AP Photo/Evan Vucci

• President Donald Trump, furious over the Michael Cohen raids and surrounded by few moderating voices to control his instincts, appears to be on the cusp of firing deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.
• Trump has been simmering at Rosenstein for months, but he reportedly viewed the FBI’s raid of his longtime lawyer as a personal affront and a politically motivated hit job.
• The president’s fury is compounded by his decision to surround himself with those who cater to his most rash impulses.

---

President Donald Trump has come unhinged after the FBI raided the offices and home of his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen.

The next person to likely face the chopping block: deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.

The president’s frustration with Rosenstein, attorney general Jeff Sessions, and other top Department of Justice officials is not new. But his animosity toward Rosenstein, in particular, has taken on a new significance as Trump relies increasingly on loyalists, like the conservative firebrands Sean Hannity and Joseph diGenova, and shuns others who may guard against his worst instincts.

Trump was reportedly enraged after it surfaced that FBI agents working for the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York raided Cohen’s property Monday morning, seizing electronic devices, personal financial records, and attorney-client communications between Trump and Cohen.

The Southern District of New York reportedly initiated the Cohen raids upon receiving a referral from the special counsel Robert Mueller after he likely uncovered evidence of potential wrongdoing related to Cohen that fell outside the purview of his investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 US election and the Trump campaign’s possible involvement.

Cohen has been referred to at different times as Trump’s fixer, “pit bull,” and consigliere. In addition to facing legal scrutiny for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations, Cohen is a subject of interest in at least four investigative threads related to Trump. As the president’s right-hand man, Cohen also has intimate knowledge of Trump’s most closely guarded secret: his personal finances.

Trump reacted to news of the raids on Monday by lashing out at top DOJ and FBI officials and described the investigations as a “TOTAL WITCH HUNT” in an early-morning tweet on Tuesday. In addition to publicly fuming about the news, Trump also privately began wondering whether he should fire Rosenstein, The New York Times reported.

The president’s fury ratcheted up another notch when it emerged that Rosenstein had personally signed off on the FBI’s decision to raid Cohen’s office.

“He takes the Russia stuff as a political hit job,” one source close to Trump told Axios. The Cohen raid “was a personal affront. This was the red line,” they added.

Some of Trump’s legal advisers have also argued that they have a strong case to support Rosenstein’s firing, CNN reported.

They apparently believe they can successfully prove Rosenstein has overstepped his authority and that he is conflicted because he is also a witness in the Russia investigation, given that he recommended Trump fire FBI director James Comey last year, per the report.

‘I’ve never seen him like this before’

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The already delicate atmosphere in the West Wing is complicated by the fact that many of the voices who previously served as bulwarks against Trump’s worst impulses have either left or been forced out of his orbit.

H.R. McMaster, the former national security adviser and a moderating influence in the White House, was ousted last month and replaced by former UN ambassador John Bolton.

Following reports that Bolton planned to “clean house” on the National Security Council, the White House homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, was forced out Tuesday.

John Dowd, the seasoned defense attorney who was leading Trump’s communications with Mueller’s office, resigned from his legal team last month, reportedly frustrated that Trump was not following his advice. Trump’s personal defense team is now spearheaded by Jay Sekulow, who has appeared frequently on Fox News and has little experience with high-profile criminal defense cases.

Trump is also said to be growing increasingly frustrated with the White House counsel Don McGahn, Axios reported on Wednesday. McGahn was critical in convincing Trump not to fire Mueller last year — according to The Times, Trump ordered McGahn to dismiss the special counsel last July but backed off when McGahn threatened to resign.

Perhaps the most consequential departure was that of Hope Hicks, the former communications director who left the administration last month after facing increased scrutiny over her role in the scandal surrounding former staff secretary Rob Porter.

Hicks has been described as the person Trump was closest to and most comfortable with outside of his family, and she was often able to help him control his anger when controversies hit.

The Cohen raid was “the first crisis post-Hope Hicks,” one source told Axios. “This was different: I’ve never seen him like this before.”

Leaning on more audacious voices

Getty Images

In addition to moving away from moderating forces, the president is also seeking the company of individuals who cater to his moods.

The Daily Beast reported that Trump dined with the Fox News pundit Jesse Watters and the controversial former White House aide Sebastian Gorka at the White House last month.

In recent weeks, Trump has also met or spoken with figures like former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and the Fox News host and ardent Trump defender Sean Hannity.

Following news of the Cohen raids on Monday, Hannity led his show with: “This is now officially an all-hands-on-deck effort to totally malign and, if possible, impeach the president of the United States.”

“Mueller and Rosenstein have declared what is a legal war on the president,” he added.

Meanwhile, Joseph diGenova, the controversial former federal prosecutor who was under consideration to join Trump’s legal team, told Fox News on Monday that Congress should move to impeach Rosenstein and FBI director Christopher Wray.

The next day, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes told the conservative commentator Laura Ingraham he was prepared to impeach Rosenstein and Wray if they did not hand over documents he was seeking related to the Russia probe.

Trump picked up the thread Wednesday morning.

“No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back), so now they do the Unthinkable, and RAID a lawyers office for information! BAD!” he tweeted.

The president added that the US’s deteriorating relationship with Russia was caused by the Russia probe, “headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for [former President Barack] Obama.”

Trump then slammed Mueller for being the “most conflicted of all.”

The only person more conflicted than Mueller, the president said, was Rosenstein.

President Trump warned Wednesday that U.S. airstrikes on Syria “will be coming” in retaliation for a suspected chemical attack, although he did not say when, and he taunted Syrian ally Russia for a pledge to shoot down American missiles.

Both the United States and Russia escalated a war of words over claims of indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Syria, raising the possibility of open military conflict between the old Cold War adversaries.

“Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’” Trump wrote on Twitter, referring to missile strikes that have appeared likely since the weekend deaths of more than 40 Syrian civilians, including children.

It was the first explicit U.S. statement that a military response is in the offing, and it marked a turnabout for a president who ridiculed his predecessor, Barack Obama, for allegedly telegraphing military strategy.

By addressing his warning to Russia, Trump effectively acknowledged that Syria could become a proxy battleground. Russia is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s strongest military defender. The United States conducts counterterrorism operations in Syria and backs some anti-Assad rebels.

“You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!” Trump wrote, in one of his most direct criticisms of Moscow.

Russian President Vladi­mir Putin did not directly respond to Trump’s tweets when he appeared at the Kremlin several hours later, at a ceremony welcoming new foreign ambassadors to Moscow. But he told the assembled diplomats that “the state of things in the world cannot but provoke concern.”

“The situation in the world is increasingly chaotic,” Putin said. “Nevertheless, we hope that common sense will prevail in the end and that international relations will become more constructive — that the whole global system will become more stable and predictable.”

Earlier this week, Trump said his administration was working on a response to the suspected chemical attack on Saturday, including military options. He said Monday that a decision would come in 24 to 48 hours, a time frame that has now elapsed and has been complicated by the advent of an international inspection of the attack area.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia did not plan to respond in kind to Trump’s tweeted taunt.

“We do not participate in Twitter diplomacy,” Peskov said, according to Russian news reports. “We are supporters of serious approaches. We continue to believe that it is important not to take steps that could harm an already fragile situation.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that a missile strike could undermine the work of international inspectors who will examine the site of the suspected chemical attack.

“Smart missiles should be fired at terrorists and not at the legitimate government which has been fighting terrorists,” Zakharova wrote on Facebook. “Or is the trick to destroy all the traces with a smart missile strike and then there will be no evidence for international inspectors to look for?”

Trump appeared to be referring to a comment from Russia’s ambassador to Lebanon, who was quoted by a Lebanese news outlet Tuesday as saying that Russia would confront a U.S. strike on Syria by shooting down missiles and striking their launchpads or points of origin.

The missiles most likely to be used in a U.S. attack would probably be launched from U.S. warships, opening the possibility that the Russian diplomat was threatening open warfare.

Two Navy destroyers were used to launch more than 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in April 2017 in response to a nerve-agent attack that Trump blamed on Assad. The destroyers were underway in the Mediterranean Sea when the missiles were launched from hundreds of miles away. That position was beyond the range of Syrian air defenses, but within range of potential Russian defenses.

The 2017 U.S. assault is probably the best guide for what Trump may do now, but he could choose other launch options . The strike a year ago made good on Trump’s vow not to let the use of chemical weapons go unpunished, but it failed to deter Assad from using them again.

[Experts see hallmarks of nerve gas in Syria attack]

The United States has been building a circumstantial case, based largely on videos and photographs, that a chemical attack by Syrian forces took place in the rebel-held town of Douma in the Eastern Ghouta region near Damascus.

Such a finding of fault would be the justification for a U.S. or allied military response that Syria and Russia would surely call a violation of international law. The finding would also help British and French leaders justify military participation with the unpopular American president.

Syria and Russia have insisted that no chemical attack occurred and that only the opposition groups they call “terrorists” possess chemical weapons.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was asked Wednesday whether he has seen sufficient evidence to blame the Assad government for the attack.

“We’re still assessing the intelligence, ourselves and our allies,” Mattis replied.

“We stand ready to provide military options if they are appropriate, as the president determined.”

Gen. Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, has said the military would hit back if U.S. airstrikes endangered Russian servicemen in Syria.

“Regarding the question of what will happen in the event of this or that strike, one still wants to hope that all sides will avoid steps that (a) are not provoked by anything in reality and (b) could significantly destabilize the already fragile situation in the region,” Peskov said Wednesday.

A top Russian military official said Russian military police would enter Douma on Friday. He continued to dispute U.S. claims that a chemical attack took place in the town.

The official, Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, deputy chief of operations of the Russian General Staff , said the United States should instead pay attention to the humanitarian situation in the city of Raqqa, which Kurdish-led forces and their American allies captured from the Islamic State last year.

“Rather than declare its readiness to strike Syria with missiles, the United States should work on rebuilding the destroyed city and offer comprehensive help to the population,” Poznikhir said.

In a later tweet Wednesday morning, Trump asserted that “our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War.”

“There is no reason for this,” Trump wrote. “Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?”

He later wrote that “much of the bad blood” with Russia was the result of an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He called the investigation “Fake Corrupt.”

Trump charged that the investigation is “headed up by all Democrat loyalists.” He cited special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whom he called the “most conflicted of all,” and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who is overseeing the probe.

Both Mueller and Rosenstein are Republicans.

With his series of tweets, Trump did precisely what he vowed he would never to do: telegraph his moves.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump regularly attacked Obama for previewing U.S. military strategy, which he argued gave the enemy an advantage by allowing it to fortify itself for the coming attack.

“I have often said that General MacArthur and General Patton would be in a state of shock if they were alive today to see the way President Obama and Hillary Clinton try to recklessly announce their every move before it happens — like they did in Iraq — so that the enemy can prepare and adapt,” Trump said in an August 2016 speech on terrorism.

As president, Trump has boasted that he does not disclose his plans ahead of time. In April 2017, as he contemplated a strike in Syria, Trump said, “One of the things I think you’ve noticed about me is: Militarily, I don’t like to say where I’m going and what I’m doing.”

In Geneva, the World Health Organization said Wednesday that it was “deeply alarmed” by the reports that chemical weapons were used in Syria. At least 43 people were killed Saturday night from suspected exposure, while some 500 patients poured into medical facilities that had been also been bombed, the organization said.

“We should all be outraged at these horrific reports and images from Douma,” said Peter Salama, the WHO deputy director general of emergency preparedness and response.

On Tuesday, a network of local flight monitors in Syria said they had tracked several helicopters heading southwest from a government air base Saturday. The same models of aircraft were later detected circling over Douma at 7:26 p.m. to 7:38 p.m. Reports of a suspected gas attack began circulating minutes later.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a global watchdog, said Tuesday that its inspectors were preparing to deploy to Syria and that Assad’s government has been approached for permission to enter Douma.

But the scope of its mandate remained unclear. The organization is not responsible for naming the perpetrators of any chemical attack, and previous inspectors have said their missions were hampered by government restrictions.

Troianovski reported from Moscow. Philip Rucker in Washington and Louisa Loveluck in Istanbul contributed to this report.

Read more:

There’s no victory for Trump in Syria, but he could court disaster

Kremlin backers warn of threat of war with U.S. as Syria tensions rise

Trump tweets condemnation of Syria chemical attack, saying Putin shares the blame

For at least a year, the biggest page on Facebook purporting to be part of the Black Lives Matter movement was a scam with ties to a middle-aged white man in Australia, a review of the page and associated accounts and websites conducted by CNN shows.

The page, titled simply “Black Lives Matter,” had almost 700,000 followers on Facebook, more than twice as many as the official Black Lives Matter page. It was tied to online fundraisers that brought in at least $100,000 that supposedly went to Black Lives Matter causes in the U.S. At least some of the money, however, was transferred to Australian bank accounts, CNN has learned.

Fundraising campaigns associated with the Facebook page were suspended by PayPal and Patreon after CNN contacted each of the companies for comment. Donorbox and Classy had already removed the campaigns.

The discovery raises new questions about the integrity of Facebook’s platform and the content hosted there. In the run-up to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress this week, Facebook has announced plans to make the people running large pages verify their identity and location. But it’s not clear that the change would affect this page: Facebook has not said what information about page owners it will disclose to the public — and, presented with CNN’s findings, Facebook initially said the page didn’t violate its “Community Standards.”

Only after almost a week of emails and calls between CNN and Facebook about this story did Facebook suspend the page, and then only because it had suspended a user account that administrated the page.

The discovery also raises questions about Facebook’s commitment to change, and to policing its platform, even in the midst of its PR offensive leading up to Zuckerberg’s testimony. Not for the first time, Facebook took action against a major bad actor on its site not on its own but because journalists made inquiries.

Indeed, Facebook was told of concerns about the page some time ago. Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, told CNN that Black Lives Matter had, suspecting the page was a scam, contacted Facebook about removing it a few months ago.

The Facebook page was — separate from Facebook’s suspension of it — apparently taken down by a person who administrated the page shortly after CNN contacted one of the Australian men who may be associated with it. “Black Lives Matter” appears to have been set up some time in 2016.

The people behind the page also ran a hugely popular Facebook Group also titled “Black Lives Matter.” With almost 40,000 members, it appears to be the biggest group on the platform professing to be supporting Black Lives Matter. Facebook Groups are similar to traditional discussion forums, and unlike pages, people normally need to request to join.

Related: Facebook’s new rules for Pages are a big deal, but there are major questions

The page consistently linked to websites tied to Ian Mackay, a National Union of Workers official in Australia. The union represents thousands of workers across various industries.

A spokesperson for the National Union of Workers said Tuesday that it has suspended Mackay and one other official while it investigates the situation.

The union “is not involved in and has not authorized any activities with reference to claims made in CNN’s story,” National Secretary Tim Kennedy said in a statement.

Mackay has registered dozens of websites, many on issues tied to black rights. In April 2015, Mackay registered blackpowerfist.com. Mackay’s name, email address, phone number and other details appeared in the registration records for the site until July 2015, when the website enabled a feature that allows site owners to hide their identities and contact information.

The Facebook page continually drove traffic to websites associated with blackpowerfist.com, which was eventually turned into a Reddit-like discussion forum. One of the websites included blacklivesmatter.media, for which Mackay is listed as the administrative and technical contact in at least one archived internet record.

A few days after Mackay registered blackpowerfist.com, an anonymous Facebook profile under the name “BP Parker” shared a link to the website. This same profile was an administrator of the “Black Lives Matter” Facebook page until the page was suspended, a Facebook spokesperson has told CNN.

Another anonymous account, under the name “Steve Parks,” linked to another site first registered by Mackay — again, just a few days after internet records indicate he registered it.

As recently as last month, both BP Parker and Steve Parks were listed as administrators on the Black Lives Matter Facebook group tied to the Facebook page.

The people behind the websites and the Facebook page also encouraged people to donate through various online fundraising platforms, including Donorbox.

“Our mission is to raise awareness about racism, bigotry, police brutality and hate crimes by exposing through social media locally and internationally stories that mainstream media don’t,” a message on the group’s Donorbox page read.

“We have built a following through hard work, dedication and the generosity of supporters like you that pitch in a what they can to help us promote or share our page and also pay to boost the stories the mainstream media try to suppress through paid ads,” it added.

Facebook did not comment when asked if ads were purchased to boost the page on its platform.

Related: What Mark Zuckerberg will tell Congress

Another fundraiser removed by Donorbox, which the company confirmed was run by the same people, billed itself as an “Education And Training Portal Sponsorship Fund” that promised “online courses that educate people about the struggle of civil rights leaders and activists.”

Fundraisers also ran on PayPal, Patreon, and Classy.

A source familiar with some of the payments processed said at least one of the accounts was tied to an Australian IP address and bank account. At least one fundraising account was tied to Ian Mackay by name, according to the source.

Another source also familiar with some of the payments processed told CNN that the group had raised around $100,000 that they were aware of. The source also said the fundraisers were linked to Australia.

Both sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because their companies’ policies prohibit the sharing of some information about fundraisers.

The websites associated with the group are currently registered using common features that keep the identity and contact information for the people behind the website private.

CNN reached out to Mackay last month to ask about his involvement with the “Black Lives Matter,” Facebook page. He denied running it. “I once bought the domain name only and sold it,” he told CNN when asked about a Black Lives Matter website that was once registered to his name.

Within a few hours, the Facebook page had been deactivated.

It wasn’t the first time the Facebook page changed after Mackay was asked about his involvement in it.

In December, after a freelance investigator, Jeremy Massler, who was the first person to publicly note Mackay’s apparent links to the page, wrote a blog post about Mackay, the page was taken down for a brief period before re-emerging.

Massler reached out to CNN about the Facebook page following CNN’s reporting on fake Black Lives Matter pages run by a Russian government-linked troll group. Massler pointed CNN to the internet records for websites linked to by the page.

After an investigation of its own, CNN presented its findings to Facebook last week. Despite CNN outlining the page’s links to fundraising accounts that had by then been suspended on other platforms, Facebook initially said its investigation into the page “didn’t show anything that violated our Community Standards.”

On Monday morning, Facebook disabled the BP Parker profile for violating its community standards. The company disabled the page as a result, a spokesperson told CNN.

The campaign’s accounts on Donorbox, PayPal, Classy, and Patreon have all been suspended.

Donorbox told CNN in an email, “This is an organization that we banned months ago. They signed up as the operator of a popular FB page and a BLM social news platform.”

“We banned the account after a couple of donors complained that they thought they donated to the grassroots organization.”

The company added that most of the donations came from people clicking links on Facebook and on websites run by the people behind the campaign.

One of the Donorbox campaigns that was active as recently as February of this year included an email address for Black Lives Matter Memphis. P. Moses, a spokesperson for Black Lives Matter Memphis, said her group had nothing to do with the fundraiser. Donorbox removed the campaign, the company told CNN.

Patreon and PayPal suspended the accounts after CNN asked the companies about them. Classy had already suspended the account on its platform as it didn’t make it through its approval process.

PayPal and Donorbox would not specify how much money was raised using their platforms. Patreon said only $194 was raised through their site.

Classy said that the campaign did not make it through its final approval process and no money raised was transferred to the people behind the campaign.

Mackay did not provide answers to multiple questions from CNN about his apparent links to the scheme. “My domain name buying and selling is a personal hobby,” he told CNN.

He declined multiple opportunities to clarify his role. “What is the point in speaking to you given that you are going to run your story either way,” he wrote in one message to CNN.

Cullors said she found CNN’s findings disturbing. She said fake fundraisers diminish the real work the movement does. “We rely on donors who believe in our work and our cause and that money will be used in a way that is respectful,” Cullors said.

“It’s important to remember the movement was organic and no organizations started the protests that spread across the country,” DeRay Mckesson, a prominent black activist, told CNN. “The consequences of that is it hasn’t been easy to think about authenticity in the digital space.”

— Carly Walsh contributed to this report.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Donorbox and Classy removed the fundraising accounts after CNN brought them to their attention. In fact, the accounts were removed before CNN brought them to the companies’ attention. Additionally, an earlier version of this story misidentified the person who answered questions about the fundraiser purporting to support Black Lives Matter Memphis. P. Moses spoke to CNN on behalf of Black Lives Matter Memphis, but is not its spokesperson.

Monday night marked the television return of Fox News host Laura Ingraham after she mocked David Hogg, a Parkland shooting survivor, and then took a week-long vacation. In her monologue on The Ingraham Angle, the host suggested that conservative opinions are facing censorship in the United States. Because of this, Ingraham suggested, those who hold these opinions are facing a host of consequences, including being fired or being “boycotted.” Ingraham’s comment regarding boycotting appeared to make veiled reference to advertisers’ decisions to boycott her show after she mocked Hogg last month.

On March 28, Ingraham tweeted an article reporting that Hogg had been rejected from four colleges to which he had applied. Ingraham commented on the article, “David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA…totally predictable given acceptance rates.).”

In response, Hogg tweeted a list of Ingraham’s top 12 advertisers, requesting that people contact them to complain about Ingraham’s comments. Later that day, Ingraham apologized to Hogg, saying on Twitter, “Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA —incl. @DavidHogg111. On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.” The host also decided to take a pre-planned one week vacation.

USA Today reported that Hogg’s appeal to advertisers was quite effective — and Ingraham lost around half of her show’s advertisers following the Twitter exchange. When she returned to the air on Monday, Ingraham did not directly address the issue with Hogg or the boycott. However, she did express that she felt like conservative voices were being suppressed in the United States.

As the Hollywood Reporter noted, on her show Ingraham repeatedly chastised the “the bullies on the left aiming to silence conservatives.” She also accused progressives of being hypocritical, saying, “For all their talk of inclusion, the left doesn’t invite more voices to enter the public discussion … Instead, they drive out any dissenting voice …”

The Reporter did indicate that Ingraham did not specifically say she represented a conservative individual whose voice is being suppressed. However, her comments appeared to give the impression that she was at least in part referring to her recent feud with Hogg and her advertisers’ withdrawal.

Indeed, at one point in her monologue, Ingraham asserted,

Toward the end of her monologue, Ingraham announced that she will be featuring a new segment on her show called “Defending the First,” which will explore what she believes are threats to the First Amendment. As the host noted, she plans to use her show to expose “the perpetrators [of First Amendment threats], their tactics, their major players, and their funders.” She also did not mince words when characterizing how she believes some progressives are threatening free speech, saying, “Their efforts are Stalinist, pure and simple. Their objective is a total transformation of American society, not through rational discourse and open debate, but through personal demonization and silencing.”

Overall, while Ingraham’s monologue did not mention her Twitter exchange with Hogg or her advertisers’ exits, she certainly indicated that she strongly believes that conservative voices are being unfairly suppressed, including through boycotts. Time will tell whether Ingraham ever mentions her issues with Hogg and her advertisers on her show, particularly on her new First Amendment analysis segment.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

• Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will testify about the Cambridge Analytica data leak before congressional committees beginning on Tuesday.
• His appearance comes amid growing calls for new regulations to protect consumer privacy and limit the power and influence of Facebook and other tech giants.
• The hearings offer an opportunity for policymakers to get a sense of Facebook’s privacy problems — and what can and should be done about them.

---

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional appearances this week at hearings delving into the Cambridge Analytica scandal mark a crucial moment for the company, its users, and the broader public — and it’s important that members of Congress use it wisely.

It’s become increasingly clear that new regulations are essential to constrain the power of Facebook and the other giant tech firms and to prevent the societal damage that abuse of their services can cause. In particular, the Cambridge Analytica debacle has highlighted the lack of, and need for, basic online and data privacy protections in the US.

But in order for policymakers to come up with new laws and rules, they need to better understand the scope of the problem. And to gain the momentum they need to push such rules through, they need to start making the case for them.

In both cases, Zuckerberg’s appearance can help.

Here are some of the things members of Congress should ask him about as they’re trying to understand Facebook’s privacy problems and building the case for new privacy legislation:

How many other Cambridge Analyticas are out there? Cambridge Analytica was able to get access to data on millions of Facebook users via an app designed by a university researcher. But that app was just one of thousands — perhaps even millions — that had access to users’ data. It’s clear from the app that leaked data to Cambridge Analytica that Facebook didn’t keep close tabs on what developers did with that data once they gleaned it from the social network.

As one example, Facebook over the weekend suspended data analytics firm CubeYou for allegedly the same thing that happened in the Cambridge Analytica scandal — illegitimately passing along data gleaned from a Facebook app to a third party without the permission of users. But it only took that action after being notified about CubeYou by CNBC.

In a statement on his personal Facebook page, Zuckerberg said the company is now going back and investigating apps that had access to “large amounts” of user data and plans to do an audit of any app connected to “suspicious activity.” Members of Congress should press Zuckerberg on what the company has found so far. If he demurs by saying that the investigation is only in its early stages, legislators should give him a deadline for disclosing what Facebook has found — the sooner the better.

But they should also try to get a better sense of the potential scope of the problem with Facebook apps. They ask Zuckerberg how many apps were created before 2014, when its rules changed; what kind of data they had access to; and how many users could potentially have had their data misused by them.

How much data has been exfiltrated from Facebook? The Cambridge Analytica data leak affected up to 87 million Facebook users. But Zuckerberg last week revealed an even bigger data leak, at least in terms of numbers of people affected — malicious actors were able to use a search tool to download the public profile information of more than half of all Facebook users.

Congress should press Zuckerberg on how many people are affected by these and other potential data leaks. They also should get him to disclose what kinds of information was leaked about users.

How could the data extracted from Facebook — whether by legitimate developers or malicious actors — be used? Facebook users almost certainly had no idea that the information gleaned about them and their friends through a personality quiz app could be used to try to influence an election, as was reportedly the case in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. But Facebook and Zuckerberg almost certainly have an excellent idea of the value of the information the company has collected on its users — and how that data could be used, at least in concept.

Getty Images

The company has spent more than a decade collecting information on its users. It’s also conducted experiments on its users to see how it can use what it knows about them to influence their thoughts or behaviors. It’s spent years honing tools that allow its clients to finely target advertising messages to users. It’s also been investigating how its services were abused by Russian-linked actors to spread propaganda during the 2016 US presidential election.

Members of Congress should press Zuckerberg on how the data collected about its users is already being used to target and influence them. And it should get him to talk about how that data could potentially be used in malicious ways.

How will US Facebook users be affected by Europe’s new privacy regulations? The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) takes effect in May. Many privacy advocates look at the GDPR as a model for the kind of baseline privacy law the US sorely needs. The new law requires companies to protect consumer data and to get explicit and specific permission for all kinds of data-collection activities.

Facebook has said it will apply the rules globally, but said there will be some variation in how it adopts them in each country. Lawmakers should press Zuckerberg on what that means for US customers. They should get him to list the parts of GDPR Facebook won’t honor for the US and explain why it won’t.

What is Zuckerberg’s privacy red line? Zuckerberg and Facebook’s mantra is that the company is on a mission to connect the world. But the company’s mission really has been to collect as much data as possible on users — and encourage them to share ever more information with their friends and, in turn, the company. The company monitors users’ locations, keeps track of who they call or text, and monitors the content of their messages.

It would be interesting — and potentially eye-opening — to know if Zuckerberg thinks there is a bright line beyond which the company shouldn’t go in its quest to profile users. Legislators should press him on whether there’s any data that Facebook has declared off-limits, that it’s barred its systems from collecting, or, on its own, has deleted from its systems. And they should ask why it has or hasn’t set those limits.

Is there any way for Facebook as it exists today to be privacy friendly? Facebook’s value to advertisers is that it allows them to aim their messages at users with a great deal of precision and accuracy. Marketers can target based on all kinds of information — users’ location, interests, political beliefs and more. The more data Facebook collects, the more finely marketers can target their messages — and the more valuable its service.

Facebook and Zuckerberg have said this micro-targeting is part of the bargain they offer consumers; it allows the company to offer its service for free. They also portray it as a benefit to consumers; users see ads that are tailored just for them, rather ones that are meaningless to them. But it’s not at all clear that consumers understand exactly what kinds of information Facebook has about them, what can be done with it — or who would have consented to that data-collection if they did.

The company has a new privacy page that’s supposed to give users a better idea of the data it’s collecting and what it’s doing with it. But lawmakers should ask Zuckerberg for his definition of informed consent. They should also press him on what he thinks a privacy-friendly Facebook would look like — and how adherence to international privacy norms might affect its business model.

iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus (PRODUCT)RED with black frame.

Yesterday, a leak suggested that Apple was on the brink of announcing a (PRODUCT)RED finish for the latest generation of iPhones. Now, the leak has been confirmed in Apple’s announcement.

It’s just over a year since the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus (PRODUCT)RED special edition smartphones were revealed, reviewed here on Forbes. Those were the first (PRODUCT)RED phones from Apple. And now, the next contributors to the Global Fund which supports HIV/AIDS programs have been officially unveiled and, as predicted, they are (PRODUCT)RED versions of the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus.

Apple iPhone 8 Plus in (PRODUCT)RED finish. Note the black frame around the display.

What does it look like?

A whole new iPhone design arrived last September with the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus, which has meant the (PRODUCT)RED edition has required a new design approach, too, specifically because the latest iPhones have glass, not aluminum, backs.

As a result, the new iPhone has a strikingly different look. The aluminum edge band looks similar to the iPhone 7, but that’s where the similarity ends. This time around, there’s no antenna band visible at the phone’s corners as that runs under the glass on the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus. Anodized aluminum is matte, but glass, of course, is not, making for a bright, eye-catching finish.

Apple iPhone 8 Plus in (PRODUCT)RED finish.

Last year’s iPhone (PRODUCT)RED handsets looked significantly classier in the flesh than they did in photos and it may be the same this time. It’s clear that the glass back has a rich, sultry shade and the absence of the antenna band around the top and bottom (seen in the iPhone 7 images from last year further down the page) is a definite improvement, too. I’ll reserve final judgement until I see the real thing, and will report back then, but these images are certainly a promising start.

Apple iPhone 8 and Apple iPhone 8 Plus in (PRODUCT)RED finish.

What about the Touch ID button?

Good question. Last year, Apple decided that though the edge and rear of the iPhone 7 (PRODUCT)RED would be decidedly, well, red, the ring around the Touch ID button wouldn’t. It was the same silver color as on the silver iPhone 7. Similarly, the Apple logo on the rear of the phone, which is made of stainless steel rather than aluminum, was uncolored, unlike on the regular iPhone 7 models where the logo was color-matched to the aluminum around it.

This year, Apple has taken a whole new approach and, specifically, responded to those critics last year who said the (PRODUCT)RED phone would look better with a black instead of a white frame around the display. The frame is now black and the TouchID button is black to match.

Last year: Apple iPhone 7 Plus (PRODUCT)RED with bright logo

Last year, the logo really jumped out at you because it was a contrasting shade. And Apple has gone down the same route this year, too, so that logo is still an attention-grabber.

What, no iPhone X (PRODUCT)RED?

No, that’s right. The reason for this hasn’t been addressed by Apple but it may be because the stainless steel band that edges the iPhone X isn’t as conducive to tinting red as the aluminum on the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus. Note that the colors of the iPhone X are already subtly different from the 8 and 8 Plus, with the silver iPhone 8 noticeably paler than the silver iPhone X.

Or maybe it’s because the rumors of an upcoming iPhone X in gold are correct and that Apple will announce such a new color in due course. If so, I’d guess that won’t be for a while.

Last year’s models: Apple iPhone 7 Plus (PRODUCT)RED next to the jet black version

Will it save lives?

When I spoke to Apple CEO Tim Cook for World AIDS DAY, December 1 2016, he said: ‘Ten years ago there were 1,200 babies being born a day with HIV, and that’s now dropped to 400. So there’s been a lot of progress but we still have work to do to get to an AIDS-free generation by 2020, though we are on target, it’s within our sights.’

Today, Apple said, ‘Since partnering with (RED) in 2006, Apple has donated more than $160 million to the Global Fund, serving as the organization’s largest corporate donor.’

Deborah Dugan, CEO of (RED), added, ‘The more than $160 million Apple has donated in the last 11 years today equates to more than 800 million days of lifesaving ARV medication that prevents the transmission of HIV from mothers to their babies.’

Although Apple doesn’t specify how much from each sale goes to the charity, it says that, ‘All (PRODUCT)RED Purchases Help Provide Testing, Counselling and Treatment for Tens of Millions of People Living with HIV/AIDS’. And when I spoke to Cook previously, $130 million had been donated by Apple, meaning that another $30 million has been raised in the last 18 months or so.

When does it go on sale?

Pre-orders online start at 5.30AM PDT on Tuesday, April 10 and the (PRODUCT)RED iPhones are instore from Friday, April 13.

This year’s iPhone 8 in silver, next to last year’s iPhone 7 (PRODUCT)RED.

Is there a price premium for (PRODUCT)RED?

That’s one of the coolest things about Apple’s collaboration, the price of the (PRODUCT)RED versions are identical to the regular colors. In other words, for customers it’s a cost-free way of doing good. The iPhone 8 and 8 Plus are available in two storage capacities, 64GB and 256GB, and the (PRODUCT)RED edition iPhone 8 costs $699 and $849 (£699 or £849 in the UK) for the 64GB and 256GB models respectively and (PRODUCT)RED iPhone 8 Plus is priced at $799 (£799 in the UK) for 64GB capacity and $949 (£949 in the UK) for the 256GB capacity.

It’s worth noting that last year’s (PRODUCT)RED special editions were only available in the higher-capacity iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. So although it didn’t cost more than the other colored versions, you did have to make a bigger financial commitment. The fact that Apple has made (PRODUCT)RED available in both sizes of iPhone storage is a big step forward in terms of the potential figures that can be raised for charity.

But I’ve got an iPhone X. What can I do?

New (PRODUCT)RED Folio case on the iPhone X.

Well, you can still make a difference. From tomorrow, April 10, you can pick up a (PRODUCT)RED leather folio for the iPhone X for $99 (£99 in the UK). Silicone cases for iPhone X, iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus are also newly available, together with cases for earlier iPhones and a Smart Battery case for iPhone 7. And every phone from the iPhone SE onwards now has a leather case in (PRODUCT)RED shade available now, including for the iPhone X, iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus.

There are also straps and buckles for Apple Watch in (PRODUCT)RED finish. All but the new iPhone X folio are available now.

If you enjoyed this story, you might also like these:

Apple AirPods 2 May Be Incoming Soon With Two Big Improvements

Spotify Might Launch 1st Hardware, This Smart In-Car Player, $155 (Updated)

Apple Watch watchOS 4.3 Is Here As A Great Feature Reappears. Should You Upgrade?

Inside The Smart Home Development Where Apple iPad, HomePod, Apple Watch And More Come As Standard

Apple WWDC 2018: New iPad Pro With Facial Recognition May Debut. When, Where And

Five Things Nobody Has Told You About The Samsung Galaxy S9