Yemen official: "A raid was the wrong option and failure was written all over it" Civilians, including children, killed in raid aimed at al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Yemen’s government has requested that the United States stop ground operations in the country unless it has the government’s full approval after an anti-terror raid authorized by US President Donald Trump killed civilians, two senior Yemeni defense officials told CNN on Wednesday. The Yemeni officials said the government had sent a firm message to the US administration condemning the January 29 operation that left one US Navy Seal dead along with Yemeni women and children, complaining of a lack of coordination with its officials. Related article Source: A target of Yemen raid was al Qaeda chief A US defense official, however, told CNN that “nothing has changed” in terms of restrictions on American counterterrorism efforts. The defense official said Yemen officials were notified of last month’s raid before it happened. And acting US State Department spokesman Mark Toner told CNN on Wednesday that  counterterror operations are “consistent with international law and in coordination with the government of Yemen.” “We will not relent in our mission to degrade, disrupt and destroy al Qaeda and ISIS,” Toner said. The operation, according to US defense officials, was geared toward collecting as much intelligence as possible on al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, to facilitate future raids and strikes against the extremist group and prevent terror attacks. Intelligence collection wasn’t the only objective of the raid – the group’s leader Qassim al-Rimi was also a target, a senior US military official told CNN on Monday. Toner added, “Yemen suffers most directly from the threat of AQAP and (President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi) has been a stalwart partner in the fight against AQAP and ISIS. We will continue to work with him and his representatives to ensure that this important partnership remains solid in order to ultimately eradicate AQAP/ISIS from Yemen.” One of the Yemeni officials told CNN on Wednesday that “the green light the US had for conducting ground missions is now red.” “That’s what happens when a mission goes wrong,” said the official on condition of anonymity, adding that military leaders were unaware of the operation. “From the intelligence we have, conducting a raid was the wrong option and failure was written all over it. The only side that gained is al Qaeda.” The two Yemeni officials are loyal to the internationally recognized government of Hadi, whose administration operates from the southern city of Aden. Houthi rebels have taken over the capital, Sanaa, and other key parts of the country. Reportedly among the dead was the 8-year-old the daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, the late US-born cleric who directed attacks against the United States. Awlaki was killed in 2011. Reprieve, a London-based nongovernmental organization, and a Sanaa-based human rights worker told CNN that at least 23 civilians were killed in the January attack. Related article Military botches release of video seized in Yemen raid One of the Yemeni officials said that Yemen did not want to lose the United States as a key ally, “but their actions and killing of innocent civilians are putting us in the hot seat in front of our people.” The raid was the first authorized by Trump shortly after he took the oath of office, but multiple officials told CNN the mission had been planned months in advance and briefed to President Barack Obama. Both defense and Obama administration officials said the operation was never vetoed by Obama and that “operational reasons” were why it was pushed back after January 20 and why Obama left the task of authorizing the raid to his successor. Journalist Hakim Almasmari reported from Sanaa, and CNN’s Angela Dewan wrote and reported from London.

United States ground operations in Yemen


The anger among voters in the referendum bears similarities to the anger in the United States Themes in both the UK and US include populist anger and fear-mongering by politicians England is having a Donald Trump moment. A toxic political brew is percolating around the UK’s decision Thursday to leave the European Union, a fateful vote with consequences not just for America’s closest historical ally but for Western stability that could trigger economic and political reverberations in the United States. Full coverage of the EU referendum from CNN While the vote is designed to settle Britain’s long-ambivalent attitude toward Europe, the underlying themes of the referendum look familiar to anyone who has been transfixed by the turbulent U.S. presidential election. The similarities in the two campaigns suggest powerful shared tensions are tearing at the world’s most enduring English-speaking democracies. The forces unleashed seem likely to rattle the respective political systems for years to come. They both feature a torrent of populist anger, fear-mongering by politicians, hostility toward distant elites and bitterness toward the ruling political, media and business establishment. UK referendum: Full coverageWeek that brought UK to its kneesWhat does Brexit mean for you?Boris Johnson won’t stand as PMFarage deserted by Brexit bandmates?Can UK get out of Brexit? Brexit = higher taxes, less spendingUK loses perfect AAA credit ratingHow Britons really feel about BrexitVoters: ‘We had nothing to lose’Racist attacks rise after EU voteDid Brexit hurt Trump?Results map tells a big story Week that brought UK to its kneesWhat does Brexit mean for you?Boris Johnson won’t stand as PMFarage deserted by Brexit bandmates?Can UK get out of Brexit? Brexit = higher taxes, less spendingUK loses perfect AAA credit ratingHow Britons really feel about BrexitVoters: ‘We had nothing to lose’Racist attacks rise after EU voteDid Brexit hurt Trump?Results map tells a big story In the U.S. and the UK, emotion and hyperbole have become a constant undercurrent of politics and are being used as a weapon by politicians in both camps, right and left, “Leave” and “Remain.” Brexit: What does the EU referendum mean for the US? Former London mayor Boris Johnson warned in May that the E.U. was the latest manifestation of a 2,000-year project to unify Europe under a single government. “Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” Johnson told the Sunday Telegraph in arguing for leaving the European Union. “The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.” Such emotive rhetoric is reminiscent of Trump’s own claims that the independence of the United States itself is under threat. “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” Trump said in a major foreign policy speech in Washington in April. And among voters, the anger is palpable in both countries. In the United States, clashes have broken out between supporters and opponents of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, while the debate is as coarse as it has been in living memory. Related video Town, husband mourns loss of British MP Jo Cox In the United Kingdom, politicians of all sides were shocked by the killing of pro-Europe lawmaker Jo Cox of the Labour Party on Thursday. The man charged with her murder said when asked his name at a court appearance on Saturday: “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.” In Britain, as in the U.S., the atmosphere has been particularly soured by an emotive debate about a wave of migration from the south and a perception that newcomers threaten the ethnic and political characteristics of each nation. And at the center of both the referendum and the U.S. presidential election is the idea that the political status quo is not working for voters and that elected leaders are either incompetent or not listening. “On the one hand, we have disenchantment with elites,” said Nicholas Dungan, a leading expert in European politics with the Atlantic Council. “On the other hand, it seems extraordinarily difficult for the elites to actually get anything done. The reason people are upset with the leadership class is not because of their leadership, it’s because of their lack of leadership.” Professor Robert Tombs of St. John’s College, Cambridge University, said many U.K. voters are frustrated that politicians don’t seem to be listening. The non-Brits guide to Brexit “There is a sense that people feel that standard centrist politics is no longer representing them, and that has meant membership (in) political parties, and the proportion of people voting all over the Western world, has fallen,” said Tombs, author of the book “The English and Their History.” He continued, “There is a sense that politics no longer matters, or that the people who run mainline politics are no longer in contact with the people who vote for them.” In the United States, that has enabled Trump to muster grassroots fury to stage a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It also fed the “political revolution” ignited by Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, motivated not just by anger against Washington politicians but another form of elites: Wall Street titans. The frustration runs particularly deep in Britain, where anti-Europe voters are not just motivated by fury toward members of Parliament but the regulations drafted by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels who execute EU policies – and whom they cannot kick out of office in an election. Related video Brexit: The immigration number that matters There is also a current of nationalism at work. It’s not unusual, for instance, to see both Eurosceptics and Trump supporters utter the phrase: “I want to take our country back.” In each country, such feelings have translated to hostility toward outsiders. In Britain, immigrants from struggling Eastern European states willing to work for low wages have become targets in a nation, like the U.S., in which globalization has badly hit heavy industry. The immigration question has been exacerbated by the flows of refugees from Middle East wars into southern Europe and opposition to the core E.U. principle of free movement of peoples between member states.Brexit: What will immigration look like if Britain leaves the EU?In the United States, Trump has accused undocumented migrants, most of them from Latin America, of undercutting U.S. workers. Trump has also slammed foreign actors like China and Japan for fleecing the U.S. in trade deals. Similarly, Eurosceptics have argued that, freed from the constraints of the European Union, British companies will be more competitive. There is also the unconventional populist appeal that figures leading the establishment critiques have cultivated by expressing both their personalities and previously taboo sentiments. In the United States, unorthodox outsiders like Trump and Sanders have left opponents – like the entire Republican presidential field and Democratic presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton – flat-footed. Britain has its own colorful political characters – most prominently Johnson, who like Trump, operates from beneath an improbable edifice of blond hair. The former London mayor grabbed a leadership role in the Brexit campaign that many observers see as positioning to become the next prime minister. And UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage last week sparked outrage among opponents by posing in front of a poster that suggested waves of brown-skinned immigrants were poised to swamp Britain, recalling Trump’s labeling Mexican illegal immigrants criminals and racists. Those leading the pro-Europe “Remain” campaign in Britain struggled to match the personality of the exit camp. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, despite winning the election last year, is mistrusted by many voters. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t even enjoy majority support among lawmakers of his own party and is viewed as too left-wing by many others. Related article Why Brexit vote should worry Donald Trump And the American president also has not seemed successful in moving British sentiment: In London in April, President Barack Obama made a personal appeal for the UK to stay in the EU that did not seem to register in polls. For Trump, Brexit is one more policy on which to oppose Obama. The billionaire businessman expressed support for the “Leave” side last month. “I think maybe it’s time, especially in light of what’s happened, with the craziness that’s going on with the migration, with people pouring in all over the place,” Trump told “Good Morning Britain” on ITV in March. While no one knows how the referendum will turn out, there is one thing that everyone in Britain agrees on – the referendum is the most important election in years. And it is a vote that splits the U.K. Scotland and Northern Ireland are generally seen as more pro-Europe, while England – with the exception of London – and much of rural Wales are seen as harboring majorities in favor of Brexit. There is at least one more common ideological similarity between the U.S. and UK. Leading British Conservative Michael Gove, who broke with his boss Cameron to support leaving the EU, suggested that the United States is a model for the independence and self-determination the Brexit forces desire. “The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people,” Gove wrote in a personal statement explaining his position in February. “Like the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back,” he continued, “we can become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.”


Editor’s Note: Nic Robertson is CNN’s international diplomatic editor. The opinions in this article belong to the author. During the Bosnian conflict, a particularly pernicious tactic emerged: ethnic cleansing. Whole villages and towns were emptied of their population, based purely on ethnicity. In 2018, seven years into the Syrian conflict, it seems President Bashar al-Assad has added his own sick twist to the scourge of that Bosnian war crime: chemical cleansing. His chlorine and likely nerve agent attack in the Damascus suburb of Douma in Eastern Ghouta was his latest drive to flush unwanted families and neighborhoods away. By November last year, the UN’s Syria humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland, estimated Eastern Ghouta was home to an estimated 400,000 people. A few months earlier, it had been agreed that the areas would be designated deconfliction zone – in theory making it safe from the conflict. Related article Nikki Haley says more sanctions against Russia coming  as soon as Monday As the bodies were cleared and surviving victims – doused in water and the noxious chemicals – were cleared away, Assad was busy declaring victory over the suburb which had become the last rebel stronghold around Damascus. It had managed to hang on to an increasingly dire and dismal existence for almost seven years. After years of Assad’s siege tactics, the suburb’s population dwindled: eventually, before the attack, falling well below the 400,000 the UN had estimated late last year. Finally, by cutting supplies altogether, Assad forced its starving citizens into submission. His gas attack – killing women and children hiding in basements – was the final expediter, triggering the expulsion of tens of thousands. According to a tweet from the Russian Embassy in London, more than 25,000 were forced to leave. Syria and its ally Russia have denied banned substances were used in the attack. But this sort of chemical cleaning is nothing new to Assad. In the hallowed inner sanctum of international diplomacy, the United Nation’s Security Council chamber, US Ambassador Nikki Haley told assembled dignitaries: “The United States estimates that Assad has used chemical weapons in the Syrian war at least 50 times. Public estimates are as high as 200.” It has become a disgustingly common sight now in Syria’s conflict to see huge convoys of buses transferring uprooted families and neighborhoods to remote corners of the country. Many of these areas are euphemistically called “zones of deescalation,” but are, in reality, reservations for refugees and rebels, left to await Assad and Russia’s next onslaught. In Bosnia, victims of ethnic cleansing didn’t have buses. Often, they fled their burning homes on foot, chased down country lanes and through dense forests by men with machine guns. By the time the peace deal ending that war was signed in Dayton, Ohio, in 1995, three years of ethnic sifting had separated out the once integrated country in to three ethnically identified regions that 23 years later remain hotbeds of nationalist discontent. Syria’s war has been going on more than twice as long as Bosnia’s. More than twice as many people have been killed. Still, Assad isn’t done shifting the population to the contours that he wants. The last vestiges of organized international resistance to his balkanizing tactics was late 2015, – just before Russia turned the war around for him. Russian commanders proposed that residents of Eastern Aleppo, then under rebel control, could be bused out to live in other rebel areas. The UN objected, citing concerns it would look like ethnic cleansing. Several months later, however, as Russia’s relentless airstrikes decimated rebel hospitals in the city and turned the tide of the war, buses were called in to do just that. In doing so, they ferried out anyone who couldn’t live under Assad’s rule. Not everyone left rebel areas of Aleppo – and not everyone who lived in Eastern Ghouta – has fled. But the result of Assad’s tactics writ large across the country has been the separation of ethnic and religious groups. It’s hard to tell yet how absolute the divisions have become to compare definitively with Bosnia, but it is enough to flag the dangers of what it could mean for Syria. Whatever the peace formed by Assad and Russia, it will lock in divisions – storing yet more trouble for the future. Related article Survivors of a chemical attack in Syria tell their stories for the first time What is clear so far is that Kurds have clung to the north east, their traditional homes; and Assad’s Alawi sect and its Shia Muslim and Christian allies hold the capital and their traditional bases – Latakia and other towns on the coast. The losers in the population upheaval – not counting the more than 5 million who have fled the country – has been the Syria’s majority group: its Sunni Muslims. The longer individuals and their families stood against Assad, the further they’ve had to shift from his power bases. Most of those cleared from their homes have been bused north to Idlib province, an area that has become Assad’s dumping ground for rebel fighters and others he doesn’t want. Like Eastern Ghouta, Idlib is another designated deconfliction zone. But given its high concentration of rebel groups, it seems only a mater of time before Assad and Russia turn up the heat there. An early indication of that came in the past few months, as rebel groups accused Assad’s forces of chlorine gas attacks on civilians. While this weekend’s limited precision strikes targeting Assad’s “core” chemical weapons facilities may deter his chemical cleansing tactics for a while, the international community has done nothing to stop him carving up Syria. Though getting involved in Syria’s civil war was not the intention of this weekend’s strikes by the US, France and the UK, having placed the conflict under the glaring scrutiny of international attention, the absence of a way of dealing with the core problem of Assad is now even more glaring. There are two lessons the international community should remember from Bosnia and the Balkans. The first: Once divided, Syria won’t easily – and may never be – put back together. The second: The tyrants causing the mayhem were brought to heel, despite Russia’s protestations.


An expert panel confirms that excess body fat increases the risk of many cancers The risks are highest for cancers of the uterus and esophagus There may be plenty of room for debate about whether some aspects of everyday life cause cancer – whether it’s drinking too much coffee, eating too much sugar or talking too much on a cell phone. But the opposite seems to be true regarding the causal link with obesity, according to a scientific review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Fourteen years ago when the IARC, based in Lyon, France, first reviewed relevant studies, its expert panel issued a report finding sufficient evidence that excess body fat increases the risk of certain cancers. Now, the group’s latest reassessment, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, reaffirms those findings – and adds eight more cancers to the list. Related article How much a decade of obesity raises your cancer risk “Since 2002 there have been a lot of new studies conducted. We felt like it was the right time to review the literature and maybe confirm the science that has been established,” said Beatrice Lauby-Secretan, lead author of the article and an IARC scientist responsible for the agency’s Handbooks of Cancer Prevention Series. The IARC is part of the World Health Organization. A working group of 21 independent international cancer experts reviewed more than 1,000 studies on cancer risk and excess body fat published since the IARC’s 2002 report. That evaluation identified that preventing weight gain can reduce the risk of colon and rectum cancer; a stomach cancer called esophagus adenocarcinoma; kidney or renal cell carcinoma; postmenopausal breast cancer and cancer in the endometrium of the uterus. This year’s  reassessment added to this list gastric cancer, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, ovary and thyroid cancers as well as the blood cancer multiple myeloma and meningioma – cancer that affects the tissue surrounding the brain and spine. Related article The link between fat and cancer The risks are highest for corpus uteri, a cancer in the uterus, and esophagus adenocarcinoma. “The number of cancers that are linked to obesity has increased a lot, which means a much higher proportion of cancer that occurs today is due to obesity,” Lauby-Secretan said. Public health messages should be tailored to raising awareness about this fact, she added. Results also were consistent for children, adolescents and adults younger than 25. Overweight adults are defined in the study as those with body mass indexes (BMI) of 25.0 to 29.9, while obese adults have BMIs above 30. According to the study, an estimated 640 million adults worldwide were obese in 2014, which is six times more than in 1975. Around 110 million children and adolescents were obese in 2013, two times more than in 1980. Meanwhile, the report also found that an estimated 4.5 million deaths in 2013 were related to overweight and obesity, a number that may increase as more cancers are found to be related to the condition. Related article No. 1 killer: Cancer is catching up to heart disease “The epidemic of obesity has become a global concern,” Lauby-Secretan said. Not all cancers have positive correlations with obesity, though. For example, there is only limited evidence of this link for fatal cancer of the prostate, breast cancer in men and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, the most common blood cancer. Evidence is inadequate for cancers of the lung, testis, urinary bladder, brain or spinal cord. While excess fat does lead to higher risks of postmenopausal breast cancer, it does not have the same effect for premenopausal breast cancer. The reason obesity may increase cancer risks, Lauby-Secretan said, is because excess body fat has been known to trigger chronic inflammation. It also disturbs the regulation of sex hormones. Both are common pathways for the development of cancer cells in the body. But the awareness about the link can be low especially when Americans are inundated with news about how many substances – coffee or sugar, for instance – may or may not cause cancer. According to the American Institute for Cancer Research’s biennial survey released in February 2015, a little more than half of Americans realize that being overweight can increase cancer risk, a slight increase over prior surveys. See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. Alice Bender, head of nutrition programs for AICR, said there will always be studies that disprove or prove links – but when you look at the whole body of research, there is a scientific consensus on this particular point. And people can actively reduce cancer risks from excess body fat, Bender said, by eating healthier meals and exercising more. “Oftentimes people are concerned about exposures in the environment or genetics or things you can’t control,” she said. “Rather than increase fear about this, we can see this as an empowering message: Here is something I can do to help myself lower the risk for many of these cancers … here are some lifestyle changes that I can make.”


The top US diplomat applauds North Korea's recent "restraint" Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signaled that the US is open to dialogue with North Korea, a day after the regime in Pyongyang once again issued bristling threats against Washington. Tillerson broke off during remarks to reporters about the administration’s strategy in Afghanistan to make an observation about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. “I think it is worth noting, we have had no missile launches or provocative acts on the part of, or provocative actions, on the part of North Korea since the UN Security Council resolution” sanctioning Pyongyang on August 5, Tillerson said Tuesday at the State Department. Related video US: Diplomacy remains key to N. Korea crisis “I am pleased to see that the regime in Pyongyang has demonstrated restraint,” Tillerson said. “We hope this is the signal we have been looking for, that they are ready to restrain provocative acts. And perhaps we are seeing a pathway in the near future to having some dialogue.” Tillerson made the comments a day after the US began annual military exercises with South Korea which often rile North Korea. He also spoke just hours after the Treasury Department announced new sanctions against Russian and Chinese firms that do business with North Korea, enabling it to fund its ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Nerves in Asia were on edge in July after North Korea tested two ICBM missiles that could in theory reach the US mainland. The launches prompted the unanimous August vote in the Security Council to slap Pyongyang with sanctions that could slash its $3 billion export revenue by as much as one-third. Related video Pyongyang warns against US-South Korea drills Then tensions soared in early August after President Donald Trump declared that North Korea would face “fire and fury like the world has never seen” if it continued to threaten the US. Pyongyang responded the next day with more threats, including a warning that it would target Guam. The threats have only continued. A day before the US and South Korea began long-planned annual military exercises on Monday, North Korea warned that the US was risking an “uncontrollable phase of a nuclear war.” North Korean state-run media said that the country’s military could strike the US at anytime and that neither Guam, Hawaii nor the US mainland could avoid the “merciless strike.” But as Tillerson pointed out Tuesday, the DPRK hasn’t taken any action. “I want to take note of that and acknowledge it,” Tillerson said. “We need to see more on their part but I want to it acknowledge the steps they have taken thus far. That it’s important to take note of it.”


Iraqi Kurds have voted in favor of declaring independence from Iraq in a controversial referendum, Kurdistan Regional Government President Masoud Barzani announced Tuesday. The official results have not yet been released by the Independent High Elections and Referendum Commission, the body supervising the vote. But the Kurdish Minister of Foreign Relations, Falah Mustafa, told CNN that preliminary results show a majority of Iraqi Kurds voted for independence. “Honored people of Kurdistan, by your resistance, you didn’t allow your will to be broken. And now, after your ‘yes’ vote, which was a yes to independence and no to Anfal and chemical attacks, a new phase is ahead of us,” Barzani said in a televised speech, referring to the massacre of thousands of Kurds by Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1988. “Respect the will of the people of Kurdistan. Let’s engage in a serious dialogue and become good neighbors,” Barzani added. The advisory referendum took place on Monday despite vehement opposition from Iraq’s government in Baghdad, which has described it as unconstitutional. On Monday the Iraqi parliament authorized use of force against Kurdistan. Barzani’s KRG, however, says the referendum will give it a mandate for talks to secede from Iraq, but Baghdad has already ruled out such talks. Nearly all neighboring regional powers objected to the referendum, warning that independence could further destabilize the region. Iran and Turkey both opposed the vote over fears it could galvanize Kurdish independence movements in their countries. Iran closed its air space to northern Iraq on Sunday, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to cut off oil exports from the region on Monday. The United States, United Kingdom and the United Nations also warned the KRG against holding the referendum, citing fears that it could detract from the campaign against ISIS. Journalist Butan Amedi contributed to this report.


Deputy Attorney General to brief Senate Thursday afternoon Democrats had planned to press about a special prosecutor Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday he believes the Justice Department’s Russia probe is “now considered a criminal investigation,” comments he made following the all-senators’ briefing with deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The South Carolina Republican said he wasn’t able to ask specifically if it was now a criminal probe “but the takeaway have is everything he said was that you need to treat this investigation as if it may a criminal investigation”. Rosenstein briefed the US Senate just one day after he turned the political world on its head by appointing a special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the campaign of President Donald Trump and Russian officials meddling in last year’s election. Graham said he thinks “Congress’ ability to conduct investigations of all things Russia has been severely limited, probably in an appropriate fashion.” That would make it harder to subpoena records of people who could be subjects of the investigation, he added. RELATED: Now it’s up to the special counsel Rosenstein was originally invited by the two Senate leaders, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York, to explain Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey. But that changed on Wednesday evening when Rosenstein announced that he had appointed another former FBI director, Robert Mueller, to conduct an independent investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign. Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, said senators asked about 35 questions and described the meeting as “enlightening but not overly informative.” A House Republican aide said Wednesday that House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin invited Rosenstein to brief all House members on the investigation Friday morning. Related article Surprise, relief dominate Capitol Hill after special counsel named for Russia investigation Rosenstein’s announcement followed more than a week of chaos emanating from the White House, starting with Comey’s firing last Tuesday and continuing through the news Monday that Trump divulged classified information to Russian officials and Tuesday’s stunning report that Trump asked Comey in a private meeting to stop his investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. By Wednesday, leaders from the Senate intelligence and judiciary committees had sent requests to both the FBI and the White House for all records pertaining to Comey’s conversations with Trump. And House and Senate investigators had invited Comey back to Congress to explain what happened – although Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz declared on Twitter that he had trouble finding Comey to invite him to testify to the oversight committee he chairs. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats met in private Wednesday to brainstorm how they were going to grill Rosenstein – including pressing him to name a special prosecutor. A few hours after their meeting, the question became a moot point. Related article Special counsel appointed in Russia probe By Wednesday evening, a Republican source said that the move effectively shut down Congress’ intense digging into Comey and his conversations with Trump. “This shuts the whole thing down,” said one Republican source, speaking on Congressional efforts to investigate Comey’s discussions with Trump. The focus now turns to how Mueller will pick up the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia, and what it means for the White House. “If your implication is that the White House wants this, I think that’s wrong,” said Senate judiciary chair Chuck Grassley Wednesday night. Rosenstein’s “got the power to do it and you have to accept it and it doesn’t matter what we think. It’s a fait accompli.” Asked if Mueller’s appointment would preempt his own request for Comey information, the Iowa Republican replied, “I don’t know.” Related article 10 relevant quotes from Robert Mueller's FBI farewell CNN’s Deirdre Walsh and Dana Bash contributed to this report.


Haiti could expel Oxfam if allegations of sexual misconduct against the British charity prove to be true, a senior government official said. “If there has indeed been an infraction … I will not hesitate to revoke Oxfam’s right to operate in Haiti,” Aviol Fleurant, Haiti’s minister of planning and external cooperation, told CNN in an interview Friday in the capital, Port-au-Prince. Fleurant is in charge of the oversight of aid agencies. Oxfam’s leaders are accused of attempting to cover up the behavior of some senior staff members while in the Caribbean nation in the aftermath of the devastating 2010 earthquake. The aid workers – including the Oxfam country director at the time, Roland van Hauwermeiren – are accused of turning a villa rented by the organization into a makeshift brothel. The charity also faces allegations that its staff used sex workers in the African nation of Chad in 2006 “If Oxfam is found (guilty) of any wrongdoing and also guilty of diverting funds (to pay for sex) and if the leaders at the time were also to be found guilty of sexual crimes, both will pay,” Fleurant said. Oxfam hasn’t denied the accusations against its staff members but denied a cover-up, saying it launched a swift internal investigation after becoming aware of the allegations. Four people were fired and another three resigned, including van Hauwermeiren, the charity said. In an open letter this week to a broadcaster in his native Belgium, van Hauwermeiren acknowledged his behavior was unacceptable. “I myself, indeed I am not perfect, I am not a saint, a man of flesh and blood, and have made mistakes (not easy to admit), and I am deeply ashamed,” he wrote in the letter. Van Hauwermeirn admitted he had intimate relations with a woman in Haiti, but denied allegations that he paid for sex in the villa the charity had rented for him in the wake of the 2010 earthquake. Oxfam has agreed to withdraw from bidding for UK government funding until the country’s Department for International Development is satisfied that proper safeguards are in place to prevent abuse,  International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt said in a statement Friday. Oxfam received about £32 million (about $44 million) from the government last year. It is one of the UK’s largest and most prominent aid organizations, operating development programs in more than 90 countries. The agency also offers assistance to people after emergencies and disasters. Mordaunt said she discussed the issue with Oxfam CEO Mark Goldring and the chair of trustees, Caroline Thompson, and received a formal response from the charity Friday. “I made three demands: that they make clear how they will handle any forthcoming allegations around safeguarding – historic or live; that they report staff members involved in this incident to their respective national governments; and that they fully cooperate with the Haitian authorities, including handing over all evidence they hold. Oxfam has now confirmed that they have complied with all of these points.” The UK Charity Commission, an independent regulator of charities in England and Wales, has opened a statutory inquiry into the allegations. “Clearly Oxfam (has) a long way to go before they can regain the trust of the British public, their staff and the people they aim to help,” Mordaunt said “… I am determined that we do our utmost to prevent exploitation and abuse happening – and ensure that where it does happen it is identified and dealt with appropriately.” Oxfam announced Friday that an independent commission would carry out an “urgent” review into the allegations alongside a “comprehensive action plan to stamp out abuse.” In a statement, the charity’s international executive director, Winnie Byanyima, said Oxfam is “absolutely committed to ensuring justice for survivors of abuse.” “What happened in Haiti and afterward is a stain on Oxfam that will shame us for years, and rightly so,” she said. “From the bottom of my heart I am asking for forgiveness.” Byanyima also urged abuse victims to come forward on Twitter. I am inviting anyone who has been a victim of abuse to come forward. My message to women who have suffered: I’m fighting this abuse. I'm with you. We are going to do justice. @Oxfam will be a standard bearer of safety and dignity 4 all who interact with us. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned this week that a culture change is required to enable women across the world to work without fear of sexual harassment. In an interview with CNN, Guterres said the allegations that have engulfed Oxfam were a reminder of the “serious problem that is everywhere.” The United Nations has faced its own abuse scandals. In 2016, there were 80 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by uniformed United Nations personnel and 65 allegations against civilian workers who support the peacekeeping missions, according to a report by Guterres published last year. UN peacekeepers accused of raping civilians As a result of the report, Guterres unveiled recommendations from a task force attempting to eradicate sexual abuse by peacekeepers in the field. Since the Oxfam revelations were first reported last week in The Times of London, the charity has lost two high-profile ambassadors – actress Minnie Driver and Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. On Monday, its deputy chief executive, Penny Lawrence, resigned. “The cameras from the entire world were turned on Haiti on its plight, and its plight of its future, but behind the curtains sexual crimes were being committed against the people, to the detriment of their dignity,” said Fleurant, the Haitian minister. “… As a human being, as a Haitian, I am profoundly shocked and saddened.” CNN’s Cyril Vanier, Natalie Gallón, Nic Robertson and James Masters contributed to this report.


Vote Leave campaign unveils what it says is a "fairer, more humane" immigration policy Pro-"Brexit" team says UK should have "Australian-style points based system" to decide who is allowed in Under their rules, would-be immigrants would be required to "speak good English" Would-be migrants to a post-“Brexit” UK would have to “speak good English” under the Vote Leave campaign’s new immigration policy. Former London Mayor Boris Johnson and other leading voices calling for Britain to leave the European Union say the numbers of people moving to the UK are putting too much of a strain on public services. They argue that the country needs a way of deciding who is allowed to move to the UK which is “fairer, more humane and better for the economy.” The free movement of people – and goods, services and capital – is a guiding principle of the EU. Related video The Island Nation: UK safer in or out of the EU? But Johnson and fellow Conservatives Michael Gove and Priti Patel, along with Labour’s Gisela Stuart, say EU membership means Britain cannot control who comes to the country. “Class sizes will rise and [hospital] waiting lists will lengthen if we don’t tackle free movement,” the four say in a joint statement released Wednesday. “If we vote to remain in the EU then continued free movement for jobseekers will place considerable pressure on the wages of low paid British workers,” they add. CNNMoney: The truth about UK immigration One in eight people in Britain were born abroad, 48% of them in the EU, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Related video CNN visits one of Britain's most Euroceptic areas In mid-2014, the ONS says, there were an estimated 3.03 million people born in other EU countries living in the UK. Many Britons have also moved to live and work elsewhere in the EU: according to ONS estimates, 1.79 million British migrants live across the continent. The Vote Leave team say they would introduce an “Australian-style points based system” – already used to control the numbers of non-EU migrants coming to the UK – to select who gets to move to Britain. If the UK votes to leave the EU in the referendum on June 23, they say that by the next election (currently planned for 2020): Vote Leave says that in the event of a Brexit, EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK would automatically be given indefinite leave to remain. Irish citizens’ rights to enter, live and work in the UK would be unchanged, the group says. If Britain votes for ‘Brexit,’ what happens next? The “Stronger In” campaign insists that a vote to leave the EU would not stop immigration or prevent people from Europe moving to the UK. It says “countries such as Norway and Switzerland, who are not part of the EU, have to accept free movement and have higher rates of EU migration than the UK.” Related video Immigration is a key issue in Brexit debate Reaction to the plan was mixed on the streets of London Wednesday. “I think it will match the requirements of the economy with the people coming in, so I think it’s a good idea,” pastoral worker Kath Adkins, 54, told CNN. “There are loads of people coming in and it is impacting every service, from education to medical and we are struggling,” said IT specialist Priyanka Agrawal, 35. “I think it’s important that we control immigration but I don’t think that we should leave the EU,” said James Griffin, 34, who works in hospitality. “Freedom of movement is great – I work with Eastern Europeans who are … a lot more determined and better workers than many of the British people I work with.” Find out more about the UK’s EU referendum here

Vote Leave campaign's immigration policy


Economic advisers fill room at national security briefing Bannon sits outside the national security table Kushner gets front seat to airstrike viewing President Donald Trump tracked the first major military operation of his presidency from a makeshift Situation Room on the grounds of his lavish Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, surrounded by grim-faced aides fresh from dinner in the club’s dining room. That’s according to a photo of the proceedings released by the White House Friday. Related article Who's who in the Trump White House The image, which Press Secretary Sean Spicer said was edited for security reasons, shows Trump hunched over a table kitted out with secure video equipment and briefing papers. His brow furrowed, Trump is flanked by his Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce. Spicer tweeted that Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, were not in the room, but instead participating by secure video conference. WH photo (ed for security): @potus receives briefing on #syria military strike fr Nat Security team, inc @vp , SECDEF, CJCS via secure VTC pic.twitter.com/aaCnR7xomR The president’s press secretary said the photo was taken around 9:15 p.m. ET on Thursday evening, after Trump’s dinner with visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping. The image stood in stark contrast to a previous weekend at Mar-a-Lago, which saw Trump plot out a response to a North Korean missile test from his club’s patio. That session played out in full view of other diners, drawing criticism. This time – and with far more sensitive information at play – Trump retreated behind closed doors. Photo taken, after strike, approximately 9:15pm ET on Thursday April 6, 2017 in SCIF at Mar-a-Lago https://t.co/PlEsbjIcxy At the table, from left to right: Not sitting at table: Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, who participated via secure teleconference from Washington, Spicer said. At a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida resort Trump frequents, according to Spicer. The photo has already been likened to the iconic picture of former President Barack Obama huddled with his national security team in the White House Situation Room as they monitor via live video the killing of Osama bin Laden. The picture is shot from the same angle, with the president receiving a briefing on the operation he just ordered. Related article Trump considers rearranging the seats at his table Kushner has yet to detail to the federal government all of his foreign contacts, a condition of receiving his top secret security clearance. Most people in the photo appear to be looking at a screen on the table, but Kushner is looking resolutely over the table. It’s not clear if he’s looking at Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or beyond, to White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. CNN’s Kevin Liptak contributed to this report


Program note: Explore the vicious rematch between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams on “Race For The White House,” Sunday, April 3, at 9 p.m. There's been a recent movement to get President Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill His legacy is mired in controversy, particularly his anti-Native American and pro-slavery positions You’ve probably heard about the movement to replace Andrew Jackson’s image on the ubiquitous $20 bill, but why exactly did the United States put him on there in the first place? It’s no secret that Andrew Jackson’s legacy is complicated. He’s described by the organization that wants him off the $20 bill as “the slave-trading, Indian-killing seventh President.” Yet, his humble origins as a poor orphan with little education exemplified the American dream that anyone could become president. Biographer James Parton put it this way: “He was a democratic autocrat, an urbane savage, an atrocious saint.” We may never know exactly why the U.S. Department of Treasury selected Jackson as one of about a dozen American presidents and statesmen to adorn U.S. currency. But here’s a look at why Jackson’s legacy is mired in controversy: Jackson believed Westward expansion would keep America a great and strong republic, yet this came at a terrible price for Native Americans. President Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830 allowing the U.S. government to forcibly evict native Americans east of the Mississippi to land west of the Mississippi. The Cherokees, who had helped Gen. Jackson win a decisive battle in the War of 1812, fought the new law in the U.S. Supreme Court and won. Related article Historic images show Native American way of life But it didn’t matter. OPINION: Why the U.S. apologized to the Cherokees Infuriated by the ruling, Jackson declared, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” A few years later, nearly 17,000 Cherokees were rounded up and forced out of Georgia to present-day Oklahoma on the “Trail of Tears.” “Families were rousted out of their cabins and directed at gunpoint by soldiers,” wrote author and historian Tiya Miles. “Forced to leave most of their possessions behind, they witnessed white Georgians taking ownership of their cabins, looting and burning once cherished objects.” Thousands died on that journey, many from smallpox and cholera. To those who supported Jackson, he was almost a folk hero, an embodiment of the American spirit.  He grew up the poor son of Scotch-Irish immigrants in the Carolinas during the Revolutionary War.  He joined a militia at 13 after his older brother died fighting in the war and served as a courier. While ferrying messages across battle lines, the teenage Jackson was captured along with his brother by the British. A British officer reportedly ordered him to clean his boots and when Jackson refused, the officer slashed him across the face and hand with a sword. He was later released in a prisoner exchange. The incident not only fueled his lifelong hatred for the British colonists, but it added his legendary status. Later, as the swashbuckling commander during the War of 1812, his cunning and fearlessness led him to win the Battle of New Orleans, despite being outnumbered nearly two-to-one. Jackson’s legendary status appears quite tarnished when you consider his involvement and position on slavery. “Slavery was the source of Andrew Jackson’s wealth,” according to The Hermitage organization, which maintains Jackson’s plantation home near Nashville, Tennessee. Related video Presidential Places: Andrew Jackson's Hermitage He owned hundreds of slaves whose labor produced the cash crops from the 1,000-acre Hermitage and his plantation in Alabama. Enslaved African-Americans also ran nearly every aspect of everyday life at these large plantations. Jackson actively supported pro-slavery policies during his presidency in an attempt to keep the nation together. At one point, he even ordered the postmaster general to destroy abolitionist pamphlets mailed to the Southern states, fearing the newsletters could fuel discontent around slavery and spark a civil war. When Jackson decided to run for president against John Quincy Adams in 1824 and 1828, his marriage to a not-quite-divorced-yet woman in the 1790s became fodder for his political opponents. “Jackson’s elopement with the married Rachel Robards was a perfect example of his rampageous personality,” wrote historian Ann Toplovich, summing up the Adams campaign’s assessment of Jackson’s nuptials. Jackson tried unsuccessfully to shield his wife from the negative press about their marriage, while his campaign team tried unsuccessfully to put the matter to rest. After Jackson’s 1828 victory, Rachel Jackson died before her husband could be sworn in. READ MORE: How Jackson tried to save his wife’s honor Stung from his wife’s death, the newly elected President refused to bow to pressure not to appoint his longtime supporter and friend John Eaton as his war secretary. Washington society had deemed Eaton scandalous because he – like Jackson – had married his wife under not-so-politically correct circumstances, Jackson refused to give in. “Do you suppose that I have been sent here by the people to consult the ladies of Washington as to the proper persons to compose my Cabinet?” he told his critics. The ensuing “Petticoat Affair” led to the resignation of several of Jackson’s Cabinet members but also cemented Jackson’s legacy as a Washington outsider who refused to bend. Jackson was the first president under the newly created Democratic Party, which “stood for simple, frugal and unintrusive government,” according to the nonpartisan Miller Center. While ordinary, working people were at the heart of the Jacksonian Democrats’ mission, the party’s pro-slavery stance would create a schism many years later. Yet the key Democratic principles set forth by Andrew Jackson would be utilized many generations later by American women, blacks and other minorities to advance their rights with the same passion and fervor that Jackson did for white men.


The service members were taking part in a mission targeting the Taliban, US military says 30 Afghan civilians and 26 insurgents also were killed in the operation, Afghan official says Two US service members were killed in Afghanistan’s Kunduz province, the US military said Thursday. Their deaths came during an operation that Kunduz officials say also left 30 Afghan civilians dead. “On behalf of all of US Forces - Afghanistan (USFOR-A), today’s loss is heartbreaking and we offer our deepest condolences to the families and friends of our service members who lost their lives today,” said Gen. John Nicholson, the USFOR-A commander. The Defense Department is withholding the service members’ names until their next of kin can be notified. The service members came under fire during a mission to train, advise and assist the American military’s Afghan partners in clearing a Taliban position and disrupting the organization’s operations in Kunduz district, according to a statement. Two US service members were also injured in the operation and “are receiving the best medical care possible and we are keeping them and their families in our thoughts today, as well,” Nicholson said. At least 30 Afghan civilians were killed and 25 others injured in an air-and-ground operation launched in an area known as Bohd Qhandahari, said Sayed Mahmood Danish, a Kunduz provincial spokesman. He told CNN the operation is the same one in which the American service members were killed. Four members of Afghan special forces were also killed and six others injured, Danish said. Twenty-six insurgents were killed and 10 others were wounded, he added. US Defense Secretary Ash Carter said he was saddened by the casualties. “Our service members were doing their part to help the Afghans secure their own country while protecting our homeland from those who would do us harm,” he said in a statement. “We will honor their sacrifice by finishing our important mission in Afghanistan.” Also Thursday a Taliban mortar attack killed at least seven people attending a wedding party in Faryab province in northern Afghanistan, provincial police spokesman Kareem Youresh said. At least 13 people were injured. CNN’s Ehsan Popalzai and Mike Callahan contributed to this report.


Coalition forces have encountered "stiffening resistance" in recent days The US military estimates there are about 2,000 ISIS fighters remaining in Raqqa US military advisers helping Kurdish and Arab fighters combat ISIS in Raqqa, Syria are “more exposed to enemy contact” than they were during the battle for Mosul, the spokesman for the US-led coalition said Wednesday. “They are much more exposed to enemy contact than those in Iraq,” US Army Col. Ryan Dillon told reporters at the Pentagon, referring to US and coalition troops that are accompanying local allies in the fight for Raqqa, ISIS’ de-facto capital. Coalition artillery and aircraft have been supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces as they have fought to capture the Syrian city, a battle coalition officials have said will be hard-fought. Dillon said the US and coalition troops that have entered Raqqa alongside their local allies “are assisting by calling in strikes against enemy forces within the city.” Related article In the heart of Raqqa, the impact of ISIS is all around He explained the primary reason for the increased exposure was that US troops are “putting themselves where they need to be” and advising their local allies in smaller formations, closer to front line combat. They are “much further down into the formations than in Iraq,” he said, while noting that this had been the case since at least when the Raqqa offensive began. Dillon said that the military estimates that there are about 2,000 ISIS fighters remaining in Raqqa, down from about 2,500 when the assault on the city began nearly 40 days ago. But while he said the Arab and Kurdish fighters comprising the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces were “moving very, very fast” at the beginning stages of the campaign, Dillon said they had encountered “stiffening resistance” in recent days. “The SDF have incurred casualties as they have met some stiffening resistance from ISIS as they move closer into the city center,” Dillon said. Related article US General: Raqqa is 'job number one' following the fall of Mosul While SDF troops have encircled Raqqa and breached the wall that surrounds the old city, Dillon said ISIS was using IED belts and increasingly armed drones to maintain their grip on the city. Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, the commander of the international military coalition fighting ISIS, told reporters Tuesday: “ISIS has had more than three years to prepare the defense of Raqqa. While SDF operations are off to a good start, resistance has been stiffening, and we know this is not going to be an easy fight.”


Patriotic hackers are not unknown in Russia Statistics (and prosecutions) suggest the vast majority of Russian hackers are in it for the money Russian President Vladimir Putin’s remarks about “patriotic hackers” have led to more than a few raised eyebrows. After condemning this week what he described as rampant “Russophobia,” Putin painted a lyrical portrait of hackers waging war in defense of the fatherland. “Hackers are free people, like artists,” Putin told a panel in St. Petersburg. “They wake up in a good mood and paint things. Same with hackers … They read something about the state-to-state relations. If they are patriotic, they make their own contribution to fight those who say bad things about Russia. “ He returned to the theme Friday when challenged about evidence of Russian “fingerprints” in the recent hacking of US organizations, particularly the Democratic Party. “Whose fingerprints?” he asked. “All these IP addresses can be faked. Do you know how many specialists there are like that?” “It’s not evidence. It’s an attempt to put this on us,” Putin added. To some observers, this smells like a first attempt at “plausible deniability” by the Kremlin as investigations in the US continue. Even if those probes ultimately point the finger at Russian hacking, the Kremlin can shrug and plead ignorance or fabrication. Proving otherwise would be very difficult. In the world of Russian hacking, the lines dividing criminal enterprise, freelance patriotism and service to the state are often blurred beyond recognition. Patriotic hackers are not unknown in Russia. Vladislav Horohorin, an experienced hacker, recalls that when Russia and Georgia briefly went to war in 2008, Russians without any government connection hacked into the Georgian telecom infrastructure. “I can attest that action developed spontaneously and out of sheer patriotism,” Horohorin said in an email exchange with CNN several months ago. But Dmitry Volkov, head of threat intelligence for Russian cyber-security company IB, told CNN recently that he encountered little evidence of “hacker patriots.” “We see newspapers that are writing about such type of threat actors, sometimes we track “hacktivists,” but usually they are very low-skilled guys,” he said. Statistics (and prosecutions) suggest the vast majority of Russian hackers are in it for the money. Take the example of Peter Levashov, indicted by the US for computer fraud and theft. He was arrested in Spain in April and is awaiting extradition. Related video Rubio: Hackers with Russian IPs targeted staff Levashov is accused of being the mastermind of the Kelihos Botnet, which allegedly sent hundreds of millions of spam emails, intercepting users’ online and financial credentials. The Spamhaus Project has described Levashov as “one of the longest operating criminal spam lords on the Internet.” On a much smaller scale, hackers can trade their expertise for favors, according to Horohorin, who recently served a jail sentence in the US for online credit card fraud. “I know there are certain individuals who for their hacking services obtained ‘predpisanie,’” Horohorin told CNN. That essentially means they had some sort of protection from arrest. Sometimes, profit and patriotism may overlap – as in the multiple attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure allegedly carried out by Russian groups. There have been at least two attacks on the Ukrainian power grid. Suspected Russian hackers associated with the group “Fancy Bear” last year managed to install malware in a Ukrainian military application that helped reveal communications and location data from Ukrainian forces. Crowdstrike, which analyzes hacking, said the attack supported its assessment that Fancy Bear was “likely affiliated with Russian military intelligence,” the GRU. The US Director of National Intelligence came to similar conclusions over the hacking of the Democratic Party last year. “We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data,” the DNI reported in January. Related video Russia's army of hackers could be 4,000 strong Most of the time, the evidence to support such assessments remains classified, and the ultimate identity of hackers unknown. Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be a Romanian hacker. But Thomas Rid, an authority on cyberespionage, told a US Senate hearing in March that the GRU had become more “careless, risk-taking, and error-prone” in its hacking, leaving digital fingerprints on various operations. He cited data obtained by cyber-security firm SecureWorks that traced 19,300 malicious links targeting around 6,730 individuals back to the GRU. Poor tradecraft can make deniability less plausible. There are also Russian hackers who try to subvert rather than support the state and may not be motivated by profit. Some have hacked into the personal records of senior officials and business figures, either to embarrass them or in a self-declared war on corruption. Horohorin said that “some may use hacked resources for cyber-warfare, in pursuit of information, or to declare themselves or proclaim their own beliefs.” His peers had little interest “in anything that could not be exploited for profit and stayed away from politics.” But “the younger generation became more politicized.” Among them are groups like Humpty Dumpty, or in Russian, “Shaltai Boltai.” The puzzling cross-currents and shifting loyalties among Russian hackers came to rare light in December when two officers of the FSB (Russian security service) were among four men arrested and accused of “treason on behalf of the United States,” according to a lawyer defending one of them. One of them was Dmitry Dokuchaev. Three months later, the US Justice Department revealed its interest in Dokuchaev: he was indicted in connection with a massive conspiracy to hack into Yahoo’s network. But years before he had joined the FSB, Dokuchaev had himself been a hacker. He was a contributor to Hacker magazine, in which he once wrote: “There is a way to wealth – to start your own business in the web. One-two years and maybe you will be able to save enough to buy a villa by the Mediterranean Sea.” Beyond doubt is the Russian authorities’ embrace of hacking and disinformation as part of a broader campaign of ‘active measures’ designed to weaken and confuse adversaries. Back in 2013, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu spoke of the need for a “head hunt” for experts in coding. Recruitment efforts at technical institutes and on social media sites followed, with slick videos inviting applications to the “Research Squadron of the Russian Federation.” From the military’s determined recruitment of IT specialists to the patriotic fervor of hackers in their bedrooms, the age of what Shoigu likes to call ‘information warfare forces’ is here to stay.


A man who allegedly plotted to assassinate British Prime Minister Theresa May appeared in court Wednesday charged with terrorism offenses. London based Naa’imur Zakariyah Rahman, 20, who described himself in court as Pakistani British, was arrested last week and charged on Tuesday. A second man, Mohammed Aqib Imran, 21, from Birmingham, appeared in court at the same time, also charged with “the intention of committing acts of terrorism.” When asked about his nationality in court, Imran said he was Bangladeshi British. According to court documents, Rahman planned to detonate an explosive device at the gates of Downing Street and then seek to gain access to No. 10 – May’s official residence – “in the ensuing chaos with a view to trying to kill the Prime Minister.” “The secondary attack on No. 10 was to be carried out with a suicide vest, pepper spray and a knife,” the document said. Rahman had carried out a “hostile reconnaissance” of the area as part of his preparations and revealed his plan to “attack, kill and cause explosions” in several recorded conversations, according to the allegations. Related article The New York attack was labeled 'terrorism.' The Texas shooting wasn't. Here's why In a related allegation, Imran is accused of trying to obtain a fake passport in order to leave the UK and travel to Libya. On his arrest, Imran was found in possession of a short video recorded by Rahman “who was sponsoring Imran in order to assist him to enter Islamic State and fight,” according to the allegations. Rahman allegedly made the video in November “with the expectation of becoming a martyr.” The recording would have given Imran greater credibility with the terrorist organization, the document said. Lawyers for both Rahman and Imran entered “no indication” as the suspects’ plea, meaning that the case continues as if they had pleaded “not guilty.” Both suspects have been remanded in custody without bail and will next appear in court on December 20. The news of the arrests emerged just a few hours after the publication of an official security review, which said that 20 Islamist-inspired terrorist plots had been “disrupted” since October 2013, seven of them since the end of March this year. The UK terror threat from Islamist terrorists is operating “at a scale and pace we’ve not seen before,” said Andrew Parker, director general of MI5, in a speech in October. He warned that “the challenge that we face is undoubtedly a stark one. More threat, coming at us more quickly, and sometimes harder to detect. But it is a challenge that we and our partners are rising to and are facing down.” Thirty-six people have been killed in five separate terror attacks in the UK this year. Opportunities to stop the most fatal of those – a suicide bomb attack at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in May – were missed, according to the report by senior barrister David Anderson published Tuesday. Suicide bomber Salman Abedi, who killed 22 people, had been a “subject of interest” to British police in the months before the attack, but was not put under investigation. Related video UK angry over Manchester attack leaks “On two separate occasions in the months prior to the attack, intelligence was received by MI5 whose significance was not fully appreciated at the time,” the report said. The report noted that while counterterrorism police and MI5 had gotten most things right, “it is conceivable that the Manchester attack in particular might have been averted had the cards fallen differently.” “Policing and our colleagues in the fight against terrorism will continue to learn and improve,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said in a statement Tuesday. “There are currently well over 500 counterterrorism investigations, involving more than 3,000 subjects of interest – along with a growing pool of more than 20,000 individuals who have previously been the subject of terrorism investigations,” the statement said. “These investigations cover the full range of terrorist activity, from attack planning to activity that supports or facilitates terrorism – but a significant proportion involve potential attack-planning threats. The tempo is more intense than ever.” CNN’s Hilary Clarke contributed to this article.


Former President Jimmy Carter is calling on the Obama administration to recognize Palestinian statehood before leaving office January 20. Carter, who is strong proponent for Palestinian rights and a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, praised the Obama administration in a New York Times op-ed out Monday for its support for a “negotiated end to the conflict based on two states,” but warned this work could be undone with an incoming Republican administration. “I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short, ” Carter wrote. “The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine.” The former President also called for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution “laying out the parameters for resolving the conflict.” Can Donald Trump solve the Middle East’s many crises? “It should reaffirm the illegality of all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders, while leaving open the possibility that the parties could negotiate modifications,” he said. “Security guarantees for both Israel and Palestine are imperative, and the resolution must acknowledge the right of both the states of Israel and Palestine to live in peace and security.” Carter went on to criticize the controversial building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. “Israel is building more and more settlements, displacing Palestinians and entrenching its occupation of Palestinian lands,” Carter wrote. “Over 4.5 million Palestinians live in these occupied territories, but are not citizens of Israel. Most live largely under Israeli military rule, and do not vote in Israel’s national elections.” Carter is one of Israel’s most vocal American critics. In his 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” he compared Israel’s military occupation in the West Bank to the apartheid system in South Africa. Obama has also been critical of Israel, calling in 2009 for a complete freeze on the building of Israeli settlements. However, President-elect Donald Trump’s position has thrilled many supporters of Israel, as well as Israel’s political right wing. As a candidate, Trump promised to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and renogotiate the Iran nuclear deal, which has been criticized by Israel’s leaders. The leader of the right-wing Jewish Home party Naftali Bennett, claimed a Trump presidency allows Israel to fully dismiss the notion of a Palestinian state. “This is the position of the President-elect, as written in his platform, and it should be our policy, plain and simple. The era of a Palestinian state is over.”


Editor’s Note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and a New America fellow. He is the author of “Jimmy Carter” and “The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Julian Zelizer says the film shows how a determined leader in LBJ can wrest political change out of Congress even in a perilous environment for progressives Zelizer says it doesn't take ideological purity, as Bernie Sanders preaches, to make change happen The release of HBO’s “All The Way,” a remake of Robert Schenkkan’s brilliant Tony-award winning play about President Lyndon Johnson, is a welcome break in this anti-political campaign season. (HBO is owned by CNN’s corporate parent Time Warner.) The film offers a compelling account of the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the presidential election of 1964, blending a dramatic recreation of the events that took place in these years with actual dialogue drawn from White House telephone recordings. While the film’s creators take liberties in how they tell this story, the essence of the film effectively captures the kind of deal-making that was essential to pass the legislation known as the Great Society. While we think of this decade as the heyday of liberalism, the truth is that the forces of conservatism were strong in Congress and the divisions among Democrats were intense. Related video Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston takes on LBJ role Democrats, who are still in the middle of a contentious debate between idealism (Bernie Sanders) and pragmatic realism (Hillary Clinton), might especially want to see the film. “All the Way,” starring Bryan Cranston as LBJ and Anthony Mackie as MLK, is an ode to the art and necessity of political compromise. Airing toward the end of two contentious sets of party primaries where government officials and the political process have been under attack, the film revolves around two main characters, each of whom sees that in 1963 and 1964 the only way to make serious progress on race relations is to agree to difficult compromises, undercutting congressional opponents and building a strong coalition in favor. While most recent accounts of LBJ have emphasized his apparently magical ability to make things happen as the wizard of Washington, this film reveals a President struggling through bitter battles. This is a Johnson operating in a challenging political environment populated by southern Democrats such as Richard Russell, Republicans such as Everett Dirksen, liberals such as  James Coleman of California, grassroots activists such as Stokely Carmichael, and malicious forces inside the government like FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Although there are many moments where we see LBJ leaning in on his opponents and allies to get what he wants, there are many others where we watch the limits of presidential power. Related article What law has changed your life? The film highlights a debate over voting rights, which LBJ insists on taking out of the Civil Rights bill, and focusing instead on desegregation. In truth, voting rights were no longer a central part of the legislation once Johnson became president, though the film uses the issue to effectively convey the kinds of compromises Johnson was forced to make. We do see Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen insisting on weakening regulations on employment discrimination, which is a key area where the administration agreed to soften the bill beyond the comfort level of many liberals. This comes right out of the history books. In exchange, Dirksen delivered enough Republican votes to end a filibuster. The following year, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The film accurately captures the way LBJ, like a chess player, was constantly trying to figure out how to align all the various policies he hoped to push with the difficult realities of Capitol Hill. At one point in the film, we see the President lying in bed broken out in sweat and trapped in frustration as he explains to his wife Lady Bird in a despondent fashion that basically nobody likes him. The scene effectively captures the kind of torment which is evident on many of the phone recordings, where we can hear Johnson complaining to colleagues about how he never received credit for his achievements. Related article Do Clinton, Trump need Henry Kissinger? Each legislative victory seemed to bring him more critics. Throughout the film, he repeatedly tells people that passage of a civil rights bill will require major concessions from all sides. “This is not about principle, it’s about votes,” Johnson barks out in one of the great lines of the film. Schenkkan’s dialogue captures the essential outlook of LBJ, even though he takes liberties with the chronology at points. We lionize Johnson for his ability to use power to get what he wanted but in fact his biggest skill was understanding the limits of the presidency and knowing when to cut deals, as difficult as they could be. He forces civil rights leaders to accept that certain goals will have to be postponed until the following year (like voting rights) and warns southern leaders that they can’t keep saying “no,” because some form of a Civil Rights bill was going to pass. “Now I love you more than my own daddy. But if you get in my way, I’ll crush you,” Johnson threatens Sen. Richard Russell, his close friend and mentor at a private dinner in the White House. The other main protagonist in the film, Martin Luther King, also is depicted as having a keen understanding that one of his most important roles would be to broker agreement among the civil rights leaders portrayed in the film and to sell the movement leaders compromise ideas that the administration was willing to push for. Related article Bernie Sanders is the future of the Democratic Party While Johnson had been hoping that the Democratic Convention in Atlantic City would be a celebration of his achievements and his potential, the plans were upset when African-American activists arrived as the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and insisted they be seated instead of the lily white official delegation that was there. The film recounts the bitter negotiations that took place, with spokesmen for the President seeking to defuse the challenge by the activists who had risked their lives by protesting in Mississippi despite violent police and racist organizations and traveling on roads that were not safe for African-Americans. At one key moment, Johnson sends the labor leader Walter Reuther to speak with the frustrated delegation. Reuther warns that if they don’t accept the deal the administration was offering (to seat two at-large delegates from the delegation and promise that future conventions would be desegregated), the unions would cut off all the funding for the movement. The movement leaders accepted the deal to the consternation of many young activists. King, realizing that he was out of options, sits quietly as his fellow leaders vent their enormous frustration with this outcome. This is one of the most disappointing moments in the history of the civil rights movement, a decision that left many younger activists disillusioned with the leadership. But in this film, the negotiations are depicted through the prism of a world in which this was the best option on the table at the moment. The Martin Luther King portrayed in this film is not the famous orator or committed and fearless activist, but the quiet and calculating political leader who understood that these kinds of deals were necessary to achieve outcomes. Related article Why Sanders must take the high road The appreciation for realism is clear in how the film treats the difficult issue of wiretapping. In Ava DuVernay’s 2014 film “Selma,” she depicted an adversarial relationship between King, as he fought for voting rights in 1965, and LBJ, who, in the film, has little enthusiasm for the bill and seems willing to let FBI director Hoover conduct his ruthless covert wiretapping campaign against the civil rights leader. In “All The Way,” we watch a dance between two leaders who realize they will inevitably disappoint their allies but who are working as hard as possible within the immense constraints they face to make sure they don’t lose this unique moment to obtain a bill. In this movie, Johnson clearly wants much more and sympathizes with the movement, but realizes as a seasoned politician that achieving wholesale change in race relations would require incremental steps. “All The Way” should be required viewing in this polarized electoral atmosphere. The rhetoric in the 2016 election has been very different than the world depicted in the film. Democrats have been animated by candidate Bernie Sanders, who appeals to idealism and insists on political purity as the only antidote to the political problems we face today. Many voters have been unimpressed by the inevitable nominee, Hillary Clinton, who has spent her life in public service and believes that compromise is the only way to move liberalism forward. Clinton might want to watch the film to look for some inspiration about how hard-nosed political pragmatism has been essential to progressive breakthroughs. Related article What's fueling Democrats' war The critical changes that took place in those years offer some powerful evidence about why some of the critiques coming from Sanders supporters about who Clinton is and what she can accomplish are off the mark. Johnson was as hard-nosed and devious as they come, yet until 1966 he was able to use those attributes to vastly expand the social safety net in ways that continue to shape American society. The film is also a warning to Clinton, who has tended to veer toward the more hawkish spectrum, about the costs that can come from bad wars to a liberal agenda. Though the film only covers the beginning of the escalation into the Vietnam conflict with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, we see how LBJ’s political and hawkish instincts planted the seeds for his self-destruction. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion’s new Flipboard magazine. Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and a New America fellow. He is the author of “Jimmy Carter” and “The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.


The Dominican Council of Evangelical Unity says James "Wally" Brewster openly promoted a homosexual agenda to youths The U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic says he's helping the country and strongly opposes discrimination The White House and President support Brewster, U.S. national security adviser says To the ambassador, it was an educational visit, an opportunity to talk about the United Nations and the chance to interact with young students, he said, to have a conversation about the world’s different countries and cultures. But for the Dominican Council of Evangelical Unity, or CODUE by its Spanish acronym, James “Wally” Brewster, U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic, was openly promoting a homosexual agenda to young, vulnerable minds. CODUE has launched a petition on the White House’s website. Its purpose is “to remove the U.S. ambassador in the Dominican Republic” for promoting “an LGBT agenda inconsistent with the Christian cultural values and tradition” of the country. As of this writing, the petition had collected just over 30,000 signatures. To be considered, it has to gather at least 69,927. Brewster suggests those asking for his removal seem to ignore the multiple actions taken during his tenure that have greatly benefited the Dominican Republic. “Not everybody is always going to agree with the measures we’ve taken in cooperation with the Dominican Republic or how we manage our relationship. There’s great work that we’re doing in partnership with the Dominican government, especially in law enforcement areas,” he said. President Obama appointed Brewster, a major fundraiser for his 2012 campaign, as U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic in June of 2013. But the 55-year-old openly gay Chicago businessman faced opposition from religious leaders in the Caribbean country from the beginning, especially because he was also known for serving on the national board of directors of the Human Rights Campaign, a prominent gay rights group. When he arrived in the Dominican Republic in late November of 2013 to begin his tenure, he brought along a first for a male U.S. ambassador in the Caribbean nation: a husband. “My spouse, Bob, and I have traveled the world, from the far reaches of Asia to the stunning coastlines of southern Europe,” Brewster said in a video introducing himself on the U.S. Embassy’s website. Then husband Bob Satawake chimed in: “But we always return to the beauty of the Dominican Republic.” Earlier this month, CODUE, a coalition of evangelical Christian churches, reacted angrily when Brewster helped launch the LGBT Chamber of Commerce, accompanied by Satawake. But the strongest reaction came when he visited a school where, according to Fidel Lorenzo, CODUE’s president, Brewster was not helping students learn about the world, but promoting a gay agenda, at an event where he showed up with his husband. “It’s not only about pointing out and prohibiting homosexual practices. There’s also a systematic violation of Dominican laws, our sovereignty and identity, principles that we shouldn’t negotiate with. In his reelection speech, President Obama said that ‘no one is above the law.’ However, this ambassador violates our laws every day without remorse,” Lorenzo said. Article 55 of the Dominican Constitution establishes that marriage must be between a man and a woman. U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice said in a statement Friday that Brewster continues to have the support of the White House. “President Obama chose Ambassador Brewster to represent the United States government in the Dominican Republic because of his outstanding credentials, integrity and dedication to the advancing the interests of this country. He has the full support of this President, this White House and the entire U.S. government and I know he will continue to advocate tirelessly for the interests of the United States in the Dominican Republic,” Rice said. Meanwhile, another evangelical Christian group has demanded Brewster’s removal. The Federation of Cibao Pastors is asking the Dominican government to declare the ambassador persona non grata and expel him from the country. Brewster insists he’s only representing the interests of the United States to the best of his ability and helping Dominicans in any way he can. While observing the International Day of Zero Discrimination on March 1, the ambassador announced the U.S. government is contributing $15.5 million a year to fight AIDS. Brewster said he also strongly opposes discrimination against vulnerable groups, “including women, persons of color, persons with disabilities, socio-economic discrimination and members of the LGBTI community, among others.” CNN’s Athena Jones contributed to this report.


South Korea says a test can happen as soon as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un orders it US maintains presence of WC-135 Combat Shadow aircraft in region to conduct air sampling after possible test Specific intelligence indicators now show that North Korea is ready for its sixth underground nuclear test at any time, two US officials told CNN on Friday. Recent satellite imagery indicates a potentially significant change at the Punggye-ri test site, the officials said. For weeks, satellites had observed extensive activity on the surface, including vehicles, personnel and equipment, as well as two tunnel entrances being dug out. But the most recent imagery shows that activity has now stopped. That is a similar change in the pattern of activity just before previous tests, indicating all final preparations are now complete, officials said. The South Korean government issued a statement Friday saying a test can happen as soon as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un orders it. “It is assessed that North Korea is ready to carry out a nuclear test anytime if its leadership decides to do so,” Lee Duk-haeng, spokesman for South Korea’s the Ministry of Unification, said in a press briefing. He said that “South Korean and US  intelligence authorities evaluate that North Korea is ready to carry out a nuclear test anytime on the leadership’s decision.” North Korea also continues to move equipment and personnel that could be used to launch ballistic missiles, the US officials said. They caution, however, it’s impossible for the United States to know when a mobile launch or an underground nuclear test will happen. North Korea has a history of moving military personnel and gear around to deceive satellites the regime knows are watching. The United States is maintaining the presence of a WC-135 aircraft in the region that can conduct air sampling after a suspected underground test. In past instances of Pyongyang’s nuclear testing, one of the first signs that an underground explosion has happened is seismic activity picked up by the US Geological Survey in the location of the North Korean test site. All of this comes as the Trump administration is reviewing whether there are fresh options for dealing with North Korea, a situation that the Trump and Obama administrations have agreed is extremely difficult to manage. Privately, US military commanders have said any preemptive strikes by the US would likely result in a North Korean attack on Seoul, leading to disastrous consequences. On an overseas trip to Asia earlier this month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson acknowledged in Tokyo, “I think it’s important to recognize that the diplomatic and other efforts of the past 20 years to bring North Korea to a point of denuclearization have failed.” That sentiment was already expressed late last year by then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who called the effort to get North Korea to give up its nuclear program “probably a lost cause.”


Sen. Tom Cotton and Attorney General Jeff Sessions talked spy fiction at a Senate hearing "I just finished (David) Ignatius's book," Sessions said As multiple investigations into Russian involvement in the 2016 elections hang like a cloud over Washington, the current US political drama often reads like a spy novel. Today, one of its main characters admitted that he is a fan of the genre. In a snappy exchange with Sen. Tom Cotton during his Senate intelligence committee hearing Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions demonstrated a surprising knowledge of espionage thrillers. “Mr. Sessions, are you familiar with what spies call ‘tradecraft’?” Cotton asked, adding “Do you like spy fiction? John le Carre? Daniel Silva? Jason Matthews?” Sessions quickly added to Cotton’s list. “Alan Furst. David Ignatius,” he said. “I just finished Ignatius’s book.” A bestselling novelist and journalist, Ignatius has penned nine novels and one work of nonfiction. His most recent book, “The Director,” tells the fictional story of Graham Weber, a CIA director tasked with saving a compromised agency. It’s a movie-ready tale of cybercrime, strategy and deceit. While Ignatius may be recognized on The New York Times’ Top 10 list of the year’s best books, Alan Furst is hardly a household name. Best known for his 14-book “Night Soldiers” series, Furst was one of the first successful American spy novelists. His work focuses on pre-WWII Eastern Europe – from stories about a Bulgarian fishing town to a Moscow spy academy. Cotton didn’t stop there. “Do you like James Bond or Jason Bourne movies?” he asked. “No,” Sessions joked, before admitting, “Yes, I do.” When asked by Cotton whether the collusion of a sitting US senator and a foreign ambassador would ever appear in one of these “fantastical situations,” like a clandestine meeting at the Mayflower Hotel, Sessions used another literary reference to demonstrate what he sees as the ridiculousness of such a theory. “Thank you for saying that, Sen. Cotton,” Sessions said. “It’s just like ‘Through the Looking Glass.’ I mean, what is this? I explained how, in good faith, I said I had not met with Russians.”


The incident occurred while the fighter jet was approaching the carrier for a landing The pilot is being assessed by a medical team aboard the Carl Vinson. An F/A-18 pilot assigned to the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier safely ejected during a training flight while in transit in the Celebes Sea, the US Navy said Friday. The incident occurred as the fighter jet was approaching the carrier for a landing, and the cause is currently under investigation. The pilot, who was quickly recovered by a helicopter, is being assessed by a medical team aboard the Carl Vinson but suffered no apparent injuries, a Navy news release said. Earlier this week, President Donald Trump said he was sending “an armada” to Korean waters potentially to deal with threats from North Korea. In the face of recent saber-rattling from North Korea, Trump had said the USS Carl Vinson carrier group was being deployed to waters off the Korean Peninsula. “We are sending an armada. Very powerful,” Trump told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo. “We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier. That I can tell you.” It turns out the carrier group was never actually steaming toward the peninsula, but rather heading to joint exercises with the Australian navy. US officials insist it’s now on its way to the Sea of Japan, known in South Korea as the East Sea. It still hasn’t arrived. On Thursday, the US Navy announced it was extending the Vinson’s deployment by 30 days “to provide a persistent presence in the waters off the Korean Peninsula.” Often described as the backbone of naval aviation, the various F-18 aircraft make up most of the service’s strike fighter fleet. The F/A-18 Super Hornet was designed to have a lifespan of roughly 6,000 flight hours, but today, jets are being stretched to fly between 8,000 and 9,000 hours to fulfill mission expectations as a result of fewer operational aircraft, budget restrictions and delays to the fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Trump asked Congress for an additional $13.5 billion this year in part to build and modernize additional F-35s and F/A-18s. The Navy estimates a portion of their current F/A-18 fleet will remain in use through 2030. CNN’s Barbara Starr contributed to this report.


President Donald Trump, coming off a short visit to Poland, was greeted here in Germany on Thursday by the complex reality of foreign relations in the form of a pre-G20 meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The two met at the Hotel Atlantic Kempinski Hamburg, where they shared a handshake and brief conversation before the two world leaders left reporters. It was an instant contrast to the optics of their first meeting in March, which signaled a strained relationship. Related video Did Trump snub Merkel handshake? (March 2017) Trump did not shake Merkel’s hand before cameras in the Oval Office, although they did at other times of her White House visit. And at a news conference later in the day, much to Merkel’s chagrin, Trump make a joke about American spying practices that were found to have swept up the German chancellor’s conversations during President Barack Obama’s administration. “As far as wiretapping I guess by this past administration, at least we have something in common, perhaps,” Trump said, turning to Merkel, who didn’t smile. Merkel, playing host to the international G20 conference on Friday and Saturday in her hometown of Hamburg, has seemingly ensured the conference will be full of prickly issues for Trump, whose relationship with the powerful German leader has so far been frosty. The priorities of this meeting of the G20 include climate change, immigration and trade, all topics where Trump is at odds with the bulk of European leaders. And Merkel further set up a conflict with Trump in a speech to Parliament in June. “Whoever believes the problems of this work can be solved by isolationism and protectionism is making a tremendous error,” Merkel said, a not-so-thinly veiled swipe at Trump, who ran for president by promising nationalism, tightened borders, stricter trade deals and has since pulled out of the Paris climate accord. The two world leaders are meeting Thursday evening before both taking part in broader conversations during the G20. Trump’s relationship with Merkel has been icy ever since the campaign, when Trump questioned the German leader’s immigration policy. “What’s happening in Germany, I always thought Merkel was like this great leader. What she’s done in Germany is insane. It is insane. They’re having all sorts of attacks,” Trump said in an October 2015 interview. Merkel, who is in the midst of running for her fourth term as chancellor of Germany, has taken a forceful posture on the United States and Trump ever since that visit, a departure from the close relationship she had with former President Barack Obama. She even told voters at a beer hall in Bavaria in May that the United States could no longer be seen as a “reliable” ally for Europe. Thursday afternoon’s meeting will likely foretell a difficult two days for Trump, who is coming off a near euphoric visit to Poland, where the President was showered with praise from the conservative Polish government. Trump has so far had an array of results on foreign trips. Though Trump was heralded when he visited Saudi Arabia and Israel on his first foreign trip, European diplomats bristled at Trump’s rhetoric about Article 5, the principle of common defense, during a speech on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And Trump, according to people who traveled with the President, later felt ridiculed during a meeting of the G7 in Italy when leaders implored him to stay in the Paris climate agreement. Merkel’s meeting may not even be close to the most difficult for Trump during his three day Trip to Germany, though, when he comes face to face with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday. CNN’s Kevin Liptak and Allie Malloy contributed to this report.


Bush rejects "out of hand" prospect of U.S. anti-ISIS alliance with Iran Warns that Iran's mullahs who are sponsoring terrorism will not "go quietly into the night." Jeb Bush on Monday called for “massive force” to destroy ISIS and rejected partnering with Iran to eliminate the terror group. “The idea that we’re going to support the forces that support Hamas and Hezbollah and destabilizing forces in the region, I just reject out of hand,” he said of Iran on MSNBC. “That’s part of the problem with the Obama administration,” he continued, “they think that mullahs go quietly into the night. They don’t.” The focus now, Bush said, should be on the United States allying with “European and traditional Arab countries” for a concentrated assault on ISIS, arguing that the issue had become one of “moral conscience.” “We should lead to destroy ISIS,” Bush said. “You do it with massive force, you do it with the stated objective of total victory. And then you need to forge political consensus to create a stable Syria and stable Iraq.” “Then we leave,” he added. Asked in an interview on CBS about whether he was willing to commit 50,000 U.S. soldiers to the Syrian fight, Bush said he didn’t want to speculate on troop numbers. RELATED: Trump says Syrian refugees are a ‘Trojan horse’ Bush also balked at the prospect of forging a quick alliance with Russia, but left some wiggle room for a potential deal with President Vladimir Putin. “Russia, possibly – but they would have to abandon their support of [Syrian President Bashar] Assad,” the Republican presidential hopeful said. Bush’s comments ran counter to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who on Sunday in Iowa called for more cooperation among global powers. “We have different points of view,” Sanders said, “but Russia has got to join us. We are concerned about Iran, but Iran has to join us. We have concerns about Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia has to join us.” RELATED: Sanders says it’s time to work with Russia, Iran in ISIS fight