Republicans pressure Kerry on matter It's complicated, he says of such a declaration The Obama administration this week faced intensifying pressure from lawmakers and activists to label what ISIS is doing in Syria and Iraq a genocide. Advocates of religious freedom stepped up their campaign with a petition and a commercial to be aired on cable news channels, demanding the United States make a legal determination to call the atrocities by ISIS a genocide, actions that  include brutal attacks on the Yazidis in Iraq and the bloody beheading of Christians. A website operated by the Knights of Columbus and listing representatives of several denominations counts presidential candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio among their backers, as well as religious figures including Pope Francis, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, and Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles. Even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has weighed in, declaring in December, “What is happening is genocide.” At three separate hearings this week, Secretary of State John Kerry was pressed by Republican lawmakers. “It’s time for America to act,” said Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California at Thursday’s hearing. “We are talking about the lives of tens of thousands of people who are brutally being brutally slaughtered, targeted for genocide.” “I share just a huge sense of revulsion over these acts,” Kerry told lawmakers Wednesday. While he promised a decision soon, he said fact-gathering and legal analysis were required first. “We are currently doing what I have to do, which is review very carefully the legal standards and precedents,” he said. Thousands of members of the Yazidi religious sect in Iraq have been killed by ISIS fighters, activists say, starting with an attack on them in 2014 in Sinjar, Iraq. One Yazidi, Sabah Mirza Mahmoud, told CNN afterward, “ISIS killed my dad, my uncles, they kidnapped 25 relatives, including women.” Another said, “A man was shot next to me, and fell on me. I was covered with his blood.” Many of the victims said the Islamic State attacked them because of their religion. A 19-year-old Yazidi woman who escaped said ISIS fighters came to her village and said, “You have to convert to Islam, or we will kill you.” And a woman who said she had been captured and raped told CNN that her ISIS captor said, “Anyone who doesn’t convert to Islam, we will kill the males and ‘marry’ the girls.” But Christian advocacy organizations and some lawmakers say the Yazidis are not the only victims, and are demanding that the administration declare that Christians are victims of ISIS genocide, too. They point to the brutal beheadings by ISIS of Christians from Ethiopia and Christians from Egypt, and to ISIS propaganda that explicitly pledges to wage war on Christians. One issue of their magazine Dabiq showed an ISIS flag flying over the Vatican, with an article saying, “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.” U.S. officials tell CNN there has been a debate inside the White House and the State Department going back to last year over whether to invoke the genocide label. “There are lawyers considering whether or not that term can be properly applied in this scenario,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said earlier this month. “It has significant consequences, and it matters for a whole variety of reasons, both legal and moral.” But he added that the designation would not change the administration’s response, which he described as an aggressive campaign to push back ISIS, coupled with efforts to protect minorities, such as the coalition effort to help Yazidis escape from Sinjar. In general, genocide characterizes the systematic destruction of a national or ethnic group, specifically by execution or murder. One thing a genocide designation could do for victims is bolster their asylum claims in other countries, according to Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council. “They can say, ‘Look, it’s been clearly established that we’re the target of genocide based on our religion,’ ” he said. But such a designation could also open complicated questions about U.S. obligations to refugees and asylum seekers from Syria and Iraq, and to calls for greater U.S. military engagement. While there are no concrete steps it would specifically require the administration to take, it could rally the international community to step up the campaign against ISIS, according to former State Department senior adviser Robert McKenzie, now at the Brookings Institution. “That would not only mean more bombing. Potentially, that would also mean more support to displaced persons,” he said. Still, McKenzie said, a genocide label is unlikely to have a practical effect on Islamic State’s violent ambitions. “I mean, this is a group that has an apocalyptic worldview,” he said. “I don’t suspect that this is going to impact the way that they operate.” CNN’s Elise Labbott, Atika Shubert, Ivan Watson and Nick Paton Walsh contributed to this report.

United States administration (Obama administration)


Samantha Power names Syrian commanders, comparing them to infamous brutal rulers like Slobodan Milosevic Her comments come amid the worst shellings since the conflict began in 2011 U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power upbraided Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime and Russia for its military actions across Syria and particularly in the war-torn and devastated city of Aleppo, and she publicly named and shamed Syrian commanders for their involvement in deadly assaults and running prisons where torture has been reported.. Power made reference to the recent days of bombings on eastern Aleppo and surrounding countryside, which have left more than 300 people dead, the most intense bombing since the conflict started in 2011. The devastated city is divided between government-controlled areas in the west and rebel positions in the east. “Think of what you were doing Saturday,” she said at a U.N. Security Council briefing on Monday about the humanitarian situation in Syria. “Imagine being subjected to 180 airstrikes while you were doing it. Horrifying video from eastern Aleppo affirms a shocking inhuman barrage on civilian neighborhoods.” Related video One of the few doctors left in Aleppo speaks to CNN The Syrian regime resumed heavy bombardment over eastern Aleppo on Tuesday after a three-week lull, killing at least 289 people by Saturday, according to the Syrian Civil Defense Force, also called the White Helmets. Among the latest reported violence: a suspected chemical attack that killed four children and their parents. On Monday, Aleppo withstood another day of all-out war as bombardments in eastern Aleppo left at least 27 people dead and 120 injured on Monday, the White Helmets said. #Aleppo city update: 27 killed;3 in Jisr AlHaj8 - Sukari2 - Sakhur6 - Shaar2 - Eastern Ansari2 - Karm AlNuzha4 - Fardus&120+ injured pic.twitter.com/1MotqyNuEP Power noted that the United States strongly condemned shelling by opposition forces, which has caused more than 60 casualties since November 1. But she focused her ire on the Assad regime and Russia for their “starve, get bombed, or surrender” strategy in eastern Aleppo. “But, I ask, will Russia condemn even a single airstrike by the Assad regime here in this chamber today – or any day? Choose any of the hospitals that the Assad regime has destroyed, or any of the schools. Will Russia ever condemn its ally Bashar Al-Assad here at the Council for a single one of these attacks? We have been attending sessions like this one for more than five years. But, despite all of the carnage inflicted by their regime partners, they have uttered not one critical word. Not even one skeptical word,” she said. Related article Aleppo: Who still lives in this decimated city -- and why? The assault on Aleppo, she said, was “not an isolated case. It is part of a country-wide strategy. Across Syria, Russia and the Assad regime are waging a campaign that includes sieges, the blocking of humanitarian aid, the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian areas, and the use of barrel bombs.” Other representatives at the meeting slammed the Assad regime and Russia for its actions in Aleppo. Both entities pushed back. Russian envoy Vladimir K. Safronkov, said the “country had been assisting United Nations humanitarian aid and other assistance in Syria, as well as facilitating political efforts.” The Syrian representative, Bashar Ja’afari, said it “allowed civilians in eastern Aleppo to flee and had opened corridors for them to do so.” “The terrorists, however, had retained civilians to use as human shields,” Ja’afari said. Related article Aleppo: Eyewitness describes aftermath of hospital attack According to a transcript of her remarks, the U.S. ambassador named Syrian commanders involved in deadly assaults on “cities, residential areas and civilian infrastructure: Major General Adib Salameh, Brigadier General Adnan Aboud Hilweh, Major General Jawdat Salbi Mawas, Colonel Suhail Hassan, Major General Tahir Hamid Khalil.” She added, “The United States will not let those who have commanded units involved in these actions hide anonymously behind the façade of the Assad regime.” She also named commanders who work at detention facilities where torture has been reported: Major General Jamil Hassan, Brigadier General Abdul Salam Fajr Mahmoud, Brigadier General Ibrahim Ma’la, Colonel Qusai Mihoub, Brigadier General Salah Hamad, Brigadier General Sha’afiq Masa, Major General Rafiq Shihadeh, Hafiz Makhlouf. “The United States will not forget the cases of the many Syrians who have suffered so much at the hands of individuals like these, and we will continue fighting to hold them accountable for their hateful crimes,” she said. She called for an end to the “merciless attacks” from Russia and Assad’s regime. “Now, I know right now, today, with wind at their backs, these individuals feel impunity. So, though, did Slobodan Milosevic, Charles Taylor, and countless war criminals before them,” she said, citing the former leaders of Serbia and Liberia. “Today’s atrocities are well-documented, and the civilized world’s memories are long.”


NEW: Italian news outlets report that investigators say Ashley Olsen may have been strangled using a rope or cord Olsen, 35, was last seen at a Florence nightclub early Friday No one has yet been excluded as a suspect, a prosecutor tells CNN Investigators believe that Ashley Olsen, a 35-year-old American artist killed in Florence, might have been strangled using a rope or cord rather than bare hands, according to Italian media reports. In their reporting, Italian news outlets did not specify the source of their new information. Italian news agency ANSA reported that Olsen’s boyfriend, a fellow artist, discovered her body on Saturday after growing concerned because he had not heard from her. He asked her landlord to go with him to Olsen’s apartment to check on her, according to ANSA. Her death is being treated as a homicide, police spokeswoman Maddalena Carosi said on Italian TV. ANSA reported that Olsen had been strangled, but authorities declined to comment on the cause of death until an autopsy is complete. Initial results of her autopsy were expected Monday, prosecutor Giuseppe Creazzo told CNN. But toxicology and other tests could take much longer, he said. Olsen had last been seen early Friday at a Florence nightclub, he said. Although the boyfriend has an alibi that lines up with testimony from other witnesses, Creazzo said Monday that “no one has been excluded” and “no track has been excluded.” Authorities are also looking into pictures on Olsen’s Instagram feed in which she said, “I have a stalker.” It was unclear whether the posts were serious. Olsen was originally from Florida. She was living in Florence, where her father, an architect, works at an art school. “The police haven’t really said anything yet. My son is waiting for the police to share more,” Olsen’s grandmother, Ann Olsen, told CNN by phone from Florida. CNN affiliate WJAX in Jacksonville, Florida, spoke with Olsen’s friends, who described her as infectiously happy. “She was full of life. She never met a person who didn’t like her,” the station quoted Staci Kelly as saying about Olsen. “She had the best personality.” Olsen loved to travel, Kelly told the station. “She never really stayed in one spot for too long,” she said. CNN’s Michael Pearson, Dana Ford, Vasco Cotovio, Dave Alsup, Allie Malloy and Hande Atay contributed to this report.


United States President-elect Donald Trump will have a lot of global challenges to deal with, and Europe is one of them. Here’s what you need to know. “People want to take their country back and they want to have independence in a sense, and you see it in Europe, all over Europe,” Trump said on June 24, the day after the UK voted to leave the EU. “They want to take their borders back, they want to take their monetary back. … I think you’re going to have this more and more.” The rate of economic growth in the European Union is currently forecast to be 1.8% in 2016 and 1.9% in 2017. At the same time, the European Central Bank is continuing its quantitative easing program by buying €80 billion in bonds until next March at least.  All the while, the rate of unemployment in the EU is 8.6%. I throw these numbers at you because they are the clearest sign that although the economic situation in the EU is improving, it still has a long way to go – especially with the US growing at a faster rate, the US central bank considering raising rates (not cutting them), and the unemployment figure hovering around half the EU number. The economic challenges facing the EU remain considerable, especially if the Union is to play its full role as a global partner in creating faster and sustainable economic growth.  And there is always the possibility of another calamity.  Let us not forget: 1. Brexit 2. Elections in Germany and France in 2017 3. Greece and the issue of debt relief 4. Constitutional reform in Italy Any one of these issues has the potential to sink the Union into despair and disarray. The first issue for Trump will be what to do about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – the gargantuan free trade deal being negotiated between the EU and US. European politicians have already been leaking that the deal is pretty much off the rails, and the President-elect will have to decide if it’s worth pursuing a trade deal that - at best - is going to run into fierce opposition. In the current anti-globalization environment, TTIP is swimming against the tide. Trump has expressed reservations about these giant deals.  Since he came out against the Asian treaty TPP, it is highly unlikely that the President-elect would expend political capital on its European counterpart.  For now, TTIP is dead. The other issue of course is Brexit. Trump has already rejected President Obama’s comment that the UK would have go to the back of the queue in negotiating a free trade deal with the US.  He said the UK would be at the front of the line for such a deal. It is possible that once Brexit comes around, the longstanding traditional close ties (yes, the dreaded “special relationship”) between the US and UK would mean some sort of negotiation would take place sooner rather than later, especially if TTIP collapses.  But always remember: There is no overarching trade treaty with the US at the moment for Europe, so a failure here would not be devastating. Finally – elections, elections, elections.  Having just won an election himself, Trump will be sympathetic to French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who both go to the polls in 2017.  The tricky part is now to give something to their friends without taking sides.  Expect very little to be done during a febrile election year where Brexit dominates the European agenda. The US watches from the wings and waits. Militarily, all eyes will be on how Trump interacts NATO. Economically, the US will remain stronger, with faster growth and lower unemployment. Politically, Europe will just be coming out of Brexit. The EU will still be deciding what its reformed role will be – and much of that depends on how the public react to the changes. Oh and on trade – maybe, just maybe, there is some sort of US-EU trade agreement. But I wouldn’t bet on it.


Editor’s Note: Bruce Feiler  is the author of six consecutive New York Times best-sellers, including “Walking the Bible” and “Abraham.” His new book, “The First Love Story: Adam, Eve, and Us,” will be published in March. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. The rising controversy on Trump's travel ban has had one positive effect, writes Bruce Feiler It has brought together people of different religious traditions, he says President Trump’s dramatic executive order blocking Syrian refugees from the United States and suspending immigration from some Muslim-majority countries has had a tumultuous impact. Children have been separated from their parents, teachers have been kept from their schools, Christian families have been turned away from American airports. Everyone from politicians to corporate executives has denounced the move. Scores of protests erupted around the country.  The scope of the outrage appears to have caught even the White House by surprise. Yet lost in the turmoil is one critical but overlooked benefit to all this upheaval: The president’s action – and the backlash that followed – are the biggest boon to interfaith relations in decades. The idea that thousands of people would take to the streets in impromptu, grass-roots protests to defend not their own religious traditions but those of a beleaguered minority is relatively unheard of in the long history of religion. That the religion being defended is not just any tradition, but one widely disparaged in recent years from pulpits and campaign platforms as evil incarnate makes it even more remarkable. Just look at the signs the protesters have been carrying: “FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE MUSLIMS… THIS TIME WE SAID, ‘HELL NO!’” “TODAY WE ARE ALL MUSLIM.” “STOP PRETENDING YOUR ISLAMOPHOBIA IS PATRIOTISM.” “JESUS WAS A REFUGEE.” Related video Trump defends travel ban as protests spread (The expression “First they came” is a reference to Martin Neimoller’s famous poem famous poem about the Holocaust, with its incantation, “First they came for the Socialists,” but I did nothing, then they came for the Trade Unionists, but I did nothing, then they came for the Jews.) Lay people have not been the only ones expressing outrage. Religious leaders, precisely those people who usually stay out of such fights so as not to antagonize their own followers, have been out front and vocal. And not just the usual ones. – The United States Conference of Bishops lambasted the move. “We believe in assisting all, regardless of their religious beliefs,” said one bishop. – The National Association of Evangelicals criticized any discrimination against the most vulnerable, without regard to “ethnicity, country of origin, religion, gender or gender identity.” – The head of the Southern Baptists called on the president to affirm his commitment to protecting the downtrodden, including “Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Yazidi or other.” – Reform Jewish leaders denounced “in the strongest terms the horrifying executive order.” – Even deeply conservative Focus on the Family expressed cautious support for admitting any persecuted people, “even Muslims,” into the United States. Related article Religious leaders condemn Trump's immigration order. But who's listening? It would be hard to overstate how rare this ecumenical unanimity is. Religious leaders are not used to rallying to the defense of their rivals. One reason for this universality: Support for the vulnerable, especially refugees, is one of the foundational beliefs of biblical ideology. The edict “Love the stranger because you were a stranger once yourself” is the single most common idea in the Hebrew Bible, used 36 times. Jesus picked up and enhanced this idea, making it a central pillar of his teaching and the Christian church for the next 20 centuries. No wonder 550 Catholics attended Mass outside the White House this week in support of refugees. As Father Jim Martin, SJ, tweeted: “If you reject the migrant and refugee, you reject Christ himself, who asked us, who implored us, who ordered us, to see him in the stranger.” So why have there been so few occasions for inter-religious cooperation? What came to be called the “interfaith movement” began in the late 19th century, largely as a way to build bridges among Protestants. Not until after World War II were Catholics and Jews added to this effort in a meaningful way. The term “Judeo-Christian” did not become popular until the 1950s. After 9/11, Muslims have been slowly included in these conversations, and the term “Abrahamic” gained widespread use. Related article 2nd day of protests over Trump's immigration policies Still, these gains have been fitful. Bitter wars in the Middle East, coupled with repeated terrorist attacks around the globe, have left even those respectful of different traditions feeling angry, confused and fearful of speaking out. Efforts toward coexistence, while much healthier than a generation ago, have stalled in recent years. President Trump may have changed that dynamic with a single stroke. More than 2,000 religious leaders signed a letter to the President and Congress supporting the refugees. Rallies have included people across the religious spectrum. And the backlash has since broadened to include widespread criticism of the White House’s  decision to exclude Jews from his statement recognizing International Holocaust Memorial Day as well as Trump’s tweet singling out Christians who were killed in the Middle East, while leaving out Jews, Muslims and others. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Ten years ago, during a visit to the Oval Office, I asked President George W. Bush, who had read my book “Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths” and expressed interest in religious dialogue, why he didn’t organize an event at the White House. “In my experience, these things are better off not being done by the President but by the grass-roots,” he told me. The new President may have shown how true that is. By bringing overtones of religious intolerance to the White House, he has finally roused the grass-roots. For a movement in need of signature moments, the impact has the potential to be profound.


"The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution," Paul said. "Short of Congress voting on it, I'm opposed to illegal and unconstitutional wars," Paul added. Republican Sen. Rand Paul said Thursday Congress would need to approve military action in Syria. “The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution,” Paul said on “Kilmeade and Friends.” “When Nikki Haley came before my committee and I voted for her, I asked her that question. ‘Will you try to take us to war? Will you advocate for war without constitutional or congressional authority?’ And she said no. So I assumed what she means by this is that, the President, if he decides to do something in Syria, he would come to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. Short of Congress voting on it, I’m opposed to illegal and unconstitutional wars.” Paul said he had sympathy for the images coming out of Syria, but any action would need to be carefully weighed. “I have the greatest amount of sympathy, I can’t see those pictures, it’s heartrending to see those pictures,” he said. “But going to war we have to decide, will it be better or worse? Will we improve our national security? Are we threatened currently by Syria, and if we go to war is (Syrian President Bashar al-)Assad likely to use less chemical weapons or more? There’s some argument for the more cornered and the more defeated in some ways more likely they are to use chemical weapons and actually for the less defeated they are that they’re less likely to use them. The bottom line is it’s horrific.”

Congress approval for military action in Syria


The world’s largest known freshwater pearl is going on sale at a public auction in the Netherlands next week. Known as “The Sleeping Lion” due to its unique shape, the rare natural object weighs almost 120 grams (4 ounces) and is over 2.7 inches long. Along with its size and animal-like appearance, the pearl is renowned for its approximately 300-year history, during which it changed hands between colonial merchants, noble jewelers and European royals, including Catherine the Great. The Sleeping Lion will be sold at the Venduehuis auction house in The Hague on May 31, with top estimates valuing it at 540,000 euros ($632,000). The pearl is of Chinese origin and is believed to have formed between 1700 and 1760, during the Qing dynasty, according to Venduehuis. Following its discovery, the Sleeping Lion was moved by Dutch merchants to Batavia, present-day Jakarta, before being shipped to Europe – a move believed to have violated the Chinese Emperor Qianlong’s ban on the export of large pearls. What's behind our obsession with gems? The item was first auctioned in 1778 in Amsterdam following the death of its owner, a wealthy merchant from the Dutch East India Company. Advertised on the auction flyer as a “well-known royal cabinet piece, depicting a sleeping lion, created by nature itself,” the pearl was purchased on behalf of the Empress of Russia, Catherine the Great, and moved to St. Petersburg, according to the Venduehuis catalog. The Sleeping Lion resurfaced in Poland in the mid-1800s and was bought by a jeweler working for Victor Emmanuel II, the first king of a united Italy. It was then held by several other European jewelers, only to settle back in the Netherlands when the Russian Revolution of 1917 prevented it from returning to St. Petersburg. In 1979, the pearl was bought by its current owner, the Amsterdam Pearl Society. “What makes this object even more interesting is that it has traveled a long way since the 18th century,” Peter Meefout, director of Venduehuis, said by email. In recent decades, the pearl has been the subject of studies by both historians and gemologists. A 2014 paper, published in the Journal of Gemology, found that while the object’s shape and remarkable size are highly irregular, its interior layering is consistent with naturally occurring freshwater pearls. Rockefeller auction sells $646M in first night The auction lot includes a copper box built specifically for the pearl upon its discovery centuries ago. Both items will be on display this weekend, before being auctioned off for only the second time in nearly 240 years. “The Sleeping Lion Pearl will probably not be on sale for the coming 200 years or so,” Meefout said. “It’s the last chance for the Dutch public to view this wonder of nature.”


President Donald Trump announced on Friday that his summit with Kim Jong Un is back on. This news came after senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol hand-delivered a letter from Kim Jong Un to the President. The White House released photos of its delivery, and this isn’t just any ordinary letter. It’s huge. .@POTUS @realDonaldTrump is presented with a letter from North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un, Friday, June 1, 2018, by North Korean envoy Kim Yong Chol in the Oval Office at the @WhiteHouse in Washington, D.C., followed by a meeting. (Official @WhiteHouse Photos by Shealah Craighead) pic.twitter.com/6a1PgFXS3v Some Twitter users were quick to point out that holding an envelope that size might make one’s hands look small. The President’s hand size is something he has previously defended. Do you think Trump has any idea that Kim Jong Un is mocking him with this enormous letter? https://t.co/JGBrKcb6Ea Are we sure the letter is really that big, or are Trump’s hands just that small? https://t.co/Qh8Iexatk1 Others wondered, will Trump reciprocate with an equally large letter? At what point does something stop being an envelope and start becoming a paper bag? Not to be outdone, Trump's reply letter will be delivered in an envelope the size of a football field. https://t.co/s4iN1Go7tt As for what this giant letter contained, well, we don’t know just yet. Right after his meeting Friday with Kim Yong Chol, President Trump told reporters he had not yet read the letter. But a White House official has since confirmed that the President has read the contents of that giant envelope. The letter was “carefully examined” by the Secret Service for anything potentially dangerous before the North Korean official was able to deliver it, according to a White House official. The summit is set to be held on June 12 in Singapore. CNN’s Steve Brusk contributed to this story


Sandy Powell has won three Academy Awards and is nominated for her fourth for Carol A longstanding fan of Patricia Highsmith's novel, Powell has championed the adaptation from the off On the Academy: "It should be completely mixed, and it isn't. We've known that for a long time" Sandy Powell recalls the first time she encountered Carol Aird, the New York socialite trapped in a loveless marriage and drawn to the young, elfin Therese. Stuck in a train station in southeast England, the costume designer needed reading material. Perusing a shelf of books she came across “The Price of Salt” by Patricia Highsmith; slight and sandwiched between two Stephen King tomes. “I thought I was buying a thriller,” she remembers, laughing. “On the train home I read it in one go and was blown away. I thought ‘this would make just the most amazing film.’” Years later, over dinner with producer Elizabeth Carlson who had secured the rights, Powell stated her case for involvement. Carlson needed little convincing. Powell’s CV speaks for itself: A three-time Academy Award-winner, she’s designed costumes for every Scorsese film since 2002’s “Gangs of New York” and is a regular collaborator with Todd Haynes and Cate Blanchett, both of whom she would work with on “Carol”, Phyllis Nagy’s adaptation of Highsmith’s novel. A subtle, restrained affair, Powell’s costume design is integral to the film, both in tone and plot, and in Carol Aird we’re gifted a fashion icon for the ages. As the Awards approach, we sat down with Powell to discuss her methods, eroticism, and why the Academy’s new membership rules are still wide of the mark. “People talk about fashion and costume, but they are two different things,” argues Powell. Except when they’re not. Carol Aird is one such case: lifted from the pages of fashion glossies and interpreted in Powell’s inimitable style, she is distinctly on trend – if that trend is Autumn/Winter 1952. She wears her clothes as a symbol of status and wealth, and in marked contrast to the likes of aspiring set designer – and relatively dowdy – Therese. “The whole idea about ‘Carol’ was it’s about real people in real time,” she explains. “In my mind, 1952 isn’t the Fifties – I don’t think the Fifties as we recognize them happened until about halfway through the decade. “The actual look of the film is really that of the late Forties – apart from somebody like Carol, who can afford bang on-date fashion.” Therefore, whilst Powell’s quintessential colors, bold and saturated, appear at times in Carol’s wardrobe, Therese’s look is “much more muted and subdued” than Powell says she is used to – until that is, Therese meets Carol, and her outfits begin to change. “There’s a power dynamic,” says Powell, “which is all reflected in the clothing.” After dressing Cate Blanchett for “The Aviator” (for which Powell won her second Oscar) and “Cinderella” (for which she is also nominated this year), their relationship was such that together they were able to get under the skin of Highsmith’s character. Insulated by winter, Carol and Therese’s lesbian love affair is nonetheless kindled and nurtured in an era of sexual repression. In a screenplay littered with caesura and pregnant pauses, every visual aspect of “Carol”, from body language to costume design, demands the audience’s attention. And it’s in these moments that Powell and Blanchett do their greatest work, filling voids with what isn’t said, but nonetheless expressed. “Cate and I talked about what was erotic and what was not,” says Powell. “Carol wears clothes that are high up at the neck. There’s no flesh showing really, but there are little areas that are accentuated, like the sleeves on all the dresses are bracelet length, halfway down the forearms. “Things like wrists, neck and ears are all accentuated. She touches her ears and her earrings, and your eyes are drawn to the neck. There’s these tiny hidden areas we were accentuating. That was deliberate, because we didn’t want to make anybody overtly sexual.” “It really is a collaboration: I provide the clothes, and then work closely with the actors,” she says. “It’s not just about how a costume looks, but that the actor does in it. My clothes are a tool for them to create their character.” Powell says that despite the obvious links between fashion and costume design, she’s reluctant to put too much stock in suggesting film influences fashion. “People always say to me ‘Do you think your costumes inspire fashion?’ and I say not at all. But then,” ponders the designer, “maybe they have.” “I’ve certainly been inspired by fashion… perhaps it is symbiotic. But then half the time I think it’s a zeitgeist thing; we’re all thinking the same thing at the same time.” For a designer who has made her name and won her awards in largely period films, there are obvious reference points to be sought, and Powell has said she pored through specific editions of Vogue in the research stages of “Carol”. Whilst she returns continually to the original Balenciaga and Dior, Jean-Paul Gautier, Jean Galliano and Alexander McQueen all have a place in her contemporary influences. But not all influences – or fabrics – are inspired by the runway. Having lived in Brixton, south London for many years, Powell has a keen appreciation for the African prints sold in local markets, some of which featured in the Oscar-winning “Young Victoria.” “I’ve always loved the diversity,” she says of Brixton, something she suggests does not currently extend to the Academy. “I completely agree in getting more women into the Academy, for sure, as well as different ethnicities,” she argues. “[It] should be completely mixed, and it isn’t. We’ve known that for a long time.” She knows however that it is not merely a matter of membership. “The industry has got to be prepared to employ more [ethnic minorities],” she says. Along with the new raft of regulations announced by Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs is a stipulation that has ruffled feathers: that members without a credit in the past 10 years could lose their right to vote. “That I find a little odd,” she says. “I might stop work for ten years… and then be struck off, when I’m perfectly capable of watching films and having an opinion.” For now though Powell is in no danger of falling into that category, with London-based punk film “How to Talk to Girls at Parties” in the can and due to hit screens later this year. Irrespective of what happens at the Dolby Theatre on February 28, her legacy is already more than assured.


North Korea this week broke a two-month lull in weapons testing State media declared the Hwasong-15 missile its "most powerful ICBM" An intercontinental ballistic missile that North Korea said could reach the “whole” mainland of the United States likely broke up upon re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere, a US official said Saturday. North Korea on Tuesday broke a two-month lull in weapons testing. It launched an advanced intercontinental ballistic missile, the Hwasong-15, that state-controlled media described as the “most powerful ICBM” carrying a “super-large heavy warhead” to unprecedented heights of almost 4,500 kilometers (2,800 miles). Technical analysis of the missile flight is ongoing, but the US official said “the North Koreans had problems with re-entry. “ Coupled with the rogue regime’s need to master missile guidance and targeting, the re-entry failure underscores the challenges facing the country’s weapons program, according to the official. Still, the ability of the new missile to fly higher and longer than others in the past signals the program’s intent to develop weapons capable of attacking the US. While some US military officials have referred to the missile launched Tuesday as a “KN 22” – a designation signaling the launch involves a new type of ICBM – other officials urge caution in categorizing the missile. So far, US officials believe the latest test involved a single missile in the inventory, and that future launches will likely include missiles with modifications. The initial analysis shows Tuesday’s launch likely involved a two-stage missile with a non-explosive dummy warhead, the official said. The first stage was significantly larger than that on other missiles. The larger size of the first and second stages allows the missile to fly a greater distance with a larger payload. The missile was at least partially fueled by liquid fuel – which, along with some other indicators monitored by sensors and satellites, allowed the US receive an earlier warning of the launch, according to the official. The country’s state media announced the test on Wednesday, hours after leader Kim Jong Un ordered the launch of the Hwasong-15 missile, which reached the highest altitude ever recorded by a North Korean missile.


Vote to take place on February 20 Trump invited on state visit which would include meeting Queen Members of the UK parliament are to hold a debate on President Donald Trump’s controversial state visit. The debate, which will be held in the House of Commons on February 20, comes after a petition calling for the invite to be scrapped attracted over 1.6 million signatures. A counter petition, supporting Trump’s visit, will also be discussed, after it gathered the support of more than the required 100,000 signatures required to trigger a debate in Parliament. Demonstrations took place across the UK Monday with thousands turning out to protest against Trump’s potential visit in which he would be expected to meet Queen Elizabeth II. There has been growing anger over Trump’s travel ban which has imposed a 90-day ban people from seven Muslim-majority nations and to restrict the number of refugees who can enter the country. The executive order was signed just hours after British Prime Minister Theresa May left the White House after becoming the first world leader to hold talks with Trump. Since then, May has come under fire for her slow response in criticizing the ban and her perceived reluctance to speak out against Trump. May did eventually comment when one of her spokespeople said “we do not agree with this kind of approach,” adding that immigration was a matter for the US to decide on its own. Related video May on special relationship, Trump on torture May’s invitation to Trump, which was made during a joint press conference in Washington last week, has caused anger both inside Parliament and with the public. It has also left Buckingham Palace under the spotlight. Related article Theresa May in trouble over Trump's UK state visit invite In a letter to Tuesday’s Times newspaper, the respected former head of the Foreign Office, Peter Ricketts, said May had put The Queen in a “very difficult position” and should protect her by downgrading Trump’s invitation to an “official visit”. Such a trip would be a far quieter affair, involving talks with May and a low-profile call on the monarch. No US President has received a state visit in his first year in office, making Trump’s invite unprecedented. President Barack Obama was afforded the honor 28 months into his tenure, while George W. Bush was extended the invite after 32 months. On Monday, Downing Street said that May “extended an invitation on behalf of the Queen - and she was very happy to do so.” But her stance has caused consternation with MPs urging for any invite to be rescinded until the travel ban is halted. “Why on earth has Theresa the appeaser got him here within a few months?” asked Labour lawmaker Mike Gapes during a Parliamentary debate Monday. Another Labour member of Parliament, Yvette Cooper, urged Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson “for the sake of history, for heaven’s sake have the guts to speak out!” Earlier, Johnson labeled Trump’s travel ban as “divisive and wrong,” while London Mayor Sadiq Khan said the move was “shameful and cruel.”

Theresa May's invitation to Donald Trump for a UK state visit


In just one year, US President Donald Trump has changed the way Asia looks at the United States. The cornerstones of American power in Asia, Japan, Australia and South Korea, all lost a little faith in their longtime close ally and protector in 2017, according to Gallup polling. No military assets have been withdrawn, no embassies closed, but the lack of interest expressed by a US administration focused on “America First” has deeply shaken its status in the region. “Nowadays when we attend international conferences (around Asia), nobody really talks about the United States anymore … it’s a little bit strange,” Chisuke Masuo, associate professor at Kyushu University’s Graduate School of Social and Cultural Studies, told CNN. Uncertainty about America’s commitment to the region has prompted local leaders to strengthen ties with each other, to prepare for the day when the US no longer has their backs. Meanwhile, a number of simmering flashpoints across the region could test the US’ commitment to its allies, and Masuo said China is likely to use those points of tension to prove its regional supremacy. “It’s the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party in July 2021, and I think (Chinese President) Xi Jinping will love to demonstrate his people that China has become a dominant power in Asia by then,” she said. “The US may want to change its Asia policy after three years, but I’m very worried if that will be possible,” Masuo added. “China is restructuring the entire international order in the Asia Pacific.” Related article Why China won 2017 and how Donald Trump helped them do it Nowhere in Southeast Asia is the power struggle between the United States and China as clear as in the fight for control of the South China Sea. It’s a regional flashpoint which has long threatened to spark a larger armed conflict amid territorial claims from at least five separate countries for a small collection of reefs and submerged islands. Related article South China Sea: How 2017's forgotten flashpoint could flare again Since Trump was sworn into office, tensions have faded as Washington and Beijing’s attention turned north to the Korean Peninsula, Ian Storey, senior fellow at the ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, told CNN. “But if history is anything to go by, it means tensions will start to rise again,” he said. China has not stopped expanding its footprint in the South China Sea during the North Korea crisis, continuing to extend its hold over the area through bases for aircraft and radar installations. Storey said over the next three years there are several lines China could cross which would likely provoke a fierce reaction from the United States and other Southeast Asian nations. For instance, it could declare an air defense zone over the Spratley Islands, as it did in the East China Sea, or Chinese forces could begin reclamation of Scarborough Shoal. “(Additionally) so far China has refrained from sending any fighter aircraft to its artificial islands, but given the scale of the facilities they’ve built on three of these features for aircraft, it’s really only a question of time,” he said. “That would warrant a reaction from Southeast Asian countries … so I think China is playing it cautious for the moment. (But) I mean if they do, what options do those countries have other than to protest?” Several countries in Southeast Asia have already started moving closer to China as US influence in the region fades, including a startling about-face by Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in 2017. But the country to watch as a litmus test of China’s growing influence in Southeast Asia is Vietnam, Storey said, which has emerged as a surprising US ally in recent years. In 2017, Vietnam built a closer defense and security relationship with the US while standing as perhaps the last major opposition to China in the neighboring sea. A US aircraft carrier will be visiting the country in 2018 for the first time since the Vietnam War. Storey said any moves by Vietnam towards Beijing would be stunning. “That would be a key indication that China is winning in the region and that Southeast Asian countries were making concessions to China,” he said. Related article Can the world's mightiest naval fleet survive the perfect storm? The vast majority of American power in Asia, both military and diplomatic, is centered on the Korean Peninsula. In 2017, the North Korean government announced it had developed missiles capable of hitting the mainland United States, sparking a war of words between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and President Trump as well as conflicting views inside Washington over how to resolve the crisis. Related article Trump's first year of diplomacy finds friends and foes How the standoff ends could well determine the future of US power in Asia, but John Park, director of the Korea Working Group at Harvard Kennedy School, told CNN the event itself shows the cracks in American influence. “The current North Korean nuclear crisis is showing the considerable effort that the US has to make to project its power,” he said. It isn’t just the impotence of the US to stop North Korea attaining nuclear weapons. Repeated threats of military action which could come at the expense of South Korea have caused concerns among the close US ally, Park said. “The pillar of the decades-old assurance that the US would defend Seoul as if it were Los Angeles is appearing to shake,” he said. Trump’s threats of potential military intervention in North Korea are likely to be tested in coming years as well. Park said further missile testing is likely in 2018, as well as a possible atmospheric nuclear test by the North Koreans. Neighboring countries will be watching the US carefully and any rash conflict sparked by Washington will be laid straight at the White House’s door. “The credibility of US leadership as a provider of global stability would erode,” Park said. But while international attention is focused on the Korean Peninsula, China could seek to test US influence in Asia through a completely separate flashpoint in East Asia. In his speech at the 19th Party Congress in October, Xi Jinping did not mince his words when saying the national reunification of Taiwan with the mainland was a vital part of his plan for China. Related article Rubio: How US and Asian democracies can counter China Mainland Chinese authorities announced in early 2018 they would be opening new air routes over the Taiwan Straits, in an area close to the island itself, without consulting Taipei’s government. “The one thing that has never changed (for Beijing) is the Taiwan position,” Xu Guoqi, Kerry Group professor at the University of Hong Kong, told CNN. “They always claimed Taiwan was part of China … so now as China becomes more assertive, more powerful, as the Americans pull back, Beijing might do something that might be a surprise.” Any moves by China against Taiwan would be a test for US influence, as Washington has been a close ally of Taipei for decades. If American promises to defend the island from Beijing aggression weren’t honored, Xu said, the backdown could shatter US influence and alliances in Asia. Barely two weeks into 2018, Indian Army chief Gen. Bipin Rawat said it was time for India to shift its defensive focus to the northern border it shares with China. “The country is capable of handling China’s assertiveness. China is a powerful country, but we are not a weak nation,” he said in New Delhi on January 12, according to the Indian Express. The comments infuriated Beijing, spurring a series of rebukes from the Chinese Foreign Ministry and even editorials in state media publications. Related video Trump: Relations with India better than ever But Bharat Karnad, research professor in national security studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, said the repositioning was necessary and long overdue. “We are shifting our military focus from Pakistan to China. This is something we should done 30 years ago,” he said, adding further tensions on the Chinese/Indian border such as the 2017 standoff at Doklam were inevitable. According to Rawat, India and several other countries in Asia, including Japan, were already treating the US as a “fading power,” who could no longer be relied on for defense purposes. “It could manifest itself in the future via Asian countries and especially India and Japan cooperating and collaborating further on their security objectives,” he said. Other countries in South Asia have anticipated the new paradigm in a different way, choosing to make definitive moves closer to the government in Beijing. Pakistan is a close part of China’s grand One Belt One Road infrastructure initiative which will be unfolding in Asia over the coming years as Beijing sponsors projects across the region with an aim to recreate the original Silk Road. Speaking to CNN, former Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said she didn’t believe her country had to pick between the US or China, but added Beijing had been a long-term partner for Pakistan. “(China is) perhaps the only real strategic partner Pakistan has had, not from today or the last five years, but for the last four decades. With them, we have a complete alignment of interest,” she said. In January, the US confirmed it would be suspending an estimated $1 billion in security assistance to Pakistan over what it sees as a failure by the Pakistani government to adequately clamp down on terror groups within its borders. Elsewhere, Myanmar’s controversial State Councilor Aung San Suu Kyi recently visited Beijing again to a warm reception, while the Sri Lanka the government announced it had granted a Chinese company a 99-year lease on a newly constructed port. Despite India’s neighbors Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar working closely with China, Karnad said Delhi had one advantage which would hold Beijing at bay for the near future at least. “(China) cannot afford to lose the Indian market,” he said. “If it upsets India too much, it can shut off the Indian market to Chinese goods, the Chinese economy takes a big hit … Things are far more difficult for China than many people in the West make out.” It’s been a rough year for Australia diplomatically, caught in complicated and fractious relationships with both US President Donald Trump and the Chinese government. In the second half of the year, China and Australia regularly clashed over allegations of interference by Beijing in domestic Australian politics, allegations the Chinese vehemently denied. In January, Australian International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanta-Wells told local media China’s aid in the Pacific was just creating “useless” buildings and “roads to nowhere.” Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, says Australia is still trapped in the mantra which has defined its diplomatic choices for a decade: “Australia doesn’t have to choose between the United States and China.” Related article Australia aims to curb China clout with new laws on political funding Even the new Australian foreign policy white paper published at the end of 2017 makes little reference to the possibility of a reduced US role in the Asia region. “Australia tangibly supports the deep engagement of the United States in the economic and security affairs of the region, which has been and continues to be essential to the stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific,” the document says. But White warned that over the next three years, trapped between an increasingly aggressive China and a disinterested White House, Canberra could be caught unprepared for a new Asia. “Australia doesn’t have a policy on this, it just has a series of hopes,” he said. With Australia hugely reliant on the United States for its defense, any breakdown of US influence or presence in the Asia region could leave the island nation militarily adrift, White said. To complicate matters, Australia looks likely to see a change in government before 2021, with the current government under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull broadly unpopular across polls. Related article China or the US? Australia's tricky balancing act There’s no indication as yet whether a new Labor government would change its policy to China or the United States. Michael Fullilove, executive director of Sydney’s Lowy Institute, doesn’t agree with White that China is guaranteed to assume the leadership of the Asia region, but added navigating the coming years would take deft diplomacy for Australia. “What Australia needs to do is hedge … by seeking to play an active role (diplomatically), by strengthening our connections with other countries. The more we can strengthen our connections with India, Indonesia and Japan, the harder it is for Asia to be dominated by one particular state,” he said. At the same time, Fullilove said Australia needs to work to keep the US engaged in the region while cooperating with China when it is in Canberra’s interests to do so. “That’s a very ambitious foreign policy I just sketched out – the question in a lot of minds is, ‘is the volatile Australian political system capable of it? Will it prioritize foreign policy, does it have the wherewithal to carry it off?’” he said.


When it comes to shocking developments in the winding probe into President Donald Trump’s campaign, the 2016 election, the Russians, hacking, allegations of collusion, and who-knows-what-else, the revelation on Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller had issued grand jury subpoenas somehow managed to feel like an anticlimax. Mueller’s particular concern in this case appears to be Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer, among others, at Trump Tower in June 2016. But the real news here has less to do with the particulars than the existence of the grand jury itself – and where that leads. This investigation, triggered by Moscow’s meddling, is now expanding. Mueller is on the money trail, with an eye on Trump and his associates’ financial ties to Russia. That is a potential rabbit hole that could lead to some very weird places, including those with no bearing or relation to the 2016 election. So again, while the panel will in theory allow Mueller and his team to expedite their work and help bring about some kind of legally and politically satisfying conclusion to what is – and who would disagree at this point? – a generational fiasco, it could also prolong and deepen it. History would vote for the latter. Just ask former President Bill Clinton. Or the special prosecutor who led the probe that took us from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress. Ken Starr, in an interview on CNN Friday, warned about the danger of Mueller ranging too far from his mandate – remarks that, as CNN’s Chris Cillizza noted, confirmed irony’s untimely death.  But years have gone by and there is, perhaps, an argument that Starr, as much as anyone, has a sense of precisely how these things can go haywire. We are coming up now on the 19th anniversary of Clinton’s big grand jury testimony, the first given by a sitting president into an inquiry focused on his own behavior. Nixon took his turn after leaving office. Clinton answered the Starr team’s questions from the White House, his image and voice beamed out over closed-circuit television. Given Trump’s predicament, the subject matter that day underlines a certain ironic twist. Starr began his inquiry because of a controversy surrounding Clinton’s finances and Whitewater investments. He ended up elbows deep in graphic inquiries about the President’s sex life. Mueller, by contrast, was hired to probe the Trump campaign and Russia, and the potential for collusion or other kinds of skullduggery, but he could now feasibly get bogged down in Trump’s financial transactions. The August 1998 exchange yielded what Starr would ultimately characterize as three lies – or instances of perjury. First, when Clinton denied engaging in oral sex (answering the question of whether it was performed on him, “As I understood it, it was not, no.”); next when Clinton suggested, “You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined”; and finally that he had implicitly misled prosecutors about when the relationship began. But the interrogation is most famous for Clinton’s lawyerly demurrals and deflections. None more so than his response when asked whether “the statement (made by his lawyer) that there was ‘no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton,’ was an utterly false statement”? Clinton replied (and this is just the first couple lines!): “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the – if he – if ‘is’ means is and never has been that is not – that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.” Whatever else it is, the exchange was a deeply damaging for the President, who had clearly moved on from trying to convince the public to salvaging is job and beating back a potential perjury charge. If you’re wondering now what this conversation had to do with Whitewater, the investigation into a bad land deal the Clinton’s were involved in back in Arkansas, you would have been in good company in the late 1990s. If you’re curious as to how the broader story is relevant today, simply consider how easily the initial focus of the probe switched gears. And that, simply, comes from subjects giving false or potentially false or misleading statements under oath. The grand jury will speed up the process of requesting testimony and documentation. If, in the case of the Trump campaign and its “satellites,” conflicts begin to emerge, like in certain parties’ recollections (and records) of that June 2016 meeting, the potential for prosecution could arise even if the meeting itself was legally above board. But that’s all, in all likelihood, a long way off.

Robert Mueller's investigation into Trump campaign and Russia


Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr said his panel won’t share with another key committee a transcript of an interview his investigators conducted with Jared Kushner, a move that could force President Donald Trump’s son-in-law to return to Capitol Hill for further questioning. Burr told CNN that the transcript of the July interview won’t leave his committee, despite a request from a second panel, the Senate Judiciary Committee, to review Kushner’s responses behind closed doors to Senate Intelligence as part of its Russia investigation. “We don’t hand out transcripts,” Burr said in the Capitol. “No.” Moreover, the Senate Intelligence Committee is also signaling it wants to bring Kushner back for further questioning as well. “I believe there are an awful lot of questions that Mr. Kushner still has to answer,” Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on Senate Intelligence, told CNN. The pressure on Kushner comes after the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee suggested that he had not been responsive to the committee’s requests, demanding to see transcriptions of his interviews with other panels. The comments are significant because the two leaders of the Senate Judiciary, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein, told Kushner in a letter earlier this month that it wanted to review transcripts from his interviews with other congressional committees, including the House and Senate Intelligence panels, if he did not agree to come before Judiciary for questioning. The refusal to share the transcript between committees also points to another lingering issue on Capitol Hill: That the committees often butt heads as they compete for witnesses and information as part of the three separate Hill investigations into Russia meddling. “Those committees have not provided us with transcripts of any of their other witness interviews,” Grassley and Feinstein said in their letter to Kushner. “If you are able to secure for the Committee copies of the transcripts from Mr. Kushner’s other interviews, then please provide them and we will consider whether the transcript satisfies the needs of our investigation.” In response to the letter, Kushner’s attorney noted that his client had already spent “six or more hours answering any relevant question” to Senate and House Intelligence and said they are not in possession of the transcript. “I do not understand why these committees would not provide the transcripts to you,” wrote attorney Abbe Lowell in the November 17 letter to Grassley and Feinstein. “We have told both committees we have no objection to their providing them to you or in response to any bipartisan request from a committee with proper jurisdiction.” In an interview with CNN last week, Lowell said his client is willing to cooperate if another interview is sought. “Mr. Kushner has been very clear that will cooperate as he has been voluntarily with all bipartisan requests from committees on anything that’s relevant. He’s done it and he’ll do it again,” Lowell told CNN’s Evan Perez on November 19. Lowell did not respond to CNN request for further comment. The Senate Judiciary Committee initially set a Monday deadline for Kushner to provide a wide-range of information, asking for records regarding communications with Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, as well as a correspondence about WikiLeaks during the campaign season and information about a security clearance form that initially failed to disclose his foreign contacts. But that timeline demand has eased as both the Judiciary panel and Kushner’s team are engaged in negotiations for Kushner to provide the documents the committee requested. Grassley told CNN Monday that Kushner was being “cooperative” to the panel’s latest requests as part of the latest round of talks. Asked if he still wanted to bring Kushner in for a transcribed interview, Grassley said he wanted to see what documents the White House adviser first provides to the committee. “I think what we’re after is the documents that evidently we didn’t make clear in our first request that we wanted,” Grassley said. “We are exchanging letters on that point. We’re going to review that stuff before I can answer the question.” Despite meeting with two Hill panels in July, Kushner remains of interest on Capitol Hill because of his contacts with Russians during the campaign season and transition as well as the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, which was also attended by Russian operatives and the President’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. All three Hill panels still want to question Trump Jr. this year. Trump Jr. has already met once this fall with Senate Judiciary staff. “We plan to interview him,” Burr told CNN, referring to the President’s son. “I don’t know when that will happen. … We don’t have that set yet.” This story has been updated and will continue to be updated with new developments.


Hillary Clinton was unaware of the now-infamous dossier of allegations about Donald Trump and Russia prior to Buzzfeed’s publishing of the document earlier this year, a source familiar with the matter has told CNN. Clinton was disappointed that the research from the document was not made public before she lost the 2016 election, the source said. The New York Times first reported on Wednesday that Clinton didn’t know about the dossier until it was published, citing two associates who discussed the matter with her. The news comes a day after the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee acknowledged it helped fund opposition research on President Donald Trump that ultimately resulted in the dossier. CNN reported Tuesday that a source familiar with the matter said the law firm retained the intelligence firm Fusion GPS and entered “into an engagement for research services that began in April 2016 and concluded before the election in early November.” CNN has previously reported that the Fusion efforts researching Trump were first funded by Republican foes of Trump, and Democrats began paying the research firm later on, after Trump became the presumptive nominee. The identity of the Republican client or clients has not yet been publicly revealed. Clinton is not the only high-profile Democrat to deny knowledge of the document before it was published. The Clinton campaign’s national press secretary, Brian Fallon, tweeted Tuesday about the reported tie between the campaign and the dossier. “I regret I didn’t know about Christopher Steele’s hiring pre-election,” he tweeted, referring to the former British intelligence agent who authored the dossier. “If I had, I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him.” “If I’d gotten his dossier before Nov 8, I may have tried to convince Mook & Podesta to let me hold a Comey-style press conference to read it,” Fallon, who is now a CNN political contributor, tweeted. DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement Tuesday: “Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization.” “But let’s be clear, there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, and the American public deserves to know what happened,” the statement read. Trump also made mention of the dossier this week, calling Clinton’s and others’ denial of having any knowledge of it a “disgrace.” “Hillary Clinton always denied it. The Democrats always denied it, and now, only because it is going to come out in a court case, they said yes they did it. They admitted it and they are embarrassed by it. I think it is a disgrace,” Trump said Wednesday. CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misspelled Fusion GPS. CNN’s Eli Watkins and Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.


Donald Trump arrived on the Republican primary circuit in 2015 with a promise to get by with a little help from his friends – “the best and most serious people” on the market. But after eight months in office, that pledge has become a favorite punchline on the web. Rather than a home to efficient, skilled operators, the Trump White House has been marked by an eccentric swirl of office politics run amok and off-hours fits of pique. Set aside, if only for a moment, the very real issues animating the President’s response to Puerto Rico, his views on white supremacist marchers, and the ongoing Russia scandaI. If you pitched what remained as satire, an editor would toss it right back as overdone. (Someone find Thad Cochran!) Here’s a quick skip through the profound – and very real – weirdness that has colored much of the current administration. No one hides from the press (or the President) better than Trump’s people. First there was former FBI director James Comey. Trump initially decided to keep Comey on in his job and, during a post-inaugural reception at the White House, singled him out for a handshake and slap on the back. But as Comey confidante Ben Wittes told it on the Lawfare blog, the lanky lawman tried to avoid the awkward interaction by blending in with the drapes, which matched his blazer. Related video Friend: James Comey tried to avoid Trump “So he stood in the back, right in front of the drapes,” Wittes wrote, “hoping Trump wouldn’t notice him camouflaged against the wall.” Alas, the President caught a glimpse. “Oh, and there’s Jim,” Trump said. “He’s become more famous than me!” That relationship would sour a bit, and on the occasion of Comey’s firing, in early May, Trump communications staffers tried to steer clear of the media. Most notable was Sean Spicer, the dissembling former press secretary, who hid in – correction: among – some bushes on the White House grounds rather than confront a hungry pack of reporters. Priebus is in this van on tarmac at Joint Base Andrews, as Potus has not yet disembarked. Driver pulled van away as press moved toward it pic.twitter.com/mlrV2s3U8P Former chief of staff Reince Priebus’s departure from his job, ditched on the tarmac after a ride on Air Force One, was an uncomfortable affair. Perhaps it would have been less so if there was a large trash can there to obscure reporters’ view. This photo, courtesy of @tedbarrettcnn: Reince Priebus ducking out of Senate lunch for a phone call, obscured by giant trash bin pic.twitter.com/hoD8QDOnvu And then there is the curious case of Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and their vacation schedule. The couple and their children often seem to be away when the President starts lighting fires. Is it a coincidence? Are they keeping a lid on Oval Office shenanigans – only to see it pop off when they leave? Or is it – as the critics have increasingly suggested – that they are actively trying to stay out of the less flattering headlines? To Trump, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is the “Rocket Man.” That song, by Elton John, is from 1972. Another famous tune, from the same year, could be applied to Trump: David Bowie’s “Starman.” Trump has repeatedly found himself in odd situations with the biggest star of all: the sun. He most recently took on a solar eclipse – training the presidential retinas directly on it. According to the press pool on hand that afternoon, “White House aides standing beneath the Blue Room Balcony shouted ‘don’t look’” as Trump, well, looked. Before that, there was the famous “orb.” During his first visit to the Gulf as President, Trump gathered with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to paw an odd-looking, glowing sphere. @KingSalman and @POTUS inaugurate The Global Center for Combatting Extremist Ideology in Riyadh. #RiyadhSummit pic.twitter.com/do6cFL7wBW As it turns out, this was less a star than some kind of incandescent globe, meant to signify, as noted in the Saudi embassy tweet, some kind of new joint effort to combat terrorism. But Trump’s most studied grappling with solar power came during a pair of visits to Europe earlier this year, when he repeatedly engaged in prolonged handshakes with French President Emmanuel Macron. The young leader has an appreciation for both clean energy and the power exercised by the Sun King, Louis XIV. If we know one thing about Trump, it’s that he prizes loyalty – to Trump. He tells us constantly. His subordinates know it and have, on occasion, gone to outsize lengths to prove their own. One memorable example: Before his own wings were clipped, The Washington Post reported, Priebus was called on to ground a fly that infiltrated an Oval Office meeting. It had been buzzing, and annoying Trump, who duly “summoned his chief of staff and tasked him with killing the insect.” Doing Trump’s bidding, however ridiculous, is a core competency in this White House. Spicer’s thirst for the job was tested on his first weekend, when he declared the audience for the previous day’s festivities the largest “to ever witness an inauguration, period.” Spicer’s rant was a signal of things to come. The next day. Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway went on NBC  to defend her colleague’s assertions, up to a point. “You’re saying it’s a falsehood,” she told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd. “And they’re giving – Sean Spicer, our press secretary – gave alternative facts.” Related video Trump's Cabinet showers boss with praise But there was no alternative, only love, when Trump formally introduced his Cabinet in June. As the group went up and down a long conference table, they hand-bathed the President in praise. Here’s a taste: And then came Priebus for the topper: “On behalf of the entire senior staff around you, Mr. President, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you’ve given us to serve your agenda and the American people.” Do a deal. Have a meal. Trump has brought with him to the presidency some of the vestiges of the New York City real estate life. Among them, a desire to combine food with business. Related article Trump, Dems move closer to deal on DACA Earlier this month, that meant dinner with Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi included Chinese food, but no Republicans. They walked out of the meeting with some conflicting reviews, though not of the cuisine. The questions centered on whether Trump had agreed to a deal that would protect DACA recipients in exchange for a bump in border security (but no money for the wall). That last bit is still a mystery. What’s not is the President’s preference for a chocolate dessert. At the Pelosi-Schumer get-together, it was pie. But back in April, there was a different order. Two of them, actually. First for cake, then for airstrikes on Syria. How do we know – and why do we care – what Trump had for dessert before making the decision? Because he told us. In an interview with Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo, the President turned his recollection of the strikes into an advertisement for his Mar-a-Lago resort. .@POTUS tells @MariaBartiromo he told President Xi about the Missile strikes over "the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake." pic.twitter.com/vPLu7ZhxbR “We had finished dinner,” he said of himself and visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping. “We’re now having dessert – and we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen, and President Xi was enjoying it – and I was given the message from the generals that the ships are locked and loaded.” And then? “We made a determination to do it, so the missiles were on the way.” It wasn’t the first time the President put on a show for the paying customers at Mar-a-Lago. In February, Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe were tucking into iceberg wedge salads when word came down that North Koreans had launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile. The leaders got down to business in full view of gawking guests. Some aides even illuminated potentially sensitive briefing papers with the flashlights on their phones, which might or might not have been secure. (Spicer later told reporters the leaders had been “reviewing the logistics for the press conference,” not scouring classified documents.) Waiters stayed on the scene too, swapping out the salads for a main course. But Trump and Abe soon moved to another room. It’s unclear if they ever made it to dessert. The Trump administration is still short of the quarter pole and it’s already staked a claim to being the leakiest in American history. How bad is it? Well, when national security adviser H.R. McMaster authored a memo warning against the “unauthorized disclosure of classified information or controlled unclassified United States Government information,” it was promptly shared with Buzzfeed. Related video Audio of Scaramucci's vulgar call released And while it’s not usually considered a leak when it comes from the President’s mouth, The Washington Post in May reported that Trump shared highly classified information with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador during an Oval Office meeting. The list goes on. Short-lived communications director Anthony Scaramucci sealed his own fate when, in his zest for pursuing leakers, he called up the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza to chat – on the record – about his colleagues. Warning, this link contains lots of graphic language. And then there is new Trump lawyer Ty Cobb. He recently gave The New York Times a look at the inner workings of a White House increasingly at odds with itself over how to manage special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. How so? By conducting the conversation, with a colleague, over lunch at a popular Washington steakhouse in the immediate vicinity of both the White House and the Times’ DC bureau. How did the reporter spot him? Well, here’s a picture of Cobb. And here’s what he looked like on that afternoon, dining and prattling on about all manner of internal intrigue. Here's a photo of Ty Cobb & John Dowd casually & loudly discussing details of Russia investigation at @BLTSteakDC while I sat at next table. pic.twitter.com/RfX9JLJ0Te


Abdul Shalabi's transfer from Guantanamo is the second announced in less than a week That leaves 114 detainees at the U.S. naval base on the eastern tip of Cuba Abdul Shalabi, a Guantanamo Bay detainee who was once thought to have been a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, has been transferred to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Defense Department announced on Tuesday. Shalabi’s transfer from Guantanamo was the second announced in less than a week, leaving 114 detainees at the naval base that the Obama administration is pushing to close. “The United States is grateful to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its willingness to support ongoing U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The United States coordinated with the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to ensure this transfer took place consistent with appropriate security and humane treatment measures,” the Defense Department said in a statement. Related gallery Photos: Inside Guantanamo Bay It announced last week that Younis Abdurrahman Chekkouri had been transferred to Morocco. The remaining 114 detainees being held at Guantanamo fall into two categories: Those who can be transferred to other countries and those who the United States must continue to hold. In August, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that Pentagon teams were looking at U.S. sites to house the detainees. Closing the military detention facility at the U.S. naval base on Cuba was among Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges, but he’s run into stiff opposition in Congress, particularly from Republicans who say moving terror suspects onto U.S. soil would pose unnecessary security risks. CNN’s Ross Levitt and Eric Bradner contributed to this report.


NEW: Suspect detained, according to reports in state media A single gunman attacked the intelligence agency office, according to reports A suspect in an attack on a Jordanian intelligence agency office which killed five people Monday has been apprehended, according to reports in Petra, the country’s state media. The attack, which took place in Baqaa, the country’s largest refugee camp, is understood to be the work of a lone attacker and saw the death of three intelligence officers and two workers, Petra reported, citing government spokesman Mohammed al-Momani. The camp is a vast facility housing some 120,000 Palestinian refugees situated about 20 kilometers (more than 12 miles) from the capital, Amman. Al-Momani said the initial indications are that this was an individual isolated incident and that the investigation is still ongoing. A single assailant armed with an automatic weapon was responsible, reported Al Rai, a newspaper close to the government, citing “informed sources.” Related video U.S. and Jordan join forces for military exercises The attacker drove to the office at about 7 a.m. local time before carrying out the attack, the newspaper reported. Describing it as a “terrorist” act, Momani said the targeting of the office on the first day of the holy month of Ramadan showed “a clear indication of their criminal behavior and their deviation from our religion,” according to Petra. Authorities are searching for the attacker; there has been no claim of responsibility. Jordan’s Queen Rania tweeted her condolences Monday. “At the start of the month of giving and mercy, a despicable act of terror has taken the lives of five of Jordan’s sons,” she wrote on her official account. Related video Jordan foils 'criminal plot linked to ISIS' “We offer our condolences to the nation on these martyrs of duty, and call on God to grant their families patience and solace.” Jordan is a key Arab member of the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition and has carried out strikes against the group in both Iraq and Syria. In March, Jordanian security forces carried out a series of raids against suspected ISIS militants it said planned to strike civilian and military targets in the country. Following the raids, seven suspected terrorists attacked Jordanian forces in the northern city of Irbid. All the militants and one Jordanian soldier died in the clash. The Baqaa camp was established in 1968 for Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. CNN’s Hamdi Alkhshali contributed to this report.


Lebanon has been overwhelmed with 1.1 million Syrian refugees Barbara Massaad has published a humanitarian cookbook to benefit the UNHCR's food relief Anthony Bourdain, Sally Butcher and Yotam Ottolenghi are contributors It was a cold winter night. Barbara Abdeni Massaad sat shivering in her apartment in Beirut, Lebanon. She turned on her heater to warm up but still had no relief from the frigid weather. “That night, I couldn’t sleep thinking about refugee families in the Bekaa sleeping in their tents,” she said. “How were they able to beat the winter cold?” Massaad became so concerned about the conditions in refugee camps, she couldn’t sleep a wink. “I couldn’t go on with my life and ignore theirs,” she said. That Sunday during Mass, she chatted with a friend from the United Nations. That friend told her about a camp in Zahle, Lebanon. “I went to visit the refugee camp, not really knowing what to expect,” said Massaad. “I felt the urgency from the moment I set foot in the refugee camp and witnessed their suffering with my own eyes.” “My visit brought me closer to the problem and inspired me to find a way to ease someone’s pain,” she said. As a cookbook writer, photographer and president of Slow Food Beirut, it came natural to Massaad to use food to as a way to make an impact. She and a friend banded together and began making homemade soup for the Hamra refugees. Related gallery Soup for Syria: Cook up a recipe for refugee relief “I started taking photos of the refugees and talking to them about food,” she said. After a few weeks, she decided to do a humanitarian cookbook as a way to help Syrian refugees. It was then that “Soup for Syria: Recipes to Celebrate our Shared Humanity” was born. Massaad began to reach out to her foodie community, which included fellow writers and acclaimed chefs she’d worked with in the past. Most of them were glad to join in her efforts. She held soup workshops and had volunteers come to her home to cook hundreds of soups. She tested and photographed them. In the fall of 2014, Massaad met with her U.S. publisher, Michel Moushabeck of Interlink Books, who immediately decided this cookbook needed to be taken to a global level. “The Interlink team did not treat the book as only a book project,” said Massaad, “but as an initiative that could help create an international movement to help Syrian refugees.” A total of 80 contributions in all were made to the book, including from Joe Barza, Sally Butcher and Yotam Ottolenghi. CNN’s own Anthony Bourdain also contributed. In a contributor’s statement, he said that soup “is elemental, and it always makes sense, even when the world around us fails to.” Although many of those featured in the recipes are celebrity chefs, Massaad made sure to include others. “I also wanted to include a selection of recipes from friends, relatives, Facebook pals who helped a great deal in the project,” she said. 100% of U.S. sales of “Soup for Syria” will go to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for food relief for refugees. “When I write books, I always focus on the people behind the food, and this time it so happens that those people are refugees,” said Massaad. “I would always tell the refugees, ‘Had I been a barber, I would have cut your hair for free. I am not a barber, but a photographer and food writer, so I will take photos and write about food to help your cause and send a message to the world,’ ” she added. “Each kind gesture towards another in need is a step forward for humanity. Use what you know best to help others.”


The unnamed man, described as a citizen of both the US and Saudi Arabia, was turned over to US forces in Syria in September He has been accused by the US government of fighting on behalf of ISIS in Syria A federal judge ruled Thursday that the US Defense Department must refrain from transferring a US citizen accused of fighting for ISIS and detained as an “enemy combatant” in Iraq to the custody of a third country until Tuesday. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the unnamed individual, filed a motion with the court earlier this month asking that the man not be transferred from US government custody until the court has ruled on his petition for habeas corpus, which challenges the legality of his detention by the US government. The government must respond to the claim of unlawful detention by Monday. The Justice Department argued they have the authority to transfer the individual to the custody of an interested third country but that the government did not have the burden of disclosing the identity of that country. In her order, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said that based on the government’s assertion that there was “no basis to believe” a transfer of the man would take place in the next 48 hours but that the government retains the authority to transfer the individual “as soon as another country is ready,” Chutkan ordered no transfer could take place until Tuesday. Related article Tillerson sees long-term US presence in Syria The unnamed man, described as a citizen of both the United States and Saudi Arabia by the US government, was turned over to US forces in Syria in September by the Syrian Democratic Forces and taken to Iraq. He has since been held in Iraq under US custody. The US government accuses him of fighting on behalf of ISIS in Syria. Chutkan had ruled last month that the government had to give the individual access to the ACLU to determine if he wanted access as counsel and wanted to challenge his detention, something the man affirmed he did earlier this month during an initial video conference with the ACLU. The ACLU has since communicated with the individual a second time. The group says it petitioned for his identity to remain anonymous based on the man’s fear for his safety and that of his family. Related article Turkey sees betrayal as US backs Syrian Kurds The civil rights group had initially sued the government requesting he be given access to counsel and demanding that the Trump administration justify his continued detention without charges. The Justice Department had argued the ACLU had no standing to sue because it had not shown the individual wanted to challenge his detention. Chutkan disagreed in the ruling last month, saying the ACLU had “demonstrated that it is dedicated to the detainee’s best interests,” and she ordered the Pentagon to allow the ACLU to communicate with him. The Defense Department has not said how long it expects to hold the individual, according to previous court documents.


Russia's main military assets in Syria include SU-34 fighter jets with a fully digital cockpit Despite Russia’s claim that it would withdraw most of its forces from Syria, it maintains a strong presence at its airbase near Latakia. While some assets have been removed, others have been added. Here are Russia’s main combat assets in Syria. On top of these main combat aircraft, CNN also saw a wide array of transport helicopters and planes as well as tanks, armored vehicles and surface to air missile systems. This shows that Russia maintains a powerful presence in the Syrian civil war.


Editor’s Note: Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. Follow him on Twitter @paulcallan. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. Paul Callan: As the first indictments are unsealed, hints regarding the road ahead are beginning to emerge President Trump may be concerned about whether the special counsel is looking into the operations of his business empire, Callan says The unsealing Monday of the first indictments arising from Robert Mueller’s investigation provides many valuable hints regarding the future direction of the special counsel’s probe. The use of sealed indictments and Mueller’s decision to do an 11-year look back into former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s prior business operations will make President Trump’s personal lawyers very nervous today.  Will the special counsel do a similar look back to 2006 on any aspects of the Trump business empire now that the Manafort indictment has opened the door? As CNN reported Monday, Manafort and former Trump campaign official Rick Gates have turned themselves in to Mueller, who unsealed an indictment against them on 12 counts, including conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, and making false statements. The criminal justice system is presumptively open to public view.  The only exceptions to this rule apply to grand jury proceedings and occasional matters relating to such things as national security, confidential informants or threatened witnesses.   This transparency, required by the US Constitution, is obviously even more important in a free society when a criminal investigation focuses on the sitting president’s election campaign and claims of “collusion” and possible tampering by a hostile foreign power. So why the sealed indictment in a case that cries out for full disclosure?  Such indictments are generally used when there is a fear that a criminal suspect, with knowledge of a pending indictment, might flee the jurisdiction, destroy evidence or even threaten witnesses likely to testify against him at trial. Related article Is this Watergate or Iran-Contra? In cases involving organized crime, drug dealers and crimes of violence, sealed indictments are a sensible way to make sure the suspect doesn’t escape and that witnesses are not harmed.  For instance, the infamous Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán, alleged leader of Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel who is now awaiting trial in a Brooklyn federal jail, was indicted via a sealed indictment. In so-called “white collar” investigations like the Mueller probe, the sealing and delayed disclosure of the indictment is sometimes done, not out of prosecutorial fear, but as a courtesy to a prospective defendant who has been generally cooperative. This enables the suspect’s attorney to arrange a quiet, voluntary surrender of his client without one of those embarrassing handcuffed “perp walks” often staged by then-US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani in the 1980s and by other publicity-seeking prosecutors. The high-profile nature of the potential targets in the Mueller investigation make it unlikely that they could successfully flee the United States to avoid prosecution. Of course this cannot be entirely ruled out, because so much of the probe focuses on the relationship Trump campaign officials allegedly maintained with Russia, a hostile power which has sheltered American fugitives such as Edward Snowden. Related article Controversial Trump dossier: What really matters Early indictments in high-profile investigations often “send a message” to other potential suspects that anyone who seeks to obstruct the investigation may face indictment regardless of who they are or who they know. Of course, prosecutors will deny indicting someone just to “send a message,” but even an entirely legitimate indictment based on strong evidence can have this collateral effect.  Even ethical prosecutors would say that there is nothing wrong with allowing a perfectly proper indictment to serve a dual purpose. The type of charges that would send a message include lying to the FBI or other federal investigators.  Anyone who tells such a lie can be charged with a felony, as can anyone who  testifies falsely about a material fact before Congress. Charges relating to obstruction of justice can also be lodged in situations even where the original suspected crime cannot be proven.  The old saying that “it’s not the crime but the coverup” that you must worry about is quite true.  This message can be sent with frightening clarity to all potential White House witnesses through early “message sending”  indictments. Sometimes tough prosecutors pick on surprising targets to inflict pain and induce cooperation from resistant suspects. They go after family and close associates. Since Mueller is following the tax and money-laundering road, he can really exert pressure with a threat to arrest a wife or other family members who may have been involved in the suspect’s business and/or signed off on tax returns. The arrest of a wife or child is a strong inducement to get cooperation from a stubborn and resistant “target.” And yes, such indictments and arrests really do happen in high-profile tax and money laundering cases. Related article Attacks on Hillary Clinton show Team Trump won't go down without a fight Make no mistake, the widely praised Mueller is no softie and is capable of such a maneuver. We already know that Mueller’s team executed a “No Knock” warrant permitting a pre-dawn raid at Manafort’s home. Raiding agents seeking financial records reportedly also rummaged through closets looking at clothing and other items there.  It is obvious in hindsight that they were exploring the subject of money laundering or even possible tax charges in seeking such records and making visual observations to see if the Manafort lifestyle was commensurate with his reported income. A similar approach was used to get Al Capone. Paul Manafort has continually maintained that he is innocent of any wrongdoing. Mueller may have had to move quickly in bringing charges against Manafort because the six-year statute of limitations for tax fraud may be expiring.  This statute of limitations could have been a key determining factor in selecting early indictment targets. Such charges based on business operations and tax returns filed prior to the Trump campaign but “arising from” the election tampering investigation are perfectly legal under Mueller’s charge from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Yet a look back at pre-campaign business operations would be likely to send a chill through the White House. This would suggest that an examination of Trump’s pre-campaign business operations is now a real possibility, crossing the previous “red line” described by the President. Trump’s Achilles heel may well be found in the pre-campaign operation of the complex and varied transactions of his business empire rather than in an explicit conspiracy with the Russians to tamper with the American election. The president will not find solace or refuge in the pardon power of the presidency should the Mueller probe zero in on him by “flipping” witnesses with early indictments.  In fact, pardons will backfire since a pardoned suspect can no longer avoid testifying by asserting the 5th Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Once pardoned, the witness faces no criminal exposure for his underlying crimes and can be forced to testify.  And the Fifth Amendment cannot be used as a shield against perjury charges as a pardon, when bestowed, cannot apply to future crimes. Given the serious developments today, the President is likely to adopt a new policy: vetting his tweets about the Mueller Investigation with his personal counsel.


Here’s what you might have missed on CNN today: – The Trump administration will end former first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let Girls Learn” education program for adolescent girls in developing countries. – A gunman shot a paramedic in Dallas. The incident is still an active-shooter situation. – President Trump did a few interviews over the weekend where he said … a lot. The President said he would be “honored” to meet North Korea’s Kim Jong Un under the right conditions. He lamented the “archaic” rules of Congress. And Trump said his Obama wiretap claim was proven. – With health care back in the spotlight this week, here are some key things to keep in mind. – A mystery illness killed 12 people in Liberia. – The shooter at a San Diego pool party “didn’t say a single word” before he opened fire, a witness says. – Weekend storms that killed at least 15 people in the central and southern US are moving east, putting 80 million at risk of severe weather. – Did you know you can hit turbulence in clear skies? Well, you can, as these Aeroflot passengers found out the hard way.