Trump and Putin will not formally meet in Vietnam, the White House said But they informally chatted a multiple times President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will not hold a formal meeting at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit here in Vietnam, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders has told reporters. But the two world leaders did informally speak a couple times during the two-day meeting. Trump and Putin were seen casually talking while walking to a photo-op at the Asian-Pacific Rim summit on Saturday. Flanked by sizable entourages, the two spoke for much of the walk down to a vista and stood next to each other for a photo. The chat, while brief, looked friendly, with both leaders speaking with their hands. Any interaction between the two world leaders is closely watched given the swirl of investigations into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, an issue that has plagued the Trump administration for months. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation issued his first indictments last week, bringing charges against former top Trump campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, who have pleaded not guilty. Trump and Putin also shook hands and spoke briefly before an APEC plenary session on Saturday and the two world leaders briefly met during a so-called class photo on Friday night, where all the heads of state come together to take a photo before the summit officially starts. The two shook hands and briefly spoke before the photo was snapped. Both wore the oversized, blue traditional-style Vietnamese shirt provided by the host country and stood next to one another for the picture. Citing “scheduling conflicts on both sides,” though, Sanders said Friday no formal meeting will take place during the two-day gathering. She did leave the door open to informal interactions between the two, a notion reinforced by her Russian counterparts. “Regarding a Putin meeting, there was never a meeting confirmed, and there will not be one that takes place due to scheduling conflicts on both sides,” Sanders said Friday. “There is no formal meeting or anything scheduled for them.” She added: “Now, they’re going to be in the same place. Are they going to bump into each other and say hello? Certainly possible, and likely. But in terms of a scheduled, formal meeting, there’s not one on the calendar and we don’t anticipate that there will be one.” Sanders’ statement contradicted what the Russian side told reporters for the last two days, adding to the drama around how Trump and Putin will interact at the international summit. “The meeting will take place on the sidelines,” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday after Sanders’ statement, adding that some encounter will take place “one way or another.” The possibility of a formal Trump-Putin meeting hung over the economic summit. Trump, Moon set to take questions in SeoulAs Trump lands in Seoul, 3 US carriers prepare for drill‘Wild card’ Trump heads into North Korea’s line of sightTrump’s Asia challenge: Be tough on trade and unified on North KoreaTrump in Japan: His first stop in Asia Trump, Moon set to take questions in SeoulAs Trump lands in Seoul, 3 US carriers prepare for drill‘Wild card’ Trump heads into North Korea’s line of sightTrump’s Asia challenge: Be tough on trade and unified on North KoreaTrump in Japan: His first stop in Asia Trump has long denied any collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives during the 2016 election. But US intelligence agencies concluded in a report released earlier this year that Russia ordered an “influence campaign” to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the election. The delicateness of the Putin-Trump meeting was laid bare on Thursday – before Sanders’ statement – when the two sides gave dramatically different accounts on whether the two leaders would even meet in the first place. Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov told state-run news organization Itar Tass that Putin and Trump would meet on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit on Friday, adding that the two sides had already agreed to the time and place. While briefing reporters in China, though, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declined to say whether Putin and Trump would meet in Vietnam, telling reporters that officials are working to determine whether the two world leaders have sufficient areas of substance to discuss. “When the two leaders meet, is there something sufficiently substantive?” Tillerson said. “No conclusion has been made on that.” Given the intense focus on any interactions between Trump, his associates and Russian operatives, the meeting – particularly what is said and not said – could overshadow the focus of Trump’s trip to Vietnam, where the President is set to discuss business, trade and security with an array of Asian leaders. Related article Possible Trump-Putin meeting still under discussion, Tillerson says One cause for concern on the American side is how Trump and Putin’s first meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Germany caused a diplomatic dust-up over whether Trump accepted Putin’s assurances there was no Russian involvement in the 2016 American election. Trump opened his first sessions with Putin by “raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election,” Tillerson told reporters after the bilateral meeting. “The President pressed President Putin on more than one occasion regarding Russian involvement. President Putin denied such involvement, as I think he has in the past.” Tillerson didn’t say whether Trump accepted his denial. But while Tillerson was briefing US media, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters that Trump accepted Putin’s denial. The charge was immediately denied by a senior Trump administration official, but the turnabout signaled that any diplomatic engagement between the two countries would be complicated and fraught. Aboard Air Force One as he kicked off his five-country, 13-day trip throughout Asia, Trump told reporters that he “expected” to meet with Putin on the visit because the United States hopes to enlist Russia in the fight against North Korea. “We want Putin’s help on North Korea,” he said. The first half of Trump’s trip through Asia has primarily focused on how to deal with the rogue nation. Trump gave a direct and bellicose speech in South Korea about Pyongyang, at one point speaking directly to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “North Korea is not the paradise your grandfather envisioned,” he said. “It is a hell that no person deserves.” Trump will continue to focus on North Korea in Vietnam, senior White House officials tell CNN, but his time at the summit will primarily focus on free trade. “The President’s engagements at APEC will reinforce the US commitment to an equitable, sustainable and rules-based international economic system based on market principles,” one official said. This story has been updated.


The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee is refuting the Republican memo alleging FBI abuses of surveillance authority, accusing House Republicans of being “part and parcel to an organized effort to obstruct” special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. New York Rep. Jerry Nadler released an analysis Saturday as a rebuttal to the Republican memo, spearheaded by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, which was released Friday. Nadler, who has viewed the classified materials that form the basis of the Republican memo, argues the FISA court had “probable cause” to believe Page was “an agent of foreign power” and that nothing in the Nunes memo proves that the government did not have enough evidence beyond the dossier to seek a FISA warrant. Related article The Nunes memo: 5 takeaways The Nunes memo accuses the FBI of abusing its authority in applying for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. It also alleges that then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that the surveillance warrant would not have been sought without the disputed opposition research dossier on Trump and Russia written by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Nadler’s analysis called that claim “deliberately misleading and deeply wrong on the law,” noting that the Nunes memo itself says the FBI counterintelligence investigation was triggered by information on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos in July 2016, before the Page FISA application was filed. Papadopoulos had come under investigation for contacts with a professor connected to the Russian government who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. That investigation was opened months before the Page application, after the FBI received information from the Australian government, CNN has reported. “Indeed, we have every indication that the government made its application to the court in good faith,” Nadler wrote in the six-page rebuttal obtained by CNN. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October to making a false statement to the FBI after he lied about his interactions with foreign officials close to the Russian government. NBC News first reported the contents of Nadler’s analysis. Nadler’s document echoes remarks by California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who told reporters Friday that the Republican memo “cherry picks” information from McCabe’s testimony. Schiff argued that memo does not represent what McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee, and he said McCabe told the panel the “genesis of the investigation” did not begin with the dossier. The Steele dossier alleges that Page met senior Russian officials as an emissary of the Trump campaign and discussed quid-pro-quo deals relating to sanctions, business opportunities and Russia’s interference in the election. After Page took a trip to Russia in July 2016, the FBI grew concerned that he had been compromised by Russian operatives, US officials briefed on the matter told CNN. Page says he never cut any political deals with the Kremlin and says there was nothing illegal in his interactions with Russian officials. “The brave and assiduous oversight by Congressional leaders in discovering this unprecedented abuse of process represents a giant, historic leap in the repair of America’s democracy,” Page said in a statement Friday. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, led by Schiff, have drafted their own 10-page memo in rebuttal to the Nunes memo, but the committee voted Monday to block its release.


Editor’s Note: Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” Miller was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. Follow him @aarondmiller2. Jason M. Brodsky is the policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran. Follow him @JasonMBrodsky. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the authors. Miller and Brodsky: Growing tension in the Middle East could spell trouble for US policy in the region It could undermine the Trump administration's goals of fighting ISIS and brokering peace with Israel and Palestinians The growing rift within the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Saudi-led regional alliance, the isolation of Qatar and Wednesday’s terror attacks in Iran represent a witches’ brew of trouble for US policy in the Gulf and the attainment of the Trump administration’s goals in the region. It’s too early to predict to what extent, if at all, these events will reshape Arab politics or power balances. But here are the key takeaways: If ISIS’ claim of responsibility is true, it would mark its first major operation within Iran. Before Wednesday morning’s mayhem in the Iranian Parliament and in the mausoleum housing the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founding father of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Tehran routinely branded itself as an island of stability in an otherwise tumultuous neighborhood.  With destabilization of regional bulwarks after the Arab Spring – Iraq, Syria and Yemen – Iran positioned itself as an Islamic heavyweight not to be ignored. Whether the alleged ISIS attack opens an avenue of cooperation with Washington remains to be seen. Even as late as last month, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif proclaimed “[w]e derive stability not from ‘coalitions,’ but from our people, who – unlike many – do vote.” But for years Sunni Muslims living in Shiite Iran have been ostracized, officially and unofficially. For instance, Sunnis are not permitted to run for the presidency in Iran under Article 115 of its constitution, and despite the language in Article 12 that other sects within Islam are to be accorded “full respect,” the major and dominant form of Islam remains Shiite Twelver Ja’fari. Discrimination exists in other forms. For instance, news reports indicate that in major cities in Iran, Sunnis are prohibited from building their own mosques and that unofficial Sunni prayer spaces have been routinely destroyed. Likewise, according to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, officials arrested 20 Arab-Iranians on February 26, 2014, for conversion from Shiite to Sunni Islam. As in Iraq, with the oppression of a Sunni minority, such activity feeds alienation and results in a constituency ripe for radicalization by groups like ISIS, which has taken advantage of this dynamic, releasing its first Farsi video in March aiming “to defend their dignity and regain back the pride taken away by Iranian Shia authorities.” The ISIS attacks and the growing rift with Saudi Arabia will only deepen the accelerating trend toward hard-line policies even while the re-election of Hassan Rouhani as President has been cast by some observers as a victory for moderation over extremism. The hope was that Rouhani would capitalize on his popularity to usher in reforms, particularly in the non-nuclear aspects of Tehran’s problematic behavior, namely regional meddling, terrorism and human rights abuses. That’s not likely now. Related article Qatar's isolation only makes sense in Trump's world Just consider the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ statement after the terrorist attack: “This terrorist attack happened only a week after the meeting between the US President (Donald Trump) and the (Saudi) backward leaders who support terrorists. The fact that Islamic State has claimed responsibility proves that they were involved in the brutal attack.” The accusation of US support for terrorism directly undercuts any attempt at dialogue by Rouhani for sanctions relief and will weaken his standing in Tehran’s power games. With the reports that the FBI suspects Russian hackers were behind fake news being uploaded onto the website of Qatar’s state news agency, such a cyberintrusion represents another attempt by Russian President Vladimir Putin to undermine US alliances around the world – first NATO and now the Middle East. For Russia, undercutting GCC unity works to its advantage in a variety of theaters, most especially Syria. Rupturing relations between Qatar and key players in the GCC, like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, weakens the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS – of which all are members except for Russia. Related video Suicide bombs and gun attacks rock Tehran The Kremlin is bolstering the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad with the help of Iran, and the Tehran-Moscow axis benefits from such disunity, especially the prospect of luring Washington away from its al-Udeid Air Base, which houses more than 10,000 US servicemen and enhances the United States and partner capacity in carrying out strikes in Syria. The escalation of tensions between Qatar and key Gulf states is neither new nor completely reparable. Indeed, given the dramatic closure of Qatar’s land border and severing of critical air links, the Qataris will have to make significant concessions unless they’re prepared to risk a serious weakening of their economy. Still, unless the Saudis and Emiratis are prepared to launch a coup and replace the Thanis, the ruling family, whatever diplomacy succeeds in mending fences is certain to be temporary. At its core, this is a contest of wills over Qatar’s capacity to be an independent actor in the Gulf and in the region at large on a range of critical issues, including Qatar’s close economic ties with Iran, its right to publicly criticize its neighbors and its provocative tendencies to support a range of Islamist groups from Hamas to al-Qaeda affiliates. Related article Middle East madness engulfs Iran, Qatar and US Qatar seems determined to follow its own course and to choose its own allies and adversaries. One choice – its relationship with the United States – resulted in an agreement to host the strategically situated air base at al-Udeid and gave the Qataris significant leverage with Washington. Other choices to support Islamist forces seeking to overthrow regimes in Egypt and Tunisia  and to support a variety of extremists groups in Syria brought it into conflict with its more conservative neighbors, who saw Islamist challenges during the Arab Spring as threats against their own rule. It’s ironic that GCC unity now appears more fraught than ever, particularly in the wake of President Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia and the aura of unity and togetherness that seemed to mark his meetings there. The idea that any administration would be able to put together a functional and powerful alignment of Sunni Arab states marshaled in the service of US policy goals was always a fraught, some would say elusive, goal. Part of the problem is the fractiousness of relations between Arab states, part is their own agendas, and part are very real differences between Washington and the Arab world on issues ranging from Iran to Arab-Israeli peace to Syria. The emergence of the Trump administration, particularly its harder line on Iran and the Islamists, seemed to offer a chance to mend relations with the Gulf and enlist their support in carrying out Trump’s three core Middle East objectives: destroy ISIS, roll back Iran and deliver Israeli-Palestinian peace. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Trump’s strong backing for Saudi Arabia didn’t create this crisis with Qatar, but it likely emboldened the Saudis to act now. It’s hard to see how any of this will end happily. If the United States tries to mediate, chances are it will fail; if it doesn’t, the United States will be perceived to have been marginalized. And if it chooses, as the President did on Twitter, to back the Saudis, it will find itself in the middle of a rift that will weaken the GCC. Indeed, Trump will learn an important lesson about the Middle East: Great powers meddle in the affairs of small tribes at their own risk.


Editor’s Note: Candida Moss is a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame and co-author of “Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Childlessness and Procreation” (Princeton University Press, 2015). The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. Candida Moss: Two at Vatican arrested for allegedly leaking documents to book authors. Is Pope Francis' papacy different from others? She says move fits with perception that even "kinder, gentler" church would rather rout whistleblowers than fight internal corruption On Monday, news broke that the Vatican is pursuing legal action against Spanish priest Monsignor Vallejo Balda and PR expert Francesca Chaouqui for a “serious betrayal of trust.” According to news reports, the two former members of a papal commission established to reform church finances were arrested for allegedly leaking confidential documents to the authors of forthcoming books on the Vatican. The arrests are reminiscent of the “Vatileaks” scandal that plagued Pope Benedict XVI three years ago, which many feel contributed to his resignation. As with the Vatileaks scandal, this week’s news concerns economic corruption and fiscal irresponsibility in the church, although the full impact of the alleged leaks will be learned only when the tell-all books are released. And, as with the Vatileaks scandal, the most visible response by the church has been to silence its whisteblowers and control the public relations fallout. Certainly the Vatican has the legal and ethical high ground here: It says that documents were stolen from it and leaked to the press. This kind of thing is a criminal offense, punishable by a prison term up to eight years and a fine of 5000 euros (about $5,500). Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi was clear that this was not an inside job intended to strengthen the Pope’s position, but rather that the alleged leaking of these documents undermines the work of the church by creating “confusion.” Related video Top Vatican bank officials resign But none of that matters. The reputation of the Vatican succeeds or fails on the transparency issue. We can see this merely by looking at responses to various events in Francis’ papacy. His enormous and almost unprecedented popularity has been built not only on his emphasis on the poor and the marginalized, his extension of mercy to all and his charismatic personality, but also on the air of openness and sincerity that surrounds his person. Francis not only meanders out to greet an adoring crowd, he also wanders wildly off-script. And in these moments of spontaneous preaching and unscheduled meet-and-greets he seems most approachable, most loving and most honest. It is this sense – that Francis is honest and sincere – that undergirds his success. His words of love and forgiveness for those who have had abortions, his concern for immigrants and his insistence on care for the environment have garnered him a great deal of attention. But very little about the content of what he said was new. Pope John Paul II extended mercy to those who had had abortions, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been a vocal advocate for immigrants for decades, and Benedict XVI also stressed the dangers of destroying the environment. The difference is that people believe Francis. He seems sincere and transparent and because of that, his popularity ratings have remained consistently high. Related video Pope Francis meets with, hugs same-sex couple Francis’ popularity suffered, however, during the Kim Davis affair. That conservative Christianity’s poster girl for traditional marriage attended a meeting with him sent shock waves through the media. Francis is on the record as favoring traditional marriage, but Davis attending the meeting – held with a larger group, according to a Vatican spokesman – created a stir because it appeared, at first, that the Vatican was trying to conceal it. Francis’ reputation was dented because, for the first time, people wondered if he is all that he seems. The news that the Vatican is actively pursuing charges against whistleblowers is sure to backfire. This is a pre-emptive strike against bad publicity, but it will do little to bolster the church’s reputation. The speed with which whistleblowers were investigated and arrested contrasts with the glacial pace at which Vatican reforms take place and the mild punishments meted out to those accused of economic irresponsibility. The incident seems to suggest a pattern in which the church is more interested in punishing those who breach confidentiality than those who are financially corrupt. Ultimately, this will only draw more attention to the soon-to-be-released books and will cement the idea that, when it comes to transparency and fiscal responsibility, very little has changed. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion’s new Flipboard magazine.


Here’s how Donald Trump, aka the President of the United States, responded on Twitter to the news that his one-time campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been indicted on a dozen counts of money laundering and filing false lobbying forms for his work in foreign countries: “Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????…….Also, there is NO COLLUSION!” Trump hasn’t yet responded to the subsequent news that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to his presidential campaign, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI regarding the timing and nature of his contacts with Russian foreign nationals – a much bigger story in regards Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. But the White House is making clear that their argument on Papadopoulos will be the same as their argument on Manafort: This guy hasn’t been around Trump in a long time! Nothing to see here! Focus on Hillary Clinton! “There is clear evidence that the Clinton campaign colluded with Russia to smear the President,” argued White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Monday afternoon. That line will work with Trump’s core supporters who believe whatever he tells them to believe or, perhaps more accurately, don’t believe anything the mainstream media tells them to believe. ( A majority of Republicans – 53% – said in a June CBS News poll that the special counsel investigation is a “political distraction.”) The problem for Trump – support from his base notwithstanding – is that he is making a political argument in response to a legal problem. And that almost certainly won’t work. Trump’s goal – from the start of the appointment of Bob Mueller as a special counsel in May to look into the allegations of Russian meddling and collusion – has been to disqualify the findings and the discredit the people investigating. Mueller and fired FBI director Jim Comey are friends! Several members of Mueller’s team have donated to Democrats! Uranium! Emails! All of these “stories” are aimed at providing fodder for Fox News and other conservative outlets to counter Mueller’s ongoing investigation. The idea is simple: Convince conservatives that what they might be hearing about indictments and guilty pleas are a distraction from the real story, which is, of course, how the last administration and Hillary Clinton did something super nefarious. And yet, no matter how many conservatives or even Republican elected officials (and that list is growing) call on Mueller to resign or argue that he’s missing the real story, Mueller and his team just keep moving forward. Short of firing Mueller, which Trump has publicly ruled out (for now), nothing that Trump can or will do can change that legal march. (And, if he fired Mueller, there would almost certainly be a push from Congress to immediately appoint another special counsel or even to re-appoint Mueller.) Today marks another step forward. The Manafort and Gates indictment and the Papadopoulos guilty plea feel like the beginning of the next stage of Mueller’s investigation, not its end point. As the process moves more into the legal realm – as opposed to the political one – the tougher it is for Trump to effectively argue that this is all a witch hunt. Guilty pleas and indictments are not just spin from people out to hurt Trump because they don’t like his policies. Nor are they meaningless back and forth amid the heat of a political campaign. These are serious charges with serious legal consequences. No matter how harshly Trump attacks Mueller or those around him – or dismisses the importance of Manafort or Papadopoulos – it doesn’t change the real legal peril these folks face. Now. Trump broke every rule of conventional politics – or at least most of them – when he won the presidency last year. Much like George Costanza, Trump did the opposite at all times – and it worked. Is it possible that, in the face of the legal proceedings facing former Trump officials, people simply don’t care? Sure. (In the words of Kevin Garnett, anything is possible!) But the key question is whether the American public – up to and including loosely affiliated Trump voters in 2016 – are willing to believe that the Justice Department and Mueller are willing to risk their credibility and that of the American justice system to pursue a trumped up (ahem) case against a variety of Trump campaign officials. Count me as skeptical.


Editor’s note: Hayder al-Khoei is research director at the Centre for Academic Shia Studies and an associate fellow of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House. He is a member of the Atlantic Council Task Force on the Future of Iraq. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Iraq’s ongoing military campaign to liberate the ISIS stronghold of Falluja is being sensationally framed in too much of the media coverage and commentary as a Shia versus Sunni war. Besides being inaccurate, this does a disservice to both the Shia and Sunni Iraqis working hand-in-hand to defeat ISIS. Despite some attempts to portray the campaign in Falluja as Iran-led, it is being led by the Iraqis themselves with support from both Iran and the United States. The tip of the spear in Falluja is not an Iranian-backed paramilitary group but the U.S.-created Counter Terrorism Service and its elite U.S.-trained Special Forces known locally as the Golden Division. These forces, besides being a mixed Shia-Sunni unit, are led by a Kurdish commander. Related video U.S. forces play key role in retaking ISIS stronghold Voices from Falluja: What families took with them More importantly, alongside both the Iraqi security forces and Shia paramilitaries, there are thousands of Sunni tribal fighters who are officially part of the state-sponsored Popular Mobilization Forces – crudely, and again inaccurately, referred to in much of the Iraq commentary as “Shia militias.” A flashpoint of the Falluja coverage has been the Shia paramilitary forces who played a key role in not just blunting ISIS offensives but also in liberating much of the territory that has been retaken by Iraqi forces since the army’s humiliating defeat in June 2014. These Shia forces are on the outskirts of Falluja and are not expected to be part of a ground assault into the city. But exaggerated fears are nonetheless constantly raised over what would happen if Iraqi Shias enter a Sunni-dominated Iraqi city. It will be difficult to prevent retribution in any post-ISIS scenario and indeed there have been documented cases of this elsewhere in the country. But to continue to portray and place this violence within a broader Shia versus Sunni narrative is a gross simplification of the realities on the ground. Related video Iraqi military advancing on key ISIS-held city ISIS systematically destroys the communities and cities they control through ruthless co-optation of the local population. When a city is liberated from ISIS, it is not just some Shia soldiers or paramilitary forces that seek revenge but also the Sunnis who lived under the tyranny of ISIS’ occupation. It is the locals who have a much better understanding of who the collaborators in their own city and neighborhood were. Opinion: No easy victories in battle to free Falluja When Tikrit was liberated by Iraqi forces in March 2015, there was a fierce inter-tribal struggle as locals took revenge against those who joined or helped ISIS. Even this episode of Sunni-Sunni score-settling was portrayed in much of the commentary as sectarian Shia-Sunni retaliatory attacks. Related video Iraqi military battles ISIS for control of Falluja The relentless focus on sectarianism when discussing Falluja led one Iraq-based journalist to tweet: “Falluja will take time, and will be very messy. But there’s a current of poor commentary that’s more sectarian than the situation itself.” At a time when sectarian dynamics is one of many factors fueling the crises in Iraq and beyond, it is important for Western journalists and analysts to not be more sectarian than the Iraqis on the ground actually fighting ISIS. Iraq’s fight against ISIS is not a sectarian war between Iraqis but a nation’s struggle against terrorism. It is not surprising that much of the regional media portray the events in Falluja as part of a broader sectarian war, especially when this serves the political agendas of governments that control these outlets. However, Western media coverage should be much more nuanced and sophisticated and not play into ISIS’ hands who desperately want to make this a black-and-white sectarian war. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Iraq's military campaign to liberate Falluja


An experimental blood test could make it easier to detect cancers in their early stages, study suggests Experts caution that more research is needed before such a test could be widely used Scientists have made progress on developing an experimental blood test that could detect many types of cancer in their early stages, and possibly even their locations in the body. The noninvasive blood test was shown to detect the presence of common tumors of the ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas, esophagus, colorectum, lung and breast, according to a study published in the journal Science on Thursday. This blood test, called CancerSEEK, could cost less than $500, which is comparable to or lower than other screening tests, such as a colonoscopy, according to the study. The study was funded by many foundations, research groups, and grants, while many of the study authors have ties to biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, as well as patents. Yet as of now, the study only “lays the conceptual and practical foundation” for a cancer-screening blood test and much more research needs to be done before such a test could be widely used, the researchers wrote in the study. Related article Colon cancer deaths rise among younger adults, and no one knows why The researchers hope that their test could make detecting early-stage cancers easier in the future. “The success rate of therapeutics and surgeries is going to be much, much higher, we believe, if the cancer is found very early, before symptoms,” said Dr. Nickolas Papadopoulos, professor of oncology and pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine and senior author of the study. “This is the first step,” he said about the study. “The results are good enough to warrant the next step, which is to test this in a screening setting, meaning in thousands of individuals that actually do not have cancer and see really how well our test works.” Some of the blood tests currently used to diagnose cancer include complete blood count, blood protein testing, tumor marker tests, and circulating tumor cell tests. With the exception of detecting blood cancers, however, those tests “generally can’t absolutely tell whether you have cancer or some other noncancerous condition,” according to Mayo Clinic’s website. Rather, the tests offer doctors clues as to what’s going on inside your body. Related article Study sheds light on the 'other' breast cancer genes For the blood test approach used in the new study, the researchers combined assessing levels of circulating proteins in the blood and mutations in cell-free DNA. Specifically, the researchers evaluated levels of eight proteins and the presence of mutations in 2,001 genomic positions to detect signs of cancer. Dr. Martin Widschwendter, a professor and head of the department of women’s cancer at University College London, who was not involved in the new study, described the approach as “groundbreaking.” “All these different components in isolation have been demonstrated in the past for individual cancers. The groundbreaking nature is that blood protein markers have been combined with DNA markers and analyzed in a set of individuals with various cancers and controls,” he said. Related video Medical tests all women should receive The test was then given to 1,005 patients who previously had been diagnosed with stage I to III cancers of the ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas, esophagus, colorectum, lung or breast. Currently, no blood-based tests are in common clinical use for earlier detection of those cancers, the researchers noted in their study. The average sensitivity of the tests was 70% among the eight cancer types, researchers found. CancerSEEK was able to detect 98% of ovarian cancers, but when it came to the much more common breast cancer, the accuracy was significantly lower, at 33%. The researchers also developed an algorithm to determine the source of the cancer identified in the positive tests, and they were able to localize the source to a single organ in an average of 63% of these patients. The researchers also gave the test to 812 healthy patients and found that only seven of them resulted in a false-positive. Related video Training dogs to detect cancer “We were pleasantly surprised that we could detect the amount of cancers that we were able to detect,” Papadopoulos said. “We were even more pleasantly surprised that not only we detected cancers, but with some degree of certainty, we were able to localize it to at least two sites as to where these cancers might be.” The study had some limitations, including that the patients in the study already had been diagnosed with cancer, mostly based on symptoms. So patients in a real-life screening likely would have less advanced disease and might be more difficult to test. Also, in a real-life scenario, even healthy patients who would be tested could have inflammatory or other diseases that could skew test results, which wasn’t seen among the healthy patients in the study. The researchers have moved forward with a follow-up, five-year study to further evaluate the blood test, Papadopoulos said in a teleconference with reporters on Friday. While the recently published study appears “promising,” several of those caveats need to be addressed before researchers can contemplate how the blood test might play out in screening settings, Mangesh Thorat, deputy director of the Barts Clinical Trials Unit at the Center for Cancer Prevention at Queen Mary University of London, said in a written media statement. “This is only a case-control study, and therefore needs further evaluation in large cohorts more representative of (the) general population,” said Thorat, who was not involved in the study. See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. “The sensitivity of the test in stage I cancer is quite low, about 40%, and even with stage I and II combined it appears to be around 60%. So the test will still miss a large proportion of cancers at the stage where we want to diagnose them,” he said. “The proportion of common cancers – breast, lung, colorectal – detected is again not as high as other, rarer cancers. This may mean that a screening program has to test a very large number of individuals to detect one cancer.” While far more research needs to be done to develop such a blood test to detect early-stage cancers in the general population, the new study provides an additional piece to that puzzle, said Widschwendter. “There is a lot more work to be done before a blood test can be offered for early diagnosis of a combination of various cancers,” he said. “There is a long way to go before we can actually do this.” CNN’s Zahid Mahmood contributed to this report.


More than half of international travelers are not getting vaccinated against measles when they should, a study says Here's a guide to which vaccinations are recommended before traveling to which countries There’s cholera, which can give you explosive diarrhea, vomiting and leg cramps. Then there’s measles, which can give you a high fever, cough, runny nose and rash. Don’t forget yellow fever, which can come with chills, headache and nausea. Those are just a few of the illnesses, sometimes fatal, that pose a risk to international travelers. Yet many jet-setters might overlook getting vaccinated for them before touring the world. Slightly more than half of international travelers in the United States who were eligible to receive the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine before traveling did not get vaccinated between 2009 and 2014, according to a new study that published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday. Therefore, those travelers were probably at risk for being infected with measles while abroad, said Dr. Emily Hyle, an instructor in medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and lead author of the paper. Related video Sneeze on a plane: A chance of getting the measles “Pre-travel vaccinations are important because diseases that aren’t found in the United States, such as typhoid or yellow fever, may be a risk in other countries. These diseases can be severe or even fatal,” said Dr. Phyllis Kozarsky, an expert travel health consultant with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Travelers’ Health Branch and a professor at Emory University. She was not involved in the new study. “Even diseases that do occur in the United States, such as measles or hepatitis A, are often more common in other countries,” she said. “Several countries in Europe are currently experiencing measles outbreaks, which emphasizes how important it is for travelers to be up-to-date on routine vaccines as well as get travel-related vaccines.” Related article Measles outbreak surging in Italy as officials urge confidence in vaccines Measles was declared eliminated from the US in 2000 but remains common in many other parts of the world, such as Western Europe, where the measles virus causes death in at least one in 5,000 cases. As many as one in 100 die from measles in the poorest regions of the world, according to the University of Oxford in England. This year, the CDC has reported outbreaks of measles in Italy, Germany, Belgium, Guinea and Romania. Also, the measles virus is found regularly in Indonesia. Measles, in particular, is a highly infectious illness that can spread through the air when an infected person coughs or sneezes, according to the National Health Service in England. Related video Measles: Why not vaccinating your kids can be deadly Yet, every year, immunization prevents between 2 million and 3 million deaths around the world in all age groups from diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and measles, according to the World Health Organization. Measles vaccination resulted in a 79% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2015 worldwide, the agency said. In 2015, about 85% of the world’s children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday, according to the WHO. The vaccine is typically given to children in two doses: at 12 months and at 4 to 6 years old. For adults, officials recommend vaccination if you didn’t receive it as a child or haven’t had all three diseases. The new study is based on 40,810 adult travelers who each visited one of 24 Global TravEpiNet clinic sites, affiliated with a hospital, medical school, doctor’s office, pharmacy or public health clinic, in the US between 2009 and 2014. Of those travelers, 6,612 were eligible for MMR vaccine at the time of their visit, before they went abroad. However, 3,477 – or 53% – ended up not getting vaccinated, the data revealed. Related article Deadly measles complication is more common than thought, study says “We were surprised to see such a high number of missed opportunities for MMR vaccination, even in these specialized travel clinics,” Hyle said. “To my knowledge, our study presents the largest analysis of systematically collected data about pre-travel MMR vaccination,” she said. “Providers should have clear discussions with their patients about the potential risks of having measles illness and the risks of spreading the disease upon return to the US, especially to the very young and the immunosuppressed.” People with certain health conditions and children under 6 months old should not be vaccinated, Hyle said. After analyzing questionnaires taken during each traveler’s visit, the researchers found that 48% of those who were not vaccinated – despite being eligible because they had not received it before – refused the vaccination, as most thought it was unnecessary. Among 28%, the provider deemed the vaccine to be unnecessary, and for the remaining 24%, there were barriers to getting vaccinated, such as the patient being referred to another provider for the vaccine and never going. “People often underestimate the risk of getting infections,” said Dr. Pritish Tosh, an infectious disease physician and researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved in the new paper. Related article Concerned about vaccine safety? Here are the facts The highest-risk group for travel-related illnesses tends to be people who think they are at a lower risk, Tosh said. For instance, “people who were from a country and come to the United States to live and then they visit their friends and relatives back in their country of origin and they often think, ‘Well, when I was there, things were fine,’ and they don’t seek travel advice. They don’t get medications to prevent malaria. They don’t get vaccinations and these other things,” he said. “So, the people who think they are the lowest risk actually have the highest risk of getting some sort of travel-related infection, mostly because they don’t think they are at risk.” Hyle said more research is needed to determine whether the new study findings might be generalizable to other health clinics and travelers. “Additionally, travelers who seek pre-travel medical advice may be more likely to be up-to-date on their vaccines and might be more likely to accept vaccination than travelers who do not seek pre-travel advice; as a result, our findings might underestimate opportunities for MMR vaccination among travelers,” she said. Measles isn’t the only vaccine-related health issue flagged under the CDC’s travel notices. Related video The dangers of yellow fever “Hepatitis A is a potential risk almost anywhere in the world, so this vaccine is recommended for almost all international travelers,” said the CDC’s Kozarsky. “Yellow fever is a risk in parts of South America and Africa, and malaria is found in parts of South America and Asia and is very common in Africa,” she said. “There is no vaccine for malaria, but travelers can take medicine to prevent it.” Last month, the WHO and the CDC expanded the list of areas in which yellow fever vaccination is recommended for travelers to include parts of Brazil. The WHO recommends vaccination against yellow fever at least 10 days prior to travel. “There is currently a large outbreak of yellow fever in Brazil, and a shortage of vaccine may make it difficult for some travelers to be vaccinated. Because of the seriousness of yellow fever disease, CDC recommends that people who cannot get the vaccine not travel, so travelers to areas where yellow fever vaccine is required or recommended should plan well in advance to get vaccinated,” Kozarsky said. Related video Nigeria's fight against polio In Nigeria, health officials have reported several cases of wild poliovirus, and the CDC recommends that all travelers to that country be fully vaccinated against polio. The CDC recommended Friday that adult travelers visiting areas with endemic or epidemic cholera receive a vaccine called Vaxchora, the only such vaccine licensed for use in the US. The cholera bacterium, which is rare in industrialized nations, has been associated with outbreaks in Mexico, Haiti, parts of Asia and parts of Africa. The WHO recently has responded in “full emergency mode” to an upsurge in cholera cases in Yemen, it said last week. Related video Busting common myths about vaccines “The cholera vaccine in the US is new, and while everyone should be vaccinated against measles, whether or not they are traveling, not everyone needs to be vaccinated against cholera,” said Dr. Jason Harris, associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. “There are vaccines, like Vaxchora, which can protect travelers from serious infections that they might be exposed to while traveling overseas,” he said. “Another important benefit is that travel vaccines may also prevent people from carrying infections to another country or back home with them, so these vaccines may not only benefit the traveler but in some cases their families and communities as well.” If you are venturing across countries, the Mayo Clinic’s Tosh offered some travel advice and recommended visiting a travel clinic. “The travel clinic will not only give you vaccines you need, medications in case you are going to a malaria-endemic area to prevent malaria, medication in case you get travel diarrhea; but also, most importantly, the travel clinic will give you advice to make sure you know how to prevent infections, including how to avoid insect bites and how to ensure you are consuming safe food and water,” Tosh said. “I would also encourage people to make sure they have gotten their routine vaccine series that are recommended to them,” he said. “Things to also do when traveling overseas is – the US State Department actually has a very nice website for travelers – to know the types of safety issues and how to get in contact with the consulate. The State Department website will also talk about scams that can happen, and it is country-specific.” See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. Experts can’t predict which travel-related diseases are likely to have a large impact this summer, but mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue, chikungunya and Zika have affected large numbers of travelers in the past, said Kozarsky, the CDC expert. “Unfortunately, no vaccines for these diseases have been licensed in the United States, so it’s important for travelers to take steps to prevent mosquito bites,” she said.

pre-travel vaccination for international travelers


NEW:  Toxicology analysis is underway Police: The sisters died of acute pulmonary edema Two American sisters found unresponsive in their resort in  the Seychelles died of excess fluid in their lungs, according to  authorities in the island nation off Africa’s east coast. Autopsies performed Wednesday showed Robin Korkki, 42, of Chicago, and Anne Korkki, 37, of Denver, died from acute pulmonary edema, or fluid in the lungs, police told the Seychelles News Agency. Cerebral edema, or excess fluid in the brain, also contributed to Anne Korkki’s death, the news agency reported. No explanation was offered for the fluid buildup in the women’s lungs. Experts are conducting a toxicology analysis in a forensic laboratory in neighboring Mauritius, according to the news agency. Resort management discovered the women unresponsive September 22 in their villa, Seychelles police spokesman Jean Toussaint told CNN. No visible signs of injuries were found on the bodies, he said. The sisters were staying at the Maia resort on Seychelles’ main island, Mahe. Seychelles authorities have contacted US officials, and both nations are treating the investigation as high priority, Toussaint said. He declined to provide further information, citing privacy and ongoing investigations. Calls to the US consular agency in the Seychelles went unanswered. Worried relatives in the sisters’ native Minnesota are seeking answers. In Minneapolis, their brother told a newspaper that the family is getting no information on the case. Some family members have traveled to the Seychelles to gather details and bring the sisters’ bodies home. “At this point, the only details we know are the articles flying around online,” Chris Korkki told the (Minneapolis) Star Tribune this week. “Two things keep going through my mind: This isn’t happening, and we just want answers.” He said his sisters were healthy and adventurous, and loved to “experience life to the fullest.” They had been posting photos on social media showing them swimming and having fun while on the vacation. Anne Korkki moved to Denver last year, and worked for JP Morgan Chase, the brother told CNN affiliate KCNC. Robin Korkki worked as a commodities trader in Chicago, the Chicago Tribune reported. The Seychelles is a popular tourist destination because of its pristine beaches, warm water and coral reefs. The Korkki sisters were staying in Mahe, one of 115 islands in the Indian Ocean nation. They arrived in the Seychelles on September 15 and were due to leave September 24, two days after they were found dead, Toussaint said.


Elizabeth Hurley believes Meghan Markle will have a seamless transition into the royal family because of her Hollywood roots. “I kind of look at the royal family as being a bit like show business,” Hurley told CNN at the Breast Cancer Research Foundation Hot Pink Gala on Thursday. “Every time they go out, it’s like they’re on a red carpet. They’re scrutinized, they’re looked at. She’s had that anyway because she was a major television star – and a very talented one – and a beautiful young woman who everyone wanted to talk to.” The British actress added, “I have a feeling she’s going to be a fantastic asset to our royal family.” Hurley currently stars on the E! series, “The Royals,” a fictional show about the British monarchy. Related: Royal wedding 2018: What we know so far “Having a fabulous actress marrying into the royal family, there is a slight little tinge that it’s a bit more like our show now,” she said. Related: The Royal Wedding Harry and Meghan At her wedding to Prince Harry on Saturday, Markle has chosen to begin her walk down the aisle  alone – an unprecedented step for a royal UK bride. As for whether she will forgo another tradition by not wearing a tiara, Hurley is holding out hope that Markle will wear one. “I think she should wear a tiara and I think it should have big rocks in it,” Hurley laughed. “I think she should wear the Queen’s best one!”


The war room would handle rapid response related to Russia matters Next week's testimony by Comey could prove to be the most pivotal moment for Trump's administration As the White House braces for fired FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony next week, efforts continue to set up a so-called “war room” to handle questions about the investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s presidential election, a senior administration official told CNN Saturday. The war room would handle rapid response related to Russia matters – for instance, by pulling and sharing press clips and videos with the media. Asked about recent reporting that the war room could take the shape of a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, the official said that was possible and added that it was also possible that there could be several “war rooms” set up The official suggested that coordination among the groups would not be necessary, since they would all be working on the same goal: defending the President. Related article Former FBI Director James Comey to testify in Senate June 8 It’s not year clear what the Republican National Committee’s role is going to be. The White House has been buffeted by a series of negative headlines regarding the Russia investigation and whether associates of President Donald Trump colluded with Russia. Meanwhile, the administration faces an uphill battle over the President’s legislative agenda in the Republican-controlled Congress, largely due to divisions within the president’s own party. Related article Can Trump block Comey from testifying? White House could try to invoke executive privilege The intense focus on the Russia investigation has already been a distraction. Next week’s testimony by Comey, who is expected to say the President asked him to end the investigation into his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, could prove to be the most pivotal moment for Trump’s young administration. Democrats are likely to press the former director on whether he viewed the President’s comments as an effort to obstruct justice – an impeachable offense – and Republicans are likely to press Comey on why he did not make his concerns about his conversations with Trump known before he was fired. Comey kept detailed memos of his conversations with the President, a topic sure to come up during the hearing. Related article What was James Comey thinking when he met with Trump? A source with knowledge of Comey’s thinking told CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger the former director was “disturbed” by his interactions with the President but “thought he had the situation under control.” In recent days, the White House has begun referring all questions regarding the Russia investigation to outside counsel Marc Kasowitz. Though Kasowitz was spotted at the White House with Ivanka Trump late last month, he has yet to speak publicly about the issue, though the official says he has been empowered by the White House to answer questions on the matter.


Spokesman for UK Prime Minister says Britain has received assurances that claims won't be repeated White House Press Secretary read out media claims of GCHQ involvement in Trump spying White House press secretary Sean Spicer flatly denied Friday that the White House apologized to the British government after citing an uncorroborated Fox News report to allege that a UK intelligence agency spied on President Donald Trump at the behest of former President Barack Obama. Earlier in the day, however, a senior administration official told CNN that Spicer and national security adviser H.R. McMaster offered what amounted to an apology to the British government for Spicer’s comments on Thursday, when he cited a Fox News report that said British intelligence helped wiretap Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign. “I don’t think we regret anything,” Spicer told reporters at a gaggle Friday afternoon. Asked by CNN’s Jim Acosta if there was an apology by the administration to the British government over the matter, Spicer replied, “No, we were just passing on news reports.” Earlier Friday, a White House official told CNN that McMaster spoke with his British counterpart on Thursday about Spicer’s comment. The official described the conversation as “cordial” where McMaster described Spicer’s comment as “unintentional.” McMaster also told his counterpart that “their concerns were understood and heard and it would be relayed to the White House.” The official said there were “at least two calls” from British officials on Thursday and that the British ambassador to the United States called Spicer to discuss the comment. “Sean was pointing to the breadth of reporting, not endorsing any specific story,” the official said. White House officials later told CNN that it was British ambassador to the US Kim Darroch and Sir Mark Lyall Grant, national security adviser to Prime Minister Theresa May, who “expressed their concerns to Sean Spicer and Gen. McMaster” in two separate conversations on Thursday. “Mr. Spicer and Gen. McMaster explained that Mr. Spicer was simply pointing to public reports, not endorsing any specific story,” one official said. Spicer spoke to Darroch face-to-face at a White House St. Patrick’s Day event, according to a British government official, who described the meeting as “serious” in tone and said it was not cordial. Earlier Friday, a spokesman for May said senior UK officials had protested to the Trump administration after the claims were repeated by Spicer. “We’ve made clear to the US administration that these claims are ridiculous and should be ignored. We’ve received assurances that these allegations won’t be repeated,” May’s spokesman said. Related video Trump doubles down on wiretapping claims At a Thursday press briefing, Spicer read out allegations originally made on Tuesday on Fox News by legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, that the UK intelligence agency GCHQ – the equivalent of the US National Security Agency –  had spied on Trump. “Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement, quote, ‘Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command (to spy on Trump). He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA … he used GCHQ,’” Spicer told journalists. The strong language from Downing Street – which followed a similar, rare statement from the UK intelligence agency GCHQ – indicated that the British government was furious that the US had made such an incendiary allegation. GCHQ  said the claim was “nonsense” and should be ignored. The agency rarely comments on specific operations, and almost never in such blunt terms. Asked if the conversations between the US and British officials were heated, the British government official pointed to the rarity of a GCHQ public statement on the matter, saying, “you can draw your conclusions from there.” Then, at a regular press briefing, Downing Street said it had sought and received reassurances that the allegations would not be repeated. The UK government’s eavesdropping agency, it carries out electronic surveillance to combat terrorism, cyber threats and serious crime.It’s one of three UK intelligence agencies, the others being MI5, the domestic security service, and MI6, the foreign intelligence service.GCHQ’s collaboration with the United States dates back to the Second World War.Its operations are shrouded in secrecy and it rarely makes public statements.It has its headquarters in the English spa town of Cheltenham and says it employs more than 6,000 people. “This shows the administration doesn’t give the allegations any credence,” the Downing Street spokesman said. “We have a close special relationship with the White House and that allows us to raise concerns as and when they arise, as was true in this case,” he added. Britain is particularly sensitive to any suggestion that the US would use GCHQ to keep “American fingerprints” off the spying. UK intelligence agencies work closely with their US counterparts, as well as those in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as part of the “Five Eyes” intelligence sharing agreement. May’s spokesman argued this pact precluded the kind of spying alleged by Napolitano, saying: “I would add as a matter of fact that under the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence agreement, we cannot use each other’s capabilities to circumvent the law. It’s a situation that simply wouldn’t arise.” Claims by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden led to questions over GCHQ’s relationship with the NSA. It was censured by a UK tribunal in 2015 for not making enough information public about how it shares Internet surveillance data with its US counterpart. Susan Rice, national security adviser in the Obama administration, said Spicer’s claims put the intelligence-sharing relationship between the US and UK at risk.”The cost of falsely blaming our closest ally for something this consequential cannot be overstated,” she wrote on Twitter. Tim Farron, leader of the UK Liberal Democrat party – the junior coalition partner in the last British government – described the White House claim as “shameful” and said it risked harming US and UK security. “Trump is compromising the vital UK-US security relationship to try to cover his own embarrassment,” he tweeted. The Senate Intelligence Committee had said on Thursday  it had found no evidence Trump Tower had been under surveillance in 2016, contrary to Trump’s previous claims. “Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016,” committee chair Richard Burr said. Related video Ryan: I've seen no evidence wiretap occured The same day, House Speaker Paul Ryan told CNN in an interview that he also hadn’t seen any evidence of a wiretap or a surveillance order against Trump Tower. On Friday, Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, told CNN’s Manu Raju that Obama is owed an apology for Trump’s “reckless” comment on wiretapping. And Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania, warned that Trump’s comments and the White House’s decision to dig in on the claims are undercutting the President’s credibility and sapping his political capital at a time when he’s trying to push a budget and health care overhaul through Congress. Trump originally made the allegations against Obama on March 4 in a series of early morning tweets. “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” he said on his official Twitter account. Just under two weeks later, in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Trump appeared to walk back his original wiretapping allegations. “Wiretap covers a lot of different things,” Trump told Carlson on Wednesday. “I think you’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.” CNN’s Jim Sciutto reported from Washington, while Laura Smith-Spark wrote from London and Ben Westcott from Hong Kong. CNN’s Jeff Zeleny, Michelle Kosinski, Manu Raju, David Wilkinson, Jeremy Diamond, Jim Acosta, Tom LoBianco and Theodore Schleifer contributed to this report.


White House press secretary said a "range" of responses were on the table The promise of retaliation came the same day that a new tranche of hacked Democratic emails were released The White House said Tuesday it would respond to Russian hacking of US political groups, after publicly pointing the finger at Moscow for the cyberattacks last week. The response will be “proportional,” press secretary Josh Earnest said, without elaborating. He said the actions would likely not be announced ahead of time and could never be made public. Speaking with reporters on Air Force One, Earnest said a “range” of responses were on the table. Last Friday’s announcement was the first time the government has publicly blamed another country for hacking with the goal of influencing a US election. The joint statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Department of Homeland Security said not only were they confident the hacks of Democratic political groups and campaign officials originated from high levels of the Russian government, they said the posting of those hacked emails online was part of the effort. Related article US accuses Russia of trying to interfere with 2016 election “The recent disclosures of alleged hacked emails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” the statement said. Trump seizes on hacked email, alleges collusion Earnest’s discussion of a “proportional” response is the usual language the government uses when describing its cyber actions. National security adviser Lisa Monaco spoke in general about what the government might do last week at a Washington Post event, before the Russia statement had been released. “We will respond in a time and place and manner of our choosing, and when we do so, we will consider a full range of tools, economic, diplomatic, criminal law enforcement, military, and some of those responses may be public, some of them may not be,” Monaco said. Pressed by moderator Ellen Nakashima, Monaco said the range of options include private diplomatic channels, intelligence operations, prosecutions and sanctions – all taking into account broader considerations on the world stage. “We will act responsibly, proportionately, and do so in a time and place of our choosing,” Monaco said. “The primary guiding and overarching focus in those discussions is about what is in the national security interest of the United States. That is the North Star for those discussions.” President Barack Obama signed an executive order in April 2015 authorizing a new sanctions power that allows retribution for cyberattacks, but it has never been used. The promise of retaliation came the same day that a new tranche of emails stolen in a hack of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman was posted on WikiLeaks, the third such release from the hacked email of John Podesta. The campaign has not disputed the contents of the emails, but have noted that it would be difficult to determine if alterations were made or context was intentionally omitted. Related article Trump says WikiLeaks email shows collusion between Clinton, DOJ Moscow’s Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak, asked about the US accusations, said Tuesday that “it’s not correct, and when it comes to the implication to the elections in the United States, it’s something I’m not planning to discuss.” Kislyak, who was speaking at The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, then tried to cast doubt on the allegations. “We’ve seen a number (of allegations) by the colleagues in US intelligence that weren’t exactly proven by the history,” Kislyak said, and offered a recent example. Referring to the bombing of Syrian soldiers by US jets in September, an event US officials described as an unfortunate accident based on faulty information, Kislyak said “we saw statements that the week ago bombardment of the Syrian troops.” He added that the strike “was based on false information.” Democrats have accused Russia of coordinating the release of the emails to benefit Donald Trump’s campaign. Russian media has covered the emails, with government-controlled Sputnik news misconstruing an email to make it seem that Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal had argued the Benghazi investigation was legitimate and the attack was preventable. “Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect US personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate,” the email said – with Sputnik attributing it to Blumenthal. The misinformation quickly appeared as a Trump talking point at a campaign rally later in the day, where he read the sentence aloud. But Newsweek author Kurt Eichenwald recognized the supposed Blumenthal sentences as part of a lengthy story he wrote. “The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000-word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta,” Eichenwald wrote in Newsweek. “It is impossible to look at the Blumenthal email and not realize that this 10,000 words that follows are from Newsweek,” he said on CNN’s “New Day” on Tuesday. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for explanation why he parroted misstatements published by Russian-controlled news. CNN’s Jim Sciutto, Nicole Gaouette and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.


National Geographic has announced the discovery of a lost city in the remote Honduran rainforest The magazine says scientists believe the city belonged to a mysterious ancient civilization A team documented the site after aerial light scanning showed man-made structures Archaeologists searching for a lost city in the jungles of Honduras have discovered the urban remains of what they believe is a vanished ancient civilization, National Geographic reports. A writer and photographer for the magazine accompanied a team of scientists to Honduras’ Mosquitia region on the trail of a legendary “White City” or “City of the Monkey God.” The expedition was launched after aerial light detection scanning  – known as LIDAR – uncovered what appeared to be man-made structures below the rainforest, National Geographic said. Seeking to confirm the discovery, a team of U.S. and Honduran archaeologists, a LIDAR engineer, an ethnobotanist, anthropologists and documentary filmmakers entered the remote region. They were protected by Honduran Special forces, the magazine said. Writer Douglas Preston said the team emerged February 25, after documenting the ruins of a “vanished culture.” “In contrast to the nearby Maya, this vanished culture has been scarcely studied and it remains virtually unknown. Archaeologists don’t even have a name for it,” Douglas wrote. Archaeologists no longer believed in the existence of a single “White City,” he said, instead believing there had been an entire civilization with many cities. The expedition found earth works, including an earthen pyramid as well as a collection of stone sculptures, thought to potentially have been burial offerings. Archaeologist Oscar Neil Cruz from the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History (IHAH) estimated they dated from A.D. 1000 to 1400, Douglas wrote. The researchers were greeted by wildlife which appeared never before to have seen humans, wandering unafraid through their camp. “This is clearly the most undisturbed rain forest in Central America. The importance of this place can’t be overestimated,” ethnobotanist Mark Plotkin told National Geographic. The team left their finds unexcavated and are keeping the exact location of the site secret in an attempt to prevent looting. But in his article, Douglas warned that that the area was nonetheless under threat, with illegal logging for cattle farming within a dozen miles. IHAH director Virgilio Paredes Trapero told National Geographic that the forest and valley could disappear within eight years unless action was taken. “The Honduran government is committed to protecting this area, but doesn’t have the money. We urgently need international support.”

Honduran rainforest ancient civilization discovery


It is unclear when the extradition would occur Belgian and French authorities will now consider how to carry out the transfer Abdeslam, 26, was the most wanted man in Europe after the Paris attacks in November Paris terror attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam can be extradited to France, a Belgian court ruled Thursday. Belgian and French authorities will now consider how to carry out the transfer. It was unclear Thursday when the extradition would occur. Abdeslam was the most-wanted man in Europe following the terror attacks at several sites in Paris on November 13. Belgian authorities captured him this month after a shootout in Molenbeek, an impoverished suburb of Brussels that has also been home to several other terror suspects. Abdeslam, 26, is being held in Belgium under a European arrest warrant issued March 19 at the demand of French authorities. He’s one of 10 men accused of carrying out the attacks that killed 130 people in the French capital last year. Authorities believe Abdeslam may have been the driver of the black Renault Clio that dropped off three suicide bombers near the Stade de France, one of the attack sites. Related gallery Paris attack suspects: What we know Investigators think he wore a suicide belt that was later found on a Paris street after the attacks – samples taken from sweat on the belt matched Abdeslam’s DNA. Authorities say they believe he called friends to take him to Belgium after the attacks. They passed through police checkpoints, but Abdeslam had not yet been identified as a suspect and they were allowed to continue on their way. Authorities then began a worldwide search for him that lasted for four months, ending with his capture in a raid and shootout March 18 in Molenbeek. Abdeslam was wounded in the leg. While in custody, he began cooperating with Belgian police and fought extradition to France, said his lawyer, Sven Mary. But on March 22, four days after his arrest, terrorists bombed the Brussels airport and a metro station in the Belgian capital, killing 32 people and injuring 330 more. Related gallery Terror attacks in Brussels Abdeslam then stopped cooperating with authorities, and said he wanted to be extradited to France as soon as possible, according to his lawyer. ISIS claimed responsibility for the Brussels attacks. Three suicide attackers are dead, and two other attackers are unidentified fugitives, authorities said. Abdeslam is also believed to be connected to the Brussels attacks, even though he was in custody at the time, authorities say. On Thursday, a federal Belgian magistrate accepted Abdeslam’s formal declaration agreeing to be extradited, and the court ordered the transfer. Abdeslam’s brother, Ibrahim, was a suicide bomber in the Paris attacks who killed himself when he detonated explosives outside a cafe on Boulevard Voltaire. CNN’s Margot Haddad and Lindsay Isaac contributed to this report.


Sources say dozens of agents and analysts huddled at a command center Cyber and counterintelligence analysts and investigators watched social media The FBI monitored social media on Election Day last year in an effort to track a suspected Russian disinformation campaign utilizing “fake news,” CNN has learned. In the months leading up to Election Day, Twitter and Facebook were the feeding grounds for viral “news” stories floating conspiracies and hoaxes, many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton. On Election Day, dozens of agents and analysts huddled at a command center arrayed with large monitoring screens at the FBI headquarters in Washington watching for security threats, according to multiple sources. Related article One year into the FBI's Russia investigation, Mueller is on the Trump money trail That included analysts monitoring cyber threats, after months of mounting Russian intrusions targeting every part of the US political system, from political parties to policy think-tanks to state election systems. On this day, there was also a group of FBI cyber and counterintelligence analysts and investigators watching social media. FBI analysts had identified social media user accounts behind stories, some based overseas, and the suspicion was that at least some were part of a Russian disinformation campaign, according to two sources familiar with the investigation. The FBI declined to comment for this story. Related article Here's some of what Mueller might look at if he investigates obstruction For the FBI, this was uncomfortable territory, given the First Amendment’s free speech protections even for fake news stories. “We were right on the edge of Constitutional legality,” a person briefed on the investigation said. “We were monitoring news.” As the hours ticked by on Election Day, teams at the FBI, Homeland Security Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence held conference calls every three hours with a team at the Situation Room in the White House to discuss possible problems, according to multiple sources. Related article Who's who in Trump-Russia saga Minor issues popped up in far-flung parts of the country, from Alaska to Georgia. At the end of day, top officials exchanged congratulations for an election day that was completed without disruptions of the vote. One Obama White House official responded to the messages of congratulations with the opposite view, saying the US government response to the Russian operation was “a failure of imagination.” “Are you kidding?” that official recalled saying to others at the White House as they celebrated a successful election. “What they did worked!” CNN’s Marshall Cohen and Zachary Cohen contributed to this report.


Donald Trump has made building a wall along the entire border with Mexico a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. It’s a project he insists won’t require much hassle. “Building a wall is easy, and it can be done inexpensively,” Trump told The Washington Post last summer. “It’s not even a difficult project if you know what you’re doing.” Sure, humans have been building walls for thousands of years. The mere act of constructing one is pretty simple. But Trump is only half right; his wall will be a construction project borne of the United States federal government, a massive undertaking that will span thousands of miles, take years to build and require an incredible amount of political willpower and bureaucratic maneuvering. The red tape alone will be like nothing Trump – master builder he may be – has ever faced. In an effort to discover just how much work it would require a Trump Administration to get his controversial wall project off the ground, CNN Politics spoke to experts on the federal bureaucracy and burrowed through the labyrinth of agencies that played a role in constructing the U.S.-Mexico border fence that former President George W. Bush set in motion in 2006. That was a project that has been beset with setbacks, lack of congressional interest and funding problems. What became clear as we dug into the bureaucracy is that Trump can’t just wake up on the first day of his presidency and order an army of builders to the border. His administration will first have to find a willing member of Congress to propose a bill in the House or Senate to secure the funds and begin the process. The bill’s chances of survival will depend entirely on the make-up of the next Congress, as there are no guarantees that both chambers will remain under Republican control in 2017. Even if they are, he’ll have to find enough Republicans will be willing to put their names on a multi-billion project that could turn into a boondoggle. The wall bill would face steeper odds in the Senate, where Democrats are almost guaranteed to stage a filibuster, forcing it to require a two-thirds majority to break it. Assuming a wall bill passes both chambers and Trump signs it, which will be no small feat, he will then have to face the federal bureaucracy. The Department of Homeland Security would be saddled with a bulk of the project’s responsibility. They oversee the Border Patrol under the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Those agents will be the ones manning the gates – er, “big, beautiful doors” - -of Trump’s wall. The Army Corps of Engineers, which falls under the Defense Department, would provide studies and guidance for the project. And the Department of Transportation will have oversight over ensuring regulations are met for any federal roadways near the site. As for construction, the Department of Labor would have to be involved with any large-scale federal project to oversee labor claims of the builders. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would ensure hiring practices are within the law and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration would oversee any workplace accidents. The wall, if constructed along the entire border, would stretch across diverse landscapes and natural habitats, snaking through federal land protected by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Department of the Interior. There’s also farm land, bringing in the Department of Agriculture, where agents will study the wall’s impact, since plant an animal life that don’t recognize man-made borders will surely be affected. The Environmental Protection Agency would need to be consulted to provide an environmental impact statement. The EPA would almost surely raise red flags about the wall’s impact on the environment, but that shouldn’t be much of a problem for Trump: Under Bush’s Border Fence Act in 2006, the Department of Homeland Security was granted the authority to waive any on-the-books regulations that got in the way of the project, so Trump would likely work a similar clause into his plan. That doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences. The border is home to numerous floodplains, and the wall would block the natural flow of water. Flooding is almost guaranteed, so the Federal Emergency Management Agency will need to provide insight into their plan for such an inevitability. There are also massive parcels of private land lining the border, which will require the widespread use of eminent domain. Trump’s lawyers in the Department of Justice would be called upon to defend the federal government’s right to take such land. The National Weather Service under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would be required to monitor weather patterns. The International Boundary and Water Commission would oversee disputes over use of the common border areas, such as the Rio Grande, which runs more than 1,000 miles along the border. As for the human impact, Mexico is one of the United States’ biggest trading partners, so a new slab of concrete dividing the two nations will need to be monitored by the Commerce Department, including the International Trade Administration, the Federal Trade Commission and the Economic Development Administration. The Mexicans will surely see the project as an affront, so it would require massive feats of diplomacy. That brings in the State Department and all of its diplomats who work with the Mexican government on a regular basis. Should Trump follow through on his plan to force Mexico pay for the wall – which would involve blocking people in the United States from sending remittances to families in Mexico – he’ll likely first need to go through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, under the Federal Reserve. That, and many of parts of his proposal are incredibly controversial, of course, so his administration is liable to be sued, requiring involvements of the federal courts, including, possibly, the U.S. Supreme Court. The list goes on. But these are just some of the complicated administrative and bureaucratic hurdles a president Trump would have to take on to accomplish what is distilled so simply in his campaign message: “Build a wall.” As anyone who’s ever worked with the federal government will tell you, it won’t be so easy. Voice of Wall by Jay McMichael, CNN.


It's estimated 3,500 southern right whales exist Very little was known about their feeding habits and calving areas, until now. After nearly being hunted to extinction, southern right whales in Australia are making a comeback – with the help of drones. Researchers from Australia’s Murdoch University have teamed up with the World Wide Fund Australia and are using drones for the first time to check on the health of the endangered species. They’re monitoring southern right whales in the Great Australian Bight and have revealed that females lose an extraordinary amount of weight while fattening up their calves, before journeying back to Antarctica. The whales travel thousands of miles to the area off South Australia’s coast to give birth. Researchers have found that, once the calves are born, mothers do not eat and rely solely on their fat stores. WWF-Australia whale researcher Chris Johnson said their significant weight loss made them “especially vulnerable to emerging threats.” Global ocean warming – which can reduce their food supply, tangling in marine debris, increased ship traffic and oil and gas exploration all threaten the endangered species. “Nurturing a calf is already tough enough for the mothers without humans adding to the pressure,” Johnson said. That’s why, he said, the research project involving drones is so important. “If the condition of the whales changes in the future, it could be a sign that human activities are having an impact.” One drone picture revealed that a southern right whale mother, named Scooter, lost 17 inches in body width in as little as two months while looking after her calf. Other mothers became so skinny, even their spinal cords began to show. Lead researcher Fredrik Christiansen from Murdoch University said whale mothers could only give birth every three to four years because of the toll on their bodies. “When they arrive, they have significant fat reserves; they are wide all along their body. When they leave, they look like giant tadpoles. They have a head which is still big and robust, but the rest of the body is skinny, and you can even see the spinal cord showing up,” Professor Lars Bejder, also from Murdoch University, told CNN that little was known about mother-calf relationships, so the study helped researchers understand the general consequences of reproduction for these mammals. He said as female whales only return every three to four years, it was crucial for the research to carry on: “It’s important we do it for another 2-3 years to get a full sense of all the moms which will give us a really good indication (of the impacts of breeding).” Bejder said it’s also important for the team to start looking at Antarctica, where southern right whales migrate to after breeding, to understand their feeding habits. Spokesman, Mark Symons, for WWF-Australia said it was the “first time scientists have been able to study whales in this way.” He said WWF-Australia sponsored the research and that drones were able to “unlock some of their mysteries.” Whaling in the 19th century almost wiped out the entire species in Australian waters, leaving less than 300 remaining. Fortunately the particular species are no longer hunted and researchers now estimate numbers have increased to 3,500. But still, they said, there’s much to learn. “Southern right whales are recovering but nowhere near to the same extent as humpback whales. And we don’t really know why, and that’s one of the big questions we’re hoping to answer,” Bejder said. “(They’re) magnificent animals and a symbol of ocean health so it’s really important that these animals are conserved in their natural environment.”


A small throng of GOP presidential contenders descended upon South Carolina this weekend as some of the state’s most involved Republican activists gathered in Columbia for their party’s convention. White House hopefuls took the stage Saturday to give speeches that focused heavily on foreign policy – a big issue for a state that has eight military installations. But it was Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Ted Cruz, also of Texas, who garnered the most enthusiastic responses from the crowd with fiery performances railing against the Obama administration and laying out their visions for the future. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham also made their case for their likely presidential bids. RELATED: Lindsey Graham teases presidential aspirations In multiple conversations with delegates and other activists after the speeches, South Carolina voters were generally impressed with all of the candidates who spoke. “It is overwhelming, but I’m real happy with the ones I’ve listened to today,” said Brenda Munnerlyn of Greenwood, adding that she especially loved Perry. Related gallery 2016 GOPers' foreign policy credentials “He just gave me cold chills,” she said. Perry, who is expected to make a second bid for the White House after flaming out early during the 2012 primaries, fired up the audience when forcefully defending Second Amendment rights. He got perhaps the biggest applause of the day when he said “the best defense against crime is an armed citizen.” On foreign policy, the former governor signaled he would take a more forceful approach than the current administration. For his own record, Perry pointed to his decision to put National Guard troops at the U.S.-Mexico border last year and hounded the federal government for failing to control the border. He also talked up his time as governor for 14 years, driving home a point he’s been making on the trail that voters will ultimately choose someone with executive experience – a knock against the three first-term senators, including Cruz, who are running for president. “2016 isn’t going to be an election about whoever’s got the loftiest rhetoric,” he said. “Folks are going to look past at what people are saying and look at what you’ve done.” Alan Morgan, third vice chairman in the Greenville County GOP, said Perry’s attempt at a second chance may be able to help the former governor’s image, but he argued it’s too early to tell whether Perry will be able “to totally erase” his history as a poor debater in 2012. In his speech, Cruz blasted President Barack Obama for not calling out “radical Islamic terrorism” by name and got a standing ovation for saying the administration has demonstrated “shameful hostility” to Israel. RELATED: Rubio leads GOP field in national poll He also focused on religious freedom in regard to the controversial law in Indiana that was tweaked after critics accused it of being discriminatory against same-sex couples. “I will not flinch from defending religious liberty,” he said. An expert debater known for his oratory skills, Cruz typically gets strong reviews from audience members at Republican cattle calls in early voting states. And while events like the convention on Saturday provide a sense of how the candidates are being perceived, they generally comprise a more conservative audience than the general Republican electorate. Bush used the event to introduce himself and tout conservative moves he made as a two-term governor. He also called for a more engaged foreign policy and dished out some red meat lines attacking Hillary Clinton. Related gallery Jeb Bush's life “She had her fingerprint on all these foreign policy disasters,” Bush said after listing what he considered bad decisions by the Obama administration. Santorum also went big on national defense and decried the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, saying the first thing he’d do if president is “take any agreement with Iran and put it in the trash can.” He also said Islamic terrorists – namely ISIS – are trying to return the Middle East to “7th Century Islam.” “So let’s bomb them back to the 7th Century,” he added. Graham seized on the recent protests and riots in Baltimore over the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, saying Republicans can turn big cities around by “shutting down failing schools and replacing it with something that works.” “I see a Republican Party giving people in Baltimore and nearly every other big city hope like they haven’t seen in past eight years,” he added.