The Clinton camp and DNC funded what became the Trump-Russia dossier: Here’s what it means

Leave a reply

This post has been updated.

The Washington Post broke the story Tuesday night that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped pay for that now-famous dossier of research on President Trump.

The Post’s Adam Entous, Devlin Barrett and Rosalind S. Helderman report that powerful Democratic attorney Marc E. Elias retained the firm Fusion GPS for information, and Fusion GPS later hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent who was versed in Russia-related issues.

The dossier, which was published by BuzzFeed News in January, has been partially confirmed, though its most salacious allegations have not been.

There is a lot to sort through here. Below are four key points.

1) Clinton supporters — though not the campaign itself — were previously reported to fund the dossier

The fact Democrats were behind the funding for the dossier is not totally new. When CNN first reported on the dossier’s existence back in January, it said the research effort was originally funded by President Trump’s GOP opponents and then, when he won the nomination, by those supporting Clinton.

CNN reported back then that their sources “said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton.”

Until now, though, the dossier had not been tied specifically to the Clinton campaign or the DNC.

2) Yes, the dossier was funded by Democrats

Some of the pushback on the left has focused on the fact that a still-unidentified Republican client retained Fusion GPS to do research on Trump before the Clinton campaign and the DNC did. Thus, they argue, it’s wrong to say the dossier was just funded by Democrats.

But The Post is reporting that the dossier’s author, Steele, wasn’t brought into the mix until after Democrats retained Fusion GPS. So while both sides paid Fusion GPS, Steele was only funded by Democrats.

3) Trump’s allegation of FBI payments is still dubious

After the story posted, some on the right seized upon The Post noting the FBI had agreed to pay Steele for information after the campaign. The argument seemed to be that the FBI was engaged in a witch hunt against Trump using Democrats’ sources.

But The Post originally reported on the FBI’s agreement back in February. At the time, it also reported it never actually paid for the work after the agent was identified in news reports:

The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump’s political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to several people familiar with the arrangement.

. . .

Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy were interrupted as Steele’s now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Despite there being no proof the FBI actually paid Steele, Trump suggested it might have in a tweet last week — along with “Russia . . . or the Dems (or all).” Of those three groups, only Democrats have been reported to have actually paid Steele. And again, that was already kind-of known.

4) The appearance problems for Democrats

There is, presumably, a reason Democrats haven’t copped to funding the dossier — something they still haven’t publicly confirmed. Fusion GPS threatening to plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination also raised eyebrows last week.

First among those reasons is paying a foreigner for opposition research for an American political campaign. Given Democrats’ argument that Russia’s interference on Trump’s behalf was beyond the pale, the Clinton camp and the DNC paying a Brit for information would seem somewhat problematic.

(The Clinton campaign has also, notably, denied working with the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on Trump. Republicans have pushed dubious comparisons between the Ukraine allegation and Russia’s alleged Trump advocacy.)

Some on the right even alleged that Democrats paying Steele amounts to “collusion” with foreigners. But Russia-Steele comparisons aren’t apples-to-apples. The British after all are, unlike the Russians, America’s allies. Also, Steele was not acting as an agent of a foreign government, which is what would likely be required to prove collusion in the case of the Trump campaign and Russia.

Separately, the firm that the Clinton camp and the DNC paid also has alleged ties to the Kremlin. In Senate testimony in July, Hermitage Capital Management chief executive William Browder accused Fusion GPS and its head, Glenn Simpson, of running a smear campaign against Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian whistleblower who in 2009 was tortured and killed in a Russian prison after uncovering a $230 million tax theft. Magnitsky worked for Browder, and he is the namesake of a law containing sanctions that was passed by Congress and is a sore spot between the U.S. government and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Browder said the smear campaign was run by Fusion GPS with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin. You might remember them from the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. that took place in June 2016. Veselnitskaya was the Russian lawyer with alleged Kremlin ties who arranged the meeting.

As The Post reported in July of Browder’s accusations:

They were all allegedly working with the law firm Baker Hostetler to defend the Russian company Prevezon from charges it laundered funds stolen in the fraud Magnitsky uncovered.

“Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act,” Browder will testify. “He contacted a number of major newspapers and other publications to spread false information that Sergei Magnitsky was not murdered, was not a whistleblower and was instead a criminal. They also spread false information that my presentations to lawmakers around the world were untrue.”

Fusion GPS has confirmed it worked on a lawsuit involving Veselnitskaya for two years, The Post’s Josh Rogin reported. It denied any involvement in the Trump Jr. meeting.

The firm has worked with both Democrats and Republicans over the years.

 

Fatal shootings at Grambling State not random, sheriff says

Leave a reply

Authorities were searching Wednesday for a gunman who shot and killed a Grambling State University student and his friend after an altercation on the Louisiana college’s campus.

Lincoln Parish Sheriff Mike Stone said the suspect and victims knew each other “to some extent” and stressed that the shooting wasn’t random or an act of terrorism.

“There are no indicators that this incident bears any resemblance to any of the random acts of violence or domestic terrorism that have been experience around our country in recent weeks,” Stone said in a statement.

The suspect remained at large hours after the shooting, but classes at the historically black college were held as usual.

GOP House and Senate tax leaders threaten to break Trump’s promise not to change 401(k) rules

Leave a reply

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R) on Wednesday suggested that a tax bill he is preparing to introduce could force changes to 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts, potentially bucking a promise from President Trump that those accounts would be left alone.

The Texas congressman, speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, said, “We think in tax reform we can create incentives for people to save more and save sooner.”

He said he was “working very closely with the president” on the issue and added that many people who have tax-incentivized retirement accounts contribute $200 per month or less, a level he thought was too low. “We think we can do better,” Brady said. “We are continuing discussions with the president, all focused on saving more and saving sooner.”

[The Energy 202: Tax debate opens door for renewables to get same break as fossil fuels]

Several hours later, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) also said he would oppose Trump’s vow to protect 401(k) plans but that he was open to changes if they made sense. “I’m open to look at anything,” Hatch said Wednesday morning. “I don’t have any problem looking at everything.”

He also said he doesn’t feel pressure to change the Senate’s eventual tax bill because of pressure from the White House. “No I don’t think so,” Hatch said. “He has his point of view, and he may prove to be right in the end. We’ll just have to see. But I’m open-minded about it.”

Hatch said he hasn’t spoken with Trump about the 401(k) issue since the president sent his directive about it Monday morning.

Trump on Wednesday told reporters “401(k)s are very important,” noting their benefits for the middle class. And while he praised Brady as “fantastic,” he said it was unwise to negotiate on any changes to the tax code’s treatment of retirement plans.

Hatch is the top tax writer in the Senate, and he and Brady have outsized influence over how the tax legislation comes together.

Economists and financial advisers often urge people to begin saving for retirement as soon as possible because investment savings compound and grow much faster when people start contributing to it at a younger age. But Brady wouldn’t go into any details about how he planned to change incentives to encourage more savings. Rather, he suggested that the current construct of 401(k) accounts and Individual Retirement Accounts was not working well.

Democrats quickly pounced. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said Wednesday that 401(k) proposal was an example of GOP lawmakers working to eliminate middle-class tax benefits so they can cut tax rates for the wealthy.

“They cannot keep their hands off your 401(K),” Wyden said. “They can’t help themselves, and you bet we are going to take this to the mat. And they have clearly reopened once again this question of rolling back fundamental retirement protections for working-class people.”

[White House, GOP leaders scramble to prevent last-minute defections on tax-related measure]

Brady is planning to introduce his tax bill next week, which Republicans hope will lead to the most sweeping changes to the tax code in more than 30 years. But almost all the key details of the bill remain a mystery. Again and again on Wednesday, Brady said the most pressing decisions have not been reached.

For example, he said he hasn’t decided what income levels would merit certain tax rates or how many tax deductions to eliminate to partially offset the lower rates. He said he hasn’t decided whether to impose a top tax rate for the wealthiest Americans or whether the tax cuts would be retroactive to income earned in 2017.

He also wouldn’t say how the tax bill would affect the type of taxes paid by hedge fund managers, even though Trump has promised to eliminate their special preferences.

“In about a week, you will be able to see the reforms proposed and where we are heading with it,” Brady said. He said he couldn’t guarantee that every American would see their taxes go down because of the changes, but he could “guarantee that every American will be better off because of a simpler tax code that lowers those rates and improves their paychecks.”

This political caution is infuriating some Republicans, who feel that too many details are being kept secret too late in the process. Brady and GOP leaders want to pass the tax-cut bill by the end of the year, but some lawmakers are threatening to try to block a vote on a House budget resolution Thursday if they don’t have more details. A number of lawmakers from New York and New Jersey are concerned that the tax plan could eliminate the ability of people in their states to deduct state and local taxes from their federal taxable income.

Brady said Wednesday that discussions about state and local deductions are ongoing, and there was a meeting with concerned lawmakers Tuesday night. He said he was hopeful the issue will be resolved, but he did stop short of assuring reporters that the budget resolution would pass by Thursday. Republicans need to pass the budget resolution to ensure they can eventually pass a tax-cut bill without support from Democrats in the Senate.

GOP leaders were continuing to scramble Wednesday to mollify concerned members ahead of Thursday’s budget vote, and meetings were expected to continue throughout the day and evening.

But even if they resolve the issue of state and local taxes, the new flareup over 401(k)s reveals how many landmines remain.

These types of accounts allow people to contribute up to $18,000 a year pretax as a way to incentivize saving for retirement. Lowering the tax-free threshold could raise more revenue, but it could also rankle voters. In 2015, more than 50 million Americans had active 401(k) accounts.

House Republicans are hopeful that Brady will be able to pass his bill by the end of November, moving the process over to the Senate. Brady said adjustments to his bill will likely be made continuously to build support.

Even though many details remain unresolved, the White House and GOP leaders are aiming to write tax bills that meet several key targets. They want to lower the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, collapse the number of income brackets paid by families and individuals from seven to three, and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.

Democrats and a number of budget experts have said the GOP tax plan would predominantly benefit the wealthiest Americans, with some taxes actually going up on the middle class and upper-middle class. Brady dismissed these concerns, telling people to study the bill he introduces next week.

He said that after the tax cut measure becomes law, he will pivot his attention next year into dismantling the Internal Revenue Service through a process he described as a “bust up [of] the IRS as it is today.” He said he wants the focus of the changed agency to be “focused on that simpler, fairer tax code” that the bill would create.

The comments by Brady and Hatch show the immense pressure that congressional leaders are under to find new revenue to offset some of the sweeping tax cuts Trump has promised. The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has analyzed that Americans saved $67.2 billion in taxes by contributing to defined-contribution plans like 401(k) accounts in 2015. Some Republicans believe they need to eliminate at least $400 billion a year in tax deductions and incentives to ensure that their tax plan can pass the Senate according to certain rules.

If Brady is going to offer some Republicans major concessions on the state and local tax debate, he could be forced to seek new revenue elsewhere, and the retirement accounts appear to be one target.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Wednesday that the White House should not be putting down markers about what will and won’t be in the bill. Instead, he said, the White House should give lawmakers room to negotiate because they will have to make difficult decisions. Corker said they will ultimately need to eliminate $4 trillion in tax benefits over 10 years, something he said will take a “Herculean effort.”

“To begin telling them in advance what is on the table and off the table does nothing but hurt the effort,” said Corker, who has signaled he would eventually oppose the tax bill if it adds to the deficit.

Fats Domino, Rock and Roll Pioneer, Dead at 89

Leave a reply

Fats Domino, the genial, good-natured symbol of the dawn of rock and roll and the voice and piano behind enduring hits like “Blueberry Hill” and “Ain’t That a Shame,” died Tuesday at the age of 89. Mark Bone, chief investigator with the Jefferson Parish coroner’s office in Louisiana, confirmed his death to the Associated Press.

A contemporary of Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis, Domino was among the first acts inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and was reportedly only second to Presley in record sales thanks to a titanic string of 11 top 10 hits between 1955 and 1960.

Those hits, which also included “I’m Walkin’,” “Blue Monday” and “Walking to New Orleans,” sounded like nothing that came before. Thanks to his New Orleans upbringing, Domino’s signature songs fused Dixieland rhythms, his charming, Creole-flecked voice, and his rolling-river piano style. His hits, most co-written with his longtime producer and partner Dave Bartholomew, became rock standards, covered by Led Zeppelin, Cheap Trick, Randy Newman, Ricky Nelson, and John Lennon, among many others. Lennon, who remade “Ain’t That a Shame” (first called “Ain’t It a Shame” on Domino’s recording) on his 1975 Rock Roll album, said the song had special meaning for him: It was the first tune he ever learned to play, on a guitar bought for him by his late mother. “It was the first song I could accompany myself on,” he said in 1975. “It has a lot of memories for me.”

“After John Lennon and Paul McCartney, Fats Domino and his partner, Dave Bartholomew, were probably the greatest team of songwriters ever,” Dr. John told Rolling Stone in 2004. “They always had a simple melody, a hip set of chord changes, and a cool groove. And their songs all had simple lyrics; that’s the key.” Domino himself, who preferred to let his music rather than image do the talking, was typically modest about his accomplishments: “Everybody started callin’ my music rock and roll,” he once said, “but it wasn’t anything but the same rhythm and blues I’d been playin’ down in New Orleans.”

Born in 1928, Antoine Domino was playing piano and performing in New Orleans honky tonks and bars by the time he was a teenager. At 14, he dropped out of high school, taking jobs like hauling ice and working at a bedspring factory as a way to supplement his music. Domino’s career was effectively kicked off at New Orleans Hideaway Club. While playing piano in local bandleader Billy Diamond’s band, Diamond nicknamed Antoine “Fats” — partly in homage to keyboard-playing predecessors like Fats Waller and partly because, as Diamond told one crowd, “I call him ‘Fats,’ ‘cause if he keeps eating, he’s going to be just as big!” Domino was initially hesitant about the nickname, but it stuck.

Later, at the same club, Domino met Bartholomew and Imperial Records head Lew Chudd, who signed Domino to his label. In 1949, Domino cut his first Imperial single, “The Fat Man,” a rewrite of the drug-addiction song “Junker’s Blues” that many consider one of the earliest rock records. Although it didn’t make the top 40, “The Fat Man” was a huge RB hit and established Domino’s sound and image for decades to come. 

From then on, Domino’s hits kept coming. He scored nine gold singles, although he never had a No. 1 record on the pop chart. (Frustratingly, Pat Boone’s vanilla remake of “Ain’t That a Shame” did go No. 1 in pop in 1955.) In his memoir, Chuck Berry wrote admiringly that, in 1955, Domino was making $10,000 a week on tour.

From the start of his career, Domino wasn’t a larger-than-life figure like Presley or Lewis. Married at 20, he was a notorious homebody who eventually had eight children (all of whose names began with the letter “A”). Asked by Rolling Stone in 2007 about riots that took place during early rock and roll shows that featured him and other acts, Domino simply replied, “I don’t know. It wasn’t anything in the music, so it must have been something in the audience.”

Yet Domino’s influence was tangible. In 1968, Paul McCartney wrote the Beatles’ “Lady Madonna” with Domino in mind (Domino would cut his own version that same year). To ensure that bass guitars on his records could be heard above his rumbling piano, Bartholomew would double the bass and guitar parts — a technique later picked up on by Phil Spector for his Wall of Sound. Domino’s dexterous piano style, influenced by pioneering predecessors like Waller and Professor Longhair, also reverberated. “Anytime anybody plays a slow blues,” Dr. John told Rolling Stone, “the piano player will eventually get to something like Fats. It was pre-funk stuff and it was New Orleans and he did it all his way. He could do piano rolls with both hands. He was like Thelonious Monk in that way.”

In 1960, Domino released his last top 10 hit, “Walking to New Orleans.” Soon after, he left Imperial and continued recording for a number of other labels. As with his 1950s peers, he scored few hits from that point on — but more due to changing times than from the scandals or army duty that derailed Presley and Lewis. As Rolling Stone writer Charles M. Young wrote about Domino’s less-than-dark side, “Offstage, he gambled a bit, had a thing for fancy cars and jewelry and was known to cook beans in his hotel room.”

Domino continued to record and tour for decades after his initial success. In 2005, he was back in the news after his Lower Ninth Ward home was flooded to the roof during Hurricane Katrina. After initial reports that he was missing, Domino was eventually rescued and, with his wife Rosemary and one of their children, lifted into a boat. “I ain’t missin’ nothin’,” Domino said after the rescue. “Just one thing that happened, I guess. I’m just sorry it happened to me and everybody else, you know?” In the storm, he lost most of his possessions, including almost all of his gold records.

As disastrous as it was, Katrina also gave Domino a renewed life. Alive and Kickin’, a new album released a year after the storm, became one of his most acclaimed works (RS named it one of the top albums of the year). In 2007, he released Goin’ Home, an all-star Domino tribute album featuring covers by Elton John, Nell Young, Tom Petty, Robert Plant, Willie Nelson, Norah Jones, Lenny Kravitz, and Lucinda Williams.

Of his partner’s contributions to rock history, Bartholomew said Domino is “just like the cornerstone — you build a new church and you lay the cornerstone, and if the church burns down, the cornerstone is still there.”

Fats Domino – “Blueberry Hill”


Fats Domino – “Ain’t That a Shame”


Fats Domino – “I’m Walkin'”


Fats Domino – “Blue Monday”

Brother of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock reportedly detained in child porn case

Leave a reply

A brother of Las Vegas mass shooter Stephen Paddock has reportedly been detained in North Hollywood on suspicion of crimes related to child pornography.

Bruce Paddock, 58, was taken into custody in North Hollywood on Wednesday morning, according to a source who was not authorized to speak publicly about the case and requested anonymity.

The Los Angeles Police Department said a man was detained in the 5300 block of Laurel Canyon Boulevard on suspicion of crimes related to child pornography. However, the LAPD would not reveal the name of the man.

Documents filed Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court outlined 20 criminal charges against a Bruce Douglas Paddock, all related to possession of child pornography or the sexual exploitation of a child. The felony complaint for arrest warrant said that Paddock stands accused of having more than 600 images of child or youth pornography, including 10 or more images showing a child younger than 12.

The Latest: Official: Spain won’t accept Catalan declaration

Leave a reply

MADRID — In a long-awaited speech, Catalan regional president Carles Puigdemont affirmed on Tuesday the right of Catalonia to be an independent country. But he notably stopped short of declaring the region an independent polity, calling for further dialogue with the Spanish government.

By suspending the secession process, Puigdemont opened the door to critics and observers in Spain and across the European Union who feared the rise of separatism in the increasingly embattled 28-state bloc. He said that Catalonia’s conflict with Spain could be resolved in a rational way and suggested exploring international mediation as a possible solution.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Spanish government rejected any offer of negotiation.

All throughout a long and often bitter process, Madrid fiercely rejected the prospect of Catalan independence, deploying police to interrupt the vote in violent clashes and threatening to throw Puigdemont in jail if he went any further. Spain’s constitution court had ruled Catalonia’s referendum illegal, and although a majority voted to leave Spain, fewer than 50 percent of Catalan residents ultimately cast ballots.

Following Puigdemont’s remarks, a Spanish government official, speaking to the Spanish news agency EFE, reaffirmed on Tuesday evening the illegality of the Catalan referendum and that “the claimed results of a fraudulent and illegal referendum cannot be taken as valid either.” The Spanish government has not yet made an official response.

[Everything you need to know about the Catalonia vote]

Puigdemont’s address, delivered more than a week after the referendum, is likely to resolve little in an escalating conflict that has shocked observers worldwide.

In a move that some commentators said was intended to please both sides, he presented Catalan independence as an inevitability, but delayed the prospect of independence to allow room for further discussion with Spanish and European officials.

“I want to follow the people’s will for Catalonia to become an independent state,” he said. But Puigdemont also said that by suspending the independence process, “we are making a gesture of responsibility in favor of dialogue.”

Following the referendum, European leaders had warned Catalan authorities not to make a rash decision that would preclude any negotiations with an angry Madrid.

Earlier on Tuesday, Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, addressed Puigdemont directly, urging him not to go through with independence in a strongly worded statement.

“A few days ago I asked Prime Minister [Mariano] Rajoy to look for a solution to the problem without the use of force, to look for dialogue, because the force of argument is always better than the argument of force,” Tusk said. “Today I ask you to respect in your intentions the constitutional order and not to announce a decision that would make such a dialogue impossible.”

Puigdemont’s remarks suggest that he heeded those exhortations, but his political opponents were quick to pounce on the potential for a future crisis they still see as imminent.

“No one in Europe is going to accept a declaration of independence whether it be deferred, delayed or in phases,” said Ines Arrimadas, a leader of the Citizens Party, who gave the first response to Puigdemont’s speech in the Catalan Parliament on Tuesday evening.

“This was never about democracy. This was always about independence,” she said. “It wasn’t about polls. It was about nationalism. Nationalism is the antithesis of the project that is Europe. You are in the wrong place and century.”

Others, particularly some among his allies, expressed disappointment and outrage that Puigdemont did not go further with pushing for immediate independence.

Barcelona’s city government estimated that approximately 30,000 people were crowded near the parliament building, awaiting the contents of the speech. Many erupted in cheers as Puigdemont said he “assumed the mandate” for an independent Catalonia but soon fell silent when he then said that secession would be suspended. Some whistled their disapproval.

“We thought that what was going to happen was the solemn declaration of independence of the Catalan Republic,” said Anna Gabriel, a leader of the far-left anarchist CUP party that partners with Puigdemont’s party to form a fragile pro-independence coalition. “We believed that that is what today was about and that maybe we have missed the chance.”

Puigdemont’s remarks, postponed an hour due to what Spanish media claimed were 11th-hour negotiations, did not address the large or small logistical concerns that independence would present.

For one, European officials have suggested that Catalonia would not be automatically welcomed into the European Union and would need to apply. On a more local level, French officials, in allegiance with Spain, have said they would not consider a newly formed state a legal entity. Nathalie Loiseau, France’s minister of European affairs, said Monday that France would not recognize an independent Catalonia on its borders — a move that could leave the region isolated and vulnerable.

“If there were to be a declaration of independence, it would be unilateral, and it would not be recognized,” she said.

Catalonia, which prides itself on being the wealthiest region in Spain, is now also facing a mass exodus by some of the biggest companies based in its capital, Barcelona.

Conglomerates such as Colonial, Abertis and Cellnex all joined the banks Sabadell and Caixabank and energy company Gas Natural to switch fiscal headquarters to Madrid or other Spanish cities in advance of a possible declaration of independence.

In all, at least 11 publicly listed companies worth approximately more than $80 billion have changed their fiscal addresses in the past week. Pharmaceutical Grifols is the only company from the Ibex-35 exchange still based in Barcelona, but there are rumors that it, too, could move.

In a symbolic gesture, the president of the Catalan sparkling wine company Freixenet, long identified as a symbol of the region’s heritage and international appeal, said he would ask the board to move its headquarters out of Catalonia should independence be announced.

[Spain’s king calls independence vote ‘totally outside law and democracy’ ]

These concerns seemed to trouble even some of Puigdemont’s allies.

The lack of an independent border force, for instance, was among the concerns voiced by Artur Mas, Catalonia’s former president and current leader of the region’s governing, pro-separation Catalan European Democratic Party.

In an interview with the Financial Times on Friday, Mas said that while Catalonia has “won the right to become an independent state,” it was not yet ready for “real independence.”

Among Mas’s principal concerns were issues such as border control, tax collection and a functioning judicial system independent from Madrid — none of which Catalonia can currently claim.

In remarks that fanned the flames of outrage in Catalonia, a spokesman for Spain’s center-right ruling party warned that Puigdemont could face jail time if he declares independence.

Specifically, the spokesman said, he might “end up” like the previous Catalan president who proclaimed independence in 1934: Lluís Companys, who was imprisoned and ultimately executed by firing squad in 1940 by the regime of dictator Francisco Franco.

Rajoy, Spain’s prime minister, has refused to budge. Should the region attempt to secede from Spain, he said, Madrid is ready to suspend Catalonia’s regional government and demand new elections.

In his speech, Puidgemont suggested that secession proceedings could formally begin in as soon as “a few weeks.”

McAuley reported from Paris. Brian Murphy in Washington contributed to this report.

Read more:

‘We don’t know how good we have it here’: Many Catalans don’t want a break with Spain

Catalonia’s pro-independence parents occupy polling stations in mass act of civil disobedience

Why Catalonia poses a real crisis for both Spain and Europe

Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Roger Goodell says NFL believes players should stand during national anthem

Leave a reply

Dolphins players before a game this month in London (Henry Browne/Getty Images)

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Tuesday that team owners will discuss a plan when they meet next week for dealing with the raging national controversy over players’ protests during the national anthem, adding that while the league respects the right of its players to express their opinions, it believes they should stand during the playing of the anthem.

While stopping short of saying the NFL would require its players to stand, Goodell strongly suggested in a letter to NFL teams that at next week’s meeting the league would propose to owners that players be required to do so, while also providing a platform to recognize their community activism.

“Like many of our fans, we believe that everyone should stand for the national anthem,” Goodell wrote to NFL club presidents and chief executives. “It is an important moment in our game. We want to honor our flag and our country, and our fans expect that of us. We also care deeply about our players and respect their opinions and concerns about critical social issues. The controversy over the anthem is a barrier to having honest conversations and making real progress on the underlying issues. We need to move past this controversy, and we want to do that together with our players.”

Goodell said the league’s plan would include “an in-season platform to promote the work of players” on social issues, “and that will help to promote positive change in our country.”

Next week’s meeting in New York was previously scheduled, but the ongoing controversy over the national anthem forced the issue to the top of the agenda. “There is no fixed proposal. We will have a discussion around all of these issues,” said one person familiar with the league’s deliberations.

Goodell has had recent discussions with owners and player leaders over the anthem issue. One set of conversations has come with a group of players including Malcolm Jenkins, Anquan Boldin, Michael Bennett and Torrey Smith. Those players have asked for official league support of players’ community activism.

“I expect and look forward to a full and open discussion of these issues when we meet next week in New York,” Goodell wrote. “Everyone involved in the game needs to come together on a path forward to continue to be a force for good within our communities, protect the game, and preserve our relationship with fans throughout the country. The NFL is at its best when we ourselves are unified. In that spirit, let’s resolve that next week we will meet this challenge in a unified and positive way.”

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, was asked about Goodell’s letter at her daily briefing and said: “We would support the NFL coming out and asking players to stand, as the president has done … Our position hasn’t changed on that front. We’re glad to see NFL taking positive steps in that direction.”

The NFL Players Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Goodell’s memo.

Joe Lockhart, the NFL’s executive vice president of communications and public affairs, declined in a conference call with reporters Tuesday morning to give a direct answer when asked whether the league believes that a team, under current rules, is within its rights to compel its players to stand for the anthem.

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Sunday that any Cowboys player who protests during the anthem and, in Jones’s view, thereby shows disrespect to the American flag will be benched and will not play.

[Trump renews criticism of ESPN, suspended anchor Jemele Hill]

Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross also has said he expects his team’s players to stand for the anthem. The Dolphins enacted a policy this past weekend by their coach, Adam Gase, in which players must stand for the anthem if on the team’s sideline, but have the option to remain in the locker room or in the tunnel leading to the field for the anthem.

“We’re going to do this together as an ownership group and a league with the players,” Lockhart said Tuesday.

[Sally Jenkins: There are two sides to the NFL anthem debate. Neither is totally right or totally wrong.]

Owners are scheduled to meet next Tuesday and Wednesday in Manhattan. It is their regular fall meeting and was scheduled before the anthem controversy was amplified by recent comments made by President Trump criticizing players for protesting during the national anthem.

“I think everyone at this point is frustrated by this situation,” Lockhart said, and added: “The commissioner and the owners do want the players to stand.”

The owners’ meeting will include “a discussion about the entire issue, including the [anthem] policy,” said Lockhart, who declined to make a prediction about the outcome of those deliberations.

Lockhart said “nothing has changed” regarding the league’s view of enforcing anthem-related guidelines in its game operations manual. That manual, distributed to teams by the league, says that players must be on the sideline for the anthem and should be standing. Failure to be on the sideline could result in discipline being imposed, the manual says. The league has not issued any discipline this season for such violations.

“It doesn’t say the players must stand,” Lockhart said. “It says the players should stand.”

Lockhart said he does not know whether DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFLPA, and other union representatives were told by Goodell and New York Giants co-owner John Mara during a meeting last week that players would not face discipline for protests during the anthem, as Smith said Monday.

“Last week both the commissioner and the chair of the NFL Management Council John Mara were clear when they assured our union leaders, in the presence of other owners, that they would respect the Constitutional rights of our members without retribution,” Smith said in a written statement Monday.

Lockhart said he does not believe that any potential changes to the sport’s anthem policies would have to be collectively bargained with the players’ union.

Those guidelines are spelled out in the game operations manual, not the publicly available NFL rule book.

The NFL’s game operations manual says: “The national anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the national anthem.

“During the national anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the national anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”

The Cowboys are on their bye week and do not play this weekend, so their next game will come after the owners’ meeting. The Dolphins play Sunday at Atlanta.

Three Dolphins players last weekend were not on the field for the anthem. Two Cowboys players raised their fists at the conclusion of the anthem Sunday night, but Jones said Sunday night he had not seen that.

Trump has been unyielding. He said he instructed Vice President Pence to leave Sunday’s Colts-49ers game in Indianapolis if players protested during the national anthem, and later praised Pence’s early exit. Trump suggested Tuesday on Twitter that what he described as “massive tax breaks” received by the NFL should be addressed.

“Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!” Trump wrote.

Lockhart pointed out that the NFL relinquished its tax-exempt status in 2015 and that individual teams were taxed even when the league had that status.

“Even when we had tax exempt status, it did not result in a tax break …. We do not receive any massive tax breaks, none at all,” Lockhart said.

Some owners seem wary of the business implications of the anthem controversy and the public feud with the White House. To this point, there has been no indication of any major sponsors dropping the NFL. The league has disputed a link between the protests and sagging TV ratings. But the NFL has acknowledged that it knows many fans are angry and sponsors are wary of the league engaging in a very heated and public political debate.

David Nakamura contributed to this report.

Read more:

Tony Dungy says there’s more to player demonstrations than Jerry Jones is acknowledging

Mike Ditka says he knows of no oppression in the U.S. for ‘100 years’

Cracks emerge in initial show of solidarity between players, owners

How Brad Pitt Threatened Harvey Weinstein After He Allegedly Harassed Gwyneth Paltrow

Leave a reply

Brad Pitt threatened to beat up Harvey Weinstein after his then-girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow told him that the movie mogul had sexually harassed her.

Paltrow is one of dozens of women coming forward to accuse Weinstein of sexual misconduct, telling the New York Times that the movie mogul made unwanted advances towards her in a hotel room when she was 22. The encounter, which she says occurred after Weinstein hired her for the lead role in Emma, allegedly ended with him placing his hands on her and suggesting a massage.

Pitt, who was dating Paltrow at the time, confronted Weinstein about the incident at a Hollywood party around 1995, a source tells PEOPLE.

“Brad threatened Harvey,” says the source. “He got right in his face, poked him in the chest and said, ‘You will not ever do this to Gwyneth ever again.’ “

The source adds that Pitt “made it clear there would be consequences” if Weinstein tried anything again, and “described it as giving Harvey a ‘Missouri whooping.’” (Pitt grew up in Springfield, Missouri.)

BEI/REX/Shutterstock
Paltrow and Weinstein in 1999.

“He made it absolutely clear this was not going to happen again and it didn’t,” explains the source.

As for Weinstein’s response, the source says, “At first Harvey tried to explain, then he stopped and listened and got the message.”

The source notes that Pitt was not yet a major star at the time, and was “taking a big risk” by confronting Weinstein: “He was a young guy in Hollywood taking a chance.”

Still, the source says, “He’s one of the only men in Hollywood who stood up and said something. That’s a fact.”

After the confrontation, Paltrow told the NYT that Weinstein called her and threatened her not to speak to anyone else about it. “I thought he was going to fire me,” she told the paper. “He screamed at me for a long time. It was brutal.”

Paltrow, who would go on to win a Best Actress Oscar in 1999 for the Weinstein-produced Shakespeare in Love, “feels relieved and pleased to have spoken out,” says the source.

Pitt also worked with Weinstein again, starring in Inglourious Basterds in 2009, which The Weinstein Company released and Harvey executive produced. Says the source: “He did Inglourious Basterds because of his relationship with Quentin Tarantino, and had nothing to do with Harvey.”

Gwyneth Paltrow andBrad Pitt

Kevin Mazur Archive/WireImage
Paltrow and Pitt in 1996.

In the NYT report that ran last week, eight women — including actress Ashley Judd — spoke out against Weinstein, accusing him of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. The paper also reported that Weinstein reached private settlements with eight women, including actress Rose McGowan.

On Tuesday, a new story in The New Yorker revealed — among 13 different women’s accounts of alleged sexual harassment, assault or rape — that the mogul allegedly forcibly performed oral sex on Italian actress Asia Argento two decades ago. Actresses Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette also claimed that after rejecting Weinstein’s unwanted advances, they were removed from or kept from being hired for projects.

In response to the lengthy allegations made against Weinstein in the New Yorker piece, a spokesperson for Weinstein said, “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein.”

RELATED VIDEO: Harvey Weinstein Forced Out of Own Company After Sexual Harassment Allegations

“Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance.”

On Sunday, Weinstein was removed from his powerhouse film studio in the wake of the publication of the allegations in the first New York Times report published last week.

Trump proposes ‘IQ tests’ faceoff with Tillerson after secretary of state calls him a ‘moron’

Leave a reply

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, right, listens as President Trump speaks at a luncheon during the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 21 in New York. (Evan Vucci/AP)

President Trump proposed an “IQ tests” faceoff with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after the nation’s top diplomat reportedly called the president a “moron” and disparaged his grasp of foreign policy.

In an interview with Forbes magazine published Tuesday, Trump fired a shot at Tillerson over the “moron” revelation, first reported by NBC News and confirmed by several other news organizations, including The Washington Post.

“I think it’s fake news,” Trump said, “but if he did that, I guess we’ll have to compare IQ tests. And I can tell you who is going to win.”

Trump met for lunch Tuesday with Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in the president’s private dining room at the White House. Shortly before the lunch, a reporter asked Trump whether he had undercut Tillerson with his comments to Forbes.

“No, I didn’t undercut anybody. I don’t believe in undercutting people,” Trump said during a brief media appearance in the Oval Office, as he sat beside former secretary of state Henry Kissinger during a meeting to discuss foreign affairs.

When a reporter asked Trump whether he has confidence in Tillerson as his secretary of state, the president replied, “Yes.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders later said that Trump’s “IQ tests” comment to Forbes was “a joke and nothing more than that.”

“The president certainly never implied that the secretary of state was not incredibly intelligent,” Sanders said in Tuesday afternoon’s news briefing. She added that Trump has “100 percent confidence” in Tillerson, characterized their lunch as “a great visit” and admonished reporters for taking the president’s comment so seriously. “Maybe you guys should get a sense of humor and try it sometime,” Sanders said.

Trump’s “IQ tests” challenge is the latest evidence of what White House officials have described as a breach of trust between the president and the secretary of state.

[‘Death spiral’: Tillerson makes nice but may not last long with Trump]

Reporters asked Trump over the weekend about his relationship with Tillerson.

“We have a very good relationship,” Trump said Saturday. “We disagree on a couple of things. Sometimes I’d like him to be a little bit tougher. But other than that, we have a very good relationship.”

In the Forbes interview, for the magazine’s cover story under the headline “Inside Trump’s Head,” the president teases upcoming economic-development legislation “nobody knows about” that would penalize companies that move operations overseas, and offer incentives for those that stay in the United States.

Trump previewed what he called “an economic-development bill, which I think will be fantastic. Which nobody knows about. Which you are hearing about for the first time.” The president said the policy is “both a carrot and a stick.”

Trump also told Forbes that he has purposefully not filled many jobs throughout the federal government, including at the State Department, where many of the top positions remain vacant.

“I’m generally not going to make a lot of the appointments that would normally be — because you don’t need them,” Trump said. “I mean, you look at some of these agencies, how massive they are, and it’s totally unnecessary. They have hundreds of thousands of people.”