Tag Archives: united airlines

How Trump is building a border wall that no one can see

President Trump’s vision of a “big, beautiful” wall along the Mexican border may never be realized, and almost certainly not as a 2,000-mile physical structure spanning sea to sea.

But in a systematic and less visible way, his administration is following a blueprint to reduce the number of foreigners living in the United States those who are undocumented and those here legallyand overhaul the U.S. immigration system for generations to come.

Across agencies and programs, federal officials are wielding executive authority to assemble a bureaucratic wall that could be more effective than any concrete and metal one. While some actions have drawn widespread attention, others have been put in place more quietly.

The administration has moved to slash the number of refugees, accelerate deportations and terminate the provisional residency of more than a million people, among other measures. On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security said nearly 60,000 Haitians allowed to stay in the United States after a devastating 2010 earthquake have until July 2019 to leave or obtain another form of legal status.

“He’s building a virtual wall by his actions and his rhetoric,” said Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the Center for Migration Studies, a nonprofit think tank.

Trump administration officials say they are simply upholding laws their predecessors did not and preserving American jobs. Previous Republican and Democratic administrations were too soft on enforcement, they say, and too rosy in their view of immigration as an unambiguously positive force.

“For decades, the American people have been begging and pleading with our elected officials for an immigration system that’s lawful and serves the national interest,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in Austin last month. “Now we have a president who supports that.”

Bob Dane, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has pushed for many of the Trump administration’s main goals on immigration, said the president has “really scaled back this expansive view of immigration that occurred under the Obama administration.”

The new restrictions could significantly reduce the number of foreign-born workers in the U.S. labor force, but demographic experts say there is little chance they will alter the country’s broader racial and ethnic transformation, which Trump’s critics say is his goal. Census projections show the United States will no longer have a single racial or ethnic majority by mid-century, according to the Pew Research Center.

Still, by erecting tougher, taller administrative hurdles for foreigners seeking to move to the United States or remain in the country after arriving illegally, the White House is attempting to shift the country back toward the tighter controls on immigration in place before the 1960s.

“Within the administration there are a number of key players who are just looking for every opportunity, every program . . . every administrative or regulatory leeway they have to restrict entry into the United States,” said Linda Hartke, president and chief executive of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which resettles refugees.

Even as they fight court orders seeking to halt parts of Trump’s immigration agenda, Sessions, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and other key players are finding ways to shrink the immigration system. Miller was an aide to Sessions before both men joined the administration; in less than a year, their immigration policy prescriptions have moved from the realm of think-tank wish lists to White House executive orders.

In October, the White House — in a plan led by Miller — said it had conducted a “bottom-up review of all immigration policies” and found “dangerous loopholes, outdated laws, and easily exploited vulnerabilities in our immigration system — current policies that are harming our country and our communities.”

Trump has endorsed GOP legislation to cut annual, legal immigration by half, reducing the number of green cards issued annually from about 1 million to 500,000. More weight would be given to immigrants with job skills, as opposed to those with extended family in the United States.

The president cut the number of refugees the United States is willing to accept annually from 110,000 to 45,000, the lowest level since 1980, and ordered the implementation of a time-consuming “extreme vetting” system that could mean the number of refugees cleared each year is much lower. In October, 1,242 refugees arrived in the United States, down from 9,945 in October 2016.

Trump also eliminated a smaller program specifically for refugees fleeing violence in Central America. The Pentagon, citing concerns about vetting, suspended a recruitment program offering skilled foreigners a fast track to citizenship if they serve in uniform.

Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the Migration Policy Institute at the New York University School of Law, said nearly 350,000 of the newcomers who arrive legally to the United States each year are the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Since barring those arrivals is not under consideration, Chishti said, the government would have to eliminate or sharply restrict almost all other avenues to reduce the annual number of immigrants to 500,000.

In addition to this week’s decision on Haitians, the government earlier this month declined to renew Temporary Protected Status, a form of provisional residency, for about 2,500 Nicaraguans. The State Department says conditions in Central America and Haiti that had been used to justify the protection for as long as two decades no longer necessitate a reprieve. Decisions on more than 250,000 Hondurans and Salvadorans with the provisional residency permits are pending.

Trump is also ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, the Obama administration program that granted work permits to 690,000 young immigrants brought here as children. Trump’s administration is expanding immigration courts and detention centers and has ratcheted up deportations from the interior of the United States, where millions of undocumented immigrants with U.S.-born children and no serious criminal records held little fear of expulsion under President Barack Obama.

Arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement are up more than 40 percent this year, and the agency wants to more than double its staff by 2023, according to a federal contracting notice published this month. ICE is calling for a major increase in workplace raids and has signed more than two dozen agreements with state and local governments that want to help arrest and detain undocumented residents.

“If you’re in this country illegally and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable,” Thomas Homan, the top official at ICE, told lawmakers this year. “You should look over your shoulder. And you need to be worried.”

The president and his aides have pressed forward despite an outcry from advocates and Democratic lawmakers, who in states such as California and Illinois have instructed police and public officials to shun cooperation with ICE. The Trump administration has threatened to strip such “sanctuary” jurisdictions of federal funding in an escalating legal standoff.

Trump’s tough talk alone appears to be one of the administration’s best bulwarks: Illegal crossings along the border with Mexico have plunged to their lowest level in 45 years, and U.S. agents are catching a far greater share of those attempting to sneak in. Applications for H-1B skilled visas and new foreign-student enrollment have also declined.

William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, said that until now U.S. immigration rates have largely spared the country from the challenges facing advanced industrial nations such as Japan and Germany that can’t replace aging workers fast enough. By slashing immigration, Frey said, the country could end up with labor shortages and other workforce issues.

But although some of Trump’s most fervent supporters see curbing immigration as a way to turn back the United States’ rapid racial and ethnic transformation, Frey said it is an unrealistic goal. By 2020, census projections show minorities will account for more than half of the under-18 U.S. population, because of higher birthrates in nonwhite populations. And by 2026, the number of whites is projected to begin declining in absolute numbers, he said, as deaths exceed births.

“You can slow the rate of Latino and Asian immigration, but it won’t make the population whiter,” Frey said. “It will just become less white at a slower pace.”

Trump continues to insist his administration will build a border wall, despite exorbitant cost projections and senior DHS officials saying a 2,000-mile structure is impractical. His supporters say they admire the president for plowing ahead in his overhaul efforts and see a historic, generational shift underway.

“There is more than one way to get to the goal,” Dane said. “Legislative solutions are all great, but clearly the administration has done things behind the scenes. . . . The results have been dramatic.”

Trump privately doubted Moore’s female accusers

President Donald Trump’s near-endorsement of Alabama Republican Roy Moore followed days of behind-the-scenes talks in which he vented about Moore’s accusers and expressed skepticism about their accounts.

During animated conversations with senior Republicans and White House aides, the president said he doubted the stories presented by Moore’s accusers and questioned why they were emerging now, just weeks before the election, according to two White House advisers and two other people familiar with the talks.

Story Continued Below

The White House advisers said the president drew parallels between Moore’s predicament and the one he faced just over a year ago when, during the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, Trump confronted a long line of women who accused him of harassment. He adamantly denied the claims.

The president’s private sentiments broke into the open Tuesday when Trump all but declared he believed Moore’s denials.

“Let me just tell you, Roy Moore denies it. That’s all I can say. He denies it. And, by the way, he totally denies it,” Trump told reporters. Moore, 70, who has been accused of sexually pursuing — and in some cases assaulting — teenagers or young women when he was in his 30s.

Trump’s remarks, made as he was departing Washington for his Mar-a-Lago resort, represented an extraordinary embrace of a scandal-tarred candidate and a sharp break from top Senate Republicans who’ve threatened to expel Moore from the chamber if he wins. At a time when tales of sexual harassment in media, politics, and entertainment are dominating national headlines, and members of both parties have said Moore’s accusers are credible, the president took the opposite stance.

“I mean, if you look at what is really going on, and you look at all the things that have happened over the last 48 hours, he totally denies it,” Trump said. “He says it didn’t happen. And, you know, you have to listen to him also. You’re talking about, he said 40 years ago this did not happen.”

When asked earlier on Tuesday whether the president had privately expressed skepticism toward Moore’s accusers, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to comment.

After the allegations against Moore first emerged while the president was on a 12-day Asia trip, the White House initially said that the candidate should withdraw from the race if they were true. But in the days to come, the administration’s line softened. It was up to Alabama voters, the White House later said.

Then, a turning point came.

Trump gave personal approval for White House counselor Kellyanne Conway to go after Moore’s Democratic opponent, former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones, during a Monday interview on “Fox and Friends,” which the president regularly watches, said one person with direct knowledge of the decision. Conway laced into Jones, saying that Alabama voters shouldn’t be “fooled” by him and hinted that the White House wanted Moore’s vote on tax reform.

It was an extraordinary shift and suggested the White House was seriously warming toward Moore. On Tuesday, a day after Conway went after Jones, Trump took his turn.

“I can tell you one thing for sure: We don’t need a liberal person in there, a Democrat — Jones. I’ve looked at his record. It’s terrible on crime. It’s terrible on the border. It’s terrible on the military. I can tell you for a fact, we do not need somebody that’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military, bad for the Second Amendment,” he said.

Until Tuesday, the president had refused to tip his hand about how he felt about Moore. His silence was surprising considering how often Trump weighs in on controversies.

There were some signs the administration was distancing itself from the Alabama hopeful. On Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence’s political action committee announced it was dishing out contributions to three dozen Republicans – a list Moore was conspicuously left off of. The president also had a hand in the Republican National Committee’s decision to withdraw support for Moore. Prior to the announcement, RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel spoke by phone separately with Trump and White House political director Bill Stepien, according to two senior Republicans briefed on the discussions.

Yet the president refused to publicly castigate Moore, eschewing repeated requests from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to intervene. Behind the scenes, the president asked his advisers for updates on the Alabama race, requesting fresh polling and prodding them for information on how people in the state are digesting the revelations. Among the questions he asked: Whether locals believed the accusations Moore was facing.

All the while, Moore’s team was thrilled that the president — who remains widely popular in Alabama — has refused to stay out of the race. The campaign, one Moore adviser said, had been in touch with the White House in recent weeks.

Trump’s embrace of Moore is shaped by a variety of factors, advisers say, including his long-running reluctance to antagonize his conservative base, much of which is sticking with Moore. And, with Moore refusing to exit the race, advisers say the president saw little upside to aligning himself against him.

He has also come to identify with the candidate. Trump has long viewed the tumultuous final month of the 2016 campaign as a critical moment in his political rise, when it became apparent who in the Republican Party was with him and who wasn’t. As establishment Republicans withdrew their support for Moore in recent days, one senior White House official said, the president remembered that many of those same figures abandoned him, too.

As he departed Washington on Tuesday, Trump hinted that he was preparing to go all-in for the candidate.

Asked if he would campaign for the Alabama Republican, Trump responded: “I’ll be letting you know next week.”

We surveyed 112 Puerto Rican funeral homes to check the accuracy of the hurricane death toll. This is what we found.

Updated 6:28 PM ET, Mon November 20, 2017

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Cayey, Puerto Rico (CNN)People on this part of the island knew Quintín Vidal Rolón for two things: his white cowboy hat, which he seemed to wear every day of his 89-year life; and his beat-up Ford pickup truck, which he’d been driving for at least 50 years.

          One funeral home director, José A. Molina, in Vega Alta, was so overwhelmed by work after the storm that he died of a heart attack on October 10, according to his son, Luis Alberto Molina. The 31-year-old said his father was under tremendous stress as he tried to run a sanitary business without reliable power or water service. José Molina had to wait in hourslong lines for fuel, his son said. Before the storm, he had high blood pressure but otherwise was in good health, Luis Alberto Molina said. His color and temperament changed. He stopped eating and sleeping. Eventually he complained of chest pains and was taken to the hospital. His son, who now manages the business, the Vega Alta Memorial Funeral Home, handled his father’s services.

Eight women say Charlie Rose sexually harassed them — with nudity, groping and lewd calls

Eight women have told The Washington Post that longtime television host Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.

The women were employees or aspired to work for Rose at the “Charlie Rose” show from the late 1990s to as recently as 2011. They ranged in age from 21 to 37 at the time of the alleged encounters. Rose, 75, whose show airs on PBS and Bloomberg TV, also co-hosts “CBS This Morning” and is a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes.”

There are striking commonalities in the accounts of the women, each of whom described their interactions with Rose in multiple interviews with The Post. For all of the women, reporters interviewed friends, colleagues or family members who said the women had confided in them about aspects of the incidents. Three of the eight spoke on the record.

Five of the women spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of Rose’s stature in the industry, his power over their careers or what they described as his volatile temper.

“In my 45 years in journalism, I have prided myself on being an advocate for the careers of the women with whom I have worked,” Rose said in a statement provided to The Post. “Nevertheless, in the past few days, claims have been made about my behavior toward some former female colleagues.

“It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.

“I have learned a great deal as a result of these events, and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives.”

Within hours of the publication of this story, PBS and Bloomberg LP immediately suspended distribution of the “Charlie Rose” show. CBS announced that it was suspending Rose as it looked into the matter.

Most of the women said Rose alternated between fury and flattery in his interactions with them. Five described Rose putting his hand on their legs, sometimes their upper thigh, in what they perceived as a test to gauge their reactions. Two said that while they were working for Rose at his residences or were traveling with him on business, he emerged from the shower and walked naked in front of them. One said he groped her buttocks at a staff party.

Reah Bravo was an intern and then associate producer for Rose’s PBS show beginning in 2007. In interviews, she described unwanted sexual advances while working for Rose at his private waterfront estate in Bellport, N.Y., and while traveling with him in cars, in a hotel suite and on a private plane.


Two women who worked for Charlie Rose say he emerged from a shower and walked naked in front of them while they were working at his home or traveling with him for business. Above, Rose at home in Bellport, N.Y. (Ben Baker/Redux)

“It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were,” she told The Post. “He was a sexual predator, and I was his victim.”

Kyle Godfrey-Ryan, one of Rose’s assistants in the mid-2000s, recalled at least a dozen instances where Rose walked nude in front of her while she worked in one of his New York City homes. He also repeatedly called the then-21-year-old late at night or early in the morning to describe his fantasies of her swimming naked in the Bellport pool as he watched from his bedroom, she said.

“It feels branded into me, the details of it,” Godfrey-Ryan said.

She said she told Yvette Vega, Rose’s longtime executive producer, about the calls.

“I explained how he inappropriately spoke to me during those times,” Godfrey-Ryan said. “She would just shrug and just say, ‘That’s just Charlie being Charlie.’ ”

In a statement to The Post, Vega said she should have done more to protect the young women on the show.

“I should have stood up for them,” said Vega, 52, who has worked with Rose since the show was created in 1991. “I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”

Godfrey-Ryan said that when Rose learned she had confided to a mutual friend about his conduct, he fired her.

Megan Creydt worked as a coordinator on the show from 2005 to 2006, overlapping with Godfrey-Ryan.

“It was quite early in working there that he put his hand on my mid-thigh,” said Creydt, who agreed to be interviewed on the record to support other women who were coming forward with what she deemed to be more serious claims concerning Rose.

She said that during the incident, Rose was driving his Mini Cooper in Manhattan while she was sitting in the passenger seat.

“I don’t think I said anything,” she said. “I tensed up. I didn’t move his hand off, but I pulled my legs to the other side of the car. I tried not to get in a car with him ever again. I think he was testing me out.”

Her then-boyfriend confirmed to The Post that she told him the story at the time.

In addition to the eight women who say they were harassed, The Post spoke to about two dozen former employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Six said they saw what they considered to be harassment, eight said they were uncomfortable with Rose’s treatment of female employees, and 10 said they did not see or hear anything concerning.

“He was always professional with me,” said Eleonore Marchand Mueller, a former assistant of Rose’s who worked for him from 2003 to 2005. “I never witnessed any unprofessional incidents.”

The show’s small, informal structure, with roughly 15 employees, and the centrality of Rose’s authority on a program he owns led to uncertainty over how to respond, said the women who felt victimized. “There wasn’t anybody to report this to if you felt uncomfortable,” one of them said.

The employees worked for Charlie Rose Inc., and not Bloomberg LP or PBS, which said they did not provide human resources support for the show.

The environment brimmed with the young and potentially vulnerable, hungry for scarce television jobs. “There are so few jobs,” said one of the women who said Rose groped her. “You know if you don’t behave a certain way, there’s someone else behind you.”

Rose traveled frequently, jetting off to interview world leaders across the globe and splitting time between two New York City residences and homes in Bellport — on Long Island — and North Carolina. Often at his side was a rotating cast of young assistants and producers.


The informal structure of Rose’s small show — with roughly 15 employees — and the centrality of the veteran journalist’s authority on a program he owns led to uncertainty over how to respond, said the woman who felt victimized. “There wasn’t anybody to report this to if you felt uncomfortable,” one of them said. Above, Rose at a gala in New York on Oct. 30, 2017. (Mike Coppola/Getty Images for the National Committee on American Foreign Policy)

The young women who were hired by the show were sometimes known as “Charlie’s Angels,” two former employees said. Rose frequently gave unsolicited shoulder rubs to several of them, behavior referred to among employees as “the crusty paw,” a former employee said.

Rumors about Rose’s behavior have circulated for years. One of the authors of this report, Outlook contributing writer Irin Carmon, first heard and attempted to report on the allegations involving two of the women while she was a journalist at Jezebel in 2010 but was unable to confirm them. In the past several weeks in the wake of accusations against Harvey Weinstein, Carmon and Post investigative reporter Amy Brittain jointly began contacting dozens of men and women who had worked on the “Charlie Rose” show or interviewed for jobs there.

A woman then in her 30s who was at the Bellport home in 2010 to discuss a job opportunity said Rose appeared before her in an untethered bathrobe, naked underneath. She said he subsequently attempted to put his hands down her pants. She said she pushed his hands away and wept throughout the encounter.

A woman who began as an intern in the late 1990s and was later hired full time described a “ritual” of young women at the show being summoned by Rose to his Manhattan apartment to work at a desk there. The woman described a day when Rose went into the bathroom, left the door open and turned on the shower.

She said he began to call her name, insistently. She ignored him, she said, and continued working. Suddenly, he came out of the bathroom and stood over her. She turned her head, briefly saw skin and Rose with a towel and jerked back around to avoid the sight. She said he said, “Didn’t you hear me calling you?”

She said she told someone in the office, and word got around. A few days later, she said, a male colleague approached her, laughing, “Oh, you got the shower trick.” The woman’s sister confirmed that her sibling had told her about the shower incident soon after it occurred.

Another woman said that during her internship in the early 2000s, Rose groped her breasts and stomach as she drove him from Bellport back to Manhattan. Her then-boyfriend, now husband, confirmed that she described the incident to him immediately after it occurred. When Rose invited her to work regularly and stay overnight at Bellport, her boyfriend told her to refuse the offer, and she did, both told The Post.

Rose’s eponymous show, with its trademark black background and round oak table, has been in production since 1991. What it lacks in mass viewership, the “Charlie Rose” show makes up for in prestige and high-profile bookings of the likes of former president Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Warren Buffett. Rose’s show is produced by Charlie Rose Inc., an independent television production company, and distributed by PBS. It is filmed at Bloomberg headquarters in Manhattan.

Rose’s stature has only grown in recent years.

CBS tapped him in 2011 to help revamp its ailing morning show, now called “CBS This Morning,” expanding his audience. He has also been a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes” for nearly a decade. His 2013 interview of Syria’s president won Emmy and Peabody awards. (None of the women who made accusations against Rose to The Post worked for PBS or CBS.)

Representatives from PBS, CBS and Bloomberg said they have no records of sexual harassment complaints about Charlie Rose.

When Time magazine named Rose one of its 100 most influential people in 2014, billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg described him as “one of the most important and influential people in journalism.”


Rose joined “CBS This Morning” in 2011. Here, he’s seen with co-anchor Norah O’Donnell, left, and Gayle King on March 13, 2017. (Michele Crowe/CBS via Getty Images)

Rose, who was divorced in 1980, has long had a reputation as a ladies man. His “CBS This Morning” co-host, Norah O’Donnell, introduced him at a 2014 fundraiser dinner by joking, “We’re all here because with Charlie Rose, one woman is never enough.” Rose graciously accepted honors that night by saying that he was lucky to have worked throughout his career with “women who were smarter, more thoughtful and more eloquent than I was.”

There was also less flattering coverage. The now-defunct Radar magazine in 2007 called him a “toxic bachelor” and repeated an unnamed woman’s claim that Rose had “palmed her buttock like a honeydew.” His then-attorney, David Boies, who has recently drawn criticism for his representation of Harvey Weinstein, demanded a retraction. The magazine refused.

The “Charlie Rose” show prides itself on its highbrow intellectual ambition, but his life is glamorous, full of black-tie galas and famous friends. He can be charming and generous, consulting favored employees for their opinions on what to ask heads of state or whisking them off to exotic locations for interviews. But his wrath was swift and often fiercely personal, according to interviews with multiple former employees.

“Everybody is terrified of him,” said one of the women who said that Rose groped her when she was an intern. “He creates this environment of constant fear. And then he’ll shine a spotlight on you and make you feel amazing.”

Multiple women said they had at first been reassured by the presence of Vega, Rose’s executive producer, who has worked with him for decades. Two women who spoke to The Post said they repeatedly reported Rose’s inappropriate sexual behavior to Vega.

Working for the “Charlie Rose” show was a longtime dream for Reah Bravo, who in 2007 was a 29-year-old graduate student studying international affairs at Columbia University. She struggled to make ends meet during her unpaid internship, accruing credit card debt and eating free cereal in the Bloomberg food court.

One day, several months into the internship, Rose offered her a side gig at his home in Bellport on Long Island.

“Here is the deal: I’ll pay you $2,500 for the week plus all expenses for food, movies etc.,” he wrote to her on Aug. 9, 2007. “You will be there from Monday August 13-Friday afternoon, August 17. Your primary responsibilities are to organize and catalogue all my books and tapes and files … It will help me a lot, be fun for you, and you will have a car all the time for whatever you need to do.”

Before she left for Bellport, Bravo said Vega told her that personal time with Rose was a key to becoming part of the team.


(Obtained by The Washington Post)

Bravo said she took the train to Bellport, where she said Rose met her at the Ronkonkoma station and took her to a bank to withdraw money to cover her expenses. She stayed at the Bellport home for about a week, sleeping in a bedroom in the main house. Rose was gone much of the time.

While she was there, Bravo said she received a message from a male producer. If Rose did anything “sketchy,” she said he told her, she should not hesitate to call the show’s car service to return home.

Late one night, Bravo said, Rose returned home after a night out. She said she tried to hurry out of the library in the guesthouse to return to her bedroom in the main house before Rose came in, but he intercepted her. She said he insisted that they have a glass of wine at the dining room table in the main house.

Then, he suggested they walk out to his dock and look at the moon, Bravo said. Once there, “he came up from behind me and he put his arms around me,” she said, remembering that she felt a mix of apprehension and confusion. “It reflected his poor judgment. How could a man of his stature and his power be doing something so inappropriate? . . . It seemed reckless.”

Caught off guard, she said she did not know how to respond and endured his embrace.

A day or two later, Bravo said, Rose drove her back to Manhattan. She said he began to tell her that he felt very alone in life, despite his wealth and success. He recalled a brush with death a year earlier during heart surgery in Paris and began to tear up, and she said she patted him on the shoulder to console him.

“I didn’t necessarily buy it,” she said. “I thought, ‘I’ll keep my distance and I feel sorry for him.’ But I didn’t think of him as a predator at that time.”

Bravo soon returned to Bellport for a second trip. She was working in the guesthouse and caught a glimpse of Rose rinsing off nude in an unenclosed outdoor shower. She said she quickly averted her eyes and moved away from the window.

Later, he asked if she had seen him showering, she said, and seemed disappointed when she said no. While at Bellport, Bravo said Rose repeatedly insisted that he needed to hear that she was comfortable at Bellport and how much she enjoyed it there.

She emailed him about her work ideas and also mentioned Bellport.

“Have I told you how much I absolutely enjoy it out there?” she wrote him on Sept 1, 2007. “The company, the conversation, the comfort…that said I’m happy to go out there for both the remainder of this weekend AND parts of the next in an effort to finish the books faster.”

That fall, she traveled with Rose to Aspen for a conference. On Oct. 1, after the trip, Bravo wrote an email to Vega, alluding to earlier issues with Rose:

“On a personal note, I know working for Charlie requires one to embrace his uniqueness and develop a professional relationship that can account for it. It’s taken a couple straight forward conversations between the two of us, but I feel I’m in a better place than previously. And that’s not to say that I was previously in a really bad place! It all might sound cryptic, but you seem to play somewhat of a motherly role for staff members and I just wanted you to know that I’m okay : )”

Vega responded the same day:

“I have some concerns for you especially in what you are trying to tell me in this email. Please know the following about me, I have worked with Charlie for 16 years, so there is nothing that I haven’t heard or possibly experienced – and that anything you ever reveal to me would be kept in confidence from anyone and from the top down, so that you can feel comfortable in that confidence…”


From left: Rose, “Charlie Rose” show executive producer Yvette Vega and Beth Hoppe, a PBS executive, speak at the 2013 Summer Television Critics Association tour in Beverly Hills, Calif. Two women who spoke to The Post said they repeatedly reported Rose’s inappropriate sexual behavior to Vega. In a statement, Vega says she regrets not doing more to protect the young women on the show. (Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)

Toward the end of 2007, Bravo was given more responsibilities and Rose occasionally paid her for helping him prepare for interviews, speeches and conferences. Her new duties required more travel with Rose, and he frequently requested her company for working dinners, she said.

Rose would regularly hire drivers to take them around town. On more than one occasion, she said, he groped her in the back seat. One time, she said, he “grabbed me by my hair, holding a fist of it at the base of my scalp.” More than once, “he would grip my head tightly while talking to me. He held it so tightly that I couldn’t turn my neck in any direction. I was forced to look at him or to let him talk directly into my ear.”

In Indiana for a speaking engagement in March 2008, Rose summoned Bravo to his hotel suite to work on his speech. While she was working at a desk in the room, she said, he emerged naked from the shower and stood before a mirror where she could see him. She said she ignored him and kept working.

Later, flying on a small private plane alone with Rose, she said he requested that they watch a documentary about Algeria on a portable DVD player. Suddenly, she said, Rose got out of his seat and pressed his body onto hers.

“I felt at a loss. I mean, what am I going to do? We were how many feet up in the air?” she said, adding that they remained clothed. “I remember him being on top of me.”

Bravo said Rose’s advance was bizarre, brief and “animalistic.” Then he returned to his seat.

“I felt an immense sense of shame that I had greenlighted his actions because I didn’t fight back,” she said.

Bravo said she locked eyes with one of the two pilots as she disembarked. She said she interpreted his expression as one of “sympathy or maybe disgust.”

Later in 2008, she was hired as an associate producer but was already looking for another job. The same year, Bravo was offered a job that paid three times as much as the one at the “Charlie Rose” show. In response, Rose took her to the Spotted Pig, a well-known restaurant in Manhattan, and dangled a position as a producer in Washington. She could even live in a Georgetown residence where he sometimes stayed, she said he told her.

She said she declined.

“I was leaving because I was getting away,” she said. “I would never want to live someplace where he had keys.”

Since then, Bravo has worked as a corporate speechwriter and now lives in Europe with her husband and their young son.

In retrospect, Bravo said she feels shame and embarrassment about her warm correspondence with Rose.

“I read old emails, and I sound so sycophantic, it makes me sick,” she said. “But it was what he wanted, it made my work easier, and to an extent, it was the same game most staff members played. Male staffers did it, too. They just weren’t feeling as pathetic about it.”

Looking back, she is struck by how calculated Rose’s approach seemed.

“He most definitely said, on numerous occasions, ‘I’ve never forced you to do something you didn’t want to do,’ ” she said. “He would say this forcefully and wait for my confirmation after he said this. I remember once wondering if I was being recorded.”

Kyle Godfrey-Ryan was in her early 20s and had taken time off from her college studies in the mid-2000s when a friend offered to introduce her to Charlie Rose. She was unfamiliar with his show but was soon hired to be his assistant.

From the beginning, there was a blurring of the boundaries between Rose’s professional and private life, she said. On her first day on the job, Rose injured his foot. She tended to him as he recovered.

But soon, Godfrey-Ryan said, he began yelling at her, calling her stupid and incompetent and pathetic.

“He repeatedly attacked her in front of other people,” recalled a former producer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “He once said that because she hadn’t gotten a college degree she would never amount to anything better than his secretary.”

After the bouts of rage, Godfrey-Ryan said, Rose would often be conciliatory.

“It would usually entail some version of him also touching me,” she said. “A hand on the upper thigh. He’d give a hug but touch the side of the breast.”

She said she ignored his actions. Then he began calling her as late as midnight and as early as 6 a.m.

“It would be wanting to know details of my sex life,” she said. “ ‘Who’s next to you? What do you do? Is he touching you?’ And I was like, ‘Okay, Charlie, I’ll see you tomorrow.’ I just acted like it wasn’t happening.”

She said other calls involved a “very specific, repetitive fantasy” of her disrobing at the Bellport home and swimming “back and forth in the pool in the moonlight” as he watched from his bedroom.

Her boyfriend at the time, now her husband, told The Post that he was often present for these calls but said he did not know what was being discussed. The content of the calls, however, was openly discussed in the office and even joked about, according to Godfrey-Ryan and the producer who worked there at the time.

Godfrey-Ryan also said Rose would repeatedly walk in front of her naked at one of his New York City residences. Her husband confirmed that she complained to him about it at the time.

She said she ignored the nudity. “He was getting more and more frustrated that I wouldn’t engage,” she said.

Godfrey-Ryan said she reported the touching and the calls to Vega, but nothing happened.

“She just made me feel like I was being a dramatic little girl,” Godfrey-Ryan said. She stopped reporting the behavior.

Godfrey-Ryan said she eventually confided to a mutual friend outside the show about Rose, and the friend told Rose.

She said Rose fired her.

“He took me out to lunch and told me how embarrassed he was, how he didn’t treat me like that,” she said. “It was really about how I got it wrong, and, obviously, I couldn’t work there anymore.”

She later went back to school at Columbia. She has since launched her own business, Tune.Studio, which uses infrasonic wave technology to treat stress and improve moods, leading to “peace and happiness.”

“It makes me a little upset to see him on television,” she said. “Everything I experienced with journalism there made me not want to stay.”

Another woman gave multiple interviews to The Post about her experience with Rose but requested anonymity out of concern for her privacy.

In 2009, she was in her mid-30s, looking to break into broadcast journalism after studying politics and earning her graduate degree in Europe. While working at a cultural foundation in New York City, her boss offered to put her in touch with Charlie Rose.

Rose responded with interest.

The meetings that followed, she said, were unconventional: a dinner at a restaurant, late at night with Rose’s prominent friends, where he drank a lot of wine. A sudden weekend invitation to lunch continued with her tagging along as Rose shopped for furniture. When he drove her home, she said she listened in alarm as he berated a producer over the phone.

Then he turned to the job applicant. “He put his hand on my knee and said, ‘Oh, I’m sorry about that,’ ” she said. “He said, ‘I hope you don’t mind, I’m from the South, we’re touchers.’ ”

No job offer came, but on June 8, 2010, Rose got back in touch, according to an email the woman provided. She was still unemployed and the job Rose described sounded ideal.

“He talked about this position, which he referred to as being his intellectual partner, that I would be the executive producer for global content,” she recalled.

By now, she had been told the unorthodox interview process was standard because of Rose’s packed schedule and desire to do the hiring for all positions by himself.

As part of the process, she visited Bloomberg’s Manhattan office and also discussed the job with Rose at his apartment.

“My producers come here all the time to work,” she said he told her.

She said Rose mentioned a salary of $120,000, described the job as involving frequent international travel and asked for references. Rose soon suggested they see how they traveled together by having her visit his Bellport house, she said.

On June 18, Rose sent her an email inviting her to the house that evening.

“As I mentioned, I’m going to my place on long island tonight to write…and then coming back tomorrow for a dinner. This is to invite to visit…

“You have your own wing of the house, or even a guesthouse, It’s on the water, plus Olympic pool, tennis court, plenty of movies and books and sailing and I run on the beach at sunrise and sunset…This has no influence on our dialogue about work projects.”

He added near the end of the email: “Bring someone if you like. I’m on deadline, so i will be writing all the time and will not be entertaining except breaks for exercise and meals. Let me know…before noon.”


(Obtained by The Washington Post)

Eager to land the job, the woman agreed to travel with Rose to Bellport, which is about 60 miles from Manhattan.

She gave the following account:

That evening, after stopping for dinner and getting lost, they arrived at the house after midnight. She did not see anyone else there. Rose proposed she choose a DVD of his show that they could watch together. After the show, Rose gave her a tour of the property. The guesthouse, she noticed, was packed with clutter, uninhabitable.

At the pool, Rose dangled his legs in the water and then said that he needed to change because his pant legs were wet. He returned wearing a white bathrobe, which was open; he wore nothing underneath.

“I thought, I’m doomed,” she said. “I was completely panicked. In retrospect, I thought of a million things I could have done.”

She said she was not intoxicated — Rose had drunk his wine and then hers at the restaurant — but said he appeared to be. It was nearly 2 a.m. and she was exhausted, she said. She also said she felt alone and powerless. It was the middle of the night, they were on his secluded property, and she did not know how to drive.

“I started talking in this feeble and compulsive way,” she said. “I started talking about power, how the abuse of power can be. He completely lost it. ‘What are you talking about? That’s certainly not the case.’ ”

She said he then tried to put a hand down her pants.

“By the time he touched me the first time, he was already very angry,” she said. “I was scared, and I was also kind of frozen.”

After that, her memory is “hazy,” she said. They ended up in his bedroom.

“I really, honestly, I’ve tried so hard, especially recently, since I’ve been thinking about this, to try to remember what happened between sitting by the pool and being in his bed,” she said. “I have no recollection of how we went from here to there. I do remember I was crying the entire time.”

He reached down her pants again, she said, and she pushed his hands away. As she wept, she said, Rose asked her, “Baby, oh baby, why are you crying?”

The encounter ended when he appeared to be asleep and she felt she could leave the room, she said.

The next day, she said there was little mention of what had happened. She described the previous night to him “as a bit of a disaster” and he said, “What do you mean?”

A few days later, she followed up about the job.

In retrospect, she said, “Remaining silent allowed me to continue denying what had occurred. It was in that state of denial that I wrote to him asking about the job.”

He replied with his regrets.

“The whole thing was really the most humiliating and most degrading experience I’ve ever had,” the woman says now. A friend she confided in at the time described her as having been “distraught” in recounting what happened.

“To have been used in the way she was left her feeling really confused and really distressed,” the friend told The Post. The friend encouraged her to write about her experience, and she chose to do so as a short story.

In one of the drafts that she shared with The Post, a tall, drawling television host named “Johnny Pose” brings a young woman to his country home on Long Island to discuss a job opportunity.

The woman said she changed some key details about what happened by the pool. And in the story, unlike in real life, she said, she viewed the host with contempt rather than fear.

She said she submitted the story to several magazine editors in 2010 and 2011. Paris Review editor Lorin Stein declined to publish the story but wrote to her in March 2011, “It has the ring of truth (alas).”

The woman titled the story, “The Hunt.”

The double entendre, she said, was intentional.

“I was hunting for a job,” she told The Post, “and he was hunting for me.”

Julie Tate and Alice Crites contributed to this report.

The Justice Department is suing AT&T to block its $85 billion bid for Time Warner


(
mrbill / Flickr)

The Department of Justice sued Monday to block ATT’s $85 billion bid for entertainment conglomerate Time Warner, setting the stage for one of the biggest antitrust cases to hit Washington in decades.

The move by the Justice Department’s antitrust division is unusual because it challenges a deal that would combine two different kinds of companies — a telecom with a media and entertainment company. Antitrust officials are relatively untested in the courts on opposing such deals and have rarely tried to squash them.

If successful, however, the government’s case would send a strong signal across the business world that Washington is no longer looking as kindly on such mergers.

“It may be one of the most important antitrust battles of modern times,” said Gene Kimmelman, a former federal antitrust official and president of Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group.

There is also political risk for the Justice Department. Some Democrats have expressed concern that antitrust officials could be seeking to block the deal because the Trump administration has been highly critical of CNN, which is owned by Time Warner – a charge that the department and the White House have denied.

ATT has said it is willing to use the court process to unearth communications between White House and antitrust officials over the case. If such evidence is uncovered, analysts say, ATT could argue that Trump abused his position as president to carry out a politically motivated attack against a private actor.

Beyond his frequent criticisms on CNN, Trump said on the campaign trail that the deal would concentrate control of the media in the hands of too few firms.
The administration’s lawsuit seeks to prevent a deal that would combine ATT — one of the country’s largest providers of Internet and subscription television — with Time Warner’s enormous library of films, HBO, live TV programming and other content.

ATT said it plans to challenge the Justice Department’s suit in court.

“Today’s DOJ lawsuit is a radical and inexplicable departure from decades of antitrust precedent,” said David R. McAtee II, ATT’s general counsel. “Vertical mergers like this one are routinely approved because they benefit consumers without removing any competitor from the market. We see no legitimate reason for our merger to be treated differently.”

Justice officials argued that a combined ATT-Time Warner company could use its power to raise prices on consumers and corporate rivals.

“This merger would greatly harm American consumers,” said Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief. “It would mean higher monthly television bills and fewer of the new, emerging innovative options that consumers are beginning to enjoy.”

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the government’s complaint accuses ATT’s deal of violating section 7 of the Clayton Act, the nation’s top federal law governing mergers and acquisitions. In making their argument, antitrust officials pointed to what they said were ATT’s earlier criticisms of Comcast’s purchase of NBCUniversal in 2011, a similar type of deal involving a content company and a content distributor.

Back then, ATT argued that allowing Comcast to merge with NBC Universal would give the combined company the ability to use programming to hinder competition, antitrust officials said.

The Justice Department cited ATT’s control over DirecTV, which it bought in 2015, as a reason why the current deal raised even more concerns than Comcast’s.

“We concluded [the ATT tie-up] was even more harmful than the Comcast-NBC matter,” said a DOJ official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal agency deliberations.

But in a press conference Monday, ATT disputed the account of the antitrust officials, saying that it had not commented on the Comcast NBCUniversal merger, adding that it was DirecTV, not ATT, that had made those arguments before the two companies combined.

Still, some critics, such as the premium cable channel Starz, have argued that a merged ATT-Time Warner conglomerate could force rival television networks to raise their prices, providing an incentive for viewers to subscribe to HBO or other channels that ATT would own.

Consumer advocates said ATT could withhold Time Warner’s content from other TV and Internet providers. Consumers could then be compelled to switch to ATT’s services from those of Comcast or Verizon to get Time Warner shows and movies.

ATT’s chief executive, Randall Stephenson, has said such a move would not make sense for its business, since the company would want to ensure that its content is consumed by as many people as possible.

DOJ’s lawsuit reflects a potential turning point in antitrust enforcement. The government has rarely brought legal complaints against mergers or acquisitions involving companies that do not directly compete. Instead, it has preferred to impose enduring conditions on a combined company to make sure it behaves in competitive ways.

But Delrahim, who was nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate in September, largely rejects the use of so-called “behavioral” remedies to address potentially anti-competitive tie-ups.

“That approach is fundamentally regulatory, imposing ongoing government oversight on what should preferably be a free market,” Delrahim said in a recent speech to the American Bar Association. The antitrust division, he continued, is likely to return to applying “structural” changes to problematic mergers that force two merging companies to sell off assets.

In a closed-door meeting in Washington earlier this month, antitrust officials told ATT executives that the acquisition would fail to pass regulatory muster unless the company agreed to spin off some properties, such as either Turner Broadcasting or its DirecTV service.

ATT responded that it has no intention of making any major divestments, according to multiple people who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private discussions.

DOJ’s suggestion to ATT that it sell Turner Broadcasting was interpreted by some executives and analysts as a veiled attempt by the White House to punish CNN for its critical reporting on the Trump administration.

Even beyond the politics surrounding the case, the Justice Department may not have an airtight economic argument against the ATT-Time Warner deal, some analysts said.

“DOJ isn’t that great when it actually has to go to trial to block mergers, and the jurisprudence on blocking vertical deals is bad for any case the government would bring,” said Robert McDowell, a former commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, referring to the lack of precedent for a successful lawsuit against deals involving firms in different industries.

If ATT ultimately wins the case, it would be allowed to close its deal with Time Warner without needing to divest any assets or make other concessions to government regulators — dealing Delrahim a major blow early in his tenure, according to Rich Greenfield, an industry analyst at BTIG. But, he added, losing the case could give Trump a stronger argument against media consolidation.

“We could envision President Donald Trump saying ‘Fake Courts’ and taking the populist approach that he tried and failed to stop big media from getting bigger,” said Greenfield in a research note last week.

 

Asked multiple times, White House spokesman refuses to clarify if Trump has unendorsed Roy Moore

On ABC’s This Week Sunday morning, George Stephanopoulos drilled White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short for answers as to whether President Trump still supports Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct. At least half a dozen times, Short dodged blatant yes-or-no questions, leaving room for Trump to be satisfied if Moore ends up winning the special election next month.

Short started the interview by hanging his hat on the “if true” caveat — that Trump would believe the allegations are disqualifying only if they were somehow proven to be true. As the White House has said on other occasions, Trump is essentially washing his hands of it by leaving it up to the people of Alabama to decide.

But Stephanopoulos was unsatisfied with these responses and pressed Short to clarify whether Trump actually believes the women who have made accusations against Moore. “Obviously, George, if he did not believe the women’s accusations were credible, he would be down campaigning for Roy Moore. He has not done that. He has concerns about the accusations,” Short said. The implication seemed to be that Trump’s lack of campaigning should be seen as a condemnation of Moore.

But then Short immediately began defending Moore too. “But he’s also concerned that these accusations are 38 years old, Roy Moore has been in public service for decades, and the accusations did not arise until a month before the election,” he continued. “So we’re concerned about several aspects of the story; we’re very concerned about the allegations, but at this point, as I’ve said, we think it’s best for the people of Alabama to make the decision for them.”

Stephanopoulos pointed out that Short still had not actually answered whether Trump believes the women, but Short insisted that he had. As the back-and-forth continued, Stephanopoulos asked Short several times to clarify with yes-or-no answers about Trump’s ongoing support for Moore and whether he believes the accusers, but Short could not provide those simple answers, again leaning on the people of Alabama.

Eventually, Stephanopoulos asked whether it would be the “right decision” if the people of Alabama did, in fact, elect Moore. “I think that the right decision will be what the people of Alabama decide,” Short replied.

Before the allegations came to light, Trump openly supported Moore, having quickly endorsed him after he won the Republican primary. When asked about Moore’s many controversial opinions, such as past support for criminalizing homosexuality and barring Muslims from serving in Congress, Trump dodged the question, crediting the people of Alabama for liking Moore.

Short’s waffling responses reflect comments White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders made Friday when she defended Trump for attacking Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) over allegations against him, despite having called his own accusers liars and not similarly attacking Moore. “I think in one case specifically, Senator Franken has admitted wrongdoing. The president hasn’t. It a very clear distinction,” she explained, seeming to pin liability on specific admissions of guilt. She also went on to say that Moore could still sue his accusers, a point that Short echoed Sunday.

It’s also not a new tactic for Trump to defer to the states to avoid taking a side on a controversial issue. Over the course of his campaign, for example, Trump’s position on transgender rights (which Moore notably opposes) slowly shifted from indifferent support to “hopefully the states will make the right decisions.” Just like the equivocating over the allegations against Moore, Trump said at one point, “I don’t view it as civil rights or not civil rights.” By relying on ambiguous language and deferring responsibility to other decision-makers, Trump attempts to play both sides of the issue while still holding out for an outcome that benefits him.

In this case, if Moore wins, Trump stands to gain by holding onto a Republican seat in the Senate, while creating the appearance that he’s not standing by someone accused of sexual abuse. When Stephanopoulos asked Short if Trump would work with Moore as a Senator, Short confirmed, “The president works with all members of Congress. That’s his role.”


Robert Mugabe, in Speech to Zimbabwe, Refuses to Say if He Will Resign

Advertisement

Supported by

In a 20-minute speech to the African nation on Sunday night, President Robert G. Mugabe, flanked by members of the military, refused to say whether he would resign after nearly 40 years in power.Published OnNov. 19, 2017CreditImage by Ben Curtis/Associated Press

By

Nov. 19, 2017

HARARE, Zimbabwe — Robert Mugabe, 93, who ruled Zimbabwe with an iron grip until the military placed him under house arrest last week, stunned the nation on Sunday night by refusing to say whether he would resign.

Many political observers and fellow Zimbabweans had been expecting Mr. Mugabe to step down as president after nearly 40 years in power. But the embattled president gave a 20-minute televised speech that acknowledged problems in the nation — and he vowed to soldier on.

“The era of victimization and arbitrary decisions” must end, Mr. Mugabe said while sitting at a table, flanked by members of the military and other officials, including a priest.

He also declared that he would preside over his governing party’s congress in a few weeks. “I will preside over its processes, which must not be prepossessed by any acts calculated to undermine it or to compromise the outcomes in the eyes of the public,” he said.

Observers questioned how Mr. Mugabe could oversee the congress if he was no longer leader of the party: His address came hours after he was expelled as leader of his party, ZANU-PF, which gave him until noon on Monday to resign or face impeachment by Parliament.

Party officials earlier on Sunday also removed his wife, Grace Mugabe, as head of the ZANU-PF Women’s League and barred her from the party for life. So were Jonathan Moyo, Zimbabwe’s minister of higher and tertiary education; and Saviour Kasukuwere, the minister of local government. Mr. Mugabe’s second vice president, Phelekezela Mphoko, who had served for three years, was fired.

Mrs. Mugabe, who had amassed wealth and power in the party and was her husband’s likely successor, has not been seen in public since Wednesday.

The military takeover in Zimbabwe is just the latest in a long history of government overthrows. Here are several types of coups perpetrated by rogue operators.Published OnNov. 17, 2017CreditImage by Malin Palm/Reuters

ZANU-PF appointed her rival, Emmerson Mnangagwa, the vice president previously fired by the president, to take Mr. Mugabe’s place as leader of the party.

The harsh rebuke by the party’s central committee came after emergency talks to address the political crisis. Under the Constitution, Mr. Mugabe remains president despite the party’s expulsion.

Announcing the decision on Sunday, Patrick Chinamasa, the party’s secretary for legal affairs, said that Mr. Mugabe “hereby is recalled as first secretary and president of the ZANU-PF party.”

“He is therefore asked to resign forthwith,” Mr. Chinamasa said. “In the event that the resignation would not have been tendered by midday 20th of November, 2017, the ZANU-PF chief whip was ordered to issue proceedings for the removal of the president.”

Cheers and dancing broke out in the building after the decision to expel Mr. Mugabe as party leader.

“There is a case at the end!” a group of youths chanted after storming an open space outside ZANU-PF headquarters.

Many Western news outlets had alerted the world to a pending resignation, citing confidential sources. But it was not to be — at least in the speech on Sunday night.

Mr. Mugabe made the rambling address to the southern African nation about 9 p.m. local time after intense negotiations at the State House with Army generals over the conditions for his departure, the state broadcaster reported.

Image
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe met with military leaders in Harare, Zimbabwe, on Sunday.CreditAssociated Press

Among the men sitting off to the side during Mr. Mugabe’s speech was Constantino Chiwenga, the very Army commander who had placed him under house arrest. Mr. Mugabe spoke haltingly but deliberately, sometimes repeating phrases and appearing to lose his place among the pages before him. He alluded to the military takeover and his talks with the generals.

“I as the president of Zimbabwe and their commander in chief do acknowledge the issues they have drawn my attention to,” he said, “and do believe that these were raised in the spirt of honesty and out of deep and patriotic concern for the stability for our nation and for the welfare of our people.”

Among the issues discussed was the economy, which, Mr. Mugabe allowed, was “going through a difficult patch.” He later said the government would unveil business and entrepreneurial programs to help the economy.

“Today’s meeting with the command element has underscored the need for us to collectively start processes that return our nation to normalcy,” he said, “so all our people can go about their business unhindered, in an environment of perfect peace and security.”

As his speech came to a close, he invoked a “wartime mantra.” He then said, “I thank you, and good night.” Then he shook the hands of the men who had appeared on camera with him.

Some Zimbabweans reacted to the speech with disgust. Trevor Ncube, an entrepreneur and newspaper publisher, said on Twitter: “Robert is finished,” adding, “He is likely to be impeached. Worst speech ever.”

On Saturday, thousands of Zimbabweans took to the streets to celebrate the autocratic ruler’s apparent downfall after the military seized control on Wednesday but was careful not to call it a coup. The military said it wanted to target the criminals around Mr. Mugabe who had pillaged the country’s economy.

Once respected as a liberation icon who went into exile after fighting colonial rule, Mr. Mugabe had become isolated from fellow party officials. Zimbabwe’s only leader since the country gained independence from Britain in 1980, he had faced little opposition from the party rank and file.

Image
Zimbabweans prayed for the spiritual redemption of President Robert Mugabe, during a Christian rally in Harare on Sunday.CreditBen Curtis/Associated Press

But on Saturday, even his fellow veterans of the fight for independence joined the march of tens of thousands of Zimbabweans who danced sang with joy at the prospect of Mr. Mugabe’s rule ending.

On Sunday, Mr. Mugabe met for a second round of talks with the generals to negotiate a dignified departure, the state-run broadcaster said. A Catholic priest, Fidelis Mukonori, mediated.

Last week, a majority of the party’s leaders recommended that Mr. Mugabe should be expelled. In a resolution, they said he should be removed for taking the advice of “counterrevolutionaries and agents of neo-imperialism”; for mistreating his vice president, Mr. Mnangagwa; and for encouraging “factionalism.”

They urged the “immediate and unconditional reinstatement” of Mr. Mnangagwa, at least until the national elections scheduled for next year. On Sunday, the leaders put force behind their recommendations.

The party elevated Mr. Mnangagwa, 75, to the role of party leader and nominated him as its sole presidential candidate for the 2018 elections — a position that the committee said would be confirmed by the party’s congress in December.

Mr. Mnangagwa’s firing had positioned Mr. Mugabe’s wife to succeed him as president, but it appears to have been an overreach that singled out an erstwhile ally with strong support from the military.

The vice president, however, is seen as no salve for a nation facing steep unemployment and crumbling public infrastructure. Critics accuse him of being politically ruthless. He is also unpopular in parts of the country.

He lost his parliamentary seat at least twice, once after being accused of firebombing his opponent’s house, according to an editor of The Zimbabwean newspaper.

Norimitsu Onishi contributed reporting.

Trending

LaVar Ball, father of U.C.L.A. freshman LiAngelo Ball, attended a promotional event in Hong Kong last week.
Anthony Wallace/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A day after Mr. Ball downplayed President Trump’s involvement in getting three U.C.L.A. players safely out of China, the president fired back.

Bill Clinton in 1998.
Paul Hosefros/The New York Times

Ross Douthat

Revisiting the 1990s and realizing that impeachment was reasonable.

A robot in a tank at the Naraha technology center, where engineers are testing new devices to explore the ruined Fukushima nuclear plant.
Ko Sasaki for The New York Times

The government and Tepco officials designed radiation-hardened machines to search for the fuel that escaped the plant’s ruined reactors.

President Bill Clinton leaving the Oval Office in 1999.
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Maureen Dowd

Until now, our sexual predation seminars have been hijacked by politics. But this time may be different.

Colin Jost led the ldquo;Weekend Updaterdquo; segment with criticism of Senator Al Franken and a photo from a 2006 U.S.O. tour.
NBC

The show’s “Weekend Update” segment criticized him for recent allegations of sexual misconduct.

Crowds outside the subway in Times Square in Manhattan.
John Taggart for The New York Times

Disruptions and delays have roiled the system this year. But the crisis was long in the making, fueled by a litany of errors, a Times investigation shows.

Advertisement