Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has asked a Virginia federal judge to throw out one of the 18 charges he faces there – arguing that it’s past the statute of limitations. The charge Manafort is taking issue with is an allegation that he failed to register a foreign bank account from 2011 with Treasury Department authorities. Manafort says prosecutors would have had to charge him by June 29, 2017, with the crime. Instead, they indicted him in February. Related article Manafort loses effort to challenge Mueller's authority in civil court Manafort is also charged with failing to file foreign bank accounts in 2012, 2013 and 2014 and with several other crimes related to his foreign lobbying work and banking, but he hasn’t yet contested those. He has pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges he faces in Virginia and DC federal courts. Manafort’s indictments came as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and any potential ties between the Kremlin and Trump campaign associates. President Donald Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion. Manafort has a deadline of midnight to file other requests with the Virginia court related to his criminal case. CNN’s Sophie Tatum contributed to this report.


NEW: Yemen's foreign minister said he expects Saudi-led ground troops in Yemen within days Yemen's President rallies support on Saturday in Egypt Arab League blessing of military action may set the stage for a ground invasion In just a few weeks’ time, good relations with neighbors have become a matter of survival for Yemen President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi. On Saturday, he rallied regional allies in Egypt, while they bombarded his enemies in his country. After Houthi rebels occupied the capital Sanaa weeks ago, Hadi’s government fled. When the President called for military intervention to beat back their attempt to overthrow him, adjacent countries answered this week with a grand airstrike operation. Related video Amid turmoil in Yemen, can an Iran deal be reached? In the darkness of early Saturday, their jets increased the hail of ordnance on Sanaa, as Saudi-led operation Determination Storm went into its fourth day. Hadi was in Sharm el-Sheikh to meet with the region’s leaders at the Arab League summit. Yemen has been plunged into chaos since the Houthi rebels – Shiite Muslims who have long felt marginalized in the majority Sunni country – began seizing control of the capital and other areas of the country in recent weeks. The rebellion upset other Sunni majority nations, prompting the airstrikes this week from Saudi Arabia and at least seven other countries that aim to help restore Hadi’s government. The unrest also led to the withdrawal of U.S. special forces from Yemen this month, seriously undermining counterterrorism efforts in a country that has been a stronghold for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Friday night, the Saudi-led airstrikes on Sanaa were continuous. Related gallery Unrest in Yemen Jets bombarded Hadi’s weapons caches and other military assets, Houthi and Yemeni government officials said. And Saudi Arabia claimed major successes. The Royal Saudi Air Force crushed all major air defense weapons of the Houthis and their allies, a Saudi adviser said Saturday. They wiped out main military infrastructure around Sanaa and destroyed most of the main roadways connecting the capital with major cities Taiz and Aden. The RSAF laid waste to all major air fields, the Saudi adviser said, and many Houthi and allied fighters fell to the bombs. Yemen Foreign Minister Riyadh Yaseen told CNN on Saturday that he believes Saudi Arabia-led coalition troops will be in Yemen within days. The Houthi rebels’ capture of Sanaa and other areas of the country in recent weeks has forced the legitimate Yemeni government to ask for Saudi intervention, Yaseen said. Former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh still holds influence over large parts of the Yemeni army, which also made the Saudi-led intervention necessary, according to Yaseen. Just days before the Saudi-led intervention, Saleh’s son, Ahmed Ali Abdullah Saleh, traveled to Riyadh to broker a deal with Saudi officials, Yaseen said. The deal he presented included turning his factions against Houthi rebels, but the Saudis refused, according to Yaseen. A senior diplomat in Yemen said rumors of a ground invasion are circulating. “The bottom line is – I do not see any political or military forces on the ground in the country now that could confront the dominant force – the Houthis,” the diplomat said. Saudi naval special forces invaded to rescue 68 diplomats out of Aden and take them to Saudi Arabia, and the kingdom has attempted to remove a U.N. delegation from the country, the Saudi adviser said. The diplomat said a majority of U.N. staff left the country on three planes Saturday. Leaders of key humanitarian agencies stayed behind to assess needs and coordinate a response. In the area of the southern port city of Aden, opposing Yemeni military forces – those allied with the Houthis, and those supporting Hadi – have fought for more than a week. Loyalists to Hadi gained control of the airport on Saturday, the diplomat said. Mayhem was reported in Aden. “We are hearing reports of summary executions, looting” in Aden, the diplomat said. Saudi Arabia has locked the Houthis down with a blockade, effectively cutting off their supply lines, and its air force controls Yemeni airspace. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have both spoken about the possibility of putting boots on the ground. Related video Egypt's foreign minister on stabilizing Yemen. The Arab League is expected to give its official blessing to Determination Storm on Saturday, which could clear the way for a ground invasion, CNN’s Becky Anderson reported. The Saudi adviser said to expect a major announcement from Saudi Arabia at the summit. But there may also be pushback from a few member nations, such as Shiite majority Iraq or possibly Algeria. Though the Saudi kingdom has taken the lead with some 100 warplanes, the coalition partners include the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan and Egypt. Arab Spring wasn’t supposed to turn out like this Together they comprise about a third of the Arab League’s membership. They are majority Sunni Muslim nations, and the Houthi rebels are Shiite Muslims allied with Iran. Having Yemen become an Iranian satellite country on its border would be perceived as a major threat by neighboring Saudi Arabia, which sees the Houthis as proxies of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s bitter rival on the Persian Gulf. Iran has sharply denounced the armed intervention. At Saturday’s Arab League summit in Egypt, Hadi denounced the Houthis as Iran’s “puppet.” “I say to the puppet of Iran, and those who are with him, you destroyed Yemen with your immature politics, and creating internal and regional crisis,” Hadi said. “You are wrong to think that you can build the homeland with shouting and speeches. “You violated the sovereignty (of Yemen), and you bear the responsibility for what happen and what is going to happen.” The United States has approved of the airstrikes and is supporting them logistically, and aiding coalition forces in locating targets, but it is not participating in active battle. A small contingency of U.S. forces had been stationed in Yemen to help in the fight against AQAP, but left this month after Houthi rebels advanced from Sanaa to Aden. For years, Yemen had allowed U.S. drones and special operations forces to stalk AQAP in the country. Now, that arrangement is in tatters. Houthis moved into Sanaa in September, sparking battles that killed a few hundred people before a ceasefire was called. In January, they surrounded the presidential palace and Hadi resigned and was put under house arrest. Hadi escaped in February, fleeing to Aden and declaring that he remained the country’s leader. The Houthis took control of military forces stationed near Sanaa, including the air force. After fighting moved toward Aden, Hadi left the country this week. Dozens of people have died in the strikes, and on Saturday, Human Rights Watch said many of the victims were civilians, perhaps as many as 34. “Reports of air strikes and anti-aircraft weapons in heavily populated areas raise serious concerns that not enough is being done to ensure their safety,” HRW regional spokesman Joe Stork said. A Saudi Arabia defense official blamed civilian deaths on the Houthis, saying they were using them as human shields. Brig. Gen. Ahmed bin Hasan Asiri said the kingdom’s military was using precision weapons to avoid collateral damage, state-run Saudi Press Agency reported. Media outlets have come under fire as well. An hour after President Hadi ordered the closure of all Houthi-controlled media – including Yemen TV and Saba TV – Houthis raided two TV channels and the prominent Al Masdar newspaper. Al Jazeera’s office in Sanaa was also targeted, the Qatar-based network said, with Houthis looting security cameras and damaging equipment. Opinion: Why Yemen has come undone Journalist Hakim Almasmari reported from Yemen; CNN’s Nic Robertson reported from France, and Ben Brumfield wrote this story from Atlanta. CNN’s Jason Hanna, Becky Anderson and Nick Paton Walsh contributed to this report.

Saudi-led coalition intervention in Yemen


The special counsel investigating potential ties between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia has obtained a draft of a letter that explains reasons why Trump planned to fire former FBI Director James Comey, The New York Times reported Friday. The Justice Department turned over a copy of the letter, which was drafted by Trump and top aide Stephen Miller, to Mueller in recent weeks, the Times reported, citing interviews with a dozen administration officials and others briefed on the matter. The Times report doesn’t say what was in the letter, which was originally meant to be sent directly to Comey, according to the Times. Ty Cobb, a White House lawyers, declined to discuss the letter or its contents to the Times. But it was met with opposition from White House counsel Don McGahn, who saw its contents as “problematic,” the Times reported. Instead, a letter written by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that was focused on criticizing Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was cited behind Trump’s decision to fire the FBI chief. After Comey was fired in May, Trump has said he was thinking of “this Russia thing” when he decided to fire Comey, who had been leading the bureau’s investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Trump told NBC News in May that he was frustrated by the ongoing investigation and believes it was motivated by Democrats’ fury at losing the election. With those comments, Trump explicitly tied the Russia probe to his rationale for firing Comey. It was one of a series of explanations for dismissing the FBI director, some of which directly contradict those offered earlier by top White House officials. CNN’s James Griffiths and Marshall Cohen contributed to this report.


Programming note: Comedian W. Kamau Bell explores “Latino USA” on “United Shades of America” Sundays at 10 p.m., only on CNN. Hispanics are the youngest racial or ethnic group in the United States 71% of Hispanics say that it's not necessary to speak Spanish to be considered Hispanic The term "Latino" is gaining more traction Latino? Hispanic? Spanish speaker? Native born? When it comes to defining Latino identity in the United States today, the one common thread is its sheer complexity. In the latest episode of the CNN Original Series “United Shades of America,” W. Kamau Bell explores two Los Angeles communities where the majority of the residents are of Mexican descent – East L.A. and Boyle Heights. Bell asks people in East L.A. to describe the state of Latinos in America today. “We’re a growing force to be reckoned with,” says one man. “We’re taking over,” says another. Indeed, in 2014, the Hispanic population in the United States reached a high of 55.4 million, or 17.4% of the total U.S. population. READ MORE: The Great Latino Hope of America? But the growth rate of the Hispanic population overall has slowed, in large part because fewer Mexicans are coming into the United States than there were decades ago. Native-born Hispanics are now the driving force behind the current population growth. California is still the state with the largest Hispanic population in the country with 15 million followed by Texas (10.4 million) and Florida (4.8 million). Related video Latinos divided over Trump's immigration stance According to a new report by the Pew Research Center, Hispanics are also the youngest racial or ethnic group in the United States. About a third (17.9 million) of Hispanics in the United States are under 18 and almost 60% are millennials or younger. One of the issues Bell asks his interview subjects — who range from artists to undocumented immigrants to public officials — is about assimilation. For many immigrant groups, assimilation is seen in a variety of ways, with one of the most obvious being native language proficiency. “Within a short period of time, everybody will have trouble talking to their grandmother,” Gil Cedillo, a Los Angeles City Council member, told Bell. If current trends remain constant, Cedillo might be right. Young Hispanics today are more proficient in English than previous generations and the younger they are, the more proficient they are likely to be. According to Pew, 76% of Hispanic millennials speak only English at home or speak English “very well,” and 88% of Hispanics ages 5 to 17 are proficient English speakers. And while 95% of Hispanics think it’s important for future generations to preserve the cultural tradition of speaking Spanish, 71% of them say that it’s not necessary to speak the language in order to be considered Hispanic. Over an evening snack with two musicians at a sidewalk café, Bell dives into the fraught question of what his interview subjects call themselves: Chicano, Chicana, Hispanic, Latino or Latina. Related video Latino voter turnout lagging, despite growing population “Chicano and Chicana is the term that came from the people, the term that came from the streets, that came from the struggle of people saying ‘Brown is Beautiful,’” explains Hector Flores, a musician with the band Las Cafeteras. “Latino” is another complicated term, Flores tells Bell: “People use it as an umbrella term.” For Flores, “Hispanic” is “a Census word” used “to put everybody in categories.” A 2012 Pew study on Hispanic identity showed that half of those surveyed preferred to use their country of origin to describe their identity (Puerto Rican or Mexican for example) instead of Hispanic or Latino. Half of the respondents said they had no preference between Latino or Hispanic. And despite the increasing use of “Latino” as umbrella term, those surveyed considered their culture unique and not part of a pan-Latino or Hispanic-American identity. (Generally, “Hispanic” is used to define those who have roots in Spanish-speaking countries, excluding Brazil, while “Latino” includes those from Latin American countries, including Portuguese-speaking Brazil.) READ MORE: What white people have to say about being white Right now, the U.S. government and many media outlets use the term interchangeably. For example, Bell uses the term Latino in this episode while Pew tends to use the word Hispanic in its research reports. Complicating matters more, the Census Bureau asks two questions when collecting data on Hispanics. The first is an ethnicity question asking whether the respondent is “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish” and asking respondents to specify their national origin (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban etc.). They then ask respondents to specify their race (white, black etc.). The bureau is reviewing these questions in advance of the 2020 Census in an effort to more accurately reflect Latino identity. Related video Why the term 'Hispanic' may be wrong As the term “Latino” gains more traction in the United States, it carries with it an additional concern – gender. Instead of opting for Latino (masculine) and Latina (feminine), an emerging constituency of Latinos are pushing for a new gender-neutral term: “Latinx.” In a 2015 article for Latina magazine Raquel Reichard described the term, pronounced “La-teen-ex,” as including “the numerous people of Latin American descent whose gender identities fluctuate along different points of the spectrum.” In his opening monologue for the episode, Bell takes issue with the use of the word “minority” to describe “all the people that are darker than Vin Diesel and blend them together.” As Latinos continue to debate identification issues, they move closer toward creating identities that are more personal, and thus more reflective of their unique experiences. What could be more American than that? CNN Digital Correspondent Tanzina Vega covers race and inequality in America: read more of her stories on CNNMoney.com


Dutch King says he's piloted commercial flights for over 20 years Royal says he takes the controls of KLM short-hop flights a couple of times a month They don’t call KLM “Royal Dutch Airlines” for nothing. King Willem-Alexander, reigning monarch of the Netherlands, revealed in an interview with Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that he’d regularly flown flights for a subsidiary of the Dutch flag carrier for over two decades. Calling the part-time role a “hobby,” the King says that he’d taken to the cockpit as a co-pilot of KLM Cityhopper – the airline’s short-haul carrier – flights for over 21 years. Prior to that he piloted planes for Dutch carrier Martinair. The King told the newspaper that he used the twice-monthly flights with KLM to decompress from his royal duties, with his pastime allowing him to fully concentrate on the task at hand. “For me the most important thing is that I have a hobby for which I need to concentrate completely,” he said. “You have an aircraft, passengers and crew. You have responsibility for them. You can’t take your problems from the ground into the skies. You can completely disengage and concentrate on something else. That, for me, is the most relaxing part of flying,” he said. King Willem-Alexander revealed he has been training to fly Boeing 737s which will soon replace KLM Cityhopper’s Fokker 70 fleet. According to information provided by the Royal Dutch household, King Willem-Alexander first took to the skies over 30 years ago while still a student. In the late 80’s his passion took him to Kenya, where he worked as a volunteer pilot, first for the medical aid organization, African Medical Research & Education Foundation (AMREF), and later for the Kenya Wildlife Service. 'This is your Royal Highness speaking' pic.twitter.com/koDBlHWqa8 But the Dutch King isn’t the only royal with history in the cockpit. Britain’s heir to the throne, Prince Charles, is a qualified pilot, and his two sons, William and Harry, flew helicopters in their previous military careers – William, a search-and-rescue chopper and Harry, Apache helicopters in Afghanistan. Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah also reportedly sometimes slips into the cockpit while flying on state visits. King Willem-Alexander said that the chances of him being recognized had fallen since 2001, when security measures introduced following the 9/11 attacks restricted passengers’ access to the cockpit. Being the co-pilot also allowed him to retain his anonymity, even while addressing the passengers, he said. “The advantage is that I can always say that I wish everyone a heartfelt welcome in the name of the captain and the crew,” he told De Telegraaf. “So I don’t have to say my own name. But most of the (passengers) don’t listen anyway.”


Trump is considering a number of military men to guide his government The President-elect has tapped Gen. Michael Flynn as national security advisor The parade of administration hopefuls passing through the Trump Tower lobby includes quite a few who have worn stars on their shoulders – the kind of military men President-elect Donald Trump derided during the campaign as “embarrassing.” Trump is interviewing current and former military brass for Cabinet positions, including erstwhile CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, retired Marine Corps Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis and the former head of Southern Command, Gen. John F. Kelly. He’s already appointed retired Gen. Michael Flynn as his national security adviser and met with Adm. Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command. The unusually public process – typically conducted behind closed doors – has raised concerns about a Cabinet more heavily weighted toward military rather than civilian leadership. At least one of Trump’s potential picks would require Congress to waive legal barriers to service members serving in civilian positions. And some of the military men in Trump’s orbit have faced questions about their performance or judgment. The names being floated may reflect the President-elect’s predilection for leaders with a “tough guy” profile, but they also mark a 180-degree turn from some of the insults he leveled at military figures during the campaign. Related video Billionaires, millionaires in Trump's cabinet Trump’s pivot to Pentagon expertise as an incoming commander in chief isn’t that unusual. US leaders have long turned to military experience to help them guide the civilian ship of state. “It’s not unprecedented,” said Richard Kohn, professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who pointed to three four-star generals President Barack Obama included early in his administration. “You put people of distinguished accomplishment in these positions,” Kohn said. Obama named retired four-star Gen. James L. Jones as his national security advisor, retired four-star Admiral Dennis Blair as his director of national intelligence, and retired four-star Gen. Eric Shinseki as his secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Both his predecessor, President George W. Bush, and President Ronald Reagan named four-star generals as their secretaries of state. “What might be unusual is the public way in which this is being displayed by Trump,” said Kohn, who focuses on issues of war and security, “so we hear about all these people being considered, as opposed to having the announcements after they’ve been decided.” Also unusual: Trump’s comments about military figures during the campaign, which were perhaps unprecedented for a presidential candidate, one who presumably learned respect for military leaders as a military academy student in his teens. RELATED: Trump offers Flynn job of national security adviser Trump repeatedly criticized a Gold Star family whose son died in the line of duty in Iraq. He said Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona was “not a war hero” because he’d been captured as a Navy pilot in Vietnam. He proposed committing war crimes, such as killing the families of terrorists, despite the Pentagon’s opposition to such policies and in November 2015, boasted that, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do.” At a September commander in chief forum on MSNBC, Trump said military generals were “embarrassing” to America and had been “reduced to rubble” under Obama. And he suggested that he’d clean house if he got to the White House, appointing “different generals, to be honest.” As Trump began considering generals for a slew of Cabinet positions, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told CNN’s “New Day” last month why there are concerns about “a military attitude in the civilian position.” “When you get to that defense secretary role, it has to be a broader, strategic impact brought to any decision you make in any strategic event you make around the world – including, by the way, acquisitions of weapons,” Rogers said. This is one reason for a 1947 law that requires a seven-year window before military leaders take the helm at the Defense Department. The question of how to balance civilian and military power has been around for millennia. Plato wrestled with it around 380 BC in “The Republic,” a Socratic dialogue that examines the order of a just city-state. The question, as he put it, is ‘who will guard the guardians?’ More than 2,000 years later, France’s World War I Prime Minister, George Clemenceau, declared that “war is too important to be left to the generals.” His point was that broad strategic considerations are best guided by democratically-elected representatives of the people and not an elite group of tactical experts. Howard Gardner, a psychology professor at Harvard University, said Trump is drawn “toward leaders who have a ‘tough person’ profile” like Russian President Vladimir Putin, “what psychologists call ‘the authoritarian personality.’ ” Gardner added that, “We have yet to see what happens when those leaders don’t bend to Trump’s will.” Related video Putin details conversation with Donald Trump Trump seems to be choosing people who supported him throughout the election process or individuals who signal beliefs and loyalties that will appeal to his constituencies, Gardner said. “Since a big source of support for Trump were military leaders and veterans, it is natural for him to turn to that constituency.” Gardner added that, “Also, they tend to obey orders.” Kohn notes that many of Trump’s prospective hires parted ways with the Obama administration, and in cases such as Flynn’s – who was pushed out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014 after two years – have been quite vocal about their unhappiness taking direction from the current White House. “It’s interesting to me that President Obama chose three people who were known to be very independent-minded, known to have disagreements with the Bush administration before him, and Trump is doing the same thing, picking people who had disagreements with the Obama administration,” Kohn said. The “different generals” making the passage through the Trump Tower’s lobby include Mattis, who is reportedly being considered as a defense secretary, though he would need a congressional waiver from the 1947 National Security Act to take the job. The Washington-state native, who retired in 2013, hasn’t been a civilian for the requisite seven years. Some question whether he’d be right for the job. Erin Simpson, former CEO of Caerus Associates who served as an advisor in Afghanistan to the NATO-led security mission there, has written that Mattis is a legendary commander, but ill-suited to the bureaucratic job of running the Pentagon. “He is a warrior and a leader of men. He is not, however, a man for all seasons,” she wrote on the website War on the Rocks. “He is not a politician, or a wonk, or a bureaucrat. To ask him to be any of those things would be like trying to keep a wave upon the sand.” RELATED: David Petraeus shared classified info. Now can he be secretary of state? Kelly, Mattis’ friend and Marine Corps colleague, is reportedly being considered as a possible Homeland Security secretary. And Petraeus is on the list of candidates for secretary of state. Petraeus is widely respected for his experience on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and for developing counter-insurgency strategy – alongside Mattis – that is credited with reversing the violence in Iraq in 2007. But the former CIA director is burdened by his guilty plea to a misdemeanor for mishandling classified information. Petraeus gave classified materials to a woman he was having an affair with and then lied about it to the FBI. The other generals Trump is considering are also shadowed by controversy. Flynn, the future national security advisor, has potential conflicts of interests because of consulting work he has done for Turkish and Russian clients. And he has expressed views on Islam, terrorism and Asian countries that many see as extreme. Human Rights Watch has said Flynn has “contempt for the laws of war” and “a deeply disturbing disregard for human rights.” Rogers, the head of the NSA, most recently courted controversy by visiting Trump Tower without informing his superior officers.

Trump's consideration of military leaders for Cabinet positions


The Senate Intelligence Committee remains deeply divided over whether there is evidence of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia after a year-long investigation, the latest sign that Congress is unlikely to find consensus over a key question surrounding the 2016 elections. Related article Trump wishes he hadn't picked Jeff Sessions for attorney general The committee has tried for the past year to showcase bipartisanship in its investigation, taking pride that it has yet to devolve into public partisan mudslinging like its counterpart in the House. But by taking the high ground, the committee has so far punted on making any determination about collusion. Now, senators now find themselves facing the same partisan pitfalls as the House and the rest of Washington over whether there was any collusion and when it should release a report that would have broad ramifications for Trump and the November midterms. Republicans on the panel maintain they’ve seen no evidence of collusion, while Democrats say it’s clear that the Russians had found willing partners in the Trump campaign to sway the 2016 race. “There was clearly an intent to collude,” said Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden. Asked if he believes there’s evidence to support the notion of collusion, GOP Sen. Roy Blunt said: “Not that I’ve seen.” Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine agreed. “Our investigation is not complete, but to this date and time I have not,” Collins said when asked if she’d seen evidence of collusion. Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, said that the committee has “a handful” of witnesses remaining to interview. He was hopeful the interviews could be completed by June and the report itself could be done by Labor Day – but it’s unclear if the panel will be able to release an unclassified report before the midterms. Added to the complications: midterm politics and special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Some on the panel, like Collins, resist the idea of issuing a report on collusion in the run-up to the midterm elections when control of Congress will be at stake, while others are skeptical about concluding their probe while Mueller appears to be charging ahead. “No, no,” said California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said when asked if the panel’s report on collusion would be as definitive as Mueller’s probe. “Look what he’s done with the indictment,” she said, referring to the 13 Russians charged by the special counsel for allegedly seeking to meddle in the 2016 race. “So I think they have a level of professionalism and a level of law behind them that we don’t.” Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat facing a tough re-election battle in West Virginia, said the ultimate question about whether Trump associates colluded with the Russians will be decided by Mueller. “I really think that’s where Mueller will prove that case. … I think he’s done deeper dives than we did,” Manchin said, citing “tools” that the committee doesn’t have. How the committee ultimately deals with the matter will be a major test for the two leaders of the panel, Burr and Vice Chairman Mark Warner, a Democrat. Burr, in particular, has managed to distance himself from the controversy engulfing House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, who has taken a series of steps that have given the White House ammunition to fight back against the investigations, from his “memo” alleging surveillance abuses to a GOP committee that stated the panel found no evidence of collusion. Related article Gowdy says FBI 'did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do' in Russia investigation Burr cannot hold out forever – he at some point will have to wade into the issue of collusion that could either help Trump’s case – or put him in the crosshairs of the President of his own party. In recent interviews, Burr has expressed skepticism that there was collusion, but he has been careful not to make a judgment yet. “I’m going to wait until we have all the facts before I make a determination,” Burr said. Yet Burr has resisted Democratic demands to bring Trump associates back for a second round of interviews to sit down for questioning by senators after their initial meetings with Senate staff. Senators have not participated in the vast majority of interviews with witnesses so far, leaving it to the staff of the panel, which Burr has argued is how the committee has traditionally conducted major investigations. Indeed, Burr has backtracked on a pledge he gave to bring back Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who met privately with committee staff last year. “Not that I know of right now,” Burr said when asked last month if he had more questions for Cohen. Moreover, Burr has been uneager to dig into other areas at the request of Democrats like Wyden, who say the panel needs to fully investigate Trump’s finances to learn about the extent of the Russia connections. “I am not at all satisfied on where the committee is on the follow-the-money issue, and if anything, the case for following the money is stronger today than it was 60 days ago,” Wyden said last week, citing reports about Cohen receiving payments for a firm with ties to a Russian oligarch. Warner, however, has suggested that the issue about potential money laundering was better suited for Mueller to investigate – not the Senate panel. And Warner has been cautious about asserting that the panel has evidence to make a definitive statement on collusion. Related article One year of Mueller's special counsel investigation, by the numbers “We’re going through this on a methodical basis and will follow the facts,” said Warner, who would not predict the probe would conclude before November. Others are more forceful in their beliefs on collusion. Sen. Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, made clear he sees no evidence of collusion and doesn’t expect any will emerge, seizing on comments last year from Feinstein that she hadn’t seen any evidence that the campaign received “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians. “I’ve been ready a long time now. I’m so ready you can’t believe it,” Risch said of the end of the investigation. “I’ve looked at thousands and thousands of pages and reviewed the transcripts. I’m not at liberty to disclose what my conclusion is, but Dianne Feinstein said some time ago she saw no evidence of collusion, and Dianne is a really good friend of mind - and sometimes she gets things exactly right.” Feinstein pushed back. “Define collusion,” Feinstein said when asked if she believed there was evidence showing collusion. “Were there meetings to discuss things? We know there were. Is that collusion? So, I think the definitive (investigation) is the Mueller probe.” A committee source said senators may not agree about whether Trump is tied to any potential collusion. But the source said that a majority of senators on the panel are on the same page when it comes to the facts surrounding problematic contacts that members of Trump’s team had with Russians during the campaign. As the committee’s investigation crossed the one-year mark, Burr and Warner began releasing portions of their investigation that had been completed in March – on issues separate from collusion where the panel could achieve bipartisan consensus. The senators have put out an unclassified report and recommendations tied to election security and finished their examination of the US Intelligence Community’s January 2017 assessment, agreeing with the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to help Trump in 2016 – a finding that was at odds with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. Burr and Warner are planning two more interim reports, one on the Obama administration’s response to the Russian meddling, and another on the use of social media in the election. Then once those are done, the committee will be left to try to tackle the collusion question. The committee has interviewed more than 100 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents related to the probe that’s been underway since January 2017. And while the committee’s senators largely said they should operate separately from Mueller, the special counsel investigation has already proven the ability to uncover information that Congress does not have, which could potentially change the trajectory of the Senate probe should they wait for more of Mueller’s findings. Over the course of the various Russia investigations, numerous contacts between Trump’s team and Russians have been uncovered, including the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian operatives, as well as Trump foreign policy campaign adviser George Papadopoulos’ 2016 meeting with a London professor who also was offering damaging information on Clinton that came from the Russians. “I think what’s clear is there was a set of relationships and a friendliness inside this campaign with high-level Russian operatives that we’ve really never an analog for in our country’s history,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat. “I’m not going to speak prematurely to the outcome of the investigation but I think that alone should be shocking to the American people.” Burr has suggested the report can be done by Labor Day. “This gives us the month of August in all likelihood to wrap up our investigation. And for staff to work intensely while we’re out of here not getting in their hair,” Burr said. “We could be in a situation where members could look at that and digest it over the beginning of September.” Burr, however, has previously predicted the investigation could have concluded by the end of 2017 and early into 2018, deadlines that have come and gone while the committee continues to quietly interview witnesses. And it’s not clear, even if the committee completed its investigation by September, whether it would be able to release an unclassified report before the midterms. But the schedule could create a dilemma for Burr. Some, liked Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris, argue that the election should have no bearing on when the committee puts out its final document. “I think that it should run its natural course,” Harris said. “Certainly it shouldn’t be motivated by any election or politics at all.” Yet others are skeptical about taking such a step in the heat of the midterms, saying the conclusion will be viewed skeptically by the public. Manchin argued that anything issued right before the elections risks being viewed as “politically motivated” that is “not going to help us come to the conclusion we have confidence and faith in.” Collins praised Burr and Warner for their handling of the investigation so far, but she said she had concerns about the report coming out in the heat of the campaign season. “I think that it should not be right before the midterms,” she said.

Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Trump-Russia collusion


A one-letter mistake on an official White House statement led to consternation and questions about official US policy toward Iran on Monday, and a quiet correction did little to quell the matter. In the written statement sent to reporters around 7:30 p.m. ET, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders declared that newly unveiled Israeli intelligence proved “Iran has a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program.” The declaration flew in the face of American intelligence determinations, which found Tehran froze its program following the Obama-era agreement to lift sanctions in exchange for curtailing its nuclear ambitions. By 9:30 p.m. ET, the statement appeared differently online. Related article Netanyahu says he has proof of secret Iranian nuclear program “Iran had a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program,” the online version read, reiterating a long-established US position. The White House did not issue a formal correction, but did offer an explanation. “The original White House statement included a clerical error, which we quickly detected and fixed,” a National Security Council spokesman told CNN Tuesday. “To be clear, the United States has long known that Iran had a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program.” Speaking during a White House news briefing on Tuesday, press secretary Sarah Sanders said the mistake was “noticed and immediately corrected.” “We think the biggest mistake was the Obama administration ever entering the deal that you referenced in the first place,” she said. The snafu came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dramatically presented on Monday a hoard of Iranian documents that he said proved the regime lied about its pursuit of nuclear weapons. But analysts shrugged, saying Netanyahu’s hour-long presentation in English offered little new information about Iran’s program. On Tuesday, the White House sought to bolster Netanyahu’s position, saying the information “adds new and compelling details about these efforts.”


It may surprise many to learn that Donald Trump, having campaigned so fiercely on the issue of curbing immigration, is himself the son of an economic migrant. Half of Donald Trump’s DNA is Scottish. His late mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, was born and raised on the remote and beautiful Scottish Isle of Lewis, before leaving as a 17-year-old for the United States to work as a domestic servant in 1930. CNN traveled to the far-flung island to trace Trump’s roots, how his mother’s origins may have shaped the presidential candidate, and how he is viewed there today. The Isle of Lewis lies at Britain’s most northwesterly edge, as far from Scotland’s capital Edinburgh as Edinburgh is from London. The weather is often harsh and unrelenting; the wind whips your ears constantly. All that lies between the island and America are 3,000 miles of churning Atlantic waves. Amid a trove of birth, death and marriage certificates, local genealogist Bill Lawson talks us through Trump’s family tree, which yields surprisingly tangible links to the US businessman-turned-politician. “Donald” is a name that repeatedly appears in the family and one ancestor was known as “Red John” for the distinctive-colored locks that were passed down to Trump. But for all these superficial connections, there is no strong affinity between the island and its residents and the divisive candidate today. At his mother’s former home, now home to his relatives, there is no hint of support for his presidential bid, no signs celebrating a son of the isle made good. The relatives who still live here aren’t interested in speaking to CNN or other media outlets about their cousin, who once made a fleeting visit here, on his only trip as an adult to the island. “There is a strong perception in the islands that Donald has no interest whatsoever in his island roots,” says Malcolm Maclean, an arts and heritage consultant on Lewis. The property mogul has only ever come to the island twice – once as a 10-year-old, and again, on a brief side-visit during a business trip to Scotland in 2008. While he has played up his Scottish heritage, most locals feel he has little in common with them. For them, he is the antithesis of Lewis’s collective history. Related: In the shadow of Trump’s wall Trump’s ancestors suffered in “The Clearances” – a tragic, decades-long period of upheaval in Scotland, during which greedy landlords forced families from their homes. Two branches of Trump’s family were forced from their homes in this way, becoming refugees in their own country – the Macauleys forced from their homes in the west of the isle, the Smiths further south. You might expect some of that traumatic family history, a defining experience for Trump’s ancestors, to have embedded itself into his outlook. But with Trump, who has railed against the notion of the US accepting refugees, that does not appear to be the case. “Donald has shown no evidence whatsoever of any interest, or even awareness of that background,” says Maclean. The distrust of property barons and the fear of losing one’s home runs deep on the island, permeating the residents’ collective conscience. “I think people to this day in the Highlands and islands have a deeply skeptical attitude to landlordism,” says Maclean. “It has a very negative history in this part of the world.” Yet today, Trump lives by the very trade that saw his family and hundreds of thousands of other Scots uprooted, thrown from their humble homes often with just the clothes on their backs, forced to start over. Trump could not have turned his back on those roots more if he had tried. Related: Melania Trump’s American Dream Trump’s mother, Mary Anne Macleod, was the product of generations of fisherman and farmers. She was born on Lewis in 1912, the youngest of 10 children. They lived in a thatched-roof, one-room cottage known as a “black house” on a croft – a small agricultural landholding. Life in the tiny one-street village of Tong – a few miles from Stornoway Harbor, at the time the only link to the outside world – was precarious. In a good year they had just enough; in a bad year, life was even harder. “A small, narrow croft could feed one family of children, but if they wanted to get married and have children, where are they going to go?” explains Lawson. “They had to go somewhere.” So in 1930, aged 18, Mary Anne set out for the US to find a job in domestic service, as a number of her elder sisters had done. Due to the legacy of the clearances, says Maclean, “there was a whole generation looking for a new life.” “She was categorically an economic migrant, her whole generation were,” he says. While many who left typically planned to earn money for a few years before returning home, the realities of crofting made that difficult, explains Lawson. “It wasn’t that easy to come home. There was nowhere to come home to in most cases as somebody else was in the house with the croft,” he says. In Mary Anne’s case, she never moved home. Six years after leaving for America she married Fred Trump, a real estate developer whose livelihood didn’t go over well with some on the island. In his 2015 book “Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America,” Trump suggests his Lewis roots are strong. He says he “got religion” from his mother, whose faith was founded in her upbringing on the island. Mary Anne “would certainly have come from a strong religious background,” says Rev. James McIver of the Free Church of Scotland. “The church was very foundational and central to the community.” I would say his lifestyle nowadays would be regarded here today in those respects as an immoral one.” Rev. James McIver, Free Church of Scotland But, he says, the gambling businesses that form a significant part of Trump’s business empire would not gain the approval of many of the island’s faithful today. “I would say his lifestyle nowadays would be regarded here today in those respects as an immoral one.” But perhaps there are some traces of Trump’s Lewis roots to be found in the island’s most famous son. The Protestant work ethic, says Maclean, would have been a formative influence on Trump’s mother. “She would be very accustomed to hard work,” he says. “Crofting, at that time in particular, was subsistence farming.” Related: Confessions from the campaign trail A far cry from Trump’s business activities, certainly, but even his staunchest detractors could not deny the businessman’s work ethic. And perhaps there’s another legacy of his mother’s island upbringing. Local man Derick Mackenzie set up the Facebook support page “Isle of Lewis supports Trump for President.” (While Lewis has a population of 18,500, the site has mustered only 127 “likes.”) He sees something very relatable – and admirable – in the man running for president. “There is an expression you hear: ‘Lewis straight talking’,” says Mackenzie. “It’s a kind of honesty… This kind of not being concerned with what people think. They will give it to you between the eyes.” Perhaps Trump owes more to the island than just the hair. Video by Alex Platt, Lewis Whyld and Woj Treszczynski


Donald Trump is expected to discuss Afghanistan strategy Monday night The President's first major security address is expected to be from Fort Myer His speech comes after a divisive news conference he gave last week Donald Trump will ask Americans Monday to trust him on his new Afghanistan strategy, exercising a president’s most somber duty, a decision on waging war, at a time when his own political standing is deeply compromised. Trump will make his first prime-time broadcast on a specific policy issue to the nation as president at 9 p.m. ET to unveil his new plan, and a potential escalation of the nation’s longest war, after a lengthy period of deliberations that carved deep splits within his administration. The speech will test the President’s capacity to convince Americans that he has settled on the right course of action on a major national security issue, and to unify the nation around it, despite his own depleted approval ratings and behavior that has alienated many voters in his first seven months in office. Trump’s first major national security address will also begin to show whether the credibility that the President has squandered, with his provocative rhetoric and frequent resort to falsehoods, will hamper his capacity to lead. Monday’s address, from Fort Myer, in Arlington, Virginia, represents a chance for Trump to leverage the symbolism of his office to stabilize a presidency that has threatened to spin out of control over the last two weeks. Related article Everything is going great! in 1 amazing Trump administration picture Defense Secretary James Mattis said Sunday that Trump’s policy review on the war and the entire US approach to South Asia – i.e. Washington’s tortured relationship with Pakistan and complaints that Islamabad is tacitly encouraging extremists – had been finalized. “He wants to be the one to announce it to the American people,” Mattis said. “He now needs the weekend to collect his thoughts on how he’s going to explain it to the American people.” While Trump will be unveiling a crucial national security decision, it will be impossible to divorce his speech from its political context. His inflammatory news conference last week in which he equated white supremacists and counterprotestors who clashed in Charlottesville, Virginia, triggered a stampede away from the President by senior Republican lawmakers, corporate CEOs and others that left him more isolated that ever before. His remarks also hit his own bottom line – a long list of charities has now canceled plans to host events at his Florida resort at Mar-a-Lago. RELATED: Here are the Republicans denouncing Trump by name Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who is now a CNN national security analyst, said that after off-the-cuff moments like the Trump Tower press conference, attention will be focused on how the President presents his case – as well as the content of his new strategy. “There is a lot of pressure on him and hopefully we will see the teleprompter President Trump tonight,” Clapper said on CNN’s “New Day,” arguing that the presidency had been “seriously, seriously, wounded” by the President’s remarks at Trump Tower last week. The decision on Afghanistan also sets up a test for Trump with his own political base in the wake of the departure of his senior strategist, Steve Bannon, who opposed sending more troops to the war and was the closest link to the isolationist, populist beliefs of the President’s core supporters. Trump repeatedly questioned the purpose of America’s continued involvement in Afghanistan during his campaign, but he also contradicted himself on whether the war should have been fought. Officials say that the President remains deeply skeptical about the notion of a continued presence in Afghanistan but is concerned that if the US comes home, it will leave a vacuum that could be exploited by terror groups. But his doubts about escalating the war come up against the determination of hawkish generals in his inner circle, including national security adviser H.R. McMaster, not to give up on a war that has demanded more than a decade-and-a-half of painful American sacrifice. Related article As Trump mulls Afghanistan, a former general and fallen Marine's father at his side Trump delegated authority to adjust troop levels to Mattis early in his administration, but he has been presented by the Pentagon with a range of options for the path forward, including a complete troop withdrawal and the deployment of up to 4,000 more soldiers to add to the more than 8,000 American forces that are already there. Hopes that the US could finally leave Afghanistan have been checked by the Kabul government’s struggle to preserve order under a resurgent challenge from the Taliban and inroads made by extremist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. In June, Mattis gave a blunt assessment on the state of the war in a hearing for the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. And we will correct this as soon as possible,” he said. Trump’s appearance Monday night follows the most polarizing chapter of a presidency that has continually exacerbated political divisions. His handling of the aftermath of violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville earlier this month has sparked outrage and accusations that Trump has irrevocably tarnished the moral authority of his presidency. RELATED: Republican senators are striking back in Trump’s public war of words A measure of the damage that his conduct has inflicted on his political fortunes is reflected in the continued ramifications of his news conference days afterward. A flood of CEOs distanced themselves from Trump, forcing the closure of several White House advisory councils. Some senior Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, publicly questioned his fitness for office. And few senior GOP figures have been willing to publicly defend Trump, raising new questions about his capacity to enact his agenda in Congress. Should Trump succeed in staking out a more conventional presidential posture Monday night, any political gain could be short-lived, as he is scheduled to hold a major political rally in Arizona on Tuesday night. A vintage, pyrotechnical performance by Trump could revive the issue of his temperament following the Charlottesville drama and further anger Americans who are already disgusted by the President’s antics. Related article Trump, national security team head for Camp David The rally offers Trump an early chance to show that despite the departure of Bannon, he remains committed to the issues and the political style that has won him steadfastly loyal support from his political base. The issues likely to please a fervently pro-Trump crowd in Arizona are those that proved most effective for Trump in his campaign – including on illegal immigration and the need for a border wall – but which also cause the most alarm outside his core supporters. In many ways, the Charlottesville episode has offered a reminder of why Trump was so controversial – by tearing at the societal and racial divisions in American life – but also why he was elected, since it shows how he connects with the often unspoken political instincts of a sizable slice of the country. But in two crucial days for his administration Monday and Tuesday, Trump has to navigate two sides of his position – the duty to rally a nation behind a foreign war and a political imperative to solidify support among his most enthusiastic voters. It is not clear that either aim is compatible with the other. CNN’s Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.


Highlighting significant improvements in the U.S.-Afghan relationship since Afghanistan’s new unity government took office, the Obama administration announced several new initiatives to support their Afghan partners in the coming years. The announcements were made Monday by Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter at a press conference following a full day of meetings with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Afghan CEO Abdullah Abdullah. “Today’s productive meetings underscore both the enduring nature of the U.S.-Afghan friendship and the extent to which we have grown even closer after 14 years of shared sacrifice,” said Kerry. READ: Obama, Ghani to discuss U.S.-Afghan relations The governments have also grown closer because of the departure from office of former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a perennial thorn in the side of the Obama administration. Now, at the Ghani government’s request, the U.S. will be directing $800 million in development aid to an incentives program, called the New Development Partnership – whereby assistance to the Afghan government will be pegged to the achievement of specific milestones. “This initiative reflects the strategic importance of the U.S.-Afghan relationship and it recognizes a new era of cooperation between our governments,” Kerry said, announcing the program. “This is a framework that will incentivize the Afghan public and Afghan government to put our house in order, to be able to spend money,” said Ghani. “On budget and in terms of priorities we must commit to reforms that our people want and desire.” Related video On GPS: Ghani on U.S. troops in Afghanistan The U.S. will also be seeking money from Congress to sustain the Afghan National Security Force at its current, post-surge level with 352,000 troops. “This is a major statement of support,” Ghani said of the announcement. “Our armed forces and our security forces are going to greet this with enormous welcome because it gives them that assurance that the resolute support mission is continuing and that we are able to focus on our key priorities.” Furthermore, the two countries will be re-launching two ministerial-level consultative forums, the Bilateral Commission and the Security Consultative Forum. The Bilateral Commission was initially launched as part of the U.S.-Afghan Strategic Partnership and was supposed to meet twice a year, but it has not been held since May of 2013. The Security Consultative Forum was last held in 2012. Speaking about the latter forum at Monday’s press conference, Carter said it would “open the door to new opportunities – new opportunities to strengthen our enduring partnership.” Lastly, the officials announced the U.S. will be providing technical assistance to the Afghan Ministry of Finance. “I can assure you that we have a sense of urgency” on economic issues,” Ghani told reporters at the press conference. Despite these announcements, one major point of discussion remains unresolved: whether the U.S. will consider adjusting its troop withdrawal time line, as Ghani has requested. Currently, there are 9,800 U.S. troops providing training and support in Afghanistan, as well as 3,000 troops from other NATO countries. The Obama administration plans to reduce that number to about 5,500 by the end of this year before withdrawing completely by the end of 2016. But Ghani has made clear to Obama in recent conversations that such a time line could jeopardize the security situation on the ground as Afghan forces continue to fight back the Taliban and al Qaeda. “Those discussions remain ongoing,” said Kerry, “and those will really be the focus of the discussions tomorrow with President Obama in the White House.” Ghani was joined at Camp David and at the press conference by Afghanistan’s CEO Abdullah. Ghani and Abdullah formed a unity government following a contentious election last year, and while they have struggled to share authority under the new system, the two presented a united front on Monday, something Kerry was quick to note. “A lot of people felt that because of the hard fought election and the nature of the presidential contest that they would never come together and that Afghanistan would literally split wide open as a result,” said Kerry. “Close up that is not what I saw.” “I saw two men who understood very clearly what the stakes were for their country,” he added. “Both of whom were determined to validate what was in fact a remarkable democratic process. Both of who were determined to do what was right.” The four leaders at Monday’s press conference agreed on another point as well: That the bond between the U.S. and Afghanistan is strong, and the partnership will continue into the foreseeable future. “This is a foundational relationship,” said Ghani, “and we’re very proud that this relationship will be transformed into an enduring relationship.” Ghani and Abdullah will meet with President Barack Obama at the White House on Tuesday, where the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal is expected to play out as a major point of discussion.


"(I felt Trump had) total ignorance of the culture," Khan says Khizr Khan's son was killed in the Iraq War Khizr Khan, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention about his Muslim-American son who was killed in the Iraq War, said Donald Trump doesn’t understand the grief of his wife, a Gold Star mother. “(I felt Trump had) total ignorance of the culture, total ignorance of the grief of a Gold Star mother,” Khan told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “The Lead.” “Time after time, then, before then, and up until now, Donald Trump has proven that he doesn’t neither the capacity, nor the capability, nor the character or the temperament for the highest office of this country that he seeks. So we were disappointed.” After Khan spoke at the DNC, Trump criticized his wife, who stood next to Khan on the stage, for not speaking during the speech. “I’d like to hear his wife say something,” Trump said in July. Earnest defends Biden’s fighting words against Trump Khan said the reason his wife didn’t speak at the convention was because she was “under such grief.” “Mrs. Khan had spoken since then at many occasions. She’s very capable,” Khan said. “But that very moment she under such a grief because our son’s picture was in the background and she was totally unable to speak maintaining the dignity of the occasion, she insisted that she not speak otherwise she would fall apart at the stage. So we had agreed she would not speak.” Khan was recently featured in a campaign ad for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and is actively campaigning on her behalf. An emotional Khizr Khan asked Trump in the ad whether his son would “have a place in your America?” Early in his campaign, Trump proposed “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” That policy, aides say, has been refined to preventing immigration from countries that house terrorists, even though it’s still on his website. Tapper asked Khan about former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s statements, when Perry said Khan “struck the first blow.” “Jake, my stand was ethical model on behalf of those who were scared when Trump made that statement about banning Muslims, throwing out Hispanic Americans from this country,” Khan responded. “It was that concern. It was that care that took us to the stage.” He continued: “And we will do this a million times all over again. And I implore Republicans and the surrogates of Donald Trump. The caliber that your candidate has shown. The capacity that your candidate has shown. Rethink about this.”


NEW: Demonstrators storm Kurdish parliament building Masoud Barzani will leave the Kurdish presidency November 1 Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani will step down as president of Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region as the political backlash to September’s Kurdish independence referendum continues. Barzani’s office released a statement Sunday announcing the Kurdish leader will not extend his current term, which ends Wednesday. He will also suspend the post of the presidency, dispersing executive powers over other branches of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). “I refuse to continue as president of Kurdistan region after November 1,” Barzani’s letter said. “I will remain as Peshmerga among my brave and patriotic people of Kurdistan, I will continue working toward our nation rights and protect our achievements.” The letter was read in front of the Kurdish Parliament in Irbil and posted on the official Kurdistan region presidency website. Dozens of angry demonstrators stormed the Kurdish Parliament building later, demanding an apology from a Kurdish lawmaker who made a comment against Barzani and Peshmerga forces in a press conference, according to Kurdish lawmaker Siror Abdullah and an official with the media office of the Kurdish parliament, Haval Mohammed. The protesters spent several minutes inside the building before security forces chased them out. Video showed demonstrators running down the street in the direction of the Parliament building, with one of the demonstrators hitting a television camera that was filming the scene. Less than a month after Kurds voted overwhelmingly in favor of secession, Iraqi government forces, backed by Shia militia, swept through swathes of Kurdish-controlled territories. The military campaign dealt a major blow to Barzani’s independence gambit, loosening the KRG’s grip over much of the territory it had controlled until the standoff this month. The 71-year-old leader called for a referendum on independence from Iraq despite heavy opposition from Baghdad, as well regional powerhouses Iran and Turkey. The United States, the United Kingdom and the UN Security Council also spoke out against the plebiscite. This month, Iraqi forces wrested power over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, controlled by Iraqi Kurds since 2014. Several other areas, considered disputed between the Iraqis and the Kurds, were reclaimed by Iraqi government forces in the military advances. Kurds vote overwhelmingly in favor of secession from Iraq Related video Iraq seizes disputed city from Kurdish control Kirkuk is critical to the government coffers of both the KRG and the Iraqi government in Baghdad. Kurdish forces gained control of the mutli-ethnic city after Iraqi government forces abandoned it during the ISIS offensive in 2014. Barzani was the first President of Iraqi Kurdistan after its autonomy was constitutionally upheld by Iraq’s government in 2005. He is credited with ushering in a period of economic prosperity and fostering rapid urban development in its major cities. That economic boom ground to a halt in 2014 when ISIS began its brutal conquest of Iraq and Syria. Shortly after the rise of the extremist group, Barzani gave his strongest-ever indication that his government would be pursuing independence. “Iraq is obviously falling apart,” Barzani said in an exclusive interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “We did not cause the collapse of Iraq. It is others who did. And we cannot remain hostages for the unknown,” he said through an interpreter. “The time is here for the Kurdistan people to determine their future and the decision of the people is what we are going to uphold.” Related video Iraqi Kurds protest the US amid Kirkuk dispute For Kurds, statehood has been more than a century in the making. Their calls for a Kurdish nation were ignored in a 1916 British-French secret agreement, known as Sykes-Picot, that drew the boundaries of the modern-day Middle East. In the final treaty marking the conclusion of World War I, the Allies dropped demands for an autonomous Turkish Kurdistan. Instead, the Kurdish region was divided up among several countries. The man who brought dreams of Kurdish statehood closer to reality than ever before was born in the self-governing Kurdish Republic of Mahabad. The Republic of Mahabad, in present-day Iran, lasted for only one year, and Barzani’s father was chief of its military. Barzani has served as president since 2005. This year, he told Foreign Policy magazine that he wished to bring his life full circle. “I want to die in the shadow of the flag of an Independent Kurdistan,” Barzani told Foreign Policy. Muhammad Jambaz in Erbil and Sherko Alan and Mohammed Tawfeeq in Atlanta contributed to this report.


Pakistan has abolished its troubled northwest tribal areas in a historic parliamentary bill granting rights to millions of conflict-weary people and scrapping a draconian colonial-era regime. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) were merged into the country’s administrative mainstream, becoming part of the northern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, by a parliamentary amendment approved by the senate on Friday. Since Pakistan’s creation in 1947, the tribal areas – a rugged, impoverished swath bordering Afghanistan – have been ruled directly by Islamabad under a harsh colonial-era system of law, with omnipotent political agents exercising the right to impose collective punishments on tribes and to jail suspects without trial. During the US-led “War on Terror” it became a sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban militants fighting an insurgency against an international coalition in neighboring Afghanistan. Former US President Barack Obama dubbed it the “most dangerous place in the world.” The Pakistani military has waged a series of major operations there in the past 10 years to tackle rising militancy. For decades, reformers have called for the area to be brought into the administrative fold as it became increasingly lawless and opaque, with the military banning outsiders. Speaking a day earlier to the National Assembly, where the bill was passed, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said that “a much-needed national consensus (on FATA) has been achieved.” “The same schools, hospitals, roads that everyone else in Pakistan has access to” must now be given to the people of FATA, he added. The ruling Pakistan Muslim League Noon (PMLN) party announced that reforms would be accompanied by a $865 million package to rehabilitate the infrastructure of the region. In the tribal areas, people came out onto the streets and distributed sweets to celebrate the reform. Manzoor Ahmad, 31, from Mohmand tribal area, said that he was feeling free because “the black laws will be abolished.” “A day before we were living in the colonial age and now, today we are enjoying actual freedom. Now FATA will also participate in the development of Pakistan,” he added. Another resident said it will be like starting a new life. “We were never considered human under the centuries-old colonial law. But now we will stand in front of the world and will show them that we also deserve to start our new life!” said Dilawar Shah, 40. Opposition leader Imran Khan, whose political party runs KP’s provincial government, called the move “a huge step to address the grievances of the people of FATA.” Recently, discontent has spilled out of the tribal areas, where years of war and violence have left villages destroyed and lives ruined by militant violence and heavy-handed government interference, particularly indiscriminate killing and arrests. The area’s people, the majority of whom are ethnic Pashtuns, or Pakhtuns, have begun to speak out against injustices committed by the powerful military, a normally taboo subject. The establishment has been shocked by mass protests organized by the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) – “tahafuz” means protection in the Urdu language. The movement – which is committed to nonviolence – is demanding authorities respond to accusations of involvement in the death and disappearance of hundreds of Pashtuns in FATA, and guarantee rights for the area’s tribes. Traditionally, the tribal areas were run by both political agents, using the harsh Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), and tribal chiefs, or maliks, presiding over tribal councils, jirgas. The system was largely obliterated by militants who overran the areas during the allied invasion of Afghanistan, forcing out political agents and killing over 100 maliks. The tribal areas are strongly patriarchal. Women’s rights groups hope the new reforms will lead to a more equal society. “With the FCR and the tribal jirga in place, the entire system in FATA was not at all women-friendly, there was no representation or voice of women being heard. With the passing of this bill one hopes that the invisibility of women won’t be there anymore,” said Samar Mina Ullah, an Islamabad-based women’s rights activist who has worked extensively in FATA. The reforms were welcomed as a popular measure across Pakistan. Analysts said the move was clearly timed to boost the ruling PLMN’s chances at general elections scheduled to take place in July, but that they were long overdue. “It is a huge victory for reform-oriented Pakistanis,” said Mosharraf Zaidi, a prominent political analyst and columnist. “The normalization of FATA will immediately alter the legal status of FATA’s residents from compromised citizenship to normal, equal citizenship.” Zaidi added that credit was due to all those who cooperated to pass the landmark bill, including the military who have retaken militant-controlled territory in a series of operations since 2014. However, the shadow of militancy still hangs over the region. In February, US Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats accused Pakistan of holding back on cooperation with the US while failing to take tougher action against militant groups. President Donald Trump very publicly emphasized US concerns about Pakistan’s reliability and integrity in his first tweet of 2018, putting Islamabad in the crosshairs for its “lies and deceit.” “They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help,” he tweeted. The online blast previewed a January 8 announcement that the US would freeze security assistance to Pakistan – close to $1 billion – over its failure to clamp down on terror groups within its borders. CNN’s Sophia Saifi reported from Islamabad.

Pakistan's abolition of FATA and integration reforms


As President Donald Trump and his national security team debate their futuret plans for Syria, one element of US policy is patently clear: The administration is not willing to accept large numbers of Syrian refugees fleeing the brutal civil war in the country. Since the start of the 2018 fiscal year last October, the US has resettled just 44 Syrian refugees, according to State Department data. That’s down from about 6,000 in the same time frame last year, most of whom were admitted before Trump’s inauguration. “The process is a little bit slower because additional vetting mechanisms have been put in place,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert explained to reporters in a briefing Tuesday. Related article Senators leave classified briefing on Trump's Syria policy 'very unnerved' But the stall in refugee resettlement worries refugee advocates, and strikes some lawmakers – particularly Democrats – as hypocritical given the recent US strikes against alleged chemical weapons facilities in Syria. At a congressional hearing on Wednesday, members questioned State Department officials about the policy, suggesting it was inconsistent for the administration to intervene militarily on behalf of Syrians affected by chemical weapons attacks while limiting the resettlement of other vulnerable Syrian civilians caught up in the conflict. “Doesn’t it present a challenge for the world to take us seriously?” asked Rep. David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island. Hans Van de Weerd, vice president of US programs at the International Rescue Committee, said in a statement, “The U.S. cannot bomb Syria in defense of Syrian civilians while doing nothing to help those desperately seeking safety with the chance to rebuild their lives elsewhere.” “More civilians were killed in the Douma chemical weapon attack than have been resettled in the U.S. as refugees this fiscal year,” he noted. “If the U.S. really wants to help Syrians, it shouldn’t be slamming the door shut.” Related article Bolton dealing to build an Arab military force in Syria While the drop in admissions has been dramatic and comes at a critical time in the protracted Syrian conflict, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision to increase its intake of Syrian refugees, saying terror groups like ISIS could exploit refugee flows to launch attacks on the US homeland. Then, in the early days of his administration, Trump implemented a travel ban, which included a pause in overall refugee admissions and a near-total moratorium on people coming to the United States from Syria. The ban was later revised in part and faces ongoing legal challenges in the US court system. Related article US struck Syria without certainty on sarin Last fall, the administration announced it would accept no more than 45,000 total refugees in FY2018, the lowest ceiling in decades for the US refugee admission program and fewer than half the number allowed by the Obama administration in its final year. Since then, the Trump administration has accepted just over 11,000 refugees from nearly 60 countries, including the 44 from Syria. The administration’s stated goal when it comes to Syrian refugees is to help stabilize areas of Syria liberated by ISIS and encourage a political solution to the civil war that will allow the displaced to return to their homes. It’s a principle that Nauert, the State Department spokeswoman, alluded to Tuesday when she said that “many refugees would rather stay closer to home than get uprooted and go to Buffalo or Wisconsin.” But administration officials admit that such an outcome depends on world leaders securing a political solution to the civil war, one that would theoretically bring an end to President Bashar al-Assad’s rule, and which has evaded the international community for over seven years. At a speech in California in January in which he called the Syrian refugee situation “a humanitarian crisis,” then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson acknowledged, “there is no way to effectively facilitate a large-scale, safe and voluntary return of refugees without a political solution.”

Trump administration's Syrian refugee policy


Editor’s Note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been a White House adviser to four presidents. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he is a professor of public service and co-director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School. Follow him on Twitter: @david_gergen. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Ted Cruz suspends his presidential campaign after Donald Trump wins in Indiana David Gergen: American voters need to sort out Trump's strengths and weaknesses Too often these days, we in the media like to proclaim that an event is “historic” when, in truth, it is a mere footnote. But after the Indiana primary, it really is true that historians will long be wondering whatever happened to American politics in the Republican presidential race of 2016. For the first time in 75 years, a businessman with no prior political experience has virtually captured the nomination of a major national party. The last time this happened was when Wendell Willkie, head of a utilities holding company, stormed the GOP convention in 1940, winning on the sixth ballot. Willkie went on to become a popular figure who ran a strong race against Franklin Roosevelt before eventually going down by 10 points. There is, however, a far greater significance to Trump’s rise to power than his business background; he is the most unconventional figure either party has put forward in modern times. And, while he will enter a general election as an underdog, chances are not insignificant that he could actually win the White House, entrusted with the most important and powerful office in a fractured world. In the coming months, American voters – not to mention those of us who toil in the media – need to do some serious sorting out of both his strengths and his weaknesses. Because the truth is that as much as Trump has dominated the airwaves, we still don’t know the man anywhere near as well as we should. What is obvious so far is that millions of voters see in Trump a man of strength who can reverse our national direction – in effect, a turnaround CEO. Frequently, voters turn to candidates whose strengths compensate for the weaknesses of the sitting president. Thus, we elected Jimmy Carter because he seemed honest, a sharp contrast to the Nixon years. Then we turned to Ronald Reagan because he was an antidote to Carter’s vacillation. After eight years of George W Bush’s plain talk, voters were inspired by Barack Obama’s soaring calls. Now, after the Obama years and a string of broken promises by their own leaders, many Republicans believe Trump gets it and will act decisively to address their frustrations.  That he is unconventional and outrageous says to them he is real, not a phony. Related article How Trump recaptured the momentum Let’s face it: Trump is also a maestro of marketing. He has understood the zeitgeist of the electorate better than anyone else (with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders) and has spoken to it with remarkable skill. No one understood as well as he did that the Republican field was relatively weak, not strong, and he has an instinct for the jugular that is unerring. Hillary Clinton’s camp must surely have noticed how he spotted a key weakness in each of his GOP rivals and put them to the sword without breaking a sweat. Machiavelli could take lessons from this guy. Yet there is much about Trump that scares. Roosevelt thought the two most dangerous men in the country were Huey Long and Douglas MacArthur.  Why? Because he saw in each of them a demagogue who would lead the nation in terrible directions. Similarly, a good number of my academic friends think Trump could be today’s Mussolini. I am not yet persuaded he is a new Mussolini, but he clearly bears resemblance to former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a buccaneer who was a pretty awful leader for modern Italy. There are other aspects of Trump that trouble me just as much. In recent weeks, I have had the opportunity to talk to a good many business leaders in New York who know Trump well.  To a person, they tell the same story: They often enjoy social occasions with Trump and his wife, and they respect the way he has built his personal brand. But they say they would never, ever do business with him. Bankers and lawyers seem especially wary. In every business encounter, they say, the real negotiations don’t start until the initial deal is struck. Then, according to their accounts, he begins haggling over every detail and insists on paying less than he promised. If you don’t like it, he tells them, sue me. Then he can counter-sue. “It’s always a nightmare,” said one acquaintance. What Trump thinks are mere exaggerations in business, they frequently see as falsehoods. Perhaps their accounts are self-serving or wrong; in my limited dealings with him, he has never lied to my knowledge. Indeed, in a meeting with my students once in New York, he was gracious and charming. But the country needs a clearer picture of Trump as businessman. Another deep, personal reservation of mine is how casually he treats the arts of public policy making and diplomacy. A president of the United States is called upon to make extremely tough, complicated decisions that shape the lives of literally billions of people. Bringing good judgment to those decisions requires not only a sense of history, but also a mastery of detail and a steady, disciplined temperament. Trump has an excellent capacity to cut through a problem and see its essence. But he shows a disdain for the hard work then required to make wise decisions. He acts like he – and he alone - -is blessed by the Creator to be able to do it all on the fly.  You can’t call it in as president. As best I can tell, that same casual disregard for past traditions makes him oblivious to how he should talk about other political leaders and about other countries. Who else other than Trump would believe that his smear this week of Ted Cruz’s father was OK – never mind that he tied Cruz’s father to the assassin of John F. Kennedy.  That attack, based on no hard facts, was straight out of Joe McCarthy’s playbook. But that didn’t stop Trump, and many of his supporters on Twitter cheered him on.  Sorry, but in my book, a future President of the United States owes more to standards of decency and good judgment. In short, we have seen this week history truly in the making. But what we make of it from here will be a serious test of our democracy. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion. Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.


Rudy Giuliani says of President Obama: "I don't know if he loves America" Giuliani says his office got death threats over remarks, but most calls were positive Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said his office has received death threats since his controversial comments accusing President Barack Obama of not loving America. “My secretary has received some death threats,” Giuliani said in a brief interview by phone. But the former mayor emphasized the majority of the voice mails left at his office were supportive of his remarks. Giuliani did not say whether he alerted police to the threatening calls. CNN cannot confirm whether the threats were made. As for his initial remarks that ignited the firestorm, spoken at a private dinner for Wisconsin’s Republican Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 presidential contender, Giuliani offered no apologies. Related video Giuliani unapologetic for Obama remarks “I don’t regret making the statement. I believe it,” Giuliani said. “I don’t know if he loves America,” he added. “I don’t feel the same enthusiasm from him for America,” he continued during the interview. Giuliani said he didn’t mind that his comments became public.  At the dinner, he said, were well-known members of the news media, including CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow who, Giuliani said, was the event’s moderator. The former mayor said he’s received calls congratulating him for his remarks, including one from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. A spokesman for the Louisiana governor confirms Jindal did speak with Giuliani by phone.  While the spokesman said Jindal did not endorse everything the former mayor said about Obama, he added the governor also has deep concerns about the president’s leadership on Islamist radicalism. “The Governor did call him and they did speak,” spokesman Curt Anderson said. “(Jindal) wanted to buck him up because he knows everyone is in a rush to condemn him.  The Governor acknowledges that not everything that the Mayor said was good, but he believes that Guiliani is a great leader and that this rush by the left and the media to condemn and marginalize him is ridiculous,” Anderson said. “In short, the Governor is not going to throw Guiliani overboard for saying some inadvisable things,” Anderson continued. Jindal, according to this spokesman,”believes that the President loves this country and that the President has proven to be an inept and incapable commander in chief.” Anderson says Jindal agrees that “Guiliani asked a very important question which the press has glossed over – it was this – ‘What’s wrong with this man that he can’t stand up and say there’s a part of Islam that’s sick?’” “The Governor believes this is question that needs to be answered,” Anderson said. John Catsimatidis, a tycoon in the grocery store industry who sponsored the event, also called to say Giuliani was saying what was on other people’s minds, the former mayor added. Earlier this week, the former mayor laid into Obama’s foreign policy as coming from a leader who is somehow disenchanted with the country he leads. “I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the President loves America. He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country,” Giuliani said at the dinner. Giuliani’s Obama critique puts 2016ers in a bind In his latest comments to CNN, Giuliani noted he is not running for president in 2016.  But he tried to explain why he made the comments. Giuliani said he was disgusted with Obama’s response to the executions of Egyptian Coptic Christians by ISIS and the attack on a Jewish market in Paris by radicals inspired by the terrorist group. The President erred, Giuliani maintains, in not holding a press conference to immediately denounce those acts of terrorism. “Islamic extremism is not an abstraction,” he continued. By contrast, Giuliani pointed out, the President did make comments to the press after the racial unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. “There’s something wrong with the rhetoric here,” Giuliani said. “I think the President is a very poor leader,” Giuliani added, saying Obama doesn’t measure up to past presidents Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Opinion: Giuliani’s outburst is ugly, divisive Giuliani said some of his comments were based on Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams of My Father,” which he said he read during the 2008 campaign at the urging of his wife, who predicted the then-Illinois senator would be the Democratic nominee. Giuliani said the White House owes him an apology after stating that he had made similar remarks about Obama during the 2008 campaign. Giuliani said that claim from White House spokesman Eric Schultz was not true. “I think they should apologize to me,” Giuliani said. On Friday, the White House sharply criticized Giuliani’s comments. “I can tell you that it’s sad to see when somebody who has attained a certain level of public stature, and even admiration, tarnishes that legacy so thoroughly,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters. “And the truth is, I don’t take any joy, or vindication, or satisfaction from that. I think, really, the only thing that I feel is I feel sorry for Rudy Giuliani today,” Earnest added. Giuliani’s fall from America’s Mayor


Mexican federal judge rules Thursday in favor of extraditing drug lord The ruling does not mean Guzman will be extradited immediately Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman is one step closer to facing drug and conspiracy charges in the United States. A Mexican federal judge on Thursday ruled in favor of extraditing Guzman to the US, the Mexican Attorney General’s Office said. The decision does not mean Guzman will be extradited immediately. The judge rejected two of five injunctions presented by Guzman’s legal team against the extradition request. Three others were previously dismissed. Guzman has one more appeal process available before he can be formally extradited. Andres Granados, one of Guzman’s lawyers, told CNN he may file an appeal as soon as Tuesday. Related gallery Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman's 2015 escape Guzman and other cartel leaders were indicted in 2009 in US District Court in Brooklyn, New York, on charges of conspiring to import more than 264,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States between 1990 and 2005. The alleged traffickers are accused of sharing drug transportation routes and obtaining their drugs from various Colombian drug organizations. Guzman also faces charges in Arizona, California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Florida and New Hampshire. Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said it had received assurances that if convicted Guzman would not receive the death penalty. Mexico opposes death sentences. After years on the lam, Guzman was captured in January. He was transferred from the maximum-security Altiplano lockup in central Mexico, from which he escaped in 2015, to a prison in Ciudad Juarez, near the US border. In August, his son was kidnapped from a Puerto Vallarta restaurant, in what was perceived as an attempt to exploit the cartel’s vulnerability. He was later freed. CNN’s Fidel Gutierrez contributed to this report.


Imagine jet-setting from Tokyo to Paris, enjoying first-class travel, a four-course dinner and a city tour – all without leaving the ground. This isn’t a sci-fi fantasy. This is the future of air travel according to Japanese company First Airlines, which has harnessed the power of virtual reality to create dream vacations. Passengers avoid the costly airport transfer, the baggage fees or busy airport terminal – and instead enjoy the perks of business or first-class travel and a luxurious tour of Paris – all while remaining stationary in Tokyo. As well as the City of Light, First Airlines also offers the virtual destinations of New York, Rome and Hawaii. At just 4,980 yen ($46) for business class and 5,980 yen ($56) for first class – these two-hour flights are far more affordable than their real-life counterparts. “For me, it’s difficult to have a trip because of the cost like time and money,” First Airlines manager Hirokai Abe tells CNN Travel. “If I can easily access the airport and take a flight even though it’s virtual, I thought it would be so cool.” 'Teleporting' to Hawaii: How virtual reality is changing travel After boarding, guests can settle down for the two-hour flight on their state-of-the-art Airbus seat – surrounded by decor that mimics the inside of an aircraft, for maximum realism. “There is flight service and VR, foods, music for every destination,” adds Abe. Passengers will be served a delicious meal by air stewards, alongside drinks and other snacks. The menu depends on the destination of choice – Manhattan clam chowder and cheesecake for New York and salmon tartar and onion soup for Paris. Upon “arrival,” guests can enjoy a 360-degree tour of the destination – all thanks to projection mapping and video. How VR theme parks are changing entertainment in Japan It makes for a supposedly stress-free vacation, perfect for those whose ability to travel abroad is limited by cost or health. Virtual reality is becoming increasingly omnipresent in the world of travel – allowing travelers to enjoy the wonders of the world, all without leaving their house. Tokyo-dwellers keen to experience First Airlines can book a trip on the website, with reservations currently being taken until April 2018.


Paul Ryan is taking a trip to the border -- but his staff isn't saying much about it The White House is trying to speed up plans to repeal and replace Obamacare Rep. Paul Ryan’s secretive trip to the border, President Donald Trump’s moves on Obamacare and Steve Bannon’s media victory – those stories and more fill out this week’s Inside Politics forecast. Rep. Paul Ryan is headed to the US-Mexico border this week. His staff is keeping quiet on the details. The other members of Congress who are joining Ryan on the trip aren’t being so tight-lipped. Related video Speaker Paul Ryan's secret border trip CNN’s Manu Raju shared some details from his sources on the Hill. “Congressman John Carter, of Texas, told reporters last week one of the reasons they are going down there is to look at what can and can’t be done in terms of building the wall along the border with Mexico – whether or not they can actually fulfill Donald Trump’s main campaign promise,” said Raju. “It comes, of course, as a number of Republicans and conservatives, in particular, are concerned about the price tag of this wall, upwards of $20 billion – and demanding spending cuts to pay for the wall.” At a rally Saturday, Trump said that a plan to deal with Obamacare was coming in the next few weeks. The President was scheduled to meet Sunday at  Mar-a-Lago with Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget. As Julie Pace, of the Associated Press tell us, this isn’t the first meeting on this subject. Related video WH is trying to speed up its Obamacare plans “This is the third such health care discussion in the last four days, This is good news for Republicans who are starting to feel like they are a little out there on their own on health care, going to all the town halls and getting a lot of pushback. The next benchmark is early March when the White House says they will be putting out this mystery plan on Obamacare repeal and replace.” The attacks on the press aren’t a new strategy for Trump or his White House, but not everyone in the administration is enthusiastic about going after the media. Related video White House divided on how to handle the media As The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza explains, the administration’s apparent determination to continue take on the media is a big win for a certain member of Trump’s staff. “There’s a debate between the usual factions, including Steve Bannon, who is very much in favor of going after the media and making this sort of a Trump talking point all week.,” Lizza reports. “Other people who actually talk to the media a lot more were not so excited about this. One senior white house official said that’s great for him. He (Bannon) never talks to the media.” The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is coming up this week. Trump has gone to CPAC before, but the landscape has definitely changed since then. This year, he’s in luck because the terrain is likely more friendly than in years past. The Daily Beast’s Jackie Kucinich explains the shift. “This has traditionally been an event much more favorable to the Ted Cruz wing, the more religious conservative wing of the Republican party, but now that Trump populism has taken over. It will be interesting to see how that changes this – this longtime event in Washington – in terms of the tone and in terms of the discussion.” The Democratic National Committee will choose its new leader on Saturday. Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez and Congressman Keith Ellison are the clear favorites. Sources tell CNN the two had dinner together recently, sparking some intrigue about whether they could strike some kind of deal. Both campaigns have said that’s not happening. As CNN’s Nia-Malika Henderson tells us, the race is a real sign of a party struggling with its identity. “The chatter shows how desperate the party is to bridge the Bernie Sanders-Obama-Clinton divide,” Henderson said. She also said people should keep watching the other candidates, even if they don’t win. One to watch closely may be South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. “While he’s a long shot to win this race, several Democratic source told me he will emerge from this race as a rising star in a party that desperately needs to figure what’s next.”