Trump is on the final leg of his nine-day trip The trip ends in Italy at the G7 President Donald Trump’s top economic and national security advisers on Saturday declined to comment on the swirl of allegations that Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner is facing regarding his contacts with Russian officials. Kushner discussed creating a secret communications channel between the Trump transition team and the Kremlin with Russia’s ambassador Sergey Kislyak, a source with knowledge of the matter confirmed to CNN after The Washington Post reported Friday, citing US officials briefed on intelligence reports. Related article Washington Post: Kushner proposed secret communication channel with Kremlin Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, declined to say whether he would be concerned if a private citizen attempted to set up backchannel communications with a foreign government to influence US foreign policy and said he would not be concerned if a White House official attempted to do so. “We have backchannel communications with a number of countries,” McMaster said. McMaster and Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, swatted away the questions after reports surfaced that Kushner considered setting up a secret line of communication with Russia to discuss military options in Syria and other matters. A source with knowledge of the matter confirmed to CNN that Kushner first discussed creating the backchannel in a meeting last December with the Russian ambassador. Kushner was a private citizen at the time, not a US government official although he was acting on behalf of the incoming US government and in an official capacity having an interim security clearance. The details were shared with CNN as an explanation to The Washington Post reporting, which it said was based on intercepts of conversations between Russia’s ambassador and Moscow. Kislyak, according to The Post, told higher-ups in Moscow that Kushner suggested the proposal in a December meeting at Trump Tower – which former national security adviser Michael Flynn also attended. Kushner “suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications,” the Post reported, in an apparent attempt to try to shield discussions during the transition from monitoring. The Post said Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the idea of having an American use Russian communications equipment at one of its facilities because it could have involved security risks for both Americans and Russians. Such a line of communication would have allowed Kushner and Flynn to talk securely with Russian military officials, but it never was actually set up, the source with knowledge of the matter confirmed to CNN. Flynn apparently would have been the US point person, the source said. “That’s something I’m not prepared to talk about,” McMaster said when he was first asked about the allegations. Cohn said: “We’re not going to comment on Jared. We’re just not going to comment.” Pressed repeatedly on the matter during a news conference on Saturday that was kept off camera at the White House’s insistence, McMaster also said he was not “involved with or have any knowledge of” any attempt on Kushner’s part to set up backchannel communications with Moscow. The FBI, in the course of its investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election, is now also looking at Kushner’s multiple roles in Trump’s campaign operation and his contacts with Russian officials. Kushner has acknowledged meeting during the transition with the Russian ambassador to Washington, but Reuters, citing seven current and former US officials, reported Friday that Kushner had several previously undisclosed contacts with Russia’s ambassador – including two phone calls between April and November of 2016. Kushner’s lawyer, Jamie Gorelick, told CNN in response to the Reuters report: “Mr. Kushner participated in thousands of calls in this time period. He has no recollection of the calls as described. We have asked (Reuters) for the dates of such alleged calls so we may look into it and respond, but we have not received such information.” A White House official close to Kushner pushed back on any notion that Kushner would take leave from his West Wing duties in light of recent reports. This official said Kushner will keep his head down and stay focused on his work. Kushner is eager to cooperate with any and all inquiries, this official said. McMaster was visibly frustrated as he faced a barrage of questions from reporters on Saturday about Kushner’s contacts with the Russians. He urged reporters to instead ask him about foreign policy and national security issues that would have come up during the President’s first foreign trip, which has been dogged by the incessant flow of new allegations surrounding the President’s campaign associates’ contacts with Russian officials. This story has been updated. CNN’s Evan Perez, Saba Hamedy and Jim Acosta contributed to this report.


NEW: 5 suspects arrested in attack on Kenyan campus, official says Student tells CNN of smearing herself with blood to escape death Al-Shabaab gunmen opened fire, and 147 people died Kenyan police have arrested five suspects in connection with Thursday’s attack at Garissa University College, Interior Minister Joseph Nkaissery said Friday, according to CNN affiliate NTV. Nkaissery told reporters the university will be able to confirm Saturday if everyone has been accounted for. Thursday’s attack by al-Shabaab militants killed 147 people, including 142 students, three security officers and two university security personnel. The attack left 104 people injured, including 19 who are in critical condition, Nkaissery said. During search and recovery efforts on Friday, CNN witnessed one male who was not a student hiding under a bed. That male was taken into custody and was being treated as a suspect, sources close to the search told CNN. The find sparked an additional search of the building. Sources said three people, all students, were found alive. A female student was found under a pile of bodies, another female student was hiding in a wardrobe and a male student was hiding in the bathroom, the sources confirmed to CNN. Student Hellen Titus said she survived by fooling the attackers into thinking she was dead. After gunmen shot fellow students, she smeared their blood onto her body to make it seem she’d been shot, too, she told CNN on Friday at a makeshift center for evacuated students. “In the time of shooting,” she said, “they skipped me.” Most of the victims had been shot from behind, in the back of the head, a medic told CNN. “They’re facing down, always,” a worker with St. John’s ambulance service said Friday. “They’re always facing down, and they’re shot in the heads, around the back.” Al-Shabaab’s long, bloody legacy with Kenya Early Thursday, an explosion and gunfire cut through the morning quiet on the campus about 90 miles (145 kilometers) from Kenya’s border with Somalia, tearing many students in dormitories out of their sleep. “Never heard anything like this,” journalist  Dennis Okari from CNN affiliate NTV tweeted as he watched smoke rising over a student hostel. Al-Shabaab gunmen had first stormed a Christian prayer service, where they killed some and took others hostage. Then they went across campus with them, shooting non-Muslims and sparing Muslims, a witness said. Related gallery Attack at Kenyan university They headed for the hostels. Student Japhet Mwala lay in her bed. “We were sleeping when we heard a loud explosion that was followed by gunshots, and everyone started running for safety,” she told Agence France-Presse. Awaking to terror: ‘I am lucky to be alive’ “There are those who were not able to leave the hostels where the gunmen headed and started firing. I am lucky to be alive because I jumped through the fence with other students,” she said. Students ran – some crawled – away from the gunfire, Okari said. At one point, the gunmen pinned down a building where 360 students lived, Interior Minister Joseph Nkaissery said. Okari took cover outside the campus and listened to explosions and gunfire for four hours. Kenyan security forces moved in and killed four gunmen. Heavy gunfire & explosions inside the university. I met Anastacia at the airstrip with serious gunshot wounds. pic.twitter.com/ZcKQTOQnzh Somali terror group Al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda affiliate, claimed responsibility for the attack. The Interior Ministry has posted a “most wanted” notice for a man in connection with it. It offered a reward of 20 million Kenyan shillings, about $215,000, for Mohamed Mohamud, who goes by the aliases Dulyadin and Gamadhere. The post does not say what role the man may have played. Kenyan police are circulating “Wanted Dead or Alive” posters featuring eight terror suspects who are wanted in separate attacks in Kenya, the Interior Ministry said. Police are offering a bounty of more than $210,000 for the suspects, the Ministry said via Twitter. We appeal to anyone with any info on #Gamadhere to share with relevant authorities and security agencies. pic.twitter.com/YQ3MCvER4D The dangerously porous border between Somalia and Kenya has made it easy for Al-Shabaab militants to cross over and carry out attacks. In a December attack at a quarry, Al-Shabaab militants separated Muslims from others and executed the non-Muslims, killing at least 36 people. In November, militants stopped a bus near the border and killed 28 people they believed to be non-Muslims. Last month, the U.S. Embassy warned of possible attacks “throughout Kenya in the near-term” after the reported death of a key Al-Shabaab leader, Adan Garaar, who was suspected in the September 2013 Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi. Opinion: A weakened Al-Shabaab lashes out Police have declared a curfew for the next several days in the region from 6:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. The Education Ministry has closed the university indefinitely. Surviving students have gathered in large groups at the town’s airport, waiting to be flown to their hometowns. The effects are also being felt 225 miles west in Kenya’s capital of Nairobi, where the new bloodshed reinvigorated an old debate: Is the nation’s security strong enough? Many thought measures taken after the Westgate Mall massacre had filled the gaps. At least 67 people died then. But Thursday’s attack is the second-worst in the country’s history, and it has evaporated much of the confidence won after Westgate. Civil liberty concerns had held up the enrollment of 10,000 new police recruits, but on Thursday, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta gave a directive to process them. “Kenya badly needs additional officers,” he said, “and I will not keep the nation waiting.” The problems plaguing Kenya’s security efforts CNN’s Christian Purefoy reported from Garissa, and CNN’s Ben Brumfield wrote from Atlanta. CNN’s Brian Walker, Vasco Cotovio and Lillian Leposo also contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the suspect’s status in police custody. He has not been formally charged. NEW: The suspect has not yet been formally charged NEW: No link has been found yet between the suspect and victims, police say The lone suspect held in the killing of five people at a Washington state mall will be arraigned Monday and authorities are working steadily to nail down a motive, a state patrol spokesman said Sunday. Arcan Cetin, 20, is facing five counts of first-degree murder, according to Skagit County jail records. He will appear Monday in the county’s district court. Cetin, held in Skagit County jail on Sunday, has not been formally charged, according to Sgt. Mark Francis, a state patrol spokesman. Four women and one man died in the shooting Friday night at a Macy’s store at the Cascade Mall in Burlington, north of Seattle. The victims’ identities have not been released. Cetin was taken into custody Saturday night after a nearly 24-hour manhunt, authorities said. “We feel confident we have the shooter,” Francis told reporters. “Whether or not anyone else was involved, that will be determined.” Authorities arrested Cetin as he walked down the street near his home in Oak Harbor, Washington. When officers confronted Cetin, he did not run, said Lt. Mike Hawley of the Island County Sheriff’s Office. Instead, Cetin froze and complied, Hawley said. “He said nothing,” Hawley said. Francis said the suspect was “calm and collected last night when he was arrested” and that he has been interviewed. Coroner: Need medical records for scientific verification of #cascademallshooting victims. Hope to get records Monday, release info Tuesday Related video Washington state shooting suspect in custody Cetin emigrated from Turkey and is a legal permanent resident of the United States, authorities said. It’s unclear when he moved to the United States. In its initial alert about the suspect Friday night, the state patrol described him as “Hispanic.” Asked whether that detail delayed the investigation, Francis said it was possible. State authorities said it’s too early to rule out terrorism or any other motive because their investigation is in its preliminary stages. Before the suspect’s arrest, an official with the FBI had told reporters there was “no evidence at this time” of a link to terrorism. Francis said Cetin has an ex-girlfriend who worked at a Macy’s but it is not known if it was the Macy’s at Cascade Mall. So far, authorities haven’t been able to find any link between the suspect and the victims. Authorities say Cetin walked into the mall, about 65 miles north of Seattle, and opened fire with a rifle Friday night. They say he walked in without the firearm and left the weapon at the scene before he fled, sending more than 24 law enforcement agencies on a manhunt across the state. Authorities say they are trying to figure out where he got the weapon. Authorities collected evidence from the mall overnight Friday and all day Saturday as the bodies were removed. Eventually, they identified his vehicle by matching information received from a tip with surveillance footage obtained from local business. The tips that led to the identification of the shooter came from multiple sources that were pooled together. Related article Washington mall shooting: Police arrest 20-year-old suspect Authorities declined to comment on the type of weapon used or Cetin’s mental health, citing the ongoing investigation. They did, however, say Cetin had been arrested once in the past year, for simple assault. Burlington Mayor Steve Sexton called the shooting a “devastating loss” of five treasured members of the small community. “That was us in that mall last night –any one of us at any time,” Sexton said. “It changed those families forever. … It changed our community forever.” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee praised the hundreds of law enforcement personnel involved with capturing Cetin in less than 24 hours. He noted that the entire state of Washington stood with Burlington. “Passivity in the face of this scourge of violence is unacceptable,” he said. In the coming days, authorities said they planned to flesh out the timeline of Cetin’s alleged actions. They will also carry out search warrants in an effort to compile further evidence. CNN’s Chandrika Narayan contributed to this report.


The President is expected Wednesday to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital The move is roiling US allies because it could destabilize the region President Donald Trump will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on Wednesday and direct the State Department to begin the process to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, senior administration officials said. The decision, which is already being cheered by the President’s supporters and the Israeli government, is expected to roil the region, with US Arab allies warning Trump on Tuesday that it will undermine regional stability and stymie the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Trump will sign a waiver delaying the embassy move for another six months to comply with the law, as senior administration officials said it will take years for the move to be completed. The Trump administration on Tuesday cast the move, which Trump will announce Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET, as a “recognition of reality” that Jerusalem has long been the seat of the Israeli government. Officials stressed that the decision would have no impact on the boundaries of future Israeli and Palestinian states as negotiated under a final status agreement. Related article Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a dangerous gambit Senior administration officials briefing reporters Tuesday evening rejected suggestions that the decision would hurt the peace process, but offered no arguments to suggest the move would advance the peace process or US interests in the region. Instead, the officials said keeping the US embassy in Tel Aviv – despite legislation calling for a move to Jerusalem – had not advanced peace in more than two decades. “It seems clear now that the physical location of the American embassy is not material to a peace deal. It’s not an impediment to peace and it’s not a facilitator to peace,” one senior administration official said. “After having tried this for 22 years, an acknowledgment of reality seems like an important thing.” Another senior administration official said Trump “came to the judgment that this was both the right time and the right step to take specifically with respect to his hopes that a peace can be achieved,” but offered no further specifics. The officials said Trump would reaffirm that he is prepared to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if both sides can agree to such a deal. Related article State Dept. told to plan for potential protests after Jerusalem embassy announcement Despite the announcement, a senior administration official said Tuesday Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would not change the US policy opposing Israeli construction of settlements in East Jerusalem. Ahead of his announcement, Trump spoke Tuesday to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and Jordan’s King Abdullah, prompting statements from each leader’s country opposing the plan, warning that it will undermine regional stability and scuttle any hopes of peace for the foreseeable future. Palestinian factions have already called for three “days of rage” in protest and the State Department issued a travel warning about the West Bank and Jerusalem’s Old City. Trump also spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long lobbied for the embassy to move to Jerusalem. The President is expected to make a public announcement Wednesday declaring his decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and his intent to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv, diplomatic officials and a person familiar with the plans tell CNN. Trump is also expected to sign a waiver delaying the embassy move for six months, citing the logistical challenges of moving US personnel. The move is roiling US allies because it bucks international norms and has the potential to destabilize the region. Recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital could upend efforts led by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to revive Mideast peace talks; could spark regional protests that might put US military and diplomatic personnel at risk; and could hand a propaganda weapon to militant groups and Iran, analysts say. Reaction was swift, with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar criticizing the anticipated decision and urging the administration to reconsider. The European Union foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, used a press appearance with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to make EU displeasure clear. Any action that could undermine an eventual peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians “must absolutely be avoided,” Mogherini said. On Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron stressed in a phone call with Trump the long-held international position that the status of Jerusalem should be resolved through peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, “and particularly those relating to the establishment of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security with Jerusalem as their capital,” France’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The administration itself braced for blowback. State Department security services were told to prepare for unrest at missions overseas and the Pentagon repositioned troops who usually protect embassies to be closer to countries where protests may break out. Related article Kushner's foreign policy gamble fuels Tillerson feud White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the decision was the result of a “very thoughtful inter-agency process,” but people familiar with the White House deliberations portray it as being driven by Trump’s domestic political concerns. The President is increasingly worried about losing his political base and insists that he must be seen as fulfilling campaign promises on Israel, part of an effort he’s taken in the past few weeks to galvanize conservative support, according to a person familiar with the White House deliberations. The same source also stated that the President sees the Jerusalem issue as key to placating concerns among his core supporters that he’s going soft on his campaign positions. Previous US presidents promised to move the embassy and then set that pledge aside due to regional concerns and Jerusalem’s contested status between Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom claim the holy city as their capital. Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, the US embassy must be moved to Jerusalem or the State Department faces the penalty of losing half its appropriated funds for the acquisition and maintenance of buildings abroad. Every six months, however, presidents can sign a waiver to avoid these penalties on national security grounds. The resistance from allies reportedly led to some debate within the White House over how to balance the move with the recognition of Palestinian claims to Jerusalem, according to sources with knowledge of the situation. In the meantime, the President’s personal political concerns aren’t likely to sway foreign allies that could be directly affected by any fallout from the decision. “I haven’t heard anyone articulate a single national security interest as to why now,” said Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute. “It hasn’t been done. Everybody knows why it hasn’t been done. It’s a bad idea and it remains a bad idea.” And while Jerusalem functions as the de facto Israeli capital, David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said an announcement will kill any chances of a peace deal. “There is a historic justice in it, in that every president, Democratic or Republican, speaks in the Knesset,” said Makovsky, referring to the Israeli parliament. “US businessmen routinely do business with Israelis in their capital. That’s been the reality since 1949, but if you say you recognize an undivided capital, you’ve pre-empted peace negotiations.” Shibley Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland, said an announcement would serve as propaganda fodder for extremists. “It plays into the hands of every conceivable Islamic militant group. It plays into the hands of Iran,” Telhami said, making it harder for Gulf countries that might share security goals with Israel to openly cooperate. “It makes the situation of each one of those governments tougher, let alone what it does to American troops stationed in the region.” CNN’s Kevin Liptak, Andrew Carey, Michelle Kosinski, Elise Labott and Barbara Starr contributed to this report

President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital


China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi said peacefully solving the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is in the interest of all relevant parties Russia and China "stressed that there is no alternative to a political and diplomatic settlement" China urged the US and North Korea to urgently “put the brakes” on provocative actions and words on Tuesday after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un appeared to back away from a threat to fire missiles toward the US Pacific territory of Guam. Speaking with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday in a phone conversation, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said peacefully solving the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is in the interest of all relevant parties, including China and Russia. Wang also agreed to coordinate closely on the nuclear issue, strengthening the countries’ strategic communication, working together to manage and control the situation in order to prevent an “August crisis,” according to statement from the Chinese foreign ministry. During the call between Lavrov and Wang “the ministers stressed that there is no alternative to a political and diplomatic settlement” the  Chinese statement said. A statement on the Russian foreign ministry’s website said Russian and China discussed “possible ways out of the confrontational spiral on the Korean Peninsula,” and that “military adventures and threats of force” against North Korea were “unacceptable.” Related article North Korea's Kim to Trump: It's your move The call for a de-escalation comes just hours after state media KCNA reported that Kim had reviewed a previously announced plan to fire four missiles on a trajectory over western Japan, but had decided not to go ahead with the proposal for now. The KCNA report Tuesday said Kim had “examined the (strike) plan for a long time and discussed it with the commanding officers in real earnest.” Top US military official arrives in SKGuam islanders caught in the middle Can US shoot down NK missiles?Before war with NK, we’d see thisTrump promises ‘fire and fury’ Top US military official arrives in SKGuam islanders caught in the middle Can US shoot down NK missiles?Before war with NK, we’d see thisTrump promises ‘fire and fury’ The statement then appears to put the onus to act on Trump, saying Kim would “watch a little more the foolish and stupid conduct of the Yankees.” The report is assumed to be referring to the US joint military drills with South Korea, known as the Ulchi-Freedom Guardian, which are scheduled to start August 21. The annual 10-day military drills antagonizes North Korea, as Pyongyang believes they are preparations for an invasion. Seoul and Washington say the exercises are defensive in nature. Related article Do US-South Korean war games risk escalating North Korea crisis? “If the planned fire of power demonstration is carried out as the US is going more reckless, it will be the most delightful historic moment when the Hwasong artillerymen will wring the windpipes of the Yankees and point daggers at their necks,” the report said. The US and South Korea have confirmed the drills will go ahead as planned. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert was asked Tuesday whether North Korea’s conditional proposal to pull back on its threat to launch ballistic missiles near Guam was enough for the US to engage in dialogue. “I feel like that’s sort of a question that my child might propose. You know?” Nauert told reporters. “If my child were to say, ‘Hey mom, if I don’t steal this cookie will you then give me television?’ No. The answer’s no on that one. I think we can all relate to that.” When asked if she was comparing Kim to a child asking for more television time, Nauert added: “I’m not suggesting that. I’m just suggesting it’s such an extreme hypothetical to reward someone for not doing something.” China’s Global Times newspaper, a state-run tabloid, was scathing of South Korea’s decision to proceed with the drills. “The drill will definitely provoke Pyongyang more, and Pyongyang is expected to make a more radical response,” it said in an editorial. “If South Korea really wants no war on the Korean Peninsula, it should try to stop this military exercise.” The Global Times, while state-run, often uses stronger language than the official line from Beijing. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs told CNN its official line is that “the bottom line” to resolve the North Korea nuclear issue is “to uphold the general direction of dialogue, negotiation and political settlement.” “The current situation on the Korean Peninsula is highly complex and sensitive. We hope to see the relevant sides ‘extinguish fire’ through their words and actions instead of ‘adding fuel’ amid tensions. We hope to see them improve mutual trust, and move toward the goal of preserving peace and stability on the peninsula as well as realizing the denuclearization of the peninsula.” On Tuesday, US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis was asked whether he believed Kim was holding off on a missile launch targeting Guam and what the US would do if such a launch took place. “Here at the Pentagon, we are a part of the sentinels for our nation. We stand ready to defend our nation,” Mattis said, echoing his warning from Monday that if North Korea fired on US territory it would be “game on.” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was also asked about Kim’s announcement that he would put off a potential missile strike on or near Guam. “I have no response to his decision at this time,” Tillerson said, adding, “we continue to be interested in finding a way to get to a dialogue, but that’s up to him.” CNN’s Nicole Gaouette, Laura Koran and Natalie Gallon contributed to this report.


Four people died and dozens were injured in the March 22 attack A 30-year-old man freed Saturday was among 12 people to be released All those arrested in connection with last month’s terror attack on Westminster Bridge and the UK Parliament have been released “with no further action,” London’s Metropolitan Police said Saturday. A 30-year-old man previously arrested in Birmingham “on suspicion of preparation of terrorist acts” was freed Saturday, the police said in a statement. In addition, 11 others who were previously arrested in connection with the attack investigation have all been released with no further action, police said. Related article London attack victim Melissa Cochran shown recovering in hospital The attacker, Khalid Masood, 52, was shot dead by a police firearms officer at the scene of the March 22 incident. Four people died and dozens were injured in the attack as Masood plowed through pedestrians on Westminster Bridge before fatally stabbing a police officer who was guarding the Houses of Parliament. The entire episode lasted 82 seconds, police said. The police officer killed was Keith Palmer, 48, who was a 15-year veteran of the force. The other victims were US tourist Kurt Cochran, 54, London college administrator Aysha Frade, 44, and Leslie Rhodes, 75, from south London. Metropolitan Police say they don’t believe Masood was directed by ISIS or al Qaeda. CNN’s Karen Smith contributed to this report.


A former Bosnian Croat general has died after apparently swallowing poison as a judge at the Hague upheld his 20-year sentence for war crimes. Footage from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) showed 72-year-old Slobodan Praljak tilt his head back and drink from a small glass bottle as the presiding judge read out the verdict. “Slobodan Praljak is not a war criminal. I am rejecting your verdict with contempt,” Praljak shouted before swallowing the liquid. The judge was then heard immediately suspending proceedings and asking for the curtains to be drawn. An ambulance was at the building shortly and paramedics raced up to the courtroom, Reuters reported. The courtroom was being treated as a crime scene, an ICTY spokesperson told CNN. Croatia’s Prime Minister,  Andrej Plenkovic, later confirmed the former general had died and offered his condolences. “On behalf of the Government of the Republic of Croatia and on my own behalf, I want to express my deepest condolences to the family of General Slobodan Praljak,” Plenkovic said, according to a tweet from an official government account. The nature of the substance ingested by Praljak was not immediately clear. Praljak, a former assistant defense minister of Croatia and commander of the Croatian Defense Council, was appealing a jail term of 20 years in prison. He was one of six former Bosnian Croat leaders found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including the rape and murder of Bosnian Muslims, in 2013. Praljak played an important role in securing weapons and ammunition for the Croatian Defense Council army, according to the original indictment. The offenses, which date to between 1992 and 1994, were part of a wider conflict that followed the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. The appeal judges upheld the findings of an earlier trial that implicated the Croatian regime under then-President Franjo Tudjman in a criminal conspiracy with the goal of “ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population” of parts of Bosnia to ensure Croatian domination. The Bosnian Croat leadership, along with Croat leaders, wanted to make this territory part of a “Greater Croatia,” the ICTY said when the case first went through the court. The six received sentences that ranged  from 10 to 25 years. No further appeals are possible. CNN’s Laura Smith-Spark contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors. Follow him on Twitter @RaulAReyes. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. It’s hard to imagine a policy crueler than one reported by the New York Times on Saturday. A review of government data found, and federal officials confirmed, that about 700 migrant children had been taken away from their parents at the southern border since October. More than 100 were younger than 4. Department of Homeland Security officials said the agency did not split families apart to deter illegal immigration, but rather to “protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders.” This practice is inhumane. The migrant children have already experienced trauma, and being removed from their parents is the last thing they need. And there is no evidence that this policy will do anything to deter migrants fleeing to our southern border. Related video Why immigration is so hard to solve The women and children arriving there these days are not the typical undocumented immigrants of the past. Those migrants mostly came from Mexico to work. But those inflows have dropped sharply. Today’s migrants include women and children fleeing horrific violence, gang recruitment and sexual trafficking in their home countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. They are not trying to sneak into the country illegally. They are presenting themselves to border agents in hopes that they can make a claim for asylum – which they are legally entitled to do. Under the Trump administration, parents are being kept in detention centers while children are sent to shelters run by nongovernmental organizations. There, workers seek to find a relative or guardian in the US who can care for the children. But these children already have a parent in the US who can care for them – the parents who brought them here. Given the harrowing journeys northward that such migrants endure, wrenching kids from their mothers once they reach the US hardly seems in the “best interests” of the children. Separating parents and children who are seeking asylum makes it harder for both parties to win permission to stay in the US. To be granted asylum, a foreign national must first convince a government officer that he or she faces a “credible fear of persecution” back home. For parents, this will be harder to do without other family members to corroborate their stories. Now imagine how unaccompanied children, who may not speak English, will fare, navigating our immigration system on their own. Related video CNN fact-checks Trump immigration claims Erecting hurdles to people with valid asylum claims also raises constitutional concerns, as a potential violation of due process rights – rights that all people, not just citizens, are guaranteed in this country. In February, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the Trump administration for allegedly forcibly separating a mother and child seeking asylum for nearly four months. While that case has not yet been resolved, it noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics opposed the government’s practice of separating immigrant children from their parents. In fact, more than 200 child welfare and juvenile justice organizations signed a letter in January to the Department of Homeland Security urging it to halt plans to separate immigrant children from their parents. It read, in part:  “The psychological distress, anxiety, and depression associated with separation of a parent would follow the children well after the immediate period of separation – even after the eventual reunification with a parent or other family.” Jessica Vaughan, policy director of the Center for Immigration studies, a group that favors restrictions on legal as well as illegal immigration, told the Times that she was concerned about some migrants using children as “human shields” to get out of custody earlier. Yet despite her concerns about fraud, even she said that family separation should only be used as a “last resort.” Related video John Oliver mocks US immigration court system Consider that US taxpayers bear the added cost of keeping parents in detention while their children go through the foster care system. That represents an expenditure of public money that could be lower if families were allowed to stay together. Moreover, breaking up families runs counter to the family unity principle that guides our immigration laws, family laws, and the UN High Commission on Refugees. Separating vulnerable migrant children from their parents is harsh and unnecessary. There is nothing right about tearing families apart. An earlier version of this commentary, due to an editing error, gave the incorrect title for Jessica Vaughan. She is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies,

Trump administration family separation policy


President Barack Obama has repeatedly charged that opponents of the deal are pushing for war with Iran as they did in Iraq. Jewish organizations say administration's rhetoric concerns their members, who are sensitive to suggestion of Jews' warmongering Some prominent members of the American Jewish community are increasingly worried that the rhetoric the Obama administration is using to defend the Iran deal could fuel a backlash against Jews. In recent days, President Barack Obama has repeatedly charged that opponents of the deal are pushing for war with Iran as they did in Iraq and has decried the well-funded lobbying campaign behind them. The White House says Obama is simply offering what he regards as a stark truth about the options facing lawmakers and what he’s up against. But American Jewish organizations – who maintain the President himself isn’t intentionally fueling stereotypes – say the themes concern their members, who are sensitive to any suggestion of Jews’ warmongering or placing ties to Israel over the interests of the United States. Abraham Foxman, until recently the head of the Anti-Defamation League, which combats racism and anti-Semitism, said the language Obama is using could end up “fueling and legitimizing anti-Semitic stereotypes out there that Jews are warmongers.” READ: Washington battle rages over Iran nuclear deal’s fate Meanwhile, Jewish supporters of the Iran deal wonder whether the increasingly harsh language coming from Republican presidential candidates and groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee could inflict damage on the American Jewish community as a whole. Pro-Israel and Jewish organizations are among those objecting most strongly to the deal and leading lobbying campaigns, many of which cite threats to Israel’s security as a reason for Congress to oppose the deal when it votes in mid-September. In particular, AIPAC has launched a $20 million-plus effort against the agreement, including TV ads, emails and visits to congressional offices. The White House, for its part, has launched a major press for congressional support, holding classified briefings with Cabinet members, providing one-on-one sessions with the President for certain wavering lawmakers and making full use of the bully pulpit, where some of the rhetoric discomfiting Jews has been uttered. In a major speech Wednesday defending the deal, Obama declared that “many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.” He also said that “because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.” He delivered a similar message about the Iraq War in a conference call he held last week urging progressive groups to speak in support of the deal amid the intense efforts to defeat it. Related video Obama on Netanyahu's criticisms of the Iran deal “The lobbying that is taking place on the other side is fierce, it is well-financed, it is relentless,” he told them. “And in the absence of your voices, you are going to see the same array of forces that got us into the Iraq War, leading to a situation in which we forgo a historic opportunity and we are back on the path of potential military conflict.” Foxman stressed that Obama wasn’t deliberately touching on stereotypes. “I know the President, I’ve heard him, I’ve met him. I don’t think any of it is intentional,” he said. But he added, “Some of us in the community are troubled the messaging will be used and abused by bigots.” Foxman, who noted that he was speaking in a personal capacity as he is no longer with the Anti-Defamation League, also objected to administration statements that have singled out Israel. “To say Israelis are the only ones in the world opposed – it’s troubling messaging,” Foxman said. Asked to respond to Foxman’s comments, a senior administration official said, in part, “we have engaged in extensive outreach with members of the Jewish community over the past several months,” and that “we’ve been clear in the context of this deal that we remain stalwart in our commitment to Israel and its security.” Another Jewish organization, this one partisan, criticized Obama for going after the lobbyists and wealthy backers of anti-deal campaigns. Jewish groups fear that such descriptions dredge up stereotypes connecting Jews and money. “President Obama should stick to the facts and stop demonizing Americans who are rightly skeptical of his dubious deal with the Tehran regime,” Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks said in a statement following the call. It’s not just those on the right in the Jewish community who are concerned about the increasingly acrimonious spat between the administration and pro-Israel groups. “My biggest concern here is that the more we frame this debate with vitriol, the more likely we inflict severe damage for the Jewish community,” said Greg Rosenbaum, chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, which supports Obama’s Iran deal. READ: Obama tries to reassure American Jewish leaders on Iran He said the growing ugliness between Obama and Jewish groups – paired with remarks like that of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, who claimed with the Iran deal that Obama “will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven” – could be harmful. “I’ve used the word ‘fratricide’ to describe the terms of the debate,” he continued, arguing that Obama – faced with tens of millions of dollars in opposition ads – “can’t sit there with his hands tied and not use the arguments at his disposal because the people on the other side think that hurts them.” An official at a second progressive Jewish organization, who spoke anonymously to protect his group’s relationship with the White House, described Obama as having punched “below the belt” in his rhetoric opposing the deal. But he indicated that Jewish groups using hardball tactics to oppose the deal have to some extent invited the harsh criticism, because “when you play rough, that’s what happens.” He also predicted that Obama’s anti-war approach could be effective in garnering the support of “rank-and-file” American Jews, most of whom opposed the Iraq War and voted for him as president. Polls of Americans Jews have found that they tend to back the Iran deal in higher numbers than the general public. In July, a Jewish Journal survey found that 53% think Congress should approve the deal versus 35% who don’t. In contrast, a CNN poll that month found that 52% of Americans overall think Congress should reject the deal, while 44% say it should be approved. Moreover, many Jewish Democrats in Congress – including California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz – have said they support the plan. However, the highest-ranking Jewish senator, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, said last week he opposes it. And certain organized Jewish groups, such as AIPAC, are among the most vocal, and active, in their opposition to the deal. There are also Jewish groups, such as the liberal J Street, that have been lobbying for it to pass, though the $5 million they’ve allocated is dwarfed by AIPAC’s budget. Both groups were among the 22 Jewish organizations whose leaders met with Obama at the White House on Tuesday night to discuss the Iran nuclear deal. Several of those in attendance lodged complaints that the President’s arguments for the deal – including predicting war if Congress voids it – were damaging to American Jews and made a direct appeal that the debate over the Iran nuclear accord not be framed that way. Related video Chuck Schumer to oppose Iran nuclear deal Obama responded that he was mindful and sensitive to those concerns but underscored that he truly believes that if the deal is struck down, war could be in short order. Several participants described the exchange as the most intense moment of the meeting. On Wednesday, the President continued with that line of argument. “Let’s not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some sort of war – maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon,” he said. White House press secretary Josh Earnest pushed back against the criticism of Obama’s line of attack – also leveled by many Republicans – in a press briefing Thursday. Asked about the charge that Obama was painting opponents of the deal as warmongers, Earnest said the President was “pointing out a simple fact.” He also said the President “is disappointed that too often critically important policy issues like this get reduced to whoever can spend the most amount of money advocating for or against it.” Earnest emphasized that there were places of agreement between pro-Israel advocates and the White House. “The concerns that some of the strongest supporters of Israel have about Iran are entirely justified,” Earnest said. “The President has those concerns.” Obama himself also spoke in his address Wednesday about his attention to Israel’s perspective and his belief that this deal protects Israel as well as the United States. “I have also listened to the Israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran for decades. In fact, they helped develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal,” he said. “So to friends of Israel, and to the Israeli people, I say this: A nuclear-armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief.” Foxman noted Obama’s deep conviction about the importance of getting the deal through Congress in discussing his strategy for achieving that result. “The President feels very strongly on this – this is his legacy. And he’s using every weapon in the arsenal he’s got,” Foxman said. “But some of the arrows in his quiver might land in the wrong place.”

Obama administration's rhetoric defending the Iran nuclear deal


During the 1970s, a span of work from a group of revolutionary, sex-positive female artists was deemed too sexually explicit to be put on show. At the time, art dealer Leo Castelli famously said of video art pioneer Natalia LL’s pieces that played on physical sensuality: “America is not ready for this.” New York- and Warsaw-based curator Alison Gingeras challenged Frieze art fair in London to bring back these artworks in a special exhibition – aptly titled “Sex Work” – that asks the question again: are we ready for pieces a number of feminists also thought should be kept in the dark? Gingeras has no doubt: “In terms of context the world is ready because we are seeing … an egregious return of misogyny incoming directly from, for example, the president of the US. To go back in history and look at female artists who are using their sexual agency. It’s a retaliation against President Trump’s ‘grab them by the pussy,’ disgusting, degrading treatment of women.” The American curator, who has held positions at institutions like Paris’ Pompidou Center and the Guggenheim Museum in New York, is no stranger to sex-positive feminism: her first official show at Dallas Contemporary, “Black Sheep Feminism: The Art of Sexual Politics” looked into sexual mores. With “Sex Work,” she aims to celebrate nine woman artists who dared to put a transgressive spin on sexuality and who, for their forward-looking, feminist oeuvre, were suppressed from the commercial gallery narrative. On the walls at Frieze there will be works by California-based artist Penny Slinger, whose surrealist collages opened new doors into female sexuality and enlarged the erotic imagery bank, and from American artist Marilyn Minter, a nightlife staple of the 1970s, whose style borrowed as much from advertising as from pornography. Polish artist Natalia LL, also part of the exhibition, notoriously indulged in bananas and frankfurters on screen, which caused uproar and titillation in equal parts. The 1970s are known for the sexual revolution, but this period was also teeming with feminist sex wars on more divisive themes like pornography. “I was writing about the artist Jeff Koons, who infamously made this body of work in which he pictured himself with his wife, who is a famous Italian politician and porn star, Cicciolina, and I realized … that all of these women artists – decades before – were making work way more audacious than his,” said Gingeras about her initial interest in sex-positive feminism. “In fact, they formed a kind of matriarchy of art that paved the way for (Jeff Koons’) body of work that got a lot of attention and propelled him to worldwide fame. “I was looking at all the artists that seemed to have been left out of the first big exhibitions (about feminist art history) by major museums and the common denominator had to do with graphic sexuality.” All nine artists have been boycotted for their views on sexuality. Dorothy Iannone, nicknamed the original bad girl, had her works seized at a 1969 exhibition in Bern, Switzerland, and Penny Slinger saw thousands of copies of her book “Mountain Ecstasy” not only confiscated, but burned. “The sad truth is that a lot of these artists are still forgotten or they don’t have galleries – or if they have galleries, they can’t afford to do an art fair and come to London and engage the expense.” Is there an artist she wishes could have been included in the exhibition at Frieze? “Anita Steckel, who founded a group in the 1970s called Fight Censorship, which was a group of sex-positive feminist women who … were shunned. There are a few women in that group who are still alive and are amazing artists, but they haven’t found gallery representation.” The artists Gingeras gathered for “Sex Work” have found fame later in life (all of them are over 60 years old now) as their work is uncovered by new and engaged audiences from younger generations, showing the art world it is never too late to mend. “Someone like Betty Tompkins or Judith Bernstein are having their first reception while they’re in their 70s and they’ve become cult figures in the New York art world. If you didn’t know any better you’d think they were the young hot artist on the block even though they’re not – in terms of chronology – but in many ways, they are.” “Sex Work: Feminist Art & Radical Politics” is on display at Frieze London until Oct. 8, 2017.


A White House deputy press secretary shared a recent conversation with his Uber driver during a CNN interview Monday as an example of why the Russia investigation has gone on too long. Hogan Gidley told CNN’s Anderson Cooper he was talking with his Uber driver “just yesterday” about politics and the Trump presidency when the driver brought up the investigation into Russian election meddling in 2016 and any possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Gidley said the driver was unaware he worked for the White House. “(The Uber driver) said, ‘A whole year and nothing in the investigation? It’s time for this to end,’” Gidley recalled. “And I think he shares the opinion of most Americans when if there is no collusion and there is no obstruction, it’s time to quit spending time and, quite frankly, the American people’s money on a witch hunt.” “I’m not sure if the Uber driver is a scientific survey,” Cooper responded. “I wasn’t saying that,” Gidley said. “I was saying it was an anecdote, Anderson.” Gidley’s Uber tale came just hours after President Donald Trump attacked Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff as “one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington” in a tweet. Schiff is the ranking Democrat on the House committee investigating Russian election meddling. Little Adam Schiff, who is desperate to run for higher office, is one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington, right up there with Comey, Warner, Brennan and Clapper! Adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information. Must be stopped! “Little Adam Schiff, who is desperate to run for higher office, is one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington, right up there with Comey, Warner, Brennan and Clapper! Adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information. Must be stopped!” Trump said in the tweet. When asked about Trump’s accusations of the House Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, Gidley backed the President’s position, saying Washington “is full of leaks and nonsense.” “If you’re talking about specific meetings with Adam Schiff and then Republican congressmen, and then information comes out that’s damaging to Republicans, it’s not Republicans leaking it,” Gidley said. “It’s someone like Adam Schiff or his staff.” Earlier Monday, Schiff denied that he or his staff were behind leaks of sensitive information. Gidley also admitted he did not know if Trump had read the controversial Nunes memo before the President was overheard saying he would “100%” release the document in an off-mic remark following his State of the Union address last week. The memo was released last Friday, and now House Democrats are pushing to release their own countering memo soon, and Gidley hinted that Trump would be on board with releasing that one also. RELATED: GOP expected to agree to send Democratic memo to Trump’s desk “I don’t know if he read it at that point or not,” Gidley said. “But I can say that the President will make the same accommodations for the Democrats as he did for the Republicans. He wants sunlight here, he wants this stuff to be out in the open, and he’ll treat it as such.”


The annual report says al Qaeda remains a threat It highlights the threat from violent extremist ideology encouraged by a fundamentalist strain of Sunni Islam Iran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, according to an annual State Department report that pointed to ISIS as the primary non-state threat to US interests and allies. Terrorism around the world declined globally last year, according to the Country Reports on Terrorism 2016. But Iran continues to destabilize the Middle East through proxies such as Hezbollah, exacerbating conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Despite the worldwide dip in terrorism related deaths and fatalities, the report said that militant groups continued to exploit ungoverned areas in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia to plan attacks. And it flagged militant inspired attacks by “home grown lone offenders” who struck in France, Germany and the United States. “ISIS remains the most capable terror organization in 2016,” even as it came under pressure from the US-led coalition fighting the group, Justin Siberell, the State Department’s acting coordinator for counterterrorism, said Wednesday. Siberell said as well that threats remain in the form of a “resilient al Qaeda” and “an Iranian regime that remained a leading state sponsor of terrorism.” Related article US forces helping Philippines battle ISIS-linked fighters President Donald Trump has had Iran in his sights, and has been highly critical of the international pact to restrain its nuclear program that the Obama administration championed. The White House certified that Iran is complying with the agreement Monday, but only after some concern that Trump might walk away from the deal. On Tuesday, the administration announced more sanctions on Tehran. Siberell said the 13% drop in terror attacks from 2015 is due to reduced violence in Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. He said attacks increased in Iraq, Turkey and Somalia and while terrorists struck in 104 countries in 2016, 55% of the attacks took place in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Nigeria and Pakistan. ISIS was responsible for more attacks and deaths than any other group, Siberell said, a grisly trophy claimed by the Taliban in 2015. Related article Is ISIS leader Baghdadi dead or alive? Nobody knows The country terror report, mandated by Congress, made no direct reference to Trump’s ban on travelers and refugees from six Muslim-majority countries, though the individual countries were mentioned. Asked about the restriction on people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, Siberell said that “we as a government want to make sure those governments have capabilities in place” to deal with terrorist groups. “There is in general a concern,” he said. The report notes that ISIS attacks outside its territory are becoming increasingly important as it comes under greater pressure from the US-led coalition and notes that social media remains vital to its recruitment. Al Qaeda also remains a significant worldwide threat, particularly in Yemen, despite sustained US pressure, the report says. The report treads lightly over the ongoing tensions in the Persian Gulf, where Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt have cut diplomatic relations with Qatar – home to a major US military base – accusing it of backing terrorists and of cozying up to Iran. Related article The next steps in the fight against ISIS With Secretary of State Rex Tillerson continuing his efforts to help find a solution, the agency’s report carefully notes that all countries involved are members of the anti ISIS coalition and are engaged in counter terrorism initiatives. The report notes that a common thread linking many terrorists was adherence to violent extremist ideology encouraged by a fundamentalist strain of Sunni Islam. The report notes that many critics see Saudi Arabia as an exporter of this kind of fundamentalism, then goes on to detail various Saudi government efforts to counter extremism. The report takes a similar approach with Qatar, avoiding mention of the current dispute and offering detailed listings of the ways Doha works to fight terror. The report is equally careful about the Palestinian Authority, saying that it is doing what it can, where it has the authority to do so, but more can be done. It says that during the tenure of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority “has taken significant steps” to ensure that “official institutions in the West Bank under its control do not create or disseminate content that incites violence.” The report also notes that Abbas has tried to address terror financing, but the decree he issued “does not fully meet international standards as it does not criminalize all forms of material support or the financing of an individual terrorist in the absence of a link to a specific terrorist act.” And it notes that while some Palestinian Authority leaders have made provocative and inflammatory comments, the PA itself “has made progress in reducing official rhetoric that could be considered incitement to violence.”


The GOP fight could jeopardize Congress's ability to meet the Sept. 17 deadline to weigh in on the Iran deal House Speaker John Boehner told reporters Iran was the issue he heard the most about during the summer recess House Republican leaders are changing tactics on the Iran nuclear deal after blowback from conservatives. GOP leaders are grappling with opposition from conservatives who earlier Wednesday delayed the start of debate on a resolution that would block the nuclear accord. Conservatives are calling on the White House to hand over more details about the nuclear agreement. To get around the sudden obstacle, House leaders devised a plan intended to address conservative concerns by paving the way for a legal challenge over the implementation of the deal. The House will vote on a measure that says President Barack Obama violated the law by not turning over all the details of the historic agreement his administration reached with Iran. The House would also vote on a resolution of approval on the nuclear deal – to put the House on record as having a majority that opposes it – and another measure that would prevent Obama from unilaterally lifting any sanctions on Iran passed by Congress. But it’s the legal process that GOP leaders hope will bring conservatives on board and keep the House on track to finish voting on Iran by Friday. Leadership believes it now has enough buy-in from rank-and-file members to start debate on Thursday and aim to finish voting by Friday. Related video Hillary Clinton: I support Iran nuclear deal A GOP aide said that this approach “lays the groundwork for a potential legal challenge and takes away legitimacy of President being able to say he used legal process to secure this deal.” “I think that a lot of the dialogue we had today was talking up setting up a lawsuit,” Arizona Republican Rep. Matt Salmon told reporters. Salmon told reporters that the move to set out this new process comes as House Republicans recognize that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid likely has enough votes to prevent any debate on the GOP resolution to try to block the deal. After presenting this new plan, House Speaker John Boehner received a couple of standing ovations from members, according to a Republican who attended the meeting. “I don’t know anybody that said I won’t vote for this, ” Salmon said. House leaders think a vote of approval will get around the obstacle imposed by conservatives who earlier Wednesday delayed the start of debate by calling for the administration to hand over more information on the deal before holding a vote. They claimed that because the administration hadn’t turned over the arrangements for inspections of nuclear sites worked out between Iran and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it hadn’t fulfilled the requirements of the Iran Review Act and the House shouldn’t move ahead with a vote. Under that act, Congress has 60 days from the day it received the completed agreement to hold a vote, which could derail the pact. If Congress misses that deadline, the nuclear agreement automatically begins to be implemented. That date has been seen as Sept. 17, but conservatives are arguing that that deadline doesn’t apply because the administration didn’t pass along all the details of the so-called side deals with the IAEA. The Iran Review Act also allows Obama to waive sanctions after that date, so long as Congress doesn’t vote to disapprove the deal, but since the House is now looking at operating outside that framework, GOP leaders want to make clear that they don’t think Obama would have the right to lift them. But if Congress doesn’t meet the Sept. 17 deadline for a vote, whatever the Republican arguments, it could throw into question the ability of Congress to weigh in on the deal at all. READ: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz join forces on Iran Both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker argued Wednesday that delaying the vote as some House Republicans want is currently not the best strategy. “As I understand the law … we have to act before Sept, 17, which is next week, or the deal does forward,” McConnell said. They said that if Congress doesn’t act by Sept. 17, the sanctions will be lifted and the deal will be approved. McConnell set things into motion Thursday on a Senate vote by filing a motion to end debate. The vote could take place Thursday afternoon, but there’s a possibility for it to slide to Friday. Republicans are better off acting within the allotted time frame to demonstrate that a bipartisan majority of the Congress oppose the deal, they argued. Corker said he has had  “conversations” with some of the House Republicans pushing this strategy. “There is a lot of dissension on how to proceed with the Iran resolution – a lot,” Kentucky GOP Rep. Tom Massie said after a closed door meeting with all House Republican members earlier Wednesday. After leadership unveiled its new three-vote plan, Massie told CNN that “it’s important to preserve the right to sue” but that he was still mulling over whether he would fully back all three components of the new plan. With a Jewish holiday falling early next week, there is limited time for the vote. On Tuesday, Illinois Republican Rep. Peter Roskam introduced a resolution that effectively postponed any vote until the administration turns over information on Iran’s agreement with the IAEA. “My expectation is that it will put the attention on the administration to comply with the law,” Roskam told CNN. The Illinois lawmaker, who was once part of House Speaker John Boehner’s leadership team, added, “it’s impossible to ask the House to vote on something where there are secret arrangements.” Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz joined the call for the delay, arguing that because Congress wasn’t given all the information, the mid-September deadline for a vote laid out in the Iran Review Act didn’t apply. “The administration has not submitted the deal,” Cruz said, adding, “Republicans in this body should not be facilitating this president yet again disregarding the law and doing so in contravention of the national security interests of this country.” Boehner acknowledged that the morning GOP meeting included a “healthy conversation” over the issue and mentioned Roskam’s proposal. Boehner told reporters Iran was the issue he heard the most about during his travels over the summer recess. “At this point I think the president has lost this debate with the American people,” Boehner said, adding, “we’re going to do all we can to continue to try and stop this bad deal.” Related video Chris Christie: Obama lied about Iran Deal However, even if the House vote against the deal goes through, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continues to say there is enough support among House Democrats to sustain the President’s promised veto of the bill, should it get to that. In the Senate, Democratic aides said Wednesday that they were increasingly confident that the 42 Democratic supporters of the deal would also vote to block it from coming up for a final vote. Doing so would frustrate Republicans but be a boost to the White House, which would prefer not to have to veto the disapproval resolution and face an override vote from Republicans in Congress, even though it is assured to fail. “We have high hopes that because 42 senators have made it clear that they support the agreement, we hope that the Senate will move rapidly to do the business of our country – not of a party, but the business of our nation – and we hope that will happen very soon,” Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters after meeting privately with a group of about 20 Senate Democrats. During the meeting, he urged the senators to block the vote from taking place, according to two senators who attended the meeting. Senate Democratic leaders caution they won’t know for sure where the votes are until they are cast on a procedural motion, probably later this week, although it is not scheduled yet. Democrats will huddle in a caucus meeting Wednesday, at which point they might have a better idea of where the votes stand, aides said. With the Senate GOP leaders already saying they would go ahead and move forward on their own resolution of disapproval, the House votes are more intended to send a message than to effectively blocking the Iran deal. “This is a process to try to communicate some of our reservations to the American people,” Utah Republican Rep Chris Stewart told reporters.


North Korea test-fied its Hwasong-15 missile Wednesday Pyongyang has been caught editing photographs in the past The photographs North Korean state media released of last week’s Hwasong-15 nighttime missile test appear to have been tampered with, an analyst told CNN. Marco Langbroek, a space expert who tracks North Korea’s missile program, told CNN he noticed something strange about the stars in images taken from opposite sides of the missile launch. “You should see constellations that are opposites in the sky. That is not the case,” he said. Langbroek determined the direction of the photos based on the shape of the plumes of smoke coming from the rocket engine. More evidence of tampered #Hwasong15 imagery: two images, mirrors of each other (look at exhaust plume, lack of number on missile body 2nd image) so opposite viewpoints. Yet starfield in background both south-southeast, Orion and Canis major (but with Sirius missing!)@planet4589 pic.twitter.com/ZqfygbOwFa In the early hours of Wednesday, North Korea test-fired what is believed to be its most technologically advanced long-range ballistic missile.  North Korea state media reported the Hwasong-15 reached an altitude of 4,475 kilometers (2,800 miles), putting the “whole” US mainland in range. Langbroek, who is based in the Dutch city of Leiden, said he’s been studying the photos since they were released by North Korean state media last week. Something was off; to shoot stars, photographers use a longer exposure to more let light in. However, the longer exposure means that movement is captured as a blur. When photographing a missile at night, photographers would use a wide-open aperture and fast shutter speed to capture the missile’s rapid ascent. Stars wouldn’t show up that clearly in an image, even in North Korea, where there’s very low light pollution. “They looked so crisp, that just didn’t seem right to me,” said Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who corresponds with Langbroek. So, I just discovered that the North Koreans DID tamper with their #Hwasong15 launch photo's! Two images from clearly same viewpoint, but dramatically different star backgrounds! Orion (Southeast) versus Andromeda (Northwest)! @planet4589 pic.twitter.com/ZzhFa3HwaM Not all the images appear to be tampered with, Langbroek said. One shot of the Hwasong-15 erected before launch shows the stars in the background, but also shows blurry individuals in the bottom-right corner, a sign that a long exposure was used to capture the night sky. North Korea has a reputation of altering images it releases to the world, tampering with everything from Kim Jong Un’s ears to hovercrafts conducting an amphibious landing. The concern with aesthetics could explain why North Korea may have tampered with its missile photos. The starry background helps highlight the missile and give it an ethereal quality, giving the photograph some texture that a near pitch-black background would not. But the enhancements could also throw off those who study North Korea’s missile program. North Korea has conducted most of this year’s missiles tests during daylight hours, and background landmarks help analysts locate exactly where a missile was launched. That’s an important data point that helps experts calculate everything from range to payload. Using stars to locate where a missile was launched is much more difficult. “Stars just don’t look that different a few miles apart, and we have no reason to disbelieve that this launch was from the Pyongsong region north of Pyongyang,” McDowell  said. By conducting the launch at night and altering backgrounds, it’s possible that Pyongyang was trying to throw everyone off. Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear weapons expert at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said on his latest podcast his team will use forensic software to lighten the nighttime images for clues. When asked about Langbroek’s findings, Lewis told CNN they are still running the images. But McDowell believes the images were only edited for aesthetics because the missile itself does not appear to have been altered. “I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence of that, so it looks like they just cut out a star background and put it on to make it look cool,” he said.


The Secretary of State said the U.S. had "no plans whatsoever to alter the current migration policy." Kerry said it was too early to judge how the rapprochement was proceeding and whether Cuba was reforming. Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba will need time to work, and that the U.S. won’t give Cuba a pass on human rights violations in the meantime. Asked about a rise in detentions and recent apparent human rights violations by the authoritarian regime in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott in Cuba, Kerry denied that the Cubans were testing America. “I don’t think so,” Kerry said. “I think what’s happened is there is a certain amount of habit, and it’s playing out, and that’s what has to change, and we will confront those situations.” “We’re very outspoken, and we will remain very clear and outspoken on these issues,” Kerry said. “We had a very direct conversation today about human rights. They’re ready to engage on these issues, and let’s see what progress can be made. … If they challenge their own citizens on the issue of human rights, you will hear us loudly and clearly taking them on with respect to that.” He noted that State Department spokesman John Kirby publicly criticized Cuba for detentions over the weekend. Kerry also said it was too early to judge how the rapprochement was proceeding and whether Cuba was reforming. “We only just finished the negotiation on diplomatic relations a month and a half ago, two months ago. We are just literally months into this after 54 years,” Kerry said. Related video U.S. Embassy reopens in Cuba READ: John Kerry reopens embassy in Cuba, but tensions remain In a joint press conference earlier Friday with Cuba’s foreign minister, Kerry said the U.S. was standing by its “wet-foot, dry-foot” policy with respect to migrants, saying there are “no plans whatsoever to alter the current migration policy.” The current policy allows those Cubans who reach American shores to seek asylum, while most who are found at sea are sent back. The Cuban government has been pushing for the repeal of that policy, which Congress would need to change. Kerry also spoke with CNN about the situation in Syria, saying there’s a chance there may be progress on a political solution for the civil war-torn country. “There’s a sense of an opening possibility only – and we’re exploring whether or not we can find a series of steps that we agree on,” Kerry said of international conversations that include the Russians and Saudis alongside the U.S. “Clearly everybody is seized on this issue right now, because of the threat of ISIS, Dayesh, that is growing, and the disorder and catastrophe that Syria has become.” But the U.S. still needs to find agreement with those parties about the key players. “Right now the Saudis, the Russians and we have sat together and tried to define whether we can find agreement on who the opposition is,” he noted. Kerry said that there has not yet been an attempt to bring Iran into the conversation after striking a recent deal with the nation over its nuclear program. “Obviously down the road at some point Iran could play a role, but we don’t know yet whether they’re ready to and willing to and capable of it,” Kerry said.


Bridge work may require temporarily "dewatering" Niagara's American Falls Falls have been shut down before, in 1969, for Corps of Engineers project Niagara Falls! Mighty cascade of water! Font of hydroelectricity, tourism, romance, wildlife! But waterfalls are no friend to bridges – and that may require one of Niagara’s fabled falls to be shut off for a time. A proposal to replace two 115-year-old bridges connecting the U.S. mainland with Goat Island – a green space located between American Falls and Bridal Veil Falls – may require shutting down the American Falls, according to an assessment from New York State’s park and transportation agencies (PDF). About 85% of the Niagara River flows over Horseshoe Falls – on the Canadian side of the border – while the rest goes over over American Falls. To “dewater” the American Falls, officials would build a temporary cofferdam that would redirect the entire river flow to Horseshoe Falls. “Dewatering is necessary for two reasons,” the report says. “The existing 115-year old bridges need to be demolished. The river channel must be dewatered in order to demolish and remove the bridges. “(And) the piers and abutments for the replacement bridges must be constructed ‘in the dry,’ to allow for safe construction procedures and to ensure that the new foundations are firmly anchored to bedrock.” Stone bridges to Goat Island will be replaced under state's plan to divert water from falls https://t.co/K4W8UbXDHS pic.twitter.com/6eNLFw3rmD CNN affiliate WKBW says it could take as long as nine months to build the new bridges. Locals have mixed feelings about the possibility. “It’s kind of sad that it will be because people won’t be able to come and see it and they won’t be able to see how pretty it is. Some people say it’s spiritual when they come and see it. But I guess they have to do what they have to do,” Kalie Pries told the station. “The American side really needs updating compared to the Canadian side,” said Valerie Beach. “I think the updated stone walkway and new stuff will ultimately boost the economy.” John Percy, CEO of the Niagara Tourism & Convention Corporation, told CNN that the dewatering is “an exciting – even an enormous – marketing opportunity for us.” Viewing the dry falls “could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for many people,” he said. Plus it’s not like the whole Niagara Falls will be shut down; while the American Falls may be dewatered, Canada’s Horseshoe Falls will be at full gush. For some, Percy added, it could be a twice-in-a-lifetime situation, as the falls was also dewatered in 1969. Back then, the Army Corps of Engineers “closed off flow through the channel in order to analyze the stability of the American Falls,” the report said. The novelty of the falls – the subject of Native American legends and an attraction for hundreds of years – being shut off was its own tourist attraction, though at least one observer said the waterless falls wasn’t an impressive sight. “I remember being a little disappointed because the scene was just a desolate landscape of rock, debris, tree limbs and construction equipment,” Robert Borgatti, then a resident of Niagara Falls, New York, told the Buffalo News. There’s concern that an empty falls could hurt tourism this time around. The Niagara Falls area attracts more than 20 million tourists a year. “Dewatering is expected initially be a tourism draw (a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the falls and river channel without water), but after some period of time could negatively impact park attendance, particularly during the summer tourist season,” said the state report. But Percy believes that with the right planning, the waterless falls could create an uptick in tourism. Either way, it’s early yet. A parks department spokesperson told WKBW that there’s no funding yet for the project and the report is simply part of the planning process. Completion of the project, if it goes forward, could be several years away. Residents and interested parties will get their say on Wednesday, when a public hearing is scheduled in the town of Niagara Falls, New York. In other words, when it comes to dewatering the falls, they’ll cross that bridge when they come to it.


Colombia will welcome Pope Francis this week to celebrate the country's peace Its President, Juan Manuel Santos, touts diplomacy as an approach to crises such as North Korea The crisis in Venezuela is a threat to the region and beyond, but military intervention is not a good option, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said Tuesday. Colombia, which borders Venezuela and has been flooded by people fleeing the economic and political strife there, has refused to recognize the new legislature of President Nicolas Maduro but still hopes there will be a peaceful resolution. “The Maduro regime has been shifting towards a dictatorship. I would consider that regime, today, a dictatorship,” Santos told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “A dictatorship in the middle of Latin America, in a country which is as important as Venezuela, is something very bad for everybody,” he said. But Santos rejected US President Donald Trump’s comments about not ruling out a military option. “A military intervention will not be accepted by Colombia or by any other country in Latin America. This is not the way to go about this crisis.” Santos, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his pact with the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, said behind-the-scenes talks were the best route to success, even in a situation as difficult as dealing with North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong Un. “We think that Twitter is the worst way to manage a good diplomacy and I think that through diplomacy, through dialogue, almost any problem can be solved,” he said on “Amanpour.” “If you start escalating in words then the possibility of escalating in real terms, in military terms, will become a closer possibility and that would be a terrible thing for the world,” he said of the current US-North Korean tensions. “My advice, and I think the advice of most of the world, is please insist through diplomatic channels, through dialogue. Because insulting each other from one side to the other and escalating the aggressiveness will only have a bad result.” Santos will welcome Pope Francis to Colombia this week to celebrate the peace with FARC and a new truce with ELN guerrillas. “He comes in the perfect moment to push us, in his own words, for the Colombian society to reconcile, to leave aside 53 years of war, of death, of violence and start working together to construct that peace. He comes in the perfect moment,” Santos said of the pope’s visit. And he hoped war is truly over for his nation. “The guns are silent now. The guns of the FARC, by far the biggest group, are in the hands of the United Nations. They’re going to be converted into three monuments of peace.”


White House waives Jones Act to loosen shipping rules for Puerto Rico But trucker shortage, blocked roads make delivery of supplies already there difficult A mountain of food, water and other vital supplies has arrived in Puerto Rico’s main Port of San Juan. But a shortage of truckers and the island’s devastated infrastructure are making it tough to move aid to where it’s needed most, officials say. At least 10,000 containers of supplies – including food, water and medicine – were sitting Thursday at the San Juan port, said Jose Ayala, the Crowley shipping company’s vice president in Puerto Rico. Related article FEMA on Puerto Rico: 'It's not nearly as fast as any of us want' Part of the reason for the distribution backlog is that only 20% of truck drivers have reported back to work since Hurricane Maria swept through, according to a representative for Puerto Rican Gov. Ricardo Rosselló. On top of that, a diesel fuel shortage and a tangle of blocked roads mean the distribution of supplies is extremely challenging. Even contacting drivers is a problem because cell towers are still down. Puerto Ricans waiting for aid “When we say we that we don’t have truck drivers, we mean that we have not been able to contact them,” Rosselló said. Related article Trump authorizes waiver to loosen shipping regulations for Puerto Rico On Thursday the White House authorized a 10-day waiver of the Jones Act, a federal law that limits shipping to US ports by foreign vessels. Puerto Rico’s governor and other US officials had argued that a waiver would expedite supplies to the island. But as Ayala has indicated, shipping companies already have aid and supplies either waiting at the port to be delivered – or held up at ports on the US mainland. Of the 3,000 containers that Crowley alone had sent to San Juan’s port as of Wednesday, only 4% had been dispatched from there, Ayala said. Ayala said the company can’t get enough truck drivers or trucks filled up with diesel to pick up supplies for distribution across the island. Related gallery Hurricane Maria slams the Caribbean “The problem has been with the logistics, the parts of the supply chain that move the cargo from our terminal to the shelves or to the tables of the people in Puerto Rico,” Ayala said Wednesday. “This hurricane was catastrophic.” How to help the victims of Hurricane Maria Meanwhile, Puerto Ricans are waiting hours in line to get gas, food and cash. Gas stations and supermarkets are rationing supplies, while banks are running low on cash. Natalia Manteiga waited outside a supermarket Wednesday in Old San Juan that was letting in a few people at a time. She wanted to get water, tuna, and Chef Boyardee for her two children and her husband – who had waited for hours Tuesday to get $20 worth of gas. No gas. No food. No power. With stifling humidity and temperatures in the high 90s, it started to rain on Mantiega and dozens of other hopeful shoppers trying to get food. Manteiga, who works for a tourism firm, said she’s running low on cash, too. “It’s difficult when you have kids. You want to make sure they have enough food,” said Manteiga. “They told me the banks are refilling, but we don’t know and the lines are very long.” CNN’s Jason Morris, Marilia Brocchetto, Patricia Pedraza and Bijan Hosseini contributed to this report.


The Senate rejected an effort to repeal the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations The vote on Sen. Rand Paul's amendment did not break down along party lines The Senate on Wednesday voted against an attempt from Sen. Rand Paul to repeal the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations the US military uses to fight terrorism across the globe. The Senate voted 61-36 in a procedural motion to kill Paul’s amendment, which would have repealed the two Authorizations for Use of Military Force after six months, giving Congress a window to draft a new, updated war authorization. Paul, a Kentucky Republican, has argued that the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations – which were passed to authorize military action against Al Qaeda and in Iraq – are hopelessly out of date as the military focuses on fighting ISIS across the Middle East, a group that didn’t exist at that time. While Paul’s amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was unsuccessful, he said it was a victory just to get the Senate to debate and take a vote on the war authorizations. “It’s the first time in 15 years to actually debate what our role is in declaring an initiation of war,” Paul told reporters just before the vote. “The problem with waiting for the AUMF first, for a new authorization, is we’ve been waiting 16 years, and it’s not coming without somebody giving somebody a kick in the seat in the pants.” The vote did not break down along party lines. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois were among the Democrats joining Paul in his effort to sunset the current war authorizations. All of the Democrats generating buzz about a potential 2020 presidential run, including Warren, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, voted with Paul. Thirteen Democrats voted with most Republicans to defeat the measure Just two Republicans other than Paul, Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Dean Heller of Nevada, voted for the amendment. Related article Mattis, Tillerson talk authorizing ISIS war Paul was also opposed by both Republicans and Democrats, including the two leaders of the Senate armed services committee, Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island. “To rescind the AUMF that authorizes action against these forces – and to leave nothing but uncertainty for our deployed forces and for our allies – is simply irresponsible, and it breaks faith with our volunteer force,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. The Trump administration – and the Obama administration before it – argued they have sufficient legal authority to carry out US military operations against ISIS and Al Qaeda, and that a new one is not needed, although the Trump administration has indicated it isn’t outright opposed to the effort to pass a new one. Wednesday’s vote was the second time this year that Congress has taken action targeting the 2001 war authorization, which was passed just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In June, the House appropriations committee approved an amendment from California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee to sunset the 2001 war authorization. Lee was the only member in the House to vote against the authorization when it passed in 2001. But congressional leaders have been weary of passing a new war authorization, and House Republicans stripped Lee’s amendment out of the defense appropriations bill when it was passed on the floor. In the Senate, Paul forced a vote on his amendment by threatening to object to all other amendments on the NDAA, the massive defense policy bill the Senate is considering this week. Had Paul done so, it would have effectively killed any other amendment votes. Related article House Republicans strip repeal of war authorization from defense bill Paul’s effort isn’t the only one ongoing in the Senate to pass a new war authorization. Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake have introduced a war authorization that the Senate foreign relations committee may consider, which would also sunset the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations with a new five-year authorization for US military operations against ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban and “associated” forces. But Kaine and Flake split on Paul’s amendment. Kaine said he supported Paul’s effort, arguing that it was “way past time for Congress to take this up and for everybody to be on the record.” Flake, however, argued that he supported Paul’s goal, but not his method of repealing the current war authorization without a new one in place. “I cannot support my colleague’s effort to repeal the 2001 AUMF in 6 months because of the very real risk associated with repealing such a vital law before we have something to replace it with,” Flake said. Senate foreign relations chairman Bob Corker said he agreed with Paul that Congress needs to take action on a new war authorization, but said he was opposed to the substance of Paul’s effort. “Doing away with the legal basis under which we’re going against ISIS today, before we’ve implemented and put in place another one, to me is not prudent,” Corker said.

Sen. Rand Paul's amendment to repeal the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations