RIYADMEDIA

The coup of publishing a column by an anonymous Trump administration official bashing the boss could backfire on The New York Times if the author is unmasked and turns out to be a little-known person, or if the newspaper’s own reporters solve the puzzle.

Within hours of the essay’s appearance on the paper’s website, the mystery of the writer’s identity began to rival the Watergate-era hunt for “Deep Throat” in Washington, and a parade of Trump team members issued statements Thursday saying, in effect, “It’s not me.”

The Times’ only clue was calling the author a “senior administration official.” James Dao, the newspaper’s op-ed editor, said in the Times’ daily podcast that while an intermediary brought him together with the author, he conducted a background check and spoke to the person to the point that he was “totally confident” in the identity.

How large the pool of “senior administration officials” is in Washington is a matter of interpretation.

It’s a term used loosely around the White House. Press offices often release statements or offer background briefings and ask that the information be attributed to a senior administration official.

The Partnership for Public Services tracks approximately 700 senior positions in government, ones that require Senate confirmation. Paul Light, a New York University professor and expert on the federal bureaucracy, said about 50 people could have legitimately written the column — probably someone in a political position appointed by Trump.

He suspects the author is in either a Cabinet-level or deputy secretary position who frequently visits the White House or someone who works in the maze of offices in the West Wing.

Perhaps not

Jennifer Palmieri, former communications director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, tweeted that, based on her experience with the Times and sourcing, “this person could easily be someone most of us have never heard of and more junior than you’d expect.”

That would be a problem for the Times, partly through no fault of its own, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The column attracted so much attention — as much for its existence as for what it actually said — that it raised the expectation that the author is someone powerful, she said.

If the person is not among the 20 top people in the administration, “the Times just gets creamed,” said Tom Bettag, a veteran news producer and now a University of Maryland journalism instructor. “And I think it gets held against them in the biggest possible way. I have enough respect for the Times to believe that they wouldn’t hold themselves up to that.”

It would look like the Times was trying to stir the pot if it were not a high-level person, said Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s Meet the Press.

Ruth Marcus, deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Post, told Todd on MSNBC that if the author had come to the Post it would provoke a serious discussion, because the newspaper has not in the past run anonymous op-ed columns. She said no one approached the Post to hawk the column.

“When you give someone anonymity on this, you are putting your credibility on the line,” Marcus said.

News organizations have different standards for using information from unnamed sources. Frequently, they try to give some indication of why the person would be in a position to know something — the senior administration official, for example — and why anonymity was granted. In this case, the newspaper considered that the person’s job would clearly be at risk and that the person could even be physically threatened, Dao said.

He did not see much difference in the use of anonymity in news and opinion pages.

Longtime Trump target

The Times has long been a target of President Donald Trump’s vitriol. He criticized the newspaper for printing the column and said the Times should reveal its source for reasons of national security.

“There’s nothing in the piece that strikes me as being relevant to or undermining the national security,” Dao said.

The newspaper maintains a strict policy of separation between its news and opinion side, and the decision to publish the column without identifying the author was made by Dao and his boss, editorial page editor James Bennet, in consultation with publisher A.G. Sulzberger. The paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, is responsible for the news side and was not part of the decision.

Few people at the paper know the writer’s identity, Dao said, and he could not see any circumstances under which it would be divulged.

The Times’ own news story about the column said the author’s identity was “known to the Times’ editorial page department but not to the reporters who cover the White House.”

Like hundreds of other reporters in Washington, the Times’ news staff is trying to find out the writer’s name. If the Times learns the identity, it could raise serious questions about the newspaper’s ability to protect a confidential source among people who don’t know — or don’t believe — that one part of the newspaper will keep important information away from another.

“You could write a novel about this,” said Jamieson, author of the upcoming Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President. “If they engage in successful journalism, at some level they discredit themselves.” 
…

The coup of publishing a column by an anonymous Trump administration official bashing the boss could backfire on The New York Times if the author is unmasked and turns out to be a little-known person, or if the newspaper’s own reporters solve the puzzle.

Within hours of the essay’s appearance on the paper’s website, the mystery of the writer’s identity began to rival the Watergate-era hunt for “Deep Throat” in Washington, and a parade of Trump team members issued statements Thursday saying, in effect, “It’s not me.”

The Times’ only clue was calling the author a “senior administration official.” James Dao, the newspaper’s op-ed editor, said in the Times’ daily podcast that while an intermediary brought him together with the author, he conducted a background check and spoke to the person to the point that he was “totally confident” in the identity.

How large the pool of “senior administration officials” is in Washington is a matter of interpretation.

It’s a term used loosely around the White House. Press offices often release statements or offer background briefings and ask that the information be attributed to a senior administration official.

The Partnership for Public Services tracks approximately 700 senior positions in government, ones that require Senate confirmation. Paul Light, a New York University professor and expert on the federal bureaucracy, said about 50 people could have legitimately written the column — probably someone in a political position appointed by Trump.

He suspects the author is in either a Cabinet-level or deputy secretary position who frequently visits the White House or someone who works in the maze of offices in the West Wing.

Perhaps not

Jennifer Palmieri, former communications director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, tweeted that, based on her experience with the Times and sourcing, “this person could easily be someone most of us have never heard of and more junior than you’d expect.”

That would be a problem for the Times, partly through no fault of its own, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The column attracted so much attention — as much for its existence as for what it actually said — that it raised the expectation that the author is someone powerful, she said.

If the person is not among the 20 top people in the administration, “the Times just gets creamed,” said Tom Bettag, a veteran news producer and now a University of Maryland journalism instructor. “And I think it gets held against them in the biggest possible way. I have enough respect for the Times to believe that they wouldn’t hold themselves up to that.”

It would look like the Times was trying to stir the pot if it were not a high-level person, said Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s Meet the Press.

Ruth Marcus, deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Post, told Todd on MSNBC that if the author had come to the Post it would provoke a serious discussion, because the newspaper has not in the past run anonymous op-ed columns. She said no one approached the Post to hawk the column.

“When you give someone anonymity on this, you are putting your credibility on the line,” Marcus said.

News organizations have different standards for using information from unnamed sources. Frequently, they try to give some indication of why the person would be in a position to know something — the senior administration official, for example — and why anonymity was granted. In this case, the newspaper considered that the person’s job would clearly be at risk and that the person could even be physically threatened, Dao said.

He did not see much difference in the use of anonymity in news and opinion pages.

Longtime Trump target

The Times has long been a target of President Donald Trump’s vitriol. He criticized the newspaper for printing the column and said the Times should reveal its source for reasons of national security.

“There’s nothing in the piece that strikes me as being relevant to or undermining the national security,” Dao said.

The newspaper maintains a strict policy of separation between its news and opinion side, and the decision to publish the column without identifying the author was made by Dao and his boss, editorial page editor James Bennet, in consultation with publisher A.G. Sulzberger. The paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, is responsible for the news side and was not part of the decision.

Few people at the paper know the writer’s identity, Dao said, and he could not see any circumstances under which it would be divulged.

The Times’ own news story about the column said the author’s identity was “known to the Times’ editorial page department but not to the reporters who cover the White House.”

Like hundreds of other reporters in Washington, the Times’ news staff is trying to find out the writer’s name. If the Times learns the identity, it could raise serious questions about the newspaper’s ability to protect a confidential source among people who don’t know — or don’t believe — that one part of the newspaper will keep important information away from another.

“You could write a novel about this,” said Jamieson, author of the upcoming Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President. “If they engage in successful journalism, at some level they discredit themselves.” 
…

The Trump administration on Thursday lifted a roadblock to copper-nickel mining near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness of northeastern Minnesota, reversing a decision made in the final days of the Obama administration.

The Obama administration in late 2016 withdrew around 234,000 acres of the Rainy River watershed near Ely from eligibility for mineral leasing pending a two-year study, citing the potential threat from acid mine drainage to the nearby Boundary Waters, the country’s most-visited wilderness area. The move could have led to a 20-year ban on mining and prospecting on the land.

The most immediate beneficiary is Twin Metals Minnesota, which hopes to build a copper-nickel-precious metals mine south of Ely. It plans to submit its first formal mining plan to regulators in the next 18 months.

The land is part of the Superior National Forest, which is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service, an agency under the Department of Agriculture. The USDA canceled the withdrawal Thursday, saying its review revealed no new scientific information and that interested companies may soon be able to sign mineral leases in the area.

“It’s our duty as responsible stewards of our environment to maintain and protect our natural resources. At the same time, we must put our national forests to work for the taxpayers to support local economies and create jobs,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement.

The decision had been expected. President Donald Trump said at a campaign rally in Duluth in June that his administration would soon rescind the withdrawal.

The Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, The Wilderness Society and allied groups denounced the decision as a sellout to foreign corporate interests. They blasted the agency for failing to complete the study, despite Perdue’s assurances to a congressional committee in May 2017 that it would and that no decision would be made until it was finished.

“The Trump Administration broke its word to us, to Congress, and to the American people when it said it would finish the environmental assessment and base decisions on facts and science,” Alex Falconer, executive director of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, said in a statement.

Forest Service spokesman Brady Smith said the agency determined that there was no need to complete the assessment, based on what it had learned over the last 15 months. But he said the Forest Service met its obligations to conduct a scientific analysis that included multiple opportunities for public feedback.

U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum, the lead Democrat on a subcommittee that funds the Forest Service, issued a statement accusing Perdue of breaking his promise to her panel, “bending to political pressure from a foreign mining company and abandoning sound science.” She said Perdue’s word “cannot be trusted.”

But Twin Metals, which is owned by the Chilean mining company Antofagasta, welcomed the decision, which will also give a freer hand to other companies that have conducted exploratory drilling in the area.

“This important action ensures that federal lands that have been open to responsible mining activity for decades will remain open, offering the Iron Range region the potential for thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars in economic growth,” Twin Metals CEO Kelly Osborne said in a statement.

The Trump administration in May reinstated two key mineral leases for Twin Metals that the Obama administration had declined to renew. Environmental groups are challenging that decision in court.

The Twin Metals project is not as advanced as the planned PolyMet mine, which would become Minnesota’s first copper-nickel mine if it gets final approval of its permits. PolyMet sits several miles away in a different watershed.
…

The Trump administration on Thursday lifted a roadblock to copper-nickel mining near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness of northeastern Minnesota, reversing a decision made in the final days of the Obama administration.

The Obama administration in late 2016 withdrew around 234,000 acres of the Rainy River watershed near Ely from eligibility for mineral leasing pending a two-year study, citing the potential threat from acid mine drainage to the nearby Boundary Waters, the country’s most-visited wilderness area. The move could have led to a 20-year ban on mining and prospecting on the land.

The most immediate beneficiary is Twin Metals Minnesota, which hopes to build a copper-nickel-precious metals mine south of Ely. It plans to submit its first formal mining plan to regulators in the next 18 months.

The land is part of the Superior National Forest, which is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service, an agency under the Department of Agriculture. The USDA canceled the withdrawal Thursday, saying its review revealed no new scientific information and that interested companies may soon be able to sign mineral leases in the area.

“It’s our duty as responsible stewards of our environment to maintain and protect our natural resources. At the same time, we must put our national forests to work for the taxpayers to support local economies and create jobs,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement.

The decision had been expected. President Donald Trump said at a campaign rally in Duluth in June that his administration would soon rescind the withdrawal.

The Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, The Wilderness Society and allied groups denounced the decision as a sellout to foreign corporate interests. They blasted the agency for failing to complete the study, despite Perdue’s assurances to a congressional committee in May 2017 that it would and that no decision would be made until it was finished.

“The Trump Administration broke its word to us, to Congress, and to the American people when it said it would finish the environmental assessment and base decisions on facts and science,” Alex Falconer, executive director of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, said in a statement.

Forest Service spokesman Brady Smith said the agency determined that there was no need to complete the assessment, based on what it had learned over the last 15 months. But he said the Forest Service met its obligations to conduct a scientific analysis that included multiple opportunities for public feedback.

U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum, the lead Democrat on a subcommittee that funds the Forest Service, issued a statement accusing Perdue of breaking his promise to her panel, “bending to political pressure from a foreign mining company and abandoning sound science.” She said Perdue’s word “cannot be trusted.”

But Twin Metals, which is owned by the Chilean mining company Antofagasta, welcomed the decision, which will also give a freer hand to other companies that have conducted exploratory drilling in the area.

“This important action ensures that federal lands that have been open to responsible mining activity for decades will remain open, offering the Iron Range region the potential for thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars in economic growth,” Twin Metals CEO Kelly Osborne said in a statement.

The Trump administration in May reinstated two key mineral leases for Twin Metals that the Obama administration had declined to renew. Environmental groups are challenging that decision in court.

The Twin Metals project is not as advanced as the planned PolyMet mine, which would become Minnesota’s first copper-nickel mine if it gets final approval of its permits. PolyMet sits several miles away in a different watershed.
…

Twitter has permanently banned far-right media personality Alex Jones for violating its policy against “abusive behavior.”

Jones, who is known as a conspiracy theorist, has about 900,000 followers on Twitter. His Infowars website has hundreds of thousands of followers, as well.

Twitter accused Jones of violating its policy after he was seen on television berating and insulting a CNN reporter waiting to enter congressional hearings on social media policies.

Jones called the reporter a smiling “possum caught doing some really nasty stuff” and also made fun of his clothes.

Twitter had previously suspended Jones’ account, but now he is banned from posting on the social media site.

Jones has yet to comment.

Jones is one of the country’s most controversial media figures, known for saying the President George W. Bush White House was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He also called the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre a fake. Some of the parents of the murdered children are suing Jones.

The congressional hearings were focused on whether such social media sites as Google and Facebook are prepared against fake foreign accounts that may be aimed at influencing U.S. elections.

The hearings came just after President Donald Trump accused Google’s search engine of being biased against him.
…

Twitter has permanently banned far-right media personality Alex Jones for violating its policy against “abusive behavior.”

Jones, who is known as a conspiracy theorist, has about 900,000 followers on Twitter. His Infowars website has hundreds of thousands of followers, as well.

Twitter accused Jones of violating its policy after he was seen on television berating and insulting a CNN reporter waiting to enter congressional hearings on social media policies.

Jones called the reporter a smiling “possum caught doing some really nasty stuff” and also made fun of his clothes.

Twitter had previously suspended Jones’ account, but now he is banned from posting on the social media site.

Jones has yet to comment.

Jones is one of the country’s most controversial media figures, known for saying the President George W. Bush White House was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He also called the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre a fake. Some of the parents of the murdered children are suing Jones.

The congressional hearings were focused on whether such social media sites as Google and Facebook are prepared against fake foreign accounts that may be aimed at influencing U.S. elections.

The hearings came just after President Donald Trump accused Google’s search engine of being biased against him.
…

Facebook and Twitter executives defended their efforts to prevent Russian meddling in U.S. midterm elections before congressional panels Wednesday. The social media companies’ efforts to provide assurances to lawmakers come amid warnings from internet researchers that Moscow still has active social media accounts aimed at influencing U.S. political discourse. VOA’s Congressional Correspondent Katherine Gypson has more from Capitol Hill.
…

Facebook and Twitter executives defended their efforts to prevent Russian meddling in U.S. midterm elections before congressional panels Wednesday. The social media companies’ efforts to provide assurances to lawmakers come amid warnings from internet researchers that Moscow still has active social media accounts aimed at influencing U.S. political discourse. VOA’s Congressional Correspondent Katherine Gypson has more from Capitol Hill.
…

One of the nation’s least populated states could have one of the biggest voices in the Senate’s confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. President Trump’s pick could be the deciding vote on many issues, including Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. North Dakota’s pro-choice Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp, who is running for re-election, has to balance the pro-life views of many of her constituents. VOA’s Congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports from North Dakota.
…

Ayanna Pressley’s victory Tuesday over 10-term House member Michael Capuano in Massachusetts’ 7th District Democratic primary virtually assured that for the first time, an African-American woman will represent her state in Congress.

Pressley’s performance against Capuano was reminiscent of Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New York primary win in June over veteran House member Joseph Crowley, as progressive insurgents seek to challenge the Democratic establishment.

Pressley, a member of the Boston City Council, and Ocasio-Cortez, a Hispanic community organizer, are likely to draw at most nominal opposition in the November general election.

The two women are part of a historic surge in women entering politics and running for office, in the wake of President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton. A record number of women have won primary elections for the House of Representatives this year, according to The New York Times.

The Times reports that 200 female nominees are now headed into the general election campaign, the largest number in history.

More than three-quarters of the female primary winners are Democrats. In the current makeup of the House, less than 20 percent of the 435 seats are held by women.
…

Chaos, protests and partisan discord marked the first day of Senate confirmation hearings for President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, conservative U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, minority Democrats repeatedly sought to postpone the proceedings, but majority Republicans were determined to plow ahead.
…

Chaos, protests and partisan discord marked the first day of Senate confirmation hearings for President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, conservative U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, minority Democrats repeatedly sought to postpone the proceedings, but majority Republicans were determined to plow ahead.
…

Top U.S. intelligence and defense officials caution the threat to the U.S. in cyberspace is not diminishing ahead of November’s midterm elections despite indications that Russia’s efforts to disrupt or influence the vote may not match what it did in 2016.

The warnings of an ever more insidious and persistent danger come as lawmakers and security officials have increasingly focused on hardening defenses for the country’s voter rolls and voting systems.

It also comes as top executives from social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Google prepare to testify on Capitol Hill about their effort to curtail the types of disinformation campaigns used by Moscow and which are increasingly being copied by other U.S. adversaries.

“The cyberthreat to the U.S. is not limited to U.S. elections, a point that is too often missed,” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told a conference outside of Washington Tuesday. “The weaponization of cybertools and the relative lack of global guardrails in a cyber domain significantly increases the risk that a discrete act will have enormous strategic implications.

“Foreign influence efforts online are increasingly being used around the globe,” he added.

Others ramp up attacks

Government officials as well as those from private cybersecurity have said repeatedly over the past few months that they have not yet seen a repeat of what Coats himself described as the “robust” campaign Moscow launched in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Still, there are concerns that even if the Kremlin has eased its efforts, other countries and a variety of nonstate actors have ramped up their own campaigns, often learning from Russia’s 2016 exploits.

“I remain deeply concerned about threats from several countries to upcoming U.S. elections — the midterms this year, the presidential elections in 2020 and beyond,” Coats said.

While the director of national intelligence did not name any countries in particular, other officials have previously pointed to China, Iran and North Korea as the main culprits.

Two weeks ago, social media giants Facebook and Twitter announced they had removed hundreds of pages and accounts linked to a disinformation campaign that originated in Iran and targeted the U.S. as well as other countries.

​Once major attacks now normal

U.S. cybersecurity officials warn that hacking, phishing attacks and disinformation campaigns have become increasingly popular tools for so-called bad actors’ and that they often escape the attention of the general public.

One reason is that what might have been described as a major cyberattack 10 years ago is often seen now as part of the normal threat landscape.

“We’ve crossed that threshold many, many times,” said John Rood, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for policy. “We are in that environment where on a near daily basis we are being challenged with those activities.”

What worries him, he said, is not the cyberattacks on their own but the prospects of someone combining cyber with a more traditional type of attack on the U.S. homeland.

“Some of our allies or friends have experienced a combination of cyberactivities, manipulation of the electromagnetic spectrum and physical — air, land, sea — domain [attacks], whether that be Ukraine or Georgia.”

​Small attacks just as worrisome

Yet other U.S. officials believe it is not the prospect of large-scale cyberattacks that should be the sole reason for concern.

“While I don’t see a dramatic cyberattack coming at us, every day there are small ones,” according to National Security Agency Deputy Director George Barnes.

“The problem is we focus on the big and the slow drip happens out the back,” he said. “And the slow drip is the continued theft of intellectual properties from our industries.”

Part of the problem, according to Barnes and other officials, is the extent to which government and industry in the U.S. in connected to and dependent on cyberspace, creating what they describe as a large and vulnerable “attack surface.”

And despite government efforts to reach out to private companies to share information about the threats, and even about ongoing or imminent attacks, U.S. officials fear the current level of cooperation is still not enough.

As a result, the U.S. is “continually pummeled by nation state and non-nation state sponsored malicious cyber activity,” Barnes said.

In response to the growing pace of attacks, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies have become ever more vocal in identifying the perpetrators and calling attention to their exploits.

Increasingly, they are also talking out loud about hitting back.

“We are not standing idly by,” Coats said.

“Every kind of cyberoperation, malicious or not, leaves a trail,” he said. “Persistence on our part has enabled us to identify and publicly attribute responsibility for numerous cyber attacks and foreign influence efforts and then prepare for the response.”
…

Top U.S. intelligence and defense officials caution the threat to the U.S. in cyberspace is not diminishing ahead of November’s midterm elections despite indications that Russia’s efforts to disrupt or influence the vote may not match what it did in 2016.

The warnings of an ever more insidious and persistent danger come as lawmakers and security officials have increasingly focused on hardening defenses for the country’s voter rolls and voting systems.

It also comes as top executives from social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Google prepare to testify on Capitol Hill about their effort to curtail the types of disinformation campaigns used by Moscow and which are increasingly being copied by other U.S. adversaries.

“The cyberthreat to the U.S. is not limited to U.S. elections, a point that is too often missed,” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told a conference outside of Washington Tuesday. “The weaponization of cybertools and the relative lack of global guardrails in a cyber domain significantly increases the risk that a discrete act will have enormous strategic implications.

“Foreign influence efforts online are increasingly being used around the globe,” he added.

Others ramp up attacks

Government officials as well as those from private cybersecurity have said repeatedly over the past few months that they have not yet seen a repeat of what Coats himself described as the “robust” campaign Moscow launched in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Still, there are concerns that even if the Kremlin has eased its efforts, other countries and a variety of nonstate actors have ramped up their own campaigns, often learning from Russia’s 2016 exploits.

“I remain deeply concerned about threats from several countries to upcoming U.S. elections — the midterms this year, the presidential elections in 2020 and beyond,” Coats said.

While the director of national intelligence did not name any countries in particular, other officials have previously pointed to China, Iran and North Korea as the main culprits.

Two weeks ago, social media giants Facebook and Twitter announced they had removed hundreds of pages and accounts linked to a disinformation campaign that originated in Iran and targeted the U.S. as well as other countries.

​Once major attacks now normal

U.S. cybersecurity officials warn that hacking, phishing attacks and disinformation campaigns have become increasingly popular tools for so-called bad actors’ and that they often escape the attention of the general public.

One reason is that what might have been described as a major cyberattack 10 years ago is often seen now as part of the normal threat landscape.

“We’ve crossed that threshold many, many times,” said John Rood, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for policy. “We are in that environment where on a near daily basis we are being challenged with those activities.”

What worries him, he said, is not the cyberattacks on their own but the prospects of someone combining cyber with a more traditional type of attack on the U.S. homeland.

“Some of our allies or friends have experienced a combination of cyberactivities, manipulation of the electromagnetic spectrum and physical — air, land, sea — domain [attacks], whether that be Ukraine or Georgia.”

​Small attacks just as worrisome

Yet other U.S. officials believe it is not the prospect of large-scale cyberattacks that should be the sole reason for concern.

“While I don’t see a dramatic cyberattack coming at us, every day there are small ones,” according to National Security Agency Deputy Director George Barnes.

“The problem is we focus on the big and the slow drip happens out the back,” he said. “And the slow drip is the continued theft of intellectual properties from our industries.”

Part of the problem, according to Barnes and other officials, is the extent to which government and industry in the U.S. in connected to and dependent on cyberspace, creating what they describe as a large and vulnerable “attack surface.”

And despite government efforts to reach out to private companies to share information about the threats, and even about ongoing or imminent attacks, U.S. officials fear the current level of cooperation is still not enough.

As a result, the U.S. is “continually pummeled by nation state and non-nation state sponsored malicious cyber activity,” Barnes said.

In response to the growing pace of attacks, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies have become ever more vocal in identifying the perpetrators and calling attention to their exploits.

Increasingly, they are also talking out loud about hitting back.

“We are not standing idly by,” Coats said.

“Every kind of cyberoperation, malicious or not, leaves a trail,” he said. “Persistence on our part has enabled us to identify and publicly attribute responsibility for numerous cyber attacks and foreign influence efforts and then prepare for the response.”
…

Ayanna Pressley is all but assured of becoming the first black woman elected to Congress from Massachusetts, the latest example of the Democratic Party’s embrace of diversity and progressive politics as the recipe for success in the Trump era.

The 44-year-old’s upset victory against longtime Democratic Rep. Michael Capuano in Tuesday’s primary sets the stage for Pressley to represent an area once served by Tip O’Neill and John F. Kennedy. Her win comes at the tail end of a primary season in which black politicians have made a series of advances.

In nearby Connecticut, Jahana Hayes is on track to become that state’s first black woman to win a congressional seat if she prevails in November. And black politicians in three states, Florida, Georgia and Maryland, have won the Democratic nomination for governor, a historic turn for a country that has elected just two black governors in U.S. history.

Unabashedly progressive

Greeting voters at a Boston polling station, Pressley spoke of “the ground shifting beneath our feet and the wind at our backs.”

“This is a fight for the soul of our party and the future of our democracy,” she told reporters. “This is a disruptive candidacy, a grassroots coalition. It is broad and diverse and deep. People of every walk of life.”

For Pressley, as with many other ascendant candidates of color, unabashedly progressive credentials smoothed her path to victory in the primary. No Republicans were running, so only a write-in campaign in November could possibly stand between her and Washington.

She was endorsed by fellow congressional upstart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who knocked off veteran Rep. Joe Crowley of New York in June. Pressley backs Medicare-for-all, the single-payer health care proposal, which helped her garner backing from Our Revolution, the offshoot of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Pressley called for defunding the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, which helped her draw support from Massachusetts’ popular attorney general, Maura Healey, who’s gained a national following for repeatedly suing President Donald Trump in an attempt to block his policies on immigration, gun control and other issues.

‘Be disruptive in our democracy’

“We have to be disruptive in our democracy and our policymaking and how we run and win elections,” she said in an interview this summer with The Associated Press, adding that Ocasio-Cortez’s victory challenged “narratives about who has a right to run and when, and who can win” in American politics.

“My mother did not raise me to ask for permission to lead,” she added.

Pressley tapped into growing cries within the Democratic Party for newer, more diverse leadership. She and Ocasio-Cortez both defeated older, white congressmen who were reliable liberal votes, but who didn’t look like many voters in their districts.

“With so much at stake in the era of Trump, tonight’s results make clear what Ayanna Pressley knew when she boldly launched her campaign against a 10-term incumbent: Change in the country and Congress can’t wait,” said Jim Dean, chair of the liberal group Democracy for America.

The district she’s competing in includes a wide swath of Boston and about half of Cambridge as well as portions of neighboring Chelsea, Everett, Randolph, Somerville and Milton. It includes both Cambridge’s Kendall Square, development there is booming, and the neighborhood of Roxbury, the center of Boston’s traditionally black community.

Pressley has bristled at the notion that race was a defining issue in her campaign.

“I have been really furious about the constant charges being lobbed against me about identity politics that, by the way, are only lobbed against women and candidates of color,” she said in one debate. “I happen to be black and a woman and unapologetically proud to be both, but that is not the totality of my identity.”

Massachusetts’ last Democratic primary upset came in 2014, when Seth Moulton defeated Rep. John Tierney in the state’s 6th Congressional District.
…

Ayanna Pressley is all but assured of becoming the first black woman elected to Congress from Massachusetts, the latest example of the Democratic Party’s embrace of diversity and progressive politics as the recipe for success in the Trump era.

The 44-year-old’s upset victory against longtime Democratic Rep. Michael Capuano in Tuesday’s primary sets the stage for Pressley to represent an area once served by Tip O’Neill and John F. Kennedy. Her win comes at the tail end of a primary season in which black politicians have made a series of advances.

In nearby Connecticut, Jahana Hayes is on track to become that state’s first black woman to win a congressional seat if she prevails in November. And black politicians in three states, Florida, Georgia and Maryland, have won the Democratic nomination for governor, a historic turn for a country that has elected just two black governors in U.S. history.

Unabashedly progressive

Greeting voters at a Boston polling station, Pressley spoke of “the ground shifting beneath our feet and the wind at our backs.”

“This is a fight for the soul of our party and the future of our democracy,” she told reporters. “This is a disruptive candidacy, a grassroots coalition. It is broad and diverse and deep. People of every walk of life.”

For Pressley, as with many other ascendant candidates of color, unabashedly progressive credentials smoothed her path to victory in the primary. No Republicans were running, so only a write-in campaign in November could possibly stand between her and Washington.

She was endorsed by fellow congressional upstart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who knocked off veteran Rep. Joe Crowley of New York in June. Pressley backs Medicare-for-all, the single-payer health care proposal, which helped her garner backing from Our Revolution, the offshoot of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Pressley called for defunding the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, which helped her draw support from Massachusetts’ popular attorney general, Maura Healey, who’s gained a national following for repeatedly suing President Donald Trump in an attempt to block his policies on immigration, gun control and other issues.

‘Be disruptive in our democracy’

“We have to be disruptive in our democracy and our policymaking and how we run and win elections,” she said in an interview this summer with The Associated Press, adding that Ocasio-Cortez’s victory challenged “narratives about who has a right to run and when, and who can win” in American politics.

“My mother did not raise me to ask for permission to lead,” she added.

Pressley tapped into growing cries within the Democratic Party for newer, more diverse leadership. She and Ocasio-Cortez both defeated older, white congressmen who were reliable liberal votes, but who didn’t look like many voters in their districts.

“With so much at stake in the era of Trump, tonight’s results make clear what Ayanna Pressley knew when she boldly launched her campaign against a 10-term incumbent: Change in the country and Congress can’t wait,” said Jim Dean, chair of the liberal group Democracy for America.

The district she’s competing in includes a wide swath of Boston and about half of Cambridge as well as portions of neighboring Chelsea, Everett, Randolph, Somerville and Milton. It includes both Cambridge’s Kendall Square, development there is booming, and the neighborhood of Roxbury, the center of Boston’s traditionally black community.

Pressley has bristled at the notion that race was a defining issue in her campaign.

“I have been really furious about the constant charges being lobbed against me about identity politics that, by the way, are only lobbed against women and candidates of color,” she said in one debate. “I happen to be black and a woman and unapologetically proud to be both, but that is not the totality of my identity.”

Massachusetts’ last Democratic primary upset came in 2014, when Seth Moulton defeated Rep. John Tierney in the state’s 6th Congressional District.
…

Former Arizona Senator John Kyl was named to replace the late Senator John McCain.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who was required by state law to pick another Republican to fill the seat, said Tuesday of his choice: “There is no one in Arizona more prepared to represent our state in the U.S. Senate than Jon Kyl. He understands how the Senate functions and will make an immediate and positive impact benefiting all Arizonans.”

McCain’s widow, Cindy McCain, praised Kyl, calling him “a dear friend of mine and John’s. It’s a great tribute to John that he is prepared to go back into public service to help the state of Arizona.”

Kyl, 76, has been working as a lobbyist at a Washington law firm since retiring from the Senate at the end of his third, six-year term in 2013. He is expected to be a placeholder through 2020, and not run in the election to fill the last years of McCain’s term ending in early 2023.

Kyl has helped shepherd Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh through his Senate confirmation hearings that started Tuesday, giving Republicans one more vote to seat Kavanaugh on the high court.

McCain, who for 5-1/2 years was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War in the 1960s before representing Arizona in Congress for more than 30 years, died last month after a yearlong battle with brain cancer. His life was celebrated with five days of services and remembrances before he was buried Sunday in a cemetery at his college alma mater, the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, near Washington.
…

Former Arizona Senator John Kyl was named to replace the late Senator John McCain.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who was required by state law to pick another Republican to fill the seat, said Tuesday of his choice: “There is no one in Arizona more prepared to represent our state in the U.S. Senate than Jon Kyl. He understands how the Senate functions and will make an immediate and positive impact benefiting all Arizonans.”

McCain’s widow, Cindy McCain, praised Kyl, calling him “a dear friend of mine and John’s. It’s a great tribute to John that he is prepared to go back into public service to help the state of Arizona.”

Kyl, 76, has been working as a lobbyist at a Washington law firm since retiring from the Senate at the end of his third, six-year term in 2013. He is expected to be a placeholder through 2020, and not run in the election to fill the last years of McCain’s term ending in early 2023.

Kyl has helped shepherd Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh through his Senate confirmation hearings that started Tuesday, giving Republicans one more vote to seat Kavanaugh on the high court.

McCain, who for 5-1/2 years was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War in the 1960s before representing Arizona in Congress for more than 30 years, died last month after a yearlong battle with brain cancer. His life was celebrated with five days of services and remembrances before he was buried Sunday in a cemetery at his college alma mater, the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, near Washington.
…

Excerpts from a new book about the Donald Trump presidency, authored by the journalist credited with helping to drive President Richard Nixon from power, describes the current administration as suffering an “administrative coup d’etat” and a “nervous breakdown” during its first 19 months.

“Fear: Trump in the White House,” a 448-page work by Bob Woodward set to be released on Sept. 11, describes aides stealing papers off the president’s desk and taking other actions to circumvent the intentions of the commander in chief. It paints Trump as dangerously ignorant of world affairs and his White House as dysfunctional and devastatingly beset by internal feuds.

Although there have been previous revelations by journalists and former White House staffers of upheaval in the White House west wing since last January’s inauguration, Woodward’s account paints a more disturbing portrait of this administration.

Excerpts are contained in stories Tuesday from CNN and The Washington Post.

The book quotes White House Chief of Staff John Kelly describing the president as “unhinged.”

Kelly also is quoted saying in a staff meeting that because the president is an “idiot,” it is “pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in crazytown.”

The retired Marine Corps general, whose reported frustrations with his current post and boss have previously made the news, is quoted then saying: “I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had.”

​

Defense secretary Jim Mattis is quoted saying Trump comprehends material at the level of “a fifth or sixth grader.”

The book claims that after the Syrian president ordered chemical weapons to be used against civilians in April of last year, Trump called Mattis and said he wanted to assassinate Bashar al-Assad. Mattis is quoted as telling an aide after hanging up the phone that “We’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to be much more measured.”

VOA queried White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders for a response to the book’s excerpts, but there was has been no immediate response.

One of Sanders’ predecessors, Ari Fleischer, who served as a press secretary for President George W. Bush, notes he has been on “the receiving end” of one of Woodward’s previous books. There “were quotes in it I didn’t like. But never once — never — did I think Woodward made it up.”

Fleischer writes on Twitter that, “anonymous sources have looser lips and may take liberties. But Woodward always plays is straight. Someone told it to him.”

The president’s former lead personal attorney, John Dowd, is quoted in graphic language referring to Trump as a “liar” who will end up wearing an “orange jump suit” if he gives testimony to special counsel Robert Muller, who is looking into ties between the 2016 Trump election campaign and Russia.

Two officials who since left the White House, the president’s top economic advisor, Gary Cohn, and Staff Secretary Rob Porter, are said to have swiped documents from the president’s desk to prevent him from signing them “to protect the country.”

Woodward’s book relies on hundreds of hours of taped interviews and dozens of sources in Trump’s inner circle, speaking on the condition they not be identified, as well as documents and includes summarizations of top-secret meetings.

Woodward repeatedly tried to request an interview with Trump for the book but did not succeed.

According to a tape of a call Woodward made to Trump last month, and released by The Washington Post, Trump accused the journalist of writing a “very inaccurate book” that would not reflect that no predecessor has “ever done a better job than I’m doing as president.”

The book also includes excerpts of discussions between the president’s lawyer and Mueller.

The special counsel is quoted saying “I need the president’s testimony,” to determine Trump’s intent in firing James Comey as director of the FBI.

“I want to see if there was corrupt intent,” Mueller is quoted as stating.

The president recently escalated his feud with his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who has recused himself from oversight of the Mueller investigation, a move that angered Trump.

“This guy is mentally retarded,” Trump is quoted in the book, saying of Sessions. “He’s this dumb southerner,” Trump tells then White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter, mocking Sessions by feigning a southern U.S. accent.

The president’s penchant for making provocative statements on social media is examined in Woodward’s book, which notes national security leaders feared and warned Trump that “Twitter could get us into a war.”

Woodward characterizes the president as prioritizing national security in terms of trade deficits and the expense of keeping U.S. troops overseas. Questioned why the United States has to pay for the large troop presence in South Korea, for example, Mattis reportedly told the president: “We’re doing this in order to prevent World War III.” 

The book, by the former Washington Post reporter who shared a 1973 Pulitzer Prize for stories on the Watergate scandal, contains contemporary echoes of Nixon White House paranoia and anger, with Trump reacting to the ongoing Russia inquiry by saying, “everybody’s trying to get me.”
…

Excerpts from a new book about the Donald Trump presidency, authored by the journalist credited with helping to drive President Richard Nixon from power, describes the current administration as suffering an “administrative coup d’etat” and a “nervous breakdown” during its first 19 months.

“Fear: Trump in the White House,” a 448-page work by Bob Woodward set to be released on Sept. 11, describes aides stealing papers off the president’s desk and taking other actions to circumvent the intentions of the commander in chief. It paints Trump as dangerously ignorant of world affairs and his White House as dysfunctional and devastatingly beset by internal feuds.

Although there have been previous revelations by journalists and former White House staffers of upheaval in the White House west wing since last January’s inauguration, Woodward’s account paints a more disturbing portrait of this administration.

Excerpts are contained in stories Tuesday from CNN and The Washington Post.

The book quotes White House Chief of Staff John Kelly describing the president as “unhinged.”

Kelly also is quoted saying in a staff meeting that because the president is an “idiot,” it is “pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in crazytown.”

The retired Marine Corps general, whose reported frustrations with his current post and boss have previously made the news, is quoted then saying: “I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had.”

​

Defense secretary Jim Mattis is quoted saying Trump comprehends material at the level of “a fifth or sixth grader.”

The book claims that after the Syrian president ordered chemical weapons to be used against civilians in April of last year, Trump called Mattis and said he wanted to assassinate Bashar al-Assad. Mattis is quoted as telling an aide after hanging up the phone that “We’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to be much more measured.”

VOA queried White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders for a response to the book’s excerpts, but there was has been no immediate response.

One of Sanders’ predecessors, Ari Fleischer, who served as a press secretary for President George W. Bush, notes he has been on “the receiving end” of one of Woodward’s previous books. There “were quotes in it I didn’t like. But never once — never — did I think Woodward made it up.”

Fleischer writes on Twitter that, “anonymous sources have looser lips and may take liberties. But Woodward always plays is straight. Someone told it to him.”

The president’s former lead personal attorney, John Dowd, is quoted in graphic language referring to Trump as a “liar” who will end up wearing an “orange jump suit” if he gives testimony to special counsel Robert Muller, who is looking into ties between the 2016 Trump election campaign and Russia.

Two officials who since left the White House, the president’s top economic advisor, Gary Cohn, and Staff Secretary Rob Porter, are said to have swiped documents from the president’s desk to prevent him from signing them “to protect the country.”

Woodward’s book relies on hundreds of hours of taped interviews and dozens of sources in Trump’s inner circle, speaking on the condition they not be identified, as well as documents and includes summarizations of top-secret meetings.

Woodward repeatedly tried to request an interview with Trump for the book but did not succeed.

According to a tape of a call Woodward made to Trump last month, and released by The Washington Post, Trump accused the journalist of writing a “very inaccurate book” that would not reflect that no predecessor has “ever done a better job than I’m doing as president.”

The book also includes excerpts of discussions between the president’s lawyer and Mueller.

The special counsel is quoted saying “I need the president’s testimony,” to determine Trump’s intent in firing James Comey as director of the FBI.

“I want to see if there was corrupt intent,” Mueller is quoted as stating.

The president recently escalated his feud with his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who has recused himself from oversight of the Mueller investigation, a move that angered Trump.

“This guy is mentally retarded,” Trump is quoted in the book, saying of Sessions. “He’s this dumb southerner,” Trump tells then White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter, mocking Sessions by feigning a southern U.S. accent.

The president’s penchant for making provocative statements on social media is examined in Woodward’s book, which notes national security leaders feared and warned Trump that “Twitter could get us into a war.”

Woodward characterizes the president as prioritizing national security in terms of trade deficits and the expense of keeping U.S. troops overseas. Questioned why the United States has to pay for the large troop presence in South Korea, for example, Mattis reportedly told the president: “We’re doing this in order to prevent World War III.” 

The book, by the former Washington Post reporter who shared a 1973 Pulitzer Prize for stories on the Watergate scandal, contains contemporary echoes of Nixon White House paranoia and anger, with Trump reacting to the ongoing Russia inquiry by saying, “everybody’s trying to get me.”
…

Monica Lewinsky said Tuesday that she stormed offstage at a Jerusalem speaking event because of an interviewer’s “off limits” question about former President Bill Clinton.

The former White House intern turned anti-bullying activist tweeted that there were agreed-upon parameters regarding the topics of her televised conversation Monday night with a well-known Israeli news anchor, following a conference speech she gave about the perils of the internet.

Lewinsky called Yonit Levi’s first question about her relationship with Clinton a “blatant disregard for our agreement.”

Levi, the main anchor of Israel’s top-rated evening newscast, asked Lewinsky if she still expected a personal apology from Clinton over the fallout of the scandal of their affair 20 years ago. Lewinsky responded: “I’m so sorry. I’m not going to be able to do this.” She then put down her microphone and walked offstage.

Levi reached out her hand and then anxiously followed Lewinsky offstage as some of the stunned audience awkwardly clapped. The confused hosts then rushed opposition lawmaker Yair Lapid onstage to keep the event moving along. A smiling Lapid, who plans to challenge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the next Israeli elections, quipped: “Everything has happened to me but stepping in for Monica Lewinsky is a first. There is no way I’ll be interesting enough in the next few minutes but we’ll do our best.”

In a tweet several hours later, Lewinsky said she had been misled.

“In fact, the exact question the interviewer asked first, she had put to me when we met the day prior. I said that was off limits,” she explained. “I left because it is more important than ever for women to stand up for themselves and not allow others to control their narrative. To the audience: I’m very sorry that this talk had to end this way.”

Levi’s employer, the Israeli News Company, said it did its utmost to abide by all agreements made with Lewinsky.

“The question asked was legitimate, worthy and respectful and in no way deviated from Ms. Lewinsky’s requests,” said company spokesman Alon Shani. “We thank Ms. Lewinsky for her fascinating speech to the conference, respect her sensitivity and wish her all the best.”

Clinton recently came under fire for responding defensively to questions in an NBC interview about his sexual relationship with the White House intern in the late 1990s. He insisted he did not think it necessary to offer her a personal apology since he had already repeatedly apologized publicly. Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky helped lead to his impeachment.

Lewinsky, who for years kept quiet about the relationship before re-emerging as a public speaker, wrote in March that their relationship “was not sexual assault” but “constituted a gross abuse of power.”
…

Monica Lewinsky said Tuesday that she stormed offstage at a Jerusalem speaking event because of an interviewer’s “off limits” question about former President Bill Clinton.

The former White House intern turned anti-bullying activist tweeted that there were agreed-upon parameters regarding the topics of her televised conversation Monday night with a well-known Israeli news anchor, following a conference speech she gave about the perils of the internet.

Lewinsky called Yonit Levi’s first question about her relationship with Clinton a “blatant disregard for our agreement.”

Levi, the main anchor of Israel’s top-rated evening newscast, asked Lewinsky if she still expected a personal apology from Clinton over the fallout of the scandal of their affair 20 years ago. Lewinsky responded: “I’m so sorry. I’m not going to be able to do this.” She then put down her microphone and walked offstage.

Levi reached out her hand and then anxiously followed Lewinsky offstage as some of the stunned audience awkwardly clapped. The confused hosts then rushed opposition lawmaker Yair Lapid onstage to keep the event moving along. A smiling Lapid, who plans to challenge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the next Israeli elections, quipped: “Everything has happened to me but stepping in for Monica Lewinsky is a first. There is no way I’ll be interesting enough in the next few minutes but we’ll do our best.”

In a tweet several hours later, Lewinsky said she had been misled.

“In fact, the exact question the interviewer asked first, she had put to me when we met the day prior. I said that was off limits,” she explained. “I left because it is more important than ever for women to stand up for themselves and not allow others to control their narrative. To the audience: I’m very sorry that this talk had to end this way.”

Levi’s employer, the Israeli News Company, said it did its utmost to abide by all agreements made with Lewinsky.

“The question asked was legitimate, worthy and respectful and in no way deviated from Ms. Lewinsky’s requests,” said company spokesman Alon Shani. “We thank Ms. Lewinsky for her fascinating speech to the conference, respect her sensitivity and wish her all the best.”

Clinton recently came under fire for responding defensively to questions in an NBC interview about his sexual relationship with the White House intern in the late 1990s. He insisted he did not think it necessary to offer her a personal apology since he had already repeatedly apologized publicly. Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky helped lead to his impeachment.

Lewinsky, who for years kept quiet about the relationship before re-emerging as a public speaker, wrote in March that their relationship “was not sexual assault” but “constituted a gross abuse of power.”
…

Pakistan’s new foreign minister said he will “have exchanges” with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over Washington’s cancellation of a $300 million disbursement for the Pakistani military when he visits Islamabad on Wednesday.

Adopting a tougher line with an ally that U.S. President Donald Trump considers unreliable, the United States halted the disbursement of Coalition Support Funds due to Islamabad’s perceived failure to take decisive action against Afghan Taliban militants operating from Pakistani soil.

The United States has now withheld $800 million from the CSF so far this year.

The latest move comes just as the less-than-one-month-old government of Prime Minister Imran Khan faces a looming balance of payments crisis that could force it to seek a fresh bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or other lenders.

“On the 5th, the American (secretary of state) Pompeo will be arriving, and we will have a chance to sit down with him. There will be exchanges,” Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told reporters late on Sunday night.

“We will take our mutual respect for each other into consideration and move forward,” he added.

Qureshi argued that the U.S. was not justified in cutting the $300 million because it was intended to reimburse Pakistan’s military for money spent fighting the Taliban and other militants threatening U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

“It is not aid. It is not assistance, which was suspended. This the money, which we have spent. This is our money. We have spent it,” Qureshi said. “We did it for our betterment, which they had to reimburse.”

Officially allies in fighting terrorism, Pakistan and the United States have a complicated relationship, bound by Washington’s dependence on Pakistan to guarantee a supply route for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have repeatedly accused Pakistan of playing a double game, by covertly providing safe havens for Afghan Taliban insurgents and fighters from the Haqqani group, who are waging a 17-year-old war against Afghanistan’s U.S.-backed government.

Pakistan consistently denies providing safe havens for the militants.

In an editorial on Monday, Pakistan’s English-language Dawn newspaper railed against the Trump administration’s decision to halt the disbursement of funds.

“The U.S. has delivered an object lesson in how not to conduct diplomacy,” Pakistan’s English-language Dawn newspaper said in an editorial on Monday.

It went on to speculate whether Pompeo would “try and bully the Pakistani leadership during his visit or if he will be deployed in a more traditional ‘good cop’ diplomatic role.”

Pompeo will be accompanied by top U.S. military officer, General Joseph Dunford, for talks with the Pakistani leadership.

Relations between the new Pakistani government and Washington got off to a rocky start last month when Qureshi publicly disputed that Pompeo had brought up the thorny issue of terrorist havens in a phone call with Prime Minister Khan.

The Pakistani side later downplayed the issue after Washington shared a transcript of the call, Pakistani media reported.

The Trump administration a year ago resolved to take tougher line with Pakistan than previous U.S. administrations.

In his first tweet of 2018, Trump slammed Pakistan, saying the country has rewarded past U.S. aid with “nothing but lies & deceit.” Washington announced plans in January to suspend up to roughly $2 billion in U.S. security assistance to Pakistan.
…

It’s coal people like miner Steve Knotts, 62, who make West Virginia Trump Country.

So it was no surprise that President Donald Trump picked the state to announce his plan rolling back Obama-era pollution controls on coal-fired power plants.

Trump left one thing out of his remarks, though: northern West Virginia coal country will be ground zero for increased deaths and illnesses from the rollback on regulation of harmful emission from the nation’s coal power plants.

An analysis done by his own Environmental Protection Agency concludes that the plan would lead to a greater number of people here dying prematurely, and suffering health problems that they otherwise would not have, than elsewhere in the country, when compared to health impacts of the Obama plan.

Knotts, a coal miner for 35 years, isn’t fazed when he hears that warning, a couple of days after Trump’s West Virginia rally. He says the last thing people in coal country want is the government slapping down more controls on coal — and the air here in the remote West Virginia mountains seems fine to him.

People here have had it with other people telling us what we need. We know what we need. We need a job,” Knotts said at lunch hour at a Circle K in a tiny town between two coal mines, and 9 miles down the road from a coal power plant, the Grant Town plant.

The sky around Grant Town is bright blue. The mountains are a dazzling green. Paw Paw Creek gurgles past the town.

Clean-air controls since the 1980s largely turned off the columns of black soot that used to rise from coal smokestacks. The regulations slashed the national death rates from coal-fired power plants substantially.

These days pollutants rise from smoke stacks as gases, before solidifying into fine particles — still invisible — small enough to pass through lungs and into bloodstreams.

An EPA analysis says those pollutants would increase under Trump’s plan, when compared to what would happen under the Obama plan. And that, it says, would lead to thousands more heart attacks, asthma problems and other illnesses that would not have occurred.

Nationally, the EPA says, 350 to 1,500 more people would die each year under Trump’s plan. But it’s northern two-thirds of West Virginia and the neighboring part of Pennsylvania that would be hit hardest, by far, according to Trump’s EPA.

Trump’s rollback would kill an extra 1.4 to 2.4 people a year for every 100,000 people in those hardest-hit areas, compared to under the Obama plan, according to the EPA analysis. For West Virginia’s 1.8 million people, that would be equal to at least a couple dozen additional deaths a year.

Trump’s acting EPA administrator, Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist whose grandfather worked in the coal camps of West Virginia, headed to coal states this week and last to promote Trump’s rollback. The federal government’s retreat on regulating pollution from coal power plants was “good news,” Wheeler told crowds there.

In Washington, EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said Trump’s plan still would result in “dramatic reductions” in emissions, deaths and illness compared to the status quo, instead of to the Obama plan. Obama’s Clean Power Plan targeted climate-changing carbon dioxide, but since coal is the largest source of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, the Obama plan would have curbed other harmful emissions from the coal-fired power plants as well.

About 160 miles to the south of Grant Town, near the state capital of Charleston, shop owner Doris Keller figures that if Trump thinks something’s for the best, that’s good enough for her.

“I just know this. I like Donald Trump and I think that he’s doing the right thing,” said Keller, who turned out to support Trump Aug. 21 when he promoted his rollback proposal. She lives five miles from the 2,900-megawatt John Amos coal-fired power plant.

“I think he has the best interests of the regular common people at the forefront,” Keller says.

Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy program would dismantle President Barack Obama’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, which has been caught up in court battles without yet being implemented.

The Obama plan targeted climate-changing emissions from power plants, especially coal. It would have increased federal regulation of emissions from the nation’s electrical grid and broadly promoted natural gas, solar power and other cleaner energy.

Trump’s plan would cede much of the federal oversight of existing coal-fired power plants and drop official promotion of cleaner energy. Individual states largely would decide how much to regulate coal power plants in their borders. The plan is open for public review, ahead of any final White House decision.

“I’m getting rid of some of these ridiculous rules and regulations, which are killing our companies … and our jobs,” Trump said at the rally.

There was no mention of the “small increases” in harmful emissions that would result, compared to the Obama plan, or the health risks.

EPA charts put numbers on just how many more people would die each year because of those increased coal emissions.

Abboud and spokeswoman Ashley Bourke of the National Mining Association, which supports Trump’s proposed regulatory rollback on coal emissions, said other federal programs already regulate harmful emissions from coal power plants. Bourke also argued that the health studies the EPA used in its death projections date as far back as the 1970s, when coal plants burned dirtier.

In response, Conrad Schneider of the environmental nonprofit Clean Air Task Force said the EPA’s mortality estimates had taken into account existing regulation of plant emissions.Additionally, health studies used by the EPA looked at specific levels of exposure to pollutants and their impact on human health, so remain constant over time, said Schneider, whose group analyzes the EPA projections.

With competition from natural gas and other cleaner energy helping to kill off more than a third of coal jobs over the last decade, political leaders in coal states are in no position to be the ones charged with enforcing public-health protections on surviving coal-fired power plants, said Vivian Stockman of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.

“Our state is beholden to coal. Our politicians are beholden to coal,” Stockman said outside Trump’s West Virginia rally, where she was protesting. “Meanwhile, our people are being poisoned.”

And when it comes to coal power plants and harm, Schneider said, “when you’re at Grant Town, you’re at Ground Zero.”

Retired coal miner Jim Haley, living 4 miles from the town’s coal-fired power plant, has trouble telling from the smokestack when the plant is even operating.

“They’ve got steam coming out of the chimneys. That’s all they have coming out of it,” Haley said.

Parked near the Grant Town post office, where another resident was rolling down the quiet main street on a tractor, James Perkins listened to word of the EPA’s health warnings. He cast a look into the rear-view mirror into the backseat of his pickup truck, at his 3-year-old grandson, sitting in the back.

“They need to make that safe,” said Perkins, a health-care worker who had opted not to follow his father into the coal mines. “People got little kids.”

 
…