Editor’s Note: Jonathan Cristol is a fellow at World Policy Institute and a senior fellow at the Center for Civic Engagement at Bard College. You can follow him @jonathancristol. The views expressed are his own. The Democratic Party convention is taking place in Philadelphia this week Jonathan Cristol: If elected, Hillary Clinton would likely present a more assertive foreign policy than Barack Obama The Democratic National Convention is in full swing, and anyone (like me) who thought it would be dull turned out to be in for a surprise. Bernie Sanders’ supporters did not go quietly into the night. Sen. Cory Booker and first lady Michelle Obama offered rousing speeches that presented a radically different tone than what we saw at the Cleveland convention last week. And on Wednesday night, we will hear from President Barack Obama, who seems likely to place continuity under Hillary Clinton at the center of his pitch. But while that will be seen by many Democrats as a good thing on domestic policy, President Obama’s foreign policy leaves much to be desired. And that raises an important question: Can we expect more of the same if Hillary Clinton is elected President? Much will depend on whether Clinton’s foreign policy is as hopelessly naïve – and lacking in any clear vision – as it was under the Obama administration. The truth is that President Obama’s foreign policy failures are numerous – Libya, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, post-deal Iran – while successes have been few. The administration has been too cautious in the use of force, but also too reckless in its movement away from old allies. The next President will therefore spend much of his or her time managing a list of important failures. Of course, as secretary of state, Clinton was a key player in many of these failures, and is inevitably and rightly tied to the Obama administration. And generally speaking, there are probably more similarities than differences between Clinton and Obama on some important policies. Yet the differences are potentially crucial, especially in their approach to policy making, and that could mean the next four years are quite different from the previous eight. The first – and arguably most important – difference between Clinton and Obama is that the former is more of an interventionist. President Obama is not “anti-interventionist,” as such. After all, he has dramatically increased the use of drones. But he is generally hesitant to use American forces – he continued the draw-down of forces across the Middle East, and his commitment of naval forces to the South China Sea region is pitifully low. Meanwhile, Russia, Iran, ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban have all made territorial and/or strategic gains. Hillary Clinton seems poised to take a different approach. She supports a no-fly zone in Syria, and would surely continue Obama’s recent, slow increase in force targets for Afghanistan. Her tough rhetoric on Russia, meanwhile, suggests that she could increase troop and equipment levels in Eastern Europe. Eric Liu: The patriotism of fighting TrumpS.E. Cupp: Obama shows he’s out of touchPaul Begala: Damn straight, Mr. PresidentDavid Litt: There’s a reason the Democrats convention is funnier than the GOP’s  Ed Morrissey: Will Bill Clinton’s best effort be enough?Christine Quinn: What a moment: Hillary Clinton’s nomination changes the world forever Jonathan Cristol: Why Clinton foreign policy won’t be Obama 2.0Gene Healy: Will Kaine push for war powers reform? Russell Riley: How Bill Clinton’s worst speech can help Hillary Clinton Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux: DNC puts disability issues front and center Interview with Carl Bernstein: Who is Hillary Clinton?Issac Bailey: Michelle Obama, classy and strongTimothy Stanley: DNC protests: spotlight on hypocrisy Raul A. Reyes: Did Bernie Sanders seal deal for Clinton?Kayleigh McEnany: Don’t belittle Sanders supporters Buck Sexton: A rocky start for the DemocratsErrol Lewis: Why Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to goDan Malloy: Democrats want progress, GOP wants to regressJulian Zelizer: Lock her up? 4 ways for Hillary Clinton to strike backBen Jealous: How Dems can write a better rulebook Eric Liu: The patriotism of fighting TrumpS.E. Cupp: Obama shows he’s out of touchPaul Begala: Damn straight, Mr. PresidentDavid Litt: There’s a reason the Democrats convention is funnier than the GOP’s  Ed Morrissey: Will Bill Clinton’s best effort be enough?Christine Quinn: What a moment: Hillary Clinton’s nomination changes the world forever Jonathan Cristol: Why Clinton foreign policy won’t be Obama 2.0Gene Healy: Will Kaine push for war powers reform? Russell Riley: How Bill Clinton’s worst speech can help Hillary Clinton Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux: DNC puts disability issues front and center Interview with Carl Bernstein: Who is Hillary Clinton?Issac Bailey: Michelle Obama, classy and strongTimothy Stanley: DNC protests: spotlight on hypocrisy Raul A. Reyes: Did Bernie Sanders seal deal for Clinton?Kayleigh McEnany: Don’t belittle Sanders supporters Buck Sexton: A rocky start for the DemocratsErrol Lewis: Why Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to goDan Malloy: Democrats want progress, GOP wants to regressJulian Zelizer: Lock her up? 4 ways for Hillary Clinton to strike backBen Jealous: How Dems can write a better rulebook More broadly, Clinton has already offered a somewhat different vision and tone. The Obama administration has frustrated allies in Israel and Saudi Arabia by seeming – especially in their eyes, and those of the administration’s critics – to abandon them in favor of Iran. Of course, it has tried to counter this narrative by rightly pointing out that it has eyed record weapons sales to Israel and to Saudi Arabia. But while there are other sources than the U.S. for weapons, America provides the kind of political support that no other country can. The reality is that President Obama has confused states around the world with an awkward mix of rebukes and embraces without laying out any discernible grand strategy or unifying theme beyond “don’t do stupid stuff.” In contrast, and despite her somewhat cold and calculating political image, Clinton is said by many – even her critics – to be engaging to work with. This has clear applications for foreign policy. She has, for example, known many Middle Eastern leaders for years, while her husband and their Clinton Foundation have cultivated (arguably too) close relationships in the region. These relationships – and her ability to cajole and to charm – will likely calm fears among America’s allies. Judging from her rhetoric so far, Clinton also seems more likely to articulate a broader vision, perhaps promoting liberal values, that will allow other states to understand why the U.S. does what it does beyond just putting out fires. In practical terms, this could mean pressing countries like China, Turkey and Vietnam more firmly to allow greater freedom, although not necessarily to further open up their political system. Related article The danger of Trump's NATO comments A third difference between the Obama administration and a potential Clinton presidency would likely be on trade … at least for the first six to eight months. President Obama has rightly been a supporter of free trade agreements – both for economic and security concerns. For example, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is not just a trade agreement, it also appears designed to check China. Clinton understands this well, which is why she originally supported the TPP. Unfortunately, the necessity of competing against two critics of free trade – Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump – forced her to change positions. Until the memory of the election fades, Clinton is unlikely to pursue any new trade deals, might publicly rebuke Obama on trade, and may pretend to try to re-negotiate the TPP. Once the election is further in the rear view mirror, this will likely change. All of this presupposes that Clinton will indeed triumph in November. But if one were judging the presidential contest on foreign policy alone, then it would surely be a cakewalk for Clinton. After all, when contrasted with Trump’s foreign policy proposals, anything that Clinton does appears Churchillian. And she would have a noticeable advantage over her predecessor in terms of foreign policy experience and knowledge of the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy, the U.S. military, and the U.S. role in the world – indeed, more experience than any president since George H.W. Bush. So while Clinton appears to be positioning herself as a third Obama term, on foreign policy, at least, we could expect a more assertive and interventionist approach from a President Clinton. Related article The trouble with Trump and national security The Obama administration has failed in Syria and Libya, and is moving too slowly to shore up defenses in Eastern Europe – the conflict in Syria will not be resolved by wishful thinking (or by ceding the issue to Russia), the civil war in Libya will not magically burn itself out, and Russian aggression in Eastern Europe needs to be countered much more robustly. Clinton may not be any more successful than President Obama in handling any of these. And her critics will argue she bears significant responsibility for the current difficulties, especially on Libya. But while Clinton has not yet expressed a foreign policy vision for the history books, she does at least appear to understand that some problems can’t be solved remotely. Her willingness to take greater risks might therefore bring a welcome change from the excessive caution and confusion that has marked Barack Obama’s foreign policy.


President Donald Trump incorrectly suggested there is a link Friday between rising crime rates in the United Kingdom and the “spread of Radical Islamic terror.” “Just out report: ‘United Kingdom crime rises 13% annually amid spread of Radical Islamic terror.’ Not good, we must keep America safe!” the President tweeted. Just out report: "United Kingdom crime rises 13% annually amid spread of Radical Islamic terror." Not good, we must keep America safe! But although Trump was correct in asserting that there had been a 13% rise in “victim-based crime” in the UK in the year ending June 2017 compared to the year before, there was no evidence that the rise was linked to “Radical Islamic terror.” The Office for National Statistics – which compiled the report, “Crime in England and Wales: year ending June 2017” – told CNN it did not draw any link between the rise in “victim-based crime” and “Radical Islamic terror.” Even counting the 35 people killed in the Manchester and London terror attacks over the past 12 months, the murder rate was down 2% on the previous year. However, the number of attempted murders rose by 59%, the report found, with 69% of that increase a result of the two terror attacks. The greatest rises came in the categories of “stalking and harassment,” robbery and motor vehicle theft. ONS statistician John Flatley said the numbers probably represent both an increase in crime incidents and improvements in police recording of crimes. “We judge that there have been genuine increases in crime – particularly in some of the low incidence but more harmful categories,” he said in a statement accompanying the report. ONS also notes that overall crime figures are down from where they were a decade ago, including an 18% fall in victim-based crime. UK politicians were unimpressed with Trump’s tweet. Opposition Labour party lawmaker Tulip Siddiq simply wrote: “Delete your account.” Delete your account. https://t.co/WI7KYFN5RX Trump has previously cited terror incidents in the UK to bolster his position that tougher terrorism policies and his travel ban are needed in the US. Last month, he railed against “loser terrorists” behind the London Tube explosion and suggested that the perpetrator was known to authorities and recruited on the Internet, prompting British Prime Minister Theresa May and a London police spokesperson to publicly rebuke the President. And in June, soon after news reports surfaced about the London Bridge terror attacks, he seized on the moment to promote the travel ban. In contrast, the President has been less willing to condemn domestic terrorist incidents in the US, most notably the white supremacist protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the summer that left one woman dead.


Editor’s Note: Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors. Follow him on Twitter @RaulAReyes. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. On religious holidays like Christmas, Passover and Easter, most Presidents honor the occasion by sending a message of goodwill towards all Americans and then taking a break from politics. Not our President.  Just hours after tweeting “Happy Easter!” to his 49 million Twitter followers, Donald Trump began venting about illegal immigration. “Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release,” he tweeted.  “Getting more dangerous. “Caravans” coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!” Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release. Getting more dangerous. “Caravans” coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL! So much for the spirit of Holy Week.  With his tweets, the President has displayed his ignorance of immigration laws, including those governing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  His social media outburst was as at best uninformed, and at worst blatantly misleading.  In short, it was unpresidential. For starters, it makes absolutely no logical sense that the President would make a big deal of announcing “NO MORE DACA DEAL”– in all caps, as though he were taking some bold new stance.  Let’s recall, he was the one who ended DACA, the program that allowed roughly 800,000 young people brought here illegally as children, known as the Dreamers, to live and work openly. Related video Trump's twists and turns on DACA The President unilaterally began the unwinding of this program in September, with no plan to replace it, and since then has rejected several bipartisan proposals that would have provided a legislative fix for the plight of the Dreamers.  It is nonsensical for Trump to be vowing that there will be “no more deal” when there is not now and never has been any realistic chance of a DACA deal. Referring to what he regards as unchecked illegal entries at our southern border, the President tweeted, “These big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA. They want in on the act!”  But his anger about illegal border crossings seems motivated by something other than…reality. In 2017, arrests at the southern border hit a 46-year low, the lowest number since 1971, according to the Department of Homeland Security. In January 2017, for example, Customs and Border Protection agents apprehended about 42,400 people at the US/Mexico border; by April 2018 this number had dropped to about 15,700.  In fact the drop in illegal entries under the Trump administration is something Trump himself has bragged about. What is particularly startling about Trump’s comments this weekend is that he suggests that people are coming to the US without authorization to take advantage of the DACA program.  But, thanks to Trump, DACA officially ended on March 5.  Even if it were still in place, to be eligible for DACA, applicants must have lived in the US since 2007, have arrived before age 16, and been younger than 31 in June 2012. New arrivals are not eligible for DACA – so to suggest that people are coming here to obtain the program’s protections is simply wrong. The DACA program currently exists, covering those already in the program, only because its termination was temporarily blocked by federal judges in California and New York. Trump was incorrect to assert in one of his tweets Sunday that Mexico is doing “very little, if not NOTHING” to help stem the tide of illegal immigration. Mexico is doing very little, if not NOTHING, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their Southern Border, and then into the U.S. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL! In fact, Mexico has been cracking down on undocumented immigrants from Central America, most of whom are bound for the US.  The President’s reckless comments may endanger this type of cooperation. Trump also threatened in a Sunday tweet that Republican lawmakers should use the so-called “nuclear option” to pass harsher immigration laws with a simple majority of 51 votes. Good luck with that. In February, only 36 out of 51 Senate Republicans backed an immigration plan that mirrored the White House’s demands. Our immigration system is far from perfect, and has been regarded by many as broken since before Trump took office.  However, the American people have consistently shown in polls that they think the Dreamers should be allowed to stay here and either legalize their status or get on a path to citizenship. Last year, a Fox News poll found that 83% of voters favored allowing “illegal immigrants” working in the United States to become legal immigrants. Trump’s agenda is to stir controversy around one of the few immigration issues where consensus exists.  And that wall that Trump insists we need?  A range of polls show that only between 34 and 40% of Americans support his expensive idea. Trump’s Easter tweets about immigration were nonsense.  That the President, who holds so much power over the lives of the Dreamers and other immigrants, seemingly lacks basic knowledge about immigration policy is as troubling as it is astonishing.


Rare handwritten Anne Frank poem smashes auction estimate The poem sold for 140,000 euros It was written by Anne Frank for the older sister of her best friend A rare handwritten poem by Anne Frank – known to millions through the diary she kept while in hiding during the Nazi round-up of Jews – was sold Wednesday at auction for 140,000 euros ($148,000) in the Netherlands. The poem, also signed by Anne Frank, was written in the “friendship book” of Christiane “Cri-Cri” van Maarsen, the older sister of Frank’s best friend, Jacqueline van Maarsen, according to auction house Bubb Kuyper in the city of Haarlem. Bubb Kuyper director Thijs Blankevoort told CNN that the sale price – which was four or five times the expected 30,000-50,000 euros – had surprised everyone in the auction room. He said the buyer was a private person who didn’t want to disclose his or her identity. The eight-line poem, addressed to Cri-Cri is dated March 28, 1942 – less than four months before the Frank family went into hiding. The poem reads: Dear Cri-Cri, If you did not finish your work properly, And lost precious time, Then once again take up your task And try harder than before. If others have reproached you For what you have done wrong, Then be sure to amend your mistake. That is the best answer one can make. In memory of Anne Frank Related video Anne Frank's cousin publishes letters According to the auction house “it is a typically edifying poem of the sort that was often written in ‘friendship books,’ exhorting the owner to do her best and be diligent at work.” It was the first time the auction house, which specializes in the sale of books, manuscripts and drawings, had sold a document handwritten by Anne Frank, Blankevoort said. It was special, he said, to have had contact with a manuscript written “when she was a free girl still.” Related article Researchers say Anne Frank perished earlier than thought Anne Frank was 13 when she and her family began hiding in a dark and damp “secret annex” of a house in Amsterdam to escape the roundup of Jews in Holland in July 1942. For two years, she never left the house, spending much of her time writing in her diary. But then Anne and her family were found and arrested by the Nazis in August 1944. She died of typhus in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp sometime around March 1945. Her diary survived to tell her tragic and inspiring story.


Editor’s Note: Silvia Marchetti is a Rome-based freelance reporter and writer. She covers finance, economics, travel and culture for a wide range of media including MNI News, Newsweek and The Guardian. Silvia has a Masters degree in journalism, fluently speaks four languages and has lived abroad most of her life. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely hers. Silvia Marchetti: Italy is overflowing with migrants -- some 170,000 landed in Italy last year Migrant labor can help revamp Italy's sluggish economy, she argues Housing migrants in abandoned villages would give them a place to stay and revitalize declining areas Lampedusa used to be a tiny paradise atoll at the southernmost tip of Italy. Quiet, few people around, great holidays. But it had the misfortune of being close to Libya. Now it’s a nightmare. You just have to switch on the TV to see that the island is in crisis as migrants land on a daily basis. Desperate locals have created a Facebook page: “Stop the landings in Lampedusa.” The trouble is that not just Lampedusa, but the whole of Italy, which is overbrimming with so-called “boat people.” We don’t know where to put them. By mid-April this year 15,000 migrants had reached our shores. The number increases so fast that authorities have a hard time updating it. So what’s the final count going to be by the end of this year? Related video Illegal migration to Italy on the rise A scary one, considering the rising trend underway. In 2014 a total of 170,100 migrants arrived, up from 42,925 a year earlier. The saddest thing is how the tragedy of those dying at sea clashes with embarrassing domestic disputes. Italian regions are fighting as no one wants to take in additional refugees. The evening news these days is flooded by desperate calls from the Italian authorities that Europe adopts a wider “burden-sharing approach” in handling the refugees. But Italy must do its part first. It can and should accept a reasonable share of migrants. Above all it’s a moral issue: you cannot let migrants drown in the Mediterranean or send them back to the countries in crisis from where they’ve escaped, often risking their lives. But there’s also a practical reason: migrant labor can help revamp Italy’s sluggish economy after a triple-dip recession and contribute to boosting the appeal of neglected territories. This does not mean that Italy should be left to deal with the migrant emergency on its own. The request forwarded to Europe is indeed a reasonable one, and soon a European scheme of quotas will kick in, but first Italy needs to do its homework as we seem to have no sense of national solidarity. Related gallery In pictures: Europe's migrant crisis Migrant camps are concentrated in the poorer south, with Sicily alone accounting for 21%, while rich Valle D’Aosta, at the French border, had none as of February. Now, several families, ready to give a hand to the state, have said they are willing to host migrants in their homes. Yet there could be an easier solution, once Europe makes a ruling on migrant quotas. A good way for Italy to deal with the crisis would be to host its share of migrants in the thousands of ghost towns that dot the boot, a bit like many U.S. towns on the verge of dying out did with Latinos. It’s hard to believe yet the peninsula has 6,000 ghost towns that have been partly or totally abandoned across time, while communities are shrinking in another 15,000 that have lost over 90% of their population. These villages – many dating from pre-Roman times – have been abandoned due to a mix of factors: pirate sacks, natural disasters such as quakes and floods, war bombings, harsh conditions and emigration to larger cities or the U.S. in search of a better life. They rise in spectacular locations and once had a glory – and a local economy – that could be recovered. Sure, what’s left of most villages are just crumbling ruins and dusty streets covered in lush vegetation and a thorough restyle would be needed, but this could be carried out by the migrants themselves with special tax incentives for privates (or local bodies) willing to invest in the project. Related video 'Running away' only option for some European migrants Migrants could help to recover fields for agricultural use, open new artisan shops and boutiques, or hotels and restaurants which could have a positive impact on tourism. This way two targets would be met. One: migrants would be given a house, and a job, in exchange for their labor in bringing back these dead villages from the grave. They could then settle in once they had been recognized as asylum seekers – and even apply for Italian citizenship. Two: a big chunk of Italy’s villages, which are falling into oblivion, would be given another life. Surely it is better rebuild something old but existing, than build new structures or camps to house migrants. One could argue: but what if they escape? Or what if they steal or carry out violent acts? Related video Mediterranean migrants share their stories of survival Well, first: only asylum seekers willing to stay in Italy would be sent to the ghost towns. Police controls would work as they would in any other place, and regarding robberies – if it’s a ghost town, what is there to steal? Violence – I have a migrant camp near my house where migrants are free to go anywhere they want. Local police here are busier dealing with riots inside the camps than attending to the needs of ordinary citizens. Also, let’s not forget a crucial point: the aging of Italian population and the contribution of migrant labor to the economy. Migrant work accounts for almost 9% of Italy’s GDP. Here migrants have taken up jobs Italians don’t want to do anymore. Not just caregivers to look after old people, but also farmers. Immigrants are saving a big chunk of our economy. They should be looked upon as an opportunity and resource.


Light aircraft goes missing off Texas' Gulf Coast Pilot didn't respond to air traffic control or US Air Force attempts to communicate The US Coast Guard has launched a search over the Gulf of Mexico for a missing light aircraft, which was unresponsive to air traffic control and US Air Force attempts at communicating. A Federal Aviation Administration spokesperson told CNN a Cirrus S22T left Wiley Post Airport in Oklahoma City this afternoon and the pilot filed a flight plan to Georgetown, Texas. The pilot did not land at its stated destination but rather continued on the same course. It was unresponsive to air traffic control instructions, the official said. The aircraft was last observed on radar about 219 miles northwest of the Mexican city of Cancun at 15,000 ft., and was headed into the Gulf of Mexico. Petty Officer Edward Wargo said the Coast Guard has launched a 144 Ocean Sentry search aircraft out of Corpus Christi following reports of an aircraft that lost contact over the Gulf of Mexico. Wargo said the last known position was about 150 nautical miles off Texas’ Gulf Coast, and there is no indication it crashed. NORAD, the government agency which monitors US airspace, scrambled a pair of F-16 jets to meet the small aircraft after it failed to respond to the FAA, Air Force Capt. Chase McFarland told CNN. The fighter jets were initially dispatched out of Ellington Field near Houston. When they came upon the aircraft but the pilot did not respond to their attempts to make contact.  According to Chase, the F-16s tried to contact the pilot “via radio and flight maneuvers.” The fighters tailed the plane and were later relieved by a second set of fighters out of New Orleans, a pair of F-15s as the plane continued over the Gulf of Mexico. Chase said there was only one person on board the small, single-propeller aircraft, but authorities do not know what caused the pilot to become unresponsive. NORAD says they contacted Mexican authorities, the US Coast Guard, and the State Department after the second set of fighters ended their pursuit.


Editor’s Note: Steve Brusatte, a palaeontologist,  is on the faculty of School of GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh. His new book “The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs,” telling the story of dinosaurs from their origin to extinction, was just published by William Morrow. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. The desert of northwestern New Mexico, in the vicinity of the Four Corners, is my special place. The high-altitude sun sparkles off the badlands, illuminating rocky pastels of red, green and brown that seem to extend indefinitely in all directions. No wonder that Georgia O’Keeffe – who painted here for decades – found this landscape as her muse. Not many people live here, making it feel like a remote backwater within the world’s most industrialized country. But that’s the way I like it. I’m a paleontologist, and I visit here at least once a year, to hunt for fossils of dinosaurs and other long-extinct creatures. The fewer buildings, roads and houses to cover up the treasure we seek, the better. Most of the candy-striped badlands in this part of New Mexico are carved from rocks laid down in rivers and lakes between about 84 and 56 million years ago. These were lush environments, teeming with life during a time when the Earth was much warmer and there were no ice caps on the poles. Bones, teeth, shells, and other parts of animals would often get buried in mud or sand and turn to stone, becoming the fossils that provide the only clues that these lost worlds ever existed. You can find many dinosaurs here. We often come across the railroad spike teeth of T. rex and the gargantuan limb bones of long-necked sauropods of the Brontosaurus mold, some of which weighed more than a Boeing 737, easily making them the largest animals to ever thunder across the land. We find the skull domes that horse-sized omnivores called pachycephalosaurs used to head butt each other, and the jaws that horned and duck-billed dinosaurs sliced up plants with. So many species, big and small, living together. I usually prospect these colorful hills with one of my best friends in science, Tom Williamson, a curator at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science in Albuquerque. Sometimes, we walk for days and can’t get away from the dinosaur bones, because they are so common. By now we know the best places to find them: a layer-cake series of rock strata, formed during the very end of the Cretaceous Period (84-66 million years ago). You can read the layers like the pages in a novel, and although the characters are fascinating, the story is fairly uneventful. During this whole stretch of time, dinosaurs were in control. History seemed to be standing still, and it appeared that dinosaurs would keep on ruling the world forever, as they had done for over 150 million years. It appeared that dinosaurs would keep on ruling the world forever, as they had done for over 150 million years. Steve Brusatte But then, suddenly, their bones disappear. We can pinpoint the exact place in the rock sequence. It’s where the cyclical mudstones and sandstones, records of that stable Cretaceous world, abruptly give way to coarser boulder-strewn rocks characteristic of fast-moving currents and corrosive storms. Something dramatic happened to the local environment, and the dinosaurs were gone. The same pattern is seen halfway around the world, in the chalky-colored limestones of Gubbio, Italy. Underneath a medieval aqueduct that clings to the sides of a deep gorge, the geologist Walter Alvarez noted that the Cretaceous rocks at the bottom of the canyon are chock full of small fossils of ocean plankton. Above these rocks, however, are nearly barren limestones, sprinkled with a few tiny, simple-looking fossils. The knife-edge separation between these two rocks is a dainty strip of clay, only about half an inch thick. The clay is the cockpit voice recorder that reveals the fate of the plankton, and the dinosaurs: it is full of iridium, an element common in outer space but rare on Earth. It was delivered by a 6-mile-wide asteroid the size of Mount Everest, which was moving faster than a jetliner when it collided with the Earth 66 million years ago, punching a crater more than 100 miles wide and causing a chain reaction of volcanoes, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes and climate change that wiped out some 70% of all living things. The dinosaurs couldn’t cope, and all of them (except for a few birds) died. They were soon replaced, and we see the evidence in New Mexico. The chaotic boulder-filled rock layer quickly gives way to the same types of mudstones and sandstones that had been formed during the Cretaceous, a sign that environments returned to normal within a few thousand years. But there are no dinosaur bones to be found in these newer Paleocene-aged rocks (66-56 million years old). Instead, there are countless jaws, teeth, and skeletons of the things that took over from the dinosaurs, the species that went on to start the next great dynasty of Earth history: mammals. It’s a sobering story, and one of relevance to us today, as our climate and environment are changing rapidly. Just within the last few months studies have shown that sea level is rising twice as fast as we thought, the Antarctic ice sheets are melting at alarming rates, and temperature is increasing so fast that humans may make the Earth warmer than it has been in more than 50 million years. There are consequences to all of this upheaval: we are in the age of the so-called “sixth extinction,” with species dying out at hundreds or thousands of times the usual rate. Faster, perhaps, than even during the five mass extinctions of Earth history, including the one that killed the dinosaurs. Related article Do falling rocks cause sea level rise?  Science weighs in Maybe dinosaurs can help save us.  We’re used to thinking of them as movie monsters, skeletons that wow tourists at museums, and objects of childhood fascination. But they are so much more than that. They were real living, breathing, evolving animals that had to deal with rising and fall temperatures, fluctuating sea levels, volcanoes and asteroids. After all, none of the environmental changes going on today is new. The Earth has been through them before, and dinosaurs and other extinct animals can tell the story of what happened. What died, what survived, how long it took to recover. Among the mammals that Tom Williamson has discovered in those dinosaur-free, post-extinction rocks in New Mexico is a skeleton of a puppy-sized creature called Torrejonia. It had a slender body, gangly limbs and long fingers and toes, and you can almost envision it leaping through the trees. It is one of the oldest primates – a fairly close cousin of ours, and a reminder that we humans had ancestors that were there on that terrible day, that saw the rock fall from the sky, that survived the cataclysm while the dinosaurs did not, probably because they were small, agile, adaptable and able to eat many types of food. There is something almost poetic about it. In a sense, we are the dinosaurs. Before creatures like Torrejonia started the domino chain of evolution that led to humans, the dinosaurs ruled. They evolved superpowers like big brains, keen senses and the ability to grow to enormous sizes. There were probably many billions of them, living in all corners of the globe, that woke up on that day 66 million years ago confident of their undisputed place at the pinnacle of nature. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook We humans now wear the crown that once belonged to the dinosaurs. We are confident of our place at the pinnacle of creation, even as our actions are rapidly changing the planet around us. It leaves me uneasy, and a troubling thought lingers as I walk through the New Mexico scrublands, seeing the bones of dinosaurs give way so suddenly to fossils of Torrejonia and other mammals. If it could happen to the dinosaurs, could it also happen to us? If it could happen to the dinosaurs, could it also happen to us? Steve Brusatte Dinosaurs, of course, had no way to prevent the asteroid that killed them. But we have a choice – we can still stop, or at least slow down, pumping toxins into the atmosphere. Our choice will dictate whether we really are the dinosaurs: whether we go the way of T. rex and Triceratops, or whether we have learned from their sad story.


Part of the aggressive outreach to convince Democrats to support the deal with Iran included a briefing Thursday for 15 American Jewish members of the House of Representatives in the Situation Room at the White House. The meeting was the latest in a series of briefings for these members at the White House. “People felt that the Administration is intent on very seriously addressing the concerns of the Jewish members, which many of them centered around Israel and the security of Israel,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) said after the session. Schakowsky told reporters she believed there were enough Democrats supporting the deal to help the White House overcome Republican opposition to the agreement. “I haven’t heard anyone say ‘oh I learned something that has made it impossible for me now to sustain a presidential veto,’” Schakowsky said. Rep. Steve Israel (D-New York) told reporters on Capitol Hill he was still undecided and planned to take the full 60 days allowed for Congress to review the deal to make up his mind on it. The New York congressman, a member of the Democratic leadership, said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement of the deal was “very influential – there’s no question. Leader Pelosi is the most influential member of our caucus.” On the back-to-back presentations from Vice President Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton to House Democrats, Israel said “that’s a pretty damn good one two punch.” New York Democratic Rep Jerry Nadler told CNN he remains undecided on the agreement, but he said the meeting with Rhodes helped provide additional information as he reviews the details. Nadler said one Democrat expressed concerns in the session about the future capability, in roughly 15 years, for Iran to potentially develop a nuclear weapon. Rhodes pointed to restrictions in several areas of deal that would expose any efforts to do this and provide penalties. Asked about a pledge by the Administration to provide weapons to Israel to address concerns about a military threat from Iran, Schakowsky said there was no detailed briefing on any arms, but “the assurances were that the United States was definitely prepared to assure the security of Israel and do what was necessary to make that happen.” One member who requested anonymity told CNN the session was “very helpful” in clarifying various questions, including ones about sanctions relief, access by the International Atomic Energy Agency for inspections and why the U.S. ended up supporting an eventual relaxation in the embargo on the ability of Iran to buy conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. The administration officials emphasized there was going to be 24-7 monitoring at known nuclear facilities and the different process for others. “Some of the concerns that people had were addressed, but there are still lots of questions,” said the member. Rhodes, according to Nadler, told the group there would be American officials dispatched to Israel and other Arab allies in the region to discuss what military capabilities they might need after reviewing the deal. Defense Secretary Ash Carter leaves for Israel and other countries in the region this weekend. Both Schakowsky and Israel told CNN so far their offices have not gotten a large number of calls from Jewish constituents urging them to block the deal. As part of its aggressive outreach to build support for the Iran deal, several key administration officials earlier this week held a conference call with American Jewish leaders. Two participants told CNN there were some pointed questions in the call but said was not hostile. Among the officials on the call were Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. Among the areas participants pushed the administration on during the call were whether there were holes in the access for inspections, concerns Iran would use money from sanctions relief for de-stabilizing activities and is Iran really going to be forced to divulge information about its past activities according to one of the participants who is deeply concerned about the agreement. The source said the officials defended the amount of access for inspections and told the leaders Iran will face pressure to use the money from sanctions relief for internal needs. During the call the administration officials said Israel will not be more in danger and emphasized how Carter will be going there next week and will talk to the government about ways to bolster it. Several major American Jewish organizations oppose the deal, including the influential American Israeli Public Affairs Committee which said the “proposed deal with Iran fails to verifiably eliminate every Iranian pathway to a nuclear weapons. On Thursday it posted a petition online urging its members to weigh in: “Unfortunately, the proposed agreement is fundamentally flawed…Urge your senators and representatives to oppose the agreement.” The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of American and the Rabbinical Council of America are among a number of groups organizing a rally next week in New York against the deal. “The inspections regime is insufficient to ensure Iran cannot cheat and surreptitiously develop nuclear weapons, despite President Obama’s promise that the deal would be subject to the toughest verification and inspections in the world,” they said in a statement outlining of their key reasons for coming out against it. The White House got a more supportive response from the left-leaning J Street group. “Following our own review of the agreement, we expect to call on Congress to support the deal as the best – if not only – means of ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.” CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash contributed to this story.


ISIS claims responsibility for the attack The victims were at a wedding hall in a village in northeastern Syria The death toll from a deadly ISIS suicide bombing at a Kurdish wedding party in northeast Syria has risen to 36, a UK-based monitoring group said Tuesday. Eleven women and children were among the dead in Monday’s attack, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, adding that at least 80 people were injured, 16 of them seriously. The blast occurred inside a wedding hall in Tal Tawil, a village near the city of Hasaka which is under the control of Syrian Kurdish forces, SOHR said, citing sources. The groom was among those killed, SOHR founder Rami Abdulrahman said. Kurdish forces are playing a key role in fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Related article What would make you care about Aleppo? ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement that was posted on Twitter and retweeted by several ISIS supporters. The statement said an ISIS suicide bomber ambushed a Kurdistan Workers’ Party gathering on the outskirts of Hasaka with a machine gun, and after he ran out of ammunition, the attacker blew up his explosive vest among the “PKK apostates.” The attack came as the United States announced it is suspending bilateral talks with Russia amid continued bloodshed in Syria. Related article The Iraqi housewife who 'cooked the heads' of ISIS fighters Citing a recent spate of attacks by Russia and its Syrian regime allies on hospitals and other civilian areas in Aleppo, the United States accused Moscow of failing to uphold a ceasefire and trying “to bomb civilian populations into submission,” and in the process, preventing humanitarian aid from reaching people in need. Government forces now control the strategic area around al-Kindi Hospital in northern Aleppo, pro-regime media and activists said, strengthening their push toward the rebel-held eastern part of the city. The past week’s assault on rebel-held areas of the key city involved some of the worst violence since the start of the war in 2011. Sunday, the Syrian military called on rebels to leave the besieged eastern areas of Aleppo, saying the Syrian and Russian armies “guarantee their safety,” according to a statement from the Syrian Armed Forces. Terrorist groups including ISIS have taken advantage of country’s instability to mount their own attacks.


A 19-year-old Sudanese woman has been sentenced to death for fatally stabbing the man she was forced to marry, who she says raped her as his relatives held her down. The case of Noura Hussein has shone a spotlight on the issues of forced marriage and marital rape in Sudan, where the legal age of marriage is only 10 and marital rape is legal. Hussein’s supporters filled the courtroom in Omdurman, Sudan, and overflowed into the hall outside as the judge announced the death penalty on Thursday. Her husband’s family refused an option to pardon her and rejected financial compensation, requesting that she be executed instead. Hussein’s legal team has 15 days to appeal. “She’s still in complete shock after her sentencing today,” Dr. Adil Mohamed Al-Imam, one of Hussein’s lawyers, told CNN. Al-Imam donated his services after Hussein’s original lawyer withdrew from the case. He added that Hussein was abandoned not only by the law, but also by her family. The harrowing details of her case have set social media and WhatsApp ablaze in Sudan. And in recent days it has captured international attention with the hashtags #JusticeforNoura and #SaveNoura. Thousands of people have shared a change.org petition. HOW YOU CAN STILL HELP #JusticeForNoura:Sign the petition: https://t.co/VHi639I5pGThe petition helps get the attention of media, as well as international (human rights) organizations. The petition has ALREADY proven useful so if you haven’t already, please sign it now. Forced to marry at 15, Hussein ran away from home and sought refuge with her aunt for three years. She was tricked into returning by her father, who handed her over to her husband’s family. After Hussein refused to consummate the marriage, her husband’s relatives held her down while he raped her.  “His brother and two cousins tried to reason with her, when she refused she was slapped and ordered into the room. One held her chest and head, the others held her legs,” Al-Imam told CNN. A day later her husband tried to rape her again, and she stabbed him to death. When she went to her parents for support, they turned her in to the police. Al-Imam said the case has challenged societal expectations in Sudan that wives should submit to their husbands. Amnesty International’s Sudan researcher, Ahmed Elzobier, said it was the first time a case of this nature had attracted such attention. “Marital rape happens in Sudan often and people don’t talk about it,” he said. Hussein’s case had changed that, he said. Shahd Hamza, 20, was among those who came to support Hussein in court, after hearing about her case in a group chat on WhatsApp. She said that while the rape and harassment of women had long been an issue in Sudan, a case like Hussein’s had never gone viral. “People shy away from this conversation in Sudan, it’s a taboo,” she said. “I hope that people will now feel comfortable to speak about to their parents and grandparents about it.” Nahid Gabralla, director of SEEMA, a nongovernmental organization working with victims and survivors of gender-based violence in the capital, Khartoum, was also among the crowd of supporters in court on Thursday. SEEMA has been campaigning in support of Hussein. “In my work I’ve seen other cases like this. The suffering of Sudanese women is happening all the time,” Gabralla said. “The case of Noura is different. She stood for her rights.”


"It's not more difficult," Kelly said Thursday He was asked about Trump's tweets Tweets? What tweets? Donald Trump’s two early morning missives over spy legislation before the House may have launched Washington into 101 minutes of chaos, but previously White House chief of staff John Kelly has said he doesn’t pay much attention to the President’s tweets. They came just ahead of a House vote to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. One message cast doubt about the President’s support, and the next – 101 minutes later – brought the President more in line with the view of his own White House. Related article Trump's FISA tweets throw Washington into chaos Soon after, Kelly found himself on Capitol Hill seeking to assure Republican lawmakers that the President, his administration and all intelligence agencies support reauthorizing FISA, according to lawmakers who spoke with him. “It’s not more difficult,” Kelly said Thursday when asked on Capitol Hill by CNN’s Kristin Wilson if the tweets make his job harder. “It’s a juggling act.” Kelly, in the past, has been reluctant to admit the difficulties that come with Trump’s dispatches to his 46 million followers. Trump tweeted earlier this month that he was a “stable genius” and “like, really smart” in response to Michael Wolff’s book “Fire and Fury,” a bombshell account of life inside the West Wing that raised questions about Trump’s mental fitness. Asked by CNN about the Saturday tweets, Kelly said he hadn’t seen or heard them. When reporters relayed them to him, the chief of staff curtly responded: “OK.” Kelly similarly sought to downplay the impact Trump’s tweets have on his day after the President called North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “short and fat” in a tweet during his lengthy trip to Asia in 2017. “Someone, I read the other day, said we all just react to the tweets,” he said at the time. “We don’t. I don’t. I don’t allow the staff to. We know what we’re doing.” He added: “Believe it or not, I do not follow the tweets. I find out about them … but for our purposes, my purpose, is we make sure the President is briefed up on what he’s about to do.” Kelly’s efforts to dismiss the power of Trump’s tweets inside the White House is part public relations strategy and part effort to survive. Though Kelly has sought to institute discipline in an often-chaotic White House, the retired general has realized during his time in the administration that among the things he cannot control is Trump’s off-the-cuff Twitter account. CNN’s Kevin Liptak and Elizabeth Landers contributed to this account.


They have come in their thousands, crossing hills and rivers, marshes and rice paddies for the chance to cross into Bangladesh and escape the mass killings they say are being perpetrated against their people. The UN estimates that, in just over one week, more than 70,000 Rohingya – a stateless, ethnic Muslim minority who largely inhabit Myanmar’s western Rakhine state – have fled escalating violence. Refugees tell CNN the Myanmar army attacked them. The government blames “terrorists” for initiating the violence. An estimated 73,000 refugees have crossed into Bangladesh since last Friday, UNHCR spokeswoman Vivian Tan told CNN. On Thursday, the bodies of 20 Rohingya were pulled out of the Naf River along the border of Myanmar and Bangladesh. Twelve of the dead were children. The testimonies of Rohingya sheltering in overcrowded Bangladeshi refugee camps are harrowing. “They are beating us, shooting at us and hacking our people to death,” Hamida Begum, one refugee who has left everything behind in a desperate attempt to flee with at least their lives, told CNN. “Many people were killed. Many women were raped and killed. We are very poor. My husband is a day laborer,” she said. “Begum” is an honorific given to some Muslim women, while others use it to replace their last name upon marriage. “We used to have two square meals a day. But we lost everything after the war started,” she said, referring to the outbreak of violence last Friday when Rohingya militants staged co-ordinated attacks on border posts, killing 12 security officers. In response, the military intensified “clearance operations,” driving thousands of people from their homes. Government officials said Thursday that at least 399 people had been killed in fighting since last Friday. Of those, 370 were “terrorists,” they said. However, activists say the military has killed women, children and innocent men. Both sides also blame each other for torching houses. The government says Rohingya militants have burned down more than 2,300 homes. The Rohingya says it’s the military that has attacking their houses. Begum alleges that her family was tortured by the military and their accomplices, and that others were killed after failing to pay the soldiers a ransom. “We had to flee to save our lives. They don’t allow us to move freely. We were deprived of everything… They are picking up people from home and asking them for ransom. Many of (those people) were shot dead.” CNN can’t independently verify the stories of those who fled, and the Myanmar government has not responded to a request for comment. Aid organizations and the UN have slammed the Myanmar government for its treatment of the group. “Decades of persistent and systematic human rights violations, including the very violent security responses to the attacks since October 2016, have almost certainly contributed to the nurturing of violent extremism, with everyone ultimately losing,” Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said Thursday. There are many ethnic groups in Myanmar “but only the Rohingya are hated by the government,” said Mohammad Harun, who was among those fleeing. The Rohingya are a minority Muslim population in Myanmar, however they’re denied the right to citizenship despite having lived there for generations. Another refugee interviewed by CNN said the military ordered them to stay inside their homes. “If we stay inside then they set our houses on fire, shooting at us or slaughtering us,” Nobin Shuna says. “Muslims have no rights.” She says the military came to her village last Friday and killed five people, including her son. “They were tortured to death. Our houses were set on fire. We lost everything there,” she said. “How could we survive? I have no money. After seeing the massacre, I traveled all the way to the Bangladesh border. I left my home four days ago. Now where would I go? My son was killed.” And so now these thousands trek westwards, towards the relative safety of neighboring Bangladesh. An estimated 200,000 to 500,000 Rohingya refugees already live a precarious existence here, most in squalid, overcrowded camps. Last year, as many as 85,000 Rohingya crossed the border following a similar spate of violence. The persecution of this people has been going on for decades, said Sally Smith, Executive Director of the Nexus Fund, an NGO committed to “preventing mass atrocities.” “In the last few days, this is very similar to what happened in October, when you had a small-scale attack by a small number of Rohingya insurgents,” Smith told CNN. “That led to a really disproportionate response by the Myanmar military against civilians, killing them, raping them, even firing machine guns at innocent men, women and children as they’re running toward the border to flee into Bangladesh. “They’re burning down villages — it’s just not OK to attack civilians.” She says that Myanmar’s leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been “disappointing” in her refusal to condemn the attacks. “She’s a Nobel peace prize winner and what it seems is happening is that she does care about peace for Buddhists, but not for the Rohingya. “Right now she’s using language which is incredibly irresponsible and inflammatory, she’s saying that these are terrorists and that’s only going to increase what’s happening and the tensions that are rising and it’s going to give rise to civilian attacks against Rohingya as well.” Suu Kyi has denied some of the more severe allegations made by rights organizations, including that ethnic cleansing is occurring in the region. But so far she has not made a strong public statement to condemn the attacks. The journey itself to Bangladesh, refugees say, is arduous. “We had walk a long a way. We had to cross hills, marshes and paddy fields to make the journey to Bangladesh border,” Rabeya Khatun said from Kutupalong unregistered camp, on the Bangladeshi side of the Naf River. “I left my home eight days ago. I’ve reached here today.” Now they’re safe from the military but still living a parlous existence. “We have no food and no clothes. We are homeless,” said refugee Mohammed Harun. He says he cannot go back – the military has destroyed their food supplies, razed their homes. “Everything, destroyed by the military. Now we are without food or blankets.” “Genocide is going on there.” Many left their homes with just the clothes on their backs, bringing with them only stories of murder, rape and villagers torched. “I could not bring anything,” Romiza Begum says, her white hair peeking out from beneath her patterned headscarf, one of the items of clothing she had to accept as charity. “These clothes were given (to me) by someone here. I asked for clothes. I lost everything. There is nothing left in my home in Burma.  Everything is destroyed.”


NEW: Barcelona mayor says, "Escalation will not benefit anyone" Deep divisions over the issue of Catalan independence Spain faces a week of deep political uncertainty as the secessionist leader of Catalonia considers whether to make a unilateral declaration of independence, against the backdrop of a bitter standoff with the central government in Madrid. Catalan President Carles Puigdemont had been expected to make a formal declaration at a specially convened session of the Catalan parliament on Tuesday. But there was intense speculation on Monday about whether Puigdemont would go ahead with such a provocative move – particularly in the light of a huge rally against independence in Barcelona at the weekend that exposed deep misgivings about his tactics among some sections of Catalan society. Related article Spanish leader Rajoy mulls suspending Catalonia autonomy The French government said on Monday that it would not recognize an independent Catalonia, and that independence would result in automatic expulsion from the European Union. In an interview with the French TV station CNews, Nathalie Loiseau, France’s minister of European affairs, said any declaration of independence would leave Catalonia isolated. “If independence were to be recognized – which is not something that’s being discussed – the most immediate consequence would be that (Catalonia) automatically left the European Union,” she said. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said he was determined to prevent a breakaway by the northeastern province, which is the powerhouse of the Spanish economy, in the wake of a banned referendum on October 1. “Spain will not be divided, and the national unity will be preserved. To this end we will employ all the means we have within the law. It is up to the government to make decisions, and to do so at the right moment,” Rajoy said in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt on Monday. “We have listened to many people. I believe we know what Spaniards think, and they should know that the government, too, is clear about what it has to do,” he said. Spanish Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría said in an interview on Spanish radio that the government would invoke powers to take control of the regional government if Catalonia went ahead and declared independence. Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau, however, urged the government to refrain from invoking the never-before-used Article 155, which allows Madrid to take over autonomous regions. “Escalation will not benefit anyone,” she said, urging both sides to begin dialogue with each other and for Rajoy to “be responsible and listen to the people,” and to roll back the police force that was dispatched to the region ahead of the vote. Colau said Spain was amid its “worst institutional crisis since democracy began” and said Spain’s political representatives should “find a solution that is inclusive and up to standards we have been living.” The stakes are high for both Spain and Europe if Catalonia chooses to break away. Catalonia accounts for nearly a fifth of Spain’s economy, and leads all regions in producing 25% of the country’s exports, CNNMoney reports. It contributes much more in taxes (21% of the country’s total) than it gets back from the central government. The prospect of an independent Catalonia has already prompted two major banks and some other businesses to move their registered headquarters to other parts of Spain. Related article The Catalans who oppose a split from Spain There is more at stake for Madrid than losing wealth. The country has 17 regions with varying degrees of autonomy, and losing one may inspire others to begin, or revive, separatist movements. But there are many other unanswered questions, including continued membership in the European Union. If forced to apply independently for EU membership, Catalonia would have to convince all of the bloc’s current members, including Spain, to agree. And if Catalonia became an independent state, it would not automatically be a World Trade Organization member, so would likely face stiff trade barriers that would hurt its economy. Between 250,000 and 400,000 anti-independence Catalans, and supporters from the rest of Spain, marched through the streets of Barcelona on Sunday to protest any moves for a breakaway state, following a divisive and controversial referendum on October 1 that found a majority of Catalan voters in favor of independence. But the result was not as decisive as it appeared  – turnout was only 43%. Puigdemont rescheduled a session of the Catalan Parliament for Tuesday after Spain’s Constitutional Court suspended Monday’s session. Members of Puigdemont’s Popular Unity Candidacy party had threatened to meet in Parliament on Monday anyway, in an act of defiance, but it is unclear if they will. A Catalan Parliament spokesperson told CNN that a new session had been called for Tuesday at 6 p.m. (12:00 p.m. ET), in which Puigdemont is expected to update members on the “current political situation.” The address could be the moment when Catalonia’s leader declares that the region will break away. PROFILE: Catalan president has ‘independence at his core’ “Many people believe – and he seems to be moving in that direction – that he will use this opportunity to declare, or to announce the results of the referendum which, as far as he was concerned, were overwhelmingly in favor of independence,” Dominic Thomas, chair of the department of French and francophone studies at the University of California Los Angeles, told CNN. Whatever happens this week, it’s clear that there are deep divisions over the issue, not only between Madrid and Barcelona, but within Catalonia as well. In an indication of the deep divisions the referendum has caused, those who marched in Barcelona on Sunday in support of remaining part of Spain argued there was no reason they couldn’t be both Catalan and Spanish. But protesters have also marched in favor of independence since the October 1 vote, claiming that the Catalans have a distinct culture from the rest of Spain and that they contribute more to the economy than the other regions. Thomas says that the “powerful” show of support for unity means that a declaration of independence may not be well received. “Many people stayed home and didn’t vote (Sunday) so the whole question of the mandate that he would have in speaking before that Parliament and declaring independence would be challenged. “The turnout in Barcelona and across Spain to talk about Spain and unity and to express the voice of those who would not want this referendum to go ahead was also overwhelmingly powerful.” Divisions between Catalan leaders and the central government took a particularly brutal form on the day of the vote, when thousands of Spanish police went to Catalonia to try to shut the referendum down and clashed with protesters and voters. Related article Catalan independence supporters see brighter future alone Images of police firing rubber bullets, restraining elderly people and pulling voters from polling booths by the hair have shocked people around the world. Hundreds were injured. Despite the outrage, Rajoy and Spanish King Felipe VI defended the police and doubled down on their stance to take whatever measures necessary to keep Catalonia from seceding. Rajoy was forced to apologize on Friday, but many in Catalan say the crackdown has only fueled their desire for independence. “I didn’t feel that repressed until what happened on October 1,” said 25-year-old student Mireya Jimenez. “I think that whatever they do, they have made us angry, and I think we have seen that a … part of Spain doesn’t like us – the king doesn’t like us either and so I think that, also because of how they’ve treated us just now, there is no turning back.” Journalist Elena Gyldenkerne and CNN’s Vasco Cotovio contributed to this report from Barcelona.


Air Force vice chief of staff says A-10s needed in fight against Islamic State Air Force had planned to retire A-10s, with new F-35 taking over parts of ground support mission The A-10 is known for its Gatling gun that fires 3,900 rounds a minute ISIS seems determined to destroy much of what’s in its path as it tries to conquer more territory in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, but it may have inadvertently saved a fleet of U.S. Air Force jets. Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force’s vice chief of staff, tells Defense News the rise of the Islamic State and the U.S. air campaign to fight it has prompted the service to reconsider plans to retire the A-10 ground attack jets, which first joined the Air Force fleet in 1975. The Air Force’s version of the F-35 will eventually replace the A-10 Thunderbolt, but those new jets are just coming online and are not battle tested like the A-10, which has seen combat in Iraq, Afghanistan and recently in Syria against ISIS – also known as ISIL. “When we made the decision on retiring the A-10, we made those decisions prior to ISIL, we were not in Iraq, we were coming out of Afghanistan to a large extent, we didn’t have a resurgent Russia,” Goldfein said in an interview on “Defense News with Vago Muradian,” scheduled for broadcast this weekend, according to the Defense News website. Goldfein’s office confirmed the general’s remarks to CNN. The revelation came a week after a report was published on the Defense One website in which Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said retirement of the A-10, nicknamed the “Warthog,” would not be part of the Pentagon budget request that will be submitted to Congress in February. The Defense One report about pushing back the A-10’s retirement drew praise from Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I welcome reports that the Air Force has decided to keep the A-10 aircraft flying through fiscal year 2017, ensuring our troops have the vital close air support they need for missions around the world. Today, the A-10 fleet is playing an indispensable role in the fight against ISIL in Iraq and assisting NATO’s efforts to deter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe,” McCain said in a statement. “With growing global chaos and turmoil on the rise, we simply cannot afford to prematurely retire the best close air support weapon in our arsenal without fielding a proper replacement,” McCain’s statement said. The Pentagon’s position on the A-10 had been that it needed the money and crews being used to keep the A-10s flying for the F-35 and other missions. But unlike the multi-role F-35, the A-10 is the only airplane in the Air Force specifically designed for close air support, a mission that has become urgent in the fight against ISIS. Able to circle over a target for long periods, the straight-winged Warthog is supremely maneuverable at low speeds and altitudes. So when ground troops find themselves in trouble – and too close to the enemy for fighter jets to drop bombs without risking friendly fire casualties – A-10 pilots can skim hillsides day and night, under any type of weather, and accurately and punishingly engage ground targets with its powerful 30 mm, seven-barrel Gatling gun, which fires depleted uranium bullets at 3,900 rounds per minute. The A-10’s role in the fight against ISIS was highlighted in Operation Tidal Wave II in November, when A-10s combined with AC-130 gunships to destroy 116 ISIS fuel tanker trucks. Laser-armed fighter jets by 2020, Air Force says CNN’s Gabe Ramirez contributed to this report.


Obama's facing resistance to US power during final Asia tour Trump slams Obama's performance abroad President Barack Obama bade farewell to G20 leaders in Hangzhou, China, on Monday by reminding them they’re living in “turbulent” times – and he wasn’t kidding. His valedictory Asia tour, which moved on to Laos later in the day, is unfolding amid diplomatic slights and great power rivalries that reflect the unstable nature of the world Obama will bequeath to his successor in January. The controversies reflect the way international politics is now a stew of many competing, rising or resurgent powers that see fewer reasons to simply fall into line behind the United States than was the case following World War II and the Cold War. And it may suggest that foreign leaders are now just as interested in who will sit in the Oval Office next as they are in Obama as he heads for the exit. Obama is not only confronting regimes in Russia, China and North Korea that are at times openly hostile to Washington – or at least willing to make clear they don’t want to play by its rules – but over the long weekend, he got headaches from allies as well, notably Turkey and the Philippines. “Who is he?,” the fiery new President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, asked Monday at a news conference, referring to Obama. The Southeast Asian leader warned he would lash out if the US President raised extrajudicial killings in the Philippines’ new war on drugs in an anticipated meeting in Laos. “I am a president of a sovereign state. And we have long ceased to be a colony of the United States,” Duterte continued. “Son of a b****, I will swear at you.” RELATED: Duterte’s gay slur strains close US-Filipino ties It was a stunning show of disrespect for an American president. And though Obama shrugged off the comments from the “colorful” leader during his own news conference Monday, the White House later canceled his meeting with Duterte, conferring instead with the President of South Korea. Duterte later apologized for any offense caused. Duterte is not the first erratic president of the Philippines, but his unpredictability and willingness to fan latent colonial resentment against the US represents an unwanted disruption for the White House at the end of Obama’s tenure. It comes in a regional cauldron where Beijing is making aggressive moves in the South China Sea and Southeast Asian nations are increasingly important to US efforts to rein in the rising power. Obama had hoped to spend his final journey to Asia as president talking up the highlights of his pivot to the region. The fact sheet the White House put out at the conclusion of the G20 touted the economic progress under the eight years of the Obama presidency. And in one key outcome of the summit, he and Chinese President Xi Jinping formally agreed that both their nations would join the Paris Climate Agreement committing to cutting carbon emissions. But that bright spot aside, his trip to China has offered reminders that since Obama took office in 2009 – and especially since Xi emerged as a nationalist leader after taking office in 2012 – Sino-US relations have worsened. RELATED: Obama has ‘blunt’ meeting with Putin At the start of his trip, a logistical spat over missing airline airplane stairs needed for Obama to reach the red carpet at Hangzhou airport and verbal altercations between US and Chinese officials grabbed headlines. At one point, a White House official warned a Chinese counterpart against restricting access of pool reporters under the wing of Air Force One, noting that it was, after all, a US plane. “This is our country,” the man yelled back. Obama shrugged off that incident, too, acknowledging that disagreements over press access often arise with China but contending that they were not emblematic of the US-China relationship. The Republican hoping to succeed Obama, however, took a much dimmer view of the episode. “Can you believe that the Chinese would not give Obama the proper stairway to get off his plane - fight on tarmac!” Donald Trump tweeted. Can you believe that the Chinese would not give Obama the proper stairway to get off his plane - fight on tarmac! https://t.co/FAldS5zZi5 Beijing said that an “unprofessional” American press had “hyped” up the incident. “China has warmly and friendly welcomed all the leaders who are attending the G20 summit, why would we cause problems to the American delegations on purpose?” said Hua Chunying, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson. Either way, the flap served as a symbol of the tensions over issues of sovereignty that can occur between an ascending authoritarian state and an established democratic superpower used to getting its own way – clashes that some analysts fear could play out on a geopolitical stage in years to come. Another country that has expanded its power base by thumbing its nose at the United States – Russia – also grabbed the spotlight during the G20 summit. Obama and President Vladimir Putin were pictured on Monday locked in an unfriendly stare, clearly with little love lost between them. “Typically, the tone of our meetings are candid, blunt, businesslike – and this one was no different,” was how Obama described it to reporters. He referred to “gaps of trust” over Syria, warned that the US has “more capacity” both “offensively and defensively” when it comes to cyber espionage and stressed that the US has no intention of easing sanctions against Russia over its action in Ukraine. The tough talks were a reminder that the “reset” of Russia relations that Obama pioneered at the start of his administration is now but a memory, while Putin has also taken advantage of chaos in the Middle East to reinstate Russian influence with Syria and Iran. Related video Obama meets Erdogan, promises cooperation Obama also invested significant first-term political capital in improving relations with another foreign leader he met at the G20 – President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey – with whom tensions were on display in their joint appearance. Even though Obama bemoaned the “terrible attempted coup” that failed to topple Erdogan in July, the Turkish President did not shy away from raising differences with the US in front of the press. “All forms of terrorism are bad. All forms of terrorism are evil,” Erdogan said, then mentioned the names of a Kurdish group with which the US is allied in Syria but is regarded by Ankara as a terrorist organization. As he headed to Laos, Obama professed to being undeterred by the unpredictable unfriendly international environment at the end of his presidency. “I think we all to have recognize these are turbulent times. A lot of countries are seeing volatile politics,” he said at his news conference. “But then when you look back over the course of eight years, actually you find out things have gotten better. “I tell my staff when they feel worn out sometimes that better is always good,” he added. “It may not be everything that needs to get done, but if it’s better than before we started, we’ll take it.”


Ben Enwonwu etched himself into Nigerian history. His painting of a Yoruba princess in “Tutu” is considered a national masterpiece, with copies of it hanging in Nigerian homes across the country. To much speculation, the sought-after original was lost for over 40 years. The renowned Nigerian author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, told BBC’s Radio 4 in 2013: “This particular painting “Tutu,” the print, hung on every wall, of every middle class family in eastern Nigeria when I was growing up.” So when the famous portrait was recently unearthed in a “modest” London flat and sold at auction for $1.6 million (February 28) – four times its estimated price, it sparked huge interest in the art world and amongst buyers in Nigeria – many had set up shop in a hotel in Lagos to make live bids. A story of a lost artwork and the exorbitant price these sort of pieces sell for is always likely to capture interest and imaginations. Because of the history of stolen and looted art from Africa, its reappearance also raises eyebrows for some in the art community. Nigerian visual artist, Victor Ehikhamenor, said to CNN: “How did this work get to where it is?” Bonham’s auction house told CNN the previous owners father bought it, and before then it was last seen in 1975 at the Italian Cultural Institute in Nigeria. However, the story of the man himself goes beyond this story and the record breaking price (for a Nigerian modern artist) his artwork sold for. Enwonwu navigated the world’s between British and Nigerian royalty. At the same time, his works, according to West African art expert Sylvester Ogbechie, became used in popular black liberation movements. Enwonwu is most revered for his paintings, but always referred to himself as a sculpture. Basically, his life was complex. But as Ogbechie said to CNN: “He refused to be typecast as an African woodcarver.” In essence, Enwonwu redefined what it meant to be an African artist. As well as paint and sculpt, Enwonwu wrote significantly about the challenges facing African artists. In a essay written in 1956, he penned his thoughts: “(The African artist) faces the humiliation of having to listen to lectures on African art in foreign art galleries and museums. “He visits foreign museums in order to see a collection of the art of his own country, and very often he is shown round the museum by European curators (page 178).” In the spirit of the French Negritude movement (1930-50s), an attempt by African and Caribbean artists to promote the work of black people and history, Enwonwu believed in an international contemporary African art. He acknowledged that there were barriers preventing African artists playing an a central role in their practice, being often pigeon-holed and expected to produce traditional ethnographic, not modern and global, African art. While Enwonwu railed against the art culture at the time, his training was in established elite institutions. He was classically taught at the Slade School of Fine Art in London and attended Oxford University. Enwonwu quickly rose to international notoriety. “He was pretty much one of the first African artists to achieve global fame,” Ogbechie, who has written a book on Enwonwu’s life, told CNN. He was celebrated for his figurative sculptures and paintings. Enwonwu painted with watercolors and carved abstract-inspired wood figures. “You have to understand how important his fame was in the 1950s. Enwonwu was so famous that his successes were inserted into black struggles across the globe. African Americans were very much enamoured by the artist,” Ogbechie said. Enwonwu’s was also part of the modernist art movement of the mid-century. “He’s a modern artist who got training as a modern artist and moved in modernist art circles. He was very much interested in producing an artwork that framed the condition of modernity,” Ogbechie said. But his style was varied and mixed. “His early work is quite illustrative. Then later on it became a bit more broad and impressionistic. Some of his works from the 60s almost have a slightly cubist feel,” Giles Peppiett, an expert in African art at Bonhams auction house in London, told CNN. His sitters included British royalty of the highest order. “One of his most famous portraits was a bronze he did of her Majesty the Queen,” Peppiett said. Enwonwu made an impact in London, but his most influential works would be seen in his home country Nigeria. In the 1970s, Enwonwu was an Igbo artist living in a country reeling from a civil war that witnessed an estimated one to three million deaths. The Biafra movement, mainly made-up of Igbo people in southeastern Nigeria, fought to secede from Nigeria between 1967-70. The pro-Biafrans lost the war. It was significant for Nigerian society that Enwonwu, an Igbo, painted a Yoruba Ile-Ife princess, part of one of Nigeria’s other major groups, in the aftermath of the war. “It came from a time when Nigeria was fresh from the dramatic effects of the civil war and we were trying to reunite the country – so it was very important,” Enwonwu’s son Oliver told CNN. The Nigerian state proceeded to initiate a reconciliation program to try to heal divisions. “One of the things they wanted to start doing is to show Igbo people they are being reconstituted into the national body” Ogbechie said. “The Tutu paintings were absolutely vital to the process of national reconciliation in Nigeria.” In the early 1970s, Enwonwu subsequently became a professor of art at the University of Ife, an academic center for the Yoruba people. It turns out that Enwonwu’s legacy has lasted the test of time just as the tensions in southeastern Nigeria have. Some, like Biafran separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu, continue to call for a new state. The artistic work, though, did contribute to the growth of Nigerian art that continues to the present day. “He gave respectability to art,” Oliver Enwonwu said. His work influenced current contemporary artists in Nigeria, not least his son who heads up the Omenka Gallery in Lagos. “I grew up smelling the oil paints and watching him chip away at blocks of wood. It was something which had been ingrained in my very fabric,” Oliver said. Enwonwu certainly left his mark on history. “He legitimized the idea of the artist as a viable practice among the Nigerian population,” Ogbechie said. Contemporary Nigerian Artist Ehikhamenor thought the recent auction was positive for the visibility of African art, but showed the inequity that still exists: “When you look at when he was practicing there are other artists which are not African, that are not Nigerian, that are not black whose works have sold twice, three, four times what we are talking about now.” Enwonwu’s work reached Nigerian society and future generations of artists, but, according to Ogbechie who knew him personally, he was a recluse. “I managed to persuade him to attend some openings and he was very shocked by how deferential everybody was to him. He said he thought everybody hated him,” Ogbechie told CNN. So who was Enwonwu? Perhaps, a quietly doubting, groundbreaking African artist.


MH370 vanished in 2014 with 239 people on board Families of those aboard are setting up a private search fund The families of those aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have launched a campaign to privately fund a search for the aircraft, which disappeared three years ago. Australia, China and Malaysia announced in January that they were ending their official search for the plane. MH370 was traveling from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, when it vanished over the Indian Ocean with 239 people on board. Related video Search for flight MH370 suspended Jiang Hui, whose mother was on the plane, told CNN on Saturday that relatives were working to create an international fund made up of donations from the parties involved in the flight. He said he believes various companies should contribute to the fund, including the governments of the 14 countries where the passengers were from, plane manufacturer Boeing and Malaysia Airlines. “The fund will be invested and the annual investment returns or interests will be used for the search of MH370,” Jiang said. “Once the plane is found, the original donation will be returned to the donors, without interest.” He did not provide a target amount for the fund. In their January  joint statement announcing the suspension of the search for the aircraft, Australia, China and Malaysia said the decision had not been taken lightly. “Despite every effort using the best science available, cutting edge technology, as well as  modeling and advice from highly skilled professionals who are the best in their field, unfortunately, the search has not been able to locate the aircraft,” it said. The officials said they would not rule out another search if “credible” evidence were to emerge. Voice370, a support group for family members of those aboard the flight, released a statement expressing disappointment over the suspension. “Commercial planes cannot just be allowed to disappear without a trace,” the statement said. “Stopping at this stage is nothing short of irresponsible, and betrays a shocking lack of faith in the data, tools and recommendations of an array of official experts assembled by the authorities themselves.” RELATED: Timeline of MH370 disappearance The plane’s disappearance remains one of the greatest aviation mysteries in modern history. Searchers spent millions of dollars scouring tens of thousands of square miles, but so far have yielded little new information about the plane’s final moments. At 12:41 a.m. local time on March 8, 2014, MH370 departed Kuala Lumpur International Airport for Beijing. It was heading north but after its last message of “Good night Malaysian Three Seven Zero,” it changed course toward the west, according to military radar. From there, investigators believe it turned south around the edge of Indonesia and across the vast Indian Ocean. Investigators confirmed in July that MH370 captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah had tracked a route deep into the Indian Ocean on his home flight simulator, very similar to the one officials believe the missing plane took. Grandparents, a newly graduated engineer, a young couple and a 2-year-old boy were among the hundreds of people on board MH370 when it vanished. Most of the passengers and crew were from China and Malaysia, but individuals and families from 14 different countries were also on board the missing flight. Based on some of the wreckage that’s been found, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau determined the wing flaps had been stowed when MH370 crashed. The report suggested the plane had been out of control, spiraling downward at a rate of almost 300 miles per hour at its last satellite transmission. These findings suggested “two early hypotheses,” according to CNN aviation analyst Mary Schiavo; either that a fire on board the plane incapacitated everyone through smoke or fumes, or that a rapid decompression, perhaps because of a breach in a window, led to their deaths hours before the plane ran out of fuel and spiraled downward. But investigators still haven’t been able to say for sure what caused the crash. CNN’s Yuli Yang reported from Hong Kong and Susannah Cullinane wrote from Auckland. Juliet Perry, Joshua Berlinger, Joe Sterling and Deborah Bloom contributed to this report.


Getting must-pass items to President Donald Trump's desk could be daunting Here are the top five items to look for from Capitol Hill in the weeks ahead The Republican-led Congress returns to work this week, and once again, the Russia investigation will overshadow the ambitious legislative agenda that includes major overhauls of the health care system and tax code. Former FBI Director James Comey is slated to testify publicly Thursday and is expected to discuss President Donald Trump’s request that he end his probe of a top aide’s ties to Russia Against the backdrop of the highly anticipated hearing, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will tackle a critical summer list of high-priority issues and bills that GOP leaders are anxious to complete – or at least make significant progress on – before the long August recess. But with only seven work weeks left, getting must-pass items to President Donald Trump’s desk could be daunting, especially since it is the sharp divide among Republicans that largely stands in the way of progress. Democrats are in no mood to cooperate – sensing their own political fortunes potentially on the rise with the continued controversy over the President and his team. Here are the top five items to look for from Capitol Hill in the weeks ahead: All eyes will be on Comey Thursday when he testifies before the Senate intelligence committee about his conversations with the President, who allegedly urged Comey to drop the bureau’s investigation of Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn and his interactions with top Russians during the 2016 campaign. Some legal experts argue Trump’s possible directive might be proof of obstruction of justice, a potentially impeachable offense. It’s still unclear whether the White House will attempt to assert executive privilege as a way to block Comey’s testimony. Meantime, House and Senate intelligence committees issued a slew of subpoenas last week, a sign their investigations are hitting their stride. After a divisive debate in the House that pitted moderates against conservatives inside the Republican conference, the Senate GOP is essentially starting over and creating its own bill. A Senate working group continues to limp forward on complex negotiations over an Obamacare repeal and replacement plan that can marry the competing demands of conservative and moderate Republicans and get the 51 votes it needs to pass. McConnell acknowledges he doesn’t know which policies will bring the sides together, but aides were ordered to begin drafting language over the recess to help drive talks. Senators on the right flank want to shrink Medicaid to save money and abandon Obamacare’s strict insurance regulations to help provide greater choice and lower premiums for consumers. But centrists want to hold onto important Obamacare requirements for covering people with pre-existing conditions and the expansion of Medicaid that is now providing coverage for millions of Americans. In a setback for Republicans, veteran Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, said in an interview Friday “it’s unlikely we will get a deal” and that he does not see “see a comprehensive health care plan this year” coming out of the Senate. Republicans on Capitol Hill largely ignored the budget request sent last month from the Trump administration. The party is split on some of the proposed changes to Medicaid and the spending cuts to some federal programs such as cancer research, environmental protections and how much more money the military should receive to address national security threats. Both House and Senate budget committees have been working on their own fiscal blueprint. Without any help from Democrats, it will be a heavy lift to get enough Republicans on the same page to get a budget passed. There are competing forces inside the party with goals that are conflicting, including those that want to reduce overall spending but boost spending for the US military. Others want to balance the budget on a faster timetable than their leaders, slashing some federal agencies with deep cuts that are unpopular in swing states and districts where some in the GOP worry about the impact on the 2018 midterm elections. The budget is a political wish list document that doesn’t need to be enacted into law. But this year’s budget is a critical component of the GOP’s legislative strategy. They are replying on using a tool known as “reconciliation” that allows leaders to push through a tax reform bill through the Senate with a simple majority of votes, avoiding a Democratic filibuster. They employed the same approach for the health care bill that the House passed in May. Despite deep divisions over how to pay for a major tax bill or which tax cuts would be retained and which would be phased out, Ryan insisted last week that Congress was on track to get a bill to the President’s desk “by the end of the calendar year 2017.” Trump also said on Thursday that his tax proposal is “moving along in Congress” but there is no actual legislation. Related video Graham: Trump budget 'destroying soft power' Ryan’s continued push for a border adjustment tax as the main revenue source to offset the tax bill faces stiff resistance from many on the right in his party. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has been critical of the proposal. Without an alternative proposal to offset the significant costs of a new tax bill lowering rates, the GOP plan could be pared down. Some are already suggesting that the GOP should focus on a package of popular tax cuts instead of a major reworking of the tax code. In addition to paving the way for tax reform, Hill Republicans use the budget’s top line numbers to set spending levels for the dozen spending bills they will need to pass before the end of September to avoid a government shutdown. Mnuchin recently told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the administration wanted Congress to increase the nation’s borrowing authority this summer before it heads out on the five-week late summer recess. That timetable surprised GOP leaders who thought they wouldn’t need to address the thorny issue until the fall. “We need to make sure we raise our debt ceiling to pay our debts,” Mnuchin said. He also urged members to back raising the debt ceiling without any conditions attached. But conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have already called for any increase in the borrowing limit to be paired with “policy that addresses Washington’s unsustainable spending by cutting where necessary, capping where able, and working to balance in the near future.” White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former member of the Freedom Caucus, told The New York Times on Friday that he wanted to add some spending reforms, but also admitted, “we’ve not settled on a final policy within the administration.” Lawmakers are also slated to take up several issues waiting for congressional action such as new sanctions against Iran and Russia and a promise to repeal Obama-era financial regulations. The political fallout of Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate change accord – which incensed Democrats but pleased most Republicans – will also be a focus. The Senate will also need to take action once the President names a new FBI director, which Trump promised to do quickly but that is now in limbo. Once a nominee is named, the confirmation process could take several weeks as Democrats, in particular, work to ensure the new director will be truly independent of Trump.


Former Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that if he were one of President Donald Trump’s attorneys, he would suggest Trump not consent to a special counsel interview for fear of being caught misleading investigators. “The President has some difficulty with precision,” Biden said in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo. Biden said he marvels at some of the comments Trump makes and referenced a line from Trump on Monday that Democrats who did not applaud his State of the Union address were “un-American” and “treasonous.” The White House has since called the remark tongue-in-cheek, with press secretary Sarah Sanders saying on Tuesday that Trump was “clearly joking.” “Well let me tell you, he’s a joke,” Biden said in response. Asked to clarify if he was calling the President a joke, Biden said, “Yeah, in this kind of stuff.” “I think he understands and I think the people around him understand, what presidents say matter,” Biden said. “Our children are listening, and the world is listening.” CNN reported last month that special counsel Robert Mueller provided Trump’s attorneys with a range of topics for an interview, and that Trump’s attorneys are arguing Mueller has not met the threshold for an interview. Trump has said publicly he would be willing to sit for an interview under oath, although The New York Times reported Monday that Trump’s attorneys are advising Trump against an interview because of concerns he might be charged with lying to investigators. Biden took issue with the recent decision by Trump and House Republicans to release a controversial memo alleging FBI abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor former Trump  campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. “It seems irresponsible,” Biden said. He linked the push to a broader Trump effort to impugn the conduct of the FBI during the 2016 election and the special counsel investigation that Trump has called a “witch hunt.” Biden said the attacks were without precedent and hit the entire bureau. “This is the first President to make a full-throated, unvarnished attack on the entirety of the FBI, not going after J. Edgar Hoover, who was one person in the FBI,” Biden said, referencing the agency’s former director. Biden continued, “What do you think they’re thinking in Moscow? This is doing everything that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin ever wanted, sowing doubt about whether or not our justice system is fair, sowing doubt about whether or not there is anything that is remotely consistent with our Constitution.” More broadly, Biden said he is “genuinely concerned” with key pillars of Trump’s rhetoric and actions, warning of “naked nationalism” and “phony populism.” “This notion that the way in which you, the only reason you have a problem, is because of the other, is because of that immigrant or that minority or because of someone else doing something to you,” Biden said. Biden’s public appearances and comments since leaving office have fueled speculation he might make another presidential bid. Asked about the possibility, Biden said he was spending his time trying to swing Congress for Democrats in 2018 “to stop this insanity and begin to right this ship.” But pressed on the issue, the former vice president recalled a question from former President Barack Obama. “Barack, the President, asked me all during the end of the last administration, you know, how do you make the judgment?” Biden said. “If I could look in the mirror in two and a half, two years, and walk away knowing I’m not walking away because I’m afraid or I don’t have the nerve to try to do the job or I don’t want to make the effort, then I will happily walk away. For real.” Biden said he was also considering rising talent in the Democratic Party and the potential strength of the 2020 field. “There’s a lot of new folks that potentially are coming up here,” Biden said. “You know, we didn’t know who Bill Clinton was three years out. We didn’t know who Barack Obama was other than a tremendous speech he made. And they stepped up.”