Hillary Clinton is back in a familiar place: the center of a political controversy. The firestorm surrounding Clinton’s exclusive use of private — rather than official — email during her time running the State Department is rapidly escalating, with Republicans and Democrats turning the issue into a political back-and-forth. Clinton is certainly ready to move on, tweeting late Wednesday night that she wants “the public to see my email. “I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible,” Clinton tweeted. It won’t be that easy to put this issue aside though, and the State Department has already said the review process will take “some time” before they can release any Clinton emails. The controversy has echoes of the 1990s when controversies ranging from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky had a way of exploding into a partisan pile-on during the Clinton White House. As the accusations and denials fly, here’s a look at what you need to know. Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, David E. Kendall, sent Republicans and Democrats on the House committee investigating Benghazi, a statement on Wednesday morning refuting something Trey Gowdy, the committee’s Republican chairman, said about the email controversy. Related video More fallout from Hillary's private emails READ: 4 reasons to care about Clinton’s personal email Gowdy told reporters on Tuesday that Clinton used multiple personal email accounts to conduct government business. “She used only private email accounts and she had more than one private email account,” Gowdy said. Kendall, in an email obtained by CNN, said that claim is wrong. “Secretary Clinton used one email account when corresponding with anyone, from department officials to friends to family,” Kendall wrote in an email to the committee. Kendall explained that after Clinton’s email address was published in a 2013 Gawker story, “she changed the address on her account.” “At the time the emails were provided to the department last year this new address appeared on the copies as the ‘sender,’ and not the address she used as secretary,” Kendall continued. “This address on the account did not exist until March 2103, after her tenure as secretary.” Kendall is the same lawyer who represented Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and his impeachment trial. During his press conference on Tuesday, Gowdy said he did not want to leak information that would be refuted the next day. “So rather than selectively highlight – you know, whatever exists today could be contradicted by something that’s produced tomorrow, which is why you wait until the end and you produce a report,” he said. After Kendall’s email was made public, Republicans on the committee stood by Gowdy’s multiple emails claim, telling CNN the committee is in possession of records with two separate and distinct email addresses used by former Secretary Clinton and dated during the time she was secretary of state.” “Without access to the relevant electronic information and stored data on the server – which was reportedly registered to her home – there is no way the committee, or anyone else, can fully explain why the committee uncovered two email addresses,” said Jamal Ware, Republican spokesman for the committee. Ware went on to say questions around the number of emails shows why “former Secretary Clinton’s exclusive use of personal emails to conduct official U.S. government business is so problematic and raises significant issues for transparency.” On Wednesday, Ware announced Gowdy’s committee had issued subpoenas for Clinton emails related to Benghazi. “The Select Committee on Benghazi today issued subpoenas for all communications of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to Libya and to the State Department for other individuals who have information pertinent to the investigation,” he said in a statement. “The committee also has issued preservation letters to Internet firms informing them of their legal obligation to protect all relevant documents.” By using a private email system, Clinton and her aides had access to all emails that would have been backed up by the government if she had used an official account. Related video Report: Clinton had no official State Dept. email address While she is not the first secretary of state to use a private email address – former Secretaries Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice both had private emails – Clinton is the first to exclusively use a private account. As opposed to Clinton, both Rice and Powell had and used an official government email address. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters the department asked former secretaries in 2014 to “submit any records in their possession for proper preservation.” Hillary Clinton’s spokesman, Nick Merill, said when the Clinton’s received that request, they “immediately said yes.” Aides have argued that Clinton had “every expectation” her emails would be automatically retained because she was sending them to other government accounts. A Clinton aide said Tuesday, that “nine out of 10 emails that she sent over the course of her tenure went to the State Department.” That assumption, cybersecurity experts told CNN, makes the process of accessing all of Clinton far more difficult. David Kennedy, CEO of TrustedSec and a former member of the Marines cyberwarfare unit, said that if Clinton expected her emails to be saved as received mail, not sent mail, it would mean archivists would have to look through nearly everyone’s email at the State Department, instead of just pulling from her State account, a far easier task. Unlike personal emails, officials emails are backed up and kept by the government. “When you move that over to a public email address or a personal account, you lose all of that backup capability, so there’s no way to actually go back and retrieve it,” Kennedy said. The current set up also puts the decision making process of what to submit for the record in the hands of Clinton, not government archivists who would automatically have everything. Although multiple Democratic sources told CNN that when the former secretary of state received State’s requests for records, her team quickly sent 55,000 pages of documents, there is no way to tell if that is all emails of interest. “Secretary Clinton’s people have said that she provided anything that was responsive to our request for any records. If she did indeed provide everything then she would indeed be in compliance with her preservation requirements,” a senior administration official said. The official could not, however, ensure that all of Clinton’s emails were preserved properly in accordance with federal rules. A Clinton aide told CNN on Tuesday that they did comply fully with the request for all official emails. The server for Hillary Clinton’s personal email address was housed at her home in Chappaqua, New York, according to analysis by The Associated Press. The AP reported that Clinton’s private email account was set up by Eric Hoteham, someone who “does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records or Internet background searches.” The wire service also reported that in November 2012 - months before Clinton left State in January 2013 - Clinton’s private email server was redesigned to use Google as a backup server. That was altered again, according to the AP, in July 2013 when Clinton’s email was backed up by a McAfee owned company. Democrats looking to protect Clinton have seized on the fact that regulations through the National Archives and Records Administration were changed multiple times before and after Clinton’s four years at State. In 2009, according to a statement from Paul Wester, chief records officer for the archives administration, government employees were allowed - but strongly discouraged - from using private emails to government work. The regulations did stipulate, however, that “the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system,” according to Wester. In 2013 - after Clinton left the State Department - the archives administration sent agencies a bulletin to “reaffirm that agencies and agency employees must manage federal records appropriately and protect them from unauthorized removal from agency custody.” The same bulletin said that personal email can only be used in “emergency situations,” and when used, the emails “are captured and managed in accordance with agency record-keeping practices.” Related gallery Hillary Clinton's potential challengers Late in 2014 - long after Clinton left State - President Barack Obama signed an update to the Federal Records Law to “prohibit the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days,” according to NARA. Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath and the former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, said in an interview on Tuesday that is doesn’t appear Clinton “violated” the law because “the Federal Records Act is amorphous enough.” But Baron also said the sole use of private emails was extraordinary. “I was in the government for 34 years and, in my experience as director of litigation, I cannot recall an instance where a high level official – or anyone – solely used a private email account for the transaction of government business,” said Baron said. Clinton aides and outside groups looking to protect the presidential frontrunner were quick to circle the wagons around the former secretary of state. They pointed to the fact that other secretaries have used personal email, and knocked Republicans for “scandal mongering.” “When it comes to the Clintons, they want us to disclose everything,” Donna Brazile, a longtime Clinton aide, said on CNN. “She has disclosed this information and she has complied.” Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton group looking to protect Clinton, even attributed to kerfuffle around the meal to hoaxes around Bengahzi, the deadly 2012 terrorist attack that has hung like an albatross around Clinton’s neck since it happened. “If you thought the last chapter of the Benghazi hoax was written and the book was closed, think again,” said Isaac Wright, the group’s executive director. But quietly, some Clinton aligned Democrats were left shaking their heads at the revelations, wondering how someone with presidential aspirations could not see this was a problem. Those feelings were kept private, though, because Democrats presented a unified front around Clinton, their best hope for winning the White House in 2016. Republicans wasted not time to jump on an issue they see as a winning on. Their goal is to paint Clinton in the same way they pained her husband: A dishonest politician who pushes ethical boundaries and feel the rules don’t apply to her. On Tuesday, as the controversy began, countless Republicans issued statements questioning Clinton’s motives, the RNC produced a web ad about the emails and opposition research groups filed Freedom of Information Act requests for her correspondence. Not helping Clinton is the fact that the email controversy comes on the heels of a series of stories about the Clinton family charity, The Clinton Foundation, accepting foreign donations, including several while she was secretary of state, a violation of her agreement with the Obama White House. “It makes you wonder,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said. “Did she use the private emails so she could conduct diplomacy and fundraising at the same time?” Likely GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush tweeted that “unclassified Hillary Clinton emails should be released.” Business executive Carly Fiorina said, “This once again raises serious questions as to Hillary Clinton’s definition of leadership.” The strategy is similar to what Republicans did with Bill Clinton. Ever since the Clintons stepped into the governor’s mansion in Arkansas, Republicans have accused the family of pushing and even crossing the lines of propriety – from a lack of transparency on financial investments to the parade of donors overnighting in the Lincoln Bedroom to Bill Clinton’s dishonesty before a grand jury that eventually led to his impeachment. Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton aide and vocal defender, emailed a select number of reporters on Tuesday to blast a Gawker report as “dreck” and the other are someone who “either naively or knowingly swallowed quite the whopper.” Gawker reported on Tuesday that two Clinton staffers – Reines and Huma Abedin – also used “private email addresses in the course of their agency duties.” The website hung the report on “a knowledgeable source” who had worked with Clinton in the past. Reines took issue with the report and in an email with a handful of journalists, including the Gawker writer and CNN’s Brian Stelter, questioned the story’s sourcing as someone who “flat out lied.” “If your lying liar pants on fire source worked with me at a federal agency as you and they contend, did you ask them to provide even a single email exchange with my using that account,” he asked Gawker’s J.K. Trotter. CNN has been unable to confirm the Trotter’s report. Gawker, a publication that had a number of Freedom of Information Act requests with the State Department for Clinton’s emails, also reported that “the use of private email addresses may explain the State Department’s puzzling response to several FOIA requests filed by Gawker.” One such FOIA requested all of Reines’ emails with reporters, but was denied because State had no record of the communications aide emailing with reporters. Reines also took issue with this, too, but referred all FOIA questions to the State Department. “So, is your cockamamie theory that the reason there is no record of my emailing with reporters is because I improperly used my personal email address to email with those reporters in an attempt to circumvent FOIA, and that every one of the many reporters you reasonably assume I emailed with are in on this conspiracy of having only emailed with me on my non-official email,” Reines wrote. “All sorts of media outlets reached out to me, including FOX and The Daily Caller. Are they in on it? Is everyone in on it aside from Gawker?” CNN’s Jim Acosta, Laura Koran and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of private email for official State Department business


Former European leader attended a conference in Iran in 2014 Bondevik was heading to the National Prayer Breakfast when he was detained If you’re the former leader of a European nation, the president of a major human rights organization and the owner of a diplomatic passport, you’re not likely to encounter a long wait at airport immigration. But on January 31, Kjell Magne Bondevik, the former Prime Minister of Norway, encountered more than just a lengthy queue. Bondevik told CNN’s “Connect the World” he was interrogated by officials at Washington’s Dulles International Airport because he had an Iranian visa in his diplomatic passport. “When they found the Iranian visa, where I was in December 2014, they said that there was a … regulation that with such a visa I had to be flagged up,” Bondevik said. After the former European leader detailed his travel history – he was in Tehran speaking at an anti-extremism conference – Bondevik said he “assumed and presumed that they would let me go immediately.” But instead, Bondevik said he was questioned for over an hour. Related article Trump's travel ban hits legal hurdles: Get up to speed “Did they really believe that I presented a problem or threat to the US? I expected they would show more flexibility and wisdom,” he said. Bondevik said he was held along with migrants from the Middle East and Africa who were also facing additional screening. Although Bondevik was eventually released, he said the atmosphere surrounding President Donald Trump’s travel ban had shaken his core values. Bondevik told CNN’s Becky Anderson he disagrees with the ban entirely, calling it “a contradiction” to his “view on human dignity.” “I really dislike that he is treating people from some Muslim countries as a group and not individuals,” he said. Bondevik, who heads the human rights organization Oslo Center, said the incident speaks to a wider issue of concern brought on by the President’s first actions in office. It’s not just the ban that’s worrying Bondevik. “I also must say that I dislike very much his approach to other international leaders – the Prime Minister of Australia, the President of Mexico … and how he is acting in the international community.” He said many others, including Norway were concerned. Last week, Trump signed an executive order that banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, from traveling to America. The ban also suspended the refugee program for four months, and stopped the admission of all Syrian refugees indefinitely. These are the faces of Trump’s ban On Friday, the executive order was temporarily halted after a federal judge suspended key parts of the order nationwide. As of Monday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had denied the US government’s emergency request to resume the ban and had ordered both sides to submit their arguments for or against it before a final ruling.


Adm. Harry Harris, who oversees US military operations in the Indo-Pacific, said Thursday that “we can’t be overly optimistic on outcomes” when it comes to the recently announced summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “As we go into this, I think we can’t be overly optimistic on outcomes. We’ll just have to see where it goes if and when we have the summit,” Harris told a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, adding that he believed the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula would remain the goal of the talks. Speaking from the White House earlier this month, South Korea’s national security adviser made the surprise announcement that Trump had accepted an invitation from Kim to meet, saying that the summit would take place by May. The White House later confirmed Trump’s acceptance of the invitation. Related article Pompeo expected to reinforce Trump's hardline instincts on Iran and North Korea Harris said he was “encouraged by recent developments on the Korean Peninsula and the possibility of a summit between President Trump and Kim Jong Un” but added that “North Korea remains our most urgent security threat in the region.” “This past year has seen rapid and comprehensive improvement in North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities despite broad international condemnation and the imposition of additional United Nations security resolutions,” Harris said. “It is indisputable that KJU is rapidly closing the gap between rhetoric and capability. The Republic of Korea and Japan have been living under the shadow of North Korea’s threats for years, now that shadow looms over the American homeland,” he added, using an acronym for the North Korean leader. Asked by the committee’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, if he thought that progress with North Korea would be slow and that “the likelihood of a total complete agreement in one or two meetings is doubtful,” Harris responded by noting the unprecedented nature of the summit. Related article Trump apparently threatens to withdraw US troops from South Korea over trade “I don’t know, Senator. We’ve never been in a position where a president, our President has met with a leader of North Korea ever, so I don’t have a way to predict the future I just think that we have to go into this eyes wide open,” Harris said. Harris said the US military “will continue to fully support the President’s maximum pressure campaign and be ready to respond with our allies and partners to the full range of contingency scenarios.” But Harris rejected the notion that the Trump administration was actively considering a quick preemptive strike against North Korea, referred to by some as the “Bloody Nose” strategy. “We have no bloody nose strategy. I don’t know what that is. The press have run with it. I’m charged with developing, for the national command authority, a range of options through the spectrum of violence and I’m ready to execute whatever the President and the national command authority directs me to do but a bloody nose strategy is not contemplated,” he said. Related article Tillerson's dismissal rattles foreign nerves ahead of North Korea summit Harris said that if a military conflict were to take place it would likely not be quick and localized. “We have to be ready to do the whole thing and we are ready to do the whole thing if ordered by the President,” he said. But Harris also said that their were advantages to engaging with North Korea. “We haven’t lost anything by talking. The opportunity to engage has value in of itself regardless of the outcome,” Harris added.


It was just after midnight on an autumn evening in 1996 when Yuk Ming Dennis Lo made a discovery he knew would change modern medicine. Lo had discovered a “treasure trove” of valuable DNA floating freely in the bloodstream. His breakthrough would one day make it possible for pregnant women to safely screen their unborn children for genetic conditions, to map out the entire genome of their fetus, and potentially screen all ages for cancer at its earliest stages. All using a simple blood test. Lo’s first discovery was that the DNA of an unborn baby floats freely in its mother’s blood plasma – the yellow liquid that holds blood cells in suspension. That DNA, he knew, was a window into an unborn baby’s health, and future. But, at the time of his discovery, the medical world wasn’t interested. “They thought that you could only use it for sex selection,” says Lo, now the Director of the Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, in Hong Kong. This was deemed by experts to be a narrow application and one filled with ethical problems, according to Lo. The medical world had missed what would become one of the 21st century’s biggest breakthroughs. But this didn’t stop Lo. Lo’s quest to find fetal DNA in the mother’s blood had begun at Oxford University, where he met pioneering scientist Professor John Bell. “I heard him give a lecture about the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). He said this technique would change the world,” recalls Lo, now 52. PCR is a technique used to amplify a single piece of DNA into thousands, or even millions, of copies. Lo learned how to use the cutting-edge technology, and soon after searched for a way to apply it. His goal? A safer, non-invasive, test for Down syndrome. The traditional test for many mothers-to-be was to undergo a procedure called amniocentesis, where fluid is extracted from the amniotic liquid surrounding a baby in the womb. The cells within the fluid are then screened for health conditions, such as Down syndrome. “A big needle had to be inserted through the mother’s tummy into the uterus,” says Lo. The procedure carries an estimated 1 in 100 chance of causing a miscarriage, according to the UK National Health Service. “I wondered, why did doctors do such a dangerous procedure? How about [we] just take a blood sample from the mother?” says Lo. Science, however, had to catch up with his ambition: During this time as a student in the 1980s, the blood of a baby and its mother were believed to be separate. Lo began an eight-year search for fetal DNA inside a mother’s blood cells. But the number of fetal cells that enter this part of the maternal blood turned out to be very small, and the search had to be called off. In 1997, it was time for a change. Lo returned to Hong Kong in what became a historic year for both man and city: the British colony was returned to China and Lo would get his epiphany. Three months before his move, Lo had read about cancer patients found to have DNA from their tumors floating within their blood plasma. Scientists had realized that dying tumor cells can release their DNA into the circulation of patients, known as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). This opened up the idea of non-invasive cancer diagnosis. “I thought a baby growing inside a mother is like a cancer growing inside a patient – except I’ve never seen an eight pound tumor,” says Lo. “If a small cancer can release enough DNA for us to see, maybe a baby can, too.” His goal required Lo to figure out just how to extract DNA from blood plasma – and he found inspiration in an unlikely source. “When I was in the UK, I would cook instant noodles, you boil the soup and add the noodle dish … I thought the simplest way to treat plasma would be to boil it.” And it worked. Boiling the sample destroyed proteins in the plasma – which could digest, and destroy the DNA – but the DNA was left unharmed. Lo tested the mother’s blood plasma for fetal DNA, and his first result was staggering. “I could not believe my eyes – the fetal DNA we had been looking for in the mother’s blood was in the part we had not looked in for eight years.” It had been hiding there all along. Years passed without Lo’s breakthrough finding any real audience or application. “The big prize, the medical world thought, would be if you could use that for testing for Down syndrome,” Lo remembers. Down syndrome is caused by a fetus having an extra copy of chromosome 21. Traditionally, the condition was diagnosed by looking at cells from a fetus and counting the chromosomes. I thought a baby growing inside a mother is like a cancer growing inside a patient Prof. Dennis Lo, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences Scientists didn’t believe a diagnosis could be made using cell-free DNA (cfDNA). But Lo proved them wrong. After another decade of dedication, in 2007, his team showed that due to the extra copy of chromosome 21, the number of molecules produced from this chromosome are increased in the mother’s blood plasma if she is carrying a baby with Down syndrome. “People thought we were crazy because that method meant you’d have to do several PCR tests,” says Lo. The amount of fetal DNA in the plasma, he says, is low, so several amplifications are needed to create enough data to analyze. The expense of this meant that wouldn’t be practical. At least not then. Luckily for Lo, the introduction of next generation sequencing in 2008 meant millions of DNA fragments could be produced in rapid time. In 2011, Lo launched his non-invasive prenatal blood test for Down syndrome and today, the test is available in more than 90 countries. The last time anyone counted, more than two million pregnant women had been tested. Right from the beginning, Lo says he was “very conscious about the ethical implications.” When he licensed his technology he did so with a clause firmly in place, prohibiting its use for sex selection. A controversial market exists in Hong Kong for prenatal gender testing as blood tests are far more conclusive in the early stages than ultrasounds. The tests cater largely to clients from mainland China where couples have a preference for sons, and where prenatal gender tests are illegal but abortions are not. Lo soon discovered that the secrets held by just a few drops of blood are almost limitless. Prenatal sequencing of the entire genome could, in the future, screen an unborn baby for various late onset disorders, gene defects – including the breast cancer gene BRCA1 – and even predict hair color or longevity. According to Lo, the prohibitively expensive cost means such tests are not being performed right now. “We’ve basically created … a non-invasive window to the body.” Today, Lo is instead working on a blood test, for adults, that can detect liver, nose and throat cancer at stages so early they would be invisible to conventional screening methods. Dubbed a “liquid biopsy,” it scans the blood plasma for ctDNA released by cancer cells. Lo believes it is possible to identify what type of cancer a patient has, and what stage the disease is at – all from this DNA. Such a test has already been made available to 10,000 middle-aged men in Hong Kong, and has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of adult lives around the world. Lo has also used the “liquid biopsy” to monitor organ transplant rejection, and even the health of a patient after a car crash. If an organ, or tissue, starts to fail it releases DNA into the blood stream, which can now be picked up using this method. Read: Miracle cells could cure blindness Lo’s next focus is on an even less invasive form of DNA testing – using a mother’s urine. “After a woman delivers a baby, two hours later the fetal DNA is gone from her bloodstream. Where does it go? We thought maybe it was in the urine.” And in the urine it was, providing yet another window into both mother and baby – and their future health. “That, I think, is going to be the next treasure trove.”


A judge has denied a motion for dismissal by lawyers for the widow of the Pulse gunman after they said new details from prosecutors reveal the shooter’s father was an FBI informant who is currently under a criminal investigation. The judge said the fact that Omar Mateen’s father worked as an FBI informant was not relevant to the case against Noor Salman. According to a motion filed by the defense, Assistant US Attorney Sara Sweeney sent an email to the defense on Saturday – in the middle of Salman’s trial – that stated Seddique Mateen was a confidential FBI source at various points in time between January 2005 through June 2016. The email also stated that Seddique Mateen is being investigated for money transfers to Turkey and Afghanistan after documents were found in his home on June 12, 2016, the day of the Pulse attack. The dates of the money transfers were between March 16, 2016, and June 5, 2016, according to the email. The revelation threatened to upend the case against Salman, the wife of Omar Mateen who is on trial for charges related to the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida in June 2016. Salman’s defense attorneys said the failure to disclose this information earlier violated her due process rights, and they argued they would have taken a different legal strategy if they had known about this earlier. Salman faces charges of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization and obstruction of justice, as prosecutors say she knew about the coming massacre. She has pleaded not guilty, and her defense team has cast her as a victim rather than an accomplice. The defense began its case Monday. Prosecutors informed Salman’s counsel about Seddique Mateen’s FBI status on Saturday, more than a week after the trial began and after the prosecution rested its case. “I have just received authorization to disclose the following information about Seddique Mateen,” the email said, according to the defense motion. “If you should call S. Mateen to the stand, the government will not seek to elicit any of this information from him.” Related article Pulse shooter's wife to FBI: 'I wish I had been more truthful' In addition, an anonymous tip on November 1, 2012, indicated Seddique Mateen was seeking to raise $50,000 to $100,000 via a donation drive to contribute toward an attack against the government of Pakistan, according to the email included in the defense motion. Defense attorneys argued the late revelation is unconstitutional, citing the 1963 Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland. The Brady case ruled that prosecutors must turn over evidence that could be favorable to the accused over to the defense. “It is apparent from the government’s belated disclosure that Ms. Salman has been defending a case without a complete set of facts and evidence that the government was required to disclose,” her attorneys wrote. The attorneys further wrote that if they had known about Seddique Mateen’s FBI status, they may have argued one of two theories with “strong support.” “1) Omar Mateen and his father, rather than Ms. Salman, conspired to support ISIS; or 2) the FBI’s focus on Ms. Salman was based on its own motive to avoid responsibility for its failures with its own informant, Seddique Mateen, as well as his son,” Salman’s attorneys wrote. Seddique Mateen was on the prosecution’s witness list, but was not called to testify in the trial. Seddique Mateen spoke to CNN’s Don Lemon in the days after the killing and said he was shocked to learn his son gunned down 49 people at Pulse nightclub. “I’m as shocked as you are because I didn’t notice, as I said always in the past two days, I didn’t notice anything, irregular behavior on his part or emotional behavior on his part,” Seddique Mateen said. “He didn’t get my attention just being not normal. If I did notice that, I would have (taken) care of him myself, I would have called law enforcement.” Seddique Mateen is originally from Afghanistan, according to US officials. He told CNN his son had been attentive to his work, his family and made regular visits to the family prior to the shooting. “His act was a terror act, but as far him being a terrorist. I’m not aware of,” Seddique Mateen said. “This is the worst thing that can happen for a father to see a son act like this.” CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described the destination of money transfers for which Seddique Mateen is under investigation. The transfers were made to Turkey and Afghanistan. CNN’s Daniel Shepherd contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Kevin Gray is a Reader in International Relations at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex who specializes in North Korean development and inter-Korean relations. The views expressed here are his own. The decision comes months after the UN agreed new sanctions on North Korea There are many possible reasons why Beijing has decided to clamp down now China’s announcement that it will suspend the import of North Korean coal until the end of 2017 appears to be a significant expression of Beijing’s continued frustration with the Pyongyang regime. On the one hand, the decision can be viewed as a delayed commitment to enforce existing UN sanctions against North Korea, to which China, as permanent member of the Security Council, played a key role in passing. Following years of vaguely worded resolutions that allowed for flexible interpretation by China, UN Security Council Resolution 2321 passed last November, which included an explicit target of reducing coal imports by 62%. Several more immediate factors may, however, explain the timing of China’s announcement. These include the suspected North Korean involvement in the alleged assassination of leader Kim Jong Un’s half-brother Kim Jong Nam, who had reportedly been living under Chinese protection in Macau and was an advocate of Chinese-style reforms in North Korea. Perhaps more significantly, however, North Korea’s oft-cited role as strategic buffer state vis-à-vis US-aligned South Korea has been increasingly undermined with the decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) missile defense system in the South. Despite South Korean and US emphasis on the defensive nature of THAAD, Beijing is suspicious of the capacity that the system’s radars have to monitor China’s own missiles. More broadly, the Trump administration’s more hawkish approach to China may have led Beijing to reassess the strategic value of its relationship with North Korea. By extension, the suspension of coal imports might thus be a form of “pay off” for Trump’s more recent apparent acceptance of the “One China” policy. Whatever the precise reasons for China’s announcement, a more important question in gauging the likely impact of the measures, is to what extent the China’s new restrictions on coal imports from North Korea will be implemented on the ground. Customs agencies on the Sino-North Korean border are known for being relatively lax and understaffed, and widespread smuggling takes place in the region. Stringent sanctions on the coal trade may simply drive more it underground. Related video The North Korea you aren't meant to see Though coal exports remain North Korea’s single largest exported item, the slowdown in the Chinese economy since 2014 has already led to decreased demand for the mineral. Instead, economic exchange between the two countries has been increasing in other areas. For example, Chinese clothing companies have increasingly outsourced production to North Korean trading companies as a result of rising wages in China and low-cost labor in North Korea. In recent years, there has also been the increasing dispatch of North Korean workers to Chinese border cities such as Dandong, Hunchun and Yanji. As such, limitations on coal exports will no doubt have some impact on North Korea’s earning of foreign exchange, but will be partly offset by growth in other sectors. The scope for China’s restrictions on coal imports to impact upon North Korea’s foreign exchange earnings certainly exists, and for sanctions advocates, this may offer a ray of hope that the sanctions regime may yet work. This is likely to be wishful thinking, however. Related video Why North Korea's new missile matters For a country that regards its external environment as irredeemably hostile and places the survival of the regime above all other goals, it is hard to see that the deprivation of foreign exchange will be significant enough to have any direct impact on Pyongyang’s willingness to finance its nuclear and missile programs. China bans all coal imports from North KoreaWhy China’s coal ban isn’t likely to stop North Korea’s weaponsNorth Korea sanctions: What’s next?Timeline: Nuclear tests vs UN sanctionsToughest sanctions yet cost North Korea $800 million China bans all coal imports from North KoreaWhy China’s coal ban isn’t likely to stop North Korea’s weaponsNorth Korea sanctions: What’s next?Timeline: Nuclear tests vs UN sanctionsToughest sanctions yet cost North Korea $800 million Livelihood exemptions within the international sanctions regime notwithstanding, an arguably more realistic scenario is that China’s enforcement of sanctions may produce widespread hardship that results in social unrest and potential regime change from within. Contrary to oft-made predictions concerning the country’s impending collapse, however, it seems that the paradox of the North Korean regime is not its instability but its resilience. Even during the time of the famine of the 1990s, long before North Korea’s mineral export boom, there was a distinct lack of any overt actions of resistance amongst the North Korean populace. In addition, sanctions are widely regarded as ineffectual if there are no existing splits amongst elites or opposition movements within the country. North Korea is notably lacking in either. China finds itself in a dilemma, however. Beijing has repeatedly expressed skepticism that North Korea can be persuaded to abandon its nuclear program through force, yet it is under intense pressure to enforce existing international sanctions against the country. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Whether or not China is correct on this point, it is nonetheless unrealistic to expect that Beijing is either willing or able to exert enough pressure on Pyongyang to induce it to change course. Given this reality, there seems to be little evidence that Beijing has ceased in its calls for the resolution of the North Korean issue through negotiations. Given the poor prospect of sanctions achieving their stated goals, perhaps it is time the world should listen. Editor’s Note: Kevin Gray is a Reader in International Relations at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex who specializes in North Korean development and inter-Korean relations. The views expressed here are his own.

China's suspension of North Korean coal imports


The interviews are major developments in Mueller's investigation The White House said it is cooperating Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office has spoken with both Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former FBI Director James Comey, it was revealed Tuesday. Sessions was questioned for several hours last week as part of the investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Investigators spoke with Comey last year, sources told CNN. The interviews, part of the investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election and whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice since taking office, are major developments in Mueller’s investigation. Sessions was questioned last Wednesday, a source close to Sessions told CNN, and a source familiar with the discussion said it was the first time the attorney general was interviewed. He was not under subpoena, the source familiar added. The New York Times, citing two people briefed on the matter, reported Tuesday that Comey was asked about memos he wrote about interactions with the President. Neither meeting was revealed until Tuesday. Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores confirmed the Sessions meeting, which was also first reported by The New York Times. She declined to say if the attorney general turned over any documents or communications to Mueller’s office. The White House said it is cooperating with Mueller’s investigation. White House special counsel Ty Cobb declined to comment when asked about the Sessions meeting, and the White House did not immediately return a request for comment about the Comey interview. Trump told reporters Tuesday afternoon that he wasn’t worried about what Sessions told Mueller’s team. “No, I’m not at all concerned,” Trump said in the Oval Office. He added that he and Sessions did not discuss the conversation when the attorney general visited the White House on Monday. According to CNN research, Sessions is the 15th member of the Trump administration, including former and current officials, who are known to have been interviewed in the Russia investigation that is currently led by Mueller and was previously led by Comey. Last week, two people familiar with the process told CNN former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has struck a deal with Mueller’s team and will be interviewed by prosecutors instead of testifying before a grand jury. The sources did not say when the interview will take place or if the subpoena would be withdrawn. Sessions announced he would recuse himself from all matters relating to the Russia investigation in early March 2017. Politicians, including Republicans, praised the decision at the time, but Trump has publicly rebuked his attorney general and said he wished Sessions had not recused himself. Sessions’ recusal left Justice Department oversight of the probe to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller to be special counsel after Trump fired Comey in May 2017. Earlier this month, the Times reported that Mueller is aware of an unsuccessful attempt by Trump to lobby Sessions to not recuse himself from the Justice Department’s Russia probe. Trump has railed against Comey since he fired the former FBI chief in May 2017. It became public shortly after Comey’s ouster that he had kept contemporaneous memos on conversations where he wrote that Trump asked him to let go of an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. CNN reported in May that Mueller had been briefed on the contents of some of Comey’s memos. Comey, while still FBI chief, confirmed the existence of the Justice Department’s Russia investigation, and in testimony for a June hearing after his firing, Comey affirmed his claim that Trump sought to influence ongoing investigations. During that June hearing, Comey said he believed he was fired “because of the Russia investigation.” “I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted,” Comey said. Trump has called Comey’s claims false, and an attorney for Trump late last year claimed the nature of the presidency itself meant Trump cannot obstruct justice. CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Marshall Cohen, Dan Merica and Jessica Schneider contributed to this report.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation


Republican Sen. Jeff Flake continued to publicly criticize President Donald Trump Flake authored an op-ed in August criticizing one GOP immigration proposal Republican Sen. Jeff Flake defended the top Democrat in the Senate against attacks from President Donald Trump, who blamed the deadly New York City terror attack on a program that Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer helped shape but later tried to end. Trump tweeted Wednesday morning that suspect Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbek immigrant, came to the country through the Diversity Visa Lottery Program, which Trump described as a “Chuck Schumer beauty.” “I want merit based,” Trump added. The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based. The United States distributes 50,000 visas each year by random selection to people from countries with a low rate of immigration to the US — an effort designed to diversity the country’s immigrant population. The visas offer immigrants green cards, permanent legal residence and a path to citizenship. While Schumer helped shape the program in the 1990s, he was also part of the bipartisan Gang of Eight that crafted comprehensive immigration reform, including an end to the lottery program. The overall bill passed the Senate, but failed to advance in the House. “Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there,” Flake tweeted, in response to Trump’s tweet blaming Schumer for the program. Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there https://t.co/QQFJzPyRzC Flake has long been a fiercely outspoken critic of the President and recently announced that he wasn’t running for re-election to his seat representing Arizona. Flake was already facing an uphill battle in his primary and registered low in the polls. Also on Twitter, Trump vowed to scrap what he called “Democrat Lottery Systems” and fight for more “merit based visas.” To that, Flake offered another fact-check. “In fact, had the Senate Gang of 8 bill passed the House, it would have ended the Visa Lottery Program AND increased merit based visas,” he wrote. In fact, had the Senate Gang of 8 bill passed the House, it would have ended the Visa Lottery Program AND increased merit based visas. https://t.co/o3qJHHAv1C In August, Flake wrote an op-ed for The New York Times about Manuel Chaidez, a man from Mexico who worked on his family’s ranch in Arizona. While Chaidez didn’t fit Washington’s estimation of a “high-value immigrant,” Flake wrote, “Manuel is just about the highest-value immigrant possible,” describing his abilities on the ranch and the relationships he formed. “When re-evaluating immigration policy, it is right to give priority, through a point system or otherwise, to those who have skills and abilities unique to the new economy,” Flake wrote. “We did this in 2013, in the bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate. But there must always be a place in America for those whose only initial credentials are a strong back and an eagerness to use it.” CNN’s Tal Kopan contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Jay Parini, a poet and novelist, teaches at Middlebury College. He recently published “New and Collected Poems, 1975-2015.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Lionel Shriver, an American writer, stirred up controversy when she wore a sombrero at a literary festival in Australia Jay Parini: Cultural appropriation requires a fine balance between regard for those marginalized and the traditions of free speech Anyone familiar with the academic world has heard about the dangers of “cultural appropriation.” It’s a phrase used to denounce people who “steal” things from other cultures, sometimes with the aim to poke fun at that culture or – worse – belittle it. The debate on appropriation is one of the main fronts in the current culture war on campuses, and it’s provoking heated, or overheated, conversations around the US and abroad. The latest outburst comes in the wake of an American writer’s keynote speech at a literary festival in Australia. Her name is Lionel Shriver, and she was clearly out to provoke a reaction, wearing a sombrero throughout her talk (an allusion to a kerfuffle at Bowdoin College last year, where a couple of students were censored for wearing “mini-sombreros” to a tequila party). Shriver, as a novelist, makes several good points. As a writer, she wants to feel free to write about anything she wants. She’s justifiably worried that “the kind of fiction we are ‘allowed’ to write is in danger of becoming so hedged, so circumscribed, so tippy-toe, that we’d indeed be better off not writing the anodyne drivel to begin with.” The speech brought the house down – on her head. One novelist walked out in a fit of rage, and wrote about the incident in The Guardian, where she described Shriver’s speech as “a poisoned package wrapped up in arrogance and delivered with condescension.” Related article Why Trump is wrong on 'political correctness' This is complex territory. To successfully navigate this terrain, one must have a deep sympathy for those who feel marginalized, while understanding that the traditions of free speech require us to allow many forms of speech that might be offensive. This is especially true in the area of fiction writing, where I would agree with Shriver completely that a writer needs wide latitude to go wherever he or she pleases. It’s fiction, after all, and its main allegiance is to the truth of feeling conveyed by the work itself. The fact is, it’s very hard to “appropriate” some material without seeming ignorant or tin-eared. A classic example of appropriation is the 1967 novel by William Styron, “The Confessions of Nat Turner,” where a white Southern author takes on the voice of a black slave on a plantation. The first reviews were good, and Styron won the Pulitzer Prize the following year. But controversy followed rather swiftly. Ten black writers responded to the book in a harshly negative way, finding it inauthentic and dangerously misleading as a representation of the slave experience. Now, nearly half a century later, many critics – including African-American writers – take a more benign view of Styron’s book, noting that at least it sparked interest in slave narratives while inspiring a number of truly great novels by Toni Morrison, Charles Johnson, Edward P. Jones and others. Related video College pushes back against political correctness In my view, a novelist must have absolute freedom to write anything – as long as the writing is good, honest and deeply felt. Then culture will, in due course, separate the wheat from the chaff. Bad, inauthentic writing tends to disappear. But what about college students and “cultural appropriation,” as when a white kid sings a rap song associated with black ghetto culture? Is it always wrong to use material from other cultures than one’s own? I would give everyone a good deal of latitude here: culture is always produced by appropriation, as when we blend cuisines from other countries or enhance our styles of clothing with dashes of color or elegance from another country. I loved it when Paul Simon took on African rhythms in “Graceland.” T.S. Eliot could not have written “The Waste Land” – the most important poem of literary modernism – without feeling free to “steal” lines from Hindu rituals, from dozens of other cultures. I doubt that the US Constitution could have been written without our Founding Fathers “stealing” from Montesquieu and other Enlightenment thinkers. In the globalized world we occupy, we can and should expect all sorts of fascinating acts of appropriation that open up new veins of thought and feeling. Related article No, Louie Gohmert, disability not a joke Yet it’s never appropriate to insult people. You may do so inadvertently, of course. And college kids as well as adults generally must be taught – taught – to consider the sensitivities of people who might take offense for good reason. Marginalized people, in particular – immigrants, Muslims, people of color, gays or transgender people, those with physical disabilities – should not be even further denigrated by crude behavior and stupid insults. Let’s take a most obvious recent example: Donald Trump’s mocking of a reporter with disabilities. The video went far and wide, and it’s disgraceful. I suspect that anyone with a disability, including the man mocked by Trump, would have felt even further marginalized by his ridiculous behavior. And it’s not a question of political correctness. PC means “plain civil.” If you don’t know how to behave, somebody should teach you. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook American campuses are in the throes of coming to terms with this complicated reality, and the controversy will only lead to good things in the long run. That is, the conflicts themselves will cause intelligent, well-meaning people to debate what it means to behave in a civil manner. And there will be errors on all sides: that’s in the nature of the dialectic. Eventually, people will (I hope) learn to behave in ways that show respect for those on the margins but still allow for a maximum of free speech. And novelists, no matter what anyone tells them, will write what compels them, saying the things they feel must be said, come hell or high water. Jay Parini, a poet and novelist, teaches at Middlebury College. He recently published “New and Collected Poems, 1975-2015.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.


Soyinka said Trump's election was "not surprising" Urged people to focus on "rhetoric" that got Trump elected Writer did not rule out a return to the US in the future Africa’s first Nobel Prize winner for Literature, Wole Soyinka, has spoken for the first time since he said in October that he would cut up his green card if Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. While the writer and poet would not elaborate on whether or not he had torn up his green card, or even if he had disposed of it, he told CNN: “I did exactly what I said I was going to do, which is how I always operate. It was a personal thing and I did everything I had to do personally.” The Guardian reported in November that Soyinka told students at Oxford University of his intention to “cut my green card myself and start packing up,” if Trump won the election. The former Scholar-in- Residence at New York University told CNN he realised “quite early on” Trump could win. “That’s when I began to scream and to prepare, and say if this man gets in and it’s looking as though he might, me, I’m out.” Related article 5 things Africans on Twitter are waiting for now Trump has won the US election “The American society is a very peculiar one. There are so many nationalities, so many interests, so it’s quite possible for a demagogue to twang the negative chords in various constituencies of interest.” “Even though they’re coming from different directions you can utilize that common negativity to pool them to back you. This is the story of many dictators, demagogues, populists, even progressive populists.” Related article Is Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie the most influential woman in Africa right now? Soyinka held a press conference in Lagos on Monday to discuss the intense debate surrounding his green card. He spoke of not understanding the “fuss” around a “personal response” and spoke of “feeling sorry” for outgoing President Barack Obama. “Obama was deriving no pleasure from handing over,” he said. “I watched the meeting, the body language, the tone, everything. This must be one of the most difficult duties he ever carried out as a president, I do not exaggerate. So I said I felt sorry for him.” He also urged people to focus on important matters, such as the danger of Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. “The important thing, what really matters, is the rhetoric that got him there,” he said. “There was a rhetoric against the black peoples and in particular, specifically named, Nigerians, and I responded to it, and that’s my business.” Related article Artists bend rules of contemporary African art Despite his stance he did not rule out returning to the US in the future. “If I find something is absolutely essential, yes, of course I’ll visit there,” he said. “But I will not go there on my own behalf and I’ll be going as ordinary stranger, [an] ordinary citizen.” “It’s more arduous, the queues are longer, you’re just carrying a regular visa, but I am willing to go through that if it becomes necessary.”


For more about the debate over big game trophies, watch CNN Films’ “Trophy,” premiering Sunday, January 14, at 9pm ET/PT, on CNN. The RhODIS database contains more than 20,000 rhino samples Rhino horns and powders are worth more than gold, diamonds or cocaine CODIS – the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System, containing genetic evidence gathered from crime scenes and serial offenders – helps cops nab criminals. Now, a similar DNA database is helping link international traffickers of rhinoceros horns to the scene of a poaching, according to a study published Monday in the journal Current Biology. Rhino horns and powders, made from grinding down the horns, are illegally sold across the globe as trophies and fake medicines. Today, RhODIS – the Rhino DNA Index System – includes data from roughly 5,800 rhino crime cases since 2010, according to the researchers. And more than 120 case reports built from RhODIS data have helped investigators connect the dots between criminals and blood-stained evidence, including carcasses and recovered horns. Related article South Africa's 'Rhino Ranger' One case, which involved three horns from two carcasses, led to a sentence of 29 years, said the team of researchers led by Cindy Harper, director of the Veterinary Genetics Laboratory at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. “Traditionally the punishment for poaching – which is more lucrative than drug trafficking – was trivial,” said Steven O’Brien, a co-author of the new study and a professor at Halmos College of Natural Sciences and Oceanography at Nova Southeastern University in Florida. “It was a very small slap on the hand, perhaps a small fine of a thousand dollars or maybe a week or two in jail, but that’s all changing now with the DNA evidence.” Rhino horns and powders are worth more, kilogram for kilogram, than gold, diamonds or cocaine, according to O’Brien. In South Africa, rhino poaching incidents increased from just 13 in 2007 to 1,215 in 2014, the research indicates. “South Africa has a vigilant and strong culture against the taking and poaching of the wildlife species, particularly rhinos and elephants and large, charismatic species,” O’Brien said. But the dramatic increase in rhino killings, accomplished in some cases by wealthy criminals helicoptering into habitats with automatic weapons and chain saws, has overwhelmed the African courts. Related article America's stance on elephant trophies? It's complicated “Most of the prosecutions were difficult to conclude because these guys could say anything when they’re caught with a piece of horn,” O’Brien said. Criminal “excuses” have included pretend ignorance – not knowing it was a rhino horn – and claims that the item is an ancestral museum piece. “If you could basically prove that they actually were in possession of material that was from a poached rhino in recent time, then that closes the circle of evidence,” he said. Human crimes are prosecuted based on DNA left at a crime scene, so why not apply that logic and technology to rhino crimes? Though this idea may be obvious, O’Brien said, what was not obvious was how to create a rhino database – in wild and remote African regions – that could make a direct genetic match. In South Africa, Harper “trained the entire wildlife anti-poaching staff to not only collect materials from poached animals but to enter them into an iPad and a small program that RhODIS designed that specifically gets uploaded into the database as soon as they come into Wi-Fi range,” he explained. Related article 11 wildlife encounters to do soon -- before they possibly disappear The goal is for all rhinos to be in the RhODIS system. The South African government made it obligatory for law enforcement officers to collect DNA samples from every crime scene as well as every living rhino handled by academic researchers, conservationists or veterinarians. Kenya soon followed suit. Other countries in the southern part of the African continent, including Botswana and Zimbabwe, have begun to do the same. Yet there’s another essential element necessary for DNA evidence to stand up in court, O’Brien said. There’s always some chance that completely unrelated DNA could be a genetic match to crime scene evidence. This is called “match probability,” he said. To win a court case, then, prosecutors need to prove that match probability is extremely low in order to prevent a good lawyer from getting up and saying the match of DNA from a rhino to DNA on confiscated items held by a criminal “is just by chance,” O’Brien said. “This is the kind of thing a lawyer would say. They’re wrong, but that’s what they would say.” O’Brien enlisted the help of “the best computational biologists I know”: a group working at the Theodosius Dobzhansky Center for Genome Bioinformatics at St. Petersburg State University in Russia. Asked how St. Petersburg’s programmers got involved with rhinos, O’Brien laughed. After working at the US National Institutes of Health for nearly four decades, he retired a few years ago and was looking for an adventure. “Mostly, I was looking for programmers to get into the genetics field,” he said, so he traveled to St. Petersburg and recruited about 20 of them. “If they were in the US, they would all be hired by Google or Facebook or Silicon Valley places,” he said. “But over there, they’re just trying to learn a trade that will make them valuable to the international genetics community.” Related article South Africa's controversial rhino horn auction gets underway The Dobzhansky Center programmers developed “state of the art methods” for application of match probability statistics. In nine case studies presented in the new research paper, the programmers’ statistical model shows that the likelihood of a chance match is “on the order of one in a million,” O’Brien said. “So this rhino thing was exciting for (the programmers) because it was a clear application of the methodology that they had perfected.” Bas Huijbregts, African species manager at the World Wildlife Fund, believes this “very interesting mix of different people” is one reason the new study and the RhODIS system are so strong. “It’s researchers from research institutes, from law enforcement agencies, from rhino specialist groups, from conservation groups, from all different horizons and different countries,” said Huijbregts, who was not involved in the new study. All of these contributions were necessary to validate RhODIS as a law enforcement tool that could be used internationally. By helping populate the RhODIS system with data, South Africa has given RhODIS importance and recognized evidence from the system in its courts, he noted. With 20,000 total rhino samples – gathered from crime scenes and research labs – in the database today, the system is becoming “very significant” while helping paint a picture of international criminal networks, Huijbregts said. There’s still work to be done when it comes to learning how to effectively build and use RhODIS, particularly with regard to “how data and information flows happen between different organizations and different law enforcement agencies,” he said. Related article Rare one-horned rhino at risk as Indian flood waters rise He is hopeful for the future, however. Rhino poaching may be continuing, but Huijbregts sees “more and more efforts on protecting the species,” including more professional rangers and more professional forensic tools. More effort is needed on the demand side, he said, with rhino products sold to the “rising middle-income classes in newly emerging economies” such as Vietnam and China. In these countries, rhino powders are marketed as “traditional” hangover cures and cancer treatments. “This has nothing to do with traditional Chinese medicine; it’s just newly invented branding for rhino products,” Huijbregts said. With completely fake medical usages popping up regularly, conservationists work hard to understand why people buy these products and quickly debunk the science, showing that there’s no real medical value to rhino horn or rhino horn powder. Related article DNA solves ancient animal riddle that Darwin couldn't It’s all about “making it not cool anymore, like it’s not cool to drive and drink or smoke anymore,” Huijbregts said. “That type of cultural shift needs to happen in those markets.” Ultimately, Huijbregts believes “that at some point, this current wave of killings will diminish.” And so he worries more about other threats to the rhino’s long-term survival. “A lot of people don’t know that there’s actually five species of rhinos left. And three of those five are critically endangered,” he said. (It is believed that there were once many rhino species, though the number is unknown.) For instance, there may be only 60 individual Javan rhino left in the wild as of 2015 estimates, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. In Asia, there are roughly 3,500 one-horned or Indian rhinos and fewer than 100 Sumatran rhinos, while about 26,000 white and black rhinos remain in Africa. See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. As leftovers from an ancient past, rhinos are not only important for their own intrinsic value, they perform ecological functions in Africa and Asia and serve as a model for economic development (in the form of tourism) for the countries where they roam. Conservationists working with governments in African and Asian countries are devising various plans to preserve these phenomenal beasts, Huijbregts said. “But we have to be very, very quick.”


The strikes hit plotters actively "plotting attacks in Europe," according to the Pentagon The mission is expected to be the last short-notice military operation ordered by Obama US B-2 bombers struck and destroyed two ISIS camps in Libya overnight, with initial estimates that over 80 militants were killed, US officials told CNN Thursday. The strikes were on external actors who were actively “plotting attacks in Europe,” Secretary of Defense Ash Carter told reporters. The mission was approved several days ago by President Barack Obama and is expected to be the last short-notice military operation ordered by him, according to sources. “The fighters training in these camps posed a security risk to Libya, to its neighbors, to our allies in Africa and Europe, and to the United States,” Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook told reporters. “While we are still evaluating the results of the strikes, the initial assessment indicates they were successful.” A US defense official said the militants were seen immediately beforehand carrying weapons, wearing tactical vests, holding mortars and standing in formation. The Department of Defense showed reporters a rare video of surveillance footage of the ISIS fighters as they loaded what appeared to be shells and rocket-propelled grenades into pick-up trucks. A second video showing the camps being bombed was also shown. The number killed was not released by the Pentagon, but the first estimate put the figure at over 80. There were no women or children in the area, the official said. Cook described the camps as being in a “very rural area.” US surveillance aircraft had been watching the sites for weeks as fighters fled from Sirte on the coastline into what they perceived to be the safety of remote desert areas. But the isolation of the area gave those surveillance aircraft clear imagery showing military-aged males in several areas, according to officials. The two camps that were destroyed were located about 28 miles southwest of Sirte, the Pentagon said. Cook said the strike was carried out by two US Air Force B-2 Spirit bombers flying from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, a 30-plus hour roundtrip mission, and that over 100 bombs and missiles were dropped on the targets. It was the first time the aircraft were used in an attack since 2011. In addition to the B-2 bombers, unmanned aircraft also took part in the strikes, the defense official said. Initially, the rudimentary camps had moved and surveillance had to be conducted again before the strike. The B-2s heavy bombers flying from the US were planning to bomb four camps, according to early reports. Some of the sites may have been empty, with fighters having moved again. US Navy warships equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles were also on standby, but initial reports indicate they were not needed. The President’s approval of the strike underscores in the closing hours of his administration the difficulty of targeting ISIS fighters in dozens of countries around the world. Obama has increasingly relied on armed drones, bombers and special forces on the ground to go after these types of targets in Syria and Iraq. “We are committed to maintaining pressure on ISIL and preventing them from establishing safe haven,” Cook said in a statement released earlier, using another acronym for ISIS, also known as the Islamic State. “These strikes will degrade ISIL’s ability to stage attacks against Libyan forces and civilians working to stabilize Sirte, and demonstrate our resolve in countering the threat posed by ISIL to Libya, the United States and our allies.” Helping Libya’s recovering oil sector was also a likely factor in the US decision to target the training camps, according to Geoff Porter, president of North Africa Risk Consulting. “Since the defeat of the Islamic State in Sirte, Libyan oil production has increased from roughly 500,000 to 750,000 barrels per day. This is largely due to the inability of the Islamic State to threaten upstream, midstream and downstream oil infrastructure in the Sirte Basin,” Porter told CNN. “Targeting Islamic State training camps in the Sirte Basin consolidates the oil production gains made in the last two months and reduces the risk that they will be targeted by the Islamic State again in the future.” Porter says the stakes could not be higher. “Without oil production, Libya has no revenue. The only thing that could possibly save the struggling Government of National Accord is being able to restore the provision of social services. If oil flows, then the GNA has funds. If the GNA has funds, it can spend some of that money on electricity, gas, fuel, water, and can bolster the currency to reduce inflation.” CNN’s Ryan Browne and Paul Cruickshank contributed to this report.

US military strikes on ISIS camps in Libya


The United Nations voted overwhelmingly to condemn President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel despite threats from the US to pull funding from the world body. Some 128 countries voted for the resolution, while nine voted “no,” and 35 nations abstained, including Canada, Mexico and Australia. The vote came after US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley issued a direct threat, saying that the US will think twice about funding the world body if it voted to condemn Trump’s decision. “The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in this assembly,” Haley said. “We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution” to the UN and when other member nations ask Washington “to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.” Haley said the US will put its embassy in Jerusalem regardless of the vote. “That is what the American people want us to do and it is the right thing to do,” Haley said. “This vote will make a difference in how Americans look at the UN,” she said. “And this vote will be remembered.” Haley’s remarks followed a threat from Trump himself, who mentioned the UN vote at a Wednesday Cabinet meeting. “We’re watching those votes,” the President said. “Let them vote against us, we’ll save a lot. We don’t care.” Later Thursday an invitation was sent around to the 64 countries in addition to the US that did not support the resolution on Jerusalem, to attend a reception with Haley in January. The event was labeled as a means to thank the countries for “their friendship to the United States,” according to a copy of the invite obtained by CNN. Few countries seemed cowed, as nation after nation blasted the US at the emergency session of the UN General Assembly, condemning the Jerusalem decision as illegal, destabilizing, and a violation of international law. Haley’s stance also provoked a fiery tweet from John Brennan, who served as CIA director under President Obama: “Trump Admin threat to retaliate against nations that exercise sovereign right in UN to oppose US position on Jerusalem is beyond outrageous. Shows @realDonaldTrump expects blind loyalty and subservience from everyone—qualities usually found in narcissistic, vengeful autocrats.” Trump Admin threat to retaliate against nations that exercise sovereign right in UN to oppose US position on Jerusalem is beyond outrageous. Shows @realDonaldTrump expects blind loyalty and subservience from everyone—qualities usually found in narcissistic, vengeful autocrats. The US was joined in its “no” vote by Israel and a slew of small nations, including Micronesia, Nauru, Togo and Tonga, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Honduras. Other abstainers included the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Croatia and South Sudan. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Trump and the countries that abstained in a statement issued shortly after the vote. “Israel rejects the decision of the United Nations and, at the same time, we show gratitude to the high number of countries that abstained from this resolution,” Netanyahu said. “Israel thanks President Trump on his unequivocal position in favor of Jerusalem and thanks other countries that voted together with Israel, together with the truth.” In the aftermath, Haley’s office said the support the US did get counted as a victory of sorts, pointing out that nine countries voted against, 35 countries abstained, and 21 were absent. “While the resolution passed, the vote breakdown tells a different story,” a spokesman for the US mission said. “It’s clear that many countries prioritized their relationship with the United States over an unproductive attempt to isolate us for a decision that was our sovereign right to make.” Before the vote, at least one world leader took the time to call out Trump directly. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a self-styled leader of the greater Muslim world, blasted the President during a speech in Ankara on Thursday. “Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey’s democratic free will with your dollars, our decision is clear,” Erdogan thundered. “What is the cradle of democracy doing?” Erdogan said. “They are looking for people they can buy with their dollars.” And he issued an appeal to other world leaders, saying, “do not, for the sake of a few dollars, sell off your democratic free will.” State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said the US would “explore various options” following the UN vote. Nauert said the White House and NSC told the State Department on Thursday afternoon that “the President’s foreign policy team has been empowered to explore various options going forward with other nations, however no decisions have been made.” Nauert also said that “the UN vote is really not the only factor the administration would take into consideration in dealing with our foreign relations.” But at least one UN analyst said that the US threats about funding had an element of political theater about them, noting it would be hard for the US to pull support from countries such as Yemen, Pakistan or Afghanistan, and that the threats weren’t likely to sway votes. On issues relating to Palestinians, the US and Israel always either find themselves in a minority, or with a handful of other friends like the Marshall Islands in the face of overwhelming majorities in the General Assembly, said Richard Gowan, a New York-based UN expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. And despite the threats from Trump, “There’s safety in numbers for most members of the UN,” Gowan said. “Smaller countries, poorer countries may get a little nervous when they hear the President’s rhetoric,” said Gowan, “but they will also gain confidence that all the big members of the Arab bloc are pretty much guaranteed to vote against the US position, as well as the Europeans.” US officials say the decision to recognize Jerusalem and move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv reflects the basic reality. Israel’s seat of government sits in Jerusalem, say US officials who add that their decision has no bearing on a final resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, or on the fate of holy sites of the world’s three largest faiths. The fate of Jerusalem is so fraught, however, that it is considered a “final status” issue, only to be decided at the end of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. No country bases their diplomatic mission in Jerusalem as a result. Apart from Israel, none of the US’ closest allies spoke before the vote. “No General Assembly resolution will ever drive us from Jerusalem,” said Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon. “The United States simply stated a fact. They officially declared what has always been true. Jerusalem always has been and always will be the capital of Israel.” “Those who support this resolution are like puppets,” Danon said, “puppets controlled by the strings of your Palestinian masters.” Otherwise, speaker after speaker at the UN emphasized US isolation, with the Palestinian representative declaring that the decision destroyed Washington’s ability to act as a mediator in peace talks and left it with few allies by its side. “What does this decision serve?” asked Ambassador Riyad Mansour. “It serves the Israeli government in implementing its colonial plans. It serves the powers of extremism … Does the United States not wonder why it stands isolated,” Mansour asked, “and why even its closest allies couldn’t turn a blind eye to this decision?” “The world is not for sale,” said Venezuela’s representative to the UN, Samuel Moncada Acosta, “and your threats imperil global peace.” “This decision is an outrageous assault to all universal values,” Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said. “This is bullying,” he said of the US approach. “We will not be intimated.” And addressing the US directly, he added, “you can be strong, but this doesn’t make you right.” Maleeha Lodi, the Pakistani representative to the UN, said, “we regret and reject” the decision. “We must uphold the prevalent and time-honored norms, both legal and moral,” she said. The world “cannot and will not be complicit in any illegal activity.” Turkey co-sponsored with Yemen the draft resolution which calls on all countries to refrain from establishing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem. Any decision that alters the character, status or demographic composition of Jerusalem should “have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council,” it reads. Some polling counters Haley’s claim that the decision to move the embassy reflects the will of the US people. A University of Maryland Critical Issues poll released December 1 found that 63% of Americans oppose moving the embassy to Jerusalem, including 44% of Republicans. The pollsters questioned 2,000 people and had a margin of error of 2.19%. A December 13 Monmouth University poll that found Trump at record low approval ratings also found that 39% of Americans thought moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a bad idea, while only 23% thought it was a good idea. Some 51% of respondents said it would lead to greater regional instability, while 10% said it would make the region more stable. Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that 64 countries other than the US did not support the UN resolution and the fact that Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu spoke at the UN. CNN’s Miranda Green, Michelle Kosinski and Elise Labott contributed to this report


Richard Matt was shot and killed after aiming shotgun at agent, border patrol says Matt and Sweat escaped from the prison in upstate New York on June 6 New security measures at Clinton Correctional Facility After splitting with his prison-break partner following disputes about drinking and his inability to keep up, convicted murderer Richard Matt was eventually found lying behind a fallen tree. When agents with a U.S. Border Patrol special operations team came upon him last Friday afternoon, they ordered him to put up his hands. Instead, Matt aimed a 20-gauge shotgun at one agent, who shot and killed him with an M-4 rifle, U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Kris Grogan said in a statement. It was an ignominious end for one of two convicts who staged a brazen escape from the Clinton Correctional Facility in upstate New York three weeks earlier. Matt’s demise came after apparently feuding with fellow escapee David Sweat, who told investigators Matt was out of shape and hitting the bottle too hard after they broke into a cabin while on the run. The discord prompted the fugitives to split up, he said, according to a law enforcement official briefed on Sweat’s interviews with investigators. Authorities said officers could smell alcohol on Matt’s body from a few feet away after he was killed. Two days later, an officer shot and wounded Sweat less than two miles from the Canadian border. From his hospital bed in Albany, he has spilled baffling details about the prison break June 6 and their time on the run. Sweat and Matt pulled off the escape not once, but twice, he told investigators. While authorities initially spoke of the possible use of power tools in the escape, Sweat has said they found a sledgehammer in an underground passageway. It was probably left behind inadvertently by a construction worker, according to the law enforcement official. The men supposedly used the sledgehammer to break down a brick wall on their way out of the maximum security prison, the official said. Related video David Sweat reveals new details about escape Sweat told investigators that he and Matt used only hacksaws to cut through their cell walls and a steam pipe inside the prison, the district attorney told CNN. During their time as fugitives, they had several close calls as authorities closed in, Clinton County District Attorney Andrew Wylie said. While hiding in the hunting cabin, they heard voices nearby at one point. And after the pair split up, Wylie said, Sweat saw a law enforcement officer walk right by him as he hid in a tree stand used by hunters. Officials said the two had originally planned to come out of a manhole and meet prison tailor Joyce Mitchell, who would drive them away. The convicted murderers would then kill Mitchell’s husband, Lyle, before fleeing to Mexico. Sweat has told investigators that it was Mitchell’s idea for them to kill her husband, according to the law enforcement official briefed on his interviews. But her attorney denied that accusation Wednesday. Mitchell told authorities that Matt and Sweat hatched the plan to kill her husband. The night of the escape, Mitchell did not show up, forcing the fugitives to improvise on the run for more than three weeks. Related video David Sweat: Inmates did practice run night before escape Sweat said the plot to break out of prison started in January, Wylie said. After five months of hashing out strategies, they made a practice run. One night before Mitchell was supposed to meet them at a manhole, Sweat and Matt escaped from their cells, a New York state official said. They navigated a maze of tunnels and pipes before popping out of a manhole. But Sweat said they saw too many houses near that manhole and decided to try for a different one the next night, Wylie said. The state inspector general’s office is looking into whether prison guards had fallen asleep, officials told CNN. After interviewing Sweat over the past two days, state police investigators have no plans for now to speak with him further, spokesman Beau Duffy said. Duffy said Sweat will be turned over to the corrections department after his release from the hospital. Sweat is listed in fair condition and is expected to remain at Albany Medical Center for a few more days, according to the hospital. Mitchell, the prison tailor, has admitted to smuggling hacksaw blades by hiding them in frozen hamburger meat and having the meat delivered to Matt, a law enforcement official said last week. She has been arrested and charged with promoting prison contraband and criminal facilitation. Another employee, Gene Palmer, is accused of taking the meat to the inmates. He’s charged with promoting dangerous prison contraband, two counts of destroying evidence and one count of official misconduct. The escape has prompted prison officials to beef up security. – Every cell at Clinton is being inspected once a week, with supervision from a senior security staff member. – The number of cells searched daily and randomly for contraband has tripled, with each cell being searched at least once every two months. – All tunnels are being inspected monthly instead of biannually. – The so-called “honor block,” where the escaped prisoners had been housed, has been eliminated pending further review, according to the department. And the investigation extends beyond Mitchell and Palmer. Three members of  the prison’s executive team, along with nine security staff employees, have been placed on paid administrative leave as part of the review of the escape, said the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Related gallery Governor sees escape route The nine security staff employees include a watch commander who was covering for the usual midnight-duty lieutenant; a sergeant who was working mandatory overtime the night of the escape; and a female officer who had just transferred to Clinton, according to a corrections department source. The FBI is investigating possible broader corruption at the prison, law enforcement officials briefed on the case said. Agents are looking into whether drug trafficking or other criminal behavior among employees and inmates took place, officials said. Some employees told investigators that there was heroin use among prisoners and an alleged drug trade involving employees. How prison guards go bad CNN’s Ashley Fantz, Shimon Prokupecz, Danelle Garcia, Deborah Feyerick, Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper, Carolyn Sung, Jean Casarez and Alexandra Field contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Now you can get “5 Things You Need to Know Today” delivered to your inbox daily. Sign up here. Protests. A profile. And a very hungry penguin. It’s Thursday and here’s what you need to know to  Get Up to Speed and Out the Door. A second night of protests over the fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott descended into madness. Protesters set fires, looted businesses and went after reporters, including CNN’s Ed Lavandera. One man was shot. Cops responded with tear gas; Charlotte’s mayor and Scott’s family pleaded for calm and this public defender put himself directly in the line of fire. Things are so bad the city’s declared a state of emergency and NC’s governor’s calling in the National Guard. An artillery shell full of mustard gas landed in an air base in Iraq that US troops are using. Military officials are pretty sure where it came from: ISIS. Thankfully, troops aren’t showing symptoms of exposure. Officials say they had expected ISIS to use chemical weapons as the US helps Iraqi forces take back Mosul. This one was “ineffective” and “poorly weaponized.” The FBI wants to have a chat with two men seen on video taking a pressure cooker device with wires and duct tape out of some luggage and leaving it in Chelsea on the night of the bombing. The men are witnesses, not suspect, the feds say. Also, check out is this revealing profile of suspect Ahmad Rahami about his lifelong fued with his family and identity. Worth a read. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg forever changed how we communicate. For a second act, he and his wife want to wipe out diseases. Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan have pledged a $3 billion investment to an effort to prevent or manage all diseases by the end of the century. The first $600 million is going to a new research center called Biohub. It’s not fair to say Well Fargo didn’t do anything as employees kept opening up fake customer accounts. It did - it apparently fired those who weren’t cool with it. One ex-employee said when he refused to play along and called an ethics hotline, he was let go – for tardiness. Another said she was bullied and harassed and then fired. An ex-HR official said the bank actually had a system in place to push back against tipsters. People are talking about these. Read up. Join in. Get out the vote Members of “The Avengers” and a few other famous folks ask you to vote this fall (and take a few veiled swipes at The Donald). Inside job A Canadian Mint employee is accused of stealing $180,000 worth of gold by hiding it in his rear. Insert your joke here. (It still won’t be as funny as this write.) A lesson they’ll never forget A high school history teacher taught his students about the First Amendment by stepping on the American flag. It went exactly as you think it’d go. Cutest burglar ever A family in Peru thought a burglar had broke into their home one night. Turns out it was just a lost and very hungry penguin. Boy joy Here’s a few seconds of pure joy: a 2-year-old boy geeks out as motorcycles pass him by during a race. It’s the simple things in life, you know? The phone rings at  3 a.m. The next president of the United States is on the line, asking for your help with a global headache. Would you be a better fit in a Clinton or Trump White House? Play this game and find out. (Trust us, this is fun … and educational.)


Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats may reveal more Wednesday about his Trump meetings Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke to CNN Senators on the Senate intelligence committee are expected to push Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about their private interactions with President Donald Trump to learn more about whether he tried to tamper in any way with the Justice Department’s Russia investigation. Related article Comey expected to testify openly about Trump discussions, but limited on Russia A day before former FBI Director James Comey’s high-profile hearing, senators plan to question senior intelligence officials about Trump’s controversies and the Russia investigation at a hearing that is supposed to be about re-authorizing a key section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Senators plan to use the opportunity to grill Rosenstein to answer questions in public for the first time about the President’s motivations for firing Comey and whether it was meant to quash the Russia investigation. According to some key senators, Coats may reveal more about his interactions with Trump, including when the President reportedly urged the former Indiana senator to rebut the notion there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Coats declined to comment about those interactions when asked by senators on the Armed Services Committee last month but signaled he may be more forthcoming before the intelligence panel. Related article Michael Flynn turns over 600 pages of documents to Senate Intel “Director Coats said he’d be happy to tell the whole truth before the appropriate committee,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN: “And he promised me when he was confirmed that he would share and assist the investigation.” A Coats spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. At the Wednesday hearing, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers also is expected to face questions about whether he faced pressure from Trump to rebut the stories about potential collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials. Both Rogers and Coats were uneasy about the request, given that the FBI is conducting an investigation about the matter. Other senators also signaled they’d use the hearing as an opportunity to push for more information about the Comey firing – and the Russia investigation – even though the hearing is supposed to focus on FISA. Andrew McCabe, the acting FBI director, is also expected to testify at Wednesday’s hearing. Sen. Ron Wyden told CNN that he plans to grill Rosenstein about the circumstances around the firing. “The President has said in his own words that he fired Mr. Comey to make the investigation go away,” said Wyden, an Oregon Democrat. “Now that was not something that was made up by a United States senator. Those were his words. So what we’ll be doing both tomorrow and Thursday is trying to flesh out more details about that matter.” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores signaled that Rosenstein was prepared to testify about the topic of the hearing instead. “The committee requested a hearing on the re-authorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – a critical tool that protects our national security – and that is what the deputy attorney general will be there to discuss tomorrow.”