By the start of John Bolton’s second week as national security adviser, five top officials at the National Security Council had already resigned under pressure, been fired or decided to leave. But even as the White House cites Bolton’s desire – and right – to build his own team, he has yet to announce a single senior hire to replace the departing officials. Instead, he has kept his new staff guessing – feeding a sense of uncertainty and anxiety that has filled NSC offices since his arrival. Following a series of departures, senior and midlevel officials were left wondering who would be next after they were told their résumés were under review by the new boss. The latest departure came Monday with the White House’s acting deputy homeland security adviser Rob Joyce giving notice of his departure, Marc Raimondi, an NSC spokesman, told CNN. “Nobody told him that he has to leave,” Raimondi said. “He just realizes that it’s time for him to go back to NSA. It’s not imminent and it’s not forced.” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Joyce “conveyed his intent to return to his home agency” and would help with the transition. Joyce called his work as the White House’s cybersecurity coordinator “a tremendous opportunity” and said in a statement he looks forward “to continuing to serving our nation at the agency I’ve called home for the last 27 years.” Just last week, Joyce’s boss, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert, was pushed out. And just like Bossert’s, Joyce’s exit was unexpected. The former head of the NSA hacking team Tailored Access Operations Unit was recently considered a possible choice to lead the National Security Agency as its first civilian director, one source said.  And he gave notice of his plans to leave the NSC shortly before jumping on an official briefing call with reporters to discuss US monitoring of Russian hacking. Related article Deputy national security adviser Nadia Schadlow resigns There was a sense earlier Monday morning that morale was picking back up after a series of resignations and firings shook the NSC last week – but the Joyce news reignited the anxiety, multiple sources close to the NSC told CNN. And that uncertain state of play comes as the administration is dealing with a host of urgent foreign policy issues, from the fallout of the US response to Syria’s suspected chemical weapons attack to the prospect of direct talks with North Korea. “No one knows what’s going on,” one source close to the NSC told CNN. “It’s a bit chaotic.” The White House declined to comment on the chaotic nature of Bolton’s transition and the anxiety his tenure has provoked among some in the NSC. Two days after the NSC’s chief spokesman, Michael Anton, resigned after learning Bolton planned to fire him, Bossert was ousted hours after leaving a national security conference on the administration’s behalf. The next day, the deputy national security adviser for strategy, Nadia Schadlow, told her staff she had resigned. The following day, it was deputy national security adviser Ricky Waddell’s turn to submit a letter of resignation. The latter two won’t leave their posts immediately, to ensure a smooth transition, but despite the slew of departures Bolton has yet to announce a single new hire, and his advisers outside the White House have kept quiet about who will fill out senior roles at the NSC. “It makes sense for Bolton to think about bringing in his own NSC staff leaders, like the people in senior director roles, which are often political. That’s typical,” Loren Schulman, the director for defense policy at the NSC from 2011 to 2012, told CNN. “But a ‘purge’ as people are talking about of the director level staff – usually detailees from other agencies – makes no sense.” While the NSC’s human resources staff has begun to compile résumés for Bolton’s review, the national security adviser spent much of his first week in meetings with President Donald Trump or his coterie of top foreign policy advisers deliberating the US response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. But even before his official start, an orderly transition didn’t appear to be top of mind for Bolton, who didn’t meet with the NSC official who former national security adviser H.R. McMaster had designated to help with the transition until last Thursday – the day before McMaster left the White House for good. Bolton additionally did not meet with the rest of the professional staff prior to starting. While it’s normal for Bolton to hire some of his own trusted advisers, the high turnover at the National Security Council is unusual. During President Barack Obama’s tenure, about 90% of the employees at the NSC were career professionals on rotation, collating advice for the President from their different agencies and experts for one or two years before returning. When McMaster took over from Lt. Gen Michael Flynn as Trump’s second national security adviser, he took his time but also fired some controversial NSC officials including Rich Higgins, the alleged author of a memo about the “deep state.” Other NSC members resigned. “We did our best to try to have a responsible transition and handoff. But his team just really didn’t seem interested in that,” a former NSC official said. “Does he have a team that he can replace the current people with? And will they be ready to be in place by the time the current team is gone?” While those officials are certain to have home agencies to return to, they are uncertain what their day-to-day lives will be like under Bolton. A second former NSC official expressed concern that the politicization had gone too far – and that people McMaster fired might resurface in new roles now he’s gone. The uncertainty has sent morale plummeting to “Flynn level lows,” one source close to the NSC said, referencing the chaotic firing of Trump’s first national security adviser. “It’s a counter purge to the McMaster purge … it’s just a sad state of affairs,” a second source close to the NSC said. The pace of firings and resignations, compounded by a lack of new hires, has also flummoxed and frustrated the West Wing. One senior White House official lamented the staff shake-up’s haphazard nature, though White House Director of Social Media Dan Scavino Jr. gleefully tweeted his support of Bolton’s purge: “Look out leakers, here comes Bolton!” Great news. Get ‘em ALL @AmbJohnBolton! Look👀out leakers!! Here comes Bolton... https://t.co/RiPFDvSxnB Instead of firm signals from Bolton, rumors of a “list” of officials he intends to fire have abounded. Brian McKeon, the NSC’s chief of staff from 2012 to 2014, conceded that Bolton has the discretion to fill appointments but worried the the tumultuous transition would be disruptive. “I don’t think it makes sense to have so much tumult immediately,” McKeon said. “To have all these deputies leaving nearly simultaneously is a big disruption, given the amount of work that goes on at the deputy level.” The state of play has also contributed to confusion about at least one major decision, with the top staffers handling Latin America issues finding out that Trump was canceling his trip there via White House press release, two sources said. In this administration, it isn’t uncommon for the NSC to be left out of the loop, but the timing compounded the current sense of frustration. The NSC can’t force the policy makers it serves to keep it in the loop, Schulman told CNN. “We’ve seen before that in moments of distraction or leadership vacuums the Trump administration is pretty bad at announcing and implementing complex decisions,” Schulman said. NSC officials have also complained about struggling to coordinate policymaking with the national security adviser’s front office, which saw several key aides depart at the same time as McMaster. Ylli Bajraktari, the former special assistant to Pentagon Deputy Secretary Bob Work hired to the NSC by McMaster, Megan Badasch, the NSC’s deputy executive secretary, and Fernando Cutz, the former director for South America who moved to McMaster’s front office last summer, all departed on McMaster’s last day. “There is a lot of anxiety in the NSC about Bolton and a wait and see attitude about whether he actually understands the role of the national security adviser – to honestly collect and represent diverse agency views and present them to POTUS,” one of the sources said. “Folks aren’t hopeful so far.” Now, officials are bracing themselves for more departures. Schadlow’s staff has “no idea what’s going on” and is unsure of their future at the NSC, the source said. And “almost every senior director is pretty nervous,” another source said. One current NSC official worried a “purge” was coming to bear. “A big mistake the administration has made is to see career foreign service officers and civil servants as the enemy, part of some fictitious deep state opposed to Mr. Trump,” Tony Blinken, former national security adviser to Obama, told CNN. “To the contrary, they are patriots who want the success of whichever administration they are working for.” CNN’s Zachary Cohen contributed to this report.


General David Petraeus says he would serve in President-elect Trump's team, if requested Petraeus, who oversaw military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, quit as CIA Director after affair Trump would be the third President the four-star general has served under Former CIA director Gen. David Petraeus says he would serve in US President-elect Donald Trump’s administration, if requested. The four-star general, who oversaw military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, told BBC Radio 4’s flagship “Today” program that if Trump asked for his help, “the only response can be: ‘Yes, Mr President.’” Related video Events leading to Petraeus resignation Petraeus, 64, stepped down as CIA director in 2012 following an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. He had been in the post for just over a year. The Justice Department later recommended felony charges against him for sharing classified information with her. He pleaded guilty to one charge as part of a plea deal, and was sentenced to two years’ probation and fined $100,000. At the time, politicians from both sides of the aisle backed Petraeus, and spoke out against the Justice Department for pursuing the case. In the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory, there has been widespread speculation that he could be put forward as Secretary of State in the new administration. Related video Petraeus rebuilds his reputation Petraeus served under both President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush. “I’ve been in a position before where a president has turned to me in the Oval Office in a difficult moment, without any pleasantries, and said ‘I’m asking you as your president and Commander in Chief to take command of the international security force in Afghanistan,” Petraeus told the BBC. “The only response can be: ‘Yes, Mr President.’” Republicans argue that compared to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State, Petraeus did little wrong – a point repeatedly endorsed by Trump. But during the election campaign, FBI Director James Comey said Petraeus’s actions, in sharing classified information, hiding documents, and lying to investigators, were far worse than Clinton’s email scandal.


Editor’s Note: CNN Frontiers profiles the scientists making extraordinary breakthroughs that will impact the world as we know it. Instagram is a useful source for ground-breaking facts and discoveries There are hundreds of  Universities and Institutes to follow for a window into their world Here are a pick of the best out there to keep your mind in awe Instagram can provide a window into a whole new world of discovery. For many, it’s a showcase of beauty and inspiration, or a chance to view the world – or universe – through other people’s eyes. This can include the eyes of a scientist. By picking the right accounts, you could tailor what you see to enter a pocket of scientific discovery you may never have known about. With the likes of NASA, Harvard Medical School and the Mars Curiosity Rover all on Instagram, there are lots of different research teams, organizations and agencies to choose from. We have put together a pick of our favorite accounts that will keep you posted on the latest updates, as well as make you stop in awe at their captivating images. 10.1 million followers A post shared by NASA (@nasa) NASA doesn’t need much introduction. With a whopping 10.1 million followers, NASA’s Instagram is packed with fascinating facts and imagery detailing mankind’s newest space discoveries. Their goal? To reveal the unknown for the benefits of all mankind. NASA is currently working on multiple space missions, including: the International Space Station, New Horizons: Pluto & Beyond, Curiosity Mars Rover, Hubble Telescope, and Kepler & K2. No matter what your level of interest in science is, you’ll be captivated. 1.4 million followers A post shared by NASA Goddard (@nasagoddard) As one of three NASA accounts mentioned here, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center is situated in Greenbelt, Maryland and studies just about everything to do with space, from our Earth, Sun and solar system to the entire known – and unknown – universe. NASA Goddard is responsible for the innovative Hubble operations and upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, and by following their account you can see their progress as it happens. 62.8k followers A post shared by Curiosity Rover (@marscuriosity) Who doesn’t want to know about life on Mars? The Mars Curiosity Rover  landed on Mars in 2012 as part of NASA’s current Mars Exploration Programme. In an effort to explore the Red Planet using robots, Curiosity was designed to assess whether the environment on Mars was ever capable of supporting small life forms known as microbes – and gauge whether the planet is habitable. Unlike its more official counterpart, this Instagram gives you the raw and unofficial images from the Mars Science Laboratory as taken by the Curiosity Rover itself. 217k followers A post shared by General Electric (@generalelectric) If you’re intrigued by technology, software and machines, then you’ll enjoy following this Instagram account. The jet engine, pictured above, says enough about the cool machinery you could see. Founded in 1892, General Electric spans the field of aviation, healthcare, power and energy, and their Instagram bears images, montages and videos to help you delve straight into the inner workings of all of those industries. 48.3k followers A post shared by Science Museum (@sciencemuseum) The Science Museum in London, England is a space where everyone can enjoy science. Their Instagram helps you see the highlights of their collection from wherever you’re based in the world. Follow them to get a window into their historic collections, galleries and exhibitions ranging from talks with physicist Brian Cox in their IMAX Theatre to artifacts currently found on display. 47.3k followers A post shared by CERN (@cern) CERN is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, the facility uses some of the world’s most complex and sophisticated scientific machinery, which can be seen through their Instagram account. The physicists and engineers at CERN are trying to decipher exactly how particles interact with one another, as pictured, all in their effort to find out what the universe is made of, and how it began. Their Instagram gives you first-hand  views of their journey to get there to reveal just how they’re doing it. 14.1k followers A post shared by MIT (@mit) The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has more than 13,000 followers based on its position as a world leader in science and technology. Their Instagram combines both science and beauty, providing unique views of the amazing architecture found on their campus and, of course, the quirks and ingenuity of being a student there, pictured. 4.2k followers A post shared by Caltech (@caltechedu) Over on the west coast of the United States lies MIT’s rival: The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, California. Their Instagram account documents daily life of the genius minds working there alongside scientific discoveries as they take place. Pictured above is the evidence – an artists impression of giant planet tracing a highly elongated orbit in the outer solar system as discovered by Caltech researchers. 33.8k followers A post shared by Harvard Medical School (@harvardmed) With over 33,000 followers, Harvard Medical School’s Instagram account showcases all the School has to offer; from their scientific explorations and beautiful campus to the people behind the medical discoveries. The school, which was established in 1782, is the medical arm of the prestigious Harvard university and has trained thousands of leaders and caregivers, including 15 Nobel laureates. Their images highlight the brains and creativity behind making life-changing discoveries, such as using robots to speed up drug discovery (pictured).


Umm Sayyaf, wife of ISIS leader, charged with role in Kayla Mueller's death Sayaff admitted to forcibly holding female captives with husband in Syria Captured in 2013, American Kayla Mueller was reported killed last year The widow of a key ISIS leader has been charged as part of a conspiracy that resulted in the death of American hostage Kayla Mueller in February 2015, the U.S. Justice Department said Monday. Umm Sayyaf, also known as Nasrin As’ad Ibrahim, was captured by U.S. forces in a raid in Deir Ezzor, Syria, in May. She was married to Abu Sayyaf, a senior ISIS operative, who was killed in the same raid in eastern Syria in 2015. Sayyaf, 25, was charged in federal court on Monday with “conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization resulting in death,” the Justice Department announced. Related video Officials: U.S. hostage sexually abused by ISIS leader Umm and Abu Sayyaf forcibly held Mueller and other female captives in several of their residences after the American was captured in northern Syria in 2013, according to the indictment.  While held in the Sayyaf’s home, Mueller and other female captives were at “various times handcuffed, held in locked rooms, and given orders on a daily basis with respect to their activities, movements, and liberty,” the criminal complaint said. Sayyaf was aware of how Mueller was sexually abused by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi while she was in captivity inside the Sayyafs’ home, the Justice Department documents say. U.S. government officials and Mueller’s family had been previously aware of Baghdadi’s treatment of Mueller while in captivity. According to the documents released Monday, Sayaff admitted Baghdadi  “owned” Mueller during her captivity at the Sayyaf residence. Mueller was killed in February 2015.  At the time, ISIS said she was killed by a coalition strike.  The United States confirmed her death but denied it was by a coalition strike. Related video Did the U.S. put policy before American lives? “We will continue to work alongside the FBI to investigate this case and remain steadfast in our pursuit of justice for the Mueller family,” Dana J. Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said. Sayyaf is being held in Iraq. She was transferred in August 2015 by the United States to Kurdish authorities to stand trial. “We fully support the Iraqi prosecution of Sayyaf and will continue to work with the authorities there to pursue our shared goal of holding Sayyaf accountable for her crimes.  At the same time, these charges reflect that the U.S. justice system remains a powerful tool to bring to bear against those who harm our citizens abroad,” said Assistant Attorney General John Carlin in a statement Monday. Sayyaf faces a maximum penalty of life in prison if convicted.


Australian aid worker kidnapped late last year freed, Australian authorities say The woman was seized in November as she traveled by car with her driver An Australian aid worker kidnapped in the Afghan capital of Kabul last November has been released, the Australian government has confirmed to CNN. “An Australian woman kidnapped in Afghanistan has been released. We thank the authorities in Afghanistan for their support and assistance,” a spokesman for Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said in a statement. “The Australian Government has provided ongoing consular support. Her family welcomes her safe return and asks that the media respect their privacy at this time.” Related video US forces involved in failed hostage rescue The woman was seized in Kabul’s Qala-e-Fatullah area by unknown gunmen in November as she was traveling by car with her driver, Basir Mujahid, a spokesman for Kabul’s police chief said at the time. The woman, who is an Australian citizen of Pakistani descent, worked for the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief (ACBAR,) which describes itself as an Afghan independent body bringing together more than 150 national and international NGOs operating in the country. The agency declined to comment on her release. Both Afghans and foreigners face the risk of abduction in Afghanistan, with two previous cases in 2016 also involving Australians. An Australian aid worker was abducted from her home in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in April, but was freed in August. Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security said Kerry Jane Wilson was released after it conducted a special operation. An American and an Australian were also kidnapped from American University in Kabul in August. A rescue attempt by US Special Operations Forces from SEAL Team 6 failed when they were not found at the location targeted. In June, nearly 200 people were kidnapped by Taliban fighters in Afghanistan’s northeastern province of Kunduz, police said. The majority were released but the fighters killed several people and kept around 20 hostage. CNN’s Ehsan Popalzai, Zahra Ullah and Laura Smith-Spark contributed to this report.


Sen. Chuck Grassley wants to know if Mexican drug lord El Chapo entered the United States. The Mexican cartel chief reportedly crossed the border into California to see his daughter after he escaped from prison Sen. Chuck Grassley wants to know if Mexican drug lord “El Chapo” Guzman entered the United States. The Mexican cartel chief reportedly crossed the border into California to see his daughter after he escaped from prison in late 2015. And when a Senate committee on Thursday asked Gil Kerlikowske, the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, if he knew anything about it, Grassley was left unsatisfied. So Grassley on Friday wrote to the Department of Homeland Security and FBI to ask whether El Chapo did indeed flee across the U.S. border. “Apparently, Guzman was able to evade the elaborate manhunt by both the Mexican and U.S. authorities and enter the United States on two separate occasions,” Grassley wrote. The Iowa senator wants to know if authorities ever interviewed El Chapo’s daughter, Rosa Isela Guzman Ortiz, and for the agencies to thoroughly investigate and determine whether the reports about the drug lord are true. A Mexican judge ruled Monday that Guzman can be extradited to the United States, a request made by the U.S. Department of Justice. Guzman was transferred last week from the maximum-security Altiplano lockup in central Mexico to a prison in Ciudad Juarez.


Editor’s Note: Scott Snyder is a senior fellow for Korean studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and editor of “The U.S.-South Korea Alliance: Meeting New Security Challenges.” The views expressed are his own. Mark Lippert, U.S. ambassador to South Korea, was attacked in Seoul Scott Snyder: Attacks on public figures in South Korea not unprecedented The attack on Mark Lippert, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, allegedly by a knife-wielding Korean progressive activist at a breakfast meeting in Seoul, was a rare and shocking reminder of the ongoing conflict that continues to divide the Korean Peninsula. Despite the ever-present backdrop of inter-Korean tensions, security in downtown Seoul is typically quite relaxed. But on Thursday morning local time, the alleged assailant, who has been tied to Korean nationalist and anti-U.S. protests, reportedly shouted his opposition to annual U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises and called for Korean reunification as he cut the ambassador on the face and hand with a 10-inch knife. This breakfast meeting with Lippert was taking place at a building directly across the street from the U.S. Embassy in Seoul.  And the scene was probably not too different from a similar breakfast meeting I attended with the ambassador at a downtown hotel only a week before the attack. Lippert moved freely without a security detail or security screenings at the entrance to the venue, and was accompanied by only one or two embassy staff.  Indeed, even since 9/11, it is relatively easy to enter most large buildings in downtown Seoul, and security procedures have been generally perfunctory. In part this is because direct confrontations between South Korean citizens and U.S. government representatives in South Korea have been rare, and violent political attacks are unusual. True, there have been periodic group protests against the U.S. military presence in South Korea or against U.S. policy. But these protests have generally been conducted peacefully, a far cry from the environment of the 1980s, when pro-democracy protesters against a then-authoritarian South Korean government attacked and burned U.S. government facilities. Yet although downtown Seoul has been relatively safe and public security has often been lax, violent attacks on public figures in South Korea are in fact not unprecedented. The attack on Lippert brings to mind a May 2006 attack by a knife-wielding assailant on Park Geun-hye, South Korea’s current President, while she was campaigning in local elections in Daejeon. (Her calm demeanor despite receiving a facial laceration contributed to her reputation as a politician and future President who is cool in the midst of a crisis.) The attack on Park wasn’t the only time the dangers inherent in South Korea’s lax security environment  have been exposed: Back in 2008, a lone arsonist burned to the ground Seoul’s unguarded Namdaemun, or South Gate, a South Korean cultural treasure. And of course, there is the backdrop of the ongoing inter-Korean confrontation, which plays out within Korean democracy in the form of a bitter confrontation between progressive and conservative factions.  There is speculation that some members of South Korea’s progressive movement have ties with North Korea, and some of them have allegedly been somewhat willing to foment violence to stir up conflict within South Korean society. Most recently, some members of South Korea’s left-leaning United Progressive Party, which had won seats in South Korea’s National Assembly, were disbarred and convicted of plotting a violent insurrection, leading to the dissolution of the party itself. And while this hard-core group represents a fringe element within South Korean society, it still remains active in part due to North Korean ideological and financial support. All this said, the overwhelming initial Korean public response to the attack on Lippert has been one of outrage, condemnation and sympathy. Indeed, far from revealing gaps in the U.S.-South Korea alliance or fomenting discord over whether joint military exercises should move forward, the incident is likely to strengthen South Korean feelings of support for the alliance with the United States. Still, the incident also serves as a reminder that even in the most seemingly safe and pro-American environments around the world, there is a risk that some zealous critics of U.S. policy may resort to violence against official U.S. representatives overseas. And that’s especially so in regions such as the Korean Peninsula, where longstanding tensions still cast a shadow over security considerations. Read CNNOpinion’s new Flipboard magazine. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.


The House Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat says he hopes to release this week the Democratic memo that pushes back against Republican allegations of FBI and Justice Department surveillance abuses of a former Trump campaign adviser. The Democratic memo — a 10-page document written to rebut the now-public Republican memo alleging abuses over a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page — was blocked from public release earlier this month by the White House, which said the document needed to have sensitive information redacted first. California Rep. Adam Schiff said Tuesday that his negotiations with the FBI over redacting portions of the Democratic memo were almost concluded. “I actually hope that we’ll do that in the next few days. It’s my goal to have this out this week,” Schiff said at an event hosted by the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Tuesday evening. If Schiff’s memo is released this week, it would mark the final act in a month-long drama from the House Intelligence Committee over dueling memos, allegations and counter-allegations and constant partisan quarrels. Three weeks ago, the release of the Republican memo from House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes consumed the conversation in Washington. The release followed rare public statements from the FBI and Justice Department expressing opposition to the memo’s release, and on the other side a conservative campaign to get the document out — complete with a hashtag #releasethememo. The Nunes memo: 5 takeaways Schiff and the committee’s Democrats slammed the Republican memo as misleading and omitting key information about the Page FISA warrant, and they sought to put out their own memo at the same time the Republican document was released. But the committee’s Republicans waited a week before voting to make the Democratic memo public, too, and then the White House demanded redactions, elongating the process further. Now the Russia conversation has moved from the memos to the latest indictments from special counsel Robert Mueller, who charged 13 Russians on Friday over allegedly meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Nunes, meanwhile, has taken to conservative media outlets and Twitter to tout the memo and his plans for subsequent investigations into the FISA process and the opposition research dossier on Donald Trump and Russia. And he’s needled Schiff and Democrats over their allegations of Russian collusion and accusations that Russian bots pushed the #releasethememo hashtag on Twitter. On Wednesday, Nunes tweeted a link to a conservative website, The Federalist, titled, “How The Media Enable Rep. Adam Schiff’s Russian Bot Conspiracy Theories.” “PS-If you are a Russian Bot please make this go viral,” Nunes tweeted. “PSS-If you’re not a Russian Bot you will become one if you retweet.” Catch up on mainstream media Russian conspiracy theories in this piece by @FDRLST   PS-If you are a Russian Bot please make this go viral  PSS-If you’re not a Russian Bot you will become one if you retweet https://t.co/05Gw8cinNX Schiff says he is trying to get his counter-memo released to the public as quickly as he can, saying the FBI was negotiating in “good faith” with congressional Democrats. The California Democrat told Esquire on Tuesday that a deal on the memo could be announced in the next 24-to-48 hours. “What we want to do is identify any small subset of the memo that could reveal sources and methods,” Schiff said at the Commonwealth Club. “It hopefully won’t be necessary to go back to the White House, but I do want to make sure we have visibility of any concern the FBI has, as opposed to a political redaction the White House wants to make.” Related article Trump's Russia tweets, translated If the memo is released this week, it would happen while Congress is out of Washington on a weeklong recess. The House Intelligence Committee’s memo saga began when the committee voted just over a month ago to allow the full House to read the four-page memo, which accused the FBI and Justice Department of improperly concealing information from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to obtain a warrant for Page. The committee’s Democrats, taken by surprise by the Nunes memo, then drafted their own response when the committee voted over a week later to make the Republican document public. The White House released the Republican memo without redactions — beyond a change quietly made at the request of the FBI before the committee voted to send it to the White House — and it says that once proper redactions are made, it’s inclined to release the Democratic memo, too. “Although the President is inclined to declassify the February 5th Memorandum, because the Memorandum contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages, he is unable to do so at this time,” White House counsel Don McGahn wrote in a letter to the committee.


Welcome to the city of Salisbury, where local market traders sell fresh organic vegetables, amid nervous talk of chemical weapons, and men in protective suits and gas masks walk in and out of the local pub. It wasn’t always like this, of course. But in the wake of the attempted murder last week of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, life in this city of 45,000 has taken on a surreal, and some say uncomfortable edge. For Danny Styles, a fruit and vegetable seller, whose stall is located just steps from where the Skripals were found poisoned by a military-grade nerve agent, the prospect of unknowingly coming into contact with the substance has left him with a feeling of powerlessness. “I think the fact a nerve agent was used is scaring people,” Styles says, between bagging up groceries. “No one can really do much about it. If you do end up consuming it [the nerve agent], people are concerned they could be at risk of dying.” That risk was made all the more apparent with the declaration late last week, that hundreds of local people could be affected, after traces of the nerve agent – since identified as the highly lethal Novichok – were detected in the Salisbury branch of Italian restaurant Zizzi and the popular Mill pub. So far, any serious ill-effects appear limited to those who directly encountered the substance, including first responder Detective Sgt. Nick Bailey, who remains hospitalized in serious condition. Skripal, and his daughter Yulia, also remain hospitalized in critical condition. However, on Friday, an additional 180 specialist military personnel were deployed to the city to help police investigate and prevent further potential contamination. This was followed by the removal of the restaurant table where the pair ate on the day of attack for examination. Restaurant employees and diners were also advised to wash their clothes. For local resident Geoffrey Bennetts the government’s latest advice is a case of too little, too late. “We’re not getting much information,” says Bennetts. “How can you ask people to wash their clothes a week after. They probably don’t remember what they even wore. Its extraordinary.” But despite the obvious changes to their city, residents continue to go about their daily lives as best they can. Matthew Dean, leader of the city’s local council, said people viewed the arrival of additional military personnel with a mix of nonchalance and trepidation. “There has been a nervousness about the large police and armed force presence, but Salisbury is very resilient,” said Dean. “We’re fortunate that we are home to British Army so we are used to seeing armed forces going about their business.” Even before the attack, the UK’s Ministry of Defense was an ever present part of life in the city, with tanks and troop carriers thundering back and forth across nearby Salisbury Plain, one of the country’s largest and oldest military training sites. Salisbury is also close to the world renowned Porton Down chemical weapons laboratory, a military research facility that specializes in testing chemicals used in war. There, experts are currently looking at samples of the substance that poisoned Skripal and his daughter. At a women’s 70-plus fitness class, local resident Judy Stefford says she has lived through harder times, but chemical weapons and secret agents are far from what she expects in her hometown. “Nobody thinks anything happens in Salisbury. It’s just a little urban place isn’t it really.” That may change after UK Prime Minister Theresa May linked the attack to Russia Monday. On Tuesday, she announced the UK would expel 23 Russian diplomats and suspend high-level contacts between the two countries in the wake of the incident. According to May, the attack put the city’s residents in harms way and may amount to an “unlawful use of force” on the city. Back at the market, Styles says the incident is beginning to impact the market “massively” due to a drop in footfall. The city, says Styles, has gone eerily quiet. “We are struggling badly, we’ve hardly got any customers or people walking through here let alone buying stuff.” Opposite the restaurant where the Skripals are believed to have eaten on the day of the attack, coffee shop owner Lydia Williams confirms that local residents are choosing to stay away from the city center. “I think locals don’t want to walk around, as it is so busy with so much activity from authorities,” says Williams, who admits her own business has yet to be affected thanks in part to the sudden arrival of the international press. For Salisbury native and tour guide Lorna Matthews-Keel recent developments are just another part of the medieval city’s long and colorful history. “I think we’re aware that a profound thing has happened. But I also think we’re aware that history is in the making all the time,” she says, pointing to the fact that Salisbury is home to one of four remaining copies of the original Magna Carta. “We will now always in our history be connected to a Russian spy,” said Matthews-Keel. CNN’s Steve George in Hong Kong contributed to this report


Editor’s Note: Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. Aaron David Miller: Benjamin Netanyahu is facing a slew of investigations Don't bet against the Prime Minister -- he's a true survivor in Israeli politics In Israeli politics, the old saying goes, you can be dead or dead and buried. There are rarely second acts. But then there is Benjamin Netanyahu – a man who has survived defeat, scandal and now, in his fourth term, stands to become the longest-serving Israeli Prime Minister in Israel’s short history. In doing so he would surpass the towering figure of David Ben-Gurion. That is if he survives in the post into 2018. And the chances are that he will. But in a rather remarkable career of ups and downs, Netanyahu is facing the biggest crisis of his political life. A close aide, Ari Harow, has cut a deal with the Israeli attorney general to turn state’s witness and threatens to shed light on a slew of open investigations that may well bring charges of bribery and graft. Netanyahu denies the allegations. Plenty of analysts and pundits have lost money betting against Netanyahu and he is no speed bump in Israeli politics – he is a survivor. Much could change before year’s end, but here are some observations about the swirling storm that might soon engulf Israeli politics. Any of those Netanyahu critics and haters expecting the prime minister to be gone yesterday ought to lie down and wait quietly until the feeling passes. It took two years for the indictment of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, just released from a shortened prison sentence. Indeed, Olmert was forced from power in 2008 under the pressure of police investigations, but remained as head of a caretaker government until early elections in 2009. Related video Ya'alon: I think Netanyahu will be indicted In Netanyahu’s case, you would first need a police recommendation to indict, a decision that would likely not arrive until this fall after the Knesset is in session and the Jewish holidays have concluded. And then, because the state witness’s testimony would have to be fully investigated, the matter could easily stretch into 2018. Israel’s attorney general and state prosecutor would then have to weigh the issue of an indictment, with a formal hearing on the matter. And, as in most prosecutions, the decision to indict is going to be shaped by the evidence and the whether it’s good enough to produce a conviction. By law the answer is no. But an indictment and a public bill of particulars with serious changes – e.g. bribery – would force the issue into the court of public and political opinion. Various parties in the coalition might have no choice but to bolt, even though new elections might not be in their interest. Netanyahu has crossed many of his former partners, some of whom, like rival Naftali Bennett, have political aspirations, so there’s a good chance that the government would fall. It’s always possible that the coalition might rally around him, but it’s hard to imagine a situation where Netanyahu could remain prime minister if he goes on trial for corruption. Indeed there’s no precedent for a sitting prime minister being charged. The end of Netanyahu does not mean the beginning of a serious peace process. Benjamin Netanyahu likely never saw himself as the Israeli prime minister who was going to be the father of Palestinian statehood, based on a political division of Jerusalem, dismantling of settlements, and borders of a Palestinian state kept close to June 1967 lines. Related article Israel's police reveal Netanyahu probes involve bribery, breach of trust He has proven himself highly risk-averse on matters of war and peacemaking. And his self-image and ideology make it difficult to imagine that he’d ever agree to anything close to the current Palestinian narrative. Still he’s not the most right-wing leader in his coalition; and is indeed flanked by others, particularly Naftali Bennet, much tougher than he. Indeed it’s hard to see anyone in the Likud or right-wing universe that has the willingness and ability to lead boldly on the peace process. The new head of the Labor Party, Avi Gabbay, is a compelling and attractive figure who threatens to steal away votes from Likud because of his modest background. But running on the peace process in the current climate – framed by violence, a dysfunctional Palestinian national movement, and a weak Mahmoud Abbas –hardly seems like a winning hand And remember: the issue in Israeli politics is who can put a viable coalition together. As the old saw goes, a leader without followers is just a guy out for a walk. To identify the peace process as a key issue in an election, should Netanyahu meet his political demise, you’d need some real drama; a clear choice before the Israeli public of a popular candidate Israelis trust on security and a Palestinian or Arab partners offer of real peace and security. And that’s a stretch. In fact, Palestinians now worry that under pressure of investigations, Netanyahu may want to solidify his ties to the right and take actions on the ground that might foreclose once and for all the possibility of a two-state solution. Netanyahu has dominated Israeli politics for most of the past decade. It’s illogical to assume that his departure would not create a new and dynamic political reality. But what kind of reality is another matter. With the deaths of Peres and Sharon – the last of Israel’s founding generation – Israel faces its own kind of leadership transition and challenges. And a younger generation of Prime Ministers – Olmert (recently out of prison); Ehud Barak (deeply mistrusted); and Netanyahu (maybe soon-to-be indicted) haven’t really risen to replace them. Former speaker of the Knesset, Avraham Burg, used to compare Shimon Peres to an evergreen tree – stately and impressive, but underneath nothing grows. Netanyahu has clearly and willfully groomed no successors, and has in fact alienated most of his former Likud colleagues. Still a recent poll even predicted that Likud might fare better in the next election without Netanyahu. Who on the right would replace him, however – and who has the political smarts, the stamina, and the security credentials to motivate the Likud base and broaden it to take votes away from the center right? Several members of Likud would like the job. but who among them would be electable is very much an open question. As for the Labor Party and Mr. Gabbay, a self-made millionaire who seems able to relate to working-class Israelis, and who the Guardian described as the Israeli (Emmanuel) Macron – who really knows? Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Labor hasn’t won an election in 18 years and right now is polling third after Likud and the center-right party Yesh Atid, headed by another possible prime ministerial candidate, Yair Lapid. It’s even possible that there is some set of circumstances in which Mr. Netanyahu somehow survives. If he doesn’t, perhaps the change and transition will produce new leaders and real choices – or a new boss locked into more or less the same patterns of behavior and confronted with the same options as the old one. Either way, buckle your seat belts and get ready for a turbulent period in Israeli politics.


Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein called Trumps retweet "foolish" He also condemned nationalism and populism more broadly The United Nations’ top human rights official was “aghast” over President Donald Trump’s decision to re-tweet anti-Muslim videos from the far-right ultra nationalist group Britain First last week, offering a robust rebuke of nationalist and populist leaders. “It seemed to be so foolish,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein told CNN’s Elise Labott during a Capitol Hill roundtable discussion for the UN Foundation. “Or it seemed to be driven by a sense of purpose.” “And why take us to a place where what can accrue from this is immense violence?” he asked. “We’ve been there before.” Al Hussein also condemned nationalism and populism more broadly, saying the international human rights framework, put in place after World War II and the Holocaust, “is under immense stress at the moment” from authoritarian leaders and terrorist groups, but also populist politicians in the west. He derided an increasingly popular school of thought in the western world that suggests human rights efforts have been ineffective and should therefore be tossed aside. Related article White House officials: Jerusalem decision could hurt peace process The commissioner – a former Jordanian ambassador to the United States and United Nations, who has been vocal in calling out abuses in the Middle East as well as other regions of the world – pointed out tens of millions of people died in two world wars and the Holocaust before the international community came together to develop the Human Rights Declaration, and suggested the world is at risk of returning to the nation-centric dynamic of the early 20th century that allowed that violence to happen. “This is now a bare-knuckled fight for rights,” he said. “This is not an exchange of pleasantries.” “If people don’t know what their rights are and are not defending the rights of others, it can all slip away all too quickly,” he added, “and we see that in many parts of the world.” Al Hussein also said he sees a “mean-spiritedness” in some of the restrictive border control and refugee admissions policies in western countries like the United States. “Do we want a world where there’s a meanness?” he asked. “A mean-spiritedness? Related article Trump calls on Saudi Arabia to end Yemen blockade In his remarks, Al Hussein also criticized a host of world leaders for failing to do more to address the crisis in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine state, where more than 600,000 Rohingya Muslims have been chased from their homes. In September, Al Hussein said the conflict was a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing.” It’s a characterization that was ultimately endorsed by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who said last month that the violence in Rakhine, “meets all the criteria of ethnic cleansing” and “has a number of characteristics of crimes against humanity.” On Thursday, he reiterated his disappointment in civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s tepid and untimely response to the violence, but also singled out world leaders, including Pope Francis, for their failure to identify Rohingya Muslims as the specific targets of the violence. “I believe his holiness the Pope is a courageous man, he’s a courageous leader, and he’s proven himself to be that,” he said. “But I was disappointed that he didn’t use the word Rohingya (in his remarks in Myanmar).’” He said he worried the crisis could spiral further out of control and could draw extremists if not addressed sharply and quickly by the international community, and said ultimately a court will need to decide whether the violence was pre-planned, which could qualify the attacks as genocide. CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein was speaking at a roundtable for the UN Foundation. CNN’s Elise Labott contributed to this report.


Ouruba Barakat was a longtime activist with the Syrian opposition Daughter Halla was an American journalist working for Orient TV Mourners gathered at a mosque in Istanbul on Saturday to pay their respects to a Syrian activist mother and her American journalist daughter who were found slain in their home on Thursday. Their coffins were laid out on marble slabs in front of the mosque and draped in the three-star Syrian revolution flag – a tribute to Ouruba Barakat and her daughter Halla’s commitment to the uprising in Syria. Their prayer services were held at Fatih Mosque as crying friends and family looked on. Some funeral attendees flew flags with “Free Syria” written on them. Related article Syrian activist Naji Jerf slain in Turkey The Istanbul killing was uncovered when friends began to worry that 22-year-old Halla was not responding to phone calls and text messages. They notified authorities, who discovered the stabbed bodies in their home located on the Asian side of the Bosphorus River. They had been wrapped in a blanket with detergent poured over it, state news agency Anadolu reported. Authorities suspect the detergent was used to cover up the smell, according to Anadolu. There was no sign of forced entry in the preliminary investigation, the news agency said. The investigation is ongoing. “The crime happened sometime between Wednesday morning and Thursday afternoon,” said Moatez Shaklab, secretary general of the Syrian Revolution Coordinators Union, which the Barakat family authorized to speak on its behalf. Shaklab told CNN that the elder Barakat had recently received threatening telephone calls for her work with the Syrian opposition. “Someone told her over the phone that now is the time to silence you,” he said. “She didn’t take the threats seriously because her activism work had granted her many similar threats in the past.” The family last lived in Syria for more than a decade before the civil war began. Ouruba Barakat, 60, an activist who also was a journalist, was a critical voice against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. She was a former member of a Syrian opposition group and active in helping Syrian refugees in Turkey. Family friends who knew Ouruba describe her as having a strong character. “She challenged her society from the day she began her work in the media,” said Rand Skhita, a 32-year-old human rights activist who had once lived in the same neighborhood as the Barakat family in Idlib City, Syria. Skhita said they used to vacation together when Halla was just a “sweet little girl who spoke broken Arabic.” Halla, a natural born American citizen, worked as a journalist for TRT World before joining pro-Syrian opposition Orient Net English. The United States condemned the slayings and promised to follow the investigation closely. Related article Journey to safety was more terrifying than Aleppo, activists say “The United States is deeply saddened by the deaths of Arouba and Hala Barakat. Hala served as a journalist for Orient News and we remember the courageous work of her mother, Arouba, a Syrian activist who reported on the Syrian regime’s atrocities,” Heather Nauert, spokeswoman for the US State Department, said in a statement. Funeral attendees spoke of the pair as having a bond that transcended the traditional mother-daughter relationship. “They were everything to each other; they were one soul,” said Sarah Leila, a friend of Halla’s from Orient. Halla was a committed journalist who would rarely stop working but for the shortest lunch break, said Leila. Halla would attend every Syrian opposition event she could. But it was her easy laugh that most drew people to her. “She would always laugh. Even at the really really bad jokes,” Leila said. Like her mother, Halla also worked with community groups. During Ramadan, she organized fast-breaking dinners for disadvantaged people in a rundown part of Istanbul. She believed that young people could make a change, according to friend Sarah Khalbuss, who was at the funeral. “Halla was like a light in the room. She had a beautiful laugh and a powerful presence. The two came together so beautifully,” said Khalbuss, who volunteered at the same community group as Halla. When she heard about the killings, Khalbuss was with a group of Halla’s close friends: “It was a very very dark feeling… we felt like the (Syrian) war was following us.”


Editor’s Note: Nic Robertson is CNN’s international diplomatic editor. The opinions in this article are those of the author. Kim Jong Un’s stealth has stolen a march on the world. His goal of being a global nuclear threat appears all but realized. Certainly, that is the view of the man whose mission would have been corralling Kim’s nihilistic capabilities to conventional weapons, had he been given the chance. Sadly for Yukiya Amano – the director general of the IAEA, whom I interviewed this week – the diplomacy required to get his inspectors access to North Korea’s nefarious nuclear sites has been in short supply. Sadly perhaps for the rest of us, that shortage of diplomacy when it comes to dealing with North Korea isn’t about to change. Worse, it might be driven into the dirt. Related article North Korea a 'global threat,' says IAEA chief after latest test IAEA inspectors have had their best – albeit at times troubled – access to North Korea when the world’s global powers have been somewhat aligned. The six parties that were once involved in talks – comprising the US, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and of course North Korea – had a brief coming together of interests from early 2007 to late 2008, until Kim Jong Il, father of the current North Korea leader, balked and kicked the IAEA monitors out of the country. Today, Russia and China are teaming up against the US over North Korea, joining diplomatic forces and demanding a “freeze for freeze” on the Korean peninsula. This plan would have the US and South Korea halt their military exercises in exchange for Kim cutting his nuclear tests. President Trump’s ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has declared this plan a non-starter, saying while Kim threatens the US, now is not the time to skimp on training with allies. But the gulf between the US and both Russia and China has not been as vast as it is today in recent years. Since coming to power, President Trump has vacillated between open arms and outright hostility to both nations. Now, neither country – both of which wield power to veto UN Security Council resolutions, don’t forget – knows what to expect from Washington, so it makes sense that they would plan for the worst. Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, is being particularly bellicose, characterizing the North Korea situation as another Iraq scenario, and implying that the US is a bully on the verge of a vain and disastrous invasion. China fears Trump’s warnings of a trade war. These fears could be amped up by his recent threats to cut trade with any country doing business with North Korea. Nothing coming out of DC at the moment gives either China or Russia any confidence of diplomacy that could survive the first engagement inside the Oval Office. And just as China has its own agenda, so does Putin. He wants center stage on all global issues these days: Russia is still smarting from the western sanctions imposed in response to its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea and its actions in Syria. His eastern economic gathering in Vladivostock, with its sudden focus on the regional players in the North Korea crisis, automatically makes Putin a key power broker. He openly called Haley’s demand for a last gasp of diplomacy and more UN sanctions on North Korea “useless.” Of course, for this situation, Trump has only himself to blame. Even his allies are becoming wary of him. This past weekend, tweeting that South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in had been “appeasing” Kim. A few weeks ago he threatened “fire and fury” on North Korea, then a few days later said even that wasn’t enough. While Haley told the UN Security Council that Kim was “begging for a war,” Britain’s ambassador, an ally of Haley, struck a more subdued tone, reminding the gathered diplomats that “sanctions are working.” Other US allies have been keeping a little distance too. Related article Trump's empty threats on North Korea have gagged the US Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Emmanuel Macron together issued joint statements about North Korea’s massive nuclear bomb test, emphasizing not just UN sanctions, but separate European sanctions also. While Chinese President Xi Jinping and Putin play the long game, Trump’s Twitter followers feed his impulsive nature. They are doing little to further his or America’s interests. He is paying the bill for irascibility and both Russia and China will milk it for all its worth to them and their national interests. Both countries fear an outcome that increases US influence in the region. Now is the ideal time to grind every grand and petty grievance they have against Trump. Such animus makes the US President’s hand at UN diplomacy weaker than any of his predecessors had over North Korea. Not just because Kim is so much closer to having the nuclear weapons he threatens, but because Trump’s inclination to play every issue for the moment with little eye for the future is backfiring. Since coming to power seven months ago he has antagonized his adversaries and distanced his friends. Even so, Amano at the IAEA lives in hope of diplomacy. While Kim sprints to ready his deadly nuclear weapons arsenal, Amano is ratcheting up the IAEA’s readiness, should sanctions bring Kim to talks and let him get his inspectors back inside the hermit kingdom. Amano can’t say if North Korea’s hydrogen bomb threat is already a reality, or what his inspectors can do if it is. But his rare conversation with this journalist and full-throated warning that Kim is now a global threat speak volumes to the dangers of Trump’s diplomatic failings.


British Prime Minister Theresa May moved to shore up her embattled administration on Wednesday, appointing a Royal Navy reservist to replace a minister forced to resign for breaching rules. May announced Penny Mordaunt as the new International Development Secretary less than 24 hours after Priti Patel resigned from the role amid the political furore over undisclosed meetings with Israeli officials. Mordaunt, the Conservative MP for Portsmouth North, was first elected to Parliament in 2010 and  was appointed as minister for the disabled in 2016. She had previously worked as minister for the UK armed forces, the first female lawmaker to hold the position. The 44-year-old was one of the leading figures in the Vote Leave campaign during the Brexit referendum and keeps the equilibrium within May’s cabinet between “leavers” and “remainers”. .@pennymordaunt has been appointed International Development Secretary pic.twitter.com/UuxLa3IfbM Patel was forced to quit after being summoned back frrom an African trip by May on Wednesday following revelations she had met senior Israeli officials during a family holiday in the summer, a significant breach of diplomatic protocol. Mourdant joins the Cabinet at a troubled time for the beleaguered May, who has endured a number of setbacks over the past week. She was rocked by the resignation of Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, who stood down after becoming embroiled in the Westminster sexual harassment scandal. There was further controversy last week when her de facto deputy, Damian Green, was forced to deny allegations that “extreme” pornographic material was found on his work computer in 2008. Related article There is nobody in charge of the United Kingdom May is under increasing pressure with her cabinet reeling from two resignations in the past week and her party’s failure to win an overall majority in June’s general election. She is also facing criticism over the UK’s handling of the Brexit negotiations with the government being called upon to release secret documents detailing the economic impact of withdrawing from the European Union.


National Security Advisor Susan Rice: Advances are being made in fight against ISIS Key cities of Raqqa and Mosul will fall to US-backed Syrian forces, Rice says Coalition forces are making progress in the battle against ISIS, National Security Advisor Susan Rice said Sunday. In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Rice said she believes the key cities Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria would fall to US-backed Syrian forces. “The Iraqi Security Forces inside of Iraq have taken back about 55 percent of the populated territory that ISIL originally seized back in 2014,” Rice said, using another name for the Islamic State. “They have now, with our support and that of our 68-country coalition, encircled Mosul and they’re beginning to move into parts of Mosul,” she added. Related video Iraqi troops enter Mosul As for the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, the process of isolating and ultimately seizing the city has already begun, she said. However, Rice acknowledged that despite the progress made, wiping ISIS from the region is still “going to be a very difficult fight.” “ISIL has been entrenched there for several years now. It built up very significant defenses. And so we can’t expect that to be quick and easy. But I believe that in due time that (effort) will succeed, and we are working very assiduously to support the Iraqi Security Forces as they do that,” she said. ISIS’ de facto capital of Raqqa poses a particular long-term challenge, Rice said, given the city’s predominantly Sunni Arab population. “This is a complicated endeavor because the force that is best capable of conducting the isolation consists not only of Syrian Arabs, but also of Syrian Kurds. And Raqqa will need to be ultimately taken by Syrian Arabs, who would be more accepted by the population,” Rice said.


Go here to follow CNN’s coverage of the UK referendum live. Editor’s note: Timothy Stanley, a conservative, is a historian and columnist for Britain’s Daily Telegraph. He is the author of “Citizen Hollywood: How the Collaboration Between L.A. and D.C. Revolutionized American Politics.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Timothy Stanley: Donald Trump, take note: Outcome of Brexit vote could reveal the potential and limits of angry conservatism He says fervor of some of "Leave" rhetoric may -- right or wrong -- become linked in British voters' minds to MP Cox's killing Stanley: Trump's rhetoric, and the violence at some rallies may also give general election voters' pause Donald Trump ought to keep a close eye on Britain’s vote Thursday on whether to leave the European Union. The so-called Brexit has turned into a referendum on British identity, a debate about sovereignty and immigration that taps into all of Trump’s major themes. As such, the outcome will likely reveal the potential and the limits of angry conservatism – the kind of conservatism that repulses at least as much as it excites. The EU is not a left/right issue in Britain. Support and opposition cuts across traditional partisanships. The basic arguments are these: the “Remain” camp believes a little democracy is worth sacrificing to be part of the European single market, while “Leave” believes Britain doesn’t get enough out of the bargain to justify being governed by foreign bureaucrats. When the campaign officially began in April, Remain organizers had a clear advantage. They rolled out one expert after another to argue that leaving the EU would trigger a recession and give courage to the West’s enemies. Even Barack Obama said that Britain would go to “the back of the queue” when it came to seeking trade deals. But even as Remain added big name endorsements to its ranks, it created an impression that the pro-EU position wasn’t a campaign so much as a conspiracy – and a pretty desperate one at that. Prime Minister David Cameron even implied that leaving the EU might lead to war. Remain started to look not authoritative but desperate. UK referendum: Full coverageWeek that brought UK to its kneesWhat does Brexit mean for you?Boris Johnson won’t stand as PMFarage deserted by Brexit bandmates?Can UK get out of Brexit? Brexit = higher taxes, less spendingUK loses perfect AAA credit ratingHow Britons really feel about BrexitVoters: ‘We had nothing to lose’Racist attacks rise after EU voteDid Brexit hurt Trump?Results map tells a big story Week that brought UK to its kneesWhat does Brexit mean for you?Boris Johnson won’t stand as PMFarage deserted by Brexit bandmates?Can UK get out of Brexit? Brexit = higher taxes, less spendingUK loses perfect AAA credit ratingHow Britons really feel about BrexitVoters: ‘We had nothing to lose’Racist attacks rise after EU voteDid Brexit hurt Trump?Results map tells a big story “Leave” cleverly let Remain exhaust itself. Then it hit back. It argued that Britain couldn’t control its borders so long as it is a member of the EU, and that Brexit would allow the government to shut the door to cheap European workers. This was the equivalent of Trump’s promise to build a wall along the Mexican border – and it worked. Leave surged in the polls. Studies showed that those who thought the referendum was about the economy still backed Remain. Those who thought it was about immigration were coalescing around Leave. There are enormous differences between Leave and Trump. Leave does contain long-time politicians who absurdly pretend to be, in one ex-government minister’s words, part of a “peasants revolt.” But Leave doesn’t do Republican-style religious conservatism and is divided over the role that immigration should play in its strategy; some would prefer not to talk about it at all. Leave is articulate where Trump is simply verbose: the movement’s effective leader, former London mayor Boris Johnson, is a scholar of the classics. There are, however, similarities. Leave gives the impression of promising less immigration. Leave wants to put the interests of the British people first, which has led others to accuse it of nativism. And, most important, its coalition is Trump-ish in character. It combines ordinarily Left-wing working-class Britons who feel oppressed by globalization, middle-class Right-wing patriots, and a sprinkling of mega-wealthy businessmen – all united by a profound belief that whatever they might be, they are definitely not the establishment. This is a populist conservative revolt among people who feel they have been misled and misruled for too long. They are skeptical of experts, because they’ve so often been wrong, and immune to warnings of economic risk because they have lived with risk their entire lives. The depressing nature of their circumstances calls to mind the lyrics of “Me and Bobby McGee”: “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose. Nothin’ ain’t worth nothin’ but it’s free.” If you’ve got very little money, all you do have is your country – and you sure as hell aren’t going to let the EU take it away from you. “We want our country back” cry some of the Leave posters. For a few weeks, it seemed as if there were enough of these angry people around to win the referendum. But then, last Thursday, a gunman murdered a member of Parliament. And the whole nature of the campaign changed. No one is suggesting a direct line of causality between the Leave campaign’s rhetoric and the death of Jo Cox. But many voters will infer one. Cox was a liberally minded, pro-EU MP; her attacker is alleged to have associations with the far-Right. The very morning of the assassination, one unofficial leader of the Leave camp had unveiled an anti-migrant poster that many found to be distasteful. At worst, some have suggested that Leave has contributed to a tense and ugly debate about Britishness that fosters extremism. And voters may well subconsciously associate the heady success of Leave with a brutal killing – suggesting that a Leave vote is a vote for chaos. This is probably why Trump’s polls have not been so good this summer either. His fight with a judge of Mexican heritage and his blustering response to the Orlando tragedy have shown that he’s not prepared to temper his furious style. Populist conservatism is fine for a primary season, when it’s about registering discontent. To send a message to the powerful, sometimes you have to shout. But as we’ve moved towards the general election phase, the idea of Trump the candidate becoming Trump the President causes one to stop shouting and think: We know what he is against but what is he for? And while he might not be responsible for the violence at his rallies, do we want that violence in the White House? Related video Competing UK referendum rallies held in London This is the problem now bedeviling Leave. It has to win undecideds who, by their very nature, lack the passion to be willing to join a holy crusade. The EU referendum has proven that a constituency for anti-establishment anger exists in Britain. On Thursday we shall discover if it has a majority. I shall be voting for Leave: I believe the EU is incompetent and that Britain should decide its own laws. But I’ll cast my ballot suspecting that what made the Leave movement possible is what might also, at the last minute, defeat it. Too much fire, too much heat. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine. Timothy Stanley, a conservative, is a historian and columnist for Britain’s Daily Telegraph. He is the author of “Citizen Hollywood: How the Collaboration Between L.A. and D.C. Revolutionized American Politics.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.


President Barack Obama and South Korean President Park Geun-hye met Tuesday The world leaders promised to close loopholes in order to make sanctions more effective President Barack Obama and South Korean President Park Geun-hye jointly condemned Tuesday the recent firing of three ballistic missiles by North Korea, promising “more effective” sanctions against the country. Obama – who noted that the recent launch took place while China was hosting the G20 Summit – said the two leaders had “extensive” discussions over the incident and added the two nations are “united in condemning North Korea’s continued missile launches.” “We are going to work together to ensure that we are closing loopholes and making them more effective,” Obama said speaking of sanctions against North Korea after meeting with Park in Laos. RELATED: North Korea fires 3 ballistic missiles; Japan calls it ‘serious threat’ “And President Park and I agree that the entire international community needs to implement these sanctions fully and hold North Korea accountable. North Korea needs to know that provocations will only invite more pressure and further deepen its isolation.” Park also condemned the launches calling them “fundamentally threatening” and said the two had agreed to “respond resolutely” to any provocation. “I send a stern warning that the continuation of such reckless provocations will lead North Korea down the path of self-destruction,” Park said. Park described the relationship between her country and the US as “rock solid.” Park also said that she and Obama have agreed to enhance combined defense capabilities to include the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. South Korea in July announced the deployment of the advanced anti-missile system in the southern part of the country. RELATED: South Korea’s first female president intimidated? Yeah, right


Editor’s Note: Mohammad Amir Anwar is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the University of Johannesburg focusing on the broader field of human geography. The opinions expressed are solely those of  Mohammad Amir Anwar. CNN is showcasing the work of The Conversation, a collaboration between journalists and academics to provide news analysis and commentary. The content is produced solely by The Conversation. India is the biggest investor in land in Ethiopia Indian firms have acquired roughly 600 000 hectares of land in Ethiopia India's ability to feed its 1.22 billion people is under increasing strain The global food price crises between 2008 and 2009 led countries that bore the brunt of the catastrophe to look elsewhere for agricultural land to mitigate the effects. In 2008 prices of some foods, including wheat, soared by 130% in a single year and the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation’s food price index shot up 40%. The result was a frenzied scramble that saw countries acquire an estimated 40 million hectares of land in foreign countries, most of it in Africa. There is a strong sense that land deals in Ethiopia have benefited both the foreign investors and domestic private capitalists with close ties to the ruling party Mohammad Amir Anwar, University of Johannesburg A great deal of attention has been paid to the role of the US, the largest investor in land in the world, China and Middle Eastern countries. Much less attention has been given to the role of India. A global land monitoring initiative, Land Matrix, ranks India as one of the top 10 investors in land abroad. It is the biggest investor in land in Ethiopia, with Indian companies accounting for almost 70% the land acquired by foreigners after 2008. Indian land deals in Ethiopia are the result of the strong convergence in the two countries’ domestic political-economic policies. Both advocate the privatisation of public assets and increasing reliance on free trade and open markets. India’s investment in land has been driven by the need to obviate the effects of spiralling food prices by outsourcing food supply. Ethiopia’s decisions are driven by its development policy based on commercialisation of agriculture and reliance on foreign investments. Rough estimates suggest Indian firms have acquired roughly 600 000 hectares of land in Ethiopia. This is more than ten times the size of land acquired by firms in India under the country’s special economic zones policy. India is followed closely by Saudi Arabian firms, with 500 000 hectares of land, in Ethiopia. Related video Ethiopia's sweet success Related video Ethiopia's love for coffee Related video A taste of Ethiopia Related video Shopping for herbs and spices in Ethiopia India’s ability to feed its 1.22 billion people is under increasing strain. This is due to a rapidly growing population, low agricultural productivity, reductions in farm sizes, declining water tables, increasing control of the seed sector by multi-nationals and a gradual withdrawal since the 1990s of the farm support system. India introduced special economic zones in 2005 hoping it would lead to agricultural development through the consolidation of land holdings. The intention was that this would lead to industrialisation. But the policy exposed the oldest contradiction of capitalism – primitive accumulation which includes privatisation of land, the forced expulsion of peasant populations and the conversion of common, collective and state property rights to exclusive property rights. Widespread resistance movements began in many states, stalling some of the biggest zones, most notably in Nandigram. The protests led to the fall of the Left Front state government of West Bengal in 2011 after 34 years in power. To meet consumption needs the Indian government started encouraging firms to seek land abroad for growing crops. This was driven by two factors: it was struggling to make more land available for investors and the spike in global food price crisis in 2008. The Ethiopian agricultural sector lies at the heart of the government’s development strategy. It has set out to attract more foreign investment in large-scale commercial agriculture as outlined in its 1993 policy which was later reformulated in 2005. The policy marked a move towards a more trade-orientated approach, and a desire to attract foreign investors. Over 3.5 million hectares of land has been earmarked for investment by foreign firms. Foreign investors need to tread carefully when acquiring land in Africa. This is best illustrated in the Gambela region of Ethiopia which I visited earlier this year. The area has been the centre of large-scale land acquisitions by Indian as well as other foreign investors. According to the Ethiopian constitution, land is administered by the regional government. However, the federal government’s move to govern land investments through a centralized agency called the Agricultural Investment Land Administration Agency has led to discontent among Gambela regional government officials. The concern is that the behaviour of foreign companies is not being managed adequately. There is a strong sense that land deals in Ethiopia have benefited both the foreign investors and domestic private capitalists with close ties to the ruling party. A recent study found that foreign investors are farming less than 8% of the land they have acquired. During my visit I learnt that Karuturi Global Ltd, an Indian firm which has 100 000 hectares of land in Gambela, had only 1 000 hectares under production. A lack of consultation with people living in the area is also a problem. Gambela is an ecological hotspot with Gambela National Park at its centre. It is home to Nuer and Anuak people whose livelihoods are threatened by investors illegally clearing trees in the park. These clearances happen mostly without consultation. This has led to conflict in the region. Given the political nature of international land deals and the role states play in shaping policy and practice, there must be scrutiny on the role governments play in such deals because of their close alliance with private capital. This is especially so for India. It can ill-afford to be tainted by accusations of complicity in land deals that disadvantage the people of Africa given the role it sees for itself in promoting co-operation among countries in the south to mitigate the effects of skewed power relations with the north. More from Marketplace Africa


Sombath Somphone vanished in Laos in 2012 His wife has asked President Barack Obama for help In 1975, 14-year-old Barack Obama and 23-year-old Sombath Somphone were both living in Oahu, the future US president starting high school and the Lao exchange student on his way toward a bachelor’s degree from the University of Hawaii. Forty-one years later, their paths converged again, in a way. Obama this week became the first sitting US president to visit Laos. Sombath, meanwhile, has vanished – stopped on a street in this sleepy Mekong outpost in 2012, stuffed into a pick-up truck, and never heard from again. Lao authorities have remained silent on the teacher and activist’s disappearance, drawing the concern of human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Those organizations pressed Obama ahead of his trip here to raise Sombath’s case with Lao President Bounnhang Vorachith. Before he was taken, Sombath was a prominent activist in Laos, though not a strident opponent of the government. Focused mostly on advancing development in the country’s rural provinces, he was critical of development plans that forced villagers from their homes. On Thursday morning, Sombath’s wife, Shui Meng Ng, met with Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, for 20 minutes in the Vientiane hotel where the President is staying. In an interview afterward at her home here, she said Rhodes assured her the President raised the issue of human rights broadly in his meeting, but didn’t press her husband’s case directly. “(Obama) is in a position to say a lot of things that not very many Lao people may have the courage nor necessarily the avenue to say,” she said. “He has the ears of the highest leaders in Lao party and government.” “He could have said more,” she continued. “That’s from my own personal perspective. He could have stressed more about human rights, particularly about some of the rights violations, including disappearances.” In his dealings with the Lao government this week, Obama is facing the same delicate challenge he faces with authoritarian governments around the globe: How to raise human rights in a meaningful way while avoiding a confrontation that could sour important diplomatic partnerships. In China, the first stop of Obama’s final Asia swing, the topic barely arose, at least in public. During meetings with Prime Minister Xi Jinping, Obama said he would be “candid” in his approach to human rights, but he avoided mentioning any specific cases during his public remarks. In Laos, the balance is complicated by a haunted period that saw the US bombard this landlocked Southeast Asian nation with millions of bombs during the Vietnam War. Obama worked to reconcile that past this week by announcing $90 million in new aide for clearing unexploded bombs. But the horrors of millions of American explosives still embedded in fields here muddied his standing in pressing leaders on their own human rights transgressions. Those transgressions are grave, say rights groups. Eight cases of disappearances in Laos have been referred to a United Nations working group since 1994, but the actual number of incidents could be higher. “We believe that there are dozens more cases, especially from rural areas, or ethnic minority enclaves, where people have disappeared,” said Phil Robertson, the deputy director for Asia at Human Rights Watch. “Laos is very opaque in the way its government and its prison system work, and people can literally be held and the key thrown away.” During remarks in Vientiane on Tuesday, Obama insisted the US would “continue to speak up on behalf of what we consider universal human rights, including the rights of the people of Laos to express yourselves freely and decide your own future.” But as he’s argued in places like Saudi Arabia, China and Vietnam, Obama insisted a cooperative relationship was the best path toward progress on human rights. “Even as our governments deal candidly with our differences, I believe, as we have shown from Cuba to Burma to Vietnam, the best way to deliver progress for all of our peoples is by closer cooperation between our countries,” Obama said. Speaking ahead of his meeting with Sombath’s wife, Rhodes said it’s standard for the President to raise human rights concerns broadly in his meetings with leaders, but for specific cases to be raised separately, and at a lower level. “The President addresses these issues around civil society and human rights in his meetings, and then we tend to raise individual cases with the government around those meetings,” he said. Sombath’s case, he said, has long been on the US radar. “We stay in regular contact with her and we care very deeply about her case and her husband.  We believe that she deserves to know what happened to her husband and what the status of his case is,” he said. “The response that we get from the Lao government is what she referenced, which is that they’re continuing to investigate this. And oftentimes, they indicate that they do not know and that there is an ongoing investigation.” For Shui Meng Ng, a blackout on her husband’s case persists. “I have no information,” she said. “That’s the hardest part.”


Yates specifically attacked Trump for his "inexplicable refusal" to confirm Russian involvement Later Friday, however, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump raised the issue with Putin Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Friday slammed President Donald Trump’s “inexplicable refusal” to confirm Russian interference in the 2016 election, saying it hinders the US Intelligence Community. As the highly anticipated, first ever Trump-Putin meeting was getting underway, Yates, a career Department of Justice official who was fired by Trump in January, tweeted: “POTUS’ inexplicable refusal to confirm Russian election interference insults career intel pros & hinders our ability to prevent in future.” POTUS' inexplicable refusal to confirm Russian election interference insults career intel pros & hinders our ability to prevent in future. Later Friday, however, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters that Trump opened his meeting with Putin by “raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.” “They had a very robust and lengthy exchange on the subject,” Tillerson added. But when he spoke at a news conference in Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday, Trump only offered a tepid endorsement of findings by intelligence officials that Russia was behind the election meddling. “I think it very well could be Russia but I think it could very well have been other countries,” Trump said. After noting “wrong” intelligence that led to the “one big mess” in Iraq, he concluded, “Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure” who did the hacking. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, appearing on CNN’s “The Situation Room” Thursday, attacked the claim that others may have interfered. “As far as others doing this, boy, that’s news to me,” Clapper said. “We saw no evidence whatsoever that it was anyone involved in this other than the Russians.” Related video Yates: Flynn vulnerable to blackmail Yates has voiced concerns about the Trump administration and Russia before. In a May congressional hearing about the firing of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Yates testified: “To state the obvious: You don’t want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians.” Trump fired Yates in January, citing her decision to not defend Trump’s travel ban. At the time, the White House criticized Yates for “betray(ing) the Department of Justice.” The tweet was Yates’ second as a private citizen since she launched her account last month.


Magnus Wennman photographed villages where ISIS militants once lived in Iraq An offensive is underway to drive ISIS out of the city of Mosul Where there is danger, where there is death, there is also responsibility. For Magnus Wennman, it is that responsibility and drive to tell a story that has catapulted him from war zone to war zone and conflict to conflict. In the past 20 years, the Swedish photographer has seen his share of blood and violence. But the plight of the Iraqi people – and those ensconced in the middle of the battle for Mosul – has taken the meaning of warfare to a new level. “I would say this is probably the worst situation I’ve seen,” Wennman said. “There is no filter, no one can feel safe, and there are no safe areas. This conflict is so brutal. (ISIS militants) are not concerned if it’s civilians, journalists or anyone – they are all the enemy. It’s a very, very scary situation.” Wennman, working for Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, was embedded with Kurdish Peshmerga troops on the opening day of the assault on Mosul. He was allowed to enter a number of villages that had been inhabited by ISIS troops before they were driven out by coalition forces. He was guided past hundreds of booby traps and improvised explosive devices to homes that had housed ISIS fighters and a huge collection of bomb-making equipment. “Everything was pretty much destroyed because of the battle the day before,” he said. Related article Child refugees scarred by war “In my opinion, the people who were living there didn’t really prepare for a life there. There was bomb-making equipment everywhere. It seemed that the people who had lived there were just preparing for war.” Wennman had visited Iraq a month earlier to chart the journey of refugees who were fleeing the violence. He returned to tell a story, which he says has become “the most important of the year.” His “Where the Children Sleep” series, in which he documented the struggles of Syrian refugees, touched hearts across the world and was universally lauded. He has witnessed a number of harrowing sights and at times wrestled with the emotional side of his work, as he did during his most recent trip to Iraq. “I think in one way you have to protect yourself from feelings,” he said, “and you do that with the help of your camera and profession. But sometimes it’s really hard. Social mediaFollow @CNNPhotos on Twitter to join the conversation about photography. “If you don’t protect yourself, you’re not able to work. It’s something you just have to deal with.” Now back in Sweden, Wennman hopes that his photos will prick the public consciousness. “I want those looking to remember that it’s not a big group of people who are being targeted,” he said. “It’s millions of different people. They could all be you and me.” Magnus Wennman is a photographer based in Stockholm, Sweden. You can follow him on Instagram.


Barak says Benjamin Netanyahu's government is not interested in a two-state solution The government responds that the Palestinians do not want to negotiate A former Israeli prime minister has accused Benjamin Netanayhu’s government of consciously dragging the country toward a one-state solution that threatens the very essence of Zionism. They “are interested basically in continuation, extrapolation of the present situation,” Ehud Barak told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview, “which is a one-state, or headed toward a one-state solution, against all the declarations for the opposite.” It is “a hidden agenda” he said, masked by lip service paid to the two-state solution that has long been accepted by the United States and the rest of the international community as the basis for any eventual resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Related video The Israeli government responds Barak, a former general and chief of the armed services, served as defense minister for nearly six years - first under Ehud Olmert and then four years under Netanyahu. He was prime minister from 1999 to 2001. “I don’t underestimate Netanyahu. He’s a serious person; he was elected more than once. He tries to do what he believes is good for Israel.” But, Barak said, he has allowed his party, Likud, to be taken over by “extremists.” As a result, he said, the government has “drifted into a mindset of pessimism, passivity, fear, and victimhood.” Offering a response on behalf of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, spokesman David Keyes placed blame for lack of peace progress on the Palestianians. “You can’t negotiate with yourself,” Keyes said. Netanyahu, he said, has “the greatest of intentions, the most sincerest of desires to engage in peace negotiations,” but “the problem is not the Israeli Prime Minister, who is desirous of peace, who constantly calls to the Palestinian leadership to meet and to sit down. The problem is that the other side says no.” The future suggested by that “hidden” agenda, Barak said, is a bleak one. “It will end up with one state from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan, with millions of Palestinians within it, which will make it inevitably either non-Jewish or non-democratic.” If “those Palestinians can vote to the Knesset, it will become binational state overnight and within a generation or so, [a] binational state with Muslim majority and probably a civil war between its two different peoples.” Barak did not limit his harsh words to policy toward the Palestinians. Israeli leaders, he said, have painted a false picture of Israel constantly at the brink of destruction, facing down existential threats on par with the Holocaust. Last year, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu said “Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem.” “The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis,” Netanyahu said, “were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world.” Barak was sanguine. “With all respect, due respect to the Iranians - and I was probably more hawkish than Netanyahu about this issue - none of the threats that are described as the Hitler du Jour is an existential threat to Israel anymore.” It is, he said, a “cheapening of the Holocaust.” “Take, for example, ISIS.” “ISIS is very effective in throwing fear, or terror, in Brussels or Paris or Nice or even on American soil. But, basically they are helpless vis-a-vis the IDF. They can do nothing. They’re 50,000 people riding on Toyota pickups with World War II machine guns. It’s not a threat to Israel.” The most pressing threat, he told Amanpour, was the slip toward a one-state reality. “One-state nation cuts under the very foundations of the Zionist dream and project.”