Editor’s Note: Ivo Daalder is president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and former US permanent representative to NATO. The opinions expressed are his own. Ivo Daalder: Trump's suggestion that America's commitment to NATO is conditional sets him apart from previous presidents Members of the alliance are hoping for a change in tune during the summit, Daalder says Richard Nixon has loomed large over Donald Trump’s administration in recent weeks. But one commonality between the two US Presidents has gone overlooked. With his visit to Brussels, Trump will follow Nixon in using his first trip abroad to address the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nixon, like Trump, had spoken about NATO on the campaign trail prior to becoming President. In fact, while addressing the North Atlantic Council in Brussels in February 1969, President Nixon repeated a point he had made while running for the White House. “If our ideals of Atlantic interdependence are to mean anything in practice,” he said, “it’s time we began lecturing our European partners less and listening to them more.” So far, President Trump has taken the opposite approach. “Obsolete” is the term Trump repeatedly used for NATO on the campaign trail. When pressed on how he arrived at this judgment of the 28-member alliance, then-candidate Trump quickly landed on cost as the main source of his concern. “Our allies are not paying their fair share,” Trump said in April 2016. “The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense and if not, the US must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice.” President Trump is hardly the first US President to call on the European allies to do more – in one form or another, every President since Harry Truman has done so. What is different this time, however, is Trump’s suggestion that America’s commitment to the alliance is conditional. When asked in an interview with the New York Times last July if NATO members could count on the United States to uphold its Article 5 commitment, Trump shot back, “Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.” “And if not?” he was asked. “Well, I’m not saying if not,” Trump replied. Here and since, Trump cast doubt on whether allies should fully count on the United States to uphold the core article underpinning the Atlantic Alliance. And the President is not alone in casting doubts. In his first visit to NATO headquarters last February, Defense Secretary James Mattis argued that the United States may “moderate its commitment to this alliance” should allies not boost their spending. Days later, Vice President Mike Pence said that the spending imbalance “erodes the very foundation of our alliance.” On Thursday, President Trump has an opportunity to set the record straight. His NATO counterparts will no doubt expect him to repeat his insistence that they spend more on defense – and they likely will reassure him of their commitment to do so. But they will also be listening for something else: the President’s unconditional commitment to the core precept of collective defense, as enshrined in Article 5. While Trump has said that NATO “is no longer obsolete,” he has not yet committed to unconditionally upholding America’s treaty obligations. Additionally, the allies will want to know whether the US President shares their concern about Russia’s threat, which to most of them is the single biggest threat to their security. So far, Trump has demurred and deflected when pressed on Russia and President Vladimir Putin. This week is an opportunity for the American President to take a firmer stand. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Allies need reassurance. They want to hear, as President Obama said in Estonia following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that Article 5 “is a commitment that is unbreakable. It is unwavering. It is eternal.” Or if he does not want to repeat the words of the 44th President, he might look to those uttered by the 37th President. “Surely one thing we have learned from these difficult years is that no nation has a monopoly on wisdom,” Nixon said in his address to NATO. “We also have learned that no great nation, and no great group of nations, can view the problems of its own community in isolation.” These words, echoed in some form by all subsequent Presidents up until Trump, remain unimpeachably true. As Nixon might say were he alive today, reaffirming the US commitment to NATO is an essential step in making America great again.


NEW: Six people die and 30 injured in clashes in Gaza, medical sources say NEW: Four Arabs in Dimona, Israel, suffer stab wounds, police say Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu blames "incitement and libels" of Palestinian Authority, Hamas Six people were killed in clashes Friday across Gaza and 30 others were injured, according to Gaza medical sources, as tensions between Israelis and Palestinians continued to grow. Five of those injured are in critical condition, the sources said. The clashes in Gaza follow what has appeared to be a wave of attacks on civilians in Israel. And the acrimony seems only to be growing. In the Israeli city of Dimona, in the Negev desert, south of the West Bank, four people were injured with stab wounds Friday morning, a police spokeswoman said. The spokeswoman said those injured had been attacked “for nationalist reasons, because they were Arabs.” The Israel Defense Forces said the clashes in Gaza took place when “200 Palestinians approached the security fence in the Northern Gaza Strip.” The Palestinians, according to the IDF, began hurling rocks at soldiers and rolling burning tires at them. “The forces on site responded with fire on the main instigators in order to prevent them progressing and to disperse the riot.” Amid the wave of violence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday urged Arab and Israeli leaders to stay away from one of the country’s holiest sites in an effort to keep tensions from getting out of hand. In a televised speech, Netanyahu asked Jewish and Arab political leaders to steer clear of the site Jews call the Temple Mount and Muslims the Noble Sanctuary for fear that any visits could spark an “explosive” event. Anger has been brewing among Palestinians over Israeli restrictions on access to the site. The site is sacred to both Judaism and Islam and, as such, has become a focal point of discord. In other remarks, Netanyahu was more stern and contentious. He blamed recent bloodshed on the Palestinian Authority, which has authority in parts of the West Bank, and Hamas, which has authority in Gaza, for what he called their “incitement and libels and lies.” He castigated those who used Molotov cocktails, knives and rocks as well as live ammunition against Israeli citizens and security forces. “All of us, we’re in the midst of a wave of terrorism … terrorists that are incited, filled with hatred and trying to hurt people.” The terrorists will not succeed, Netanyahu said. “The radicals, the terrorists will not achieve anything,” he said. “We will prosecute them, and we will be victorious.” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said earlier this week that he doesn’t want the situation to escalate. The violence has shown no signs of abating, with three stabbing attacks reported Thursday. In Tel Aviv, a female Israeli soldier was stabbed with a screwdriver, allegedly by a Palestinian. Another soldier shot the attacker dead, Israel police spokeswoman Luba Samri told CNN. The attack left four people lightly wounded, including the soldier. In the Kiryat Arba settlement in the West Bank city of Hebron, an Israeli man was in serious condition after being stabbed in the stomach, Samri said. Israeli security forces are still looking for that attacker. Also Thursday, a Palestinian stabbed an ultra-Orthodox Jewish student, 25, in Jerusalem, wounding him seriously, police said. A 19-year-old Palestinian from the Shuafat refugee camp has been arrested in that attack at a light rail station near Jerusalem’s main police headquarters. Many of these knife and gun attacks on Israelis have been concentrated in Jerusalem, the city that both sides claim as their capital. But the attacks have spread beyond Jerusalem and the West Bank, the historical hot spots. Because of the violence, Israel announced Sunday it was reinstating restrictions on access to Jerusalem’s Old City. Muslim men under the age of 50 will be prevented from attending prayers at what they call the Noble Sanctuary. Another security assessment will be made before Friday prayers, Israeli police said. Palestinian protesters have repeatedly clashed with Israeli security forces in and around the complex in recent weeks. The move by Israeli authorities to prevent Muslim men under 50 from attending prayers at the site angered Palestinian leaders. It followed an attack Saturday in which two Israelis were killed. CNN’s Salma Abdelaziz and Michael Schwartz contributed to this report.Correction: A previous version of this report incorrectly characterized the Palestinian Authority’s role in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority has authority in parts of the West Bank.


White House press secretary Sean Spicer started the week dogged by rumors that he was about to be demoted or fired. He ended it almost speechless, incapable or unwilling to answer even the most basic questions about President Donald Trump and the administration’s policies. Take Spicer’s response in Friday’s briefing as to whether or not Trump believes, as he tweeted in 2012, that climate change is a hoax created to aid China and hobble US manufacturing. “I have not had an opportunity to have that discussion,” Spicer said, despite the fact that he was asked the same question earlier in the week and, in the intervening time, Trump had formalized his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accords – making the US one of only three countries worldwide to do so. Asked later in the briefing whether he would commit to asking Trump whether he still believed climate change is a hoax, Spicer offered only: “If I can, I will.” Which in political-speak is the equivalent of saying: “Absolutely not.” When Spicer was asked to comment on the ongoing Russia probe, he said this: “I cannot, and as I’ve mentioned the other day that we’re focused on the President’s agenda and going forward all questions on these matters will be referred to outside counsel Marc Kasowitz.” Asked several other questions tied to the Russia investigations, Spicer repeated, verbatim – with glances down at the sheet of paper on the podium where it was written – the line about all matters being referred to Trump’s personal lawyer. What’s clear from this week – which included two on-camera briefings (Tuesday and Friday) as well as one off-camera briefing (Wednesday) – is that Spicer believes the best way to keep his job is to do as little of it as possible. Throughout the week, he was terse, serious and brief – in both his answers and the numbers of questions he was willing to take. When he did “answer” questions it was with rote talking points that sought to paint an entirely alternate political reality from the one that most Americans are living in. On Monday, for example, Spicer spent 11 minutes delivering a paean to Trump’s foreign trip – the word “historic” was used repeatedly – and then dismissed legitimate questions about Russia’s attempts to influence the election as “fake news.” All White House press secretaries walk a very fine line between keeping their credibility with the press corps and keeping their boss happy. Those two tasks rarely line up – which is what makes the job so incredibly challenging. But, Spicer – as evidenced by his performances this week – seems to have given up any attempt to straddle that fine line. He has bowed to the reality of this White House: There is really only one audience member who counts. And his name is Donald John Trump. Just as Trump’s election and first 133 days in office are unlike anything we have ever seen before, so, too, is the job Spicer is doing as press secretary. Never before have we seen a press secretary so unwilling to, well, deal with the press. What’s remarkable in this up-is-down White House is that Spicer almost certainly helped himself in the eyes of Trump this week. He pushed back hard against the media’s narrative on Russia, dropped the term “fake news” liberally and ended the press briefings on his own time and terms.  To Trump, that is a command performance that will almost certainly keep him in his job. Which, it appears, is what Spicer cares most about these days.


A passenger is dragged from his seat on a United Airlines flight. A mother and an American Airlines flight attendant argue over a stroller. Delta Air Lines apologizes after kicking a family off an aircraft over a seat mix-up. You’d think many air travelers would be annoyed about flying – and even worried about getting kicked off their flights – given the current climate. You’d be wrong. Many travelers enjoy flying by air, and their satisfaction is on the rise, according to the J.D Power 2017 North America Airline Satisfaction Study, released Wednesday. Satisfaction with North American airlines rose for the fifth year in a row, measuring at a record high 756 points on a scale of 1,000. That’s a 30-point increase over the 2016 results. “A few of the bigger factors contributing to that increased satisfaction are cheaper airfares, better on-time performance, an all-time low bump rate (and) less mishandled bags,” said Michael Taylor, travel practice lead at J.D Power. “Also, airlines are becoming more adept at entertaining passengers in-flight, providing Wi-Fi, streaming, and on-demand movies available to help the passengers pass the time in the aircraft.  A lot of aircraft upgrades are being put into service.” “We surveyed 11,000 people about their airline experiences in the past year,” Taylor said. “On average, they had a better experience than the previous year.” Taylor included one proviso: “Our fielding period did end before the Dr. Dao incident,” referring to Dr. David Dao’s forced removal from a United Airlines flight in April. The study measured passenger satisfaction with air carriers based on seven criteria, splitting the rankings into traditional and low-cost North American airlines. Ranked in order of importance, they are costs and fees; in-flight services; boarding, deplaning and baggage; flight crew; aircraft; check-in; and reservations. Southwest Airlines dominated the 2017 rankings, coming in first place in the low-cost carrier category with 807 points. It also earned more points than any other airline, whether low-cost or legacy carrier. JetBlue Airways came in second place (803 points), followed by WestJet in third (736) and Frontier Airlines in fourth (663). The average rating for low-cost carriers increased 9 points to 784. Alaska Airlines topped the rankings of North American legacy carriers for the tenth consecutive year, earning 765 points, followed by Delta Air Lines in second place (758 points) and American Airlines in third place (736 points). A day in the life of the world’s busiest airport The legacy carriers’ average rating increased 37 points to 740 points out of a possible 1,000. United Airlines came in fourth with 716, followed by Air Canada (709). “Despite recent incidents, these numbers don’t surprise me,”  said Benét J. Wilson, senior editor of Airport Business magazine, who more often than not can be found flying in the air. “While flying isn’t what it was in the golden age of travel before deregulation, it has become a safe and reasonably priced way to get from point A to point B. And even those who do complain still fly, because they know it’s the quickest way to their destinations.” Even complaints about airlines dropped –  from 1.90 per 100,000 passengers in 2015 to 1.52 per 100,000 passengers in 2016, according to the 27th annual national Airline Quality Rating report, released in April. (They don’t take into account that the recent spate of bad news in 2017.) “Granted, air travel isn’t perfect,” Taylor said. “Planes remain pretty packed with over 80% load factors. That means that the middle seat is more likely to be occupied – that empty middle seat used to be free real estate for passengers – and overhead bin space issues are trending upward again.” “On the whole, passengers are more satisfied than previous years.” The 13th annual satisfaction study was based on responses from 11,015 passengers who flew on a major North American airline between April 2016 and March 2017.


Kim Jong Nam lived in exile from North Korea since the early 2000s He was a critic of the regime, and his half-brother Kim Jong Un Mystery still surrounds the sudden death of Kim Jong Nam, the eldest son of late North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, in Kuala Lumpur airport last week. Police said Kim was assaulted from behind, and something may have been sprayed or held over his face, causing him to feel dizzy. He died in an ambulance on the way to hospital. South Korea has called the murder an “act of terrorism” and said it was carried out by the North Korean government. At least five North Koreans are currently under investigation by Malaysian police. But why would Pyongyang want to kill a member of its ruling dynasty? Analysts say it’s hard to know with any certainty but differences with ally and neighbor China and the dynamics of sibling rivalry may have played a role. In 2001, Kim Jong Nam was caught trying to enter Japan on a forged passport, reportedly in an attempt to visit Tokyo Disneyland. This caused huge embarrassment for North Korea and ended any lingering chances Kim had of succeeding his father as leader. From around 2003, he lived in near exile in Macau, a Chinese-controlled territory near Hong Kong. Kim regularly visited China, and maintained close ties with Beijing, primarily through his uncle Jang Song Thaek, the second-most powerful man in North Korea following Kim Jong Il’s death in 2011. “Jang Song Taek was China’s guy in Pyongyang,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the US-based East Asia Nonproliferation Program. “(He) was the source of Kim Jong Nam’s income and probably why the Chinese protected him.” Jang was dramatically purged and executed in 2013 on the order of Kim Jong Un, robbing Kim Jong Nam of his strongest ally in Pyongyang and a major link to Beijing. If North Korea is confirmed as being behind Kim Jong Nam’s death as well, it will “greatly undermine China’s confidence” in Kim Jong Un’s regime, said Zhao Tong, an associate at the Carnegie Tsinghua Center for Global Policy in Beijing. “Kim Jong Nam long advocated for a pro-reform approach in North Korea and openly encouraged (Pyongyang) to follow China’s example,” said Zhao. China is North Korea’s only real ally, but relations have become increasingly strained as Pyongyang has continued to aggressively pursue its nuclear program in the face of international sanctions supported by Beijing. “When the North Koreans executed Jang, it was nominally for his business dealings in China,” said Lewis. “North Korea is wiping out all the pro-Chinese regime elements – although this murder seems especially cruel.” Such a move would be a dramatic miscalculation by Pyongyang, according to Zhao. “If this murder is confirmed (as being ordered by Kim Jong Un), that will deal a major blow to China’s hopes about the North Korean leadership’s ability to open up,” he said. This could fundamentally change how Beijing – a long advocate of diplomatic talks between Pyongyang and its rivals – deals with North Korea and its nuclear program. A recent decision by China – citing UN sanctions – to halt all coal imports from North Korea, may be a sign of Beijing’s displeasure with Kim Jong Nam’s death, Zhao said. Sidelined after his father left his mother for dancer Ko Yong Hui in the 1970s, Kim Jong Nam was at one point a potential rival to his youngest brother for the succession (a middle brother, Kim Jong Chul was passed over for unclear reasons). Nevertheless, Kim Jong Un’s ascension progressed far more smoothly than many predicted, and he soon shored up his grip on power through a brutal campaign of crackdowns and executions. A South Korean think tank said in December that Kim had ordered the killing of 340 people since 2011. Kim Jong Nam lacked anything close to a power base in Pyongyang, according to Michael Madden, an expert on the country’s leadership. “Given his heritage, (Kim) Jong Nam was viewed by some elderly North Korean elites as a kind of grandson figure,” he wrote last week. “This affection and relationship could not necessarily form a basis of political support domestically, but it would have been helpful had (Kim) Jong Nam ever put himself forward as a political rival to his half-brother.” However, it is unclear whether Kim Jong Nam ever desired to succeed his father, let alone his brother. In interviews with Yoji Gomi, author of the 2012 book about him “My Father, Kim Jong Il, and Me,” Kim criticized hereditary succession and called for economic and political reform in the country. Who was Kim Jong Nam?The world’s most mysterious family treeWhy would North Korea want him dead?Security footage appears to show moment of attackSuspect in death of Kim Jong Nam seen wearing ‘LOL’ shirt North Korea’s history of secret killings and kidnappings Who was Kim Jong Nam?The world’s most mysterious family treeWhy would North Korea want him dead?Security footage appears to show moment of attackSuspect in death of Kim Jong Nam seen wearing ‘LOL’ shirt North Korea’s history of secret killings and kidnappings Speaking to former UN Under-Secretary General Elisabeth Rehn in an interview for Finnish television, Kim Jong Nam’s son Kim Han Sol said his father was “not really interested in politics.” Any potential plot to challenge Kim Jong Un would have likely required support from China, something Zhao doubts would be have been forthcoming since 2011. “It makes no sense for China to engage in political conspiracy against Kim Jong Un and risk the overall China-North Korea relationship,” when the chance of Kim Jong Nam succeeding “is so low,” he said. Born while Kim Jong Nam was studying overseas, and brought up separately by a mother who saw her husband’s first family as rivals to her own sons, Kim Jong Un was never going to be close to his eldest brother. Indeed, according to the author Gomi, the two brothers never even met. This did not stop Kim Jong Nam openly criticizing his sibling, saying that Kim Jong Un was too weak to maintain control over the country and was a puppet for regime elders. Such criticism is unlikely to have gone down well in Pyongyang, which often reacts angrily to any perceived slight, particularly from overseas. Speaking to reporters last week, Gomi said Kim Jong Nam’s comments were known within the country. “A defector told me there was a rumor the oldest son of Kim Jong Il had said critical words about North Korea and could be a cause of (reform),” he said. “That person mentioned the rumor gave him hope.” South Korean lawmaker Lee Cheol-woo, citing a National Intelligence Service briefing, said that Pyongyang had been attempting to assassinate Kim Jong Nam for five years. A North Korean man jailed for spying in South Korean in 2012 reportedly said he had been ordered to kill Kim. Another lawmaker, Kim Byung-kee, said that Kim Jong Nam had written to his brother in 2012, asking him to spare his life and those of his family. According to the South China Morning Post, friends of Kim Jong Nam in Macau said he told them he felt he was living on “borrowed time.” Zhao said it was possible the timing of Kim’s death – awkward for North Korea as it faces massive international condemnation for its nuclear activity – may have been a coincidence. “Kim Jong Un himself may have agreed for the North Korean spy agency to track down his half-brother, but he may not have directly issued the order to kill him, especially at this moment,” he said. The opportunity for the alleged assassins may simply have been too good to pass up.


Editor’s Note: John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN Opinion who focuses on climate change and social justice. Follow him on Snapchat, Facebook and email. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. The UN Paris Agreement on climate change will soon come into force Clinton says she would support its terms; Trump says he would cancel it Among the many (many, many, many) differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, one of the most consequential is this: Clinton says she would support the terms of the landmark UN Paris Agreement on climate change; Trump says he would “cancel” it. That agreement, which this week was ratified by enough countries to become international law, calls for the world to become carbon neutral this century. Basically that means no fossil fuel pollution, or none we don’t figure out how to slurp out of the atmosphere. That’s a lofty and critical goal if we want cities like New York and New Orleans to survive the onslaught of rising seas, and if we want future generations to inherit a habitable planet. A President Trump could try to throw all of that out of whack. But he couldn’t “cancel” the Paris Agreement, as he’s promised to – at least not right away, and not after this week’s news. Here’s why: As of Friday, the Paris Agreement – which calls for this zeroing-out of net carbon pollution by the end of the century – had been ratified by 75 parties, including China, the United States and India, the top three polluters. Those 75 parties represent 58.85% of all global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the World Resources Institute. Both of those numbers are critical because the Paris Agreement “comes into force” – basically, becomes international law – 30 days after at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of emissions have ratified it. This week, the accord crossed those thresholds. “This gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we’ve got,” President Barack Obama said Wednesday. (See what he did with that rhyme, there?) I know most attention in the United States is squarely focused on the presidential election – and that most election conversations are about the horse race and Trumpisms, not climate. But this milestone is huge news. After the agreement enters into force, a party must wait three years before it can ask to withdraw. Then, after that, there’s a one-year delay before the withdrawal actually takes effect. That may make the Paris Agreement sound “Trump-proof.” But John Upton, a senior science writer at Climate Central, has found two reasons for concern. Upton talked with legal experts who said Trump could keep the United States in the treaty but simply fail to meet any of its terms. It’s unclear whether the United Nations could force him to do anything, and Trump has proposed disbanding the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, which oversees many environmental regulations. Or he might be able to get out of the Paris Agreement by pulling out of another treaty that provides the basis for the process. Trump likely could withdraw from that 1992 accord, called the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), without the Senate’s approval, Upton writes. “The US could withdraw from the UNFCCC with one year’s notice, which would also effectuate a withdrawal from the (Paris agreement),” Arizona State University law professor Dan Bodansky told him. The true strength of the Paris Agreement, in my view, is that it sets a tangible goal for climate policy: Limit warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, which is measured as a temperature increase since the industrial revolution. And underlying that goal: Eliminate all net carbon pollution by 2100. (The legalese in the the text of the agreement says the goal is “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.” But that essentially means zero net carbon emissions.) Every policy should be measured against that yardstick. Should Country X build a new coal-fired power plant? No, because we currently don’t have technology to pull carbon pollution out of the atmosphere at an industrial scale. Should roads and highways in Country Y get a massive upgrade? Maybe not without proper bike lanes and public transit. The harsh realities of climate change – and an understanding that the world needs to move rapidly to zero net emissions – explain in part the widespread public opposition to fossil fuel pipeline projects in the central United States, as well as to airport upgrades in London and to coal export facilities in Australia. People at these protests realize a scattering of fossil fuel projects all over the world could add up to big changes in the global temperature, especially in the very long term. A weakness: The agreement relies on voluntary pollution-reduction pledges from its members. And if you add all of those up, as they stand, we can expect to warm the atmosphere by 2.7 degrees Celsius – an unacceptable amount. Also, while the parties are required to come back to the table to ratchet up their climate ambitions, they are not legally bound to cut pollution by a certain amount in a certain timeframe. It’s an agreement described as bottom-up, meaning countries devise their own plans and, to some extent, are responsible for carrying them out. The terms of the Paris Agreement require reporting and transparency, but it’s unclear if the treaty could be used to punish countries for polluting too much. Still, the Paris Agreement creates the framework for shoving the world out of the fossil fuel era. The fact that the world agrees on that bold goal should be cause for celebration.


South Korea fears Pyongyang preparing another nuclear test US call for new sanctions "laughable," North Korea says South Korea is “getting ready for the worst case scenario,”  the country’s Defense Ministry said Monday, after North Korea claimed last week to have tested a nuclear warhead. World leaders have lined up to condemn the blast, which was North Korea’s second this year and likely it’s most powerful to date. South Korea believes Kim Jong Un is preparing to hit the button on another test. “We assess that (North Korea) is prepared for a nuclear test in another shaft,” Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers Friday. His spokesman Moon Sang-gyun, said Monday if another nuclear test happened, it could come from a second or third site at Punggye-ri, where Friday’s test took place. South Korea is also discussing plans to resume propaganda broadcasts on the border from sometime in November, he added. South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se said over the weekend that North Korea’s nuclear capability had grown to a “considerable level” and tougher sanctions and greater pressure are needed. The country’s military also said it was implementing a new system which will allow them to “punish and retaliate” against North Korea’s leadership if it endangers the country with nuclear weapons. But, in the diplomatic realm, there’s little consensus on what the international community can do . Will next test have nuclear warhead?What can China do? North Korea’s most powerful test yetU.S. to send “radiation sniffer” jet What is THAAD?10 years, 5 nuclear tests Could North Korea evade THAAD? Will next test have nuclear warhead?What can China do? North Korea’s most powerful test yetU.S. to send “radiation sniffer” jet What is THAAD?10 years, 5 nuclear tests Could North Korea evade THAAD? Sung Kim, the US special envoy to North Korea said the UN Security Council along with Japan, South Korea and the United States are examining additional unilateral measures. The Security Council is due to meet Friday. North Korea shrugged off the threat of additional sanctions in typical fashion. “The Obama administration running around and talking about meaningless sanctions until today is highly laughable,” state media said Sunday. “We will continue to strengthen our nuclear power in quality and quantity to protect our dignity and the right to live as well as to ensure genuine peace from the increasing threat of a nuclear war by the United States.” Concern has been growing that the country is testing weapons at an unprecedented pace this year, continuing to improve its nuclear and missile capabilities. However, it has yet to pair the two successfully. Will North Korea’s next missile test have a nuclear warhead? North Korea was hit with the strongest set of sanctions yet in March which included the prohibition of supplying aviation fuel, including rocket fuel, and the sale of small arms, to Pyongyang. And in July, the Obama administration hit Kim Jong Un and 10 other regime officials with personal sanctions for their alleged complicity in human rights abuses against the North Korean people. China, regarded as North Korea’s only ally, could be pressed to take the strongest possible action by blocking the transportation of fuel and oil but that could have grave consequences for the general population. But it’s not clear whether China would be willing to make such a controversial move. The country’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Monday dismissed comments by U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that China bears “great responsibility” for North Korea’s latest nuclear test. “The essence of the issue is the conflict between the DPRK and the US,” said Hua Chunying, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, using country’s official name. “The US side should review developments of the issue, and carefully think about pragmatic and effective solutions.” Is China impotent on North Korea? CNN’ Steven Jiang in Beijing contributed to this report


Former CIA and NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden says the rhetoric from the GOP candidates in the presidential race is scary And he suspects the rest of the world is concerned, too Former CIA and National Security Agency Director Gen. Michael Hayden says the rhetoric from the GOP candidates in the presidential race is scary – and he suspects the rest of the world is concerned, too. Hayden was responding Thursday to a question from CNN’s Michael Holmes about the rhetoric on the campaign trail, with Holmes mentioning Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s promise of carpet bombing ISIS and GOP front-runner Donald Trump’s praise for waterboarding and harsher interrogation techniques as well as a proposed temporary ban on foreign Muslims. “We have taken … very complicated, serious issues and we’ve pushed them down to the level of bumper stickers,” Hayden said. “That scares me and I’m sure it scares a lot of the rest of the world.” Related video Donald Trump: 'Waterboarding is fine with me' In terms of the U.S. position in the world, Hayden said America is doing a good job at what he called the “close battle,” or immediate fights. But he said we lagged in the “deep battle,” which is stopping people planning to do harm to the U.S. three to 10 years down the road. And he added the world has significantly changed and the West needs to realize it. “Iraq no longer exists. Syria no longer exists. They aren’t coming back. Lebanon is teetering and Libya is long gone,” Hayden said. “This is a tectonic moment,” he added. “Within that we then have the war against terrorism. It’s an incredibly complex time.”


It goes without saying that Ken Burns’ PBS documentaries will be big, classy and impeccably produced. Yet in terms of relevance, “The Vietnam War” might be his most significant undertaking since “The Civil War” – a 10-part, 18-hour look at the conflict and its repercussions – political, cultural, psychological – still being felt and litigated today. PBS has again provided Burns with a huge canvas, and he has responded by painting a masterpiece, one that distinguishes public television at a moment when it yet again finds itself under siege and facing an existential challenge. Almost overwhelming in its scope, this detailed history oscillates between the macro and micro, between individual stories of Americans and Vietnamese whose lives were caught in the war and policy makers who, as stated by narrator Peter Coyote, found it “easier to muddle through” than admit a failed policy. Again working with co-director Lynn Novick and writer Geoffrey Ward, Burns explores key events at home and abroad – the Tet offensive, the My Lai Massacre, Kent State, the fall of Saigon – but also has the time to devote to individual battles and encounters that are less well known. All of this is punctuated by the politics of the war, augmented by recorded conversations of Presidents Johnson and Nixon painting a far rosier picture in public than they confessed to in private. “I don’t think it’s worth fighting for, and I don’t think we can get out,” Johnson says, perhaps the signature line in the entire project, except perhaps for former Defense Dept. official Leslie Gelb’s observation that Vietnam became “a piece on a strategic chessboard” whose particulars weren’t understood by those in the U.S. government. “The Vietnam War” opens by delving into the history of the region, including Vietnam’s time under French rule and the rise of Ho Chi Minh. Part two then segues to John F. Kennedy, who initiated the conflict, followed by Johnson, who escalated it despite his misgivings, haunted by the specter of Korea and the “domino theory” in the struggle to restrain Communism. “The Vietnam War” also humanizes what was often a faceless enemy, interviewing former Viet Cong as well as civilians whose lives were turned upside down by the conflict. What might be most sobering, however, are the ripples from the war still being felt today, from the rise of the anti-war movement to the shadows that have lingered over U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, as the documentary notes, Vietnam upended fundamental notions of patriotism, especially among those to whom the phrase “my country right or wrong” didn’t make sense under the circumstances. The war “began in secrecy,” Coyote says near the outset. “It ended, 30 years later, in failure” – leaving 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese dead. Not surprisingly, enormous attention has clearly been paid to the smallest details, including more than 100 songs that play in the background – a veritable soundtrack of the 1960s and ’70s, from The Animals’ “We’ve Got to Get Out of This Place” as soldiers reminisce to Simon & Garfunkel’s “Bridge Over Troubled Water” as people assemble at the Vietnam War memorial wall. Those who lived through the period should find “The Vietnam War” a highly emotional experience. But even their kids and grandkids should hear and see echoes throughout this epic undertaking, which forges a bridge from America’s past directly to its present. “The Vietnam War” premieres Sept. 17 at 8 p.m. on PBS and will air Sunday through Thursday over successive weeks.

The Vietnam War documentary by Ken Burns


The Senate judiciary committee held a hearing on Russian interference in the US election Bill Browder said Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya has connections to Vladimir Putin Bill Browder, a businessman behind a Russian sanctions law, testified Thursday that he believes a Russian lawyer went into a June 2016 meeting with top aides to the campaign of President Donald Trump with something to offer, and that Russian intelligence likely monitored the meeting. “I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Russian intelligence services would have been aware of that meeting in advance as they were plotting it out, there would have been weeks spent studying how to best achieve the results in that meeting,” Browder told the Senate judiciary committee Thursday. Browder added that he has no first-hand knowledge of the details of the meeting but was commenting on his experience with the Russian government. Related article Russia sanctions: What you need to know “I have no direct evidence, but I know how Russian security services behave, and this was a big ask, to repeal a major legislation,” Browder told the committee. “They wouldn’t have gone in without being prepared to offer something in return. What the offer was I don’t know. But the KGB and FSB would have studied their targets carefully.” Browder, who worked with the Senate to pass the sanctions almost a decade ago, told members of the judiciary committee Thursday that Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is the family lawyer for a Russian family closely aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is leading one of a handful of Congressional probes into Russia’s interference in the election, said he believed the June 2016 meeting with Donald Trump Jr., then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, Veselnitskaya and others was not the only one. “The idea that Manafort, who is well known by the Russian world as sympathetic to their cause, that they didn’t see that as an opportunity to get a relationship with the Trump campaign is hard to believe,” Graham said. Related video Browder: Putin used oligarchs to get rich Graham then quoted from Trump Jr.’s email exchange where he said he would “love” dirt on the Clinton campaign for use later in 2016. “It’s also hard for me to believe that once the Trump campaign expressed a desire to get help – ‘Yeah, I love it – maybe later in the summer’ – that that meeting was one and done,” he said. Attendees of the June 2016 meeting have repeatedly said that their was no additional contact between Veselnitskaya and the Trump campaign. “As it ended, my acquaintance apologized for taking up our time,” Trump Jr. said in a statement, obtained by CNN on July 9. “That was the end of it and there was no further contact or follow-up of any kind. My father knew nothing of the meeting or these events.” Trump Jr.’s revelation of the June 2016 meeting with Veselnitskaya has reignited interest in Russia’s efforts in the 2016 election for weeks now, spurring congressional investigators to pry into new avenues. The House and Senate intelligence committees interviewed Kushner earlier in the week  – Kushner, in testimony he released publicly, said that he remembered very little of the meeting and later asked an aide to bail him out of the meeting. Senate intelligence committee staff interviewed Manafort as well this week. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley subpoenaed Manafort earlier in the week, but dropped the subpoena after Manafort agreed to testify privately and provide his notes about the June 2016 meeting. The meeting has also sucked in the players in the fight over the Magnitsky Act – Russian sanctions approved in 2012 – into the Russian probe. Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer in the Trump Jr. meeting, has been the lead proponent in the US of overturning the ban. The hearing with Browder had originally been planned as a blockbuster event with requests of public testimony from Trump Jr., Manafort and Glenn Simpson, whose firm helped craft the “Steele Dossier” with stunning allegations against Trump. But all three witnesses negotiated with the committee to appear in private instead. CNN’s Marshall Cohen contributed to this report.


The Justice Department is taking its war on drugs worldwide. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the first-of-its-kind indictment against two Chinese nationals who were allegedly manufacturing and trafficking to the US fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, substances that can be 50 times as potent as heroin. According to the Centers for Disease Control, an estimated 20,000 Americans were killed by fentanyl and fentanyl analogues in 2016. The Chinese nationals were using the Internet and dark web to sell fentanyl to US customers, many of whom were too inexperienced or unaware to realize they were buying the highly pure substance, Rosenstein told reporters Tuesday. Related article Opioid Crisis Fast Facts “They use multiple identities to disguise their activities and their shipments and to obscure the trail of profits going back to China,” Rosenstein said. “They take advantage of the fact that the fentanyl molecule can be altered in numerous ways to create a fentanyl analogue that is not listed as illegal under US or Chinese law. When regulators are able to identify the new fentanyl and make it illegal, the distributors quickly switch to a new, unlisted fentanyl analogue.” Investigators tracked down the two Chinese defendants, Xiaobing Yan, 40, and Jian Zhang, 38, and the chemical plants they operated in China after a series of local law enforcement crackdowns in Mississippi and North Dakota, according to the indictment. A routine traffic stop in Mississippi in 2013 first unearthed a domestic drug ring tied to Yan. The ring sold synthetic cathinones and cannabinoids, commonly known as “spice” or “bath salts,” and delivered the products through parcel delivery services, according to the Justice Department. Yan allegedly operated websites advertising the deadly fentanyl and sold it directly to customers in several cities around the country, Rosenstein said. Related article Opioid overdoses shorten US life expectancy by 2½ months Zhang was pinpointed in the wake of the death of an 18-year-old who died after a fentanyl overdose in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Federal agents identified another Grand Forks resident as the source of the fentanyl, and discovered that the buyer had used crypto-currency Bitcoin to buy the drugs over the Internet for more than a year, “using an encrypted website on the Dark Web,” Rosenstein said. Prosecutors were eventually able to trace the drugs to Zhang’s distribution network in China. Related article Doctors increasingly face charges for patient overdoses Five Canadian citizens, two residents of Florida, and one resident of New Jersey were also indicted in connection with Zhang’s drug ring on charges of conspiracy to distribute the drugs in at least 11 states, according to the Justice Department. The indictments were announced after President Donald Trump’s nominee for drug czar, Rep. Tom Marino of Pennsylvania, withdrew his name from consideration for the position. The withdrawal came amid fallout from a joint investigation by The Washington Post and CBS’ “60 Minutes” that revealed Marino took nearly $100,000 from the pharmaceutical lobby while sponsoring legislation that made it easier for drug companies to distribute opioids, but also thwarted the Drug Enforcement Agency’s efforts. Rosenstein said DOJ will review the law, but didn’t say whether it should be repealed. “I’m very concerned about it,” he said. “I’ve talked to the attorney general about it. We’re going to review it.”


The former Alaska governor endorsed Donald Trump on Tuesday Kasich also didn't make much of the deal struck over the weekend to release four Americans held prisoner in Iran John Kasich didn’t appear to sweat Sarah Palin’s new endorsement of Donald Trump. “Good for Sarah, she’s back in the news again. God bless her,” the Ohio governor told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday. The former governor of Alaska endorsed the GOP front-runner on Tuesday, lending Trump a star-powered boost in Iowa. But Kasich said he doesn’t think Palin’s support will have much of an effect on the race in New Hampshire, where Kasich is working hard to compete. He was speaking with Blitzer from the trail in the Granite State. “I always liked Sarah Palin. She speaks her mind and that’s good for Donald,” Kasich said. “But here in New Hampshire, they’re a lot more interested in the mayor of a small town here than they are somebody who comes from the outside.” RELATED: Palin endorses Trump Kasich also didn’t make much of the deal struck over the weekend to release four Americans held prisoner in Iran, saying the administration doesn’t deserve much credit for negotiating their freedom. Although Kasich said it was “really fantastic” for the families of those released, he said they were being held on “trumped-up charges.” “To do somersaults over this is inappropriate. These people should never have been there,” Kasich said. “There’s no reason to have some big celebration of ‘We’ve had some big diplomatic breakthrough,’ because they only released people they shouldn’t have been holding in the first place.” The Americans had been held in Iranian prison for years, facing sentences of decades in prison and potentially death.


Editor’s Note: Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York City homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. Paul Callan: The President has undoubtedly decided that he wants his own pick in the job Callan: Trump has now created a formidable, charismatic enemy with similar social media skills There is nothing unusual about a newly elected president replacing all of the United States attorneys with his own personal appointments. These individuals are the nation’s most powerful federal prosecutors with the power to even investigate the president himself. Bill Clinton, for instance, terminated all 93 sitting US attorneys when he assumed office. What is unusual is telling or strongly implying that you are going to extend the term of a US attorney into the new administration and then arbitrarily demanding his resignation. That is what Preet Bharara, the camera-ready and highly charismatic US attorney for the Southern District of New York, claims that President Trump did to him, and Bharara is plenty angry about it. Related video Bharara: Trump had said he wanted me to stay The US attorney for the Southern District of New York occupies one of the most powerful seats of prosecutorial power in the United States, second only to that occupied by his nominal boss, the attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions. Even presidents and attorney generals tread lightly when dealing with the powerful Southern District prosecutor given its storied history as an institution of impeccable integrity. It is staffed by some of the nation’s most talented lawyers who have resigned from lucrative jobs at prestigious law firms to  perform the public service of prosecuting the rich, powerful and politically connected in the media center of the United States and the world. Bharara constantly generates headlines using a combination of charm and an ability to abandon legalese, speaking instead in quote-worthy soundbites to New York’s always headline-hungry press. The last US attorney who maintained such a high profile in New York was Rudy Giuliani. He managed to trade in his prosecutorial fame for the title of mayor of the City of New York and later, after the 9/11 tragedy, to “America’s mayor.” Related video Administration asks 46 US attorneys to resign Prior occupants of the office have included Thomas Dewey, the former New York governor and presidential candidate; former New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau and FBI Director James Comey, to name just a few. Why the President would tell Bharara that he would like him to stay on and then pull the rug out from under him at first seems odd. But then we have to remember what happened to Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani. Standing on anything but wall to wall carpeting in the Trump administration is a obviously a dangerous tactic. Trump may have become increasingly wary of Bharara’s close relationship with his mentor, US Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. Bharara served as counsel to the then-Senate minority leader and was rewarded with Schumer’s recommendation to President Obama that Bharara should be appointed to the coveted Southern District prosecutorial spot. Bharara has a reputation as an aggressive prosecutor in political corruption cases regardless of the political party of the target. Close political aides to both New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio – both Democrats – have recently come under Bharara’s prosecutorial microscope. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook The investigation of possible ties between members of the Trump campaign team and Russian officials, and the President’s claim that he was wiretapped in Trump Tower on orders of President Obama, will all lead back to the Southern District of New York. In the end, President Trump has undoubtedly decided that he wants his own pick rather than the choice of Senate adversary Chuck Schumer in place as the top federal prosecutor in New York. In terminating Bharara, though, the President has created a formidable and charismatic enemy who shares the President’s social media skills. Mr. Bharara has now become the first US attorney for the Southern District of New York to announce that he had been fired via Twitter. POTUS beware.


Late Sunday, as a weekend of frenzied speculation and spin drew to an anxious close, #MuellerMonday began to trend on Twitter. A few hours later, a little more than two days after CNN broke the news that a grand jury had approved charges in special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation, the names were revealed. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate, Rick Gates, who stayed on with the Trump team through the election and into 2017, will face charges including conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, making false statements, and more. The indictments, though, included no suggestion of election meddling. Manafort and Gates’ alleged crimes took place before they signed up with the candidate. President Donald Trump quickly logged on and began to gloat. But there was more. It was also revealed that George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser to Trump, had pleaded guilty earlier this month to making a false statement to the FBI. His lie – or the truth beyond it – was potentially more damaging than anything to do with Manafort and Gates. Papadopoulos copped to misleading investigators about a conversation with a Russian “contact,” believed to have ties to Moscow, about “dirt” related to Hillary Clinton’s emails. By noon on #MuellerMonday, the initial flurry of reactions and responses settled into four distinct camps –  some hewing closer to reality than others. Senate Democrats and most of their colleagues in the House, in particular those tied to ongoing congressional investigations into the Trump campaign and Russia, mostly kept mum – careful not to further politicize the process and potentially give Trump a pretext for dismissing Mueller. Most Republicans were cautious too, clearly conscious of the President’s ire. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a series of tweets, steered clear of the particulars. “The special counsel’s probe is ongoing in a serious way. The rule of law is paramount in America & the investigation must proceed unimpeded,” Schumer began. “(Trump) must not, under any circumstances, interfere with the special counsel’s work in any way. If he does so, Congress must respond swiftly, unequivocally, and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the investigation continues.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was also vague on Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos. In a statement, she pushed for “an outside, fully independent investigation to expose Russia’s meddling in our election and the involvement of Trump officials.” Translation: a probe that can’t be called off, in the way Trump can fire Mueller, at the whim of the White House. “The President should let the special counsel do his job,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, adding later in a statement that he didn’t have any more information on Mueller’s doings than what had been made public. (He too scurried away when pressed for more by reporters.) Liberal grassroots groups were also careful not to overplay the moment. MoveOn.org blasted an email to reporters trumpeting the “300+ events” being planned to launch in case Trump “interferes with the criminal investigation into his campaign and administration.” Meanwhile, Indivisible co-executive director Ezra Levin urged his followers to keep their eyes on Capitol Hill: “Even on #ManafortMonday, we need to focus on where we have leverage. Right now, that’s the #TrumpTaxScam,” a reference to ongoing fight over the Republican tax plan. Liberal social media channels were less restrained. They have, in many cases, openly agitated for Trump’s impeachment or more aggressive action as it relates to Russia and the campaign. For them, the indictments – and the guilty plea on top of that – felt like a major step forward. Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, was typically dramatic. He addressed a bunch of the big names in a series of Monday morning tweets. “Dear Paul Manafort & Richard Gates: Here’s a fun fact for you. Federal prosecutors have a conviction rate of 93%,” he started off, linking to an early story about the indictments. “Thank you Special Counsel Mueller for draining the Swamp. #MAGA,” he posted a couple hours later. Lieu then tagged Trump in three more messages. Dear @realDonaldTrump: You must have missed the Papadopoulos guilty plea. He colluded & was one of your foreign policy advisors. https://t.co/Ge85d43oWi Dear @realDonaldTrump: Remember this meeting? #IndictmentMonday https://t.co/zo9R4pzJdw Dear @POTUS: Answer is because of your colluding associates like GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, and his campaign supervisor, and potentially YOU. https://t.co/PEkqWOjX7l “We the people must never tolerate our leaders’ collaboration with foreign adversaries against us,” Evan McMullin, the former presidential candidate and conservative favorite of the the liberal #resistance, tweeted at 8:41 a.m. ET. The grim declaration hinted at more serious allegations than could be found in any of the new court documents. A little after noon, he added: “Trump and his surrogates seem to confuse widely known and overt collusion with ‘no evidence’ of it. We’ve seen enough already.” Former Obama Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller, another heavy presence on Twitter, suggested the potential for a direct, and much more recent, connection between the Papadopolous plea and Trump. “The FBI interview where Papadopolous lied about his Russia contacts came on the same day, Jan. 27, Trump asked Comey for a loyalty pledge,” he noted ominously. (There is nothing material, at this point, to suggest any connection between the two events.) How, you ask, can one person make those two claims at once? Trump managed it in a pair of tweets. “Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign,” he wrote in response to initial reports, adding: “But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????” Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus????? Fox News and other conservative outlets loyal to the White House mostly kept in step with Trump throughout the early afternoon, focusing on what was not in the indictments and asking why Clinton had not come under more scrutiny. This is a familiar tactic for stoking the kind of partisan and tribal resentments that might blind segments of the public to the facts on the ground. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders pursued that line repeatedly during her afternoon briefing. “The real collusion scandal, as we’ve said several times before, has everything to do with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and Russia,” she said, after dismissing the indictments as unrelated to Trump. “There’s clear evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election.” (Note: This is false, as we wrote last week.) Conservative commentator Erick Erickson steered clear of the Clinton conspiracy theories and summed up the prevailing wisdom in more sober right-wing quarters. “Much of the political left is cheering about the indictment of Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort,” he wrote in a piece for FoxNews.com. “They think it will undermine President Trump. The problem, though, is that it appears increasingly likely that Manfort’s indictment has nothing to do with the Trump campaign.” For Republicans who have either staked their careers or legislative agenda to Trump, there is simply no political upside – at least that they can see – in engaging with these issues. “Every morning, I wake up in my office and I scroll through Twitter to see which tweets I’ll have to pretend I didn’t see later on,” House Speaker Paul Ryan joked at the Al Smith Dinner in New York a couple weeks ago. On Monday morning, he seemed to reprise that act, telling reporters in Wisconsin he hadn’t been paying close attention to the latest developments. “It is big news, but this is what you get from a special counsel – they made an indictment,” he said. “I really have nothing to add because I haven’t even read it, so I’m not going to speculate on something I haven’t read.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also steered clear of the Mueller drama. He spoke at a press conference on the Hill but ducked out rather than take questions from reporters. McConnell leaves before questions start https://t.co/7bC0rIHXR6

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation


Editor’s Note: Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” Miller was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. Follow him @aarondmiller2. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Aaron David Miller: Donald Trump's strategy for fighting ISIS should start by avoiding making matters worse The administration should also be wary of aligning itself too closely with Russia on the issue, Miller says During his inaugural address, President Donald Trump reiterated one of his key campaign themes, pledging to eradicate Islamic terrorism “from the face of the Earth.” But President Trump’s objective of destroying ISIS and other jihadi groups that sow terror in the region and beyond – however desirable – is also fantastically otherworldly. Back here on Earth, the reality is that the laws of gravity in the fight against terror will make eradicating ISIS and its ilk an elusive goal. Meanwhile, some of the steps the new administration has already taken, specifically on immigration restrictions, may make an already impossible job harder still. So, rather than raising unrealistic expectations, Trump should start by avoiding making matters worse, look for smart ways to continue the fight against ISIS, and above all, level with the American public that the fight is bound to be a long one. In a national security memorandum dated January 28, Trump asked his administration to “develop a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS,” and specifically asked the Pentagon for tougher options against ISIS within 30 days. These reportedly potentially include using artillery and attack helicopters – and even US forces – to support an assault on Raqqa, ISIS’ capital city. Other steps reportedly being contemplated include increasing use of US special forces in Syria and Iraq, directly arming Kurdish forces (a move that is likely to anger the Turks), and potentially including Turkish forces in the Raqqa operation. At the same time, Trump will need to make a decision whether to continue the CIA operation to train and arm vetted elements of the Syrian opposition, a program he criticized on the campaign trail and as President-elect. Yet most of these steps seem to fall within the anti-ISIS template laid down by the Obama administration. That template is summarized as “by, with, and through,” and with the exception of involving more US forces in the fight (and nobody seems to be talking about large numbers) none of what’s being contemplated seems like a radical departure from the previous administration. It is therefore unlikely to lead to dramatic results. President Trump has talked about safe zones for Syrian refugees. But it is unclear what exactly they would be designed to do, who would patrol and protect them, and how they would fit into an anti-ISIS strategy. Indeed, on balance, what Trump seems to be contemplating is doing what Obama did, just more of it. This might accelerate the timetables for major anti-ISIS offensives, but it’s unlikely to lead to the eradication of the jihadis. The centerpiece of Trump’s views on how to destroy ISIS clearly focus on some kind of undefined partnership with Russia. Trump seems willing to let Russian President Vladimir Putin take the lead on Syria, both in working with the Turks and the Syrian regime on a ceasefire, and perhaps also in cementing Bashar al-Assad’s regime as a permanent part of the Syrian political equation. On paper, one would assume that such coordination would make sense. After all, Putin wants ISIS destroyed; so does Trump. So, why not pool US-Russian resources and bring to bear maximum pressure against the jihadis? But like so many putative simple fixes, there are serious costs in cooperating with the Russians. Russia’s indiscriminate attacks against civilians during the siege of Aleppo has led to plausible allegations of war crimes, and has demonstrated that Putin, unlike the United States, cares little about collateral damage. Identifying Washington with Putin’s support for the murderous policies of the Assad regime will only further blacken America’s name, create new Sunni jihadi recruits, alienate Sunni Arab regimes, and identify America with the pro-Shia alliance of Iran, Assad and Hezbollah. In addition, in view of recent Russian hacking, there is good reason to worry about sharing intelligence with the Russians. With all this in mind, it is not at all clear that the military benefits of US-Russian cooperation are worth these downsides. Clearly, Putin will seek to dangle Russian cooperation against ISIS in front of Trump in hopes of getting Washington to ease sanctions. But such a quid pro quo would severely damage US interests. Donald Trump’s new executive order on immigration, far from strengthening the fight against the jihadis, is likely to make it harder. Administration protestations to the contrary, the cumulative impact of the new restrictions will send an unmistakable signal that America wants to keep Muslims out. Overseas, this will have a deleterious impact on the fight against ISIS, particularly for Iraq (one of the seven countries on the banned list) whose forces are integral to beating ISIS in Mosul. These new rules will also feed ISIS and jihadi propaganda and help with recruitment. And not just in the Middle East. American Muslims, a key line of defense against homegrown jihadis, will be demoralized by what they feel is a discriminatory policy, particularly the language in the executive order that talks about keeping immigrants out who don’t support America’s founding principles. This might easily be interpreted as a loyalty oath that in a worst-case situation, they fear, might be applied to their community, too. Fifteen years on from the 9/11 attacks, and three years into ISIS’ declared caliphate, tremendous progress has been made in weakening ISIS, killing the group’s leaders and depriving it of territory and resources. The formal ISIS caliphate is set to be destroyed. But it’s also fair to say that the jihadi enterprise – not just emanating from ISIS, but al Qaeda and its affiliates, too – has not been eradicated, and is unlikely to be. The Middle East today is a giant petri dish affording an ideal habitat for jihadis to survive. Ungoverned spaces, crumbling Arab state authority in places like Libya and Syria, Shia dominance and exclusion and repression of Sunnis is creating a ready made grievance narrative that allows ISIS to recruit fellow Sunnis. Eradicating ISIS and other jihadi groups would require a Middle East that is stable, inclusive and reasonably well governed, something that’s just not in the cards. Juliette Kayyem: Trump’s order is no way to protect our national security Leon Fresco: With Obama gone, it’s time for comprehensive immigration reformPeter Bergen & David Sterman: Ohio State attack ‘has its roots in the United States’Fareed Zakaria: Pandering, bigotry won’t solve extremist threatMarielena Hincapié: What Trump gets wrong about immigration and crimePeter Bergen: The real terror threat in America is homegrownAli Noorani: Congress, it’s your move on immigrationPeter Bergen: Is Trump right about 9/11?Rep. Chris Smith: ‘Simple solutions’ won’t fix Syria crisis, but compassion and security are paramount Peter Bergen & David Sterman: U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists In short, there’s no more winning the war against jihadi terror than there is winning the war against mental illness, drugs, crime or bigotry. Instead, rather than telling the American people that ISIS will be ended for all time, and hyping the threat to the homeland, the Trump administration should first consider avoiding actions that will make the fight against the jihadis even harder. In practice this means it ought to avoid getting too close to the Russians and the Assad regime, that it should continue to support Syrian opposition groups and the Kurds to maintain a degree of influence on the ground, it should try to work with Turkey, and it should mount a major humanitarian effort to aid refugees and those displaced within Syria and Iraq. Doing things like canceling the Syrian refugee program, in contrast, not only alienates the Muslim constituencies at home and abroad that the United States will need in the long fight against the jihadis, but helps undermine American values and interests.


French health minister says the ban will be relaxed, starting in spring 2016 Minister: "We are marking a new step in the fight against all forms of discrimination" France is lifting its ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood, the French health minister announced Wednesday. “Giving blood is an act of generosity, of citizenship, which cannot be conditioned to sexual orientation. While respecting complete patient safety, today we are ending a taboo and discrimination,” the minister, Marisol Touraine, said in a speech. The change would be introduced gradually, she said, following extensive work by health authorities, patient associations and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender donors. By spring 2016, men who have sex with men in France will be able to donate blood if they have not had sex with another man for 12 months. Touraine said the 12-month deferral matched restrictions in place in other developed countries such as Australia, the Netherlands and Japan. Spain and Italy were among those countries with deferral periods of less than a year, she said, while Germany, Austria, Belgium and Denmark permanently excluded men who had sex with men from donating blood. The United Kingdom lifted its ban in 2011, introducing a 12-month deferral period. Men in France who haven’t had sex with another man in the four months before donating – or who have had only one partner – will be able to donate their plasma via a secure quarantine process starting in the spring, the minister said. The plasma donation will act as a “real life” study for health authorities who will assess the process for about a year, Touraine said. “The plasma supply chain will allow the freezing of blood donations, so that donors can be tested again, once the window has passed for HIV antibodies to appear,” she said. If the study demonstrates no additional risk, then donation rules for men who have sex with men will be brought into line with those for the general population, she said. The French ban started in 1983. “Today it’s not a question of passing judgment on this choice, which was made in an era marked by the dramatic development of AIDS and contaminated blood, and in which only safety of the blood was taken into account. Yet today no one can deny that this exclusion is seen as the presumption of homosexuals being HIV-positive,” Touraine said. She said all citizens would now be able to donate blood regardless of their sexual orientation: “We are marking a new step in the fight against all forms of discrimination, especially sexual, of which some of our citizens are victims.” Since the 1980s, the United States has excluded men who have sex with other men from donating blood. However, in December 2014, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg said that the agency recommended replacing the permanent ban with a 12-month deferral period. Related video Ban on gay blood donors gets closer look The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the FDA would monitor a national blood surveillance system to see any effects of the proposed policy change and to ensure the continued safety of the blood supply, Hamburg said. Read: FDA plan: Gay men who abstain from sex may be allowed to give blood The FDA released draft guidance in May asking for feedback from the public and other stakeholders by July 14, 2015. The current lifetime ban dates to 1983 and forbids men who have had sex with men from becoming blood donors because the group is “at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion,” the FDA has ruled.

France's ban on men who have sex with men donating blood


At least 15 dead in Dominica, officials say A flyover shows devastation to communities, natural resources Dominica was Hurricane Maria’s first victim, and it was clear from a flight over the island nation that the storm showed absolutely no mercy. At least 15 people are dead after the hurricane barreled through the island, Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit said. “The damage is extensive,” Skerrit told CNN Thursday. “It is really devastating in many communities. Our agriculture sector is 100% destroyed. Our tourism is, I would say, about 95% destroyed.” A CNN team in the capital, Roseau, saw widespread destruction: many buildings damaged, cars and boats overturned, bridges clogged with huge tree trucks and many roads impassable. People were bathing in muddy river water or under burst water pipes. There is no running water and no electricity other than a few generators. Sherrit said aid has yet to arrive in any meaningful way. A CNN crew that flew over the scarred landscape Wednesday witnessed heartbreaking devastation. This Caribbean island of 73,000 residents is – or was – a place of lush greenery, punctuated by waterfalls and rain forests. But nearly two days after Maria made landfall, an aerial survey showed that nearly every tree was touched – thousands snapped and strewn across the landscape – and the island was stripped of vegetation. Related article Hurricane Maria knocks out power to all of Puerto Rico, cripples other islands The rain forests appear to have vanished. Communities also paid heavily, with roofs torn away, entire homes ripped open and debris littering the land like confetti. The breadth of the destruction is staggering – intact or untouched homes hard to find amid the chaos. Maria tore the roof off the Prime Minister’s residence. Skerrit is now “homeless” and is “bunking up in an area called St. Aroment,” Jong said. CNN saw little sign of activity during the flight – a handful of cars driving along a seaside road, but no one else from the air. The plane, which took off from neighboring Antigua and Barbuda, was unable to land on Dominica because the runways at the two airports had yet to be inspected. Communications towers on hilltops have been snapped in two, explaining why gathering information from the island has been so difficult. Dominica is mountainous and before Maria’s arrival there had been concerns about landslides. CNN saw evidence of dozens of them, although not in population centers. The usually blue green seas in many places are now a muddy brown from the earth swept down hillsides and into the water. The island has an agriculture-based economy; sugar cane, banana plantations and citrus fruits are all grown here, and most of it is exported. All of that appears at first glance to have vanished; the potential loss of those resources and income will be devastating for the island and its people. The island was developing a tourism sector based on those rain forests. But, now, waterfalls stand out from a brown and stark backdrop, rather than green and towering trees. Of course, the immediate concern among the government and relief agencies is Dominica’s residents. Little is known of their fate, although early reports indicate people are missing. Those with relatives and friends on Dominica are desperate for information about their fate. The truth is, right now, no one knows much at all. Speaking to CNN in a series of WhatsApp messages, Jong said “being in Dominica for Maria was the most horrifying experience.” He said he doesn’t have power, water or food and there is widespread looting on the island. Philmore Mullin, head of Antigua and Barbuda’s National Office of Disaster Services, said relief efforts for the people of Dominica will be coordinated from the island of St. Lucia. Related article 'Rapid intensification' fuels major Atlantic hurricanes in 2017 The plan, he told CNN, was to get search and rescue teams, as well as medical personnel and basic supplies such as water and plastic sheeting, to the island by nightfall Wednesday, with more relief flights to begin Thursday morning. Mullin said reports from Dominica indicate  the main hospital and police station had been damaged, along with the main communications networks. The only power is from generators and car batteries, he said “The need is great,” Mullin says. “Damage is severe and widespread. We know of casualties, but not in detail.   We’ve heard of many missing, but we just don’t know much at the moment.” CNN’s Deborah Bloom contributed to this report.


North Korea has dramatically ramped up missile testing in recent months Flight data shows a July 29 missile came within miles of a passenger jet's flight path Air France will expand its no-flyover zone around North Korea after concerns a recent missile test crossed a plane’s flight path. The airline said the move was being taken as a “precautionary measure” after a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) splashed down near the route being taken by Air France flight 293 from Tokyo to Paris on July 28. “The information available to Air France at this stage indicates that the missile could have fallen into the sea at more than one hundred kilometers (62 miles)  from the airplane’s trajectory. Even if this distance was proven, it would not question the safety of the flight,” spokesman Cédric Landais said. CNN reported this week that the Air France flight, which had 332 people on board, passed just east of where the ICBM splashed down in the sea around Japan roughly five to 10 minutes prior to the missile impacting the water. At the time of the splashdown, the Air France flight was approximately 60 to 70 miles north of where the missile landed, according to a review of flight data. In a statement Thursday, Air France reiterated that the flight was “operated in accordance with the flight plan and without any reported incident.” “At this stage, as a precautionary measure, the company has decided to expand the non-flyover area around North Korea, a country that it does not overfly.” The airline also said that it “constantly analyzes potentially dangerous flyover zones and adapts its flight plans accordingly.” While the Air France jet was not in any immediate danger from the missile, analysts have raised concerns about North Korea expanding its testing range near flight paths over Japanese waters – as Pyongyang does not provide advanced warnings about its plans. Speaking to CNN Wednesday, US Defense Department spokesman Jeff Davis said “responsible nations” should give notice before conducting missile tests, adding not doing so put planes, ships and spacecraft at risk. “Irresponsible nations fire these things off without putting out notice,” he said. Related video Tillerson to North Korea: We are not your enemy Under guidelines issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a UN agency tasked with governing air safety and other matters, states have the “responsibility to issue risk advisories regarding any threats to the safety of civilian aircraft operating in their airspace.” “Said threats may include, but are not limited to, armed conflicts, ash clouds due to volcanic eruptions, (and) missile tests and rocket launches,” the guidelines state. Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it issued a warning to all vessels and aircraft operating within its exclusive economic zone eight minutes after the launch of the North Korean missile. Air France confirmed it received the warning, but the message “did not specify any indication or instruction requiring an operational action on the part” of the airline. Two notices to airmen were published but not transmitted to the crew because “the event had already passed when they were sent by the Japanese authorities,” the airline said. North Korea has ramped up its missile testing program this year and the missile launched on July 28 appeared to have the range to hit major US cities, experts said. CNN’s Peter Dailey and Karen Smith contributed reporting.


Bomb-sniffing dogs have been used to check the plane and luggage Two Air France flights from the U.S. were diverted by bomb threats last week A Turkish Airlines flight bound for Istanbul from New York was diverted to Canada because of a bomb threat, authorities said. The passenger aircraft with 256 people on board landed safely early Sunday morning at Halifax Stanfield International Airport, in Nova Scotia, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Authorities said they were investigating the “origin of the threat,” which was received at 10:50 p.m. local time (9:50 p.m. ET), and were looking to identify who was behind it. They didn’t say exactly how the threat was made. The Turkish Airlines aircraft is scheduled to continue on to #Istanbul later this morning.  The investigation into the threat is ongoing. Bomb-sniffing dogs were used to comb through the plane and passengers’ luggage in Halifax. No explosive device was found, police said. Passengers were taken in buses to the terminal building during the security check, the airport tweeted. They were expected to then get back on the plane and continue their journey, according to the airline. The bomb threat is the third to affect a flight from the United States to Europe in the past week. Two Air France flights headed from U.S. cities to Paris were diverted on Tuesday and later given the all clear. Air France Flight 55  landed safely at the same airport in Halifax after departing Washington’s Dulles International Airport. And Air France Flight 65, en route from Los Angeles to Paris, was diverted to Salt Lake City. Airlines have been on edge following the recent bombing of a Russian passenger jet that killed all 224 people on board over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula last month. The Islamic militant group ISIS has claimed responsibility for downing the plane. CNN’s Jethro Mullen contributed to this report.

bomb threats against flights from the U.S. to Europe


Drama, superficiality and perception are three of the fundamental pillars of this president's worldview To ignore them is to miss the point, to see the world in a fundamentally different way than Trump does There’s a tendency among “serious” people to dismiss the importance of the pomp, circumstance and symbolism in politics. “Focus on the policy, not the perceptions!” they shout. Who cares about the fluff!?!?! Emmanuel Macron, for one. The newly elected French president told a French journal Sunday that his handshake with US President Donald Trump during a meeting during the NATO gathering in Brussels last week was about much more than just an exchange of pleasantries. “My handshake with him, it’s not innocent,” Macron said. “It’s not the alpha and the omega of politics, but a moment of truth.” He added: “One must show that we won’t make little concessions, even symbolic ones.” In case you forgot the handshake, here it is: And here’s how The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker, who was in the room for the shake, described it: “They shook hands for an extended period of time. Each president gripped the other’s hand with considerable intensity, their knuckles turning white and their jaws clenching and faces tightening.” For those who pooh-pooh the coverage of Trump’s White House as overly dramatic, too superficial, too focused on perceptions, I say this: Drama, superficiality and perception are three of the fundamental pillars of this President’s worldview. To ignore them is to miss the point, to see the world in a fundamentally different way than Trump does. Remember that Trump’s two major experiences in the working world are as the face of his own eponymous brand/business and as a reality TV star. In other words, Donald Trump has been playing “Donald Trump” for virtually his entire life. And Donald Trump has been shaping what it means to be “Donald Trump” for just as long. This, excerpted from Marc Fischer and Michael Kranisch’s “Trump, Revealed,” is, um, revealing: “What the audience saw on TV altered their perception of the mogul they had known as an immodest dealmaker who built glitzy towers, married beautiful women and slapped his name on jets and yachts.” “‘The Apprentice’ turned Trump from an easily caricatured Richie Rich who had just weathered some difficult years into a pop-culture truth-teller, an evangelist for the American gospel of success, a decider who insisted on standards in a country that had somehow slipped into handing out trophies just for showing up.” For Trump, perception IS reality. (In that way, he is a sort of Platonic ideal of our modern politics.) Every interaction in public is a chance to assert dominance, to show that he’s in charge, that’s he’s the boss. Trump believes that perception creates reality. If he looks like the alpha male and the powerful leader, he becomes the alpha male and the powerful leader. Time and again – during both his campaign and the early days of his presidency – Trump has seized any opportunity to show, in usually small ways, that dominance. His trademark hold-and-tug handshake is, without question, his favorite power move. There’s this one with Vice President Mike Pence: And this now-legendary grip and tug with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch: Trump expanded his repertoire during his trip abroad – most notably with this shove-and-preen at the expense of the Prime Minister of Montenegro. Instead of being a “distraction” – as many media critics dismiss these episodes – these handshakes, shoves and other attempts to assert control of situations are the point of the Trump presidency. The shaping of perceptions about him is what Trump spends most of his time on. From his tweets to his cable TV habit, it all speaks to a man absolutely obsessed with how people view him. To cover Trump accurately then, you need to understand that how things look matters much more to him than how things are. Handshakes, seen through that lens, are a critical piece of grasping how this President not only views himself but how he chooses to interact with the rest of the world. Agreed? Let’s shake on it. CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correctly identify the Prime Minister of Montenegro.


Most computer models indicate Jose will stay out to sea But its odd, looping path could bring it near the Bahamas and US this weekend First Harvey, then Irma and now … Jose? Hurricane Jose was 840 miles east of  Florida early Wednesday, with maximum sustained winds of 75 mph, making it a Category 1 storm. “Jose looping over the southwest Atlantic between the Bahamas and Bermuda,” the National Hurricane Center said. The storm is expected to remain at hurricane intensity in the Western Atlantic, and it could strengthen as it takes an odd, looping path that may bring it near the Bahamas and the United States this weekend. However, most computer models indicate Jose will stay out to sea and complete a tight enough loop to avoid moving onshore. Jose’s impact is sure to be felt along the Southeast coast, bringing rough seas. Such a path is concerning in the wake of Hurricane Irma, which has altered the beach landscape and made it more vulnerable to coastal erosion and flooding. The track for Hurricane Jose is a strange one. In a pocket of weak steering winds in the open Atlantic, Jose is expected to make a clockwise loop. It will initially move farther away from the United States before coming closer to the Bahamas and East Coast. Click here to track the storm A westward motion is the result of a ridge of high pressure to the north and then east of the storm. The strength and location of this ridge will determine how far Jose moves westward before eventually turning north and then east again. Two of the most robust computer models meteorologists use to determine the odds of landfall – GFS, the American forecast model, and the ECMWF, the European one – keep Jose over the ocean. Related article Irma destroyed about 25% of houses in Florida Keys, FEMA says But models can have trouble forecasting unusual tracks such as Jose’s expected path. There is generally not a dominant weather feature that is steering the storm, so model forecasts can vary widely between each other and from run to run. The National Hurricane Center recognizes this uncertainty in its Tuesday morning forecasts for Jose, saying “after (three days), the confidence in the forecast decreases as the guidance diverges significantly.” The center’s official forecast finds Jose just over 400 miles from Jacksonville, Florida on Sunday morning. Still, the cone of uncertainty comes uncomfortably close, within 200 miles of Florida and 50 miles from the Bahamas. The storm may bring a high risk of rip currents, too. Jose already has threatened other hurricane-weary countries. As a much stronger Category 4 storm, the hurricane passed only 85 miles from the island nation of Antigua and Barbuda last weekend. Tropical storm-force winds from Jose spread over the islands on Saturday. Only three days earlier, Antigua and Barbuda had been devastated by a peak-strength Category 5 Irma, packing 185-mph winds. Before this hurricane season, the United States had gone a record 12 years without a major hurricane landfall. But with Harvey and Irma, it has now experienced two Category 4 landfalls in 16 days. In May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that unseasonably warm ocean temperatures and a no-show from El Niño would contribute to a potentially “extremely active” hurricane season. There have already been six named hurricanes this season: Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irma, Jose and Katia. If history is a guide, more will be on the way. The full hurricane season lasts until November 30, although the peak season generally stretches from about mid-August to mid-October. But hurricanes into November and even December are not unheard of. Last year, Hurricane Otto formed on November 20 and made landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 2 storm. CNN’s Judson Jones contributed to this report.


This page includes the show Transcript November 28, 2017 Today, we’re taking you to the nation of Myanmar (also known as Burma) to explain a situation involving the nation’s leaders, the Rohingya, Pope Francis, and neighboring Bangladesh. A look at “net neutrality” follows, and then we’re taking you deep into the Pacific to examine the findings of deep sea researchers. TRANSCRIPT Click here to access the printable version of today’s CNN 10 transcript. CNN 10 serves a growing audience interested in compact on-demand news broadcasts ideal for explanation seekers on the go or in the classroom. The show’s priority is to identify stories of international significance and then clearly describe why they’re making news, who is affected, and how the events fit into a complex, international society. Thank you for using CNN 10