The tomb of a woman named Hetpet, who became a senior official in the royal palace, has been discovered in a cemetery on the Giza Plateau, archaeologists from Egypt’s antiquities ministry announced today (Feb 3).
The tomb dates back over 4,300 years, to a time after the Giza Pyramids had been constructed. While Giza is most famous for its pyramids, the site also contains large cemeteries that archaeologists have been uncovering gradually for nearly two centuries. These tombs often hold the burials of elite members of ancient Egyptian society.
“The tomb has very distinguished wall paintings, in a very good conservation condition, depicting ‘Hetpet’ standing in different hunting and fishing scenes or sitting before a large offering table receiving offerings from her children,” Egypt’s antiquities ministry said in a statement. [See Images of the Giza Tomb and Paintings Inside]
“Scenes of reaping fruits, melting metals and the fabrication of leather and papyri boats as well as musical and dancing performances are also shown on walls,” the ministry said. The paintings also show two monkeys: In one scene, the monkey is gathering fruits and the other it is dancing in front of an orchestra, according to the ministry.
Credit: Egypt Antiquities Ministry
The tomb also contains a shrine with a purification basin and places where incense and offerings could be held. One area inside the shrine may have held a statue of Hetpet, which is now missing, the archaeologists suspect. The archaeologists didn’t find a mummy inside the tomb, but it’s possible the mummy and statue were robbed in ancient times, something that commonly occurred in ancient Egypt.
An Egyptian team led by Mostafa Waziri, Secretary-General of the ministry’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, discovered the tomb. Before the announcement today, antiquities minister Khaled El-Enany told media that about a dozen Egyptian archaeological missions are conducting work throughout the country and more discoveries from these missions are expected in 2018. Additionally, there are also missions led by foreign archaeologists taking place throughout Egypt.
The Pentagon released a new nuclear arms policy Friday that calls for the introduction of two new types of weapons, effectively ending Obama-era efforts to reduce the size and scope of the U.S. arsenal and minimize the role of nuclear weapons in defense planning.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in an introductory note to the new policy — the first update to the military’s nuclear strategy since 2010 — that the changes reflect a need to “look reality in the eye” and “see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”
The previous administration’s policy hinged on what President Barack Obama called a moral obligation for the United States to lead by example in ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Officials in the Trump administration and the U.S. military argue that Obama’s approach proved overly idealistic, particularly as relations with Moscow soured. Russia, China and North Korea, they say, all advanced their nuclear weapons capabilities instead of following suit.
“Over the past decade, while the United States has led the world in these reductions, every one of our potential nuclear adversaries has been pursuing the exact opposite strategy,” Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said at a Pentagon news conference, explaining why the United States is changing course. “These powers are increasing the numbers and types of nuclear weapons in their arsenal.”
The new nuclear weapons policy follows on Donald Trump’s promise before taking office to expand and strengthen U.S. nuclear capabilities. President Trump also vowed during his State of the Union address Tuesday to build a nuclear arsenal “so strong and powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression.”
The threats have changed dramatically since the last time the Pentagon updated its nuclear weapons policy, with Russia reemerging as a geopolitical foe. North Korea, meanwhile, has edged closer to possessing a missile capable of striking the U.S. mainland with a nuclear warhead, bringing the prospect of nuclear war back to the forefront of the American psyche for the first time since the Cold War.
Trump’s perceived volatility has raised more concerns among Americans about the president’s exclusive authority to order a nuclear attack. His warning last summer that he would unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” on North Korea marked a rare public threat by a U.S. president to use nuclear weapons.
The policy unveiled Friday envisions the introduction of “low-yield nukes” on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Despite being called “low yield,” such weapons could cause roughly as much damage as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, depending on their size.
Russia possesses a wide variety of small nuclear weapons that the United States mostly lacks. The Pentagon worries Moscow could seize part or all of a U.S. ally state and then detonate one in a “limited nuclear attack” to prevent American troops from coming to the rescue. Washington would be forced to choose between launching a much larger-scale nuclear attack on Russia or responding with less substantial conventional arms. The Pentagon says it wants a proportionate weapon to match.
John C. Rood, undersecretary of defense for policy, said the United States would not be increasing the number of warheads in its stockpile, which has contained other low-yield weapons for years.
In a veiled reference to Russia, Rood said the new low-yield missiles would ensure that adversaries “do not come to the mistaken impression” they can use small battlefield nuclear weapons because “we don’t have credible response options.”
The new Pentagon policy also outlines longer-term plans to reintroduce a nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile called an SLCM (or “slick-em”), which the administration of President George H.W. Bush stopped deploying and the Obama administration ordered removed from the arsenal.
Officials say the SLCM would reassure Japan and South Korea in the face of threats from North Korea and put pressure on Russia to stop violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Unlike with the low-yield weapon, which the Pentagon plans to develop quickly, the SLCM’s reintroduction could be many years away.
The Pentagon confirmed its commitment to the modernization of the U.S. nuclear force that Obama approved in 2010 in exchange for Senate ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START. The military will introduce new bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as a new cruise missile for the bomber. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan will cost about $1.2 trillion over 30 years.
After a draft of the new policy leaked in mid-January, disarmament advocates assailed the Trump administration for pursuing what they described as unnecessary new nuclear weapons that could start an arms race and increase the likelihood of nuclear war.
Critics also accused the Defense Department of lowering the threshold for what might provoke a U.S. nuclear strike by mentioning cyberattacks in the list of non-nuclear strategic threats.
At the Pentagon, officials denied those accusations. They said the new policy, if anything, raises the threshold for nuclear strikes. They reiterated the Pentagon’s long-standing policy that says nuclear weapons can be used only in “extreme circumstances.”
The return of “great power competition” with Russia and threats from China, North Korea and Iran render progress toward any weapons reductions at this time “extremely challenging,” the new policy says.
Alex Bell, an Obama administration official and disarmament advocate at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, criticized the Pentagon for effectively abandoning the quest for nuclear reductions, saying it is treating the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons that Obama heralded in a 2009 speech in Prague as “an afterthought.”
“You have a clear message to the world that this administration is not interested in leading global efforts to reduce nuclear threats,” Bell said. She warned that Trump’s boasting about an expanding U.S. nuclear arsenal could set off “a new nuclear arms race.”
Construction on the plant was suspended in 1992, though, as funding dried up with the collapse of the Soviet Union. By 2000, the project was abandoned.
Mr. Castro Díaz-Balart remained a champion of nuclear energy, making the case for its growth in developing countries in a 2002 essay in the International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin. “Widespread understanding is the key to popular acceptance,” he wrote.
Mr. Castro Díaz-Balart once told an interviewer that he never had political ambitions. “All my career has been as a scientist,” he said in a 2013 television interview with the Russian government-funded station RT.
But Mr. Castro Díaz-Balart said his generation of the family was not pushed into politics, either. “The Castro family, as all families, is not one body, one person. It is a conglomerate of different people with different visions and different pasts,” he said in the interview.
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
View all New York Times newsletters.
See Sample
Manage Email Preferences
Not you?
Privacy Policy
Opt out or contact us anytime
Mr. Castro Díaz-Balart led Cuban delegations at conferences around the world, including the March 2016 meeting of the American Physical Society, where he spoke on physics in Cuba. Mr. Castro Díaz-Balart held a doctorate in physical-mathematical sciences from the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, according to the Academy of Sciences.
His father, Fidel, died over a year ago, in November 2016, at age 90. Cousins on his mother’s side include Representative Mario Díaz-Balart and former Representative Lincoln Díaz-Balart, Florida Republicans and staunch anti-communists.
Mr. Castro Díaz-Balart’s early childhood was marked by a bitter custody battle between his parents, who divorced in 1955 when he was 6.
The year after, when both of Mr. Castro Díaz-Balart’s parents were in Mexico, his father arranged for his son to visit him for two weeks. At the end of the visit, Mr. Castro placed Fidelito with a friend, and sailed to Cuba with fellow rebels on the yacht Granma to begin his guerrilla campaign against the government.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
To reclaim her son, Ms. Díaz-Balart, with the help of her family and the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, hired professional kidnappers who ambushed the boy and his guardians in a park. Reunited with her son, she took him to New York for a year. But after Mr. Castro came to power in 1959, he persuaded his former wife to send their son back to Cuba.
His father’s role on the world stage was an important factor throughout Mr. Castro Díaz-Balart’s life, even as he stayed out of the spotlight himself. In a second interview with RT, also in 2013, Mr. Castro Díaz-Balart said when he had studied in the Soviet Union he used an assumed name and that few people knew who he was.
As an adolescent, he said, he had little contact with his father. “It is no secret that in the years of my adolescence and youth, Cuba was going through a very difficult situation,” he said, referring to the era that included the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis.
Texas father who killed his two daughters while their mother listened helplessly on the phone put to death.
A former Dallas accountant condemned for fatally shooting his two young daughters while their mother listened helplessly on the phone was put to death Thursday night in Texas but not before taunting her one last time.
John David Battaglia was executed for the May 2001 killings of his 9-year-old daughter, Faith, and her 6-year-old sister, Liberty. Battaglia and his wife had separated, and he shot the girls at his Dallas apartment during a scheduled visit.
Battaglia smiled as the mother of his slain children, Mary Jean Pearle, and other witnesses to his execution walked into the death chamber viewing area.
Asked by the warden if he had a final statement, the inmate replied: “No,” then changed his mind. “Well, hi, Mary Jean,” he said, looking and smiling at his ex-wife. “I’ll see y’all later. Bye.”
Battaglia then closed his eyes and looked directly up. A few seconds later he opened them back up and lifted his head. “Am I still alive?” he asked.
The powerful sedative pentobarbital began to take effect. “Oh, I feel it,” he said. He gasped twice and started to snore. Within the next few seconds, all movement stopped.
The time of death: 9:40 p.m., local, 22 minutes after the lethal dose began.
Pearle turned away from an execution-viewing window after Battaglia stopped breathing and walked to the back of the witness area.
“I’ve seen enough of him,” she said. She returned several minutes later to watch as a physician examined Battaglia and pronounced him dead. Pearle declined to be interviewed afterward.
His lethal injection was the nation’s third this year, all in Texas. The punishment was delayed more than three hours until the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals from his lawyers to review his case.
They contended the 62-year-old was delusional and mentally incompetent for execution and that a lower court improperly refused Battaglia’s lawyers money to hire an expert to further examine legal claims regarding his mental competency.
The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners can be executed if they’re aware the death penalty is to be carried out and have a rational understanding of why they’re facing that punishment.
John Battaglia pictured with his two daughters.
(Dallas County Court)
Another unsuccessful appeal challenged the effectiveness of the pentobarbital Texas uses as its execution drug. Attorneys contended the state’s supply was outdated and Battaglia was at risk for unconstitutionally cruel punishment.
A state judge and the state appeals court described Battaglia as highly intelligent, competent, not mentally ill and faking mental illness to avoid execution.
Testimony at a hearing showed Battaglia used the prison library to research capital case rulings on mental competence and discussed with his father during a phone call from jail the “chess game” of avoiding execution.
State Judge Robert Burns, who found him competent, said Battaglia’s intelligence and education — he had a master’s degree — showed he had the “motive and intellectual capability to maintain a deliberate ploy or ruse to avoid his execution.”
According to prosecutors, Battaglia became enraged that Pearle notified police about his harassment of her and he used a visit with their daughters to act on his anger. Pearle returned a call from one of her daughters and heard Faith pleading with her father, who put the call on speakerphone.
“No, daddy, please don’t, don’t do it!” Faith begged.
Pearle yelled into the phone for the children to run, then heard gunshots.
“Merry … Christmas,” Battaglia told Pearle, the words of the holiday greeting derisively divided by an obscenity.
There were more gunshots. Pearle called 911.
At the time of the killings, Battaglia was on probation for a Christmas 1999 attack on Pearle. His profanity-laced Christmas greeting to Pearle was an apparent reference to that.
Faith was shot three times, Liberty five. Hours later, Battaglia was arrested outside at a tattoo shop where he had two large red roses inked on his left arm to commemorate his daughters. It took four officers to subdue him. A fully loaded revolver was found in his truck and more than a dozen firearms were recovered from his apartment.
Battaglia told The Dallas Morning News in 2014 his daughters were his “best little friends” and that he had photos of them displayed in his prison cell.
“I don’t feel like I killed them,” he said. “I am a little bit in the blank about what happened.”
“When I was about 9 years old (in the late 1950s), I would spend time with my cousin in Hollywood. We spent all day exploring on Hollywood Boulevard, playing in the Hollywood Bowl (which we had all to ourselves), and hiking in the hills exploring the grounds of all these amazing homes. Our days always ended the same: waiting for Frank Sinatra. My cousin was born in love with Frank Sinatra. She discovered that he owned the Villa Capri restaurant off Highland. We sat on the curb in front of the restaurant for hours waiting to see him. As the dinner guests started arriving, the maitre d’ kept coming out to see if we were still there. Much to his dismay, there we were. We didn’t believe him when he told us Mr. Sinatra was not expected. He would get so upset, he would give us money to go away. We never did get to see Ol’ Blue Eyes, but the anticipation was so much fun.”
Vice President Pence addresses a dinner Wednesday at the 2018 Republican retreat at the Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Vice President Pence addresses a dinner Wednesday at the 2018 Republican retreat at the Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
White Sulphur Springs, W. Va. — A tragic train wreck almost put an early end to this year’s GOP policy retreat as lawmakers grappled with whether or not to carry on after an Amtrak train carrying them to the Greenbrier Resort collided with a garbage truck and resulted in at least one fatality.
“Personally I gave it a lot of thought. I was very conflicted. Every ounce of me said: Get home to Texas as fast as you can,” said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, a physician who helped treat the injured on the accident scene. No one onboard the train suffered any major injuries. The White House ultimately informed lawmakers the president and vice president still planned to attend. “That put it in a little bit of different context for me,” said Burgess.
Republicans are gathered at the storied Greenbrier Resort — home to a Cold War-era bunker once meant to house Congress in the event of a nuclear attack — to plot the party’s legislative agenda for 2018 and strategize for what could be a bruising midterm election.
For Republicans this year, it may be easier to look back than to plan for what’s to come. In a Wednesday night speech, Vice President Mike Pence lauded Republicans for 2017, which he called “the most accomplished year for the conservative agenda in 30 years.” Pence touted the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, confirmation of a record number of conservative lower-court judges in the Trump administration’s first year, regulation rollbacks and a $1 trillion tax cut package.
President Trump’s State of the Union address provided a familiar list of proposals, but lawmakers haven’t rallied around an agenda in the same way Republicans did in 2017 on health care and taxes.
Much of what President Trump outlined Tuesday night — paid family leave, overhauling the criminal justice system’s sentencing laws and reducing the cost of prescription drugs — are proposals loaded with opposition from the conservative wing of the party and are unlikely to find GOP champions on Capitol Hill.
Even Trump’s immigration proposal has received a lukewarm reception from Republicans in Congress because it includes a path to citizenship for an estimated 1.8 million people residing in the U.S. illegally. Infrastructure is a popular proposal with theoretical bipartisan support, but there’s no consensus on the hardest part — how to pay for it.
The president appears to have walked away from the GOP’s failed efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The GOP tax bill zeroed out the tax penalty designed to compel individuals to buy health insurance, and that policy victory seems to have satisfied Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has likewise said he’s ready to move on from the health care fight after the Alabama Senate special election loss narrowed his majority to a razor-thin 51-49 margin.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., voiced hopes of overhauling social welfare programs in 2018, but he’s been given little rhetorical backup from the White House or the Senate. The president made no mention of overhauling entitlement programs in his Tuesday address.
The three-day retreat is designed to help lawmakers figure out what, exactly, they can agree on and when they plan to act on it. The legislative pipeline so far this year has been clogged by the impasses over immigration legislation to determine the fate of those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, and a budget deal necessary for Congress to pass this fiscal year’s spending bills, which are already four months overdue. The Treasury Department threw Congress another curveball this week after it informed lawmakers the deadline has been moved up to vote to raise the debt ceiling —the nation’s borrowing authority — to Feb. 28.
Election-year politics are already at the forefront of lawmakers’ minds here. Another prominent Republican, South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, announced his decision to retire this year. He is the 34th Republican and ninth committee chairman to retire ahead of the 2018 midterm elections where Republicans are facing historically brutal headwinds with their House majority at stake. Pence assured Republicans that he and the president would hit the campaign trail hard for down-ballot Republicans. He also said the party under Trump has already defied the “conventional wisdom” of elections and forecast that Republicans majorities would hold come November.
Pence also took advantage of the location to launch an attack on West Virginia’s Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who is up for re-election in a state Trump won by more than 40 percentage points.
“When it came to cutting your taxes, Joe voted no,” Pence told employees at an event at a local manufacturing company, adding that Manchin “has voted no time and again on the policies that West Virginia needs.” Pence continued that attack in a series of tweets with the hashtag #JoeVotedNo highlighting Manchin’s opposition to Trump’s priorities, including GOP efforts to cut funds for Planned Parenthood.
Manchin responded in a statement: “The vice president’s comments are exactly why Washington Sucks.”
Congressional Democrats likewise hold annual policy retreats, but House and Senate Democrats meet separately. House Democrats next week will head to the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Vice President Joe Biden is expected to give the keynote address.
Tennessean reporter Joey Garrison spoke with Barry before she issued a statement about the affair Wednesday and before she held an evening news conference.
► More: Timeline: A look at Nashville Mayor Megan Barry’s trips with her staff
Here are some of the key portions of that interview.
Mayor Megan Barry: At 7 o’clock we will be standing up and talking about a private matter that as a public official I have engaged in an extramarital affair with someone who works in Metro, with a consensual relationship. We’re going to talk about that.
Was the individual your head detail person, Sgt. Rob Forrest?
Barry: Yes.
Posted!
A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.
1 of 21
2 of 21
3 of 21
4 of 21
5 of 21
6 of 21
7 of 21
8 of 21
9 of 21
10 of 21
11 of 21
12 of 21
13 of 21
14 of 21
15 of 21
16 of 21
17 of 21
18 of 21
19 of 21
20 of 21
21 of 21
Who is Robert Forrest, Nashville Mayor Megan Barry’s former security chief?
Near the beginning of it? Would you say late 2015?
Barry: No, it was past that.
Beginning of 2016?
Barry: It was a little further in to that.
Spring, summer of 2016?
Barry: Around there.
Describe the nature of it.
Barry: I’m not sure what you mean Joey.
Well, he’s somebody who’s around you. I see you there with him all the time as your head security person. I mean, was it, I guess in what way was it inappropriate? Was it a sexual relationship with him?
Barry: I had an affair with him.
Was it appropriate for the mayor of Nashville to have a relationship with somebody who would be considered a subordinate Metro employee to you?
CLOSE
A look back at Megan Barry’s career. Ayrika Whitney/USA TODAY NETWORK – Tennessee
Barry: So, this is about the fact that we had an affair and it was wrong. And we shouldn’t have done it. He was head of my security detail, and as part of that responsibility, you know, I should have gone to the chief. And I should have said what was going on, and I didn’t, and that was a mistake.
► More: Nashville reacts to Mayor Megan Barry’s affair, and opinions are mixed
Do you think you violated any Metro guidelines, ethics laws, anything like that by having this relationship?
Barry: No.
From records that I’ve looked at, it appears he went on a lot of trips with yourself and mayor’s office staff, including some where, maybe nine instances in the last 10 months, where it was just you and him. Why, totaling the cost of these there was $21,700 in taxpayer-funded trips for him alone. Why was he on these various trips?
Barry: So those trips were all business-related, and those trips he traveled with me as my detail, which is standard policy with the police department, to have detail with me wherever I am.
Was that the policy of your predecessor, was that a policy that you adopted?
Barry: When I came into office, the chief said that you are always the mayor and you should be secured appropriately.
Did it seem like a necessary thing, to have him on these various trips, wherever they might be?
Barry: It was definitely the recommendation of the police that I should have detail.
With you acknowledging this extramarital affair, some might call these trips with him, particularly the ones where it was just the two of you, inappropriate. Given what you told me a few minutes ago, would you agree with that? What’s your response?
Barry: All of these trips were business-related, and he was there as my security detail.
There have been some rumblings out there today that you might be resigning. Are you resigning?
Barry: No.
You seemed to hesitate there.
Barry: Not hesitating at all, no … this is a bad day. And there’s going to be more bad days. But this is not my worst day. I know the difference between a mistake, which is what I made, which I fully own, and a tragedy. This is not a tragedy. And I want to regain the trust of Nashvillians, and I will continue to serve.
► More: Nashville Mayor Megan Barry’s full statement on her extramarital affair
Are you taking any sort of leave of absence or anything like that?
Barry: No.
You’re a very highly respected leader in this city, both politically and from a lot of girls and young ladies out there who see you as the highest-ranking public official, really in the state, who’s a woman. What’s your response to people who might be disappointed, especially women, about this news?
Barry: People that we admire can also be flawed humans, and I’m flawed. And I am incredibly sad and sorry for the disappointment that I will see in those little girl’s faces. But what I hope they also see is that people make mistakes and that you move on from those.
Are you taking any sort of leave of absence? Are you coming in just like any normal day tomorrow?
Barry: I will be in tomorrow to do the work of the city.
So no leave of absence?
Barry: No.
It’s a really important part of your first term right now, with the transit push going on. Are you worried that this news is going to affect your ability, first of all to get that passed, and then to push forward your agenda as mayor here?
Barry: I think the voters of Davidson County were very clear about what they wanted to see in the mayor that they elected, and that was a push on transit and housing and jobs and education and safety. And we have been committed to all of those, and I don’t see that stopping.
Are you planning, I guess how have you discussed this with Bruce, your husband, and are you planning, and I guess what’s the future of your relationship?
Barry: There are some things that are personal. Clearly, Bruce and I would love to have privacy on this. These are things that we are working through, and would ask for that.
No plans on separation?
Barry: No.
And so no plans on divorce?
Barry: No.
When did you tell Bruce?
Barry: I’m happy to answer all kinds of questions, but I think that there are some pieces of this that are between me and Bruce. That’s how I would like to leave that.
Are you going to invite or ask law enforcement officials in this city to investigate any matter of this case, including the use of Metro funds that were, or perhaps the use of Metro funds that were used on these trips?
Barry: All of the records are available for anybody to review.
► More: Nashville council budget chair calls for inquiry after Mayor Barry admits affair
When did you first know Sgt. Forrest? I know that he was around during Dean’s term, I think he was hired during Purcell’s. Was he somebody you’ve known for a long time?
Barry: I knew him casually through the Dean administration, but I didn’t know him until I became the mayor.
What did you tell your staff earlier?
Barry: I had a meeting with my staff earlier to apologize to them, to tell them that I know that the work that they do for the city is so critical and I want them to continue to do that. And that I’m grateful for what they do, and that I’m truly sorry.
Did you sense what the mood was from them, or what their response was?
Barry: You know, I think, as with the people in Nashville, I think that they’re disappointed. When you have somebody that you work with that you respect and they do something like this, that hurts. And I think I’ve hurt them, and I know that this is hurtful not only to Bruce and the people that I love and care about but to the citizens of Davidson County.
Going back to those trips … I guess really it was just you going, those would have been trips that you yourself would have been going on normally?
Barry: Yes.
And then he was just joining there? I mean, what were the nature of some of those?
Barry: We’ll provide you with a list and you can see exactly what the trips were. They were all business-related. They all had to do with being the mayor of this city.
Do you still have a relationship with him?
Barry: Uh, no. I don’t understand what you mean.
Well, I mean, you were having an affair with him. Is it an ongoing communication with him? I understand he’s no longer with Metro. Is he somebody that you are still communicating with, regarding this issue?
Barry: No.
And so no longer seeing him? I understand he had a two-week notice, I think, and then was his last day today?
Barry: I’m not sure.
In terms of telling so many people who voted for you and who support you and, you know, I know you’re a very popular mayor — I think even your critics would acknowledge that — just in terms of trying to tell them, explain the situation, what do you say?
Barry: I say that, that I know that God’s going to forgive me. But the citizens of Nashville don’t have to. My hope is that I can earn their forgiveness, and I can earn back their trust, and we can do the great work for this city that Nashville deserves.
Again, your stance is that those trips were city business trips, all of them?
Barry: All of them. Every single one.
Some people might say that taxpayer money was being used for an extramarital affair, to advance that relationship. Would you reject that? During these trips, were they exclusively city business or was there some stuff that was to the nature of a relationship with him?
Barry: It was all city business, and the police policy for detail and my busy schedule are what you’re seeing reflected in those trips. Which is the fact that I’m busy and that’s part of the process when you become a mayor, you get security.
WARSAW (Reuters) – Polish lawmakers approved a bill on Thursday that would impose jail terms for suggesting Poland was complicit in the Holocaust, drawing concern from the United States and outrage from Israel, which denounced “any attempt to challenge historical truth”.
Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) says the bill is needed to protect Poland’s reputation and ensure historians recognize that Poles as well as Jews perished under the Nazis. Israeli officials said it criminalizes basic historical facts.
The Senate voted on the bill in the early hours on Thursday and it will now be sent to President Andrzej Duda for signature.
“We, the Poles, were victims, as were the Jews,” Deputy Prime Minister Beata Szydlo, a senior PiS figure and supporter of the law, said on Wednesday before the vote. “It is a duty of every Pole to defend the good name of Poland. Just as the Jews, we were victims.”
Under the proposed legislation, violators would face three years in prison for mentioning the term “Polish death camps”, although the bill says scientific research into World War Two would not be constrained.
Israel “adamantly opposes” the bill’s approval, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said on Thursday.
“Israel views with utmost gravity any attempt to challenge historical truth. No law will change the facts,” ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said on Twitter.
Israeli Housing Minister Yoav Galant, one of several cabinet ministers to denounce the bill, told Israel’s Army Radio that he considered it “de facto Holocaust denial”.
The bill has come at a time when rightwing, anti-immigrant parties like PiS have been in the ascendancy in Europe, especially in the former Communist countries of the east. EU officials have expressed alarm over the PiS administration in Poland, which they say has undermined the rule of law by exerting pressure over the courts and media.
The ruling PiS, a socially conservative, nationalist group, has reignited debate on the Holocaust as part of a campaign to fuel patriotism since sweeping into power in 2015.
The U.S. State Department said the legislation “could undermine free speech and academic discourse”.
“We are also concerned about the repercussions this draft legislation, if enacted, could have on Poland’s strategic interests and relationships,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement.
Piotr Buras, head of the Warsaw office of the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank, told Reuters it was likely to push Poland further toward nationalism and isolation.
“The president will have to sign it – otherwise it would mean he is giving into international pressure. But the external criticism will, of course, push the government further into the position of a besieged fortress, strengthening both the nationalistic rhetoric…and the nationalistic mood in the country.”
PAINFUL DEBATE
Poland had Europe’s largest Jewish population when it was invaded by both Germany and the Soviet Union at the start of World War Two. It became ground zero for the “Final Solution”, Hitler’s plan to exterminate the Jews.
More than three million of Poland’s 3.2 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, accounting for around half of the Jews killed in the Holocaust. Jews from across Europe were sent to be killed at death camps built and operated by the Germans on Polish soil, including Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor.
According to figures from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Germans also killed at least 1.9 million non-Jewish Polish civilians.
Many thousands of Poles risked their lives to protect their Jewish neighbors; Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center recognizes 6,706 Poles as “righteous among nations” for bravery in resisting the Holocaust, more than any other nationality.
But Poland has also gone through a painful public debate in recent years about guilt and reconciliation over the Holocaust, after the publication of research showing some Poles participated in the Nazi German atrocities. Many Poles have refused to accept such findings, which have challenged a national narrative that the country was solely a victim.
A 2017 survey by the Polish Center for Research on Prejudice showed that more than 55 percent of Poles were “annoyed” by talk of Polish participation in crimes against Jews.
Poland has long sought to discourage use of the term “Polish camps” to refer to Nazi camps on its territory, arguing that the phrase implies complicity.
European Council President Donald Tusk, a former Polish prime minister and political foe of the PiS, said the bill had the opposite of its intended effect, tarnishing Poland’s name and encouraging the view of history it aimed to criminalize.
“Anyone who spreads a false statement about ‘Polish camps’ harms the good name and interests of Poland,” Tusk said on his private Twitter account. “The authors of the bill have promoted this vile slander all over the world, effectively as nobody has before.”
Additional reporting by Dan Williams in JERUSALEM, Mohammad Zargham in WASHINGTON, Gabriela Baczynska in BRUSSELS and Marcin Goettig in WARSAW; Writing by Justyna Pawlak and Lidia Kelly; Editing by Peter Graff
Republicans say President TrumpDonald John TrumpStormy Daniels on statement denying Trump affair: ‘I do not know where it came from’ Five Takeaways from Trump’s State of the Union Van Jones: Trump ‘selling sweet-tasting candy with poison in it’ MORE would be making a big mistake in firing Deputy Attorney General Rod RosensteinRod Jay RosensteinTrump tells Republican he’s ‘100 percent’ for releasing Nunes memo DOJ made last-minute plea to WH not to release classified memo: report McConnell: Mueller needs ‘no protection’ from Trump MORE.
The Justice Department’s No. 2 official has been in the president’s crosshairs since appointing special counsel Robert MuellerRobert Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE to lead the agency’s Russia investigation.
He’s the only official who could fire Mueller given Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsWhat Trump didn’t say in his State of the Union address DOJ made last-minute plea to WH not to release classified memo: report Overnight Regulation: Dems go on attack during EPA chief’s hearing | Mnuchin promises more Russia sanctions | Regulators subpoena major bitcoin exchange | New lawsuit over FDA e-cig rule MORE’s decision to recuse himself from Russia-related matters.
Some Republicans are now worried that a soon-to-be-released memo from GOP staff on the House Intelligence Committee could hand Trump more ammunition to fire Rosenstein — a move they fear would boomerang on the White House and Republicans running for reelection in the House and Senate.
Removing Rosenstein “raises more flags than it dismisses,” said Rep. Mark SanfordMarshall (Mark) Clement SanfordGOP reps demand answers from FBI on missing texts Trump action on tariffs triggers GOP alarm Overnight Regulation: Florida decision puts Trump drilling plan on shaky ground | Trump floats staying in Paris climate deal | Dems rush into net neutrality fight MORE (S.C.), one of several Republicans who told The Hill on the record that Trump should not fire the deputy attorney general.
Ousting Rosenstein would only make Trump look guilty, according to Sanford.
“That’s why a whole host of folks inside and outside the White House have warned against that kind of thing,” he said.
“I’m a fan of letting the process run its course,” said Rep. David JoyceDavid Patrick JoyceEven some conservatives seem open to return to earmarks The Hill’s Whip List: Where Republicans stand on tax-reform bill Bipartisan Great Lakes legislation deserves attention MORE (R-Ohio), a former county prosecutor. “I think we should let Rosenstein, Mueller and everybody else do their jobs and wait to see what the outcome is.”
“I would advise [Trump] not to do that and I don’t think he will,” added Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), an attorney.
“Bad idea,” Sen. Jeff FlakeJeffrey (Jeff) Lane FlakeOvernight Finance: Mnuchin promises new Russia sanctions after uproar | Dow drops ahead of Trump State of the Union | GOP senators call on Trump to protect NAFTA | Regulators subpoena major bitcoin exchange Key senator floats new compromise for immigration talks McConnell on midterms: ‘We do have a pretty good map’ MORE (R-Ariz.), who has frequently clashed with Trump, chimed in. “It was a bad idea to fire [former FBI Director James] Comey. I think he recognizes that by now, because that’s what got him Mueller. And this would [lead to] just trouble.”
Most GOP lawmakers are in favor of making the House Intelligence Committee memo public, arguing that doing so would let Americans make up their own minds on whether the FBI went too far in seeking surveillance warrants related to the probe of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
The memo, which the committee voted on Monday night to make public along party lines, has been sent to the White House, which has five days to decide whether to allow its release. It is believed to report that Rosenstein gave the green light to continue surveillance of Trump campaign official Carter Page last spring. Democrats on the panel argue it is little more than a set of cherry-picked GOP talking points and have produced their own memo, though the committee voted against making it public.
Speaker Paul RyanPaul Davis RyanWhat Trump didn’t say in his State of the Union address Overnight Cybersecurity: Ryan urges lawmakers not to overplay intel memo | Spotlight on cyber threats to small businesses | The Hill sits down with DHS cyber chief | CIA expects more election interference Ricketts to replace Steve Wynn as RNC finance chair MORE (R-Wis.) was prepared with notes to answer questions about the memo and Rosenstein at his press conference on Tuesday, and was quick to walk a careful line.
Asked about Trump’s private grumblings about Rosenstein, he defended the Justice official, saying he was doing a “fine job” and that he saw “no reason” why Trump should fire him.
The Speaker also noted that Rosenstein, who served as U.S. attorney for Maryland under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama, was appointed deputy attorney general after the 2016 election.
But Ryan offered support for Republicans on the Intelligence panel and criticism of the FBI, saying it was up to the Department of Justice and FBI to “clean their own house” if they have personnel problems.
The Intelligence memo criticizes the department and the FBI for failing to adequately explain to a secret spy court that some of the information included in a surveillance application for Page came from opposition research paid for in part by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonMelania Trump wears white pantsuit to State of the Union Clinton posts explanation for not firing campaign staffer accused of sexual harassment DNC vice chairman to RNC spokeswoman: ‘You endorsed an alleged pedophile’ MORE.
The Republican warnings that Trump not fire Rosenstein come a day after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whom Trump openly accused of being biased against him, announced he would step down weeks earlier than had been expected.
McCabe had been Comey’s top deputy before Trump fired Comey last May as he investigated possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
In a brief interview Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin NunesDevin Gerald NunesFive Takeaways from Trump’s State of the Union Trump tells Republican he’s ‘100 percent’ for releasing Nunes memo What Trump didn’t say in his State of the Union address MORE (R-Calif.) said he had “no idea” and “no knowledge” of any plans by Trump to fire Rosenstein.
Top Trump allies on Capitol Hill did not explicitly call for Rosenstein’s ouster on Tuesday. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsRyan urges lawmakers: Don’t overplay memo House GOP leaders not whipping conservative immigration bill Freedom Caucus may oppose next stopgap funding bill MORE (R-N.C.) declined to comment for this story. But Rep. Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanThe classified Intel memo: What you need to know Trump immigration plan hits wall of opposition GOP reps demand answers from FBI on missing texts MORE (R-Ohio), a former head of the Freedom Caucus, suggested Rosenstein was less than forthcoming when he questioned him at a recent hearing about potential anti-Trump bias at the Justice Department.
During that House Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Rosenstein stood by Mueller and said he would not fire him without good cause.
“I didn’t feel like his answers were all that great on the committee,” Jordan told The Hill on Tuesday. “That was my one interaction with him, and I wasn’t too impressed.”
Trump had considered firing Rosenstein last summer, The New York Times reported. Instead, he ordered White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, but the president backed down after McGahn threatened to quit.
There is speculation on Capitol Hill that if Trump got rid of Rosenstein, he could replace him with a political ally who would fire Mueller and stop the federal Russia probe, which now includes whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.
But some top legal minds in the GOP are warning fellow Republicans to back off. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey GowdyHarold (Trey) Watson GowdyOvernight Health Care: House to begin hearings on bills to fight opioids | Groups rally against cuts to anti-drug office | Departures test insurance lobby’s clout | Amazon teaming up to cut health care costs Oversight chairman threatens to subpoena HHS for withholding information House Intel votes to make Nunes memo public MORE (R-S.C.) said on “Fox News Sunday” that he has “100 percent” confidence in Mueller to conduct a fair investigation and urged his colleagues to “leave him the hell alone.”
“I’d follow the good advice of Trey Gowdy of keeping Mueller. Let him do his thing,” said Rep. Tim WalbergTimothy (Tim) Lee WalbergEmboldened conservatives press Ryan to bring hard-right immigration bill to floor Week ahead: GOP looks to overhaul natural gas, utilities laws GOP bill scraps voter registration requirements for colleges MORE (R-Mich.). “I think if you do any type of firing, you just resurrect all the partisan stuff.”
One frequent GOP Trump critic, Rep. Walter JonesWalter Beaman JonesOvernight Defense: Latest as shutdown looms | Ryan says budget fights pushed military past ‘breaking point’ | Lawmakers seek military hotline with North Korea | Judge bars transfer of detained US-Saudi citizen Lawmakers call for military-to-military communications with North Korea Afghanistan moves reignite war authorization debate MORE (N.C.), said it’d be foolish to try to halt the Mueller probe given that it’s now in the “fourth quarter.”
“Mueller is doing the people’s work, Rosenstein selected him, and I think if you have nothing to hide, them you would want to encourage them to complete the job,” Jones told The Hill. “When you start terminating those for doing their job, there’s something wrong.”
Firing Rosenstein now, Jones said, “would create a national concern by a lot of people.”
