Category: Aktualności

The jury in Harvey Weinstein’s rape trial indicated Friday that it is deadlocked on the most serious charges against the once powerful Hollywood mogul, but the judge told the panel it must keep working. In a note to the judge late in the fourth day of deliberations, jurors asked if it was permissible for them to be hung on one or both counts of predatory sexual assault while reaching a unanimous verdict on the other charges. Weinstein’s lawyers said they would accept a partial verdict, but prosecutors said no and Judge James Burke refused to allow it. He sent jurors back to deliberate for a few more minutes before letting them go home for the weekend. They’ll resume Monday morning. It is not uncommon for a jury to have difficulty initially in reaching a unanimous verdict, and it is not uncommon for a jury to believe that they will never be able to reach a unanimous verdict, Burke said, reading instructions to the jurors. But after further deliberations, most jurors are able to reach a unanimous verdict.'' Jurors' requestThe jury posed its deadlock question in hypothetical fashion, writing:We the jury request to understand if we can be hung on [Count] 1 and/or [Count] 3 and unanimous on the other charges? Thank you.” One reason for that phrasing could be that the verdict sheet, which lays out the charges, doesn’t include instructions for what to do if they can’t agree on a particular count, only how they’re supposed to proceed once they’ve reached a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The way the sheet is designed, jurors are supposed to first reach a unanimous verdict on the predatory sexual assault counts, which carry a maximum penalty of life in prison, before they can even consider the other three counts. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., foreground right, accompanied by Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi, leaves the courtroom after Harvey Weinstein’s rape trial adjourned for the day, in New York, Feb. 21, 2020.Law professor Cheryl Bader said the note suggests the jury is split on a key aspect of both predatory sexual assault counts — Sopranos actress Annabella Sciorra’s allegations that Weinstein attacked her in the mid-1990s — and that it is in unanimous agreement on the allegations by two other women — an aspiring actress who says he raped her in March 2013 and a former film and TV production assistant, Mimi Haleyi, who says he forcibly performed oral sex on her in March 2006. Weinstein has maintained any sexual encounters were consensual. The Associated Press has a policy of not publishing the names of people who allege sexual assault unless those people give their consent. It is withholding the name of the 2013 rape accuser because it isn’t clear whether she wishes to be identified publicly. Direction was ‘not unusual’It's not unusual for the judge to have them keep deliberating and not just give them a pass at the first sign of trouble, said Bader, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at Fordham University School of Law. The defense said speculating on the verdict at this point would be premature and a mistake.'' In all, Weinstein, 67, is charged with five counts stemming from the allegations of Sciorra, the aspiring actress and Haleyi. To convict Weinstein of a predatory sexual assault charge, jurors must agree on two things: that Weinstein raped or forcibly performed oral sex on Sciorra, as she alleges, and that he committed one of the other charged offenses. The predatory sexual assault charge requires prosecutors to show that a defendant committed a prior rape or other sex crime, but it doesn't have the statute of limitation constraints that would bar Sciorra's allegations from consideration on their own. Since getting the case Tuesday, jurors have been focusing a lot of attention on Sciorra, who testified nearly a month ago and was the first accuser to do so in the closely watched #MeToo trial. Sciorra testimonyThey started the day Friday by listening to a reading of her cross-examination and follow-up questioning by prosecutors. About 90 minutes into the reading, the jurors notified the judge they hadheard enough” and resumed their deliberations. Earlier in their deliberations, jurors looked at emails that Weinstein sent regarding Sciorra, including ones to the private Israeli spy agency he allegedly enlisted to dig up dirt on would-be accusers as reporters were working on stories about allegations against him in 2017. Defense attorney Donna Rotunno returns to the Harvey Weinstein rape trial courtroom after a break, in New York, Feb. 21, 2020.Sciorra, now 59, told jurors how Weinstein showed up unexpectedly at the door of her Manhattan apartment before in late 1993 or early 1994 before forcing her onto a bed and assaulting her. Bader said she was surprised the jury appears to be struggling with Sciorra, because she was a much cleaner witness than the other alleged victims, who admitted to having non-forced sex with Weinstein and staying in touch with him after their alleged assaults. Sciorra went public in a story in The New Yorker in October 2017 after one of the few people she says she told about the incident, actress Rosie Perez, got word to reporter Ronan Farrow that he should call her. Sciorra’s allegations weren’t part of the original indictment when Weinstein was arrested in May 2018, but after some legal shuffling they were included in an updated one last August. Annabella was brought into this case for one reason and one reason only,'' defense attorney Donna Rotunno said in her closing argument last week.She was brought in so there would be one witness who had some star power, one witness you may recognize and one witness whose name may mean something.” 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be getting closer to naming a new, permanent top intelligence official, announcing he has narrowed the list of possible candidates to a handful of finalists.Word of a potential nominee to take over as the country’s director of national intelligence (DNI) comes just days after Trump cast aside the acting director, reportedly over a briefing to lawmakers about Russian attempts to meddle in the upcoming U.S. presidential elections.”Four great candidates are under consideration at DNI,” Trump tweeted Friday. “Decision within next few weeks!”Four great candidates are under consideration at DNI. Decision within next few weeks!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) FILE – Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill, Sept. 26, 2019.Coats was replaced on a temporary basis by retired U.S. Admiral Joseph Maguire, a former Navy SEAL who had been heading up efforts at the National Counterterrorism Center.But late Wednesday, the president announced he was replacing Maguire with U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, a well-known Trump loyalist.FILE – U.S. Ambassador Richard Grenell is pictured in Berlin, Germany, May 8, 2018.The New York Times reported Thursday the president made the switch after learning one of Maguire’s top aides told lawmakers that Russia is seeking to boost his reelection during a classified briefing to lawmakers.The Washington Post reported the president was irate after learning of the briefing, concerned that officials had shared information that could be used against him.Trump on Friday accused Democrats of already trying to weaponize the information, calling in a hoax.”Another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the Do Nothing Democrat candidates who still have been unable to, after two weeks, count their votes in Iowa,” he tweeted Friday.Another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the Do Nothing Democrat candidates who still have been unable to, after two weeks, count their votes in Iowa. Hoax number 7!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2020Officials at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and its election security office declined comment when contacted by VOA.But the initial reaction from Democratic lawmakers was swift.”I am gravely concerned,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson said in a statement late Thursday.”By firing Acting DNI Maguire because his staff provided the candid conclusions of the Intelligence Community to Congress regarding Russian meddling in the 2020 presidential election, the president is not only refusing to defend against foreign interference, he’s inviting it,” Thompson added.House Intelligence Committee chairman, Democrat Adam Smith, who was allegedly at the classified briefing, also expressed concern.”We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections,” Schiff tweeted. “If reports are true and the president is interfering with that, he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling. Exactly as we warned he would do.”We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections.If reports are true and the President is interfering with that, he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling.Exactly as we warned he would do. https://t.co/viSBlnA1nb— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) February 21, 2020The rocky relationship between Trump and U.S. intelligence agencies dates back to the 2016 presidential election, when the intelligence community concluded, “[Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible,” the leading U.S. intelligence agencies wrote in an unclassified report released in 2017.
Those conclusions were backed up by a report in April 2019 by special counsel Robert Mueller, which found, “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.”Trump has consistently denied any Russian interference, repeatedly deferring to Putin’s denials.”He said he didn’t meddle,” Trump told reporters following a conversation with Putin in Vietnam. “He said he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times.”Still, U.S. intelligence officials have said, repeatedly, that not only did Russia meddle in 2016, but that it did so again in 2018 and that it would meddle in the 2020 presidential elections, as well.
  “We expect #Russia will continue to wage its information war against democracies and to use social media to attempt to divide our societies” per Coats, citing #Russian attack on #Ukraine naval vessels as sign of #Moscow’s willingness to violate int’ norms— Jeff Seldin (@jseldin) January 29, 2019″It wasn’t a single attempt. They’re doing it as we sit here,” Mueller told lawmakers last July. “And they expect to do it during the next campaign.”The White House is facing a March 11 deadline to nominate a new, permanent director of national intelligence or risk having the position go vacant.Under U.S. law, the president must at least nominate someone to a position requiring Senate confirmation within 210 days of the position being vacated, meaning the acting director, whether it was Maguire or Grenell, would have to step down.”The clock doesn’t restart each time the president names someone else [as acting director],” Steve Vladek, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told VOA.”If no nominee is submitted in time, Grenell ceases to be the acting DNI, and no one can replace him,” he added. “Someone still has to ‘exercise the functions’ of the acting DNI, but that would fall to whoever the senior person at ODNI currently is.”
 
…

Democratic voters feel generally positive about all of their top candidates running for president, but they have only moderate confidence that their party’s nomination process is fair, according to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
    
U.S. voters from across the political spectrum have mixed confidence in the fairness of either party’s system for picking a candidate, but Democrats are especially likely to have doubts about their own party’s process. Among Democratic voters, 41% say they have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the Democratic Party’s nomination process, while 34% have moderate confidence and 25% have little to no confidence.
    
Among Republicans, meanwhile, 61% say they have high confidence in their party’s process, and just 13% have low confidence. President Donald Trump has only nominal opposition in the GOP nomination process, and several state Republican parties have even canceled holding a primary.
    
Julianne Morgan, 29, of Dayton, Ohio, said her confidence in the Democratic Party’s process was undercut earlier this month when Democrats delayed tabulating the results of the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses because of problems with a buggy mobile app.
    
Her concerns were further exacerbated this week after reading that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who is third in the delegate count, was excluded in hypothetical head-to-head matchups against Trump in some recent polls.
    
“It doesn’t sound like there’s been fair representation for all the candidates,” said Morgan, who is supporting Warren’s candidacy.
    Some respondents said they worry that an increasingly bitter internal battle for the Democratic nomination could weaken whomever emerges to take on Trump in November. The poll was conducted before White House hopefuls on Wednesday took part in the most contentious debate of the cycle. Democrats are set to host their third 2020 nominating contest on Saturday in Nevada.
    
“They keep digging at each other,” said Roger Kempton, 85, of Niles, Michigan, a Trump voter in 2016 who said he plans to vote for a Democratic candidate in 2020. “They say beating Trump is the most important thing, but they keeping fighting each other. It’s only making people like myself unhappy with the choices.”
    
Others raised concerns that the Democrats have hung on too long to the tradition of giving Iowa the first spot on the nominating calendar. Since 1972, the top voter-getter in the Democratic caucuses has gone on to win the nomination in seven of 10 contested races. But only Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Barack Obama in 2008 won the presidency.
    
“Iowa is not a very diverse state, and I feel like it doesn’t really represent the country well,” said Katie Lewis of Lexington, Kentucky, who backs Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
    
Among Democratic respondents, self-described moderates and conservatives are more likely than liberals to have high confidence that their process is fair, 46% to 34%. Those age 45 and older are also more confident than those who are younger, and nonwhite Democrats are more confident than white Democrats.
    
The poll shows that Sanders gets slightly higher ratings nationally from Democratic voters compared to his nearest primary rivals, some of whom remain less well known even within the party.
    
Seventy-four percent of Democratic voters say they have a favorable opinion of Sanders, while 67% say that of former Vice President Joe Biden, 64% for Warren, and 58% for former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. About half of Democrats express favorable opinions of billionaire Mike Bloomberg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, while nearly 4 in 10 say they have a positive opinion of billionaire Tom Steyer.
    
Many Democratic voters say they don’t know enough to have an opinion of many of the candidates, including Steyer (52%), Klobuchar (39%), Buttigieg (28%), Bloomberg (25%) and Warren (16%).
    
But about 2 in 10 Democrats express negative opinions of Biden, Bloomberg, Warren and Sanders.
    
The more moderate Democrats, Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, have all raised questions about whether Sanders, 78, a self-described democratic socialist, is too far to the left of the American electorate. Both Sanders and Warren, who support heftier taxes on the wealthy to pay for expanded health care, free college, and other programs, have been branded by rivals as too liberal.
    
Biden had poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire and has faced questions about whether his best days as a politician are in the past.
    
Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor and billionaire founder of a financial, software, data, and media company, didn’t enter the race until November. Some of his Democratic rivals, as well as Trump, have accused Bloomberg of trying to buy the nomination by pumping in hundreds of millions of dollars of his own fortune to fund campaign ads in the more than a dozen Super Tuesday states and U.S. territories. Those March 3 contests account for more than a third of all delegates at stake.
    
Bloomberg has also faced criticism for disparaging comments about transgender people, his support of “stop-and-frisk,” a controversial policing strategy that led to disproportionate stops of African Americans and Latinos in the nation’s biggest city, and complaints that he repeatedly made misogynistic comments to women who worked for him the 1980s and 1990s.
    
Wanda Gibson, 58, a Democrat from suburban Cincinnati, Ohio, who is undecided about who she’ll support, said that Bloomberg’s backing of stop-and-frisk and his sexist comments were wrong. But she also said that she worried that some Democrats are discounting the possibility that Bloomberg has changed.
    
“We’ve all done or said something in our past that would not necessarily be politically correct,” said Gibson, who said she is still weighing which Democrat she’ll back. “The problem is that we have Donald Trump, someone who continues to do this stuff daily, sometimes hourly. If someone did something 10 years ago, they can evolve.”The AP-NORC poll of 1,074 adults was conducted Feb. 13-16 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.
…

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in Oman Friday for a meeting with the country’s new ruler, Sultan Haitham bin Tariq Al Said.Pompeo will also pay homage to relatives of Sultan Qaboos bin Said, who died in January.Oman has close ties with Iran and Saudi Arabia, where Pompeo departed from earlier Friday after a three-day visit.Pompeo and Saudi King Salman discussed regional security issues presented by Iran Thursday in Riyadh. Pompeo also met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.Regional tensions escalated dramatically last month after the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general.Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally, has supported U.S. efforts to counter Iran but warned against military action after multiple attacks last year damaged the kingdom’s oil facilities. Saudi Arabia accused Iran of carrying out the strikes, which Tehran denies.The risk of a regional war diminished last month after the U.S. and Iran backed away following a U.S. air strike in Iraq killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and Iran responded with missile attacks on U.S. military bases that injured more than 100 troops.  Before his trips to Oman and Saudi Arabia, Pompeo spent three days in Africa, visiting leaders of Senegal, Angola and Ethiopia. 
…

As Nevada Democrats flock to their presidential caucuses Saturday afternoon, this Western state’s growing Latino vote could play an important factor in the outcome. According to Pew Research, more than 1 in 4 Nevadans is of Latin American descent, and roughly 328,000 of them are eligible to vote. As VOA’s Carolyn Presutti found, while all candidates hope to attract the Hispanic vote, some are more successful than others.
…

After nearly a dozen years moving through the U.S. visa system, Sai Kyaw’s brother and sister and their families were at the finish line: a final interview before they could leave Myanmar to join him in Massachusetts and work at his restaurant.Then a dramatic turn in U.S. immigration policy halted their plans. The interview was postponed, and it’s not clear when, or whether, it will be rescheduled.“It’s terrible,” Kyaw said. “There’s nothing we can really do except pray. They’ve been waiting 12 years. If they have to wait another 12 years, they will.”His is just one of many stories of confusion, sorrow and outrage spreading across some immigrant communities after the announcement of a Trump administration policy that is expected to all but shut down family-based immigration from Myanmar, also known as Burma, as well as Nigeria, Kyrgyzstan and Eritrea. The policy also restricts visas from Sudan and Tanzania.S’Tha Sein, left, and his daughter Lunn KyiPhyu Tha, 15, right, both immigrants from Myanmar, also known as Burma, speak with a reporter from The Associated Press following services, Feb. 16, 2020, at the Overseas Burmese Christian Fellowship.‘A panic wave’“There’s a panic wave going through the community,” said Grace Mobosi-Enwensi, president of the Minnesota Institute for Nigerian Development, a nonprofit group.In signing a proclamation last month that takes effect Friday, President Donald Trump said those countries failed to meet minimum security standards. It was his latest crackdown on his signature issue of immigration.Calls about the restrictions have flooded legal advocacy groups and lawyers’ offices. A Boston-area Burmese church is trying to intervene to help congregants. The United African Organization has held legal clinics in Chicago to walk people through their options.The rules are certain to face legal challenges, but in the meantime, activists have organized around #MuslimBan and #AfricaBan on social media and ramped up lobbying efforts to press Congress to pass the No Ban Act, which would limit the president’s ability to restrict entry to the U.S.Nigerians hit hardestRoughly 10,000 people received immigration-based visas from Nigeria, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar in the 2018 fiscal year, according to federal data analyzed by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. More than half were from Nigeria, the most populous African nation.The ripple of emotion has been felt strongest among America’s roughly 380,000 Nigerian immigrants and their children. They are one of the most educated immigrant groups. More than 60% percent of people with Nigerian ancestry who are at least 25 have a bachelor’s degree or higher, which is more than twice the general U.S. population rate of 29%, according to 2017 census data.Tope Aladele, who is seeking a visa for his wife in Nigeria, has faint hope that she will be able to come to the U.S.“I thought this year I could at least celebrate Christmas with her,” said Aladele, a U.S. citizen who works as a nursing assistant in the Chicago area. “I’m just hoping and praying.”Citizenship and Immigration Services officials declined to comment on the concerns of affected families, deferring to the Department of Homeland Security. Agency officials did not respond to emails seeking comment.Narrower rulesUnlike previous travel bans, the new rules are narrower. They halt immigrant visas from Nigeria, Eritrea, Myanmar and Kyrgystan, covering people who want to live in the U.S. permanently and are sponsored by family members or employers. They also eliminate participation in a visa lottery program in which a computer randomly selects up to 55,000 people for visas from underrepresented countries. Sudan and Tanzania will also be barred from the lottery.The ban does not affect immigrants traveling to the U.S. for a temporary stay, including tourists and students, or immigrants already in the U.S. There are exceptions, including dual citizenship holders.In Chicago, the United African Organization hosted dozens of people at legal clinics. Many had questions about their spouses and children. One was Osemeh Otoboh, 46, a Nigerian citizen with a green card who has applied for two of his teenage children from a previous marriage to come to the U.S.Though their visas were recently approved, the suburban Chicago man married to a U.S. citizen was worried. His children live in Lagos, and he wants them to pursue an education in the United States.“I don’t even know how to explain it to them,” Otoboh said of the restrictions.Justification questionedExperts have questioned the administration’s national security reasoning since there are no restrictions on tourist or student visas, which can take less time and vetting to get. Officials in at least one country, Nigeria, have said they are working to address security concerns, such as information sharing.Activists said the restrictions amount to another travel ban like the one that was widely decried as targeting Muslims. The Supreme Court upheld that ban as lawful in 2018. It restricted travel from several Muslim-majority countries including Iran, Somalia and Syria.Sudan and Kyrgyzstan are also majority-Muslim countries. Nigeria, the world’s seventh-most populous nation, has a large Muslim population, too.“It’s a continuation of this administration’s racist and xenophobic immigration framework that they use,” said Mustafa Jumale, a policy manager for the Black Alliance for Just Immigration.Some churches have also sprung into action.Baptist Pastor Clifford Maung, front, an immigrant from Myanmar, also known as Burma, sings a hymn with members of his congregation at the Overseas Burmese Christian Fellowship in Boston, Feb. 16, 2020.At the Overseas Burmese Christian Fellowship in Boston, Pastor Clifford Maung says he has relayed the concerns of two families in his congregation to national Baptist church leaders and is prepared to appeal to the U.S. government on their behalf.“You hope for the best. We grew up under a similar situation in Burma with an oppressive government so this is something we are used to,” he said. “But it shouldn’t happen in America.”Maung says one of those affected is his cousin, whose wife has already been approved for a visa and is awaiting medical clearance, which was supposed to come as soon as this week.Another affected family is that of S’Tha Sein, who arrived with his wife and youngest daughter in December. The 53-year-old Sein says his eldest daughter was also approved for a visa but tested positive for tuberculosis and was not allowed to travel with them.The 21-year-old college student is slated to be reevaluated next month after receiving treatment, but Sein says the new restrictions throw uncertainty into the prolonged immigration process, which the family began in 2006.“We’ve been praying that this law will change,” Sein said after attending church services this past Sunday with his family, siblings and elderly parents. “We just want to be able to live together.”
…

A federal appeals court is keeping a block on a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions as early as about six weeks — a stage when many women may not even know they are pregnant.A panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made the decision Thursday, finding that the law is unconstitutional because it would ban abortion before the point of viability, when a fetus could survive outside of the womb.The appeals court judges agreed with a district court judge who blocked the law from taking effect in 2019, soon after it was signed by then-Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican.FILE – Then-Gov. Phil Bryant sits in his Jackson, Miss., Capitol office, Jan. 8, 2020.The only abortion clinic in Mississippi sued the state after Bryant signed what would have been one of the strictest abortion laws in the U.S., banning most abortions once fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which can be at about six weeks. The clinic said it provides abortions until 16 weeks.With the addition of conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, several states have been enacting laws aimed at spurring court challenges that could eventually seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, the court’s landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.Thursday’s decision was the second time in recent months that the conservative 5th Circuit has blocked a Mississippi abortion law. In December, a panel of the appeals court kept a block on a 2018 Mississippi law that would have banned most abortions at 15 weeks, before viability. The state asked the full appeals court to reconsider that decision. In January, the court said it would not do that.”This is now the second time in two months the 5th Circuit has told Mississippi that it cannot ban abortion,” Hillary Schneller, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement Thursday. “Despite the relentless attempts of Mississippi and other states, the right to legal abortion remains the law of the land.”In its decision Thursday, the appeals court said the Mississippi clinic and attorneys for the state disagree on when fetal cardiac activity can be detected, with the clinic saying it can happen at six weeks and the state saying it can happen at six to 12 weeks.”But all agree that cardiac activity can be detected well before the fetus is viable,” the appeals court wrote. “That dooms the law. If a ban on abortion after 15 weeks is unconstitutional, then it follows that a ban on abortion at an earlier stage of pregnancy is also unconstitutional.”It was not immediately clear Thursday whether Mississippi will appeal the ruling on the six-week ban. State officials said in January that they want the U.S. Supreme Court to consider arguments over the 15-week ban.
 
…

Las Vegas’ popular strip, home to hotels and casinos, is crowded with tourists and crowd-pleasing sites. VOA’s Carolyn Presutti, in Nevada to cover the state’s caucuses Saturday, shares some of the views.
…

Former national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday denounced the House’s impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump as “grossly partisan” and said his testimony would not have changed Trump’s acquittal in the Senate, as he continued to stay quiet on the details of a yet-to-be-released book.In his second public discussion this week, Bolton was on stage at Vanderbilt University with former national security adviser under President Barack Obama, Susan Rice, who questioned Bolton’s refusal to discuss more details while his book undergoes screening for possible classified national security details by the Trump administration. Bolton was likewise quiet on specifics from the book during a Monday speaking engagement at Duke University.Book due next monthBolton plans to publish the book next month detailing his time in the White House, including criticism of Trump actions such as his decision to withhold military assistance while seeking a political favor from Ukraine. He said he believes the book doesn’t contain classified information.Bolton contended that the House “committed impeachment malpractice,” drawing some grumbling from the audience, saying “the process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away because it was so partisan.” He also said he didn’t expect the Senate to vote against having him testify.”People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said. “I would bet you a dollar right here and now, my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”In leaked passages from the book’s manuscript, Bolton says Trump told him he was conditioning the release of military aid to Ukraine on whether its government would help investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.Rice said she also underwent a White House pre-clearance process for her own book. She said nothing caused her “to refuse to share information with Congress or the public that I thought was of national import.””I can’t imagine withholding my testimony, with or without a subpoena,” Rice said. “I also can’t imagine, frankly, in the absence of being able to provide that information directly to Congress, not having exercised my First Amendment right to speak publicly at a time when my testimony or my experience would be relevant.””Spill his guts”For anyone saying he should just “spill his guts” on what he knows, Bolton cited the “implied threat of criminal prosecution” if what he shares is determined to be classified information. Asked if he would have testified under a House subpoena, Bolton again cited the review process.”I’m not here to speculate on that with the pre-publication review process under way,” Bolton said, drawing some laughs from the audience. “Laugh all you want. This is the judgment of my counsel, somebody I worked with 35 years ago, 30 years ago at the Department of Justice.”House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff have put off — but not ruled out — a subpoena for Bolton, who refused to participate in the House impeachment inquiry but later said he would testify in the Senate trial.
…

Intelligence officials say Russia is interfering with the 2020 election to try to help President Donald Trump get re-elected, The New York Times reported Thursday.The Times said intelligence officials told lawmakers about the interference in a Feb. 13 closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee. It said the disclosure angered Trump, who complained the Democrats would use the information against him. He berated the outgoing director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, the next day.Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Sept. 26, 2019.The Times attributed the report to five unidentified people familiar with the matter. The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the account.U.S. intelligence agencies say Russia interfered in the 2016 election through social media campaigns and stealing and distributing emails from Democratic accounts. They say Russia was trying to boost Trump’s campaign and add chaos to the American political process. Special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russian interference was “sweeping and systematic,” but he did not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. Trump has doubted the findings of Russian interference.In the House briefing, Trump’s allies challenged the DNI’s chief election official, Shelby Pierson, who delivered the conclusions, saying Trump has been tough on Russia, the Times reported. But Trump has also spoken warmly of Russian leader Vladimir Putin and withdrawn troops from areas, like Syria, where Moscow could fill the vacuum. He delayed military aid last year to Ukraine, a Russian adversary — a decision that was at the core of his impeachment proceedings.Adam Schiff (D-CA) speaks to the media in Washington, Jan. 27, 2020.The Times said Trump was angry that the House briefing was made before the panel’s chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, who led the impeachment proceedings.Trump on Thursday formally appointed Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany and a loyal supporter, to replace Maguire as the new acting director of national intelligence. Maguire was required to step down soon under federal law governing acting appointments. The Times cited two administration officials as saying the timing, after the intelligence briefing, was coincidental.
…

Victoria Coates, a top official on the National Security Council, is being reassigned amid fallout over the identity of the author of the inside-the-White House tell-all book by “Anonymous.”
    
Coates, who serves as national security adviser for the Middle East and North Africa, will be joining the Department of Energy as a senior adviser to Secretary Dan Brouillette, the NSC announced Thursday.
    
The move comes amid renewed speculation about the author of the book, “A Warning,” and a New York Times essay that were deeply critical of President Donald Trump, written under the pen name “Anonymous.”
    
But a senior administration official insisted the move had nothing to do with the speculation, saying top White House officials reject rumors that have circulated in recent weeks suggesting Coates is the author. The move, they said, has been in the works for several weeks.
   
“We are enthusiastic about adding Dr. Coates to DOE, where her expertise on the Middle East and national security policy will be helpful,” Brouillette said in a statement. “She will play an important role on our team.”
   
“While I’m sad to lose an important member of our team, Victoria will be a big asset to Secretary Brouillette as he executes the President’s energy security policy priorities,” Robert C. O’Brien, who leads the NSC, added.
    
The move also comes as the president has been working to rid the administration of those he deems insufficiently loyal in the wake of his acquittal on impeachment charges. Since then, Trump has ousted staffers at the National Security Council and State Department and pulled the nomination of a top Treasury Department pick who had overseen cases involving Trump’s former aides as a U.S. attorney.
    
At the same time, Trump has been bringing back longtime aides he believes he can trust as he heads into what is expected to be a bruising general election campaign.
    
Trump this week renewed questions about the identity of “Anonymous” when he told reporters that he knew who it was. Asked whether he believes the person still works at the White House, Trump responded: “We know a lot. In fact, when I want to get something out to the press, I tell certain people. And it’s amazing, it gets out there. But, so far, I’m leaving it that way.”
    
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley declined to say Wednesday why, if Trump knows the person’s identity, they would still be working in his administration.
    
In the book, published by the Hachette Book Group in November, the writer claims senior administration officials considered resigning as a group in 2018 in a “midnight self-massacre” to protest Trump’s conduct, but ultimately decided such an act would do more harm than good. 
…

A deal between the United States and the Taliban to de-escalate the war in Afghanistan will likely include a communication mechanism to prevent military miscalculations during that time period, a U.S. official tells VOA.The communication mechanism would serve the same purpose as one set up between U.S. and Russian forces in Syria to avoid unsafe military incidents between Washington and its partner forces on one side, and Russian and Syrian government forces on the other.Multiple officials tell VOA the start date for a “reduction in violence” agreement between the U.S. and the Afghan Taliban is planned for Saturday.  A senior U.S. defense official said the U.S. military would maintain its authority for self-defense and would continue U.S. counterterrorism operations and the training and advising of Afghan forces during this agreement period.U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, center, shakes hands with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, right, as US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper watches during the 56th Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, Feb. 14, 2020.If the deal holds, Taliban officials have said a signing ceremony would take place in Doha, Qatar, on Feb. 29. Foreign ministers from Pakistan, Russia and the European Union have been invited to attend the signing ceremony in Doha, Qatar, according to Pakistani officials.U.S. officials say successful implementation of the temporary reduction in violence agreement would pave the way for a comprehensive peace deal that could end America’s longest war and bring some of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan home. Inter-Afghan dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban is expected to follow the reduction in violence agreement.“If we decide to move forward, if all sides hold up — meet their obligations under that reduction in violence — then we’ll start talking about the next part,” U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told reporters at the Munich Security Conference last week.The war in Afghanistan has claimed the lives of more than 2,400 U.S. service members and has cost Washington nearly $1 trillion.The term “reduction in violence” has created some confusion among Afghan government officials who question why both sides refrain from calling it a ‘cease-fire.’Sediq Sediqqi, spokesperson for the President of Afghanistan gestures as he speaks during a press conference in Kabul on Sept 8, 2019.Sediq Sediqqi, a spokesperson for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, told reporters in Kabul earlier this month that the Taliban’s commitment to anything short of a full cease-fire would not produce the desired outcome to end the war.“Does it mean that not 10, but five people will lose their lives? Or it means that there won’t be 10 attacks, but five daily?” Sediqqi said.President Ghani, however, on Saturday during the Munich Security Conference voiced cautious optimism about a partial truce agreed between the Taliban and the U.S. He said he was on the same page with Washington.Some former Taliban officials, including former deputy minister of justice during the Taliban regime Jalaluddin Shinwari, said a complete cease-fire could carry the risk of divisions in its ranks and a dispersion of Taliban fighters.The Taliban has so far insisted that it would talk to the Afghan government as one of the groups among other factions in the country not as a government. The Afghan government, however, insists that it would enter the so-called intra-Afghan dialogue with the insurgents as the legitimate government elected by the Afghan people.Afghanistan’s presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah arrives for a news conference after the preliminary presidential election results in Kabul, Afghanistan, Dec. 22, 2019.The news of a potential deal with the Taliban and subsequent intra-Afghan dialogue comes amid an ongoing political struggle between Ghani and his main rival, Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah.Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission (IEC) said Ghani secured 50.64% of the votes and declared him the winner of the country’s fourth presidential election since 2001.Ghani’s main rival, Chief Executive Abdullah, who has shared power with Ghani since the 2014 presidential elections as part of the National Unity Government, rejected Tuesday’s results as “fraudulent” and vowed to announce the forming of his government soon.The Taliban also rejected the presidential election as “fraudulent” and called Ghani’s victory “illegal.”In a statement, the insurgent group said any elections under “foreign occupation” could never help settle the conflict in the country.VOA’s Hasib Danish Alikozai in Washington contributed to this story.
…

 New Orleans is mourning the death of a woman who was run over by a parade float as the city celebrates Mardi Gras.The woman apparently tried to cross between two sections of a tandem float when she tripped over a hitch connecting the vehicles and was run over, witnesses told news outlets.It happened Wednesday night during the parade of the Mystic Krewe of Nyx, an all-female Carnival group that was “established to unite women of diverse backgrounds for fun, friendship, and the merriment of the Mardi Gras season,” according to its website.“On such a joyous night, this is obviously a tragic occurrence,” Nyx Captain Julie Lea said in a statement. “On behalf of the entire Krewe of Nyx, along with the city of New Orleans, we offer our most sincere condolences to the family and friends of the individual involved.”The accident involved float 21, New Orleans Police Superintendent Shaun Ferguson said at a news conference. The woman’s identity wasn’t immediately released.The parade was ended early, and the rest of the floats were diverted off the parade route. That was the “proper thing to do,” New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell told reporters near the scene.Mardi Gras is Feb. 25, but the Fat Tuesday celebration is preceded by a week or more of parades and parties each year.The death comes one year after a car sped into a bicycle lane near a parade route, hitting nine people and killing two bicyclists. Sharree Walls, 27, of New Orleans and David Hynes, 31, of Seattle, died not far from where the Krewe of Endymion parade had just passed. A man identified as the driver — Tashonty Toney, 32 — was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide.
…

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, President Donald Trump’s second national security adviser, will have a book out April 28. First announced in the summer of 2018, “Battlegrounds” will focus on national security and foreign policy, including his contentious time with Trump.In announcing the release date Thursday, HarperCollins called “Battlegrounds” a “groundbreaking reassessment of America’s place in the world, drawing from McMaster’s long engagement with these issues, including 34 years of service in the U.S. Army with multiple tours of duty in battlegrounds overseas and his 13 months as national security adviser in the Trump White House.”McMaster clashed with Trump on policy toward Russia, Iran and elsewhere before being forced out in March 2018. He was replaced by John Bolton, who also fought with Trump before departing last September. Bolton’s memoir, “What Happened in the Room,” is expected next month.McMaster has written a previous book, the acclaimed “Dereliction of Duty,” which sharply criticized the political leadership during the Vietnam War. 
…

China and the United States in the past year have unveiled new regulations that force some news media organizations that receive government funding to register as government entities. Amid the regulatory changes, China Wednesday ordered three foreign reporters to leave the country because of complaints over a headline that appeared in their newspaper. Here’s an overview of the changing media laws, and the fallout for journalists.Why did Beijing expel the American reporters?China’s foreign ministry said Wednesday that the Wall Street Journal’s decision to publish an opinion column with the headline “China is the Real Sick Man of Asia,” was “racially discriminatory” and tried to discredit China’s efforts to fight the coronavirus outbreak. The editorial was written by an American academic in the newspaper’s opinion section, but the foreign ministry said: “Chinese people do not welcome media that speak racially discriminatory languages … as such, it is decided today, the press credentials of three WSJ journalists will be revoked.” Beijing said the decision to force the reporters to leave the country was not linked to the State Department’s ruling on restricting Chinese news organizations operating in the U.S. earlier this week.Why did the U.S. State Department designate five Chinese news agencies as foreign government entities?The State Department said Tuesday that Xinhua, China Radio, China Daily, CGTN and The People’s Daily will be officially treated as extensions of China’s government, subjecting employees to similar rules that foreign diplomats operate under. U.S. officials say the designation reflects the reality that these are not editorially independent newsrooms, but are controlled by the Chinese government. Chinese officials rejected the decision and said Chinese media covers news objectively.Why is the State Department making this change now?U.S. officials have been warning for years about China’s expanding operations targeting foreign countries, and in recent months have taken action. U.S. officials have announced prosecutions of academics who did not report receiving money from Chinese-government-linked institutions, named Chinese military hackers who allegedly stole personal records of millions of Americans, and accused Chinese technology companies of stealing intellectual property. The director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, said this month that China is threatening U.S. security by exploiting the openness of the American economy and society.Are VOA, BBC, DW and other state-funded broadcasters subject to the same State Department regulations on government funding?News organizations that receive government funding and also maintain editorially independent newsrooms are not subjected to the new State Department regulations because they have policies and structures to protect their editorial independence. For example, at the BBC, the organization’s charter commits it to pursuing “due impartiality” in all of its output. At VOA, the founding charter and editorial firewall keep its journalists independent and prevent government officials from interfering in news decisions.
…

Michael Bloomberg waited until November to launch his campaign to be the Democratic Party’s nominee in the 2020 presidential election.His opponents in Wednesday night’s debate in the Western state of Nevada did not wait at all to attack his political record as the former mayor of New York City, allegations of sexism and sexual harassment, and his status as a multibillionaire.Before Wednesday, people across the United States were largely aware of Bloomberg’s campaign through television ads, which have saturated airwaves since November at a cost of nearly $400 million of his own money.But the debate put him on stage with the top contenders for the Democratic nomination for the first time, meaning he had to answer questions in real time about his past and why he should be the one to oppose President Donald Trump in November.From left, Democratic presidential candidates, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., participate in a Democratic presidential primary debate, Feb. 19, 2020, in Las Vegas.The pushback began with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.“In order to beat Donald Trump, we’re going to need the largest voter turnout in the history of the United States. Mr. Bloomberg had policies in New York City of stop and frisk, which went after African American and Latino people in an outrageous way. That is not a way you’re going to grow voter turnout,” Sanders said.Bloomberg countered by casting doubt about the electability of Sanders, the front-runner in national polls.“If he goes and is the candidate, we will have Donald Trump for another four years, and we can’t stand that,” Bloomberg said.Democratic presidential candidates, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, left, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., talk during a break at a Democratic presidential primary debate, Feb. 19, 2020, in Las Vegas.Whatever momentum Bloomberg may have felt from the first exchange of the debate was immediately challenged by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who said she will support whoever is the party’s eventual nominee but that the party would “take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another.”“I’d like to talk about who we’re running against, a billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse faced lesbians. And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump, I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg. Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop and frisk,” she said.While Bloomberg was the initial focus on the debate, as the night went on he was not as involved as the other candidates who each had taken part in eight debates dating back to June of last year.Warren, Sanders, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden all spoke more than Bloomberg. Tallies of speaking time showed the gap between the leader — Warren — and Bloomberg was about three minutes.From left, Democratic presidential candidates, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., participate in a Democratic presidential primary debate, Feb. 19, 2020, in Las Vegas, hosted by NBC News and MSNBC.Bloomberg and Warren sparred several times, including pointedly about the allegations against Bloomberg and his company of sexism and sexual harassment, and the number of non-disclosure agreements people involved in those accusations have signed, agreeing not to discuss them publicly.“None of them accuse me of doing anything other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told,” Bloomberg said. “These would be agreements between two parties that wanted to keep it quiet. And that’s up to them. They signed those agreements, and we’ll live with it.”Warren countered that Bloomberg at that moment could announce he was releasing the signatories from those agreements in the name of transparency.Bloomberg declined to do so, saying the agreements were made consensually, “and they have every right to expect that they will stay private.”WATCH: Bloomberg Targeted in Debate DebutSorry, but your browser cannot support embedded video of this type, you can
download this video to view it offline. Embed” />CopyHis campaign said the attacks against Bloomberg meant he was “a winner,” and that he “was the grownup in the room.”“He was just warming up tonight,” campaign manager Kevin Sheekey said in a statement. “We fully expect Mike will continue to build on tonight’s performance when he appears on the stage in South Carolina next Tuesday.”The same six candidates have qualified for that debate ahead of what will be the last contest Bloomberg decided to skip as he focused his first electoral efforts on the 14 states where voters will cast ballots on March 3.
…

Tennessee lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a new proposal to amend the state’s legally contentious voter-registration restrictions that are currently blocked from being enforced during the 2020 elections.Last year, Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed GOP-backed legislation that made Tennessee the first state in the country to fine registration groups for turning in too many incomplete signup forms. It also criminalized intentional infractions of other new rules with misdemeanor charges.FILE – Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee delivers his State of the State Address in the House Chamber in Nashville, Tenn., Feb. 3, 2020.However, the law immediately prompted two lawsuits and sparked national criticism from those who argued that the law would suppress efforts to register minorities and other voters.A federal judge later blocked the implementation of the law as it awaits trial in February 2021, saying the law would have a “chilling effect” on organizations and individuals seeking to register voters.In the interim, Tennessee lawmakers on Wednesday decided to once again back new rules on how to sign up new voters.FILE – Tre Hargett, right, is sworn in as Tennessee secretary of state in Nashville, Tenn., Jan. 15, 2009.The latest version would require the state to offer voluntary training on voter registration laws and require voter registration applications be submitted within 15 days of a voter registration drive. The measure would then prohibit the retention of voter information for non-political purposes, as well as require “cybersecurity to be considered” when certifying a voter registration system.”In the face of the federal injunction, these protections are better than no protection at all,” wrote Secretary of State Tre Hargett in a recent letter to lawmakers.Hargett, who had previously argued the original 2019 voter registration law would bolster election security, is submitting a separate bill this year that will criminalize “intentional dissemination of misinformation” surrounding the qualifications to vote, voter registration requirements, voter eligibility, and polling dates, times and locations.Under that proposal, it would also be a felony to tamper with voting systems, gain unauthorized access to voter registration databases, “willfully” substitute fake election results and “intentionally deface” an election website.’Encouraging’ changesThe proposals submitted Wednesday were both approved by the House Elections and Campaign Finance Subcommittee after almost no discussion or opposition. The bills must now pass the full House Local Committee before they can head to the House floor for consideration.FILE – Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville, debates a proposal on the first day of the 2020 legislative session in Nashville, Tenn., Jan. 14, 2020.If approved, the proposals would go into effect immediately — likely after Tennessee’s March 3 presidential primary, but ahead of the August state primary election.”Penalizing voter registration drives was a bad idea in the first place,” said Sen. Jeff Yarbro, a Democrat from Nashville. “It was predictably blocked in court because the legislature acted too rashly and thoughtlessly. We shouldn’t repeat the mistake by rushing through some fix without input from the civic groups affected.”However, at least one group who sued the state over the voter registration law described Wednesday’s changes as “encouraging.””It appears our litigation had an impact,” said Kristen Clarke, executive director of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Preliminary review suggests the problem that led us to sue has been addressed.”2019 measureIn 2019, Tennessee lawmakers backed a measure allowing the state to fine groups if they submit 100 or more voter registration forms within a calendar year that lack a complete name, address, date of birth, declaration of eligibility and signature. Penalties can reach $10,000 per county where violations occur if more than 500 incomplete forms are submitted. The measure went on to outlaw out-of-state poll watchers.The misdemeanor penalties would kick in if groups intentionally turn in forms after new deadlines, pay people based on quotas, fail to fill out state registration, don’t undergo training, and more.Only paid groups could be penalized under the law, though the groups’ legal filings contend the distinction is murky due to their use of grant money and stipends for workers in certain cases.
 
…

FBI Director Christopher Wray recently called violent extremism motivated by race or ethnicity as a “top-level priority … on the same footing as ISIS.”  And these extremist groups are using Islamic State tactics to recruit new members, often young, impressionable, alienated teenagers, according to a former member of a hate group. Mil Arcega reports.
…

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich held his first scheduled press event Wednesday since President Donald Trump commuted his sentence for political corruption, answering questions about his future plans and the crimes that landed him in prison.
The Democrat spoke outside his family home in Chicago. A large sign hanging on the home read, “Thanks Mr. President.”  One man wore a rubber Blagojevich mask and hoisted the former governor’s 2006 campaign sign.
“We want to express our most profound and everlasting gratitude to President Trump,” Blagojevich said from outside his house. “He didn’t have to do this …. this is an act of kindness.”
Blagojevich, 63, walked out of a federal prison in Colorado on Tuesday after serving eight years of a 14-year sentence for wide-ranging political corruption, just hours after Trump granted him a commutation.
“I’m a Trumpocrat,” Blagojevich said. “If I had the ability to vote, I would vote for him.”
Blagojevich, a one-time contestant on Trump’s reality TV show “Celebrity Apprentice,” has been radioactive politically since his arrest as governor in 2008. It’s not clear who might be willing to offer him a job or a lead role in organization or movement.
His convictions included seeking to sell an appointment to the U.S. Senate seat Barack Obama vacated to become president, trying to shake down a children’s hospital and lying to the FBI.  
…

A lawyer for Julian Assange said Wednesday that the WikiLeaks founder plans to claim during his extradition hearing that he was offered a pardon by the Trump administration if he agreed to say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 U.S. election campaign.Assange is fighting extradition to the United States on spying charges, and his full court hearing is due to begin next week.At a preliminary hearing, lawyer Edward Fitzgerald said that in August 2017, then-Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher visited Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.Wikileaks founder Julian Assange leaves in a prison van after appearing at Westminster Magistrates Court for an administrative hearing in London, Jan. 13, 2020.Fitzgerald said a statement from another Assange lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, recounted “Mr. Rohrabacher going to see Mr. Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr. Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.”The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Emails embarrassing for the Democrats and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign were hacked before being published by WikiLeaks in 2016.District Judge Vanessa Baraitser said the evidence was admissible in the extradition case.Assange appeared at London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday by video-link from Belmarsh prison, where he is being held as he awaits his extradition hearing.U.S. prosecutors have charged the 48-year-old Australian computer hacker with espionage over WikiLeaks’ hacking of hundreds of thousands of confidential government documents. If found guilty, he faces up to 175 years in jail.He argues he was acting as a journalist entitled to First Amendment protection.Assange spent seven years in Ecuador’s embassy after holing up there in 2012 to avoid questioning in Sweden over unrelated sexual assault allegations.Assange was evicted from the embassy in April 2019 and was arrested by British police for jumping bail in 2012. In November, Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigation because so much time had elapsed.There is no quick end in sight to Assange’s long legal saga. His full extradition hearing is due to begin with a week of legal argument starting Monday. It will resume in May, and a ruling is not expected for several months, with the losing side likely to appeal.
…

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed Chinese tech giant Huawei’s lawsuit challenging a U.S. law that bars the government and its contractors from using Huawei equipment because of security concerns.The lawsuit, filed last March, sought to declare the law unconstitutional. Huawei argued the law singled out the company for punishment, denied it due process and amounted to a “death penalty.”But a court ruled Tuesday that the ban isn’t punitive and that the federal government has the right to take its business elsewhere.Huawei, China’s first global tech brand, is at the center of U.S.-Chinese tensions over technology competition and digital spying. The company has spent years trying to put to rest accusations that it facilitates Chinese spying and that it is controlled by the ruling Communist Party.The lawsuit was filed in Plano, Texas, the headquarters of Huawei’s U.S. operations. It was dismissed before going to trial. Experts had described Huawei’s challenge as a long shot, but said the company didn’t have many other options to challenge the law.Huawei said it was disappointed and will consider further legal options.The Trump administration has been aggressively lobbying Western allies to avoid Huawei’s equipment for next-generation, 5G cellular networks. Administration officials say Huawei can give the Chinese government backdoor access to data, allegations that the company rejects.U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also spoken out against Huawei, including during a talk with reporters in Brussels on Monday, turning U.S. opposition to Huawei into a bipartisan effort.
 
…

A look at the charges against Harvey Weinstein, 67, and the punishment the once-revered Hollywood titan could face if convicted. A jury of seven men and five women started deliberating Tuesday in the closely watched #MeToo trial. To convict or acquit Weinstein on any charge, their verdict must be unanimous.WHAT IS WEINSTEIN ACCUSED OF?Scores of women have come forward in recent years to accuse Weinstein of sexual misconduct, but his New York City trial stems from just three allegations.The “Pulp Fiction” producer is charged with raping a woman in a Manhattan hotel room in March 2013 and forcibly performing oral sex on another woman, TV and film production assistant Mimi Haleyi, at his apartment in July 2006.The most serious charge, predatory sexual assault, requires jurors to decide two things: if he raped actress Annabella Sciorra in the mid-1990s and if he committed one of the charged acts.(The Associated Press has a policy of not publishing the names of people who allege sexual assault without their consent. It is withholding the name of the rape accuser because it isn’t clear whether she wishes to be identified publicly.)WHAT ARE THE CHARGES AGAINST WEINSTEIN?One count each of first- and third-degree rape for the March 2013 allegation. The first-degree charge alleges Weinstein used physical force or an implied or expressed threat that led the alleged victim to fear immediate death or injury. The third-degree charge alleges only that there was a lack of consent.One count of criminal sex act for Haleyi’s forced oral sex allegation.Two counts of predatory sexual assault, one for each of the charged acts.HOW DOES THE PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGE WORK?Under New York law, one way a person can be found guilty of predatory sexual assault is if he or she committed certain sex offenses in the past, even if that conduct didn’t result in criminal charges.In Weinstein’s case, prosecutors allege that he raped Sciorra in late 1993 or early 1994 — an accusation that is too old to be the basis for criminal charges on its own because of the statute of limitations.DOES THE JURY HAVE TO REACH A VERDICT ON ALL CHARGES?No. Weinstein is charged with five counts, but the way the verdict form is designed, jurors won’t have to make a decision on all of them.The form instructs the jury to start by reaching a verdict on the predatory sexual assault counts, which encompass the other charged acts. Depending on what they decide on those counts, they can move onto or skip other charges.For example, if jurors find Weinstein guilty of the predatory sexual assault count alleging he both raped Sciorra and assaulted Haleyi, then the jury does not need to decide the criminal sex act charge involving Haleyi.If the jury finds Weinstein guilty of the second predatory sexual assault count, alleging that he both raped Sciorra and raped the woman in 2013, then the jury does not need to decide the standalone rape charges involving the woman.If the jury decides Weinstein didn’t rape Sciorra, then it can’t find Weinstein guilty of either predatory sexual assault count.If jurors acquit Weinstein of the second predatory sexual assault count because it they don’t feel it was a first-degree rape, they can still consider a third-degree rape charge involving the woman.WHAT IS WEINSTEIN’S DEFENSE?Weinstein maintains the encounters were consensual. His lawyer said that the allegations are “regret renamed as rape.” The defense grilled Haleyi and the 2013 accuser about meetings they had with Weinstein after the alleged assaults and highlighted friendly, flirtatious emails they sent him.HOW MUCH TIME COULD HE FACE?Each of the predatory sexual assault counts is punishable by 25 years to life in prison.The first degree rape and criminal sex act counts each carry a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.Third degree rape carries a maximum sentence of 4 years in prison.WHAT’S THE WORST CASE SCENARIO FOR WEINSTEIN?He’s convicted of predatory sexual assault. Even if the jury finds him guilty on just one of those top-level counts, a minimum sentence would keep him in prison until he’s in his early 90s.WOULD HE HAVE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?Yes. If Weinstein is convicted on any of the charges he would be required to register as a sex offender under New York’s version of what’s known as Megan’s Law.WOULD WEINSTEIN BE HAULED OFF IN HANDCUFFS RIGHT AWAY?If Weinstein is convicted on any of the charges, there’s a good chance his bail will be revoked and he’ll be taken to jail right away. Prosecutors could argue he’ll have extra incentive to flee and that he’s rich enough to do it. Even before the trial, prosecutors say he was showing signs of restlessness. A judge hiked his bail in December after prosecutors accused him of futzing with his electronic monitoring bracelet.WHAT’S NEXT FOR WEINSTEIN?Win or lose, Weinstein faces more criminal charges in a California case announced last month, just as his New York trial was getting underway. In that matter, Weinstein is accused of sexually assaulted one woman and raping another on back-to-back nights days before the Oscars in February 2013.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced pardons for several high-profile individuals convicted of fraud. He has also commuted the prison sentence of former Governor Rod Blagojevich. VOA’s Zlatica Hoke reports the president’s acts of clemency on Tuesday sparked controversy.
…

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrives in Riyadh on Wednesday at a time of heightened tensions in the Middle East. Some issues on the agenda include tensions with Iran, the Trump administration’s Mideast peace plan, the ongoing war in Yemen and human rights issues. VOA’s Ardita Dunellari reports the meetings take place at a time when both countries are recalibrating their approach to open regional matters and to their bilateral relations.
…

A group of more than 1,100 U.S. military veterans from all five branches have signed a statement lashing out at President Donald Trump for firing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council.Vindman testified before a House committee during the Trump impeachment hearings in November. He expressed his concerns about Trump’s drive to push Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.The Military Times newspaper published the statement, whose signatories invited other veterans to add their names.The statement said the president’s “actions and insults” toward Vindman “appear to be motivated by nothing more than political retribution, and deprives the White House of expertise necessary to defend our collective national security.”Long-standing U.S. military code of conduct requires servicemen and women to report wrongdoing and illegal acts through the proper military channels. But U.S. law forbids them from speaking out in public.The veterans say Trump knows this and believes he can verbally attack Vindman with “impunity.””We consider President Trump’s sustained attacks on an active duty Army officer … to be an affront to the constitution that we have all sworn to uphold. We are speaking out precisely because neither LTC Vindman nor his fellow active-duty service members can,” the statement said.The veterans’ statement also criticizes what they say is Trump’s association with those they call war criminals, his public threat of war crimes, and minimizing the traumatic brain injuries some troops suffered in January’s Iranian missile attack on a military base in Iraq.The White House has not yet responded to the statement.The Ukrainian-born Vindman was the NSC’s Director for European Affairs until he was reassigned three weeks ago.The White House said Vindman was not fired and gave the official reason for his reassignment as downsizing within the NSC.However, Trump has publicly accused Vindman of being a poor worker who did “a lot of bad things,” including allegations of leaking classified information — charges Vindman’s supporters deny.
…

A week after Attorney General William Barr overturned the Justice Department’s recommendation for a stiff prison sentence for U.S. President Donald Trump’s friend Roger Stone, the public uproar over political meddling in the U.S. system of justice rages.A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Stone will be sentenced Thursday while she decides whether to grant the presidential friend’s request for a new trial. Stone’s motion for a retrial came after Trump accused the jury forewoman in the case of “significant bias.”He was convicted last November of seven counts, including lying to Congress about his role in Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and tampering with a witness.Whether or not Stone is given a new trial, the decision to sentence him rests with Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Trump has railed at Jackson for subjecting another former associate to solitary confinement. The likelihood that she will send Stone to prison has heightened speculation that Trump could respond with a pardon for a friend he thinks has been unjustly prosecuted.FILE – This courtroom sketch shows Roger Stone talking from the witness stand as Judge Amy Berman Jackson listens during a court hearing at the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington, Feb. 21, 2019.Trump has not ruled out pardoning Stone. While he has the power to pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime for any reason other than impeachment, shielding a friend convicted of serious crimes from prison could raise new questions about the independence of the system of justice under his administration.If Trump were to pardon Stone, it would “turn this into a very, very big political event,” said David Axelrod, a former Justice Department prosecutor.”It would further undermine faith in law enforcement in this country and show normal people that if you’re a friend of the president or those in power, you may not be treated the same as average Americans,” Axelrod said.Pardoning powerHans von Spakovsky, another Justice Department official now with the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, said the president’s pardon power is near absolute and that it would not be out of the ordinary for a president to pardon a convicted friend.”He’s got the ability to do that and it can’t be questioned,” von Spakovsky said. “Neither Congress nor anyone else can overrule or somehow prevent a pardon issued by the president.”In 2001, just hours before leaving office, then-President Bill Clinton pardoned fugitive trader Marc Rich in one of the most controversial presidential pardons. Rich’s wife had pledged large sums of money to Clinton’s presidential library.FILE – Denise Rich, left, ex-wife of Marc Rich, presents U.S. President Bill Clinton with a saxophone as first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton applauds at the G&P Foundation gala in New York City, Nov. 30, 2000.”It was very clearly done for political reasons and not because this individual Marc Rich had somehow acknowledged wrongdoing or anything else,” von Spakovsky said.Trump and Stone have been friends for decades. In the 1980s, Stone, a self-described “political trickster” who has an image of the disgraced former President Richard Nixon tattooed on his back, encouraged Trump, then an up-and-coming New York real estate developer, to run for president.Last November, a jury found Stone guilty of obstruction of justice, witness tampering and lying to Congress about his efforts during the 2016 presidential election to obtain stolen emails of Hillary Clinton from the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.The controversy over Stone’s sentencing erupted last week when Barr and other top Justice Department officials overturned four career prosecutors’ recommendation that Stone receive seven to nine years in prison, in line with federal sentencing guidelines.Barr’s decision came shortly after Trump tweeted that the recommended sentence was “a miscarriage of justice” that could not be allowed to move forward, fueling concerns that Barr was carrying out the president’s wishes. The four prosecutors withdrew from the case in protest.Although both Trump and Barr later said they had never discussed the Stone case, the fury did not subside amid new reports that Barr had brought in outside prosecutors to oversee politically sensitive investigations and review a number of criminal cases, including the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.In an open letter issued Sunday, more than 2,000 former Justice Department officials called on Barr to resign. A national association of federal judges called an emergency meeting to address the controversy.”It is really a wake-up call to the country to make sure that we’re paying attention to the importance of having an independent Justice Department,” said Derek Cohen, a former senior Justice Department official who signed the letter.Trump’s pardonsWhether Trump will pardon Stone remains uncertain. But Trump has the authority to pardon him. The U.S. Constitution empowers the president “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” A presidential pardon restores a convict’s civil rights, such as the right to vote.Since taking office, Trump has pardoned 18 convicted felons, including several well-connected figures in conservative circles. In 2017, he pardoned former Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio a month after Arpaio was convicted of contempt of court for ignoring a judge’s order to stop arresting immigrants on suspicion that they were undocumented.FILE – Financier Michael Milken leads a discussion at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, Calif., April 30, 2018.On Tuesday, Trump issued full pardons to several prominent individuals, including Michael Milken, a former Wall Street financier, and Bernard Kerik, a former New York City Commissioner and business partner of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.Trump has previously expressed openness to pardoning his former associates, saying it was unfair that former campaign manager Paul Manafort got a stiff sentence while former FBI Director James Comey walked free. More recently, however, Trump batted away questions about an immediate pardon. Last week, he told radio talk show host Geraldo Rivera that he didn’t “want to talk about pardons right now.”The implications of pardoning Stone “are not good for our country and the independence of our judiciary moving forward,” said Cohen, the former Justice official. “In past administrations and past history, if presidents were to go out of their way and abuse or appear to abuse the pardon system to benefit their friends, that would be the sort of thing that one would expect either the voters or the Congress would have a problem with.”
…