RIYADMEDIA

A government computer system that interacts with HealthCare.gov was hacked earlier this month, compromising the sensitive personal data of some 75,000 people, officials said Friday.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services made the announcement late in the afternoon ahead of a weekend, a time agencies often use to release unfavorable developments.

Officials said the hacked system was shut down and technicians are working to restore it before sign-up season starts Nov. 1 for health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

About 10 million people have private coverage under former President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Consumers applying for subsidized coverage have to provide extensive personal information, including Social Security numbers, income, and citizenship or legal immigration status.

The system that was hacked is used by insurance agents and brokers to directly enroll customers. All other sign-up systems are working.

CMS spokesman Johnathan Monroe said “nothing happened” to the HealthCare.gov website used by the general public. “This concerns the agent and broker portal, which is not accessible to the general public,” he said.

Federal law enforcement has been alerted, and affected customers will be notified and offered credit protection.

President Donald Trump promised to repeal “Obamacare” but failed.
…

A government computer system that interacts with HealthCare.gov was hacked earlier this month, compromising the sensitive personal data of some 75,000 people, officials said Friday.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services made the announcement late in the afternoon ahead of a weekend, a time agencies often use to release unfavorable developments.

Officials said the hacked system was shut down and technicians are working to restore it before sign-up season starts Nov. 1 for health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

About 10 million people have private coverage under former President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Consumers applying for subsidized coverage have to provide extensive personal information, including Social Security numbers, income, and citizenship or legal immigration status.

The system that was hacked is used by insurance agents and brokers to directly enroll customers. All other sign-up systems are working.

CMS spokesman Johnathan Monroe said “nothing happened” to the HealthCare.gov website used by the general public. “This concerns the agent and broker portal, which is not accessible to the general public,” he said.

Federal law enforcement has been alerted, and affected customers will be notified and offered credit protection.

President Donald Trump promised to repeal “Obamacare” but failed.
…

A gleaming new $3.2 billion railway cuts in half the travel time from Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, to the coast. Major investments in transportation, energy and maritime infrastructure are turning Pakistan into a major economic corridor. A new industrial zone in Thailand boasts solar, rubber and industrial manufacturing plants and is slated to host 500 companies by 2021.

All are parts of China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, featuring billions of dollars in infrastructure investment across Asia, Africa and the Pacific. The global impact is forcing the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump to rethink elements of its plan to cut back on foreign assistance under an “America First” strategy.

When “very senior people” in the administration traveled abroad and “saw that China was eating our lunch, they thought to themselves, ‘We have to do something,’ ” said Daniel Runde, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

And in a number of quiet moves affecting private investment, humanitarian aid and women’s empowerment abroad, the administration and the U.S. Congress have been doing just that.

Major policy reversal

In what is being seen as a major policy reversal, Trump this month signed the so-called BUILD Act, described by the nonpartisan CSIS as “the most important piece of U.S. soft power legislation in more than a decade.”

The new law merges and boosts agencies and programs that had once been targeted for deep budget cuts, creating a new entity tasked with providing loans, political-risk insurance and equity stakes to U.S. firms investing in developing countries, from Afghanistan to Zambia.

The agency will be known as the U.S. International Development Finance Corp., or USIDFC, and have a $60 billion budget. It will absorb the existing Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC) and more than double that agency’s current budget of $29 billion.

The USIDFC is “a much-needed instrument of commercial diplomacy that the U.S. has been sorely lacking,” said Witney Schneidman, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs, in a recent blog post for the Brookings Institution.

In a follow-up phone interview, Schneidman said he thought the new agency would help “get U.S. companies interested in Africa on its own merit. … It does put the U.S. on level with the Chinese” by matching Beijing’s policy of making equity investments in companies seeking to do business overseas.

​Dwarfed by China

Even at $60 billion, the new U.S. program will be dwarfed by Chinese investments in Asia and Africa. But Brookings analyst George Ingram said its impact can be magnified by partnering with other international lending organizations.

“The French, the British, the Scandinavians – they all have similar organizations,” Ingram said. “And now that the [USIDFC] has equity authority, this new entity will be able to be a much more effective partner than OPIC could be.”

The BUILD Act has its critics, especially among free-market conservatives who believe the government should not get involved in private business decisions.

“The idea of equity participation was kind of sold politically that it was going to be the U.S. responding to China’s One Belt, One Road [initiative] and yet there was no mention of China in the legislation at all,” James M. Roberts, an editor for the Washington-based Heritage Foundation’s annual “Index of Economic Freedom,” told VOA in an interview.

By ensuring equity stakes, “that means the government is going to be a shareholder in foreign companies,” added Roberts, who has listed a potential for “cronyism and misallocation of capital” among his concerns.

Advocates of the plan include Mark Green, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, whose Development Credit Authority is being folded into the USIDFC. By encouraging U.S. private investment abroad, he has said, the new enterprise will “spur economic growth in less developed countries and advance the foreign policy interests of the United States.”

Interviewed last week for VOA’s “Plugged In With Greta Van Susteren,” Green, a former Republican congressman who later served as ambassador to Tanzania, said there’s a “fundamental difference” between U.S. and Chinese approaches to development abroad.

China favors loans that can include “unsustainable financing that mortgages a country’s future,” he said. In contrast, USAID expects recipients to implement reforms. 

“We ask them to respect certain rights and values. What we want for them is to become eventual trading partners, but equal partners,” Green added.

Other measures

The Trump administration has demonstrated a renewed openness to international aid in other ways as well, including a recent five-year extension to an anti-hunger measure known as the Global Food Security Act. It supports USAID programs such as Feed the Future initiative. It partners with governments, NGOs, private enterprise and others “to strengthen agricultural markets and then entire food systems,” said Beth Dunford, who oversees the initiative.

Pending in Congress, meanwhile, is the Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act, aimed at improving women’s access “to economic participation and opportunity.”

It calls for supporting women’s property and inheritance rights and ending gender-based violence. It also requires that USAID integrate efforts to empower women in all of its programs, and it broadens support for women-run small- and medium-size businesses.

The bill, which enjoys bipartisan backing, is being promoted by first daughter Ivanka Trump. She tweeted her thanks this week to four members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for advancing the bill.

“Women’s economic empowerment doesn’t always get a lot of attention in Congress, so this bill is something we’re quite excited about,” said Nicole Ellis, who manages policy communications for the international relief agency CARE.

Gayatri Patel, CARE’s senior policy advocate, said the agency is working closely with legislators, noting they want “practical recommendations and approaches.”

That might include endorsing approaches such as the Village Savings and Loan program that CARE started in Niger in 1991. “You get women in a community to save, they give each other loans,” Patel said. “It’s really an entry point for women for more formal economic endeavors … to start businesses or pay for their children’s education, to connect with the market and mentor or be mentored by others in the community.”

The goal, she said, is to encourage aid that has “a catalytic effect on women, their families and their communities.”
…

A gleaming new $3.2 billion railway cuts in half the travel time from Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, to the coast. Major investments in transportation, energy and maritime infrastructure are turning Pakistan into a major economic corridor. A new industrial zone in Thailand boasts solar, rubber and industrial manufacturing plants and is slated to host 500 companies by 2021.

All are parts of China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, featuring billions of dollars in infrastructure investment across Asia, Africa and the Pacific. The global impact is forcing the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump to rethink elements of its plan to cut back on foreign assistance under an “America First” strategy.

When “very senior people” in the administration traveled abroad and “saw that China was eating our lunch, they thought to themselves, ‘We have to do something,’ ” said Daniel Runde, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

And in a number of quiet moves affecting private investment, humanitarian aid and women’s empowerment abroad, the administration and the U.S. Congress have been doing just that.

Major policy reversal

In what is being seen as a major policy reversal, Trump this month signed the so-called BUILD Act, described by the nonpartisan CSIS as “the most important piece of U.S. soft power legislation in more than a decade.”

The new law merges and boosts agencies and programs that had once been targeted for deep budget cuts, creating a new entity tasked with providing loans, political-risk insurance and equity stakes to U.S. firms investing in developing countries, from Afghanistan to Zambia.

The agency will be known as the U.S. International Development Finance Corp., or USIDFC, and have a $60 billion budget. It will absorb the existing Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC) and more than double that agency’s current budget of $29 billion.

The USIDFC is “a much-needed instrument of commercial diplomacy that the U.S. has been sorely lacking,” said Witney Schneidman, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs, in a recent blog post for the Brookings Institution.

In a follow-up phone interview, Schneidman said he thought the new agency would help “get U.S. companies interested in Africa on its own merit. … It does put the U.S. on level with the Chinese” by matching Beijing’s policy of making equity investments in companies seeking to do business overseas.

​Dwarfed by China

Even at $60 billion, the new U.S. program will be dwarfed by Chinese investments in Asia and Africa. But Brookings analyst George Ingram said its impact can be magnified by partnering with other international lending organizations.

“The French, the British, the Scandinavians – they all have similar organizations,” Ingram said. “And now that the [USIDFC] has equity authority, this new entity will be able to be a much more effective partner than OPIC could be.”

The BUILD Act has its critics, especially among free-market conservatives who believe the government should not get involved in private business decisions.

“The idea of equity participation was kind of sold politically that it was going to be the U.S. responding to China’s One Belt, One Road [initiative] and yet there was no mention of China in the legislation at all,” James M. Roberts, an editor for the Washington-based Heritage Foundation’s annual “Index of Economic Freedom,” told VOA in an interview.

By ensuring equity stakes, “that means the government is going to be a shareholder in foreign companies,” added Roberts, who has listed a potential for “cronyism and misallocation of capital” among his concerns.

Advocates of the plan include Mark Green, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, whose Development Credit Authority is being folded into the USIDFC. By encouraging U.S. private investment abroad, he has said, the new enterprise will “spur economic growth in less developed countries and advance the foreign policy interests of the United States.”

Interviewed last week for VOA’s “Plugged In With Greta Van Susteren,” Green, a former Republican congressman who later served as ambassador to Tanzania, said there’s a “fundamental difference” between U.S. and Chinese approaches to development abroad.

China favors loans that can include “unsustainable financing that mortgages a country’s future,” he said. In contrast, USAID expects recipients to implement reforms. 

“We ask them to respect certain rights and values. What we want for them is to become eventual trading partners, but equal partners,” Green added.

Other measures

The Trump administration has demonstrated a renewed openness to international aid in other ways as well, including a recent five-year extension to an anti-hunger measure known as the Global Food Security Act. It supports USAID programs such as Feed the Future initiative. It partners with governments, NGOs, private enterprise and others “to strengthen agricultural markets and then entire food systems,” said Beth Dunford, who oversees the initiative.

Pending in Congress, meanwhile, is the Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act, aimed at improving women’s access “to economic participation and opportunity.”

It calls for supporting women’s property and inheritance rights and ending gender-based violence. It also requires that USAID integrate efforts to empower women in all of its programs, and it broadens support for women-run small- and medium-size businesses.

The bill, which enjoys bipartisan backing, is being promoted by first daughter Ivanka Trump. She tweeted her thanks this week to four members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for advancing the bill.

“Women’s economic empowerment doesn’t always get a lot of attention in Congress, so this bill is something we’re quite excited about,” said Nicole Ellis, who manages policy communications for the international relief agency CARE.

Gayatri Patel, CARE’s senior policy advocate, said the agency is working closely with legislators, noting they want “practical recommendations and approaches.”

That might include endorsing approaches such as the Village Savings and Loan program that CARE started in Niger in 1991. “You get women in a community to save, they give each other loans,” Patel said. “It’s really an entry point for women for more formal economic endeavors … to start businesses or pay for their children’s education, to connect with the market and mentor or be mentored by others in the community.”

The goal, she said, is to encourage aid that has “a catalytic effect on women, their families and their communities.”
…

In the battle for Congress, Democrats are winning the money game. But will it be enough for them to overtake Republicans?

In what is shaping up to be the most expensive U.S. congressional election in history, Democrats have had a distinct advantage in fundraising over Republicans throughout the midterm election cycle as they seek to break the GOP’s stranglehold on Congress.

While Republicans are widely expected to preserve their slim 51-to-49-seat majority in the U.S. Senate and possibly expand it, polls show the Democrats poised to take back the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in seven years. Democrats need a net gain of 23 seats to retake the House.

WATCH VIDEO:

On the ballot

All 435 House seats as well as 35 of 100 Senate seats will be on the ballot next month. Candidates vying for those coveted seats have raised a record $2.3 billion from individual donors and political action committees (PACs) through Sept. 30, according to the latest filings this week with the Federal Election Commission.

Overall, Democrats outraised Republicans by an unprecedented $411 million. In House races, Democratic candidates raised more than $850 million from individuals and PACs, compared with $576 million generated by Republicans. In Senate contests, Democrats hauled in nearly $490 million, compared with $337 million garnered by Republicans.

The average House campaign spends a little more than $1 million during a two-year election cycle, yet 30 Democrats have raised more than $2 million each so far this cycle.

In the most expensive non-special House race this cycle, a closely fought contest in Southern California between Republican Young Kim and Democrat Gil Cisneros has cost more than $20 million. Among Senate contests, the most expensive race is between incumbent Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who have raised a combined total of nearly $100 million.

Republicans fared as well or better than the Democrats in raising campaign cash from corporate PACs, those high-powered fundraising operations with minimal disclosure requirements or spending restrictions. But the Democrats crushed Republicans in raising individual contributions through the internet or campaign fundraising events. O’Rourke, a U.S. House member from El Paso, Texas, reported last week that he had raised a record $30 million during the third quarter from 800,000 contributors.

Federal campaign finance law prevents individuals from contributing more than $2,700 to a congressional campaign committee in any one election, while allowing traditional political action committees to donate up to $5,000. However, so-called independent-expenditure committees, or “super PACS,” can raise and spend unlimited amounts to advance their causes or political parties.

“There is a tremendous amount of small-dollar energy going on the Democratic side,” said Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

“Democratic House candidates are raising small-dollar donations from donors across the country, who are doing what they can trying to win the House back for Democrats. Republicans are trying to counteract that with third-party groups and outside spending.”

​Fundraising edge, cash on hand

Moreover, Democratic challengers have outraised Republican opponents in a majority of several dozen House races seen as highly competitive. And as the campaign enters its final two weeks, data show Democrats have more cash on hand than Republicans, something that will allow them to fund a last-minute push to mobilize voters.

Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research organization, said the Democrats’ enormous fundraising edge is “fairly significant and fairly unusual.”

“The trend with election spending is just almost always up due to a variety of factors,” Bryner said. “But this election cycle we have a huge crop of well-funded Democratic challengers and that’s going to increase spending across the board as the incumbents they’re facing try to counteract that spending.”

Money is the lifeblood of American campaigning. Candidates and their consultants use funds to buy expensive TV airtime, pay for personnel and other campaign expenses, and hold events to raise more funds. Advertising represents the single largest expense of a congressional campaign.

Money will continue to pour in throughout the last two weeks of the campaign, helped by some deep-pocketed benefactors seeking to tip the balance in key races.

Last week, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he was giving $20 million to the Democrats’ Senate super PAC. Most of the money will go toward buying TV airtime for embattled Democratic candidates. That brings to nearly $100 million the amount the billionaire businessman has contributed to the Democrats this cycle, making him one of the largest donors.

“Given the rise of super PACs in the post-Citizens United era, it’s possible for people to make those huge donations late in the game,” Bryner said, referring to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that found spending limits on outside organizations unconstitutional.

“Right now, this is the Wild West in the United States,” said Martin Frost, a former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and now president of the bipartisan Association of Former Members of Congress. “People can put as much money as they want in politics. Some of that money is disclosed and some of it is not.”

With Republican incumbents struggling in several dozen key races, party leaders and groups have begun to cut their losses, pulling funding from races they think the Democrats will win and reallocating resources to more competitive contests.

In its first act of triage in late September, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC, canceled a planned $3.1 million ad buy in two districts in Michigan and Colorado where the Republican incumbents are struggling, the Associated Press reported. That was followed by similar moves in several other congressional districts.

​Infusions of cash or pulling the plug

Parties perform spending triage all the time. But the infusion of cash, such as Bloomberg’s $20 million donation, has put added pressure on the Republicans to pull the plug on uncompetitive races.

“What happens is races that are at the margins, where it’s just going to be a tough slog regardless, they’ll pull out of those races … and they’ll reallocate those resources into races where that $20 million by Bloomberg now may make a difference,” said Michael Steele, a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Just how much of a difference the Democrats’ money advantage will make remains to be seen. Money is not always a guarantor of electoral success.

In the 2016 presidential election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffered an upset despite spending $387 million more than billionaire businessman Donald Trump. In a special election for a congressional seat in Georgia last year, Democrat Jon Ossoff lost to Republican Karen Handel despite a $20 million fundraising advantage.

And O’Rourke’s massive fundraising advantage has failed to cut into Cruz’s substantial seven-point lead in the U.S. Senate race in Texas.

“A lot of people make a big deal about money and sort of think that’s the dark angel of American politics, but I can tell you there are … as many races there where the person with the most money loses as there are where that individual wins,” Steele said. “So at the end of the day, candidates still have to make a credible message, they still have to be credible themselves for the voters … to actually utilize the benefit of those dollars that are getting poured into that campaign.”
…

In the battle for Congress, Democrats are winning the money game. But will it be enough for them to overtake Republicans?

In what is shaping up to be the most expensive U.S. congressional election in history, Democrats have had a distinct advantage in fundraising over Republicans throughout the midterm election cycle as they seek to break the GOP’s stranglehold on Congress.

While Republicans are widely expected to preserve their slim 51-to-49-seat majority in the U.S. Senate and possibly expand it, polls show the Democrats poised to take back the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in seven years. Democrats need a net gain of 23 seats to retake the House.

WATCH VIDEO:

On the ballot

All 435 House seats as well as 35 of 100 Senate seats will be on the ballot next month. Candidates vying for those coveted seats have raised a record $2.3 billion from individual donors and political action committees (PACs) through Sept. 30, according to the latest filings this week with the Federal Election Commission.

Overall, Democrats outraised Republicans by an unprecedented $411 million. In House races, Democratic candidates raised more than $850 million from individuals and PACs, compared with $576 million generated by Republicans. In Senate contests, Democrats hauled in nearly $490 million, compared with $337 million garnered by Republicans.

The average House campaign spends a little more than $1 million during a two-year election cycle, yet 30 Democrats have raised more than $2 million each so far this cycle.

In the most expensive non-special House race this cycle, a closely fought contest in Southern California between Republican Young Kim and Democrat Gil Cisneros has cost more than $20 million. Among Senate contests, the most expensive race is between incumbent Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who have raised a combined total of nearly $100 million.

Republicans fared as well or better than the Democrats in raising campaign cash from corporate PACs, those high-powered fundraising operations with minimal disclosure requirements or spending restrictions. But the Democrats crushed Republicans in raising individual contributions through the internet or campaign fundraising events. O’Rourke, a U.S. House member from El Paso, Texas, reported last week that he had raised a record $30 million during the third quarter from 800,000 contributors.

Federal campaign finance law prevents individuals from contributing more than $2,700 to a congressional campaign committee in any one election, while allowing traditional political action committees to donate up to $5,000. However, so-called independent-expenditure committees, or “super PACS,” can raise and spend unlimited amounts to advance their causes or political parties.

“There is a tremendous amount of small-dollar energy going on the Democratic side,” said Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

“Democratic House candidates are raising small-dollar donations from donors across the country, who are doing what they can trying to win the House back for Democrats. Republicans are trying to counteract that with third-party groups and outside spending.”

​Fundraising edge, cash on hand

Moreover, Democratic challengers have outraised Republican opponents in a majority of several dozen House races seen as highly competitive. And as the campaign enters its final two weeks, data show Democrats have more cash on hand than Republicans, something that will allow them to fund a last-minute push to mobilize voters.

Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research organization, said the Democrats’ enormous fundraising edge is “fairly significant and fairly unusual.”

“The trend with election spending is just almost always up due to a variety of factors,” Bryner said. “But this election cycle we have a huge crop of well-funded Democratic challengers and that’s going to increase spending across the board as the incumbents they’re facing try to counteract that spending.”

Money is the lifeblood of American campaigning. Candidates and their consultants use funds to buy expensive TV airtime, pay for personnel and other campaign expenses, and hold events to raise more funds. Advertising represents the single largest expense of a congressional campaign.

Money will continue to pour in throughout the last two weeks of the campaign, helped by some deep-pocketed benefactors seeking to tip the balance in key races.

Last week, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he was giving $20 million to the Democrats’ Senate super PAC. Most of the money will go toward buying TV airtime for embattled Democratic candidates. That brings to nearly $100 million the amount the billionaire businessman has contributed to the Democrats this cycle, making him one of the largest donors.

“Given the rise of super PACs in the post-Citizens United era, it’s possible for people to make those huge donations late in the game,” Bryner said, referring to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that found spending limits on outside organizations unconstitutional.

“Right now, this is the Wild West in the United States,” said Martin Frost, a former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and now president of the bipartisan Association of Former Members of Congress. “People can put as much money as they want in politics. Some of that money is disclosed and some of it is not.”

With Republican incumbents struggling in several dozen key races, party leaders and groups have begun to cut their losses, pulling funding from races they think the Democrats will win and reallocating resources to more competitive contests.

In its first act of triage in late September, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC, canceled a planned $3.1 million ad buy in two districts in Michigan and Colorado where the Republican incumbents are struggling, the Associated Press reported. That was followed by similar moves in several other congressional districts.

​Infusions of cash or pulling the plug

Parties perform spending triage all the time. But the infusion of cash, such as Bloomberg’s $20 million donation, has put added pressure on the Republicans to pull the plug on uncompetitive races.

“What happens is races that are at the margins, where it’s just going to be a tough slog regardless, they’ll pull out of those races … and they’ll reallocate those resources into races where that $20 million by Bloomberg now may make a difference,” said Michael Steele, a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Just how much of a difference the Democrats’ money advantage will make remains to be seen. Money is not always a guarantor of electoral success.

In the 2016 presidential election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffered an upset despite spending $387 million more than billionaire businessman Donald Trump. In a special election for a congressional seat in Georgia last year, Democrat Jon Ossoff lost to Republican Karen Handel despite a $20 million fundraising advantage.

And O’Rourke’s massive fundraising advantage has failed to cut into Cruz’s substantial seven-point lead in the U.S. Senate race in Texas.

“A lot of people make a big deal about money and sort of think that’s the dark angel of American politics, but I can tell you there are … as many races there where the person with the most money loses as there are where that individual wins,” Steele said. “So at the end of the day, candidates still have to make a credible message, they still have to be credible themselves for the voters … to actually utilize the benefit of those dollars that are getting poured into that campaign.”
…

With the US midterm elections weeks away, Democrats have gained the upper hand in fundraising. Analysts say anti-Trump sentiment may be fueling record election contributions as Democrats seek to break the GOP’s hold in Congress. As VOA’s Masood Farivar reports, the 2018 midterms are shaping up to be the most expensive U.S. congressional election in history. But some wonder if rising Democratic campaign contributions is enough to unseat enough Republicans and take majority control of Congress.
…

With the US midterm elections weeks away, Democrats have gained the upper hand in fundraising. Analysts say anti-Trump sentiment may be fueling record election contributions as Democrats seek to break the GOP’s hold in Congress. As VOA’s Masood Farivar reports, the 2018 midterms are shaping up to be the most expensive U.S. congressional election in history. But some wonder if rising Democratic campaign contributions is enough to unseat enough Republicans and take majority control of Congress.
…

The U.S. Interior Department’s watchdog agency has said in a report that sending a security detail to protect Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and his wife on a vacation to Turkey and Greece had cost taxpayers more than $25,000, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

The report published by the Post also said Zinke allowed his wife to travel with him in government vehicles in violation of department policy.

Others investigated

The report follows ethics investigations into several Trump administration officials, including Scott Pruitt, who stepped down as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency in July, and Tom Price, who resigned as health and human services secretary in September 2017.

Zinke said he did not ask his security detail to travel with him during the August 2017 vacation to Turkey and Greece, and the decision was made by the U.S. Park Police supervisor, the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General said in the report.

The report said other officials in the department approved Zinke’s wife, Lolita, riding with him in government vehicles. It said that when Zinke was asked whether he knew the practice violated department policy, the secretary said it was consistent with government travel regulations.

The report listed several instances of official travel in which Zinke was accompanied by his wife and he reimbursed the government for her expenses.

Making wife a volunteer

It said Zinke had asked department employees to research whether his wife could be made an official Interior Department volunteer. He denied his intention in making the request was to enable his wife to travel with him in an official capacity.

“Ultimately, the employees advised him that making her a volunteer could be perceived negatively, and she did not become one,” the report said.

The Interior Department did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

The department’s Office of Inspector General has also said it was investigating Zinke over the use of chartered flights and a Montana real estate deal.
…

The U.S. Interior Department’s watchdog agency has said in a report that sending a security detail to protect Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and his wife on a vacation to Turkey and Greece had cost taxpayers more than $25,000, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

The report published by the Post also said Zinke allowed his wife to travel with him in government vehicles in violation of department policy.

Others investigated

The report follows ethics investigations into several Trump administration officials, including Scott Pruitt, who stepped down as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency in July, and Tom Price, who resigned as health and human services secretary in September 2017.

Zinke said he did not ask his security detail to travel with him during the August 2017 vacation to Turkey and Greece, and the decision was made by the U.S. Park Police supervisor, the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General said in the report.

The report said other officials in the department approved Zinke’s wife, Lolita, riding with him in government vehicles. It said that when Zinke was asked whether he knew the practice violated department policy, the secretary said it was consistent with government travel regulations.

The report listed several instances of official travel in which Zinke was accompanied by his wife and he reimbursed the government for her expenses.

Making wife a volunteer

It said Zinke had asked department employees to research whether his wife could be made an official Interior Department volunteer. He denied his intention in making the request was to enable his wife to travel with him in an official capacity.

“Ultimately, the employees advised him that making her a volunteer could be perceived negatively, and she did not become one,” the report said.

The Interior Department did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

The department’s Office of Inspector General has also said it was investigating Zinke over the use of chartered flights and a Montana real estate deal.
…

President Donald Trump suggested without evidence Thursday that Democrats or their allies are supporting a “caravan” of Central American migrants who are traveling north aiming to enter the United States.

Addressing thousands of supporters at a campaign rally in Montana, Trump said immigration is now one of the leading issues in the 2018 midterms, and he accused Democrats of supporting the migrants because they “figure everybody coming in is going to vote Democrat.”

The comments mark the injection of one of Trump’s signature 2016 campaign themes back into national conversation as he looks to boost Republican turnout to maintain their congressional majorities in 2018.

Perhaps no issue was more identifiable with Trump’s last campaign than immigration, particularly his much-vaunted — and still-unfulfilled — promise to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall. For Trump, those pledges are still rallying cries for his supporters, who cheered his call for construction of a wall and booed mentions of Democratic opposition to his hard-line policies.

Unfounded allegation

“A lot of money’s been passing through people to come up and try to get to the border by Election Day because they think that’s a negative for us,” Trump said. “No. 1, they’re being stopped, and No. 2, regardless, that’s our issue.”

He added: “They wanted that caravan and there are those that say that caravan didn’t just happen. It didn’t just happen.”

Trump appeared to be referring to an unfounded allegation promoted by ally Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida. The Republican lawmaker tweeted a video Wednesday of men handing out money to people standing in line. He claimed the video showed people being paid in Honduras to join a caravan and “storm the border (at) election time.” Trump on Thursday tweeted the same video, writing, “Can you believe this, and what Democrats are allowing to be done to our Country?”

Correction issued

After questions about the video’s origin, Gaetz posted a correction later Thursday on Twitter, saying, “This video was provided to me by a Honduran government official. Thus, I believed it to be from Honduras.”

Neither Republican provided evidence of his claim that the people were being paid to join a caravan.

About 3,000 Hondurans are in a migrant caravan passing through Guatemala trying to reach the United States. Mexico’s government says migrants with proper documents can enter Mexico and those who don’t either have to apply for refugee status or face deportation.

On Thursday, Trump threatened to close the U.S.-Mexico border if authorities there fail to stop them.

Trump criticizes Tester

Trump was in Montana to boost GOP Senate candidate Matt Rosendale, who is running against Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, whom the president said has been a “disaster for Montana.”

The president blames Tester for the backlash against former White House doctor Adm. Ronny Jackson, whom the president had tapped to serve as Veterans Affairs secretary. Jackson was forced to withdraw after facing ethics allegations, including claims that he “got drunk and wrecked a government vehicle” at a Secret Service going-away party. Tester had released a list of allegations against Jackson that was compiled by the Democratic staff of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

“He was attacked so viciously, so violently by Jon Tester,” Trump said. “That’s really why I’m here.”

He also criticized Tester’s opposition to the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of decades-old sexual assault. Kavanaugh denied the allegations.

Praise for body slam candidate

Trump also praised Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte, who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault last year after attacking a reporter in 2017.

“Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kind of guy,” Trump said. “He’s a great guy, tough cookie.”

Trump accused Democrats of engaging in a “heartless” campaign to sink Kavanaugh’s confirmation, saying voters will “remember” how he was treated at the polls.

“This will be an election of Kavanaugh, the caravan, law and order, and common sense,” Trump said.
…

Two of President Donald Trump’s top advisers got into a heated exchange outside the Oval Office on Thursday as passions boiled over about how to handle illegal immigration, two sources familiar with the incident said.

The altercation occurred between White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who is a former homeland security secretary, and Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, the sources said.

One source described the argument as a “tense exchange” but said that it had blown over, and that it involved the job performance of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, a former deputy to Kelly. Another source said it was “not a big deal.”

Trump, asked about the incident, told reporters: “That, I have not heard about.”

A senior White House official said later that Nielsen and Bolton had a nice conversation in Bolton’s office after the exchange and agreed the goal was to protect borders.

Earlier this year, The New York Times reported that Nielsen was close to resigning after being criticized by Trump at a Cabinet meeting for what he said was her failure to secure U.S. borders.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement: “While we are passionate about solving the issue of illegal immigration, we are not angry at one another. However, we are furious at the failure of congressional Democrats to help us address this growing crisis.”

Trump threatened on Thursday to deploy the military and close the southern U.S. border as Hondurans and Salvadorans joined thousands of migrants in Guatemala hoping to travel north.

“I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught — and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!’ Trump said in a tweet.
…

Two of President Donald Trump’s top advisers got into a heated exchange outside the Oval Office on Thursday as passions boiled over about how to handle illegal immigration, two sources familiar with the incident said.

The altercation occurred between White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who is a former homeland security secretary, and Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, the sources said.

One source described the argument as a “tense exchange” but said that it had blown over, and that it involved the job performance of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, a former deputy to Kelly. Another source said it was “not a big deal.”

Trump, asked about the incident, told reporters: “That, I have not heard about.”

A senior White House official said later that Nielsen and Bolton had a nice conversation in Bolton’s office after the exchange and agreed the goal was to protect borders.

Earlier this year, The New York Times reported that Nielsen was close to resigning after being criticized by Trump at a Cabinet meeting for what he said was her failure to secure U.S. borders.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement: “While we are passionate about solving the issue of illegal immigration, we are not angry at one another. However, we are furious at the failure of congressional Democrats to help us address this growing crisis.”

Trump threatened on Thursday to deploy the military and close the southern U.S. border as Hondurans and Salvadorans joined thousands of migrants in Guatemala hoping to travel north.

“I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught — and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!’ Trump said in a tweet.
…

If Republican Marsha Blackburn were to win in November, the congresswoman would become the first female U.S. senator in Tennessee history. And yet women have been slow to embrace her campaign.

A Vanderbilt University poll conducted Oct. 8-13 showed Blackburn trailing former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, 49 percent to 37 percent among women likely to vote. The same poll found that men likely to vote favored Blackburn 50-37 percent, even as the broader poll showed the race is a tossup.

 

The stark gender divide, which has persisted in polling throughout the campaign, stands out in what has been described as the year of the female voter. Aware of the stakes as Democrats try to take control of the Senate, both candidates have intensified efforts to win over women as Election Day nears — vividly demonstrating that those voters are pivotal even in a deeply red state.

 

“Women are increasingly more liberal, and men are increasingly more conservative,” said Amanda Clayton, an assistant professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. “That trend is becoming more pronounced and is likely to become more pronounced as it gets closer to the election.”

 

Blackburn’s tea party roots can appeal to conservative men who oppose traditionally liberal feminist candidates, Clayton said.

 

The push to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she added, may have given those men reason to look for women they could support, perhaps in response to more liberal women running for office.

 

Blackburn, the first female major-party Senate nominee from Tennessee, has previously demurred when talking about the groundbreaking aspects of her campaign. She said she isn’t running on gender and has declined to answer questions about sexism she’s encountered. When she was elected to Congress in 2002, she asked to be called “congressman” rather than “congresswoman.”

 

But Blackburn’s campaign has been willing to play the gender card.

In February, when some Republicans worried about losing a Senate seat encouraged retiring U.S. Sen. Bob Corker to reconsider, Blackburn’s spokesman said anyone who thought she couldn’t win the general election was a “plain sexist pig.”

 

More recently, Blackburn herself has suggested a liberal bias on gender matters.

 

“Republican women are never going to get the attention that Democratic women are going to get,” she said in a recent AP interview. “And you just expect that. I fully understand that Republican women do not fit the narrative that many in the media would like to construct. But I will tell you this: Most women, and you mentioned suburban moms, are very much like me.”

 

Her campaign has emphasized her attempts to break the glass ceiling: the first woman hired by the Southwestern Company — a marketing business that sells educational materials — and the only Republican woman in the Tennessee Senate in 1998.

 

“Fighting against all odds is the story of her life,” the narrator of one ad says.

 

Blackburn’s team also has targeted Bredesen’s handling of sexual harassment claims when he was governor.

 

In 2005, The Associated Press reviewed more than 600 workplace harassment investigation files collected when Bredesen was elected in 2002. The AP found that sexual and workplace harassment reports in 2005 were on pace to almost double from the previous year. Bredesen argued that reporting was up rather than the actual number of incidents.

 

Blackburn accused Bredesen of shredding records to cover up poor performance, but Bredesen called that a “total mischaracterization” and said he was trying to protect the privacy of those who complained.

 

And Bredesen’s decision to support Kavanaugh has raised new questions about his support among women. The move appalled some Democrats, but others saw it as a way to win over Republicans in a state where he needs them.

 

In September, his campaign unveiled “Women United for Bredesen” — a group it says has roughly 50,000 Tennesseans aimed at providing a “space for women” to focus on their top issues.

 

Recently, pop superstar Taylor Swift broke her long silence on politics to endorse the Democrat. Swift said in an Instagram post that she wanted to back female candidates but could not support Blackburn because of her voting history on LGBTQ issues, opposition to the Violence Against Women Act and an equal pay law — saying bluntly that the congresswoman’s voting record “appalls and terrifies me.”

 

On the ground, Blackburn’s core supporters say party loyalty will outweigh gender at the end of the day — though they don’t always disconnect the two.

 

“She has set an amazing example, and in return, we are seeing more women running for office across the state,” said Barbara Trautman, president of the Tennessee Federation of Republican Women. “We are very loyal to her.”

 

Yet Bredesen is a looming threat, Trautman added, warning that voter turnout — particularly women — will be key.

 

“At this point, I’m not putting a lot of stock into polls,” she said. “She’s one of us, and we have high hopes.”

 

 

 
…

If Republican Marsha Blackburn were to win in November, the congresswoman would become the first female U.S. senator in Tennessee history. And yet women have been slow to embrace her campaign.

A Vanderbilt University poll conducted Oct. 8-13 showed Blackburn trailing former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, 49 percent to 37 percent among women likely to vote. The same poll found that men likely to vote favored Blackburn 50-37 percent, even as the broader poll showed the race is a tossup.

 

The stark gender divide, which has persisted in polling throughout the campaign, stands out in what has been described as the year of the female voter. Aware of the stakes as Democrats try to take control of the Senate, both candidates have intensified efforts to win over women as Election Day nears — vividly demonstrating that those voters are pivotal even in a deeply red state.

 

“Women are increasingly more liberal, and men are increasingly more conservative,” said Amanda Clayton, an assistant professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. “That trend is becoming more pronounced and is likely to become more pronounced as it gets closer to the election.”

 

Blackburn’s tea party roots can appeal to conservative men who oppose traditionally liberal feminist candidates, Clayton said.

 

The push to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she added, may have given those men reason to look for women they could support, perhaps in response to more liberal women running for office.

 

Blackburn, the first female major-party Senate nominee from Tennessee, has previously demurred when talking about the groundbreaking aspects of her campaign. She said she isn’t running on gender and has declined to answer questions about sexism she’s encountered. When she was elected to Congress in 2002, she asked to be called “congressman” rather than “congresswoman.”

 

But Blackburn’s campaign has been willing to play the gender card.

In February, when some Republicans worried about losing a Senate seat encouraged retiring U.S. Sen. Bob Corker to reconsider, Blackburn’s spokesman said anyone who thought she couldn’t win the general election was a “plain sexist pig.”

 

More recently, Blackburn herself has suggested a liberal bias on gender matters.

 

“Republican women are never going to get the attention that Democratic women are going to get,” she said in a recent AP interview. “And you just expect that. I fully understand that Republican women do not fit the narrative that many in the media would like to construct. But I will tell you this: Most women, and you mentioned suburban moms, are very much like me.”

 

Her campaign has emphasized her attempts to break the glass ceiling: the first woman hired by the Southwestern Company — a marketing business that sells educational materials — and the only Republican woman in the Tennessee Senate in 1998.

 

“Fighting against all odds is the story of her life,” the narrator of one ad says.

 

Blackburn’s team also has targeted Bredesen’s handling of sexual harassment claims when he was governor.

 

In 2005, The Associated Press reviewed more than 600 workplace harassment investigation files collected when Bredesen was elected in 2002. The AP found that sexual and workplace harassment reports in 2005 were on pace to almost double from the previous year. Bredesen argued that reporting was up rather than the actual number of incidents.

 

Blackburn accused Bredesen of shredding records to cover up poor performance, but Bredesen called that a “total mischaracterization” and said he was trying to protect the privacy of those who complained.

 

And Bredesen’s decision to support Kavanaugh has raised new questions about his support among women. The move appalled some Democrats, but others saw it as a way to win over Republicans in a state where he needs them.

 

In September, his campaign unveiled “Women United for Bredesen” — a group it says has roughly 50,000 Tennesseans aimed at providing a “space for women” to focus on their top issues.

 

Recently, pop superstar Taylor Swift broke her long silence on politics to endorse the Democrat. Swift said in an Instagram post that she wanted to back female candidates but could not support Blackburn because of her voting history on LGBTQ issues, opposition to the Violence Against Women Act and an equal pay law — saying bluntly that the congresswoman’s voting record “appalls and terrifies me.”

 

On the ground, Blackburn’s core supporters say party loyalty will outweigh gender at the end of the day — though they don’t always disconnect the two.

 

“She has set an amazing example, and in return, we are seeing more women running for office across the state,” said Barbara Trautman, president of the Tennessee Federation of Republican Women. “We are very loyal to her.”

 

Yet Bredesen is a looming threat, Trautman added, warning that voter turnout — particularly women — will be key.

 

“At this point, I’m not putting a lot of stock into polls,” she said. “She’s one of us, and we have high hopes.”

 

 

 
…

Former U.S. vice president Joe Biden says President Donald Trump may not “know what he’s doing” and coddles dictators.  

The potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate told CBS “This Morning” Thursday he’s concerned Trump “seems to have a love affair with autocrats” and “coddles” dictators, including North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Saudi ruling family.

Biden says Trump either “doesn’t know what he’s doing or he has an absolutely convoluted notion” of America’s leadership in the world.

White House aides suggest that while Trump doesn’t criticize certain world leaders publicly, he’s willing to deliver tough messages behind closed doors.

Biden said he hopes Democrats don’t pursue Trump’s impeachment if the party takes over the House, saying, “I don’t think there’s a basis for doing that right now.”

 
…

Don McGahn has returned to civilian life. 

A White House official confirms that Wednesday was McGahn’s last day as White House counsel. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

President Donald Trump announced in August that McGahn would leave after the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. 

McGahn is a top election lawyer who served as general counsel in Trump’s election campaign. He played a pivotal role in the president’s remaking of the federal judiciary with young, conservative judges, like Kavanaugh. He was also the main point of contact inside the White House for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

In an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press, Trump said Washington lawyer Pat Cipollone would replace McGahn
…

Don McGahn has returned to civilian life. 

A White House official confirms that Wednesday was McGahn’s last day as White House counsel. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

President Donald Trump announced in August that McGahn would leave after the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. 

McGahn is a top election lawyer who served as general counsel in Trump’s election campaign. He played a pivotal role in the president’s remaking of the federal judiciary with young, conservative judges, like Kavanaugh. He was also the main point of contact inside the White House for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

In an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press, Trump said Washington lawyer Pat Cipollone would replace McGahn
…

More than 2,000 Honduran migrants traveling en masse through Guatemala resumed their journey toward the United States on Wednesday as U.S. President Donald Trump sought to turn the caravan into a political issue three weeks before midterm elections. 

A day after warning Central American governments they risked losing U.S. aid if they didn’t do something and saying that anyone entering the country illegally would be arrested and deported, Trump turned his sights on Democrats and urged Republican allies to campaign on border security.

“Hard to believe that with thousands of people from South of the Border, walking unimpeded toward our country in the form of large Caravans, that the Democrats won’t approve legislation that will allow laws for the protection of our country. Great Midterm issue for Republicans!” Trump said in a Wednesday morning tweet.

“Republicans must make the horrendous, weak and outdated immigration laws, and the Border, a part of the Midterms!” he continued.

In Guatemala, the migrants rose early and many left without eating breakfast, bound for Zacapa, the next city on their route. Overcast skies and a light drizzle took the edge off the sweltering heat and humidity, making the trek more bearable. 

‘It is God who decides’

Migrant Luis Navarreto, 32, said he had read about Trump’s threats regarding aid to his country but was undeterred.

“We are going to continue,” Navarreto said. “It is God who decides here. We have no other option but to move ahead.” 

The migrants are fleeing widespread poverty and gang violence in one of the world’s most murderous countries, and many blamed Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez for what they called unlivable conditions back home. 

“We are here because of Juan Orlando,” said migrant Nelson Zavala, 36, adding that the last three days had essentially been sleepless ones.

The previous day, the migrants advanced about 30 miles (48 kilometers) from the Honduras-Guatemala border to arrive at the city of Chiquimula.

That’s a tiny portion of the almost 1,350 miles (2,170 kilometers) they’d have to travel to reach the closest U.S. border.

Some were able to hitch rides, and hundreds advanced farther and faster than the main group to reach the Guatemalan capital, according to the Casa del Migrante shelter there.

Late Tuesday, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights called on Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico to respect the rights and ensure the safety of the migrants traveling in the caravan.

The caravan has snowballed since about 160 migrants departed Friday from the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula, with many people joining spontaneously while carrying just a few belongings. Estimates of their numbers ranged up to 3,000. 

Three weeks before the U.S. elections, the caravan was bound to draw Trump’s ire. But he did not follow through on a similar threat to cut aid to Honduras in April over an earlier caravan, which eventually petered out in Mexico.

‘Political groups’ blamed

On Tuesday, Honduras’ president accused unnamed “political groups” of  organizing the caravan based on lies in order to cause problems in Honduras.

“There are sectors that want to destabilize the country, but we will be decisive and we will not allow it,” Hernandez told reporters.

Earlier, the Foreign Ministry alleged that people had been lured to join the migration with “false promises” of a transit visa through Mexico and the opportunity to seek asylum in the United States.

In a joint statement Wednesday, Mexico’s Foreign Relations and Interior departments said that anyone in the caravan with travel documents and a proper visa would be allowed to enter, and that anyone who wanted to apply for refugee status could do so.

But the statement said all cases must be processed individually, suggesting that authorities have no intention of letting the migrants simply cross the border en masse without going through standard immigration procedures.

The statement warned that anyone who entered Mexico in an “irregular manner” faced detention and deportation.
…

More than 2,000 Honduran migrants traveling en masse through Guatemala resumed their journey toward the United States on Wednesday as U.S. President Donald Trump sought to turn the caravan into a political issue three weeks before midterm elections. 

A day after warning Central American governments they risked losing U.S. aid if they didn’t do something and saying that anyone entering the country illegally would be arrested and deported, Trump turned his sights on Democrats and urged Republican allies to campaign on border security.

“Hard to believe that with thousands of people from South of the Border, walking unimpeded toward our country in the form of large Caravans, that the Democrats won’t approve legislation that will allow laws for the protection of our country. Great Midterm issue for Republicans!” Trump said in a Wednesday morning tweet.

“Republicans must make the horrendous, weak and outdated immigration laws, and the Border, a part of the Midterms!” he continued.

In Guatemala, the migrants rose early and many left without eating breakfast, bound for Zacapa, the next city on their route. Overcast skies and a light drizzle took the edge off the sweltering heat and humidity, making the trek more bearable. 

‘It is God who decides’

Migrant Luis Navarreto, 32, said he had read about Trump’s threats regarding aid to his country but was undeterred.

“We are going to continue,” Navarreto said. “It is God who decides here. We have no other option but to move ahead.” 

The migrants are fleeing widespread poverty and gang violence in one of the world’s most murderous countries, and many blamed Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez for what they called unlivable conditions back home. 

“We are here because of Juan Orlando,” said migrant Nelson Zavala, 36, adding that the last three days had essentially been sleepless ones.

The previous day, the migrants advanced about 30 miles (48 kilometers) from the Honduras-Guatemala border to arrive at the city of Chiquimula.

That’s a tiny portion of the almost 1,350 miles (2,170 kilometers) they’d have to travel to reach the closest U.S. border.

Some were able to hitch rides, and hundreds advanced farther and faster than the main group to reach the Guatemalan capital, according to the Casa del Migrante shelter there.

Late Tuesday, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights called on Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico to respect the rights and ensure the safety of the migrants traveling in the caravan.

The caravan has snowballed since about 160 migrants departed Friday from the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula, with many people joining spontaneously while carrying just a few belongings. Estimates of their numbers ranged up to 3,000. 

Three weeks before the U.S. elections, the caravan was bound to draw Trump’s ire. But he did not follow through on a similar threat to cut aid to Honduras in April over an earlier caravan, which eventually petered out in Mexico.

‘Political groups’ blamed

On Tuesday, Honduras’ president accused unnamed “political groups” of  organizing the caravan based on lies in order to cause problems in Honduras.

“There are sectors that want to destabilize the country, but we will be decisive and we will not allow it,” Hernandez told reporters.

Earlier, the Foreign Ministry alleged that people had been lured to join the migration with “false promises” of a transit visa through Mexico and the opportunity to seek asylum in the United States.

In a joint statement Wednesday, Mexico’s Foreign Relations and Interior departments said that anyone in the caravan with travel documents and a proper visa would be allowed to enter, and that anyone who wanted to apply for refugee status could do so.

But the statement said all cases must be processed individually, suggesting that authorities have no intention of letting the migrants simply cross the border en masse without going through standard immigration procedures.

The statement warned that anyone who entered Mexico in an “irregular manner” faced detention and deportation.
…

President Donald Trump mischaracterized the plight of children who were taken from parents at the Mexico border and what’s known about Russia’s interference in the 2016 election investigation in his wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press.

A look at his comments on those subjects Tuesday:

Immigration

Trump: “We have the worst laws in the history of the world on immigration and we’re getting them changed one by one. We’ve made a lot of progress in the last couple of weeks even, but we’re getting them changed one by one.”

The facts: He’s actually failed to achieve changes in immigration laws. All of the immigration-related changes pushed by his administration were done by executive order, not legislation, or through policy shifts like the zero-tolerance policy that criminally prosecuted anyone caught crossing illegally and gave rise to family separations. The administration has also used regulations to tighten the rules on how immigrants can receive public benefits. Immigration legislation has failed despite Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress.

Trump, on the separation of children from their parents at the border: “Now President Obama had the same law. He did the same thing.”

The facts: Obama did not do the same thing as a matter of policy. It’s true the underlying laws were the same. But the Trump administration mandated anyone caught crossing the border illegally was to be criminally prosecuted. The policy meant adults were taken to court for criminal proceedings, and their children were separated and sent into the care of the Health and Human Services Department, which is tasked with caring for unaccompanied migrant children. The so-called zero-tolerance policy remains in effect, but Trump signed an executive order June 20 that stopped separations.

Jeh Johnson, Obama’s homeland security secretary, told NPR there may have been unusual or emergency circumstances when children were taken from parents but there was no such policy.

​Trump: “And in fact the picture of children living in cages that was taken in 2014 was a picture of President Obama’s administration and the way they handled children. They had the kids living in cages. They thought it was our administration and they used it, and then unbeknownst to them and the fake news they found out, ‘Oh my God, this is a terrible situation.’ This was during the Obama administration.”

The facts: He’s right. Images that circulated online during the height of Trump’s family separations controversy were actually from 2014 under the Obama administration. But circumstances for some children have not changed. In June, an Associated Press reporter was part of a group that visited a U.S. Border Patrol holding facility, where hundreds of children were waiting in a series of cages created by metal fencing. One cage had 20 children inside, scattered around were bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets. The cages in each wing opened out into common areas to use portable restrooms.

The children both in 2014 and 2018 were separated temporarily from their parents in the facilities, placed in areas by age and sex for safety reasons.

Russia investigation

Trump, about Mueller’s Russia investigation: “It’s a tremendous waste of time for the president of the United States. To think that I would be even thinking about using Russia to help me win Idaho, we’re using Russia to help me win the great state of Iowa or anywhere else is the most preposterous, embarrassing thing.”

​The facts: Trump may be right that he did not need a boost in Idaho and Iowa, states he won in 2016 with comfortable margins of 31 points and 9 points, respectively. But the notion of Russia-backed activities on his behalf “anywhere else” in the U.S. is not far-fetched, according to an indictment in February by special counsel Robert Mueller.

The indictment accuses 13 Russians and three Russian entities of seeking to help Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton by running a hidden social media trolling campaign and seeking to mobilize Trump supporters at rallies while posing as American political activists in “purple states like Colorado, Virginia and Florida.” According to the indictment, the surreptitious campaign was organized by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm financed by companies controlled by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a wealthy businessman with ties to President Vladimir Putin.

The indictment says the defendants commonly referred to targeting more closely divided “purple states” after being advised by a Texas-based grass-roots organization in June 2016 to focus efforts there.

The indictment details contacts targeting three unidentified officials in the Trump campaign’s Florida operation. In each instance, the Russians used false U.S. personas to contact the officials. The indictment doesn’t say if any of them responded.

Trump lost by nearly 2.9 million votes in the popular vote to Clinton, but captured the needed Electoral College votes to win the presidency after prevailing in politically divided states including Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Trump: “This was an excuse made by the Democrats for the reason they lost the Electoral College, which gives them a big advantage — a big advantage. Very different than the popular vote. The popular vote would be much easier to win if you were campaigning on it. … But winning the Electoral College is a tremendous advantage for the Democrats.”

The facts: Trump is falsely asserting, as he has before, that Democrats have a “big advantage” in the Electoral College. Its unique system of electing presidents is actually a big reason why Trump won the presidency. Four candidates in history have won a majority of the popular vote only to be denied the presidency by the Electoral College. All were Democrats.

In the 2016 election, Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump after racking up lopsided victories in big states such as New York and California, according to election data compiled by The Associated Press. But she lost the presidency due to Trump’s winning margin in the Electoral College, which came after he narrowly won less populous Midwestern states including Michigan and Wisconsin.

Unlike the popular vote, Electoral College votes are set equal to the number of U.S. representatives in each state plus its two senators. That means more weight is given to a single vote in a small state than the vote of someone in a large state.
…

A Treasury Department employee was accused Wednesday of leaking confidential banking reports of suspects charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and an unidentified high-ranking colleague was cited in court papers as a co-conspirator but was not charged.

Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior official at the department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, also known as FinCEN, is accused of leaking several confidential suspicious-activity reports to a journalist, whose name was not disclosed in court papers. But they list about a dozen stories published by BuzzFeed News over the past year and a half. A spokesman for the news organization declined to comment.

According to the government, the material included reports on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, political consultant Richard Gates and Maria Butina, who is accused of trying to infiltrate U.S. political organizations as a covert Russian agent. 

Edwards is currently on administrative leave, FinCen spokesman Steve Hudak said.

Questionable transactions

Banks must file the suspicious-activity reports with the Treasury Department when they spot transactions that raise questions about possible financial misconduct such as money laundering.

When federal agents confronted Edwards this week, she described herself as a whistle-blower and said she had provided the reports to the reporter for “record-keeping,” the court papers said.

Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, where the criminal complaint was filed, said Edwards “betrayed her position of trust by repeatedly disclosing highly sensitive information.”

Edwards is alleged to have taken photographs of the confidential documents and sent them to a reporter using an encrypted messaging app, according to court documents. Edwards also sent the reporter internal Treasury Department emails, investigative memos and intelligence assessments, prosecutors allege.

When she was arrested, Edwards was in possession of a flash drive containing the confidential reports, prosecutors said.

Edwards was to make an initial court appearance later Wednesday in Virginia. It was not immediately clear whether she had a lawyer.

Co-conspirator

Court papers also list another FinCEN employee as a co-conspirator, noting that this person exchanged more than 300 messages with the reporter via an encrypted messaging application. This person has not been charged and was not named in the court papers, and was identified only as an associate director at FinCEN to whom Edwards reported.

According to court papers, federal investigators obtained a court order to monitor the calls to and from the associate director’s personal cellphone, and that monitoring captured the frequency of contacts with the reporter via the encrypted messaging application. Court papers do not detail the contents of those messages.

“Protecting sensitive information is one of our most critical responsibilities, and it is a role that we take very seriously,” said Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.
…

A Treasury Department employee was accused Wednesday of leaking confidential banking reports of suspects charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and an unidentified high-ranking colleague was cited in court papers as a co-conspirator but was not charged.

Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior official at the department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, also known as FinCEN, is accused of leaking several confidential suspicious-activity reports to a journalist, whose name was not disclosed in court papers. But they list about a dozen stories published by BuzzFeed News over the past year and a half. A spokesman for the news organization declined to comment.

According to the government, the material included reports on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, political consultant Richard Gates and Maria Butina, who is accused of trying to infiltrate U.S. political organizations as a covert Russian agent. 

Edwards is currently on administrative leave, FinCen spokesman Steve Hudak said.

Questionable transactions

Banks must file the suspicious-activity reports with the Treasury Department when they spot transactions that raise questions about possible financial misconduct such as money laundering.

When federal agents confronted Edwards this week, she described herself as a whistle-blower and said she had provided the reports to the reporter for “record-keeping,” the court papers said.

Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, where the criminal complaint was filed, said Edwards “betrayed her position of trust by repeatedly disclosing highly sensitive information.”

Edwards is alleged to have taken photographs of the confidential documents and sent them to a reporter using an encrypted messaging app, according to court documents. Edwards also sent the reporter internal Treasury Department emails, investigative memos and intelligence assessments, prosecutors allege.

When she was arrested, Edwards was in possession of a flash drive containing the confidential reports, prosecutors said.

Edwards was to make an initial court appearance later Wednesday in Virginia. It was not immediately clear whether she had a lawyer.

Co-conspirator

Court papers also list another FinCEN employee as a co-conspirator, noting that this person exchanged more than 300 messages with the reporter via an encrypted messaging application. This person has not been charged and was not named in the court papers, and was identified only as an associate director at FinCEN to whom Edwards reported.

According to court papers, federal investigators obtained a court order to monitor the calls to and from the associate director’s personal cellphone, and that monitoring captured the frequency of contacts with the reporter via the encrypted messaging application. Court papers do not detail the contents of those messages.

“Protecting sensitive information is one of our most critical responsibilities, and it is a role that we take very seriously,” said Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.
…

Fundraising records are falling in this year’s U.S. congressional campaign season, driven in part by unprecedented hauls by at least five candidates from both major parties, according to a Reuters analysis of campaign finance disclosures.

Candidates for the House of Representatives have collectively raised $1.2 billion from January 2017 through the end of September, more than the inflation-adjusted $1 billion record set at this point in the 2010 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Senate candidates — who have six years to raise funds because of their longer terms — have raised more than $950 million, surpassing the $844 million raised during the same period ahead of the 2010 election.

Intense battle

The records are a sign of the intense fight by the Democratic and Republican parties ahead of the Nov. 6 elections. Democrats are aiming to pick up 23 seats in the House and two in the Senate in an effort to take control of Congress and block Republican President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Republicans are eager to retain control of both chambers, which has allowed them to pass an extensive tax cut package and confirm two conservatives to the Supreme Court.

Democrats collectively raised more than Republicans. Senate Democrats raised at least $551 million, while Republicans raised at least $368 million. House Democratic candidates raised at least $680 million while Republicans raised at least $540 million.

The apparent Democratic edge may have been exaggerated by large numbers of candidates contesting primaries, said Michael Malbin, director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute. “I’m not seeing an overwhelming advantage for the Democrats,” Malbin said.

Individual marks

A handful of candidates broke individual records.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, who is challenging Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, was the only Senate candidate who broke an individual fundraising record. He brought in nearly $63 million, besting former Sen. Hillary Clinton’s record inflation-adjusted haul of nearly $61 million in 2006.

O’Rourke’s total included a record-setting $38 million in the third quarter.

Four House candidates broke that chamber’s previous record, which was set in 2008 when Colorado Republican Jared Polis raised about $8 million. Republicans Devin Nunes of California, Greg Gianforte of Montana, Karen Handel of Georgia and Pennsylvania Democrat Conor Lamb all exceeded that mark.

Nunes raised $10.6 million, the highest total for a House Republican running for re-election who did not chip in personal wealth to his or her campaign.

Factoring in people who funded their own races, Democrat and liquor entrepreneur David Trone of Maryland raised the most of any House candidate, with his campaign taking in $16.5 million. 
…