"I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know," Flynn said. The Obama administration, the Arab League, NATO, and many western governments have pointed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime as being responsible for the attack. During a 2015 trip to Russia, Donald Trump’s pick to be national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, said he didn’t know whether the 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria was conducted by the Syrian Army or by other forces in an attempt to draw the United States into the conflict. Flynn not ruling out the possibility of a “false flag” attack raises questions about how the Trump administration will approach the Syrian conflict.  The Obama administration, the Arab League, NATO, and many western governments have pointed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime as being responsible for the attack. A United Nations investigation didn’t assign blame, but evidence from the report pointed to the Assad regime being responsible. Assad’s regime and Russian President Vladimir Putin claim opposition forces were behind the attack. Flynn, who was the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for the Obama administration at the time of the 2013 attack, made the remarks during a December 2015 question and answer session hosted by the Russian government-funded television network, Russia Today. At the event, Flynn was asked by an audience member his take on reports the attack was carried out by Turkish intelligence and made to look like it was the Syrian government, otherwise known as a “false flag” operation. “I’m going to address your question because it’s a good question,” Flynn said. “It’s an interesting one. What keeps me up at night is the use of chemicals and biological weapons by terrorist groups that have the intent, they have the intellect, they don’t necessarily have the specific types of capabilities just yet, but I believe that they will have the ability to get their hands on them. I think that all of us globally need to really pay very close attention to that.” “Your specific question, I really don’t know,” Flynn said. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I know. To have that level of knowledge or insight or detail of what an intelligence service is doing to do a false flag – who knows. I don’t have a good answer for you. I’m not able to answer your specific question.” In a 2013 op-ed in the New York Times, Putin wrote, “No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.” The questioner’s claim might be grounded in a 2013 article by journalist Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books, which claimed the jihadist rebel group al-Nusra was behind the attack. The New Yorker and Washington Post both declined to publish the report, saying it didn’t meet their standards. A follow up report from Hersh claimed the Turkish government supplied the chemical weapons for the attack. Emails to Flynn and spokespeople for the Trump transition team were not returned. Flynn told the Washington Post this year he was paid through his speaking agency for the appearance at the RT event. At the 2015 dinner for RT’s anniversary, Flynn was seated at the same table as Putin. Before the panel, Flynn tweeted, “Regarding RT panel participation: know my values and beliefs are mine & won’t change because I’m on a different piece of geography.” At the event, Flynn cautioned the situation on the ground in Syria was complex and deception was being use. “What I know is that the complexity of the situation on the ground right now is beyond anybody’s wildest imagination,” he said. “[The panel moderator] highlighted it in one of her questions. I think her question was a very good one. It’s all of the things that are happening, not just in Syria. This is happening in the region in a big way. The things that you’re talking about, there’s this tit-for-tat or there’s this give and take. People are doing things. There is deception being used.” “There is false information being used,” he added. “This slide that I have up here is a component of that false information or how false information is applied. We have to understand – this is why I think [the panel moderator is] driving me crazy up here, trying to get me to be more specific because right now we do have to be more specific. We have to be much more specific in our relationships, far more specific in our relationships, so there’s not a misunderstanding and there’s not a miscalculation because of some ill-advised tactic that’s used in Damascus or Baghdad that causes something that we don’t want.” After publication of this story, RT cut the clip and posted it on YouTube. Watch it here:


The Supreme Court said foreigners must now have a "bona fide" relationship to a person or entity to enter the US Three conservative justices called the plan "unworkable" The Supreme Court’s decision green-lighting parts of President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban Monday saved many of the prickly questions about the constitutionality of the executive order for another day – but legal experts say that the court’s compromise ruling raises other more practical headaches (and potentially further litigation) for travelers this summer. “Today’s order will create more confusion, delays, and litigation,” says Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School. Here’s a look at why. When the Trump administration rolled out the President’s first executive order in January, bedlam ensued almost immediately as foreigners from seven predominately Muslim countries tried to enter the US, only to be turned away at the border or separated from loved ones abroad. This time around, the ban will not go into effect immediately. The President – perhaps looking ahead to a potential court victory – signed a memorandum earlier this month directing administration officials to begin implementation of the permitted parts of the travel ban 72 hours after the court gives the okay. So when exactly does the clock begin to run? The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment on precise timing or a detailed roll-out plan, but said in a statement Monday that implementation will be done with “clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers.” The test for prospective travelers under the Supreme Court’s new decision is whether one has a “credible claim of bona fide relationship” with either an entity or person living in the US – if you do, you can come to the US; if you don’t, you are banned for 90 days if you are from Libya, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan (and 120 days if you are a refugee). Justices offered several examples of scenarios in which travel ban shouldn’t apply – such as a foreign national who wishes to live with a family member in the US or a student accepted to an American university – but what if the individual’s connection to the US is more attenuated or not as well defined? “It all depends on what the relationship is and when it is initiated,” explained Yale-Loehr. “If a person thinking about applying to become a refugee emails a church in the US and says ‘please sponsor me to become a refugee,’ that would not qualify as a bona fide relationship, in my view.” But immigrant rights activists and leaders of refugee resettlement organizations said Monday that based on their reading of the ruling, thousands of refugees should still be able to come to the United States. “The hope is that this really only impacts a very small number of people,” said Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project. Melanie Nezer, senior vice president for public affairs of HIAS, told reporters that the refugee resettlement agency is trying to reassure its clients who are already in the pipeline. Many of them have family ties in the United States, she said, and have established relationships with US-based resettlement organizations. The court made clear that nonprofits may not initiate contact with foreign nationals from the banned countries to secure their entry into the country, but left open is whether previous contact between refugees and resettlement agencies in the US counts as sufficiently “bona fide.” “They have extensive ties here, and it would be hard to say that they don’t,” Nezer said. “This decision makes a strong statement that ties are important, that being in the process still matters, and that the US is not looking to break its promises toward people it’s offered resettlement to.” Other experts say that the Supreme Court’s decision provides greater discretion to consular officers and border agents. “Think about how the people at the border, at airports are going to make that decision,” said CNN legal analyst Page Pate. “Who is going to make this decision? If we leave it to the folks on the front line, that’s just going to lead to more litigation.” At least three justices agreed the standard used by the court will prove “unworkable” in practice and invite a “flood of litigation” over the summer as “courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship.’” The dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch argued the travel ban should be fully implemented. Related article Justice Neil Gorsuch delivering as Trump's promised conservative “How individuals will prove such a (bona fide) relationship, and whether the burden of proof will be on the government or the individuals seeking entry, remains to be seen,” Yale-Loehr agreed. “I predict chaos at the border and new lawsuits as foreign nationals and refugees argue that they are entitled to enter the United States.” Except this time, the confusion will have been of the court’s own making. Justices won’t hear oral arguments on the merits of the travel ban until this fall. CNN’s Catherine Shoichet contributed to this story.


American Blaine Gibson is leading a search for missing MH370 He found debris on Madagascar that may have come from the plane Blaine Gibson, an American lawyer leading a self-funded hunt for missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, handed over six pieces of debris found on Madagascar to Malaysian investigators on Tuesday. Gibson said one piece he found might prove why the plane crashed. “If the third piece, the monitor case, is confirmed to be from MH 370, it proves, tragically, that the main body of the cabin broke apart in a forceful impact … (and) definitely not a controlled ditching,” he said. “The barnacles on board will hopefully provide some clues as to the location of the crash site and route followed.” Related video An American's quest to help solve the MH370 mystery Gibson found the debris in June on the island of Nosy Boraha, off the east coast of Madagascar. MH370’s disappearance is one of the world’s biggest aviation mysteries. The plane vanished from radar while en route from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing, with 239 people on board, on March 8, 2014. Since July 2015, about six pieces of wreckage have been confirmed as likely coming from the missing plane, although not all pieces could be completely verified. In October, a fragment of plane wing discovered in Mauritius in May was confirmed as coming from MH370, Australia’s Transport Safety Bureau said. Earlier in 2016, Gibson found a piece of a plane wreckage off the Mozambique coast. Australian investigators later said it “almost certainly” came from MH370. Gibson, from Seattle, is leading an exhaustive search that has taken him from the Maldives to Mauritius and Myanmar. Meanwhile, the Chinese search and rescue vessel looking for the missing plane has wrapped up its mission in the Indian Ocean, according to the ATSB. In July, the governments of Malaysia, Australia and China agreed the search for MH370 will be suspended if no evidence of the plane is found upon the completion of the search area. CNN’s Ben Westcott and Juliet Perry contributed to this report.


Authorities also seize  weapons and narcotics The raid comes a few weeks after the cartel leader's recapture A cross-border raid by U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials resulted in the arrest of 24 Sinaloa cartel members, authorities said. The sting occurred Friday around the Arizona border with Mexico, local media reported. It also netted “assault-type weapons” and hundreds of pounds of narcotics, said spokeswoman Gillian M. Christensen of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The raid, dubbed Mexican Operation Diablo Express, targeted “high-level” Sinaloa cartel members who operate in the United States and the Mexican state of Sonora. “The operation targets criminal elements and organizations operating in and around Sonoyta, Mexico,” a statement from Christensen said. Mexican federal officers were brought in to the United States to ensure safety during the operation. “Due to the sensitive nature, this operation was conducted with utmost secrecy to maintain the element of surprise and to ensure the safety of the Mexican law enforcement officers executing it,” Christensen said. Those arrested are in the custody of the Mexican government, but Christensen said the United States will seek their extradition. “The targeted Sinaloa cell has been responsible for the importation of millions of pounds of illegal drugs, including marijuana, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, into the United States from Mexico,” she said. In addition to drugs, the organization also smuggles weapons and millions of dollars into Mexico. Various agencies took part in the raid, including the Scottsdale Police Department, other Arizona law enforcement officials, the FBI, ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The sting comes after Mexican forces captured Sinaloa cartel leader Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman this month. The drug kingpin escaped from a maximum-security prison in July.


Experts weigh in on President Obama's best speeches, offer advice to Donald Trump There’s been a lot of talk about words lately – like “Make America great again” and “Yes we can.” Not really the words themselves, but how they were delivered. As Barack Obama wraps up eight years of presidential speeches, where every word can move markets and change lives, Trump has been rewriting the rule book. “The Trump election has made the case that presidential rhetoric needs to respond to Americans who are looking for a different way to communicate — how you can connect with them on their turf,” said Marie Danziger, an expert on speechwriting at Harvard University. In other words, experts say, we’ve entered a new phase in the way presidents talk to the people. The days of ornately written speeches, like the ones history recorded from Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Kennedy, are rapidly dwindling in a world where everyone has the attention of a flea and anyone can command their own virtual megaphone online. But despite the growing noise, Obama has left a pretty clear legacy of presidential rhetoric. These are the speeches experts rank as the best of his two terms, with an insider’s view on how they were crafted. Obama first established his reputation as a powerful, influential speaker in 2008, when he broadened his “Yes we can” campaign slogan beyond supporters and invited all Americans to share his commitment to change. He did the same in 2012, this time showing his ability to connect emotionally with the public after the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut: Several “great speeches of Obama’s presidency were after national tragedies, which struck the right note,”  said author and professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the University of Pennsylvania. Many of those addresses were a collaboration between Obama and senior speechwriters Cody Keenan and Terry Szuplat, said former White House staff speechwriter David Litt. “To do that,” Litt said, “you have to figure out ways to use some of how you’re feeling but also be able to step back for a moment.” Related video Former Obama speechwriter on gun control But Jamieson feels like Obama didn’t always hit the mark. During his first inaugural address, he failed to digest a core idea into a single memorable phrase — like Franklin Roosevelt did in 1933 with, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” On the other hand, Obama did create a history-making moment in 2015 on the 50th anniversary of the civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, when he delivered an address that many experts said rates among his best. “That is a powerful … beautifully constructed speech,” Jamieson said. When it comes to putting pen to paper, those who worked with Obama say each speech largely was crafted by the President himself – especially the important ones. “He’s a better writer than his speechwriters,” said Adam Frankel, a senior Obama speechwriter from 2007 through 2012. “He’s probably the most gifted writer in the White House since Lincoln or JFK.” Unlike President John Kennedy’s artistic style, which might have distracted from the underlying emotion in the message, Jamieson said, Obama’s crafting has been so stealthy that listeners could be more easily moved by the speech’s content. The 44th President approaches writing with “his own original, unencumbered style, free of conventional thinking,” Frankel added. He captures “thoughts as distinctly as possible. Using phrasing that is appropriate to the occasion, but not typical.” According to Obama’s former writers, the process to create a speech usually goes like this:  First, there’s an initial conversation between the President and his top speechwriters. They discuss their target audience and what the message should be. Ultimately, they aim to tell a compelling story that people will remember. Next, Obama’s chief speechwriter would talk with other writers about how to frame the story. For example, shortly after the 2016 election, chief speechwriter Keenan met with staffers to figure out how to write Obama’s final address to the nation. This meeting was actually captured in the CNN Films’ documentary The End: Inside the Last Days of the Obama White House, airing Wednesday at 9pm ET/PT. First drafts would go through policy experts and back to the President for final edits or approval. Several weeks later, that meeting resulted in Obama’s farewell address, which was delivered to thousands of cheering supporters in his adopted hometown of Chicago, where his “Yes we can” slogan transformed into “Yes we did.” “President Obama has always been better speaking to live, large crowds than he has been when speaking to audiences from the Oval Office,” says Jamieson. The farewell speech ended up being “deeply optimistic at a time when Hillary Clinton’s supporters are not. They needed to hear that optimism.” Experts mentioned other standout examples of well-written Obama speeches, such as his Cairo address in Egypt when he reached out to the Muslim world … … and his “More Perfect Union” 2008 campaign speech about America’s long rstruggle with racial issues. While some writers get “locked in flourish,” said former Obama staff speechwriter Aneesh Raman, the President’s writing style “is always pretty direct.” During Raman’s two years as a White House staff speechwriter, he didn’t often meet with President Obama face to face. But the President did edit Raman’s draft speeches and send them back with handwritten notes in black or blue ink. “When you get handed notes as a speechwriter you can fall victim to the illegibility of someone’s handwriting — but his was always legible,” said Raman, who now helps high school students raise college scholarship money at an outfit called Raise.Me. “His handwriting is very small and neat,” said Frankel. “His edits are extraordinarily precise. He may rewrite something the way he wants it and also restructure paragraphs that he thinks are out of order.” President-elect Trump and his speechwriters are hammering out what will be one of the most important speeches of his – every – presidency: the inauguration speech. Lincoln and Kennedy are still remembered for theirs, so you know – no pressure. Related article Twitter tips for our tweeter-in-chief @realdonaldtrump (and the rest of us) If Jamieson could offer Trump a few tips for his inauguration speech, this is what she’d advise: • During the speech, identify principles that Americans all share, not ones that divide us. Related article Trump wrote inauguration speech himself • Don’t offer specific policy proposals (for example, don’t get the audience to chant “Build a wall, Mexico will pay for it”). • Suppress all campaign tendencies and move into the persona of a president and elevate the audience. Related article 'The Oath' quiz: Test your inauguration savvy And about Trump’s tweets: Jamieson recommends “falling silent for at least a day after inauguration, to let the address settle in.” Not that speechwriters have any qualms with using the social platform. Obama’s writers saw the rise of Twitter as a legitimate presidential communications tool, said Litt. “We certainly saw this in President Obama’s second term, there are more and more platforms and you have to be able to not just pick the right message but pick the right way to deliver that message” — whether it’s a speech or a tweet. “You can say a lot in 140 characters,” Jamieson suggested. “Use this format to be presidential. Mr. Trump, find a way to do that.”


Pontiff begins his trip to Cuba, U.S. Francis urges more freedoms on communist island that is officially atheist Pope Francis landed in Cuba on Saturday, quickly calling on the communist nation to “open itself to the world,” while praising its recent restoration of diplomatic ties with the United States. Francis was greeted by President Raul Castro at Jose Marti International airport in Havana, where the pontiff urged Cuba to grant its people the “freedom, the means and the space” to practice their faith, an implicit criticism of the many restrictions the country places on religion. The Catholic Church was once an integral part of Cuban history, the Pope said, inspiring veterans of its war for independence and “sustaining the hope which preserves people’s dignity in the most difficult situations.” In his short speech, Francis also invoked Jose Marti, a Cuban hero, to deliver a veiled critique of the Castros, said Andrew Chesnut, a professor of Latin American history at Virginia Commonwealth University. Marti, a George Washington-type figure, died in 1895 during the war for independence. Related gallery Pope Francis visits Cuba “He specifically referenced Marti as a fighter against ‘dynasties,’ a reference of course to the five decadelong Castro regime,” Chesnut said. But a Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Pope was not necessarily referring to the Castros. “I don’t think that it was a citation chosen for a specific reference to today’s situations,” Lombardi said at a Saturday evening news conference. Francis has criticized Cuba in the past, though, writing in a 1998 book that its “authoritarian” and “corrupt” regime should be scrapped in favor of a representative democracy. Francis is the third pontiff to visit Cuba, after Saint John Paul II in 1998 and Benedict XVI in 2012. Francis’ call for Cuba to “open itself” to the world echoed John Paul’s remarks, a sign of the Catholic Church’s longstanding efforts to carve out space in a country that has been officially atheist for decades. Lombardi said the Pope believes religious freedom in Cuba means more than the ability to worship freely. It also entails the right to open schools and practice acts of charity, as well as other missions. 5 key questions about the Pope’s trip to Cuba, United States Castro, who has said the Pope has inspired him to consider joining the Catholic Church, effusively praised the pontiff on Saturday, particularly his criticism of consumerism and environmental degradation. He also thanked Francis for his role in restoring ties between the United States and Cuba, while calling for the closing of the U.S. military base on Guantanamo Bay. On Tuesday, the Pope will fly to Washington, a visible sign of the detente he has helped broker between Cuba and the United States. “For some months now, we have witnessed an event which fills us with hope,” the Pope said. “The process of normalizing relations between two peoples following years of estrangement.” Francis also called the restoration of diplomatic ties “an example of reconciliation for the entire world.” “The world needs reconciliation in this environment of ‘Third World War by stages’ that we are experiencing.” Some American conservatives, however, have criticized the restoration of ties with the communist country, saying that the United States should have required the release of political dissidents. “The Castro brothers are mass murderers,” Rep. Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, told CNN. “They have tortured and imprisoned thousands of dissidents.” Pope Francis’ schedule for U.S., Cuba President Barack Obama and Raúl Castro spoke on the phone Friday to discuss the process of normalizing relations between the two countries. Just this week, the United Nations announced that Raul Castro would travel to New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly. It will be his first visit to the United States in more than a half century. U.S. and Cuban officials have said that Obama could visit the communist-run island next year, if the two countries progress sufficiently in normalization talks. Earlier Friday, the departments of Treasury and Commerce announced revisions to existing Cuban sanctions, in what is the third set of regulatory changes since the President announced that the United States would re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba in December. Rubio: Will Francis visit inspire freedom in Cuba? CNN’s Patrick Oppmann contributed to this report.


Three senators on the Judiciary Committee are trying to get an invite to Thursday’s meeting with House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy about documents related to a classified intelligence source and the Russia investigation. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn sent a letter Tuesday to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein asking to also attend a meeting to receive the same information as their House counterparts. “On Sunday, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein stated, ‘If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action.’ We agree,” the senators wrote. “We write to express our interest in attending such a meeting and in support of providing Congress with documents necessary to conduct oversight of these issues.” Kelly arranged the Thursday meeting for Nunes and Gowdy with FBI Director Chris Wray, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Edward O’Callaghan, in an effort to end the standoff between the Republican lawmakers and the Justice Department. Nunes issued a subpoena for documents related to the confidential source, but the Justice Department has said that revealing the information could put lives at risk. The news about a confidential source speaking with members of President Donald Trump’s team during the campaign, however, has fueled accusations from Trump and others that the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign, although US officials have told CNN the confidential source was not planted inside the campaign to provide information. On Wednesday, Grassley said he would go to the meeting if he was invited. “If I’m invited, I’ll go, and if I don’t, I’ll be satisfied that the information … ought to be made public,” Grassley said. “What they need to know and what can be made public ought to be made public, but obviously we’re not going to make public anything that violates national security.” The upcoming meeting has been a source of tension on Capitol Hill after Democrats, such as House Intelligence ranking member Adam Schiff of California, were not invited to join their Republican counterparts at Thursday’s meeting. “It’s inconceivable that the White House could expect that they can brief only Republicans on anything related to the Russia investigation. That can’t happen,” Schiff told CNN. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he and Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, previously declined a similar briefing for information about the confidential source. Warner argued that the disclosure of such classified information to Congress should be restricted to the “Gang of Eight” — the chairmen and top Democrats on the two Intelligence Committees and the four House and Senate party leaders. “If this kind of discussion is going to take place, we have a process — it’s called the Gang of Eight,” Warner said Wednesday. “My hope is that any such briefing needs to bipartisan, and my hope and prayer is that the FBI or the Department of Justice would not in any way be forced to reveal confidential information that would go against 75 years of practice.” Burr has declined comment on the confidential source and the upcoming meeting with House Republicans. Asked Wednesday why he wanted to be briefed on the confidential source documents when Burr had declined, Cornyn said: “Oversight.” Both Grassley, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Nunes, on the House Intelligence Committee, have pursued investigations that have been critical of the opposition research dossier on Trump and Russia written by ex-British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. They have also focused on the start of the Trump-Russia investigation in July 2016, including the latest request for documents on the confidential intelligence source. But Grassley does not have the same subpoena power as Nunes, as the Senate Judiciary Committee requires the consent of top Democrat on the panel, Dianne Feinstein of California, to issue subpoenas. That hasn’t necessarily stopped Grassley from getting the same information, however. In a separate letter sent to Rosenstein on Monday, Grassley reminded Rosenstein that he had “personally assured me that the Senate Judiciary Committee would receive access to the same information provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.”


Editor’s Note: CNN National Security Analyst John Kirby is a retired rear admiral in the US Navy who served as a spokesman for both the state and defense departments in the Obama administration. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. John Kirby: Trump's recent John Bolton retweet about Obama not believing in national missile defense is completely inaccurate Obama did a lot to ensure our nation's safety by taking a layered approach to missile defenses across continents, he writes On Thursday, President Donald Trump told reporters that, despite the threat from North Korea, “The people of this country should be very comfortable. The people of our country are safe.” However, this follows Trump’s ominous retweet of Ambassador John Bolton on Wednesday, who wrote: “Our country & civilians are vulnerable today because @BarackObama did not believe in national missile defense. Let’s never forget that.” This tweet in completely inaccurate. We are not as vulnerable as Bolton implies, and Obama did quite a lot to shore up our defenses against a possible attack. But let’s unpack this further. First, our commander in chief is basically saying that he has little confidence in our nation’s missile defense. One supposes Trump could earn brownie points here for candor. But it’s difficult to see, especially in light of the threats coming from Pyongyang, how this sort of candor serves the national interest. Kim Jong Un is probably delighted to hear Trump thinks we are vulnerable. Except we’re not. The tweet is divorced from fact. On Thursday, he confirmed as much when he told reporters that, despite the threat from North Korea, “The people of this country should be very comfortable. The people of our country are safe.” Listen to what the director of the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves, just said at the Space & Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama: “We absolutely believe that the currently deployed ballistic missile defense system can meet today’s threat.” Related video Trump unleashes tweetstorm on range of targets And Greaves made it clear he has the data to back it all up. “We have done the analysis, we’ve built the systems, we’ve done the modeling simulation, and, oh by the way, we have done the testing,” he said. This seems pretty declarative to me, so I’m going to take the general’s word for it. What’s disconcerting is that Trump – who likes to defer to military expertise – doesn’t appear willing to do so from his own MDA director. Some will say that retweets aren’t endorsements and that just because the President retweeted it doesn’t mean he was making a policy determination. It doesn’t matter that he hasn’t included a little “RT ≠ endorsement” tag on his profile. If Trump retweets something, it’s fair game for us to assume he wanted us to know about it and that he endorses it. So the President of the United States doesn’t have confidence in our missile defenses. The general in charge of those same defenses does. Let’s not forget that. Related article 12 things Trump should know about North Korea Second, it’s just flat-out wrong to say Obama didn’t believe in missile defense. It was Obama who presided over the development of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), which provided a layered approach to missile defenses across the continent in response to the growing ballistic missile threat posed by Iran. EPAA resulted in specially-equipped Navy missile defense destroyers based in Spain, the deployment of the TPY-2 – or missile defense radar – to Turkey and the placement of Aegis air defenses in Poland and Romania. NATO leaders officially declared an Initial Operational Capability of NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense system in the summer of 2016, meaning that certain elements of the EPAA were then integrated under NATO command and control. Obama was also deeply committed to providing Israel with layered missile defense centered around Iron Dome, a mobile all-weather air defense system, and he sought ways to enable our Gulf allies to acquire missile defense systems as well. Related article Why military options won't work against N. Korea threat In response to the North Korean threat, Obama increased the number of ballistic missile interceptors in Greely, Alaska, and sent an additional TPY-2 radar to Japan. He deployed the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to Guam, based missile defense destroyers in Japan, and late last year deployed an additional THAAD system to South Korea. THAAD is a regional anti-ballistic missile system designed to shoot down incoming missiles during their re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, Obama’s missile defense policy wasn’t without flaws. Early on in his administration, he reversed President George W. Bush’s decision to deploy air defense systems to the Czech Republic and ballistic missile interceptors to Poland, and he presided over significant cuts to MDA’s budget. Those cuts continue to have a deleterious effect on critical research and development. And it’s certainly true that Trump inherited a more serious threat from Pyongyang than Obama did from Bush. No one can argue that we’ve effectively deterred Kim from pursuing these dangerous capabilities. At the same time, no one can argue that Obama “did not believe” in missile defense. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook As Abel Romero, the director of government relations at the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, wrote back in January, “President Obama leaves behind a significant missile defense legacy, having spurred the development and deployment of missile defense systems in Europe, Asia and the Middle East during his presidency. Obama’s embrace of missile defense as a component of foreign policy has led to bipartisan support of an issue that had largely been championed by the Republican Party for decades.” Let’s never forget that either.


Editor’s Note: Reza Aslan is the author of “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” and the host of CNN’s original series “Believer With Reza Aslan.” The views expressed are his own. I know better than most how unexpectedly a country can be changed from within. I was born in Iran before its 1979 revolution, when it was a secular country with a modern constitution and equal access to the law, but ruled by a dictator with an iron fist. In the eyes of then-US President Jimmy Carter, Iran was an “island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world.” He said as much to the country’s long-serving monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, in a public toast in Tehran in December 1977. But within the supposed “island of stability” there was a substantial minority population that was religiously conservative, politically active and zealously committed to imposing their values and agenda upon the state. When the Shah failed in his duty to address the needs of his citizens – when the government was revealed to be kleptocratic, inept and corrupt – the religious conservatives saw their chance. With the backing of much of the population, they helped organize a massive revolution that roiled the country and forced the Shah and his family to flee as his kingdom was transformed into the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this case, the revolution was sudden and violent. But not all revolutions happen in this way. Some occur quietly and gradually, with one group injecting its ideology into the state, forcing more government concessions and taking on greater political power until, one day, you wake up and find this group has more or less taken over the state. That is precisely what I see happening right now in Israel with the Haredim, an extremely conservative religious minority of ultra-Orthodox Jews. The ultra-Orthodox represent a diverse but devout and anti-modern group that’s been challenging the secular nature of Israeli society for years and could change the very fabric of the country. Right now, the Haredim comprise about 13% of Israel’s Jewish population, but their numbers are increasing. If their birth rate continues at the current pace, by mid-century approximately one in every four Jews in Israel will be ultra-Orthodox, according to an October 2013 report from the United Nations Statistical Commission and Economic Commission for Europe. Related video Growing up ultra-Orthodox I believe these demographic changes pose a severe threat to Israel’s status as a modern, secular democracy. After all, according to the Pew Research Center, a staggering 86% of ultra-Orthodox Jews want Israel to be a theocratic state governed by Jewish law, known as “halakha.” In the interviews I conducted with ultra-Orthodox leaders during the filming of this week’s episode of “Believer,” I was repeatedly told that the only way Israel could legitimately be a “Jewish state” is if it abides by Jewish law. In practical terms, this means forcing stores, restaurants and cinemas to close for the Sabbath, something that ultra-Orthodox youth have at times tried to enforce through threats and violence. One of our interviewees, Jerusalem’s ultra-Orthodox deputy mayor, Yitzhak Pindrus, threatened not too long ago to cut off all municipal funding to any event that violates the law of the Sabbath. “I am not prepared to allow municipal budgets to be given to events that desecrate Shabbat,” he said. Pindrus is one of a growing number of ultra-Orthodox Jews who are taking on increasingly powerful roles in the Israeli government with the goal of either enacting legislation that favors their community, or stopping legislation they deem to be in violation of their strict interpretation of Jewish law. So, for instance, despite the fact that a 2013 poll found that 70% of Israelis support same-sex marriage, the ultra-Orthodox have been one of the voices in Israel’s national debate about civil marriage. Under current Israeli law, Jews can only be married through the Chief Rabbinate, the supreme religious council in Israel, which, unsurprisingly, is dominated by ultra-Orthodox rabbis. As with many religiously conservative groups, the ultra-Orthodox practice strict gender segregation guidelines. As a result, women have been barred at times from certain sections on public buses in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods, and have at times been kept from walking on certain sidewalks in Haredi areas. In majority ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods like Meah Shearim and cities like Beit Shemesh, self-ascribed “morality police” have at times harassed and sometimes even physically assaulted women who are not, in their view, properly dressed or behaved. Related video Pray, study, party: Inside a growing sect of Judaism Perhaps most dramatically, the Orthodox have attempted through threats and physical acts of violence to keep women from performing services at the Wailing (Western) Wall, the holiest site in the world for all Jews. Such actions have created enormous friction between the ultra-Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews. (Indeed, the government’s ultra-Orthodox minister of religious affairs recently declared about Reform Jews, “I cannot allow myself to call such a person a Jew.”) I myself spoke to a number of secular Jews in Israel who openly worried that the ultra-Orthodox are on the verge of turning Israel into a Jewish version of Iran. While that may sound extreme, it shows the level of concern that is running through the secular community in Israel. Whether the ultra-Orthodox are in fact able to one day transform Israel into a religious state remains to be seen. But what cannot be denied is that their influence over Israeli society and the Israeli government is only growing. And as someone who lost his own country to a small but powerful group of religious zealots, I genuinely worry about the future of Israel.


Syrian American Medical Society is a medical relief organization It has a network of 110 medical facilities and 1,700 doctors Almost 5 million Syrians have fled their country during the ongoing civil war. According to the United Nations, almost 400,000 have died so far in the fighting. For many of those left behind, life is a daily struggle for survival amid airstrikes and shelling. Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) is a US-based relief organization providing medical care in Syria as the civil war rages. The charity has about 1,700 doctors working in 110 medical facilities that have treated 3 million people across the country. SAMS provides immediate trauma and intensive care – as well as offering specialty, long-term care. Its medical team works against the backdrop of constant fighting. Dr. Ahmad Tarakji, president of SAMS, said that hospitals are prime targets for airstrikes. The organization’s largest trauma hospital was bombed in October. “It’s like waking up from death. You cannot see a lot because the dust is all over the place,” said Tarakji. “You see blood on your clothing, and you don’t know if it’s yours or somebody else’s.” SAMS created mobile clinics to treat people where hospitals have been destroyed or in rural areas with large populations of displaced people. Related gallery The battle for Aleppo in 20 photos While the organization has been able to open mobile clinics throughout Syria, they sometimes have limited resources. It’s a struggle to get medical supplies and food to these clinics safely. SAMS partners with other international humanitarian organizations to get supplies to the clinics. Another area of need is maternity care. Tarakji said many pregnant women are too scared to give birth in hospitals, knowing they are heavily targeted. SAMS has a team of midwives that go to the women’s homes – only taking the mother and newborn to the hospital if there is a critical need. Tarakji said most of the medical staff lives in the hospitals and clinics, knowing they could be attacked at any moment. “It’s natural for many of us growing up that if there is a major threat that you run away, you seek refuge somewhere. It’s exactly the opposite inside Syria,” said Tarakji. “Our physicians were there. They did not leave until everybody was out, and they made sure that everybody is safe.” The continuous airstrikes and constant fear of death has also taken a huge psychological toll on Syrians, especially children. SAMS provides psychosocial care through individual and group therapy. Related video A message from orphans in Aleppo “The children have seen a lot of suffering,” said Tarakji. “Many of them have these daily nightmares because of the bombardments and chemical weapons that they witness – and losing their families as well.” Tarakji said many children suffer from anxiety and depression and tend to exhibit more aggressive, violent behavior. Many are traumatized, not knowing if their parents are alive – clinging on to the nearest doctor or nurse they can find. “Those children when they lost their parents, they’re crying; and they don’t have anybody. You’re not able to find their parents, and probably you’ll be the only parent for them for that minute.” In spite of all the horror, Tarakji said SAMS is optimistic about the future and wants to rebuild communities and the lives of the Syrians. “We want to stabilize communities, build better communities in the future,” he said. “We want to have dignified medical care with easy access … saving lives, alleviating the suffering, and we want to stand for our humanitarian values that we all share and believe in.”


Editor’s Note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for the The Miami Herald and World Politics Review, and a former CNN producer and correspondent. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. Frida Ghitis: Hillary Clinton has proven she can pulverize 'weaker sex' stereotypes But she will need to tackle serious foreign policy challenges if elected, Ghitis says After an election season that has left Americans more than a little shaken (and the rest of the world uneasy about American democracy), voters can take comfort knowing that one of the candidates kept her cool through the debates – despite the insults, the lies, and the endless challenges of the campaign. By doing so, Hillary Clinton showed she has the mettle required of the next president as he, or more likely she, faces a swarm of increasingly complicated international crises in a male-dominated world. And in the process, she has managed to crush stereotypes about women. America’s rambunctious, costly and seemingly endless election ritual has become a brutal Darwinian test of, among other attributes, psychological fortitude. Recall that Donald Trump destroyed a Republican field that started with 17 primary candidates. He did it, for the most part, with psychological moves that kept the audience entertained and at times seemed to leave his opponents on the verge of tears. Low-energy Jeb (Bush), Little Marco (Rubio), Lyin’ Ted (Cruz) – all fell by the wayside. Against this backdrop, Clinton herself had to get used to being called Crooked Hillary. Yet despite facing even harsher rhetoric than what caused Trump’s Republican challengers to crumble, Clinton remained unflappable. Indeed, the stereotype of women as emotional and oversensitive seemed to apply more to the male candidate than to Clinton. She dominated the debates not only with her mastery of policy, but through psy-ops of her own, exploiting traits in Trump that made him the better poster child for those (falsely) stereotypical female qualities. Trump was the oversensitive one, with the thin skin. He was the emotional one, flying off the handle – and off his debate game plan – when taunted. The next president of the United States, which polls suggest is more likely to be Clinton, will need every ounce of that emotional strength, because while the United States has been consumed with its elections, a number of grave crises have continued to escalate around the world – and many of the key players are themselves masters of psychological warfare. Exhibit one is Russian President Vladimir Putin. Back in 2007, for example, Putin invited German Chancellor Angela Merkel to his summer house. Merkel, as many people knew, was allegedly terrified of dogs since being attacked by one many years ago. As the two sat at a press conference, Putin brought out his black Labrador. You only need to look at the picture of their reactions to see that Putin likely knew exactly what he was doing – more striking than Merkel’s look of discomfort is Putin’s self-satisfied grin. (He later claimed he did not know of Merkel’s alleged phobia.) Related article The weaponization of hacked emails Facing Putin and Russia – which annexed Crimea, has supported Ukrainian separatists, has caused or abetted what critics claim are possible war crimes in Syria, and allegedly meddled in US and other elections – will require nerves of steel along with smart decision-making. But the challenges are by no means confined to Russia. The Philippines, for decades a country with which the United States held a close friendship and a pivotal alliance, is becoming a testing ground for the next American president. Voters there recently elected the unpredictable and outspoken Rodrigo Duterte as president. Duterte’s actions at home have shocked the world, and his language – including telling President Barack Obama to “go to hell” – have left many appalled. But it’s Duterte’s foreign policy that is becoming the real concern for Washington. As Clinton and Trump were squaring off for their final debate this week, Duterte, who was visiting China, told his hosts that “America has lost,” and suggested that his country, a key Asian ally for the United States, would form a new alliance with China and Russia, declaring, “there are three of us against the world.” It’s not quite clear what Duterte has in mind, but the drift of an ally in Asia, where China has emerged as a much more assertive power in recent years, is reason for concern. Under President Xi Jinping, China has moved steadily forward on a number of fronts, extending its economic influence, challenging US allies in the South China Sea, building manmade islands, and trying to resolve territorial disputes with its neighbor by dispatching its military to areas claimed by other nations. This new muscular Chinese policy has caused alarm in many countries, and Japan has, for its part, responded by boosting military spending and mulling changes to its pacifist constitution. And China is not the only challenge facing the United States in Asia. When the next US president meets Xi, a major topic of discussion will be what to do about North Korea and its unpredictable young leader Kim Jong Un, whose regime is developing missiles that could deliver a nuclear strike against US allies and eventually, perhaps, against the United States itself. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Finally, there’s the Middle East and the conundrum posed by Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, and his allies in Iran. And even as Syria’s suffering continues, the next president will face the lingering disappointment of America’s Arab allies, who feel betrayed by Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. The next president will therefore have to convince Arab allies that they can trust America, while figuring out a way to keep nuclear arms out of Iran’s hands when the current deal expires in a decade or so. The challenges in the region are daunting, and the tests of the campaign show Clinton has the toughness to face a relentless assault and psychological gamesmanship of her prospective foes. But there’s more: Having a woman assume the presidency of the world’s most powerful country for the first time could prove educational for men and inspirational for women in the Middle East and, indeed, across the globe. Clinton has proven to Americans that she has the ability to pulverize “weaker sex” stereotypes. It’s a message that should be heard in every country. Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for the The Miami Herald and World Politics Review, and a former CNN producer and correspondent. The views expressed in this commentary are her own.


What’s in a handshake? Sometimes a great deal, as leaders around the world have proved time and again. Usually, it’s the history-making ones that the world remembers – think Nixon and Castro, Kennedy and Khrushchev, Churchill and… anyone, really. You can find all of those here. However, today’s leaders seem to have lost some of the grace and poise of yesteryear, replacing it instead with awkwardness. From funny looks to failed handshakes, here’s a roundup of some of the best. US President Donald Trump treats Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to a 19-second handshake, complete with several pats on the hand, when they meet in the Oval Office on February 10, 2017. Then-US President Barack Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto try a three-way handshake when they meet in Ottawa, Ontario, during the North American Leaders Summit on June 29, 2016. That wasn’t the first tri-handshake Obama had to endure, however. Here he is with then-Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (C) and Abe (R), at a trilateral meeting at the G20 Summit on November 16, 2014 in Brisbane, Australia. Russian President Vladimir Putin also makes the cut as he meets Obama at the United Nations headquarters on September 28, 2015 in New York City. Nothing says “Gulf Cooperation” like these smiles, as Obama meets Bahraini Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa at the White House in Washington, DC, on May 13, 2015. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker seems to have found a new confidante in UKIP leader Nigel Farage, seen here in Brussels on Tuesday, June 28, 2016. Meanwhile, in better times, UK Prime Minister David Cameron meets at Downing Street with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on February 27, 2014, but things seem to have gotten off to an awkward start. Over in France, things are chivalrous between French President François Hollande (L) and then-US Secretary of State John Kerry, seen here at the Elysee Palace on January 16, 2015 in Paris. On the other side of the world, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe meets Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on August 26, 2014 in Beijing, China. Then there’s this awkward meeting between then-Chinese Vice-Premier Wang Qishan (R), then-US Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner (L) and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (C), on May 24, 2010, in Beijing, China. Japan and China have a difficult friendship behind closed doors, and sometimes in public too, as Abe shakes hands with China’s President Xi Jinping (R) on November 10, 2014 in Beijing, China. Saving the best for last, here’s one that’s both historically important and uncoordinated: Obama meets Cuban President Raul Castro (R) on March 21, 2016, And in case you didn’t catch it the first time, here’s Obama, Trudeau and Nieto shaking hands again. And again. And again. North American leaders Obama, Peña Nieto and Trudeau attempt a three-way handshake https://t.co/6OZtrfIwim pic.twitter.com/D4guexq0Nf Cristiana Moisescu contributed to this report.


The debate over whether or not Russia engaged in a coordinated and widespread effort to meddle in the 2016 election isn't a debate Everyone in a position to know believes that Russia did this President Donald Trump hasn’t been terribly consistent about much during his two-year political career. But one place where he has never wavered is in his skepticism that Russia actively meddled in the 2016 election. On Sunday, Trump’s newly minted communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, acknowledged that the boss still isn’t convinced. “He basically said to me, ‘Hey, you know, this is, maybe they did it, maybe they didn’t do it,’” Scaramucci told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” Trump himself got in on the action later Sunday. “As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost election taking hold, Democrats and Russians!,” Trump tweeted just after 4 p.m. ET. As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost election taking hold, Democrats and Russians! Here’s the thing: The debate over whether or not Russia engaged in a coordinated and widespread effort to meddle in the 2016 election isn’t a debate. Everyone in a position to know – from the intelligence community to members of Congress on both sides of the aisle – believes that Russia did this. The FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Office of the Director of National Intelligence all agree that not only was the meddling the work of the Russians but that it was designed to help Trump’s campaign and hurt Hillary Clinton’s. Trump’s own CIA director, Mike Pompeo, was definitive on that point at a national security conference in Aspen, Colorado, late last week. “I am confident that the Russians meddled in this election, as is the entire intelligence community,” Pompeo said. The only person of any prominence who doubts those conclusions is the man sitting in the Oval Office. Trump is on an island, a man apart on the Russia issue. (The people who work for him, like Scaramucci, don’t really count – they are doing and saying what their boss tells them to.) “Well, I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people and other countries,” Trump said at a news conference in Poland earlier this month. “It could have been a lot of people interfered.” In the first general election debate against Clinton in September 2016, Trump famously/infamously said: “It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.” Related article Huckabee Sanders: White House supports sanctions bill Trump’s hesitancy to put the blame on Russia is beyond doubt. Why he is so unwilling to do so is a bit murkier – although Scaramucci shed considerable light on the President’s motivations in his Sunday interview with Tapper. “The mainstream media position on this, that they interfered in the election,” Scaramucci said. “It actually, in his mind, what are you guys suggesting? You’re going to delegitimize his victory?” And there you have it. To Trump, any acknowledgment that Russia actively meddled in the 2016 election with the express purpose of helping him to win is the equivalent of saying he didn’t win fair and square and maybe shouldn’t have won at all. When Trump hears Russia, he sees an attempt to rob him of the single greatest accomplishment in his life – not to mention the best proof point he’s had in his 71 years on earth that he is much, much smarter than the so-called elites. It is, in his mind, a fundamental attack on not just his presidency but him. They are saying he didn’t win because they can’t accept that he proved them all wrong, Trump thinks to himself. Related article Scaramucci: Trump still doesn't accept intelligence conclusion on Russia Which is, of course, bunk. You can believe that Russia attempted to meddle in the election to benefit Trump AND that he won and is the duly elected President. It’s not an either/or proposition. The evidence suggests that Russia’s coordinated release of emails gathered by a hack into the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s account played a role in the outcome. How big? It’s virtually impossible to know given the variety of other factors – most notably then-FBI Director James Comey’s decision to re-open the Clinton email server case – that influenced how voters made up their minds. What Trump seems unable to accept is that no matter what Russia did, he still won. And that he will be President through 2020 no matter if he says that, sure, Russia meddled in our election, or not. Trump’s blind spot on Russia has caused him a huge amount of problems in his first six months in office as he and his staff twist themselves into pretzels to find alternative explanations for something the intelligence community is unanimous on. Chalk it up to Trump being his own worst enemy – again.


Editor’s Note: Ira Helfand, MD, is co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1985. Matt Bivens, MD, is chair of Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility. The opinions expressed in this commentary are theirs. A majority of the world's nations have just joined together to call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Authors: If the US is serious about keeping the world safe from a nuclear attack, then it should have voted yes to the ban A majority of the world’s nations have just joined together to call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. We should listen. The United States government opposed the historic UN vote for a new treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, but that was a knee-jerk response, grounded in last century’s reflexes. Today, the path forward to total abolition of these weapons is open — even as, ironically, the danger of nuclear war is greater than it has been since the worst days of the Cold War. The United States and Russia hold more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, with about 7,000 each. The other nuclear-armed states have smaller arsenals by comparison. None of the nuclear-armed states were among the 120 nations who voted to declare these weapons illegal. But if the United States is serious about seeking the security of a world free of nuclear weapons, then it should have been the first to vote “yes” on the ban. For decades the US has instead based its security policy on the theory of nuclear deterrence — an untested belief that nuclear weapons are so terrible that they keep one nuclear-armed country from attacking any other, for fear of mutual destruction. Perhaps. Then again, the same was said of machine guns in the 1800s — weapons of such awesome destructive power, they were predicted to end war. “They are peace-producing and peace-retaining terrors,” The New York Times wrote in 1897 of the new Maxim machine guns, adding that “their devastating effects have made nations and rulers give greater thought to the outcome of war before entering.” Is there any reason to believe such tragically flawed logic from the 19th century will work out better in the 21st? More likely, nuclear weapons, those “peace-producing and peace-retaining terrors,” are simply another horror that given time will grow mundane and familiar — until eventually they are used, this time perhaps in a war that destroys humankind. Related article Trump, Putin and Erdogan: the three men upending global diplomacy That is not hyperbole. New data suggest that a war involving just 100 nuclear weapons, or less than 1% of the world’s arsenals — say, for example, a regional war between India and Pakistan — would cause abrupt severe climate disruption, worldwide food shortages, hundreds of millions of starvation deaths, and probably a total collapse of civilization. And yet we continue to base our security on these “peace-retaining terrors.” A core assumption of this deterrence theory is that the nuclear-armed states will be led by calm, collected, and well-informed people, who will infallibly respond to crises in a rational fashion. Perhaps. Then again, as it does after every presidential election, the US has now handed control of some 6,800 warheads to a single individual. How does the current President fit with the idealized model of a world run by grownups? After all, according to a signed letter from 50 leading Republican national security experts, “He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood … lacks self-control and acts impetuously … has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior” and overall exhibits “dangerous qualities in an individual … with command of the US nuclear arsenal.” Related video US responds to North Korean missile launch It is not enough, however, to get this particularly unqualified finger off the button. We need to get rid of the button itself. Just consider whether anyone could be calm, collected, and reasonable after, say, a nuclear explosion destroys Moscow. It might not be clear for days whether such a disaster was caused by a terrorist, a foreign power, or a domestic accident. As this was being investigated, would the world likely be dealing with a calm, matter-of-fact Russian nation? How quickly might things spin out of control? In the wake of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, the US government responded in part by invading and occupying the completely unrelated nation of Iraq, causing hundreds of thousands of unjustified deaths and creating the vacuum now filled by ISIS and other extremist groups. Is there any reason to believe that we would do better in the future if New York was vaporized? Related video North Korean missile classified as 'brand new' Yet there’s no need for hypotheticals. We know of at least six incidents during and after the Cold War when either Moscow or Washington was fully prepared to fire their nuclear weapons based on an error — a mistaken belief that the other side had launched or was about to launch an attack. Six occasions when the leaders of the nuclear super powers rejected the central assumption of deterrence — that nuclear weapons are actually safe, because they can never be used — and set in motion plans to use them. On each of these occasions the world came within minutes of nuclear destruction.  It was saved mainly by chance and good luck. Our continued view of nuclear weapons as “peace-producing and peace-retaining terrors” is essentially a hope that this good luck will continue. This seems terribly naive in a world of rising tensions with Russia, and growing concern that terrorists could hack into nuclear command and control systems.The UN’s nuclear ban treaty points the way to a different future, one where we eliminate all of the 15,000 nuclear  weapons that threaten our survival. The treaty is in some ways a cry of frustration from the rest of the world. The United States, Russia, and other nuclear-armed nations promised more than 37 years ago to work toward total disarmament. That was the bargain of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: We pledged to get rid of our nuclear weapons, in return for others pledging not to seek them. Related article The full meaning of Donald Trump's finger on the nuclear button But we have not kept our promise. In fact, as approved under President Barack Obama, the US government plans to build more nuclear weapons. Current projections show that the US will  spend more than  $1 trillion over the next 30 years on upgrading and expanding an arsenal that is already so powerful that using only a fraction of it could destroy all life on Earth. In recent years, international impatience with stonewalling has finally boiled over. First came a series of international conferences that cataloged the mind-numbing medical and humanitarian consequences that will follow any use of nuclear weapons. Organized by a group of non-nuclear states, and supported by the United Nations, the International Red Cross, and hundreds of medical professionals, civil society groups, and religious leaders, including Pope Francis, these discussions rejuvenated arms control efforts. Then in the fall of 2016, the UN General Assembly upped the ante: Since the nuclear-armed states were cheating on past promises and keeping nuclear weapons, the world would now declare the weapons illegal. The United States opposed this under President Obama and that opposition  has continued, but to no avail: The treaty is now entering into international law. Yes, the United States can try to ignore this. But as with treaties banning land mines and cluster munitions, declaring nuclear weapons illegal creates a new international norm. It is also a pointed reminder that the US is long overdue to honor a legally-binding promise made 37 years ago to get rid of all of its nuclear weapons. The new treaty is a call to action, and we should all answer it. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook In the short term, US citizens can ask our government to stand down nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert.  This can be as simple as a policy statement that, even if attacked, the US will defer any counterattack for some period of time, say 24 hours. (In an age of nuclear-armed submarines, such a de-alerting of our forces is consistent even with the flawed deterrence theories.) Citizens can also support efforts in Congress  to mandate that this or any future President must get prior approval from Congress before launching a first strike with nuclear weapons — the same permission any President now must obtain before starting a war. The next step will be to negotiate a convention among the nine nuclear-armed states to abolish these weapons, which as of today are illegal, and have always been immoral. It will not be easy. Such an abolition agreement will have to include a firm timetable for dismantling weapons, involve rigorous verification and enforcement provisions, and satisfy the legitimate security needs of concerned states from Israel to Pakistan. There is no guarantee we will succeed in this effort. But there is no real alternative to trying, other than wishful thinking that our good luck can last forever. Until we eliminate nuclear weapons, we are living on borrowed time.


Just as the White House is caught in a political minefield over the Russia investigation, the Pentagon is taking its toughest line yet against Russia’s resurgent nuclear forces. In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia. “Russia considers the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to be the principal threats to its contemporary geopolitical ambitions,” the report says. Related article Trump is about to put his mark on the US nuclear arsenal “The Defense Intelligence Agency currently estimates Russia has a stockpile of 2,000 “non-strategic” nuclear weapons including short-range ballistic missiles, gravity bombs and depth charges that can go on medium range bomber aircraft,” according to the report. “DIA also estimates Russia has nuclear armed anti-ship, anti-submarine missiles and torpedoes. What do they need nuclear depth charges for?” one US official asked. President Donald Trump highlighted the importance of the review’s conclusions Friday in a written statement. “Over the past decade, despite United States efforts to reduce the roles and numbers of nuclear weapons, other nuclear nations grew their stockpiles, increased the prominence of nuclear weapons in their security strategies, and – in some cases – pursued the development of new nuclear capabilities to threaten other nations,” Trump said. “The strategy develops capabilities aimed at making use of nuclear weapons less likely. It enhances deterrence of strategic attacks against our nation, and our allies and partners, that may not come in the form of nuclear weapons. And, importantly, it reaffirms our commitment to arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, maintains the moratorium on nuclear testing, and commits to improving efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to nuclear terrorism,” he added. The Pentagon is adamant the Nuclear Posture Review walks the line between maintaining a nuclear deterrence and encouraging controls on nuclear weapons. “It reaffirms that the fundamental role of US nuclear policy is deterrence and continues our clear commitment to nonproliferation and arms control,” said Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan. The report also publicly acknowledges, for the first time, that Russia is “developing” a “new intercontinental, nuclear armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo.” Known in English as the “Status-6” system, the program is described by US officials as essentially a drone-type device fired underwater that can potentially travel thousands of miles and strike US coastal targets such as military bases or cities. Upon detonation, the device is designed to cause large zones of radioactive contamination. Some analysts have called it a “doomsday weapon,” and US Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, has labeled the concept “destabilizing.” “The concept is a horror of the Cold War,” according to Adam Mount, a senior fellow and the director of the Defense Posture Project at the Federation of American Scientists. “It is clearly inspired by overblown Russian worries that US missile defenses will make their missile forces obsolete.” “There is no indication from public information that Russia is actively developing the system, but it is alarming to see it in a Pentagon document,” Mount said, adding that while the program is referenced in the Nuclear Posture Review, it is not mentioned in other government reports. The review calls for more focus on US “low yield” nuclear weapons to try to convince Russia that the US has a credible deterrent against the potential Russian threat. The plan calls for modifying existing US warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles in a $50 million five-year program. Each submarine would only carry a few of these new missiles, armed primarily with strategic longer-range missiles. “Neither recommendation requires developing new nuclear warheads,” Shanahan said. “Neither will increase the size of our nuclear stockpile. They break no treaty.” “The idea is to have one or two or just a few to address this potential Russian limited use,” according to one Pentagon official. Related article The nuclear war tweet heard 'round the world But according to some experts, the plan translates Trump’s urge to “greatly expand and strengthen” the arsenal into policy. “The Trump administration’s call for new nuclear weapons is a major shift in US policy,” Mount said when asked the proposal for low-yield nuclear weapons. “Programs for new nuclear weapons would follow our adversaries into a world where nuclear competition is commonplace. The programs would crowd out other military priorities, alarm allies, and have huge diplomatic cost – for minimal deterrence benefit,” he said. Mount said that the review’s outline for low-yield nuclear weapons “relies on the assumption that Russia would invade NATO allies, and glosses over important arguments about where and why these weapons would ever be necessary.” Low-yield ballistic missiles could be fielded within just a few years. Longer-range missiles could come over the next decade, and the US would plan to develop and field sea-launched cruise missiles also with lower-yield warheads. The review is calling for all of this along with an overall modernization of the nuclear force because the Pentagon requires an “investment in a credible nuclear deterrent with diverse capabilities,” chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana White told reporters. Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “What we have is a nuclear deterrent, so keep those two words always together and then look at the efforts to push forward on nonproliferation and arms control, and you have to do that when you’re in a position of persuasion not of hope.”


"I don't know what he'll find, but I trust him," the Democratic senator says of the special counsel Mueller has been appointed to investigate  Russia's influence on the 2016 presidential election Deomcratic Sen. Dick Durbin said Friday that President Donald Trump will put the country at the “brink of a constitutional crisis” if he fires special counsel Robert Mueller. Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, a friend of the President, said earlier this week that Trump was considering firing Mueller, who has been appointed to investigate  Russia’s influence on the 2016 presidential election. On Friday, the President tweeted he was under “investigation,” which he called a “witch hunt” in another tweet. Durbin, speaking on WGN radio, said he hoped the response to Trump firing Mueller would be bipartisan if it occurred. Related article Trump says he is being investigated over Comey firing “If he fires Mueller, I will tell you, we are right on the brink of a constitutional crisis,” the Illinois senator said. “Mueller is an independent counsel, well-respected man, doing a good job. I don’t know what he’ll find, but I trust him – trust him to put our country first. If the President tries to fire him to diminish or stop this investigation, I would hope that finally there would be a bipartisan uproar against it.” Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported Mueller was investigating the possibility the President obstructed justice by suggesting then-FBI Director James Comey drop an FBI investigation into Michael Flynn. Trump fired Comey in May.


Four countries face visa restrictions in a process initiated last week, DHS says Trump had targeted the nations, which refuse to accept their nationals The Trump administration will impose visa sanctions on four countries that refuse to take back foreign nationals deemed to be in the US illegally, Department of Homeland Security spokesman Dave Lapan said Wednesday. The four countries – Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea and Sierra Leone, according to a DHS source close to the deliberations – come from a running list of countries the US designates as “recalcitrant” for not accepting, or delaying, repatriation of their own citizens after the US has tried to deport them. On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump railed against the Obama administration, and his opponent, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, for not employing sanctions to pressure uncooperative countries. “There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they’ve been ordered to leave the United States, including large numbers of violent criminals. They won’t take them back. So we say, ‘OK, we’ll keep them.’ Not going to happen with me, not going to happen with me,” Trump said in an August 2016 speech. Citizens of the four countries identified by the administration will face visa restrictions that could prevent them from entering the US. The sanctions process was triggered last week in a letter sent to the State Department by Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke, Lapan said. It is up to the State Department to determine the visa restrictions’ scope, and to initiate them. In a statement, a State Department official confirmed receipt of the DHS letter. “When we receive such notification, the law requires a suspension of visa issuance. We follow a standard process to implement a visa suspension as expeditiously as possible in the manner the Secretary determines most appropriate under the circumstances to achieve the desired goal,” the official said. “That process includes internal discussions with, and official notification to, affected countries. We are not going to get ahead of that process. When we have completed the process, information will be available about the terms of the visa suspension,” the official continued. While the US has regularly kept a list of countries considered recalcitrant, only two countries have previously received sanctions under the law: Guyana, in 2001, and The Gambia, in 2016. In both cases, US visas were restricted for certain government and diplomatic employees. Twelve countries have been designated as recalcitrant as of July, Lapan said, including China and Cuba. It was not immediately clear why these specific four countries were chosen. The sanctions were first reported by the Washington Times. In a news briefing Wednesday, Lapan declined to name the four countries. The State Department also refused to identify the countries. After a Supreme Court ruling in 2001, immigration authorities have been forced to release after a period of time undocumented immigrants from countries that refuse to accept their repatriation. Between 2013 and 2016, more than 8,000 undocumented immigrants were released, some after serving time in prison for violent crimes, according to data from the House committee on oversight and government reform. CNN’s Laura Koran contributed to this report.

Trump administration visa sanctions policy


Editor’s Note: Jonathan Tasini (@jonathantasini) is the author of “The Essential Bernie Sanders and His Vision for America,” president of the Economic Future Group and the host of the “Working Life” podcast. His book, “Resist and Rebel: The Peoples’ Uprising in America” will be published in the fall. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. Tasini says a new book stirring conversation about Clinton's campaign mistakes obscures the real problem He says Clinton botched the campaign and opened door to a Trump presidency, but the decline of Democrats began far earlier, he says The psychodrama of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chronicled in campaign accounts now coming to light has a fascinating parallel to the obsession over Vladimir Putin’s real or imagined election role. Specifically, it’s a distraction from a deeper, systemic weakness of the Democratic Party. Aside from the titillating internal campaign anecdotes, nothing revealed in the new book, “Shattered,” surprised anyone closely engaged in the 2016 elections, particularly those of us who publicly supported Bernie Sanders. It is clear that an arrogant, incompetent campaign royally blew an election, handing the Oval Office to an unhinged, unqualified, dishonest man. A retread coterie of pollsters, consultants and insiders tried to sell an out-of-touch, elitist candidate to voters who were in full-scale revolt. It was a campaign so clueless that, during the general election, it could not find Wisconsin on the map. Yet, let me offer a backhanded defense of the Clinton campaign: too much is being made of the failure of one candidate, and the alleged influence of foreign powers, because the demise of the Democratic party has been in the making for many years. One campaign did not hand the Republican Party two-thirds of the state legislatures, a solid majority in the House and control of the Senate before losing the White House. You had to screw up for a very long time to amass that track record. The deeper party crisis boils down to two related problems. First, there exists a permanent “Liberal-Progressive Edifice Complex” that has corroded the party. This “complex” is a circle of people and organizations – inside the Democratic Party itself, as well as non-profit organizations, lobbyists, consultants of very stripes and individual self-promoters – who work mightily to maintain an iron grip on power and prestige. This complex is run by well-paid operatives and professional non-profit leaders – who, funded by rich people and foundations, often earn significant six-figure salaries and benefits that put them firmly in the one percent, and sometimes even in a better station. Related video Sanders weighs in on upcoming special election Within the complex, failure does not disqualify people from future positions. Senior operatives who spend millions of dollars in losing campaigns, time and again, still get the call to do it all over again. Nothing new to say? C’mon out to speak at our umpteenth, useless conference to “Take Back America.” Selling your personal brand on TV and demanding big bucks for a speaking fee? The complex anoints you and celebrates you, even when you lavish praise on Donald Trump simply for not embarrassing himself in his State of the Union speech. The Democratic Party is essentially a legal money-laundering entity for individual and corporate donors, especially in presidential years when the party’s nominee dictates the flow of money. Big donors don’t care about party-building at the local level; they care about being attached to national brands. Astonishingly, at a time when people abhor the buying of elections by the rich, the party at its recent national meeting approved taking in large corporate donations. A long-time Democratic operative who worked on the 2016 campaign recently told me that when the Clinton campaign was told it needed to invest in local grassroots efforts, which support down-ballot races, it was hostile to the idea. Republicans, by contrast, have assiduously funded local efforts. Related article Hillary Clinton, it's too soon Second, beyond campaign mechanics and candidates, the Democratic Party has promoted, and continues to embrace, the great bi-partisan myth of American exceptionalism. Like all effective myths, it is powerful because it is repeated year after year. However, for many people who long for a real alternative, the reality behind the myth casts an ominous shadow. To start, Democrats routinely embrace the celebration of the “free market” and the American “dynamic economy,” even though our abysmal economic model is run increasingly like a kleptocracy, which drains the wealth from millions of average people. American exceptionalism trumpets to the world that we have a spectacular model of justice built on a set of values that Democrats say Donald Trump is violating. That is an utterly empty claim if you are black or poor. The rule of law or the idea of equality under the law is the province of the privileged, the rich and the powerful who, when they steal from us, rarely face justice. Related article How Georgia vote shows Trump not so invincible The idea of American exceptionalism has meant being the largest, by far, seller of weapons around the world – including to regimes likes Saudi Arabia, which treat women as second-class citizens. It has meant we have the biggest military in the world, justifying endless war for economic benefit, including interventions, overthrows and the manipulation of elections going back long before Vladimir Putin was even born. From conservatives and liberals alike, we hear the boast that we have the “best workers in the world,” an inherently racist view that questions the quality and worthiness of workers everywhere. This sets up a narrative of “us versus them” competition among workers. It, then, stirs voters’ fears about their economic desperation and prompts them to blame phony enemies – immigrants, for example. When you hear some voices in the party urging “unity” and scolding people from replaying the 2016 party primary, be vigilant. Too often those are the same people who have failed for a very long time, who are hitting up donors and churning out mountains of warmed-over position papers. Amusingly, a few are branding their organizations as the “resistance,” even when their boards of directors include corporate lobbyists, billionaires and proud purveyors of American exceptionalism. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Democrats should be voicing clearly that the real threat to people is the power of big corporations racing across the globe, plundering the planet and exploiting people of all races. Hillary Clinton was not that voice, allowing Donald Trump, a man who has used the broken economic system to defraud thousands of regular people, to seize the populist megaphone. If the party fails to embrace a different vision of America, and a different idea about the country’s place in the world, Democrats will not win – and they should not win.


President Obama is ticking off a lengthy and expanding to-do list He hopes to bring his SCOTUS nominee up for a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress One hundred days before he leaves the Oval Office, President Barack Obama is showing few signs of fading into the White House woodwork. Even as he aggressively works to elect Hillary Clinton as his replacement, Obama is also ticking off a lengthy and expanding to-do list, containing longstanding entries like closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and finally sealing a trade deal with Asia, and new vexing problems like punishing Russia for its political meddling. His approval rating near record highs, Obama enters his final months in office with more political capital than at nearly any point in his presidency, but few obvious opportunities to expend it on the issues he hopes will form his legacy. Congress has shown little appetite to advance his agenda, even in the lame duck period between November’s vote and Inauguration Day in January. Even on issues where most Republicans agree with Obama – namely, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal – GOP congressional leaders have downplayed the potential for action. On many issues, Obama will be faced with a choice between deploying his executive powers – a tactic he’s used frequently – or leaving some of his unfinished business for his successor. Overseas, Obama confronts knotty diplomatic and military quandaries that he hopes to straighten out for the next commander in chief. But there’s little doubt the global flash-points that he’s struggled to contain will persist well past next year. “I think the President is approaching the final 100 days the way that approached the previous seven-and-a-half years or so, which is seeking to make the most of every remaining opportunity,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Wednesday. He said he doubted Obama was even aware he was crossing the 100-day mark. Obama hopes to capitalize on the lame-duck session of Congress to complete at least one major outstanding issue: his stalled nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Republicans, who have resisted bringing Garland up for a vote over the past year, could conclude the moderate appeals court judge is more acceptable than whatever nominee Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump puts forward should they win. Remember Merrick Garland? Supreme Court nominee waits Clinton hasn’t said definitively whether she would reappoint Garland or select her own nominee, leaving the confirmation process post-Election Day unclear. Republicans, who have insisted the next president should pick the ninth justice, risk political backlash if they decide to embrace Garland in the lame duck. The same is true for another controversial nomination pending: Obama’s pick to be the first US ambassador to Cuba in more than 50 years. And it’s true as well for TPP, which both Clinton and Trump have said they’ll reject if elected. With Congress avoiding a vote on the plan before Election Day, Obama has remained optimistic for action once lawmakers learn their fates in November. “After the election, I think people can refocus attention on why this is so important,” Obama said in Asia during a trip in September. White House officials also say movement on criminal justice reform – long the priority of a ideologically diverse group of unlikely allies – is likely during the lame duck. Proposals include altering harsh sentencing laws and returning some rights, including voting rights, to convicted felons. “It’s a remarkable coalition of groups both on the left and on the right that have really come together to push this for a variety of different reasons,” said White House counsel Neil Eggleston in an interview last week. “We continue to think and are working hard to get it done in the lame duck.” How Mitch McConnell won the SCOTUS fight (for now) Eggleston said the spate of commutations for non-violent drug offenders will continue apace as Obama works around Congress to instill fairness into the system. Presidents typically scale up their use of pardon and clemency powers in the final months of their administrations. Obama also faces perhaps his most disappointing unfulfilled promise as he wraps his term: the prison at Guantanamo Bay, whose population has been winnowed to 61 from the hundreds who were detained there at the beginning of Obama’s presidency. A White House plan to transfer some prisoners into American prisons was rebuffed by lawmakers, who would need to alter current law to allow transfers onto US soil. At the White House Wednesday, Obama acknowledged at least some of his remaining tasks would likely become jobs for his successor. “We’ve done a lot of work together, but we know we’ve got more work to do,” Obama said during a reception for Hispanic Heritage Month. “We’ve known all along that we weren’t going to get everything done during one presidency.” A daunting range of national security challenges still confront Obama as he enters the final chapter of his presidency. Responding to the latest – a US intelligence determination that Russia is likely trying to meddle in the presidential contest through hacking – will add to Obama’s punch list in his final stretch in office. The US is mustering a “proportional response,” the White House said this week, without specifying specifically what’s in store for Moscow. Likely options include financial sanctions or legal action through the Justice Department. But even after Obama makes his move, Russia’s provocations aren’t likely to cease. Related article Russia, US move past Cold War to unpredictable confrontation Obama still hopes to reach an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end suffering in Syria, where the Russians have sided with Bashar al-Assad to crack down on opposition fighters. He has little time to find a solution before Aleppo, Syria’s besieged second city that’s under partial rebel control, falls completely to the regime. In Iraq, Obama is preparing for an offensive to liberate Mosul from ISIS by sending 600 more US troops to help train Iraqi forces. It’s a mission that’s not likely to be complete by the time Obama leaves office on January 20. Russia’s role in US election under growing scrutiny And administration officials are still holding out the chance Obama could offer a parting stab at brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians, either by laying out a framework for talks or supporting a UN Security Council resolution spelling out details of an agreement. Obama is due to travel abroad once more as president, to Peru for a meeting of Asia Pacific leaders. It’s likely additional countries are added to his November itinerary to form a farewell tour. Obama could always choose to make a final secret visit to Iraq or Afghanistan as well.


KT McFarland previously served as Michael Flynn's deputy Flynn's plea agreement appeared to contradict testimony McFarland gave Congress President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the ambassador to Singapore could be derailed in the Senate amid questions about whether she properly disclosed to Congress her communications with former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to senators and sources from both parties. KT McFarland, who previously served as Flynn’s deputy and is now Trump’s nominee to be ambassador to Singapore, came under renewed scrutiny earlier this month after Flynn’s plea agreement with Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller appeared to be at odds with her testimony to Congress. Lawmakers and senior aides told CNN that they expect the Senate to send her nomination back to the White House when this year’s session wraps up at week’s end, making her prospects for confirmation increasingly grim. At that point, the White House will have to decide whether to renominate her to the post amid questions over her interactions with Flynn about Russia, and then convince skeptical senators to take up the nomination during the 2018 midterm election year. If her nomination is derailed, as some senior senators and aides expect, it would mark the second time that Mueller’s probe has effectively thwarted a Trump nominee – the other being Sam Clovis, who withdrew from consideration for a senior Agriculture Department post in November amid questions about his communications with Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to authorities about his conversations over Russia. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, whose committee oversees the McFarland nomination, told CNN that the White House “will have to make decisions on whether they renominate” her to the position since the Senate plans to send her nomination back to the White House this week. “Nominees that have other productive lives they can lead probably have to assess themselves whether it makes a lot of sense to continue on because it does put your life on hold,” Corker said. “Before any of these other things came out, there were significant Democratic objections to this nominee – the nominee is aware of that. This obviously makes it more difficult.” Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wants her nomination sent back to the White House at year’s end, according to Cardin spokesman Sean Bartlett. She has not clarified her testimony with the committee, Bartlett said. To win confirmation this week before the year-end recess, McFarland will need cooperation from Senate Democrats to expedite a vote. But Democratic officials say that’s not going to happen. “No chance she gets confirmed by year’s end,” said a Senate Democratic leadership aide, adding the nomination will “likely” be sent back to the White House. The controversy over her nomination reignited this month after unsealed court documents showed that Flynn spoke to a senior transition team official about what to discuss with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak after the Obama administration issued new sanctions against Russia on December 29 of last year. While McFarland was not mentioned in the court filings, sources confirmed that she was the transition official who spoke to Flynn. Moreover, a New York Times report revealed that McFarland mentioned Flynn’s communications with the Russian ambassador in a separate email on December 29. Related article Trump predicts exoneration in Russia investigation as allies fear a 'meltdown' But in her testimony on Capitol Hill earlier this year, McFarland did not disclose those conversations, despite being asked directly in written correspondence with Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey. “Did you ever discuss any of General Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak directly with General Flynn?” Booker wrote to McFarland in July. RELATED: Warner calls for McFarland to testify about ‘thrown’ election emails McFarland responded, “I am not aware of any of the issues or events as described above.” A McFarland representative did not respond to multiple inquiries seeking comment about her plans. The White House also did not comment. Sources on the Foreign Relations Committee said that they have not received any clarification regarding her testimony. McFarland’s nomination was approved by the panel in September, but it has not been considered by the full Senate. In order to prevent the nomination from being sent back to the White House, the two sides would have to reach a unanimous agreement – something that is highly unlikely given the controversy her nomination has spawned.