Trump appeared to slam Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in a tweet The apparent anger does not square with the effusive praise Trump and other officials have heaped on Rosenstein in the past Last month, President Donald Trump and his administration were out praising Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Things have changed. “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt,” the President declared in a Friday morning tweet. I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt If “the man” in the tweet is, in fact, Rosenstein – as one person who recently spoke to Trump told CNN – Trump’s anger marks a whopper of a turnaround on the same man he and other senior White House officials praised effusively just weeks ago. Rosenstein is the man responsible for both writing the memo recommending Comey’s firing and for later naming Robert Mueller as special counsel in the wide-scoping investigation into Russian meddling in the election. His memo, which criticized Comey’s handling of the investigation into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s email server, was initially cited by the White House as the reason Trump made the decision to fire Comey. That narrative, however, was quickly undermined when Trump himself said that he had already planned to fire Comey, adding that he was thinking of the FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia when he made the decision to do so. If Trump and other senior White House officials have concerns about Rosenstein’s credibility, they certainly didn’t voice it in the past. Here is what they had to say: Trump himself praised Rosenstein in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt on May 11. “He’s highly respected – very good guy, very smart guy. The Democrats like him. The Republicans like him.” The vice president also spoke highly of Rosenstein. The day after Comey’s firing on May 9, he told reporters on the Hill, “He is a man of extraordinary independence and integrity and a reputation in both political parties of great character.” Spicer also defended Rosenstein, telling Fox Business on the night of the firing that he is “someone who has earned bipartisan support and most recently served as the US attorney for Maryland under President Obama. He is someone who has been around the Department of Justice, as I mentioned, for 30 years.” “No one can question Rod Rosenstein’s credentials,” Spicer said. In the wake of the Comey firing, Sanders said Rosenstein “is somebody who has been universally praised. I mean we had Rep. Cummings just last week talking about what a stand-up guy the deputy attorney general is. You have somebody with this type of reputation, with praise from across the board, who was confirmed 94-6.” At the next morning’s press conference, she kept up the praise. “Everybody across the board has unequivocally said, ‘This guy is a man of upstanding character’ and essentially the gold standard at the Department of Justice.” She said that Rosenstein “has been part of the Justice Department for 30 years and is such a respected person.” Sanders concluded: “We are incredibly confident in his abilities, as I believe you can tell by the rest of the Senate, including many Democrats, are as well. Given the fact that he was confirmed 94 to 6 and had overwhelming praise from both sides of the aisle, I think there’s complete confidence in him.” Conway shared the positive view of the deputy attorney general, offering praise of Rosenstein to Anderson Cooper on the night of Comey’s firing. “He’s well respected across both sides of the aisle,” Conway said. “He served as US attorney in Maryland under President Obama.” “This is a man who’s trying to ‘restore public confidence in the FBI,’ she said. “And I would really ask everyone tonight, instead of all the conjecture, to read Mr. Rosenstein’s memo.” “So the same senators who just voted to confirm this man, whose integrity is not in doubt, we’re supposed to believe the derogatory descriptions you just made of him?” Conway continued. “That’s not fair.” The next morning, Conway told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that, ” Everybody respects him as far as I can see.” CNN’s Athena Jones contributed to this report.


US President Donald Trump says he’s given his “blessing” to talks between Seoul and Pyongyang aimed at formally ending the Korean war. The Koreas have never signed a peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice that ended combat operations in the conflict. The US and North Korea remain at daggers drawn and without having ever signed a peace treaty the peninsula is still technically at war, with a heavily fortified border dividing the two countries. Trump has billed his upcoming meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in late May or early June as “a great chance to solve a world problem” and restore peace to the Korean peninsula. The warring neighbors could take a step towards that when Kim meets South Korean leader Moon Jae-in at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) next Friday. South Korean government minister Do Jong-whan has said the goal of that summit should be to sign a peace treaty. Many experts think the chances of an actual treaty signing at the April 27 summit are low. Some argue that any treaty would need to be approved by China and the US-led UN Command and involve negotiations beyond North and South Korea. “If you think through how to get to a proper peace deal and how it will be implemented and enforced and what its structure would look like, plus the levels of distrust and suspicion in the region, there’s a lot of stuff to address,” Daniel Pinkston, lecturer in international studies at Troy University, told CNN. “We have to be realistic about the obstacles that need to be overcome,” he added. However, expectations for a historic treaty deal are mounting. “Theoretically, the two Koreas could sign a deal,” John Delury, assistant professor at Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies said. “But they would be moving very quickly.” Here are the potential obstructions to any treaty deal: In the past the US has said that denuclearization must come ahead of any peace deal. Trump has previously said he wanted to see “credible moves” towards denuclearization by Pyongyang before talks could even begin. The North Korean regime may have to offer more than freezing its nuclear program and commit to a staggered rollback of its nuclear capability over a number of years, said Delury. “Kim has spoken of ‘progressive and synchronic steps’ and that could lead to some sort of nuclear dismantling process,” he added. But some fear any deal could break down when it comes down to detail. “It’s all OK making broad statements and giving blessings, but at some point negotiators would have to agree on details like how to complete an inventory of North Korea’s nuclear program and then how to secure and dismantle it,” said Pinkston. “If you fail to do that you risk repeating the mistakes of the past.” Moon is under pressure from South Korea conservatives suspicious of Kim’s diplomatic offensive not to make concessions to Pyongyang. Analysts point to a long history of broken agreements as a source of distrust. “Trust is an issue, starting from zero,” said Delury. “The two Koreas have a tangled history and have repeatedly accused each other of breaking agreements. You can’t just say there is now trust and deliver trust. It has to be developed.” Andrew O’Neill, Dean of the Griffith Business School at Griffith University in Australia said there are powerful forces in both countries with an interest in blocking progress. “In North Korea, the military – on which Kim Jong remains acutely dependent – will be very resistant to reductions in the nuclear and missile program, let along any move towards denuclearization.” “Equally, the South Korean military, which continues to exert real influence, remains highly dubious about bargaining with the North on sovereignty and territorial issues,” O’Neill said. Another bone of contention that may be one of the terms of a peace treaty could be the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea, a move which could prove deeply divisive. Some analysts suggest Kim may propose that US troops withdraw within an agreed timeframe. This would prompt fears in South Korea of exposing itself to invasion from the North. “Washington and its allies such as Japan will not look kindly on any South Korean approach that places the ejection of American military forces from South Korea on the negotiating table in return for a North Korean commitment to give up nuclear weapons over time,” O’Neill said. Standing down US troops in South Korea would also necessitate a total rewrite of the region’s status quo. “A withdrawal of US troops would require a mechanism to be in place to cope with a complete overhaul of eastern Asia’s security architecture,” said Pinkston. “That would take a great deal of diplomacy and consensus, and there’s no evidence that moves are being made in that direction.” An ideological problem facing any possible peace treaty would be North Korea’s doctrine which emphasizes “liberating” the South in a move towards “national reunification.” “Fundamentally the North would have to change its principles and there is no evidence to suggest Pyongyang is ready do that,” said Pinkston. However, Delury said that there were precedents for deftly altering ideological course. “It’s been done before,” he said. “Look at China, which long cherished a hatred for American imperialism. Then Nixon made his famous visit. “The North Koreans are sophisticated at ideology and they know how to tweak it.” Despite potential hurdles to a bona fide peace treaty, analysts said the upcoming summits could produce results. “If the two sides can agree to cooperate to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and establish permanent peace that may be seen as a success,” said Pinkston. “Then they can work out the detail later.” “I want to be hopeful. A hundred years ago who would have believed that Germany and France would ever be allies?”

Peace treaty between North and South Korea


Many doctors cannot tell whether a patient has Parkinson's disease or a similar disorder A new blood test may be as accurate as a spinal tap in differentiating between them A new blood test may be as accurate as a test requiring a painful spinal tap for differentiating Parkinson’s disease from similar disorders, according to a study published Wednesday in Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology. Parkinson’s disease is a neurological disorder that can cause tremors, stiffness, slowness of movement, trouble balancing, problems walking and difficulty coordinating movement. Less obvious symptoms include depression, insomnia, anxiety, fatigue and constipation. Neurological disorders that mimic the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are called atypical parkinsonism disorders. Related article What is Parkinson's disease? Many doctors cannot tell whether a patient has Parkinson’s disease or atypical parkinsonism. “This can be very challenging, especially during the early stages of the diseases and if the responsible doctor is not a neurologist specialized in movement disorders,” said Dr. Oskar Hansson, lead author of the new study, a neurologist and an associate professor at Lund University in Sweden. Non-specialists “do not really know exactly what questions to ask the patient and the special signs to look for,” Hansson wrote in an email. Yet patients with atypical disorders “usually have a much worse prognosis, with faster disease progression, (with) more disabling symptoms” than Parkinson’s patients, so early identification is crucial. The correct diagnosis is also key to treatment since “most patients with atypical parkinsonism disorders do not respond well to dopamine-targeting medications” that are usually prescribed for Parkinson’s patients, Hansson said. Hansson and his colleagues developed a blood test that is, essentially, a variation on an existing test capable of detecting neurofilament light chain protein in spinal fluid. This protein is a component of nerve cells, and when these cells die, it can be detected in both spinal fluid and blood. Because spinal fluid is not easily obtained by a primary care doctor, this diagnostic test is not very useful, so Hansson developed a blood test and investigated its accuracy in the new study. When validating a new biomarker for disease, “one should always analyze at least two different (groups of patients and controls) to make sure that the results are reproducible,” said Hansson, who added that participants should also include both early- and late-stage patients established at different clinics. All told, a total of 244 people with Parkinson’s and 79 healthy volunteers serving as a comparison group participated in Hansson’s study, along with 181 patients with atypical parkinsonism disorders. Related article Could this glove be the solution to Parkinson's tremors? Of these, 88 patients had multiple system atrophy, which impairs the body’s involuntary functions such as heart rate, blood pressure and digestion. Seventy patients had progressive supranuclear palsy, which affects movement, walking, balance, speech, swallowing, vision, mood and thinking. And 23 patients had corticobasal degeneration, which causes decreased movement on one side of the body, muscle rigidity, tremor and a disconnection between thought and action. Testing these participants, the researchers found that nerve protein levels ranged higher in people with atypical parkinsonism and lower in patients with Parkinson’s disease as well as the healthy volunteers. However, the test cannot distinguish between the different atypical disorders, which doctors must rely on symptoms to diagnose. Blood test accuracy is defined based on sensitivity, the percentage of positives that are correctly identified, and specificity, the percentage of negatives that are correctly identified. In Sweden, the blood test had a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 91%, while in the United Kingdom, sensitivity was 80% and specificity 90%. For early-stage study participants, generally, sensitivity was 70% and specificity was 80%. Overall, the blood test showed equal accuracy as the spinal fluid test when diagnosing Parkinson’s or an atypical parkinsonism disorder, in both early and later stages of disease. Hansson imagines that blood-based tests will be used in the future “in the diagnostic work-up of patients with parkinsonism by most doctors who are not very specialized with these movement disorders.” He also believes the test will be used by specialists for Parkinson’s patients who “do not exhibit a very typical symptomatology” or do not respond as expected to treatment. The prevalence of Parkinson’s in the general population increases from about 1% at age 60 to 4% by age 80, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Atypical parkinsonism disorders are not as common as Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Jeff Bronstein, a professor of neurology and director of movement disorders at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. He was not involved in the new study. Usually, patients are first diagnosed with Parkinson’s, and only later do their doctors discover that they have one of the more rare neurodegenerative atypical parkinsonism disorders, which are most likely to affect people in their 50s and 60s and represent approximately 10% to 20% of all cases originally diagnosed as Parkinson’s. Related article Learning to be a fighter: Young mom struggles with Parkinson's Though atypical parkinsonism conditions look very similar to Parkinson’s at first, they “have a different underlying molecular cause,” according to Bronstein, and so it is important to recognize them early in order to treat them properly. “Disease-specific therapies are now in trials, so accurate diagnosis is essential in determining if these new treatments work,” he said. According to Dr. Paul Wright, chairman of neurology at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, and Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, New York, the importance of this study is that it brings to light that there are new biomarker tests that can delineate between these neurological diseases. “A lot of time, people come in and say they or a family member has a tremor, and they believe it’s Parkinson’s disease,” said Wright, who also was not involved in the study. This early assumption may impede diagnosis of a less recognized atypical parkinsonism condition. Or a patient has “horrible blood pressure fluctuations,” Wright said, and no obvious tremor or rigidity symptoms, so a doctor suspects a heart condition. Instead, the cause is multiple system atrophy, a neurodegenerative disease. Though other symptoms will show up eventually and help in diagnosing the patient, in the meantime, the patient will be receiving the wrong medicines. An accurate blood test, then, would be good news in these situations. “It’s a lot more reassuring to a patient to say ‘we’re just going to take a blood test to check for a few things,’ ” Wright said. “It’s much easier and less anxiety-provoking for patients than taking a spinal tap.” See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. Up until now, many diseases have been diagnosed based on symptoms, with patients asking, “How do you know I have this?” Meanwhile, doctors are not always correct, Wright said. This is true even of Parkinson’s, which is diagnosed based on symptoms, a patient’s history, neurological exams, a patient’s response to medicine and, in some cases, brain imaging tests. Still, Wright is hopeful and believes a biomarker test for Parkinson’s “will be down the line. … In general, researchers are looking for biomarkers of disease.” Specialists and sub-specialists are available only in big cities, Wright said, and access to a simple blood test would enable a correct diagnosis in a primary care office. “We always assume there’s luxury,” Wright said. “But that’s not really what’s real in most of the country.”

new blood test for differentiating Parkinson's disease


Editor’s Note: Nic Robertson is CNN’s international diplomatic editor. The opinions in this article belong to the author. This week, even Trump’s critics are praising him – albeit cautiously and with numerous caveats – for pulling off the seemingly impossible with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and getting him to agree to meet with a US president for the first time in North Korea’s history. All this as the countdown to another of Trump’s take-it-or-leave-it deals ticks away. Israel has just had the mother of all nuclear document dumps, spilling the goods, they say, on Iran’s perfidious nuclear arms intentions less than two weeks before Trump threatens to upend a multinational nuclear deal with Iran. Related article Kim Jong Un agrees to meet Donald Trump at DMZ, source says It’s testing friendships with allies, needling enemies and smacks of the tactics he used on Kim. And while we are not there yet on Korea, the mood music is good. Trump’s tweets are in rare harmony with rest of the world. The discordant tones he struck at the UN General Assembly last year – “we will have no choice but to destroy North Korea” – have all but echoed out of current discourse. Trump, we are to believe, did all this more or less himself. Why else would South Korea’s President Moon suggest a Nobel Peace Prize for the disruptor in chief? But this is a dangerous path for many reasons. Trump, for those whose memories have already moved on, created such chaos that people feared he might trigger a nuclear confrontation. It was a calculated gamble – maybe an idea plucked from the pages of his own book “The Art Of The Deal” – to ensure everyone else believes they want the deal more than you do. And maybe this is what tipped Kim’s thinking. Or maybe also Kim saw this as the opening to play China and America off against each other. Maybe it’s all a sham and he won’t denuclearize. Trump, backed by his new top diplomat Mike Pompeo – the former CIA chief who has looked Kim in the eyes – thinks there is a deal to be done. Both say they are wise to the double helping of duplicity in Kim’s DNA. And all this is good. No deal with Kim is better than a bad deal. That brings me to my second point. Bombast, berating and public brow beating is not going to solve all Trump’s foreign policy forays. Palestinian and Israeli peace; saving Syrians from their blood lustful dictator; convincing Iran he has a better deal than Obama’s JCPOA – none of this will be achieved by megaphone diplomacy. These issues – with all respect to the many experienced and respected diplomats who tried and failed before to hammer out a deal with Kim, his father and grandfather – are more complicated. Korea’s war stalled more than six decades ago. Regional stakeholders are few and their involvement is limited. Syria, by comparison, is a young conflict. Its passions are relatively hot, the population pulverized in a deep, grinding, multi-fronted, multinational war. Blood flows freely and good will is shredded daily. No one seems to be looking for an exit and while in North Korea Kim calls the shots, in Syria, Russia and Iran hold sway over President Assad. Turkey also wants in on the action and Trump has no policy save smashing ISIS and holding a few red lines. He cannot do what he’s done in Korea and threaten chaos to bring Assad and his allies to talks. Syria is already in chaos and they know he can’t or won’t do it. Related article South Korea begins dismantling loudspeakers along border with North How do they know that? They saw the tiny sheaf of missiles Trump, Macron and May unleashed on Syria for Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Days before, in his typical bombastic style, Trump taunted Moscow to get ready for “nice and new and smart” missiles. But neither his defense chief nor his French and British allies had the political stomach to match threat with action. Yes, the strikes proved Trump, the UK and France have a red line they are ready to enforce. But the lesson Assad and his allies learned is that they are not in danger. Neither Moscow, nor Tehran or Damascus put up a white flag of surrender and asked if they could be next after Kim to cut a peace deal with Trump. In the quest for Palestinian and Israeli peace, Trump’s “my way or the highway” style is not making headway yet. He’s demanded Palestinians take the money on the table and talk peace while recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and promising to open an embassy there. The Palestinians have so far refused to come to the table and Trump now seems to be dialing back on the new embassy, saying he’d reduced the cost of the building from a $1 billion project to a smaller renovation that costs only $150,000. Implication is the consulate becomes the embassy: less expensive maybe, but less than Israeli expectations, and a step back from his full-frontal assault aimed at jump-starting the stalled peace process on his terms. Related video Trump: I've been 100% right on Iran deal And on Iran, Trump’s outspoken determination to bin the Obama era nuclear deal in favor of a tougher, more far reaching broader deal, is triggering major shuttle diplomacy. His European allies who also signed the deal are desperate to head off a confrontation and tamp down escalating tensions. Officials in Tehran are sounding more and more bellicose, answering Trump’s outspoken comments with their own angry rhetoric. One diplomatic source described moderates in Tehran over the past few weeks getting marginalized in favor of hardliners. Unlike North Koreans, Iranians are not so isolated and unlike Kim, may not feel they have to come to the table when Trump demands. Worse, all three problems above could metastasize. Many diplomats fear Iranian-Israeli tensions over Syria could escalate in to increased confrontation. Korea by this measure is a relatively contained problem. Trump may have read it right and ratcheted up his rhetoric at the right time. But the biggest risk to his peace making in Korea would be to believe even more in himself and less in those around him. That is a well-trodden path to failure.


Protesters have returned to the streets in Armenia after its Parliament failed to elect a new prime minister, extending the country’s political turmoil. Members of the ruling Republican Party blocked a bid Tuesday by opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan – the only candidate – to become prime minister, prompting him to call for a nationwide day of protest Wednesday. Former leader Serzh Sargsyan resigned last month following days of protests in the small former Soviet Republic, which borders Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iran and Georgia. So what’s it all about? Protesters brought roads in the capital, Yerevan, to a standstill Wednesday as they called for the Parliament to back the election of Pashinyan, blocking roads leading to Yerevan’s main airport and forcing some passengers to abandon their cars and continue to the terminals on foot. They also blocked roads to government buildings, including the Ministry of Defense, demonstrator Marina Gasparyan told CNN. “The protesters’ only demand is that the ruling Republican Party should vote for Nikol Pashinyan as PM on May 8 during the next elections,” she said. Pashinyan, who joined protesters Wednesday as they marched in Yerevan, told state news agency Armenpress that even if faced with violent provocations they would not respond with violence. Armenia’s Parliament will hold a second round of voting on May 8, in a session starting at midday local time. If Parliament again fails to choose an interim prime minister, there must be new elections. After nearly nine hours of debate on Tuesday, 56 lawmakers voted against Pashinyan and 45 lawmakers voted in favor, Armenpress reported. He needed at least 53 votes to be elected prime minister. The chamber is controlled by the Republican Party, which won 58 out of 105 seats in parliamentary elections a year ago. Pashinyan was nominated by the opposition Yelk faction, which holds nine seats, and was endorsed by the remaining two factions, Tsarukyan, with 31 seats, and the ARF, with seven seats, according to Armenpress. In order the win the vote, he would need several more members of the Republican Party to support him. Pashinyan told Armenpress that he was not certain to stand in snap parliamentary elections if they arise, saying the political situation was continually changing. Acting Prime Minister Karen Karapetyan, of the Republican Party, urged lawmakers in a statement published by Armenpress on Wednesday “to display will, determination and flexibility, and sit around one table” to resolve the situation. “A prime minister can be elected only in the Parliament, constitutionally. There is no other solution – neither theoretically, nor practically,” he said. Serzh Sargsyan, who had previously served two five-year terms as president, was appointed prime minister on April 17 – just eight days after his presidency ended. The move prompted thousands to take to the streets of Yerevan to protest what was seen as an unconstitutional power grab. Under constitutional changes Sargsyan promoted in 2015, the prime minister became more powerful than the president, leading to concern of authoritarian rule descending on the country. As the protests entered their 11th day, Sargsyan – who had previously said he would not try to become prime minster – stepped down. His deputy, Karapetyan, was then named acting prime minister at an emergency cabinet meeting. Sargsyan’s handpicked successor, Armen Sargsyan (no relation) had been sworn in as President on April 9. According to Laurence Broers, an associate fellow at the Chatham House think tank’s Russia and Eurasia program, discontent with Serzh Sargsyan had been brewing for years. He struggled to gain legitimacy after 10 people were killed as protesters were dispersed following his first, narrow 2008 election win, Broers said. Renewed conflict with Azerbaijan in April 2016 did nothing to help. Meanwhile, Armenians have seen their country, once the poster child for democratization following the collapse of the Soviet Union, stagnate in the hands of an entrenched oligarchy while many citizens choose to leave, Broers said. “Serzh Sargsyan has come out as a politician who was not really leading Armenia anywhere it needed to go,” Broers said, adding that Sargsyan deserved credit for standing down rather than using violence to try to cling to power. Pashinyan, who has headed the recent protests, is the leader of the opposition Civil Contract party and a former journalist. He cuts a rebellious figure, with images showing him rallying the crowds last month while dressed in camouflage and with a bandaged hand, reportedly injured on barbed wire. He has called for a campaign of civil disobedience but has insisted it should remain peaceful. Pashinyan was briefly arrested last month amid the upheaval but was released just before the April 23 announcement that Sargsyan would resign. Small, focused protests have been increasing in Armenia in recent years, supported by young people who have no memory of the Soviet era, Broers said. He doesn’t ascribe sole credit to Pashinyan for the latest protests, but said the opposition figure “has been very successful in harnessing that desire and that energy for change.” The crunch now, Broers said, is whether Pashinyan can turn his hand to coalition-building skills, “because people have got to get off the street and into institutions.” Violence would destabilize the country and put the vested interests of the Republican Party elite at risk, Broers added – another reason to seek consensus. Armenia’s lawmakers will also be aware of the risk that Azerbaijan could seek to capitalize on any instability, said Broers. Russia and Armenia maintain close relations. Armenia is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, an international body backed by Russia. Moscow is also an important provider of military hardware to Yerevan. While Russia does not share a border with Armenia, it wields serious regional influence. When fighting broke out in 2016 between Azerbaijan and the Armenia-backed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Russian government quickly brokered a ceasefire. Russian officials have been measured in their response to the recent protests. Following the resignation of Sargsyan, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova sent a message of support on Facebook. “A people that has the strength even in the most difficult moments of its history to maintain unity and respect for each other – despite categorical disagreements – is a great people,” she wrote. “Armenia, Russia is always with you!” But the Kremlin is also suspicious of what Russian officials describe as “colored revolutions” – democratic uprisings that have led to the ouster of friendly governments in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere – as well as opposition demonstrations at home. The European Union has called on all sides in the standoff to “avoid confrontation and show restraint and responsibility, as has been the case in recent days.” In a statement released after the failed vote by EU spokeswoman for foreign affairs Maja Kocijancic, the EU said it was continuing to encourage all stakeholders “to engage in a comprehensive dialogue.” The US State Department on Saturday urged all parties “to engage in good-faith negotiations” on forming a new government in line with the national constitution. “We continue to commend the peaceful nature of the demonstrations, and trust that the security forces and those exercising their right to peaceful protest will remain committed to nonviolence in the days to come,” spokeswoman Heather Nauert said. CNN’s Gianluca Mezzofiore, Sheena McKenzie and Nathan Hodge contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York City homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. Follow him on Twitter @paulcallan. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. Paul Callan: Democrats and others want intelligence committee chair to resign for odd late-night visit to White House Callan: Nunes should do so; US has right to expect more circumspect behavior from head of committee in charge of America's secrets Opponents of President Donald Trump are eager to slap a set of handcuffs on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes for his alleged “late night” visit to a secure intelligence facility (known in the intelligence community as a “skiff”) within the White House complex, followed shortly thereafter by a meeting with the President. In the full technicolor version of this fantasy, the cuffs would next be fastened on Trump, ending the progressives’ enduring Trumpian nightmare. It’s clear that a lot more information is required before anyone can fairly judge the propriety and legality of Nunes’ actions. What we do know is that shortly after this visit to view classified information, Nunes perhaps surprised even the President by requesting a meeting. He failed to tell the House Intelligence Committee about this meeting with the President, an action for which he recently apologized. Related video Schiff: Nunes should recuse himself Nunes tried to explain all of this to Wolf Blitzer earlier today, fielding specific questions about the White House visit.  The chairman hedged on some questions and flatly declined to answer other inquiries, invoking the need to protect “sources and methods” and still “classified” information. As chairman of the intelligence committee, enjoying among the highest of security clearances, the chairman would clearly be committing a crime if he publicly disclosed classified information.  Answers that appear to be specious and deceptive may fit that description or in fact just be an intelligence chairman trying to protect classified information as well as “sources and methods.” This can only be legally evaluated when more is known about the contents of the mysterious documents that are now causing such a controversy on Capitol Hill. Many Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee as well as others in Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, are calling for Nunes’ resignation, or recusal from any further role in the House committee’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s contacts with the Russians and the issues relating to the President’s Twitter-announced claim that President Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower. Related video One theory on Trump incidental collection Nunes should seriously consider stepping aside, as his own actions have now become the center of an ever-widening and distracting controversy. Though at this point there is no evidence that the chairman acted illegally, the country has the right to expect far more circumspect behavior from the chairman of the House committee in charge of America’s secrets.  It’s a little late for him to be learning that secrecy is paramount in the business of investigating the intelligence community. The missteps of Nunes and the inappropriate tweets of the President appear to be drawing both men into the dark fantasies of Trump opponents across the country.  One lesson they both should have learned by now is that the denizens of America’s spy apparatus are nicknamed “spooks” for good reason.


Ivanka Trump stood up and clapped alongside South Korean President Moon Jae-in and his wife as North and South Korean athletes entered the 2018 Winter Olympics’ closing ceremony. President Donald Trump’s daughter is leading the US delegation at the ceremony in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The North Korean athletes waved their own flag alongside South Korean athletes and their flag. During the opening ceremony, athletes from the North and South marched with the flag of a unified Korean peninsula. CNN’s Paula Hancocks says she only spotted a few unified flags during the closing ceremony. By contrast, during the opening ceremony, Vice President Mike Pence remained seated as the North and South Korean athletes entered the stadium. Ivanka Trump is on a four-day visit to South Korea. Trump met privately with the South Korean President to brief him on economic sanctions against North Korea that the White House released Friday. “Trump delivered a personal message to President Moon from President Trump about today’s North Korea related sanctions announcement at a small meeting at the Blue House. They also discussed the continued effort on the joint maximum pressure campaign against North Korea,” a senior administration official said in a statement. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the President’s daughter has “been part of the team” as the White House puts pressure on North Korea. “Ivanka Trump has been briefed on this. … She had dinner with President Moon and had a private discussion in advance about this occurring and this has been an interagency process,” Mnuchin said. Trump and husband Jared Kushner’s security clearance status and access to classified information has come under scrutiny in recent weeks. CNN’s Paula Hancocks contributed to this report.


She used a fake visa 18 years ago to try to cross the US border from Mexico She worries what deportation would do to her relatives, who are "hoping for a miracle" The day before she checks in with immigration officials, Francisca Lino gets sick. Migraines cripple her mind. Her stomach churns. She can’t sleep. “My entire body hurts,” she told CNN. Her check-in Tuesday couldn’t have been more excruciating. It marked the first time the 50-year-old mother of six, who lives outside Chicago, had to report to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement since Donald Trump became President. As her meeting drew near, anxiety mounted. Terror gripped her. She wondered if she’d fall victim to the new administration’s hardline immigration policies, which dramatically expand the power of immigration officers and make clear that no one, including people who otherwise have not broken the law, is safe from deportation. Now that Trump is President, “it worries me,” Lino said. Related article Told to go: What's next for this undocumented mom? Since Trump ordered the changes in January, similar fears have festered as families, lawyers and advocates accustomed to a relatively predictable process have tried to divine how the new rules would affect them. So far, little clarity has emerged. Some immigrants deliberately have skipped their check-ins and gone into hiding. Others have spoken out against the changes and been detained. Some have checked in and been released, as usual. Meantime, Trump supporters have lauded the President for making good on campaign promises to tighten immigration rules to protect American jobs and security. At the break of dawn Tuesday, Lino and her family sat in their kitchen. Everyone else in her household is a US citizen. And every other time Lino has checked in with ICE, she’s been allowed to return to her life – her husband, her children, her church. As on the days of those prior visits with ICE, Lino’s three youngest daughters skipped school Tuesday. They all sat down for breakfast together, the girls munching cereal. Lino and her husband, Diego Lino, sipped coffee. Everyone said they felt a sense of calm. “I don’t feel like anything is going to happen today,” 16-year-old Britzy Lino said. “I feel like we’ll all come home.” But beneath the surface, dread simmered. “It’s just a very heavy feeling. It just feels like something that’s weighing down on me,” Britzy said, recalling her mom’s previous ICE check-ins. “It’s just scary (thinking) that the only person that’s going to walk out is my father, that my mom is going to stay back, and I don’t know anything at the moment because she’s inside and I’m outside, in the waiting room.” If her mom were sent back to her native Mexico, Britzy wouldn’t hesitate, she said. Her mother is her only confidante. She’d move with her. But Lino frets about her three youngest children. Born in Illinois, the two youngest don’t speak Spanish well. It would be hard for them to acclimate to Mexico, she said. In the living room, Lino’s mother-in-law sat alone, terrified her son’s wife would be deported. She could barely speak.  And when she did, tears started rolling down her cheeks. “This makes me so sad,” Maria Burciaga, 62, said. Twelve years ago, when Lino’s case first raised red flags with ICE, she was detained for 28 days. Diego, a healthy man, had a heart attack at work, Burciaga said. Britzy, then 4, sank into depression. “Francisca is a good woman. Her only crime is to come to this country to try to better herself and to help her children in Mexico get ahead. What mother wouldn’t do that? Or what father?” Burciaga said. “I don’t know what is going to happen. The other President would give her a chance. But this one, I don’t know. We are hoping for a miracle.” As she tidied up after breakfast, Lino began to cry. She put on her jacket, grabbed her purse and reading glasses, and headed out the door. Rolling downtown in rush hour, the radio played. The girls focused on their phones.  Then, they fidgeted as the stress of the day lingered in the car. They arrived 90 minutes later at the ICE office, at the busy intersection of Congress Parkway and Clark Street in the Loop. The scene felt strange. Before Lino’s prior visits, her supporters had held news conferences and prayer circles outside the federal building, Lino’s pastor, Emma Lozano, said. Now, security guards asked reporters to turn off their cameras and turn the lenses away from the federal building. Lozano asked Lino to wait for her attorney before walking in. When he arrived, the three of them, plus Lino’s family, went in together. Related article Chicago 'sanctuary church' shelters immigrants, endures hate speech The lawyer had been hopeful about this check-in. “We will walk out of there, no problem,” he told CNN Monday as he prepared for the visit with ICE. “She will not be grabbed by ICE because she has a stay until April 27.” Lino first tried to enter the United States in 1999. She hired a coyote, or human smuggler, who gave her a visa. She didn’t know it was fake, she said. Border agents snagged Lino that time and sent her back. But days later, she tried again and made it all the way to Chicago, where she met and married an American citizen and gave birth to four American children. She is an active member of her church. Soon after they wed, her husband filed paperwork for Lino to obtain a green card. They hired someone to help them file the documents. Lino said that during her final in-person interview, she was told her paperwork didn’t match what she was telling ICE officers. She was immediately detained. Lino was held for four weeks. Since then, her family has lived in fear of getting torn apart – and she has had to check in periodically with ICE. At the federal building in Chicago, about an hour passed before Lino re-emerged through the glass doors. She clapped her hands together, then quickened her step and ran, arms outstretched in joy. “Thank God!” she yelled. “Thanks to all of you!!” “Yes, she could!” a supporter howled. “They gave me a year until I have to come back,” Lino told CNN. “So we’re going to try to fight for my visa.” Relief reigned for five minutes. Then Lino’s lawyer came back. “They called,” Bergin said, “and they said the officer we talked to was filling in, and the main officer in charge of her case wants to talk to her about it, he’s got some information on her case. I don’t know what that means.” Lino grew concerned. Britzy’s eyes filled with tears. The family disappeared back into the building. Less than a half-hour later, Lino was back. “There were changes,” she said. Immigration officers told Lino to return July 11, suitcases packed and plane ticket in hand. In other words, her deportation date is set. Inside the ICE office, Britzy had suffered a panic attack. “I couldn’t breathe,” the teenager told CNN. “I was choked up. I couldn’t talk at all. I just couldn’t breathe. It’s not fair that they do that to us, that they tell us, ‘Oh, you have a year,’ and then they just say, ‘Oh no, you have a few months.’ It’s not fair.” As for what happened Tuesday, this is the Trump administration in action, Bergin said. It wouldn’t have happened under Obama. “The whole point of Obama’s policy was discretion,” Bergin told CNN. “Someone who just has a removal order and has all these kids and husband, they’re all citizens, been here forever, no criminal record, never caused any trouble – they would leave them alone.” ICE had little to say about the apparent mix-up with Lino’s case beyond a broad narrative of her situation. “Francisca Burciaga-Amaro, a Mexican national, was previously deported in 1999 after receiving final orders of removal,” ICE spokeswoman Gail Montenegro said by email. “She later illegally re-entered the United States. On March 7, Burciaga-Amaro reported to the ICE office in Chicago as required and was advised that the reinstatement of her prior order of removal was being enforced.” The agency wouldn’t comment further. Related article Trump's executive orders dramatically expand power of immigration officers Lino said she is committed to showing up when authorities ask her to, that she won’t run or seek sanctuary. But not everyone has her conviction. And given the widespread fear already lingering in immigrant communities, some worry Lino’s experience could have a further chilling effect. “ICE needs to be careful not to turn routine supervised-release visits into a high risk of detention,” said Leon Fresco, who served as deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation during the Obama administration. “Or it will unwittingly create more fugitives who won’t show up to these visits.” Far from defeated, Lino’s supporters vowed to spend the next four months searching for a way for her to stay. “I’ll keep fighting,” Lino said. “I have to keep fighting. They’re not going to separate me from my family.” Her daughter, the one who says she cannot live without her mom, won’t accept another outcome. “My mom, she’s not leaving,” Britzy said. “She’s not leaving.” CNN’s Rosa Flores reported from Chicago and Michelle Krupa wrote this story from Atlanta.

Trump administration immigration policies


As Congress heads into a summer recess set to feature intense lobbying, many Democrats have already endorsed the Iran deal. The Planned Parenthood debate is taking some attention away from Republicans' effort to turn up the heat on Democrats on Iran. President Barack Obama is banking on a Democratic firewall to stop Republican efforts to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal, and for now his aggressive campaign to secure his party’s support appears to be paying off. As Congress heads into a summer recess set to feature intense lobbying by both sides, many Democrats have already endorsed the agreement. On Thursday, after Obama gave a fiery speech warning of harsh consequences should Congress vote it down, two more Democrats who were wavering came out in support: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. Republicans have scheduled a mid-September vote on a resolution to reject the Iran deal, which is expected to pass, and have eyed the August recess as the time to build up public pressure against the agreement. But with the latest string of Democrats coming out in favor of the deal, it is growing increasingly difficult for Republicans in the House and Senate to secure the votes they need – 44 and 13 respectively – from Democrats to help them override the veto Obama’s promised. Even the announcement Thursday night by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, slated to become the Democratic leader in the next Senate, might not be enough to slow the White House’s momentum. READ: McConnell vows full debate on Iran, promises no government shutdown He’s the most influential Democrat to come out in opposition to the deal, a stance long sought by the agreement’s opponents, many of whom are his constituents. But the decision to make his position public on the heels of a string of endorsements was being seen in the White House as a signal that it has a veto-proof number of supporters and it was safe for Schumer to oppose the deal without jeopardizing the President’s agenda. “We’re very confident that we can hold that veto, with the Democratic Caucus in the House and also the Senate,” Ben Rhodes, the President’s deputy national security advisor, told CNN on Wednesday. In the House, the list of Democrats publicly opposing the deal is relatively short so far. It does, however, include a handful in senior positions – New York’s Steve Israel, Nita Lowey and, as of Thursday night, Eliot Engel among them, though House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has endorsed the deal. The resistance from members of the President’s party comes chiefly from those representing districts with significant Jewish constituencies, many of whom are fiercely opposed to the administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East. Republicans, however, are hopeful that Schumer’s voice of opposition combined with that of some key House Democrats from Schumer’s home state, could serve as a major influence on the roughly dozen or so undecided Senate Democrats. In addition, New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has made it clear he has a host of problems with the deal and is expected to vote with Republicans. Maryland’s Ben Cardin, current Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member and currently undecided, is another important vote. Related video Obama: Nuclear material doesn't 'hide in the closet' There are “a couple of – maybe three – key senators on the Democratic side that, depending on which way they go, will sway a number of others,” said Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, current chairman of the Senate Foreign Committee, though he declined to name them. For now, the volume of support House and Senate Democrats are giving the White House some momentum heading into the summer break, though Schumer’s announcement could through a wrench into the works. During the recess, outside groups opposed to the deal will be pouring tens of millions of dollars into campaign-style efforts to sway wavering Democrats and shape public opinion to ramp up pressure around the fall debate in Congress. They will be broadcasting ads, sending out mailings and visiting members’ home-state offices. Republicans, for their part, had planned to focus their August message on the dangers of approving the deal with Iran, seeing town hall meetings with constituents as an opportunity to gin up opposition as was done in similar settings against Obamacare. But a series of videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of fetal tissue has triggered a new controversy over federal funding for the non-profit group. The conservative base is ramping up a campaign of its own to push GOP leaders not to approve any government funding bills that include federal money for Planned Parenthood. That debate is taking some attention away from Republicans’ effort to turn up the heat on Democrats, who are themselves using the August break to argue that the GOP fight on the spending bill could lead to another government shutdown. READ: Washington battle rages over Iran nuclear deal To counter the anti-deal effort in whatever shape it takes, the White House is keeping in close touch with undecided members and pledging they will have an open line to the President even as he heads off for a two-week vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. One concern for the administration with several weeks to go is the many Democrats who have told CNN they could hold out right until the vote is called. For Democrats who are already deeply skeptical that the Iranian government is committed to implementing the agreement, any signal from leaders in Tehran that undermines the deal during that time could jeopardize efforts to win their support. And Schumer’s opposition now coming weeks before the vote could provide cover for any who worried about breaking with their party. Several of those asked about the deal in recent days have indicated they still aren’t ready to speak out. “I’ve got work to do,” Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri told reporters after Wednesday’s classified briefing, saying she had a series of calls lined up with top diplomats to press them to resolve some outstanding concerns. “I’m doing my due diligence,” Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, another Democrat wrestling with how to vote, told CNN. Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey said he has attended briefings led by administration officials but is also setting up his own sessions with outside experts to give him additional analysis. “I’m about a third of the way through the process.” Obama took one last parting shot before leaving Washington, hitting critics of the deal hard in a speech Wednesday. He put the decision facing members in this vote on a par with the vote to go to war with Iraq. He insisted blocking the deal would result in a march to war. Though much of his attack was directed at Republicans – he accused them of making “common cause” with hardliners in Tehran chanting “Death to America” – it’s unclear whether the President’s sharpened message will backfire with those Democrats that he most needs to convince. Though at least five House Democrats and three senators have come out in support of Obama since his speech, others are taking a more equivocal stance. “I voted against the Iraq war. I do not see a comparison between this vote and the Iraq vote,” Cardin, who is still evaluating the deal, said on Thursday. Corker predicted that some of the Democrats still making up their minds would be alienated by the Obama’s words. “It probably infuriated some of the people that are on the bubble on the Democratic side of the aisle that are really trying to make up their mind,” he said.


Rubio said obstruction of justice from a president would be more than problematic He vouched for Comey's character Florida Sen. Marco Rubio warned Sunday about the “cloud” of questions surrounding Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election that is hanging over the White House and pledged to provide the public with answers. “This cloud is impacting everything else,” Rubio said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think the White House would acknowledge that.” Rubio’s comments add to the chorus of prominent Republicans saying questions about contacts between associates of President Donald Trump and Russians, in addition to the controversy surrounding Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey earlier this month, are impeding the Republican agenda. Rubio, who sits on the Senate intelligence committee, said he would refrain from taking a “firm position” until the committee finishes its investigation and issues a report. A report in The New York Times this week, confirmed by CNN and other outlets, said Comey kept records of his interactions with Trump, including a memo documenting Trump’s request that the FBI drop an investigation into former national security adviser Mike Flynn. Asked by anchor Jake Tapper whether Trump’s reported request would constitute obstruction of justice, Rubio responded in general terms. “If any president tries to impede an investigation – any president, no matter who it is – by interfering with the FBI, yes that would be problematic. Not just problematic, it would be obviously, you know, a potential obstruction of justice that people have to make a decision on – any president,” Rubio said. “That said, we don’t know if that’s what happened here.” Rubio stressed repeatedly that the investigation shouldn’t be “litigated” in the press and declined to weigh in on numerous reports, including those about Comey’s memos and Trump’s comments with Russian officials behind closed doors. “I’m not disputing the press accounts, but I am also not going to accept them,” Rubio said, adding that intelligence panel would gather its own evidence and ideally Comey’s memos. The committee announced Friday that Comey would testify in a public hearing after Memorial Day, and Rubio said he would ask Comey to verify reports about his memos. “Did he keep these memos?” Rubio said he would ask. “What did those memos say, and why did he write it, and how did he feel? Did he ever feel like he was being put in a position where he couldn’t do his job?” Rubio stood up for Comey’s character, saying that while the former FBI director wasn’t perfect, he was a “patriotic, hardworking American.” California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Sunday that he is looking forward to Comey’s public testimony and put forward a similar line of questioning in an interview on the program. “Was he being pressured by the President to drop any part of the investigation?” Schiff said he would like to hear lawmakers ask Comey. Schiff also hailed the “superb choice” of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to head up a federal investigation into alleged collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russia. He tamped down the idea that congressional investigations would be “diminished” by the special counsel’s probe. “At the end of Bob Mueller’s investigation, if he makes a decision not to bring any charges, he’s not likely to say a word about that decision,” Schiff said. “It’s going to fall to the Congress to explain what we found and what we didn’t. … We have very different responsibilities, and both I think are enormously important.” Some members of Congress predict otherwise. South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham said Thursday that he believes “Congress’ ability to conduct investigations of all things Russia has been severely limited, probably in an appropriate fashion” because of Mueller’s appointment. The Republican senator is leading an investigation as the head of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the outgoing chairman of the House oversight committee, said on ABC’s “This Week” that he had not yet spoken with Comey, but expected they would talk Monday. Chaffetz, who plans to leave Congress in June, said Tuesday on Twitter that he had his “subpoena pen ready” if needed to obtain Comey’s memos. He also said he scheduled a hearing with Comey on FBI independence for Wednesday even though he hadn’t talked with him about it.


Young lawmakers express disappointment in ruling, say they will appeal They were disqualified after China's intervention into the judicial process Two young lawmakers disqualified by Hong Hong’s High Court from the city’s legislature have vowed to appeal the judgment. The court on Tuesday disqualified lawmakers Sixtus “Baggio” Leung and Yau Wai-ching in the wake of an intervention by China that critics said undermined Hong Kong’s judicial autonomy. Leung and Yau said at a press conference Tuesday night that the court’s decision reflected how elections in the semi-autonomous city were “meaningless.” Leung expressed his disappointment at the ruling. “The system we believed in – that we see as protection for Hong Kong people – is very fragile,” he said. Leung and Yau inserted curse words into their oaths of office and displayed flags bearing the words “Hong Kong is not China” during a ceremony in October. Last week, China’s top ruling body waded into the dispute, invoking a rarely used power to decree that taking the oath in a “dishonest, ungraceful manner is also a refusal to the oath, and it shall be void.” The court also ruled Tuesday that Leung’s and Yau’s oaths were “invalid and void and have no legal effect” and that they could not retake them. Their seats were ruled vacant. The intervention by China’s National People’s Congress sparked widespread protests and outrage in Hong Kong. Last week, hundreds of lawyers staged a silent march against the ruling, which they said undermines the city’s judicial independence. Related gallery How has Hong Kong changed since the Umbrella Movement? Alan Leong, a former lawmaker and co-founder of the Civic Party, denounced the move as “completely unnecessary.” He warned that any threats to the city’s rule of law could be disastrous for its international reputation. “I’m sure ratings agencies like Moody’s are watching closely and will downgrade Hong Kong again,” Leong told CNN. In March, the ratings agency changed its outlook on Hong Kong from stable to negative. Eddie Chu, who was elected to office at the same time as Leung and Yau, said the ruling “threatens to undermine the very foundations of Hong Kong’s prosperity.” Many pro-Beijing groups have seen the decision against the pair as an opportunity to unseat other pro-democracy legislators. Last week, a representative for the Voice of Loving Hong Kong, a pressure group, filed a writ with the High Court seeking to challenge the legitimacy of 11 other lawmakers, according to the South China Morning Post. Chu, who is named in the case, told CNN he will try and stay in the legislature. “But if I am ejected I will keep fighting,” he said.

China's intervention in Hong Kong's judicial process


Editor’s Note: Douglas A. Ollivant, a senior fellow at New America, served as director for Iraq at the National Security Council during the Bush and Obama administrations. He is managing partner of Mantid International LLC, a consulting firm that has business interests in the south of Iraq, including security, defense and aerospace clients. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. ISIS' strategy of creating a political entity on the ground makes it vulnerable to airpower and conventional armies, says Douglas A. Ollivant But the larger violent Salafist movement will be largely unfazed, he says The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, as an organized military force in Iraq and Syria, is losing — even losing badly.  This does not mean the end of ISIS, and we may see organized (as in Libya and Afghanistan) and unorganized (as in Paris and San Bernardino) bands carrying the ISIS label and banner for some time yet. But these will be a mere echo (and perhaps even a mockery) of the force that carried out the shocking seizure of terrain in Iraq, threatening even Baghdad, a year and a half ago.  However, the end of ISIS does not mean the end of Islamic extremism, and we should expect to see a resurgence of al Qaeda and its affiliates, as its splinter rival begins its death spiral. Simply put, despite its quite impressive debut on the international stage, ISIS is out of its league.  By trying to bring about the “caliphate” as a tangible entity, it has given its opponents, both local and international, a fixed target to strike. The territory it controls in Iraq and Syria is now being attacked from the southeast by the Iraqi Army and Hashd al Shabi popular mobilization units (militia units of varying loyalites, mostly Shia Arab), from the northeast by the KDPand PUK Peshmerga (militias of the two ruling parties in Iraqi Kurdistan)  forces, from the northwest by the Syrian YPG (People’s Protection Units) Kurdish forces, and from the southwest — at least nominally — by the Syrian regime and its Iranian/Russian allies. Further, all the Iraqi forces (save the Hashd) are being supported by U.S. airpower, the Syrian forces by Russian airpower, and the YPG forces by both.  In Iraq, two major cities have been reclaimed from ISIS (Tikrit and Ramadi), in addition to a number of significant towns.  In December, the Iraqi defense minister stated that ISIS control of Iraqi territory was down from 40% at its height to only 17% then. While no cities have yet been reclaimed on the Syrian side of the border, ISIS continues to lose territory, with the coalition in January claiming about a 20% reduction. ISIS’ enemies are far closer to their “capital” of Raqqa then they were six months ago. So long as ISIS (or its predecessors, the Islamic State in Iraq and al Qaeda in Iraq) remained in the shadows as a terrorist group, and stuck to its core competencies of assassination and suicide bombs, it was very difficult to find and root out, subject only to intelligence-driven raids by the commandos of the Joint Special Operations Command (Delta Force and SEAL Team 6, mostly). But ISIS’ strategy of creating a political entity on the ground has also made it vulnerable to both airpower and conventional armies, while–as events of the last 24 hours show–it is still subject to JSOC kill/capture operations. So while the implementation of the U.S. strategy has been scandalously slow, it is now clearly demonstrating its effectiveness. So long as ISIS (or its predecessors, the Islamic State in Iraq and al Qaeda in Iraq) remained in the shadows as a terrorist group, and stuck to its core competencies of assassination and car bombs, it was very difficult to find and root out.  But ISIS’ strategy of creating a political entity on the ground has made it vulnerable to both airpower and conventional armies.  And while the implementation of the U.S. strategy has been scandalously slow, it is now clearly demonstrating its effectiveness. Iraqi Army forces are moving to Mosul, already nearly surrounded on the northern side by Kurdish forces, while the Hashd are clearing the more rural areas west of Samarra/Tikrit and south of Mosul.  The liberation of Mosul is no longer in doubt. An optimistic timeline would have the operation occurring this summer, a pessimistic timeline next spring.  But its eventual outcome is as close to certainty as exists.  When tens of thousands of troops, supported by U.S. airpower, mass against a few thousand defenders, it is clear how that story ends, militarily. And we are already seeing ISIS react to this eventuality.  Late last month, we saw ISIS return to its terrorist roots and launch suicide bombs into the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad.  In so doing, ISIS is demonstrating its weakness and regressing from a military force back to a terrorist one. What will be the mass appeal of a group that seized terrain, but then couldn’t hold it? Douglas Ollivant ISIS has overreached, and in so doing, has demonstrated that the longer-term strategy of its parent and rival, al Qaeda, is the more prudent one.  While there will no doubt be true believers who stay with the organization, what will be the mass appeal of a group that seized terrain, but then couldn’t hold it?  Yes, the ISIS affiliates in Libya and Afghanistan are doing quite well, operating as satellites of ISIS central.  Any steps that can be taken at reasonable cost to defeat these affiliates should be.  But what will be their raison d’etre when there is no longer a center around which to orbit? Related article Is ISIS going broke? The defeat of ISIS will by no means mean the death of violent Salafist extremism, and we should expect the bulk of ISIS’ survivors to defect to al Qaeda or other Salafist groups, rather than renounce the violent movement in its entirety. There will be a natural temptation to declare victory when ISIS no longer controls terrain — and this will be a significant milestone, denying funds to the larger movement and liberating captured persons from ISIS’ control, violence and indoctrination.  But the larger violent Salafist movement will be largely unfazed, and perhaps in some ways strengthened by the disappearance of ISIS. And until the world is prepared to address the root causes of violent Salafism’s appeal – the Wahhabi/Salafist ideology of hate, the authoritarian nature of most Arab states that denies nonviolent outlets, the lack of economic prospects, all magnified by the coming youth bulge — we should expect another version, though perhaps very different in style, of ISIS to emerge from the aftermath. Note: This article has been updated with a new report of U.S. airstrikes against targets believed connected to ISIS’ program of chemical weapons. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.


The US led coalition has begun planning for an internal security force of local recruits that could "hold" Raqqa once military operations are over About 20 percent of the city has been taken back by SDF fighters US backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) pushing into Raqqa on two fronts are now less than three miles apart from each other, but it could still be weeks if not months before they are able to fully liberate ISIS’s once self-declared capital, according to a US defense official directly familiar with the status of the fight. Nonetheless, the US-led coalition has begun planning for an internal security force of local recruits that could “hold” Raqqa once military operations are over. As of now only about 20 percent of the city has been taken back by SDF fighters, the official said. Shortly after entering the city area several days ago, the SDF encountered significant ISIS opposition and since then there has “not been considerable progress,” the official said. These SDF forces are pushing in from both the west and east, the official said. Additional SDF forces are attempting to move in from the north. While the overall 55,000-man SDF force is made up of about half Arab and half Kurdish forces, the units operating in and around Raqqa are 80 percent Arab, in keeping up with the ethnic makeup of the area. Progress has been made in the northeastern sector of the old city area. After SDF breached the old city wall they were able to move about 1,500 feet past the wall into two foothold areas in the old city. US officials have said it’s not clear at this point how many civilians or ISIS fighters are still inside Raqqa but overhead imagery has confirmed ISIS has laid booby traps and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) as it has done in other areas. If and when Raqqa is liberated, the question of who holds onto it, and the potential role of the Syrian regime and Russia forces in Syria is not clear, according to officials. But the SDF and the coalition are now planning for the establishment of the equivalent of a police force made up of local recruits. Related article US risks being dragged into regional war with Iran in Syria “We’re already starting to work on something that’s called the Raqqa Internal Security Force,” Canadian Armed Forces Brigadier General D.J. Anderson, director of partner force development, told Pentagon reporters. “This will be locals that will work for the Raqqa Council. So it’ll work for local governance, and they’ll be ready to establish that policing function, if you will, that safety and security element”. But taking Raqqa back will not be the end of ISIS in Syria. US officials have long said they have intelligence showing hundreds of ISIS fighters have fled Raqqa in recent months into the Euphrates River Valley, including some top leaders and those running communications and ISIS efforts to build and deploy chemicals and conventional weapons, such as roadside bombs.


The images could not have provided a greater contrast. At one point on the globe, a nation’s leader in military fatigues, overseeing its largest display of naval power ever, and in waters that are at the heart of a regional territorial dispute. At another, a besieged president waylaid by seemingly endless domestic turmoil and under pressure from the international community bracing for the fallout from Friday’s US-led punitive strike on Syria. If the images demonstrate anything at all, it could be that as America’s commander-in-chief’s focus is split, China’s has a singular aim. For Xi Jinping, his destroyer carving through the South China Sea, there was only one unmistakable message transmitted to the world: It’s China First. The singlemindedness of Xi’s strategy to expand China’s influence and reach contrasts sharply with the ever-shifting stance of US President Donald Trump, who came to power declaring his administration would put America first. But at home, he faces a tough task pushing through his agenda and the special counsel investigation into Russian election meddling is casting a shadow over his presidency. And abroad, he is facing some of the most complex foreign policy challenges that even administrations with little instability would find difficult to parse. China’s Xi recently solidified his power grab, effectively becoming president for life. Observers regard the Communist Party’s ability to have one cohesive approach to the country’s economic and political future a foregone conclusion, something that sets it apart from democracies that swing across the political spectrum during election cycles and often introduce administrations who run counter to their predecessors. “What’s different with Xi is you have one-man rule with a man who seems very strategically astute, especially compared to the guy who is occupying the White House right now, or at least, that’s the perception of some of us in smaller countries,” said Richard Heydarian,  Assistant Professor in international affairs and political science at De La Salle University, Philippines. With China’s continued rise, countries in the Asia Pacific, many of them traditional allies of the US, are having to recalibrate their relationships and their policies to factor in not only Washington’s inconsistencies, but also a more aggressive Beijing. “We may have a post-American order where America is no longer at the top,” Heydarian told CNN. Trump’s presidency “has provided an incentive for other powers to step up and if they combine their GDPs and their military prowess, they will be able to match that of China.” Related article China or the US? Australia's tricky balancing act Heydarian pointed to Japan, saying that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is using threats of abandonment by America to explain to the Japanese people why they needed to become a ‘normal country’ again - one with the ability to declare war or use force to settle international disputes. “If Abe manages to stay in power, I think we may finally see Japan be a normal power and then not only will it stand up to the US, it will also be a major force to be reckoned with, because of its economic strength too.” On Friday, Trump announced he had given the order for US forces to strike the Syrian regime for a suspected chemical attack that is said to have killed dozens of civilians last weekend. Trump began the week by vowing a tough response, a “big price to pay,” and blamed both Russia and Iran for protecting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, vetoing punitive measures at the United Nations and providing military support on the ground. But it was only several days before the news of the chemical attack emerged that Trump had declared his intent to withdraw US troops from Syria within six months. Now, that deadline appears to be in question. He has a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to prepare for. That is expected now to take place either in late May or early June. He is also dealing with an FBI investigation into Russian interference during the US presidential elections in 2016. Things are far more stable for Xi. “China is able to send out a consistent message that it is a powerful country, it is able to project this in a coordinated manner and show leadership, while the Trump foreign policy is rather confused,” said Zhang Baohui, a professor of political science at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. “People wonder does Trump have an Asia strategy, many of the US allies worry that he will never have a clear, consistent Asia strategy and if he is interested in actually making that happen. That’s probably to China’s advantage as well.” Related article With Sri Lankan port acquisition, China adds another 'pearl' to its 'string' Over time, say analysts, China’s primacy in the region will be unquestioned, and it may be too late for American power to challenge it. “If China doesn’t have internal chaos, China will establish regional primacy,” says Zhang. He says if Trump wants to counter this, he should “pursue a more consistent set of military and economic policies to compete with China.” Right now, the US military has three aircraft carriers in Pacific waters. And while the US military has remained focused on hemming in China’s ambition in the South China Sea while maintaining readiness in the face of North Korea’s nuclear threat, Trump’s burgeoning international trade disagreements differ sharply with China’s economic approach. The One Belt One Road initiative involves China pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into construction projects across Asia, Europe and Africa, but critics say that it also comes at a tremendous cost for the nations hosting the projects, with not only financial hardship, but also the expectation that it will align politically with China on international matters. “As long as China maintains high economic growth, the power transition will be unavoidable. If everyone depends on exports to China then China has a lot of influence no matter who is president,” said Zhang. “It’s hard for the US to compete,” he said. “China has more resources, the US really has no money to be able to do that.” In his first week in office Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a deal that would have slashed tariffs for American imports and exports with the other countries involved. On Thursday, he directed his advisers to look at re-entering the negotiations. But the other countries in the pact, including Australia and Japan, have moved forward on the trade agreement, recently signing the TPP-11, which didn’t include the United States. Trump is reconsidering his stance on the behemoth trans-Pacific trade deal as he inches closer to a trade war with China. Critics of the President’s decision to pull the US from the deal have argued that the US would have more leverage in a trade dispute with China if the US had remained in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. “Trump has given more ability to the Pentagon to challenge China in the South China Sea, but in economic terms he has completely reversed the roles of the US and China,” said Heydarian. “When Trump doesn’t put any economic initiatives on the table and the Chinese do, it really makes it look like the future belongs to China.”


Haley said the US is calling Russia and Iran out Tillerson plans to visit Russia next week US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said nothing “is off the table” when it comes to imposing tougher sanctions on Russia and Iran in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN. “We’re calling (Russia and Iran) out,” Haley told “State of the Union” anchor Jake Tapper. “But I don’t think anything is off the table at this point. I think what you’re going to see is strong leadership. You’re going to continue to see the United States act when we need to act.” Haley’s comments came after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told lawmakers he would look into stepping up sanctions on both countries, whose leadership supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who US officials say is responsible for a chemical weapons attack against civilians last week. In response to that attack, President Donald Trump ordered a US military strike against a Syrian air base where the attack is thought to have originated. Haley: No political solution in Syria with Assad in power But the Russians are denying that Assad had anything to do with the chemical attack. A spokesman for the Russian defense ministry said the US had no proof of chemical weapons at the air base. Haley disagreed, telling Tapper that the US government has evidence. “What we’ve seen is, you know, in our meetings this week, we were told of the evidence,” she said. “We saw the evidence. The President saw the evidence. All of that is naturally classified. And I’m sure when they can declassify that, they will.” Haley also reiterated her warning at the UN the day after the US strike. “I was trying to give warning and notice to the members of the Security Council and the international community that (Trump) won’t stop here,” she said Sunday, adding. “If he needs to do more, he will do more.” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who is visiting Moscow this week to meet with his Russian counterparts, said Sunday he plans to ask them about their commitment to ensuring Syria has no chemical weapons. “Yes, that will part of the discussions when I visit Moscow next week is to call upon Foreign Minister (Sergey) Lavrov and the Russian government to fulfill the obligation it made to the international community when it agreed to be the guarantor of the elimination of the chemical weapons,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week.” “And why Russia has not been able to achieve that is unclear to me. I don’t draw conclusions of complicity at all, but clearly they’ve been incompetent and perhaps they’ve just simply been out-maneuvered by the Syrians.” Haley echoed his comments in somewhat harsher tones on “State of the Union.” Asked whether she thought Russia was trying to help Assad cover up the use of chemical weapons, Haley said either Moscow knew Assad had weapons that would be used or they were “played for fools by Assad and kept in the dark.” “So they now have to answer for this,” she said. “How can they with a straight face cover for Assad, because if they’re covering for Assad, then what are they really saying? They’re saying by covering for Assad that they knew that it was there, or they were incompetent by having chemical weapons there in the first place. US envoy Nikki Haley says Syria regime change is ‘inevitable’ “There’s a lot of answers that need to come from Russia,” Haley said, adding that she thought some of those answers would come during Tillerson’s meeting in Moscow. Later on “State of the Union,” Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey rebuked Haley’s call for regime change, saying that would require a major military effort on the part of the US. “When the Trump administration uses the words regime change, they are talking about a military effort to remove Assad,” Markey told Tapper. “And that would mean putting American young men and women on the ground in battlefield conditions in order to accomplish that goal. I don’t think there’s any appetite in the United States for a massive additional military presence.” Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said Sunday that he saw the situation as a “great opportunity” for Russia. “Well this is part of the problem in Syria, is Russia’s sponsorship of this murderous regime,” McMaster said on “Fox News Sunday.” “And so we would want to appeal rationally to Russia – this is a great opportunity for the Russia leadership to re-evalute what they’re doing. Why they’re supporting a regime that commits mass murder against its own people.” Meanwhile, Syrian state media reported Sunday that Russia and Iran are drawing red lines after the US strike. “We will respond strongly to any aggression on Syria,” the two Syrian allies said in a joint statement that flashed in a banner on Syrian state television. “Russia and Iran will not allow America to dominate the world.” The Kremlin also issued a statement Sunday on Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s discussion of the situation in Syria by phone. They said the US actions against a sovereign state violatied international law and called for an objective, unbiased investigation of all the circumstances of the chemical weapons incident, the statement said. Syria has resumed operations from the base since the attack, CNN has reported. Speaking on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham didn’t mince words about the message Assad might be sending. “Here’s what I think Assad’s telling Trump by flying from this base: ‘FU,’” Graham said. Graham called that a “serious mistake.” “[I]f you’re an adversary of the United States, and you don’t worry about what Trump may do on any given day, then you’re crazy,” he said. CNN’s Hamdi Alkhshali and Merieme Arif in Atlanta contributed to this report.


Russian hackers are trying to gain access to the devices that control the flow of internet traffic, the US and UK warned Monday in an alert for organizations and individuals worldwide. Though the governments are not sure how many devices have been compromised by the hackers nor what the objective is, the targeting affects millions of devices globally, US officials said on a call with reporters Monday morning. “Once you own the router, you own the traffic traversing the router,” chief Homeland Security cyber official Jeanette Manfra said, calling it a “fairly broad campaign” that is not targeting any sector in particular. “It’s a tremendous weapon in the hands of an adversary,” echoed the FBI’s Howard Marshall, the deputy assistant director of the cyber division. The joint missive was the first time the US and UK governments have teamed up to put out such an alert. The warning says malicious Russian hackers have been targeting network infrastructure devices – the types of devices that most internet traffic travels through, such as routers – since 2015. Officials said they had “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the campaign. Following the US-UK alert, Australian government issued a statement joining its allies in “expressing concern at the malicious cyber activity targeting commercially available routers around the world.” “This attempt by Russia is a sharp reminder that Australian businesses and individuals are constantly targeted by malicious state and non-state actors, and we must maintain rigorous cyber security practices,” Minister for Law Enforcement and Cyber Security Angus Taylor said. Speaking Tuesday in Canberra, Australia’s Defense Minister Marise Payne said up to 400 businesses in that country may also have been targeted by the campaign, but she added authorities did not believe “there has been any exploitation of significance.” Related article 2016 Presidential Campaign Hacking Fast Facts Network infrastructure devices make particularly attractive targets as they are the nexus for massive amounts of internet traffic and tend to be maintained far less diligently than the devices that people use every day, like computers and mobile devices. According to the UK-US alert, hackers have been scanning devices broadly on the internet and attempting to trick them into giving up login credentials, or trying default passwords, which then allow the hackers to control the devices. While the focus of the alert is how individuals and businesses, from the home office to large enterprises, can protect themselves from the attack, the goal was also calling out Russia’s bad behavior, officials said. “Our focus today is twofold. One: continuing the pressure campaign on nations that exploit others on the Internet. And two: Encourage industry to secure the devices we depend on,” White House cybersecurity coordinator Rob Joyce said. Related article Dems directly appeal to House Speaker Paul Ryan on election hacking Ciaran Martin, CEO of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, called it “a very significant moment as we hold Russia to account and we improve our cyber defenses at the same time.” Martin said the attacks could be designed for spying, stealing intellectual property or possibly “prepositioning for use in times of heightened tension.” No sanctions or penalties were announced Monday, and the alert is unrelated to expected sanctions on Russia in coming days, though Joyce reiterated that “all elements of US power are available to push back” on such hacking efforts.


North Korea has threatened to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile "at any time" Pyongyang has never successfully tested such technology before While the US has said it would shoot down any North Korean missile that posed a threat, don’t expect to see Pyongyang’s next launch blasted out of the sky. US Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on January 9 that if launches do not pose a risk to the US or an ally, “it may be more to our advantage… to gather intelligence from the flight.” In his new year’s address, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un said the country had “entered the final stages of preparation for the test launch” of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could threaten the US mainland. In early January, Pyongyang upped the threat, saying it could launch such a missile “at any time and anywhere.” The US and other observers “can learn a lot” from any missile test, said Tal Inbar, a North Korea expert at the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies. “We can analyze the trajectory and conclude some insight about the power of the engines and the amount of fuel, and estimate the potential range of the missile.” If it is possible to retrieve the missile or rocket from the sea, as South Korea did in February last year, Inbar said there “is a wealth of intelligence in such debris.” He added that it was generally unwise to shoot down any missile that does not pose a threat as not only would you lose the ability to examine the missile and its flight, “if you try and shoot it down and miss, that’s a huge PR embarrassment.” Despite repeated claims about its capability to strike at the US mainland, North Korea has never successfully tested an ICBM, and experts have cast doubt on how close Pyongyang is to having the technology to even attempt it. Even the country’s mid-range missile – the Musudan – “barely works,” according to aerospace and rocket expert John Schilling, “exploding in seven out of eight tests so far.” Pyongyang’s purported ICBMs, Schilling wrote in a report in December, “don’t exist, except as parade mock-ups and engineering test articles.” “When they are completed, they will require years of flight testing to reach operational status, with no doubt many more catastrophic failures,” he said. Inbar disagreed, saying all the evidence points to the country’s ICBMs being “real missiles and a real threat.” “But the question remains of what would be the reliability of a missile that has never flown before,” he said. He added that Pyongyang may be loathe to test such a missile as doing so would deplete its arsenal of a weapon that is complex and expensive to build. According to North Korean state media, the country last year successfully tested engines for launching ICBMs, including a solid-fuel rocket engine that would allow a missile to be launched quickly with little forewarning. It has also carried out multiple submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) tests and, according to US intelligence, “probably” possesses the capability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead for placing on an ICBM. Experts say North Korea has been using its space program – which Pyongyang claims is peaceful – to covertly test this technology. In February 2016, the North said it successfully launched a satellite into space, but a senior US defense official told CNN the satellite was “tumbling in orbit” and “incapable of functioning in any useful way.” According to a report by the Arms Control Association, all North Korean satellite launches have used rockets that “employed low-thrust engines in the upper stages, which would not provide sufficient power if the rocket were to fly on a ballistic missile trajectory.” Like Schilling, the report cast doubts on the viability of North Korea’s ICBM technology, pointing out that of the two missiles shown off in public “neither has been flight-tested, and North Korea has not developed and tested a re-entry vehicle capable of withstanding the thermal and mechanical rigors of re-entry into the atmosphere at ICBM velocities.” While North Korea may not be on the verge of launching an ICBM, this does not mean Pyongyang isn’t capable of causing absolute devastation. The country has a growing nuclear stockpile, as well as up to 5,000 metric tons of chemical weapons, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). Last year saw a marked uptick in mid-range missile tests, of the type that could strike Tokyo or Seoul, home to a combined 23 million people, as well as tens of thousands of US troops. While Washington and Seoul are working to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD) in South Korea, its future under a Donald Trump presidency is uncertain. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the US-based East Asia Nonproliferation Program, told CNN last year that North Korean simultaneous missile testing seemed to indicate it was trying to find a way to bypass THAAD’s defenses. Developments in Pyongyang’s SLBM systems also pose a threat to its neighbors, as missiles launched from underwater are far harder to detect. While the danger posed by ICBMs may be overstated, North Korea’s conventional and nuclear threat to its neighbors is profound, and may be why Trump is left with few options other than sitting down with Kim Jong Un. If North Korea is hoping for just such a meeting, as some analysts have argued, Inbar said it is “logical to assume” that Kim will want to test an ICBM as soon as possible. “What he will put on the table will be the basis for the negotiations, (so Kim) has to show his cards,” he said. “If he is ready from a technical point of view, I would expect to see a launch soon.”


If you knew anything about Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, it was that he was going to build a wall  on our southern border– and that Mexico was going to pay for it. Over and over again he said just that; it was consistently his biggest applause line in a stump speech packed with applause lines. Here’s the thing: Mexico was never planning to pay for the wall. No deal had been cut by Trump with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. And now Trump – backed into a corner by his own rhetoric – is threatening to shut down the federal government unless the Republican-led Congress authorizes some money for the wall. The logical impossibility of explaining that position was on full display Thursday when White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders took questions from reporters for the first time in three weeks. Let’s go through the four times she was asked directly about Mexico paying for the wall and Trump’s government shutdown threat. (A transcript of the full briefing is here.) 1. “The President is committed to making sure this gets done. We know that the wall and other security measures at the border work. We’ve seen that take place over the last decade, and we’re committed to making sure the American people are protected. And we’re going to continue to push forward and make sure that the wall gets built.” Sanders doesn’t say anything about Mexico – probably because there is nothing to say. She also makes no mention – at least in this first answer – of the shutdown and how far Trump is willing to push it to secure wall funding. “We’re going to push forward and make sure that the wall gets built” is saying nothing while trying to appear like you are saying something. 2. “Once again, the President is committed to making sure this happens, and we’re going to push forward.” So, in summary: The President is going to make sure this happens. Also, forward-pushing. 3.  “I certainly don’t think any efforts have been abandoned.” This Sanders response come after a question by CBS’ Major Garrett about whether Trump’s threat to shut down the government over wall funding means he has given up on making Mexico pay for the wall. Her wording is interesting: No “efforts” have been abandoned. The Trump administration then continues to push to make Mexico pay for the wall? How so? When is the last time Trump or someone in his administration spoke to Peña Nieto about paying for the wall? And what was Mexico’s response? Are our efforts paying dividends? Is Mexico more likely to pay for the wall now than they were earlier this year? 4. “Again, this is something the President is committed to. He’s committed to protecting American lives.  And doing that through the border wall is something that’s important. It’s a priority, and we’re moving forward with it.” Sanders has a story – and she’s sticking to it. Trump is committed to building the wall. Things are moving forward. But, the most interesting part of this question-and-answer comes when the reporter presses Sanders on the fact that Trump has stopped saying publicly that Mexico is going to pay for the wall. “He hasn’t said they’re not either,” she retorts. Ahem. To reiterate: Trump spent two years promising at, literally, every rally that he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. Now suddenly, he is issuing a threat to shut down the government unless Congress allocates money to build the wall. And he’s stopped mentioning the whole Mexico-will-pay-for-it thing. Now that reporters are pointing out that obvious change in rhetoric, the best the White House can muster is the delicious double negative that Trump hasn’t not said Mexico is paying for the wall. OK then! The simple fact is that no president can make a sovereign foreign government do something they believe to be disadvantageous for them. Trump can bring pressure to bear on Mexico – particularly in regards trade – to attempt to extract money for the wall from them. But he just can’t make them pay up. Sanders’ answers are part of the White House’s ongoing attempt to cloud that reality. Why? Because, for Trump, that promise to make Mexico pay for the wall was so fundamental to his appeal as a candidate that to openly acknowledge it isn’t going to happen (and never was) is hugely politically problematic. But all of the spin in the world can’t polish this turd of a campaign promise. Sanders knows that. Trump does too.