Category Archives: United Airline News

California Faces Pushback From Towns on Sanctuary State Law

SANTA ANA, Calif.—Orange County officials on Tuesday voted to condemn parts of California’s approach to immigration, aligning themselves with the Trump administration as the state increasingly stakes out an oppositional role.

At a packed public hearing, the county’s board of supervisors—all Republicans—also voted to support a federal lawsuit against California’s so-called sanctuary state law, which strictly limits when and how local authorities can cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

North Korean leader meets with China’s president during ‘unofficial visit’ to Beijing

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made a surprise trip to China this week, meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping ahead of planned summits with South Korean and U.S. leaders, Chinese and North Korean state media confirmed Wednesday.   

The journey, which is believed to be Kim’s first foreign trip since he came to power in 2011, adds a new piece to a complex diplomatic puzzle over the future of North Korea’s nuclear program. 

The announcement ends a mystery that started on Monday, when a mysterious train chugged into central Beijing, spurring reports of a high-profile visitor from North Korea. 

The North’s official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) confirmed that the visitor was indeed Kim, along with his wife, Ri Sol Ju, arriving for an “unofficial” visit at the invitation of the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. The confirmation came sometime after the North Korean group is believed to have departed China.

Kim traveled with all his top aides, KCNA said, including Choe Ryong Hae, often called the No. 2 leader of North Korea and the head of the powerful Organization and Guidance Department, and Ri Su Yong, the former ambassador to Switzerland and foreign minister, who is now a top official in the Politburo. 

China and North Korea have had close ties for decades, but in recent years, the relationship has been stressed. Kim’s visit suggests an effort to repair relations ahead of Kim’s planned meetings with the South’s president, Moon Jae-in, and then U.S. President Donald Trump. 

Chinese and North Korean accounts of the meeting struck a positive tone. “We speak highly of this visit,” Xi told Kim, according to Chinese state media.

Kim’s toast to Xi: “It is appropriate that my first trip abroad is in China’s capital, and my responsibility to consider continuing NK-China relations as valuable as life,” according to KCNA.

The question of who was on the armored train had gripped the Chinese capital for days. The train arrived unannounced. Passengers disembarked and boarded limos. After nightfall, a motorcade drove to a state guesthouse where foreign dignitaries often stay. 

But Chinese officials and media and the South Korean government were initially quiet about the identities of those who had been aboard.

Chinese netizens looking for answers hit a wall. On Tuesday, three of the top 10 blocked terms on Weibo, a microblogging site, were “Kim Jong Un,” “North Korea” and “Fatty the third,” a popular Chinese nickname for Kim, according to freeweibo.com, a website that tracks censorship.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded to the news of Kim’s visit by saying that the Chinese government had briefed the Trump administration about the visit on Tuesday. The briefing included a “personal message from President Xi to President Trump,” she said.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping, in this still image taken from video released on March 28. (Reuters Tv/Reuters)

The Trump administration sees the development “as further evidence that our campaign of maximum pressure is creating the appropriate atmosphere for dialogue with North Korea,” Sanders said.

Chinese experts said a visit by a senior North Korean leader before the meetings with Moon and Trump made sense. 

“At a possibly historic moment, before the start of a dramatic play on the Korean Peninsula, China was losing the spotlight,” said Cheng Xiaohe, a North Korea expert at Beijing’s Renmin University. A visit would restore Beijing’s leading role, he reasoned.  

Zhang Liangui, a retired professor and Korea scholar at the Central Party School in Beijing, said, “The North Korea nuclear issue cannot be solved by solely relying on negotiations between North Korea and the United States, because, essentially, the nuclear issue is a regional security issue, not an issue of the relationship between North Korea and the United States.” 

Experts also said secrecy was standard for North Korean visitors. “Kim Jong Un’s father, Kim Jong Il, employed a similar approach in the past,” said Lu Chao, a Korea expert at China’s Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences. “It’s usually a secret visit and then publicized after the North Korean leader has left.” 

It was the example of Kim Jong Il’s 2011 visit that provided early clues that something was up.

The detective work started Monday when train spotters and North Korea watchers noticed two suspicious developments: tight security at the China-North Korea border and train delays across the northeast.

On Monday afternoon, Japanese broadcaster NTV spotted an unusual train pulling into a station in the heart of the capital. It was green and yellow and looked a lot like the trains used by Kim Jong Il in 2011. 

As the news started to spread, so did unverified videos of a motorcade speeding through the Chinese capital. Soon, unconfirmed reports of Kim sightings were spreading in chat groups.

Anna Fifield in Tokyo, Philip Rucker in Washington, Amber Ziye Wang, Shirley Feng, Luna Lin and Yang Liu in Beijing, Min Joo Kim in Seoul and Yuki Oda in Tokyo contributed to this report.

Arizona Governor Suspends Uber’s Self-Driving Cars From Roads

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey on Monday ordered Uber Technologies Inc. to suspend testing autonomous vehicles on public roadways in the state, a rebuke by a former supporter that takes the company’s decision on testing out of its hands.

The governor’s decree follows the fatal crash of a self-driving Uber on a Tempe street two Sundays ago when it struck a pedestrian walking her bike across the street outside of a crosswalk.

Mr….

Scores of Russians Expelled by US and Its Allies Over UK Poisoning

The expulsions brought into focus the disconnect between aggressive actions taken against the Kremlin by the Trump administration and the president’s public eagerness to have a cooperative relationship with Mr. Putin. Mr. Trump has staunchly resisted criticizing the Russian president, even as he imposed sanctions on a series of Russian organizations and individuals for interference in the 2016 presidential election and what the administration called other “malicious cyberattacks.”

Mr. Trump, who energetically comments on almost any other subject on Twitter or in encounters with reporters, stayed conspicuously silent on the showdown with Russia on Monday, leaving it to aides to explain his decision.

“The only real conclusion to draw is there is something of a divide,” said Thomas Wright, the director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe. “They may have convinced him to sign off, but he doesn’t want to be the face of it. He could have resolved this any day with a 10-minute appearance. That’s the part that’s puzzling to me.”

Michael Anton, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said Mr. Trump deserved credit for organizing the joint response and expressed frustration at the perception that the president had not been firm enough with Russia.

“No matter what we do, it’s like, ‘You guys are soft on Russia,’” he said. “What do we have to do to show that we’re tough? We just coordinated a 22-nation action and kicked out 60 Russians.”

Mr. Anton said the president did not publicly excoriate Russia for its actions because he wanted to maintain a constructive relationship at the level of the countries’ leaders. “Happy talk on one phone call is better than belligerent talk on one phone call,” he said.

Speaking from the White House lectern on Monday, Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, called the poisoning attack “brazen” and “reckless,” and said that it impeded Mr. Trump’s continued desire to foster a constructive relationship with the Russians.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“We want to have a cooperative relationship,” Mr. Shah said. “The president wants to work with the Russians, but their actions sometimes don’t allow that to happen.”

Indeed, aides were intent on describing a president who was keenly aware of Russian misbehavior. One official, who was not authorized to publicly describe the president’s private conversations, said Mr. Trump sounded aggressive about Moscow during a discussion with advisers in the Oval Office on Friday, calling Russia’s actions of late “dangerous.”

The American expulsion order was designed to root out Russians actively engaging in intelligence operations against the country, White House officials said. Those expelled included 12 people identified as Russian intelligence officers who have been stationed at the United Nations in New York, and 48 operating under the Russian Embassy in Washington. The Russians and their families have seven days to leave the United States, according to officials. American officials estimate that there are more than 100 Russian intelligence officers in the United States.

The Trump administration also announced that it would close the Russian Consulate in Seattle because of its proximity to Naval Base Kitsap, one of two American naval bases that house a fleet of nuclear-powered, ballistic missile-carrying submarines.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Shah said the president took a proactive role in speaking with foreign leaders and encouraging others to join the efforts. White House officials who described the expulsion order said it had coordinated with about a dozen American allies. A British official said London’s diplomats, military officers and intelligence officials had spoken with their American counterparts on a daily, even hourly, basis since the attack on Mr. Skripal.

The Kremlin has maintained that it had nothing to do with the poisoning. In a statement released by the Russian Foreign Ministry on Monday, officials accused British authorities of “a prejudiced, biased as well as hypocritical stance” in carrying out the expulsions, and castigated European Union and NATO member countries for following suit.

“It goes without saying that this unfriendly move by this group of countries will not go unnoticed, and we will respond to it,” the statement read.

Current and former diplomats said the real test of the expulsions would be if they served to deter Russia from further intervention in other countries.

“The key question for me is whether all this — and whatever else is to follow — will finally persuade Putin that the cost of killing off enemies and ‘traitors’ and subverting other people’s societies in order to ‘make Russia great again’ just isn’t worth it,” said Peter Westmacott, a former British ambassador to the United States. “That would be a great prize for the free world, and for British diplomacy.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Poland has positioned itself to take a lead role in coordinating a response from the Eastern European nations traditionally most wary of their giant neighbor to the east. Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz called the incident in Britain an “unprecedented attack on civilians with the use of chemical weapon, unseen in Europe since World War II.”

The expulsion of Russian diplomats was an unprecedented move by Warsaw, the first time it has taken diplomatic action against its neighbor because of Russian behavior outside of Poland.

Germany’s move not only signaled solidarity with London, but also suggested the incoming foreign minister, Heiko Maas, may be more hawkish toward Moscow than his predecessor.

“The attack in Salisbury shook us all in the European Union,” Mr. Maas said. “For the first time since the end of World War II, a chemical war agent was used in the middle of Europe.”

Mr. Maas said Germany did not take the decision “flippantly.”

“But the fact and indications point to Russia. The Russian government has so far not answered any of the open questions and has shown no readiness to play a constructive role in solving this attack,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s decision to join a united front against Russia came amid a personnel churn in the White House as numerous aides, including his national security adviser, Army Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, have said they will leave the administration. Last month, Mr. McMaster called evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election “incontrovertible.”

His words angered the president, who remains anxious over the continued investigation into his campaign’s contact with Russian officials. Mr. Trump publicly rebuked General McMaster on Twitter for forgetting “to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems,” referring to his Democratic election opponent, Hillary Clinton.

The harsher stance on Russia will also prove to be an early test of the ideological compatibility of the president’s newly revamped national security team. Last week, Mr. Trump announced that he would replace General McMaster with John R. Bolton, long a vocal critic of Mr. Putin who has called Russian interference in the 2016 election “a true act of war.” Mike Pompeo, the nominee for secretary of state, has been quieter with his criticisms.

And then there is the president himself, whose public declarations have repeatedly found themselves in conflict with the policy decisions rolled out in his White House. Brian McKeon, who served as a chief of staff of the national security counsel under President Barack Obama, said the staff disruptions were sure to play out if the Trump administration was considering taking further action against Russia.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“Bolton’s worldview is that there should be more” measures, including sanctions, Mr. McKeon said. “I don’t think that’s the president’s view.”

Eileen Sullivan and Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.


Continue reading the main story

‘Not in a punch-back mode’: Why Trump has been largely silent on Stormy Daniels

The counterpuncher, so far, has held his punches.

President Trump exercised uncharacteristic public restraint Monday following an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in which adult film star Stormy Daniels described, in vivid detail, a consensual sexual encounter with Trump — a relationship the president has repeatedly denied.

But privately, the president has lobbed sharp attacks at Daniels and her media tour, calling her allegations a “hoax” and asking confidants if the episode is hurting his poll numbers. The president even has griped to several people that Daniels is not the type of woman he finds attractive.

Trump — who was among the estimated 22 million Americans who watched the Daniels interview that aired Sunday night — asked staff in the White House if they, too, had watched and wondered what they thought of it, someone who has spoken to him said. The president said that he personally did not think Daniels appeared credible, added this person, who has talked to the president about his interactions with the pornographic film star and did not want to be identified discussing them.

But publicly, Trump was uncharacteristically silent after the “60 Minutes” interview, in which Daniels recounted having unprotected sex with Trump in 2006 and described being verbally threatened five years later by a man she didn’t know to stay silent about her allegations. Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford and who was 27 years old during the alleged encounter, also said that she did not find Trump, then 60, attractive and that she viewed the encounter simply as a “business deal.” She said that Trump had floated the idea of her appearing on his reality TV show, “The Apprentice.”

Experts say any possible legal danger for Trump stemming from the alleged affair could come from the nondisclosure agreement that his longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, executed with Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election. In exchange for her silence, Cohen facilitated a $130,000 payment to Daniels in October 2016 — which, if deemed an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign, would violate federal law.

The president and his White House staff have hewed to a remarkably disciplined and restrained playbook — a departure for the normally brash Trump, who is usually reluctant to let a slight go unanswered.

Trump has not personally addressed the matter in recent weeks, and while his spokesmen have broadly denied the allegations on his behalf, they have declined to publicly litigate Daniels’s specific claims.

“The president strongly, clearly and has consistently denied these underlying claims,” Raj Shah, the principal deputy White House press secretary, told reporters Monday. “The only person who’s been inconsistent is the one making the claims.”

The closest Trump skirted to weighing in came in a tweet Monday morning that did not reference Daniels or the interview but generally decried what he said were a spate of false media reports. “So much Fake News,” Trump wrote. “Never been more voluminous or more inaccurate. But through it all, our country is doing great!”

Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel who helped President Bill Clinton navigate the Monica Lewinksy scandal, said Trump is sending a message with his lack of direct engagement.

“His absence of comment, to me, was a concession to a not very shocking or newsworthy conclusion, which is that he carried on extramarital affairs,” said Davis, a partner at the law firm Davis Goldberg Galper. “He was silent and wasn’t attacking or criticizing or contradicting her.”

President Trump, flanked by Vice President Pence, speaks after signing a $1.3 trillion spending bill last week. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

But Daniels has been on Trump’s mind. Over the weekend at his private Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., he talked to friends and club members about the controversy, and on Saturday he dined with Cohen.

Trump’s friends and advisers have been cautioning him that he has little to gain by getting into a back-and-forth with Daniels.

“He’s really not in a punch-back mode,” said one friend who has discussed the matter with the president in recent days and spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. “Everyone is telling him, look, you can’t win here, so just do nothing.”

Trump has calculated that the salacious details from Daniels and other women now surfacing publicly will not erode his political support in any meaningful way. The president has convinced himself, said one Republican in frequent touch with the White House, that the scandal will blow over — in part because, for decades, Trump deliberately presented himself as a Manhattan millionaire playboy. 

“The president, when he used to be plain old Donald Trump, used to say all publicity is good publicity,” said Louise Sunshine, a former longtime executive at the Trump Organization. “He used to enjoy negative publicity because he said even that is good publicity.”

Trump also believes his base of loyal supporters, including Christian conservatives, will not abandon him, just as they stuck by his side after the “Access Hollywood” tape was reported in The Washington Post in October 2016.

“The president is correct believing that his solid group of supporters, including evangelicals and Protestants, are not going to leave him on this issue,” said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide. “He’s delivered for them on judges, which is really the most important issue, and on life” — a reference to abortion policy.

Nunberg added, “I don’t think anybody believes that they elected Saint Joseph.”

Still, Trump’s friends say that the allegations — not only from Daniels, but also from Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who has alleged a nearly year-long affair with Trump, and from Summer Zervos, a former “Apprentice” contestant who is suing Trump for defamation — have caused a strain in his marriage.

First lady Melania Trump did not return to Washington with Trump on Sunday, instead remaining at Mar-a-Lago for what a White House aide called a previously scheduled “spring break.”

Sunshine, who said she thought Daniels was “very believable,” said that based on her years working with Trump, she thought he would probably be most bothered by the scandal’s impact on his family.

“I think it probably would upset him because it would upset Melania, it would upset his daughter,” Sunshine said.

Stephanie Grisham, a spokeswoman for the first lady, issued a public appeal for privacy that seemed to reference the president’s 12-year-old son, Barron, who was born around the time of the alleged affair with Daniels. “While I know the media is enjoying speculation salacious gossip, Id like to remind people there’s a minor child who’s name should be kept out of news stories when at all possible,” Grisham tweeted.

Inside the West Wing, senior officials believe Daniels’s account to be largely credible and consider it a serious news story that could deal real and lasting damage to the president, according to one of Trump’s advisers. 

The White House communications team collectively monitors all Daniels developments but has largely tried to leave the official response to Trump’s outside lawyers involved in the case, a White House aide said. There is little upside, this person added, in trying to respond to each new twist and turn.

“We don’t necessarily know exactly what happened and all the details, and trying to create a response based on a lack of knowledge is like flying blind,” said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private discussions. “Once the White House gets into the business of actually responding to it, we’ll go down this rabbit hole of just being consumed with all things Stormy.”

At Monday’s briefing, Shah was peppered with questions about Daniels. He tried to avoid answering with much detail and referred some questions to Cohen.

Asked whether Trump had watched the “60 Minutes” interview, Shah said, “I’m not going to get into what the president may or may not have seen.” He later added, “There are clips of it playing all over, in the morning news shows.”

Pressed to explain the offer of compensation to Daniels to ensure her silence, Shah seemed to defend the move. “False charges are settled out of court all the time. And this is nothing outside the ordinary,” he said.

Trump’s denials of Daniels’s allegations have been consistent since his presidential campaign. In 2016, Trump acknowledged to some of his closest political advisers that he had met Daniels but repeatedly denied to them that he ever had a salacious encounter with her, two people familiar with the matter said.

Once, when the topic of Daniels came up on Trump’s private plane near the end of the campaign, the candidate asked what year the encounter was said to have taken place, these people said. When he was told 2006, he simply shrugged and moved the conversation along, they added.

The White House has largely adopted Trump’s nothing-to-see-here posture. Republican allies say they have received little guidance, and no official talking points, on how to handle questions about Daniels or the other women.

One Republican operative who works closely with the White House described the information vacuum strategy: “It’s almost like it doesn’t exist.”

At a Crucial Juncture, Trump’s Legal Defense Is Largely a One-Man Operation

That lawyer, Jay Sekulow, is a conservative commentator who made his name on religious freedom cases. Mr. Sekulow is in talks with other lawyers about joining the team, although it is not clear how far those discussions have progressed.

Hours before the announcement of Mr. diGenova’s departure, which Mr. Sekulow said was related to a conflict of interest, the president took to Twitter to reject any suggestion that lawyers do not want to work for him.

“Many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case … don’t believe the Fake News narrative that it is hard to find a lawyer who wants to take this on,” he wrote. “Fame fortune will NEVER be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted.”

Adding new lawyers, he said, would be costly because they would take months “to get up to speed (if for no other reason than they can bill more).”

“I am very happy with my existing team,” he added.

This month, the president met with the veteran lawyer Emmet Flood about the possibility of joining the legal team. But Mr. Trump was put off by the fact that Mr. Flood, a Republican, had represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment process, and Mr. Flood has made clear that he will not represent the president if Marc E. Kasowitz, his brash longtime personal lawyer, has any role in the effort.

Mr. Trump also tried to recruit Theodore B. Olson, a well-known Republican lawyer, but Mr. Olson has said he would not be representing the president.

The first phase of legal work for Mr. Trump in the inquiry by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was led by a White House lawyer, Ty Cobb. That work, which in part involved the production of documents and the arrangement of interviews with White House officials, has been largely completed.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The second phase, which is now focused on the question of a presidential interview with Mr. Mueller, had been led by Mr. Dowd. One reason Mr. Dowd quit was that, against his advice, Mr. Trump was insistent that he wanted to answer questions under oath from Mr. Mueller, believing that it would help clear him.

Mr. Dowd had concluded that there was no upside and that the president, who often does not tell the truth, could increase his legal exposure if his answers were not accurate.

Roger Cossack, a seasoned legal analyst, said the key to successfully defending a high-profile client under immense scrutiny was to have a cohesive legal team with a consistent strategy.

Photo
John Dowd quit as the head of the president’s personal legal team last week after determining that Mr. Trump was not listening to his advice.

Credit
Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters

“In these types of cases, you need highly competent lawyers and a client who will listen and follow their advice,” Mr. Cossack said. “If you don’t have both, you have what we’re seeing here: chaos and disaster.”

“You have a client who clearly thinks he has a better idea of how things should work than the lawyers who, from time to time, have told him things he doesn’t want to hear,” he added. “He is looking for the guy who can say, ‘I know how to handle Mueller, I know you think he is bad, and we’ll take care of it.’ Problem is you can’t find that lawyer because no one will be able to do that.”

People close to the president say the upheaval in the legal team was inevitable. When Mr. Kasowitz took the lead after Mr. Mueller was appointed in May, he wanted to follow a model used by Mr. Clinton, with a separate team of lawyers and communications professionals handling issues related to the inquiry, so that the White House staff could keep its distance.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

But Mr. Trump, who trusts few people and considers himself his best lawyer, spokesman and strategist, never wanted that type of system. As a result, his legal and public relations strategies have been out of sync, with the president at times publicly contradicting his lawyers, and the White House often finding itself flat-footed in the face of new disclosures about the Russia investigation.

The president’s decision has also exposed many of his aides, leaving them deeply enmeshed in an inquiry that is likely to cost them tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

But while Mr. Trump has struggled to find lawyers, his family and his close associates are being represented by some of the country’s top legal talent.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has hired Abbe Lowell, a longtime Washington lawyer who recently got the Justice Department to drop corruption charges against Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, after a lengthy court fight.

Three prominent current and former White House officials — the former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon; the former chief of staff, Reince Priebus; and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn — are being represented by William A. Burck, who turned down the chance to represent the president. Mr. Burck, a former federal prosecutor, represented FIFA in its legal problems in the United States and has worked for high-profile witnesses in federal investigations, including Maureen McDonnell, the wife of a former Virginia governor.

The turmoil in Mr. Trump’s legal team started within weeks of the appointment of Mr. Mueller. Mr. Kasowitz pushed for an adversarial approach to the special counsel, which the president was poised to follow. But Mr. Kasowitz clashed with Mr. Kushner, and he was soon pushed aside after a series of missteps and embarrassing incidents.

The president then hired Mr. Cobb, a veteran Washington lawyer, to lead efforts within the White House, as well as Mr. Dowd, who was put in charge of his personal legal team. They advocated a strategy of cooperation, telling the president that the sooner he gave Mr. Mueller’s office what it wanted, the sooner his name would be cleared.

While Mr. Cobb had told the president that the investigation would be over by now, it seems to be accelerating. Mr. Mueller is still looking into a wide range of matters related to Mr. Trump’s corporate activities, his 2016 campaign, his associates and his time in office.

Mr. Trump, hoping to bolster his team, met with Mr. diGenova and Ms. Toensing in recent days but, according to two people told of details about the meeting, did not believe he had personal chemistry with them.

There were also significant conflict-of-interest issues, but Mr. Trump could have waived them if he wanted. Ms. Toensing is representing Mark Corallo, who was the spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team in 2017 before they parted ways. Mr. Corallo has told investigators that he was concerned that a close aide to Mr. Trump, Hope Hicks, may have been planning to obstruct justice during the drafting of a statement about a meeting between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump Jr. during the campaign.

Ms. Hicks’s lawyer has strongly denied that suggestion, and White House aides said Mr. Corallo’s assertion had come up in discussions with the president as he weighed whether to go ahead with Mr. diGenova and Ms. Toensing.

Mr. diGenova had been expected to serve as an outspoken voice for the president as Mr. Trump has increased his attacks on Mr. Mueller. Mr. diGenova has endorsed the notion that a secretive group of F.B.I. agents concocted the Russia investigation as a way to keep Mr. Trump from becoming president, a theory with little supporting evidence.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“There was a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and, if she didn’t win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime,” he had told Fox News in January.

Continue reading the main story

Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

You know what tech startups hate? Complicated legal compliance. The problem is, Facebook isn’t a startup any more, but its competitors are.

There have been plenty of calls from congress and critics to regulate Facebook following the election interference scandal and now the Cambridge Analytica debacle. The government could require extensive ads transparency reporting or data privacy protections. That could cost Facebook a lot of money, slow down its operations, or inhibit its ability to build new products.

But the danger is that those same requirements could be much more onerous for a tiny upstart company to uphold. Without much cash or enough employees, and with product-market fit still to nail down, young startups might be anchored by the weight of regulation. It could prevent them from ever rising to become a true alternative to Facebook. Venture capitalists choosing whether to fund the next Facebook killer might look at the regulations as too high of a price of entry.

STANFORD, CA – JUNE 24: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (R) hugs U.S. President Barack Obama during the 2016 Global Entrepeneurship Summit at Stanford University on June 24, 2016 in Stanford, California. President Obama joined Silicon Valley leaders on the final day of the Global Entrepreneurship Summit. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The lack of viable alternatives has made the #DeleteFacebook movement toothless. Where are people going to go? Instagram? WhatsApp? The government already missed its chances to stop Facebook from acquiring these companies that are massive social networks in their own right.

The only social networks to carve out communities since Facebook’s rise did so largely by being completely different, like the ephemeral Snapchat that purposefully doesn’t serve as a web identity platform, and the mostly-public Twitter that caters to thought leaders and celebrities more than normal people sharing their personal lives. Blockchain-based decentralized social networks sound nice but may be impossible to spin up.

That’s left few places for Facebook haters to migrate. This might explain why despite having so many more users, #DeleteFacebook peaked last week at substantially fewer Twitter mentions than the big #DeleteUber campaign from last January, according to financial data dashboard Sentieo. Lyft’s existence makes #DeleteUber a tenable stance, because you don’t have to change your behavior pattern, just your brand of choice.

If the government actually wants to protect the public against Facebook abusing its power, it would need to go harder than the Honest Ads Act that would put political advertising on Internet platforms under the same scrutiny regarding disclosure of buyers as the rules for TV and radio advertising. That’s basically just extra paperwork for Facebook. We’ve seen regulatory expenses deter competition amongst broadband internet service providers and in other industries. Real change would necessitate regulation that either creates alternatives to Facebook or at least doesn’t inhibit their creation.

That could mean only requiring certain transparency and privacy protections from apps over a certain size, like 200 million daily users. This would put the cap a bit above Twitter and Snapchat’s size today, giving them time to prepare for compliance, while immediately regulating Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Google’s social problem child YouTube.

Still, with Facebook earning billions in profit per quarter and a massive war chest built up, Mark Zuckerberg could effectively pay his way out of the problem. That’s why it makes perfect sense for him to have told CNN “I’m not sure we shouldn’t be regulated” and that “There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see.” Particular regulatory hurdles amount to just tiny speed bumps for Facebook. Courting this level of regulation could bat down the question of whether it should be broken up or its News Feed algorithm needs to change.

Meanwhile, if the government instituted new rules for tech platforms collecting persona information going forward, it could effectively lock in Facebook’s lead in the data race. If it becomes more cumbersome to gather this kind of data, no competitor might ever amass an index of psychographic profiles and social graphs able to rival Facebook’s.

A much more consequential approach would be to break up Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Facebook is trying to preempt these drastic measures with Zuckerberg’s recent apology tour and its purchase of full-page ads in nine newspapers today claiming it understands its responsibility.

Establishing them as truly independent companies that compete would create meaningful alternatives to Facebook. Instagram and WhatsApp would have to concern themselves with actually becoming sustainable businesses. They’d all lose some economies of data scale, forfeiting the ability to share engineering, anti-spam, localization, ad sales, and other resources that a source close to Instagram told me it gained by being acquired in 2012, and that Facebook later applied to WhatsApp too.

Both permanent photo sharing and messaging would become two-horse races again. That could lead to the consumer-benefiting competition and innovation the government hopes for from regulation.

Yet with strong regulation like dismantling Facebook seeming beyond the resolve of congress, and weak regulation potentially protecting Facebook, perhaps it’s losing the moral high ground that will be Facebook’s real punishment.

Facebook chief legal officer Colin Stretch testifies before congress regarding Russian election interference

We’ve already seen that first-time download rates aren’t plummeting for Facebook, its App Store ranking has actually increased since the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke, and blue chip advertisers aren’t bailing, according to BuzzFeed. But Facebook relies on the perception of its benevolent mission to recruit top talent in Silicon Valley and beyond.

Techies take the job because they wake up each day believing that they’re having a massive positive influence by connecting the world. These people could have founded or worked at a new startup where they’d have discernible input on the direction of the product, and a chance to earn huge return multiples on their stock. Many have historically worked at Facebook because its ads say it’s the “Best place to build and make an impact”.

But if workers start to see that impact as negative, they might not enlist. This is what could achieve that which surface-level regulation can’t. It’s perhaps the most important repercussion of all the backlash about fake news, election interference, well-being, and data privacy: that losing talent could lead to a slow-down of innovation at Facebook that might  leave the door open for a new challenger.

For more on Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, read our feature pieces:

Zuckerberg’s response to Cambridge scandal omits why it delayed investigating

7 much scarier questions for Zuckerberg

Facebook and the endless string of worst-case scenarios

Stormy Daniels Says She Stayed Silent on Trump Out of Fear

Ms. Clifford’s interview — which made for the most anticipated episode of “60 Minutes” in recent memory — was something of a national event, one marked by viewing parties and “Dark and Stormy” cocktail specials at bars, a nod to her professional name, Stormy Daniels.

And it was a quintessential moment of the Trump presidency — a tabloid-ready scandal and must-see television — that carried potential legal implications for Mr. Trump and his longtime lawyer and personal fixer, Michael Cohen. Until Sunday’s broadcast, Ms. Clifford had kept her public appearances to the strip club circuit — what she called her “Make America Horny Again” tour. But, in speaking with Mr. Cooper, she chose businesslike attire that was in keeping with the seriousness of the legal case she is making, that she had been silenced in a cover-up effort to protect the presidential prospects of Mr. Trump.

Ms. Clifford is one of two women who have recently filed suit seeking to get out of agreements they said they entered during the last stretch of the 2016 campaign to give up the rights to their stories about what they have said were affairs with Mr. Trump. The other woman, a former Playmate named Karen McDougal, sold her rights to the company that owns The National Enquirer — which never published it — and spoke to Mr. Cooper on CNN on Thursday. Representatives for Mr. Trump have denied that he had an affair with either woman.

Both cases present potentially consequential legal challenges for Mr. Trump, forming the basis of complaints that have been filed with the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department saying that the payments constituted illegal campaign contributions.

Ms. Clifford’s appearance on “60 Minutes” showed that the effort to keep her story from public view had failed spectacularly — just as statements from Mr. Cohen that he would seek millions of dollars in damages from her for violating a hush agreement had not kept her from appearing on what is often the highest-rated program in television news.

Asked by Mr. Cooper why she was taking the legally risky route of sitting for a nationally televised interview, she said, “I was perfectly fine saying nothing at all, but I’m not O.K. with being made out to be a liar.”

Ms. Clifford had first threatened to speak out in February, after, she said, Mr. Cohen broke his part of the previously secret 2016 agreement by telling The New York Times that he had paid the $130,000 from his own pocket. He has denied Mr. Trump had an affair with Ms. Clifford.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The White House was quiet ahead of the airing of Ms. Clifford’s interview, though an ally of Mr. Trump’s, the Newsmax founder and editor in chief, Christopher Ruddy, told ABC News earlier on Sunday that Mr. Trump considered her story “a political hoax.” Mr. Trump spent the evening before the interview dining at his club in Palm Beach, Mar-a-Lago, with Mr. Cohen.

Video

Stormy Daniels: Timeline of a Trump Scandal

Accusations, payoffs and lawsuits: Here’s a guide to the latest White House scandal, which involves a porn star named Stormy Daniels.


By DREW JORDAN on Publish Date March 9, 2018.


.

Watch in Times Video »

Ms. Clifford said during the interview that while she had seen Mr. Trump more than once, she had had sex with him a single time, unprotected. That happened shortly after they met at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe in 2006. (Ms. McDougal has also said that she, too, was intimate with Mr. Trump during that event.) Mr. Trump was 60 at the time; Ms. Clifford was 27.

Ms. Clifford said that Mr. Trump had invited her to his hotel suite for dinner, and that their banter began with him showing her a magazine cover featuring his photograph. “I was like, ‘Someone should take that magazine and spank you with it,”’ she said. “So he turned around and pulled his pants down a little — you know, had underwear on and stuff, and I just gave him a couple swats.”

It was done in a joking manner she said, and the flirtation — which included Mr. Trump comparing Ms. Clifford to his daughter — led to intercourse, though, she said, she had not been particularly attracted to Mr. Trump and had not wanted to have sex with him. (She said she nonetheless went along of her own accord.)

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

“He said that it was great,” she said, and told her he had had “a great evening, and it was nothing like he expected, that I really surprised him, that a lot of people must underestimate me — that he hoped that I would be willing to see him again, and that we would discuss the things we had talked about earlier in the evening.”

Mr. Trump, she said, had raised the possibility that he get her onto his reality show, “Celebrity Apprentice” but it would not come to be.

She said that he had invited her to his Beverly Hills Hotel bungalow in 2007 to fill her in on that promise. The entertainment for the night, she said, was a “Shark Week” documentary. Mr. Trump, she said, wanted to have sex but this time she did not go along with it, and when he did not have an answer for her about being on the show, she left. She said he told her over the phone a month later that he would not be able to get her onto the program and that was effectively the end of it.

But when her story threatened to surface again in 2016, Ms. Clifford said, her lawyer, Keith Davidson, called her. “I think I have the best deal for you,” she said Mr. Davidson told her, presenting Mr. Cohen’s offer. (Mr. Davidson had also represented Ms. McDougal.)

When Mr. Cooper said some viewers would be skeptical that Ms. Clifford had made her decision because of a threat made years earlier, she said she “didn’t even negotiate” and “just quickly said ‘yes,’ to this very, you know, strict contract, and what most people will agree with me, extremely low number.” Ms. Clifford also said that she had “turned down a large payday multiple times.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Ms. Clifford said that she can remember the man’s face to this day and would recognize him immediately. Her new lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said earlier this month that she had been threatened, although he did not provide any details. At the time, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said, “Obviously we take the safety and security of any person seriously, certainly would condemn anyone threatening any individual.”

When the story about the payoff first broke earlier this year, Ms. Clifford had signed a statement emphatically denying that an affair had taken place. She told Mr. Cooper that she had been told that if she failed to sign it, “they can make your life hell in many different ways.” That sentiment, she indicated, was based on the terms of the agreement, not on any new threat of physical violence, though, she said, she felt both “intimidated” and “bullied.”

Lawyers for Mr. Cohen have said that Ms. Clifford faces $20 million in penalties for violating an agreement to remain quiet and that the agreement was still binding.

Ms. Clifford’s suit hinges on Mr. Avenatti’s argument that the agreement is invalid because Mr. Trump had not signed it. Mr. Cohen signed the agreement, representing the Delaware shell company Essential Consultants, through which he paid Ms. Clifford.

Mr. Cohen has denied any involvement by the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign. But Mr. Avenatti, through his various media appearances, has been trying to build a case that Mr. Cohen was acting in his capacity as a lawyer at the Trump Organization when he worked on the agreement. He presented new evidence on “60 Minutes”: a FedEx envelope showing that Mr. Davidson had sent the contract to Mr. Cohen at his office at the Trump Organization, and addressed a cover letter to him in his official Trump Organization capacity.

Mr. Cooper pressed Ms. Clifford on whether she was not coming forward to cash in on her affair now that Mr. Trump had become president. She did not apologize for the extra money she says she is already making as a dancer because of the surrounding publicity, but noted that she was also opening herself up to real financial risk.

Asked what she would tell the president if he was watching, she said, “He knows I’m telling the truth.”

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.


Continue reading the main story

Gas inhalation blamed for death of Iowa family visiting Mexico

LOS ANGELES — Mexican authorities today blamed “asphyxia by inhalation of toxic gases” for the deaths of four Iowa family members vacationing in the Caribbean resort town of Tulum.

The state attorney general’s office in the state of Quintana Roo said investigators were still trying to determine what kind of gas was involved.

The office said in a statement that members of the Sharp family — identified by authorities in their home state of Iowa as Kevin Sharp, 41, Amy Sharp, 38, and their children, 12-year-old Sterling and 7-year-old Adrianna — appeared to have been dead for 36 to 48 hours when their bodies were found Friday during a welfare check at the resort condominium they rented.

Officials said examinations of the bodies indicated the cause of death was hypoxia, or lack of oxygen, and that investigators thus ruled out suicide or violence.

“The bodies … showed no evidence or traces of violence, nor evidence of anything being disturbed inside the room, so violence from a possible theft was discarded,” according to a statement from the attorney general’s office.

Mexican investigators are now looking into the condo’s gas system to determine how the family was exposed to the toxic gas.

A Star Is Born: MLK’s Granddaughter At The March For Our Lives

Martin Luther King Jr’s granddaughter Yolanda Renee King(L) speaks next to student Jaclyn Corin during the March for Our Lives Rally in Washington, DC on March 24, 2018. Galvanized by a massacre at a Florida high school, hundreds of thousands of Americans are expected to take to the streets in cities across the United States on Saturday in the biggest protest for gun control in a generation. / AFP PHOTO / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Saturday’s massive rallies for gun control around the world—more than 800 of them—were centered on the largest of them all in Washington D.C., at the focus of the cause, the capital building. While the size of the crowd was impressive, the events on the stage were even more so. Speaker after speaker delivered powerful orations. Most of the speakers were students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, survivors of the Valentine’s Day shooting that took 17 souls.

Having witnessed the bloodshed first hand and having suffered the loss of close friends, their voices were filled with emotion. Having been the driving force behind the rally, their words were crafted with touching memories, meaningful facts, declarative sentences, and clear calls to action. And having spent the last month promoting the march in many media appearances (Time Magazine featured five of the students on this week’s cover: Jaclyn Coryn, Alex Wind, Cameron Kasky, David Hogg, and Emma Gonzalez) they delivered their words with forceful confidence.

Ms. Gonzalez—whose electrifying speech three days after the massacre in Parkland has made her a viral star with 1.2 million Twitters followers—electrified the Washington crowd again, this time with silence. She paused in the middle of her speech and stood stock still, staring straight ahead, tears streaming down her face for six minutes and twenty seconds. When she resumed, she told the audience that that was how long the Parkland shooting lasted.

However, all those eloquent teenage orators were outshone by a nine-year-old. Yvonne Renee King, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s granddaughter, walked onstage with only a hand microphone—no lectern, no notes, as all the high schoolers used—and in one minute and fifty seconds roused the crowd to a higher level than any other speaker.

Ms. King began:

My grandfather had a dream that his four little children would not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I have a dream that enough is enough and that this should be a gun free world. Period.

Then evoking her grandfather’s clerical technique of call and response, she said: