the tax law as a giveaway to big business, in part because the steep reduction in corporate rates, from 35 percent to 21 percent, is permanent while the reduced rates for individuals and other provisions for families, including expanded child tax credits, expire in coming years.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has derided the lopsided benefits for households as “crumbs” — a quip Republicans eagerly throw back at Democrats. 

Millions in GOP ads

To prop up public opinion of the GOP’s top accomplishment, millions are being spent by outside groups. American Action Network, which is aligned with House Speaker Paul Ryan, is unleashing more than $30 million in ads, and the network backed by the influential Koch brothers will spend more than $20 million, heaping praise on lawmakers who voted for the tax cuts and informing voters about those who didn’t.

And with passage of tax cuts so important to the GOP election effort, Republicans might take the unusual step of trying to pass them again.

“We think there’s more we can do,” Ryan said.

House GOP leaders are seriously considering legislation this summer — “Tax Cuts 2” — that would try to build on the original bill that became law in December by making the individual tax cuts permanent.

A do-over tax cuts bill is not expected to pass this Congress. But setting up another showdown accomplishes political goals for Republicans by turning attention back on the tax law, and pushing Democrats into the uncomfortable position of voting against it, again.

Americans for Prosperity, one of the groups in the Koch network, launched an ad campaign urging Congress to fortify the law by making tax cuts permanent. “More needs to be done,” the group says on a website for its advocacy.

“Even if there are things that get passed between now and the fall, the bottom line is the single most important piece of legislation is going to be the tax bill,” said veteran strategist David Winston, who advises House and Senate GOP leadership. “That defines what this Congress is about.”
…

Chin high and tears streaming, Florida school shooting survivor Emma Gonzalez stood silent in front of thousands gathered for the “March for Our Lives” rally in Washington.

She continued to stand silently as a few crowd members shouted out support. She remained silent as tentative chants broke out. Her silence continued as those attending also fell quiet, many weeping.

The gripping moment stretched for 6 minutes and 20 seconds, the amount of time Gonzalez said it took a shooter to kill 17 people and wound 15 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, last month.

6 minutes and 20 seconds

“Everyone who has been touched by the cold grip of gun violence understands,” Gonzalez told the hushed crowd, describing the long hours spent waiting for authorities to identify their slain classmates, the horror of discovering many of them had breathed their last breaths before many students even knew a “code red” alert — designed to warn staffers and students of a potential threat — had been called.

“Six minutes and 20 seconds with an AR-15 and my friend Carmen [Schentrup] would never complain to me about piano practice,” she said, her voice strong but her throat momentarily catching. “Aaron Feis would never call Kyra ‘Miss Sunshine.’ Alex Schachter would never walk into school with his brother Ryan.”

Gonzalez went on, listing name after name of those killed at the school Feb. 14.

Silence spreads

And then she stopped, her breath heaving but remaining composed, looking straight ahead and silent.

Seemingly unsure what to do, the crowed waited. Some appeared to catch her intent right away, watching with hands covering mouths, foreheads wrinkled and tears falling. Chants of “never again” broke out for a time, and later someone came out from the wings of the stage to put a hand on her shoulder and whisper in her ear.

The silence by now had spread to the thousands thronging Pennsylvania Avenue. Protesters, parents, television news crews waited to see what Gonzalez would do next.

The beeping of a digital alarm broke the silence.

“Since the time that I came out here, it has been six minutes and 20 seconds. The shooter has ceased shooting and will soon abandon his rifle, blend in with the students as they escape and walk free for an hour before arrest,” she said, voice clear. “Fight for your lives before it’s someone else’s job.”

‘Get out there and vote’

Gonzalez is one of several teens from the school to become gun control activists in the wake of the shooting. Their efforts have galvanized youth nationwide, with hundreds of thousands attending similar rallies across the country.

As the three-hour rally wrapped up, Gonzalez assigned some homework for the demonstrators:

“One final plug,” she said. “Get out there and vote.”
…