Schumer's comments are the latest salvo between the New York senator and a White House at odds on a centerpiece of Obama's foreign policy legacy. The White House believes they have enough votes to sustain a presidential veto should Congress reject the Iran deal but are counting every body. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the lone Senate Democrat to publicly come out against the Iran deal, suggested Tuesday that the White House deliberately leaked his decision to oppose the agreement Thursday night before he had a chance to explain his “no” vote to colleagues. “I told the president the day before and I don’t think he leaked it, but maybe somebody in the White House did, maybe somebody else did. I’m not pointing fingers,” Schumer told reporters after a speech at New York University on Tuesday. The White House has denied being behind the media leak. Schumer’s comments are the latest salvo between the New York senator and a White House at odds on a centerpiece of Obama’s foreign policy legacy. Former Obama aides and progressive outside groups have harshly attacked Schumer since his position became public and have questioned whether he’s fit to be the next Senate Democratic leader. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, threw cold water on this idea Tuesday, telling The Hill that he still supported Schumer. So far, no senators have come out against him as the next Senate Democratic leader. Schumer was long thought to oppose the deal, but the timing of his statement of opposition – ahead of Congress’s summer recess, when members are expected to come under intense lobbying from both sides, rather than closer to the vote when revealing his position would be less influential – has particularly distressed the White House. Congress will hold a vote on the Iran deal in September. While the White House is confident that they have enough votes to sustain an expected presidential veto should Congress reject the deal, they are counting every body. Related video Hoyer: Voting against Iran deal would not be 'path to war' Schumer raised the issue of a possible White House leak himself Tuesday in response to a question about the timing of his lengthy post on Medium that outlined his concerns about the deal. The leak of his decision came out in the middle of the Republican presidential debate last Thursday night, presumably when it would receive less attention, and the Medium piece appeared soon after. The New York Democrat said he planned to publish the piece the day after the GOP debate, but his hand was forced by the leak. Even though he was the one to aim the blame at the White House, Schumer appeared to downplay the episode Tuesday, saying, “Things always leak in Washington. So I don’t begrudge anybody for doing it.” And he also minimized the split with the President. “The President and I had a very serious discussion about it,” he said. “We like each other, respect each other, work together on 95% of the issues.” The President’s allies, though, are taking the breach seriously. David Plouffe, a former senior official in the Obama White House, continued the Democrat-on-Democrat war against Schumer late on Monday when he tweeted out a link to a story quoting Schumer urging the administration to try to negotiate a better deal. “Mitch McConnell will have a field day with this kind of naïveté. We will miss Harry Reid,” Plouffe tweeted. The current Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, announced his retirement in March and Schumer quickly locked up commitments from fellow Democrats to ascend to his post in January 2017. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, however, denied the White House had any part in the leak at a press briefing Friday. An administration source also told CNN on Tuesday that they learned about Schumer’s opposition from sources on Capitol Hill before the senator informed them, implying several people knew of his position and raising the specter that others had leaked the information. READ: Does Chuck Schumer’s opposition to Iran deal matter? Schumer said fellow Democrats understand where he stands and aren’t telling him they won’t back him because of it. Schumer said Tuesday that he plans to try to “persuade” undecided Democrats to help him block the deal but insisted he wasn’t twisting any arms on what he called “a vote of conscience.” “Certainly I’m going to try and persuade my colleagues that my viewpoint is right. But anyone who thinks you can force somebody to vote with you in the Senate doesn’t understand the Senate.” Missouri Democratic Rep. Claire McCaskill told Yahoo News’ Katie Couric that Schumer is “one of my best friends” and said she spoke with him since he announced his opposition to the deal, but that he didn’t lean on her vote against it. McCaskill added that Schumer “checked in” with her and that “he understands that this is a tough call.” Schumer said any effort to engage in “some kind of horse-trading” in return for a vote on the agreement would be “counterproductive.” Meanwhile, in Israel opponents of the deal were also trying their hand at persuasion. On the heels of a visit by Democrat members of Congress, Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin hosted a delegation of 36 House Republicans on Tuesday. The group was led by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, a vocal critic of the Iran deal. “We fear that the agreement with Iran is a first step in the legitimization of Iran’s policies and strategies, and only acts to further destabilize a chaotic region,” Rivlin told the lawmakers. CNN’s Kevin Liptak and David Shortell contributed to this report.


Here are the stories our DC insiders are talking about in this week’s “Inside Politics” forecast, where you get a glimpse of tomorrow’s headlines today. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is accustomed to the piñata treatment from President Donald Trump and his allies. But now, he is taking some hits from Democrats, as well, after months of praise from the left for his steadfast support of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Democrats’ beef: they see the willingness of the Justice Department and FBI to share some classified information about Russia meddling investigative tactics as bowing to pressure from Trump. Rosenstein makes light of his predicament, at times, during public appearances. But the Justice Department lifer is not a spotlight seeker and is said to not enjoy being in the middle of a political storm. “Clearly under stress but remarkably calm,” is how one longtime Rosenstein associate described his mood. The deputy AG is not one to talk shop during his rare time away from the office, but the associate told CNN:  “Rod is rooted in two things – the process and the law. And he says he is OK.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a warning for reporters on Capitol Hill: Don’t buy any non-refundable plane tickets for the month of August. Congress is scheduled to go home then, but sources told CNN’s Phil Mattingly that the always-debated but never-implemented talk of nixing the August break is very real this year. “Spoiler alert: this will happen this time around,” Mattingly said of canceling the August recess. Why, according to Mattingly, is an interesting blend of motives. Mattingly said McConnell wants to keep Trump happy, and acceding to Trump’s demand to do away with some of the recess is an easy way to preserve the current state of the relationship. One Republican lawmaker described the prevailing dynamic this way to CNN: “There is peace in our time between the Senate Republicans, and the President.” Another reason, Mattingly said, is the extra work weeks would allow lawmakers to get a head start on avoiding what would be a “pure nightmare” – a government shutdown weeks before the midterm elections. Mattingly said the extra few weeks could help the GOP sort out its spending priorities, and help clear a path to avoid a shutdown. Last week, Sen. Joe Manchin scolded his Senate colleagues for being “afraid” to take on a big lobby over a pressing problem crippling millions of American families: combating the opioid epidemic. Lobbyists for the American Medical Association, according to the Daily Beast’s Jackie Kucinich, have successfully shut down efforts to implement CDC guidelines on prescribing painkillers. The CDC measures, issued in March 2016, would limit doctors to signing off on only three-day supplies of the powerful drugs. The AMA says that’s too restrictive, and that prescriptions should stay between doctors and patients. Kucinich said that lawmakers once eager to curb opioid abuse, including codifying the CDC guidelines into law, have been moved off those demands by AMA lobbyists. “This just highlights how difficult and complicated it is to really solve this problem in America,” Kucinich said. Who’s invited to Trump’s upcoming Dallas fundraiser is generating some controversy and some uncomfortable legal questions for the Republican National Committee. Reports from Bloomberg News and the Washington Post say a letter, bearing the seal of a Republican committee, solicited wealthy Chinese investors to attend the scheduled Thursday fundraiser. The offer, according to the reports? That would be $100,000 in exchange for a handshake and a one-on-one photo with Trump. Raising campaign money from foreign nationals is illegal. Bloomberg’s Toluse Olorunnipa said the stories again raise ethical concerns about where the President draws the line on money, politics and policy. The RNC denied they were aware of the letters that went out to Chinese investors, but Olorunnipa said the timing of the story, against the backdrop of ongoing negotiations with Chinese techology company ZTE, could cause a political headache for the White House. The President’s promise to strike a peace deal in the Middle East could soon meet another roadblock. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, was hospitalized three times this month. Anne Gearan of the Washington Post noted that Abbas, now 82-years-old, is a heavy smoker, and his failing health has sparked questions of what happens if he dies or steps aside. According to Gearan, there’s no real succession plan for Abbas, and no guarantee that his replacement will commit to a two-state solution. “If he is not in the picture, whoever succeeds him might not be committed to those same things,” Gearan said. The net result, Gearan said, could be the US loses leverage for a peace deal that’s already struggling to take shape.


Tensions in Baltimore ignite after the funeral of Freddie Gray. Pilots remember evacuating Saigon in wartime. A baby is rescued after 22 hours under earthquake rubble. And sports fans anticipate the best day of 2015. These are your best videos of the week: Peaceful protests over the unexplained death of Gray, 25, while in police custody turned violent Monday as the city reeled after Gray’s funeral. The video is at the top of this story. This week marks 40 years since the largest helicopter airlift in history, Operation Frequent Wind. On April 29, 1975, as North Vietnamese troops bore down on Saigon, nearly 100 choppers airlifted 7,000 evacuees in less than 24 hours. Baltimore mother Toya Graham was filmed slapping her 16-year-old son several times and pulling him away from the protests when she encountered him with a rock in his hand, his face covered by a mask. Watch the video: Farmer Robert Hacon came across a fossil on his property in Australia. The find was confirmed as the fossilized jaw of a sea predator known as “Kronosaurus” that lived more than 100 million years ago and had teeth the size of bananas. Watch the video: This Saturday is a sports fan’s dream – an all-you-can-watch TV buffet of big sporting events, from the NFL Draft to Red Sox-Yankees to the NBA and NHL playoffs to the Kentucky Derby to the long-anticipated Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight. Watch the video: Buried in a building’s rubble for more than 22 hours after the magnitude-7.8 earthquake shook Nepal on Saturday, a five-month-old baby was miraculously rescued with no apparent injuries. Watch the video: A German climber with a camera caught harrowing video of a massive avalanche that hit climbers at Mount Everest base camp after the Nepal quake. Watch the video: The Japanese Maglev train holds the world’s record for speed, traveling up to 374 miles per hour. Unfortunately, commuters have to wait till 2027 to use it. Watch the video: A more low-tech train in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, met with bad luck during a recent storm as it crossed elevated tracks. A comedian outed the Cigars and Stripes restaurant in Chicago for having a two-way mirror inside its women’s bathroom. Reviewers on Yelp went ballistic, but its colorful owner refused to apologize. Watch the video: They might look cuddly, but as one San Diego man can attest, sea lions have teeth and aren’t afraid to use them. Watch the video:


Virus hunters explore bat caves for signs of deadly diseases Diseases such as Ebola, Marburg and rabies can be carried by bats The goal is to identify potential outbreaks before they happen It is a slow and cumbersome descent hindered by head-to-toe protective suits. A wooden ladder dips down the side, as two researchers in white suits and respirators make their way into Grootboom cave in South Africa. The suits make the journey more cumbersome, but they are the only things standing between safety and exposure. Inside the cave, thousands of bats either cling tightly to the walls or fly around in bunches. Any number of them could contain deadly pathogens. Without the suits, the researchers are vulnerable to any potential zoonotic diseases the bats could be harboring, which could transmit from animals into humans. CNN Films’ documentary explores how diseases like Zika, Ebola and influenza spread. Watch now on CNNgo. In this particular part of the cave are long-fingered bats. Wanda Markotter, a researcher with the University of Pretoria, catches ones inside a net and slowly stretches out its wing. “This specific species has been implicated in some of the rabies-related viruses,” Markotter says. “They are in high-population densities, and people are going to come in close contact with them.” That’s the other important part about this location. This is not some remote cave; this is only miles away from the densely populated of city of Johannesburg. “There are 1,240 species [of bats] worldwide,” Markotter says. “So they represent a big group of mammals and that’s why we probably find a lot of viruses in them.” Researchers are tracking animals here in South Africa, and all around the world, as a form of early-warning system for diseases that could come to humans. It is widely believed, for instance, that the first cases of Ebola began with a bat. Related video Investigating the world's deadliest diseases In 2014, West Africa saw an unprecedented outbreak of the Ebola virus, with cases concentrated in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. The disease was first discovered in 1976 in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo and there have been multiple outbreaks since that were well-controlled, but today things are more challenging. In a time where international travel has connected the world more than ever before, it takes a coordinated, global effort to prevent a widespread outbreak – as the 2014 outbreak showed us. Much of that coordination happens at the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. The CDC oversees 10 global disease detection centers around the world, including in South Africa, where constant monitoring is taking place. “We were tracking almost 300 infectious disease outbreaks of concern in 145 countries,” says Dr. Jordan Tappero, director of the Global Health Protection Center at CDC. This was during a 2-year period. “Only about 30% of countries even self-report [and] are able to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks,” Tappero says. “We are working around the world to try and improve capacity so that we have partners everywhere to respond quickly.” Related gallery Diseases you can catch from animals That monitoring starts with teams on the ground in caves like Grootboom. The team now crawls through a narrow gap to reach a difference chamber, where different species of bats with other potential pathogens live. Each bat has the potential to carry rabies, Marburg, even Ebola. These are some of the planet’s deadliest, but least understood, viruses. The risk is justified by the importance of the work as it is in the interest of public health, says Markotter. See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. “If you don’t know what’s in the animals, you won’t be able to identify a human outbreak quickly,” she says. “Most of the time we only respond when there are lots of human deaths and we don’t know where the virus came from, or where the pathogen came from.” Outside the mouth of the cave, a makeshift lab comes to life under a white pop-up tent. Bats collected from various parts of the cave are tested, samples are collected from their mouths, fur, and wings and everything is meticulously recorded. This is all part of the constant monitoring and early warning systems. If the team knows what’s circulating in the bats, they can flag it and alert the population to take precautions, or watch for certain symptoms. Their efforts will matter to keep this closely-connected world healthy. CNN’s David McKenzie and Brent Swails contributed to this report.


Suspect arrested just west of Moscow, authorities said Fourteen people were killed and dozens were injured in the strike Russian authorities detained one of the people suspected of organizing the St. Petersburg metro terrorist attack two weeks ago, TASS, the Russian government-owned news agency, reported Monday. He was identified as Abror Azimov Akhralovich and was arrested just west of Moscow. Akhralovich was arrested in the city’s Odintsovo district, TASS reported “At the moment, Abror Azimov has been brought to the Russian Investigative Committee for investigative activities,” the Federal Security Service (FSB) in Russia said, according to TASS. Related article The likely culprits behind the St. Petersburg bombing Fourteen people were killed and dozens more were injured on April 3 when a suicide bomber detonated explosives in the city’s metro system. Authorities identified the bomber as Akbarjon Djalilov, 22. Kyrgyz authorities said he is a Russian national born in the nation of Kyrygrzstan, the former Soviet Republic in central Asia. Djalilov’s DNA had been matched to a bomb left at a second metro station defused by authorities. Eight others had been arrested in connection with the attack not long after the incident took place, authorities said. The FSB said the suspect was born in 1990 and trained the suicide bomber, according to TASS. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack. #URGENT: FSB detains one of #StPetersburg terror attack suspects https://t.co/ztEYCetxb9 pic.twitter.com/KUW9pMTNrA Russia was once a hotspot for terror attacks, but the country has experienced relatively few in recent years. Many of the previous attacks were aimed at progressing separatist causes in Russia’s North Caucasus, including movements in Chechnya and Dagestan. In December 2013, a suicide bombing at a train station in Volgograd killed at least 16 people, in an attack linked to a network in Dagestan. The following day, in the same city, a suicide bombing on a trolley bus killed 14 people. In 2010, two female suicide bombers linked to the Chechen insurgency blew themselves up at two Moscow metro stations, killing 40. In 2002, Chechen rebels killed 170 hostages in a theater in the capital, Moscow.


NEW: Group protests Israeli 'hijacking' of ship in international waters Ship escorted to Israel port Netanyahu praises military's arrest of passengers Israeli officials said Monday that the country’s military had blocked a ship trying to break the blockade of Gaza, boarding it in international waters, arresting people on board, and directing it to dock in an Israeli port. The group trying to run the blockade said Israel had “hijacked” the ship in an act of “piracy.” The Israeli Defense forces said in a statement that it had ordered the ship to change course but it did not, so military action was taken. Israel has maintained the blockade since 2007. Israeli officials say it is needed to stop the Palestinians from launching rocket attacks on Israeli cities – and to prevent Hamas, the Islamic organization that runs the Gaza strip, from getting new weapons. The blockade has been criticized by the UN Secretary-General, the United States,and various international organizations. “After exhausting all diplomatic channels the Israeli government ordered the Israeli Navy to redirect the vessel in order to prevent breach of the naval blockade,” the IDF statement said. “In accordance with international law, the Israeli Navy advised the vessel several times to change course,” the statement said. “Following their refusal the Navy visited and searched the vessel in international waters in order to prevent their intended breach of the maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip. The forces have reported that use of force was unnecessary, and that the process was uneventful. The vessel is currently being escorted to Ashdod Port and is expected to arrive within 12-24 hours.” Ashdod is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Tel Aviv. In a statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu applauded the military’s handling of the situation. “I want to praise the soldiers and commanders of the navy on the steadfast and efficient operation in arresting the passengers of the boat that tried to enter the Gaza coastline against the law,” the Prime Minister’s statement said. “This flotilla represents nothing except a fake, artificial demonstration aimed at helping the terrorist  organization – Hamas and ignores all the carnage in our region.” Netanyahu said Israel protects itself according to international law. In a statement, Ship to Gaza Sweden, the group trying to break the blockade, said the Swedish-flagged fishing trawler Marianne of Gothenburg had been boarded by the Israeli Defense Forces about 100 nautical miles (115 miles) from Gaza, in international waters. The group referred to the boarding of the the Marianne as an “attack,” and described the crew as “captured,” and the ship as “hijacked.” “Ship to Gaza Sweden protest against this flagrant abuse of the freedom of navigation,” the group said in a statement. “Israel’s repeated acts of piracy in international waters are worrying signs that the occupation and blockade policy extends to the entire eastern Mediterranean. “We demand that Marianne be returned, and that her crew and passengers will be immediately released, so that they can continue their journey to their destination in Gaza.” The group said three other boats had turned back toward Greek ports. CNN’s Don Melvin in London contributed to this report.


Mia Love promoted Gowdy for leadership post Gowdy staying on as Benghazi Committee chair Rep. Trey Gowdy on Tuesday shot down calls for him to run for House majority leader and said he had no interest in seeking the post. “I’ve never run for any leadership position, and I’m not going to start now,” Gowdy said. “Don’t know how I can be any more definitive.” The Benghazi Committee chairman’s comments came after Rep. Mia Love said Gowdy would jump into the contest for majority leader if asked to do so. “He said that he would join if he was asked to serve,” the Utah Republican, who is leading a draft Gowdy effort, told CNN. Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Budget Chairman Tom Price are already in the race for the majority leader post after Rep. John Boehner steps down at the end of the month and current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy seeks the speakership. Gowdy’s office said earlier Tuesday that the former federal prosecutor’s attention is on chairing the special House committee investigation of the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. “Chairman Gowdy is focused on the Benghazi Committee and will serve in that capacity so long as the Committee exists,” the statement said. Rep. Mick Mulvaney also tweeted that he spoke with Gowdy and the tea party Republican from South Carolina said he was not interested in the post. Mulvaney, a South Carolina colleague of Gowdy’s and his good friend, said, “l had to beg Trey to run for re-election in 2014. I absolutely think he’ll run again in 2016 for one reason and one reason only…he’s staying until the Benghazi Commission is finished. That’s it. He may leave after, but he’s certainly not leaving before then.” Mulvaney said if members voted for Gowdy anyway and tried to get him to serve in leadership, he’d likely quit Congress. Earlier Tuesday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz told CNN that he had several conversations with Gowdy and the South Carolina lawmaker indicated he would seek the post if drafted. Chaffetz said Gowdy isn’t the kind of person who would “beat the bushes” for votes, but would be responsive to a draft movement. On Fox News, Chaffetz said Gowdy could unite the conference better than anyone else. “I think Trey Gowdy as the majority leader would be heaven sent. It would really, really propel the Republicans in the right direction,” Chaffetz said. “If you want the best person to make the Republican case, if you want the best person to talk about why conservatism is the right answer for America, Trey Gowdy is our best foot forward,” he added. “I think we as a conference need to get behind that and make it happen. And if he’s called, if he’s asked, I think he’ll do it.” CNN’s Manu Raju and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.


The book 'The Looting Machine' documents resource extraction across Africa Resource dependency is often linked to repressive regimes Author demands reform of offshore banking system exposed in 'Panama Papers' Katanga province in the Democratic Republic of Congo is blessed with enormous natural wealth, including vast deposits of precious minerals such as diamonds, gold, and tantalum. Katanga saw a spectacular mining boom around the turn of the century, when President Laurent-Desire Kabila and then his son Joseph licensed international mining companies to tap its treasures. This arrangement generated riches for the Congolese elite, and vastly more for the prospectors, but offered little to the poverty-ravaged population. From 1999 to 2002, the Kabila regime “transferred ownership of at least $5 billion of assets from the state-mining sector to private companies under its control… with no compensation or benefit for the State treasury,” a United Nations investigation found. The bonanza coincided with a ruthless crackdown on dissent. In 2004, a small, mostly civilian group took over a mine operated by the Australian firm Anvil Mining in Kilwa village, protesting that the company was making huge profits without rewarding the local workforce. According to a UN report, the Congolese army crushed the uprising and killed around 100 people, many by summary execution. The combination of staggering wealth, rampant violence, and abject poverty in DR Congo is no coincidence, but part of a pattern causing devastation across Africa, according to Financial Times investigative journalist Tom Burgis. In a new edition of his book The Looting Machine, the author probes the paradox of “the continent that is at once the world’s poorest and, arguably, its richest.” Burgis, a former correspondent in Lagos and Johannesburg, finds a wide variety of kleptocrats and rackets over his travels through dozens of resource-rich countries. But a common thread is that the wholesale expropriation of resources during colonial times has barely slowed through the post-independence era, albeit with new beneficiaries. “Western governments are not supposed to wield commercial and political power at the same time, and certainly not to use one to benefit the other,” says Burgis. “In colonial states…The British or Portugese would cultivate a small group of local people who would fuse political and commercial power to control the economy.” “When the foreign power leaves, you are left with an elite that has no division between political and commercial power. The only source of wealth is mines or oilfields, and that is a recipe for ultra-corrupt states. Somewhere like Nigeria, an ‘extractor elite’…wanted to draw to itself the rent that oil and mining resources generate.” Burgis cites another colonial hangover in the continued presence and power of oil and mining firms. “The multinational companies hold enormous economic and political power in post-independence African countries,” he says. “In this way, there is a pretty straight line from colonial exploitation to modern exploitation.” The ability of governments to rely on resource revenue leads to corruption and oppression, Burgis argues, as they are not accountable to their people through a social contract based on taxation and representation. He cites Angola, which earns almost half of its GDP from oil, as an example of government as “a service for the elite.” A 2011 IMF audit revealed that $32 billion disappeared from official accounts between 2007 and 2010, a quarter of the state’s income. The Angolan elite rejects accountability and does not tolerate any challenge from the public, Burgis adds, recalling the recent case of activists being jailed for a public reading of a pro-democracy book. “Government can behave that way if it doesn’t need the consent of its people,” the author says. Angola has taken steps to address such criticism in recent years, with the 2012 election deemed “generally free and fair” by neutral observers. But human rights groups attest that oppression remains a fact of life. The growth of offshore banking in the late 20th century created new opportunities for resource tycoons to cover their tracks, a practice laid bare in the Panama Papers. Israeli businessman Dan Gertler was an early pioneer. After forging a close friendship with DR Congo President Joseph Kabila, he was granted a near monopoly on exporting the nation’s diamonds, and quickly became a billionaire. Gertler routed the cash through an elaborate network of offshore accounts in tax havens, keeping the details of controversial deals secret. “In the case of African resource deals, offshore funds have been shown to conceal questionable transactions,” says Burgis. “In the 1980s, bribes were literally cars full of cash and you handed the key to the official you were trying to bribe.” “Bribery now is much more sophisticated, and has become harder to define as bribery if it’s (through) offshore transactions or people being given equity shares in offshore companies…You have to crack open a lot of offshore secrecy to see the conflict of interest that lies at the heart of them.” The era of global finance has opened African markets to a new generation of mysterious traders. Burgis spent years on the trail of elusive Chinese businessman Sam Pa, who has cycled through multiple aliases while making deals across the continent from Angolan oil to Zimbabwean diamonds. Pa is believed to lead the secretive Queensway investor group, and Burgis claims he has represented the Chinese state, although the government denies this. Burgis is skeptical that resource industries can ever be reformed. “There is a troubling possibility that it’s not possible to put natural resources in these countries to work for the common good,” says Burgess. “(Almost) everywhere that receives a significant share of its income from oil or mining is badly run and often violent – it’s in the nature of these industries to cause these problems.” Botswana and South Africa have befitted from moving up the value chain – developing high-skilled industries from natural resources rather than just exporting raw materials, such as diamond polishing or manufacturing metallic goods. Burgis believes that diversifying economies away from a single resource – as President Buhari’s government in Nigeria is attempting to do – can mitigate the effects of dependency. He suggests another option is to keep resources in the country and implement high tariffs to protect domestic industries, but African leaders have been reluctant to adopt such measures. “We have a world trading architecture with strict rules on imposing tariffs,” says Burgis. “African countries have adopted the market orthodoxy that led them to pare down states and embrace global economic competition – in which they are overwhelmingly the losers.” Responsibility for the plight of resource-dependent nations goes beyond traders and dictators. The global economy still requires a huge supply of raw materials that originate in Africa, creating an imperative to maintain the existing, destructive model. Burgis applauds steps such as the Kimberley Process for preventing ‘blood diamond’ trade, but feels that developed nations could go much further. “The lesson for those in the West who want to address the damage from oil and mining industries, and the corruption that goes with them, is ‘put your own house in order,’” he says. “There has been a tendency to lecture African rulers (but) the problems are in the world financial system.” The author suggests a global public registry of companies and trusts to counter the use of shell companies in illicit deals. “That financial secrecy is available is not Africa’s fault,” says Burgis. “Address the part that sits within the global system, which can be regulated from Western capitals.” Related article Inside the world's richest diamond mine The nature of the global supply chain means that complicity with the crimes around resource extraction extends from African dictators all the way to a European mobile phone buyer. At every level, delusion is a powerful barrier to change. Burgis recalls a meeting with a leading figure of Angola’s kleptocratic regime, who argued passionately that he was protecting his people from even worse abuses. “It’s human nature,” says Burgis. “Nobody thinks they are the bad guy.”


At the same time that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using her personal email account to conduct official business, the Inspector General for the U.S. State Department issued a scathing report questioning the leadership of a U.S. Ambassador over, among other items, refusing to abide by State Department directives regarding “the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information.” The 2012 Inspector General’s report repeatedly cited Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration’s use of “commercial email for official government business” saying it was against policy to do so “except in emergencies,” which created morale problems, “confusion and discouragement within the embassy community.” The report states that the State Department Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security directly cautioned Gration, a retired Air Force General, “against such practice, which he asserted to the OIG team that he had not seen.” A spokesman for Hillary Clinton had no comment when asked about the apparent double standard. Spokeswomen for the U.S. State Department did not respond to request for comment. Gration could not be reached for comment, though in 2012 he told Foreign Policy that he did nothing wrong in using his commercial email. “I did all my official business on the State Department communications system. I supplemented it with my personal e-mail, but it was never a security issue,” he said. “I have a background in secure communications. I know what is right and what is wrong. I did everything correctly, and I have nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to hide.” RELATED: Hillary Clinton asks State to release emails: What you need to know Gration was criticized for a number of other things in the IG report, to be sure, but it’s also very clear that his using commercial email instead of State Department email was a real concern. The report repeatedly hammers Gration for the use of “commercial email for official government business.” The safety and security of the email seemed to have been of primary concern to the Inspector General. “The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required,” the report stated. “The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards. The Ambassador compounded the problem on several occasions by publicly berating members of the staff, attacking them personally, loudly questioning their competence, and threatening career-ending disciplinary actions. These actions have sapped the resources and morale of a busy and understaffed information management staff as it supports the largest embassy in sub-Saharan Africa.” The report did not note that the head of the U.S. State Department at that time was engaging in a similar, if not the same, practice. RELATED: Hillary Clinton’s stumbles fuel Democratic critics It “is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized information system, which has the proper level of security controls,” the report stated. “The use of unauthorized information systems increases the risk for data loss, phishing, and spoofing of email accounts, as well as inadequate protections for personally identifiable information. The use of unauthorized information systems can also result in the loss of official public records as these systems do not have approved record preservation or backup functions. Conducting official business on nonDepartment automated information systems must be limited to only maintaining communications during emergencies.” The IG recommended that the Embassy in Nairobi “cease using commercial email to process Department information and use authorized Department automated information systems for conducting official business.” Gration resigned from his post in June 2012, before the IG report became public.


Editor’s Note: Graham Allison is director of Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and co-author of the book Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author. In Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew had remarkable success in creating a prosperous modern state His lessons should prove instructive to other leaders in a time of great instability, writes Graham Allison Lee passed on his insights on the role of government leadership in development to Allison The death of the founding father of Singapore last Monday is an appropriate occasion to reflect on nation building. As prime minister for its first three decades, Lee Kuan Yew raised a poor port from the bottom rungs of the third world to the first world in a single generation. As it prepares to mark its 50th anniversary as a nation, Singapore is today an ultra-modern metropolis of almost six million people with higher per capita GDP than the United States, according to the World Bank. Lee’s achievement in building a successful nation contrasts sharply with the results of Washington’s expenditure of over $4 trillion and nearly 7,000 American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. Some say Singapore’s story is sui generis: Something that could only happen in that time and place. But its remarkable performance has less to do with miraculous conditions than with Lee’s model of disciplined, visionary leadership. Leaders of other aspiring-to-develop nations, and even the U.S., should take pages from Lee Kuan Yew’s playbook to address current challenges. We know many of Lee’s lessons on the role of government leadership in development because my co-authors and I asked him directly two years ago to reflect on them – points we captured in our book, Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World. Five stand out. First, Lee insisted that governance was first and foremost about results. Related video The political and economic legacy of Lee Kuan Yew In his words, “the acid test of any legal system is not the greatness or the grandeur of its ideal concepts, but whether, in fact, it is able to produce order and justice.” About the core purposes of government, he was crystal clear. In terms America’s founding fathers would recognize, he believed that “the ultimate test of the value of a political system is whether it helps that society establish conditions which improve the standard of living for the majority of its people, plus enabling the maximum of personal freedoms compatible with the freedoms of others in society.” Second, superior performance requires superior leadership. Lee demanded of leaders both intellectual and moral superiority. Contrary to modern Western democratic theory that emphasizes citizens’ participation in governance, his views were closer to Plato’s conception of the “guardians,” or China’s historical Mandarins. Good government requires most of all leaders who put the public good unquestionably above their own personal interests. He was disappointed by many of his counterparts who failed that test. Third, successful societies guarantee strict equality of opportunity for all individuals, but are realistic about the fact that this will yield substantial inequalities in outcomes. For Lee, the essence of a successful society was intense competition on a level playing field that allows each individual to achieve his or her maximum. Related video Lee Kuan Yew: Building a nation from the ground up Few things offended him more than denial of equality of opportunity on the basis of caste (India), class (Europe), race (the U.S. during segregation), sex, or other irrelevant attributes. As he put it, the leader’s objective was to “build up a society in which people will be rewarded not according to the amount of property they own, but according to their active contribution to society in physical or mental labor.” Fourth, about democracy, particularly Western liberal democracy, Lee had serious reservations. In part, this attitude stemmed from his own experience, but it also reflected a deeper philosophical aversion to ideologies. As he liked to say, “the acid test is performance, not promises. The millions dispossessed in Asia care not and know not of theory. They want a better life. They want a more equal, just society.” Lee enjoyed engaging American critics who insisted that without democracy Singapore could not develop an advanced economy. Related video Lee Kuan Yew's legacy: A blueprint for China In contrast, he argued that what most countries needed was more “discipline,” rather than democracy. He noted that the U.S. had been building democracy and giving aid to the Philippines for over a century. But, he asked, how many people from Singapore sought to leave it for the Philippines? Many people in the Philippines, he noted, wanted to move to Singapore. On one occasion, with a broad smile, he continued, “and you will notice that since the Vietnam War and the Great Society, the U.S. system has not functioned even for the United States.” Fifth, which leaders did he most admire? From the recent past, he focused on three: Charles de Gaulle, Deng Xiaoping, and Winston Churchill. “De Gaulle, because he had tremendous guts; Deng, because he changed China from a broken-backed state, which would have imploded like the Soviet Union, into what it is today; and “Churchill, because any other person would have given up.” On the current scene, the leader who impressed him most was the new president of China, Xi Jinping. As he said just before Xi took office: “I would put him in Nelson Mandela’s class of persons. A person with enormous emotional stability who does not allow his personal misfortunes or sufferings to affect his judgment. In a word, he is impressive.” Related video Singapore mourns death of founding father As China’s leaders attempt to follow in Lee’s footsteps in building a Mandarin-Leninist led nation that overtook the U.S. last year in GDP (measured by PPP) to become the world’s largest economy, and democratic India seems poised to grow at rates that will compete with China, we can reflect on lessons from Lee Kuan Yew and place our bets. Governing a nation in which two of every three citizens believe their country is headed in the wrong direction – and have believed so under Democratic and Republican Presidents for all of the 21st century – American leaders should ask whether it is time to focus on the acid test of performance rather than the litmus test of ideology.


Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders met in Brooklyn for their last debate before New York's primary CNN's Reality Check team spent the night putting their statements and assertions to the test Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders met Thursday in Brooklyn for their last debate before New York’s primary, and CNN’s Reality Check team spent the night putting their statements and assertions to the test. The team of reporters, researchers and editors across CNN listened throughout the debate, selecting key statements and rating them either true; mostly true; true, but misleading; false; or it’s complicated. Reality Check: Sanders ‘led the opposition’ to war in Iraq By Sonam Vashi and Eve Bower, CNN Early in the New York debate, Sanders drew a contrast between what he called Clinton’s lack of “judgment” in supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq and his own opposition to that war. “I led the opposition to that war,” Sanders said. “Secretary Clinton voted for it.” The claim is one he has made frequently on the campaign trail, including at a previous debate, when he said, “In 2002, when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney said we should go to war in Iraq, Bernie Sanders listened very carefully and I said, ‘No. I think that war is a dumb idea.’ I helped lead the opposition to that war. And if you go to my website, listen to what I said, and sadly enough, it gives me no joy, much of what I feared would happen, did happen.” Sanders was in the House of Representatives at the time. In October 2002, he made a statement on the floor of the House that criticized the idea of invading Iraq, citing concerns about international law and unintended consequences. “Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in an ensuing civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists?” he asked. His 2002 statement is the best documented evidence of his opposition to the war, and he also voted against the authorization of military force in Iraq in 2002 (one of 133 members of Congress to do so). He also spoke out against the war in a 2007 address to the Senate. But was he at the forefront of the opposition? We can’t find much evidence of that – at least not to the point of other congressional opposition leaders on the issue, such as then-Sen. Russ Feingold, who gave several speeches against the war and introduced legislation to cut off its funding. The late Ted Kennedy did the same in the days before the war and after. Sanders voted against Iraq War funding six times but supported four funding bills after 2006 (his volunteer-run site offers justifications for why he did fund those bills). While perhaps not at the level of Feingold or Kennedy, Sanders spoke out against it during a time when opposition to the war in Iraq was rare. (For example, Clinton, then a New York senator, voted yes on the Iraq War resolution, as Sanders often notes). We rate his claim that he “helped lead” the opposition mostly true. Reality Check: Sanders on the major banks By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney It didn’t take Sanders long to attack Wall Street banks. “When you have six financial institutions that have assets equivalent to 58% of the (gross domestic product) of this country, they were just too big, too much concentration of wealth and power,” Sanders said. The nation’s biggest financial institutions were JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, as of December 2015, according to Federal Reserve Bank data. Their assets totaled just under $9.7 trillion. Meanwhile, the U.S. GDP, a measure of the U.S. economy, was $18.2 trillion. So the assets of the six largest institutions totaled roughly 53.2% of the GDP. The size of bank assets and the GDP shift every quarter, but Sanders’ stat is in the ballpark. For that reason, we rate his claim mostly true. Reality Check: Clinton was ‘busy giving speeches’ to banks during financial crisis, Sanders says Kevin Liptak, CNN Sanders hammered Clinton for giving speeches to financial institutions, suggesting they had influenced her decisions on how to respond to the financial crisis. Saying he’d supported breaking up large banks amid the financial meltdown, Sanders said, “Secretary Clinton was busy giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225,000 a speech.” Later, after Clinton detailed her efforts as a senator to pass the Dodd-Frank financial regulation, Sanders scoffed, “They must have been really crushed by this. And was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements?” Clinton’s record of delivering speeches to Goldman Sachs is well documented at this point in the campaign. Clinton’s financial disclosure forms show she earned about $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks. But those speeches were delivered in the years after her tenure as secretary of state, and well after her time as senator. Clinton left the Senate officially in January 2009 when she assumed her role as the top U.S. diplomat as the financial crisis was swelling. Her speeches to large banks came after she left her post as secretary of state: three speeches to Goldman Sachs in 2013 for $225,000 each, three speeches to UBS Bank of America for the same price, and a pair of addresses to Deutsche Bank for $225,000 and $260,000 each. Sanders’ claims on Clinton’s speeches are true and well documented. But to suggest that her speeches – and their subsequent paychecks – influenced Clinton’s decision-making as a senator is false, since the paid speeches were delivered well after she left Capitol Hill. (Editor’s note: We clarified our Reality Check to split the verdict on Sanders’ claims.) Reality Check: Sanders on General Electric paying taxes By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney Sanders is no fan of General Electric. He and the iconic American company have been trading jabs ever since he attacked the firm in an interview with the New York Daily News earlier this month for sending jobs overseas and for trying to minimize its tax bill. The Vermont senator lashed out at GE and its CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, again at Thursday’s Democratic debate. RELATED: Is General Electric an American company? “And what we need to do is to tell this guy, Immelt, who’s the head of General Electric, doesn’t like me, but … well, that’s fine,” Sanders said. “He has outsourced hundreds of thousands of decent paying jobs throughout the world, cut his workforce, he has substantially, and in a given year, by the way, turns out Verizon and General Electric, in a given year, pay nothing in federal income tax despite making billions in profit.” It’s true that GE has cut its U.S. workforce and sent jobs overseas. A CNNMoney analysis shows GE’s domestic footprint has shrunk dramatically over the past two decades. Back in 1995, roughly 68% of GE’s 222,000 total employees were in the United States, according to its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. By 2005, the percentage of American jobs declined to 51%, and by the end of 2015, just 38% of its employees were in the United States. GE’s total global workforce has increased to 333,000. But it employs fewer American workers today – 125,000 versus 161,000 in 2005. However, it’s important to note that GE is a different company than it was 20 years ago. It has shed several businesses, including NBC Universal, and has sold off many of its finance units that were part of GE Capital. Also, it’s certainly not alone in shifting jobs overseas. As for whether GE pays any federal income tax, it’s impossible to know for certain without seeing the company’s tax returns, which the company does not release and are not otherwise available. Some groups have tried to ascertain what the company has paid over the years. One left-leaning organization, Citizens for Tax Justice, uses public information to assess GE’s annual tax liability. CTJ recently said that over the past 10 years, GE paid an effective federal income tax rate of -1.6% on $58 billion in profits. Our verdict on the tax claim is it’s complicated since the company hasn’t made its tax returns public. Our verdict on jobs moving overseas: true. Reality Check: Sanders on being one of the poorer members of the Senate By Lisa Rose, CNN Responding to a question about releasing his tax returns, Sanders said the filings would be boring to read. He sought to draw a contrast between himself and Clinton. “No big money from speeches, no major investments,” Sanders said. “Unfortunately, I remain one of the poorer members of the United States Senate.” That’s a bit of false modesty from Sanders, whose net worth was estimated to be $436,000 in 2014, according to calculations by the Center for Responsive Politics. The watchdog organization ranked Sanders No. 81 on a chart listing personal wealth in the Senate. Sanders actually had a higher net worth than such high-profile Senate colleagues as Marco Rubio (86), Robert Menendez (87) and Lindsey Graham (88). Sanders earned more than $200,000 in 2014, according to a tax return he released last June. His Senate salary was $174,000 and he collected an estimated $40,000 in Social Security benefits. Although Sanders’ income ranks him in the top 6% of American earners, he is indeed one of the “poorer” members of the Senate, in the bottom 20%. Verdict: True. Reality Check: Sanders ‘raised millions’ for his Senate colleagues By Tom LoBianco, CNN Defending his credentials to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, Sanders argued he had “raised millions” for his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. “I have raised millions of dollars for my colleagues in the United States Senate to help them get elected. I will do everything I can to open the Democratic Party to the young people who are flocking into our campaign,” Sanders said. “The truth is you can speak to my colleagues. We have raised millions of dollars for the (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). I have written letters that have raised just a – if I may use the word – huge amount of money.” It’s unclear precisely how much Sanders is responsible for raising for the DSCC, but it is clear that he headlined top-dollar fundraisers for the group during his time in the Senate. The retreats, led by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid on Martha’s Vineyard, were typically attended by at least 100 top Democratic donors – just the type of big-money contributors Sanders regularly rails against – who gave at least $33,400 to the DSCC, $100,000 to the Democratic Party, or both. Sanders has not “raised millions” for other Democrats through his presidential campaign, like Clinton has, but he was an active fundraiser for the Senate Democrats. He was one of many Democrats who attended the retreats and was part of the larger draw floated by Democratic leadership to pull in donors. However, it appears unlikely that any single senator “raised millions” at the DSCC donor retreats. Verdict: False. Reality Check: Clinton says she supported $15 minimum wage By Tom LoBianco, CNN Debating Sanders in New York, where state lawmakers recently approved a $15-an-hour minimum wage, Clinton strongly suggested that she had been pushing for that much throughout her campaign. “I have supported the fight for 15. I am proud to have the endorsement of most of the unions that have led the fight for 15. I was proud to stand on the stage with Gov. (Andrew) Cuomo, with (Service Employees International Union) and others who have been leading this battle, and I will work as hard as I can to raise the minimum wage. I always have. I supported that when I was in the Senate,” Clinton said. Sanders, who introduced a bill to set the federal minimum wage at $15, quickly shot back, “I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.” Clinton has long supported raising the minimum wage, but only recently came around to supporting a $15 minimum wage. In November, she proposed a $12 federal minimum wage, and said it should be left to localities to decide whether they wanted to raise the wage further. The Clinton campaign explains on its website: “Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for 15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15. She also supports the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime rules to millions more workers.” But cities and states already have the power to raise their own minimum wages – something cities and states across the nation have been doing for more than a year now. Clinton placed a point on it when she stood by Cuomo earlier this month at a rally shortly after he signed the state’s new $15 minimum wage. Verdict: True, but misleading. Reality Check: Clinton on Sanders’ Libya ‘vote’ By  Laura Koran, CNN Clinton defended the Obama administration’s involvement in the 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, and furthermore, suggested her opponent supported those actions as well. “I would just point out that there was a vote in the Senate as to whether or not the United States should support the efforts by the Libyan people to protect themselves against the threats – the genocidal threats coming from (then-leader Moammar) Gadhafi, and whether we should go to the United Nations to seek Security Council support,” Clinton said. “Senator Sanders voted for that and that’s exactly what we did.” In early 2011, the Senate approved a bipartisan resolution “strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms and for other purposes.” Sanders was one of the co-sponsors of that resolution, which was approved by unanimous consent but didn’t explicitly authorize U.S. military intervention in Libya. In fact, at no point did the U.S. Congress give the Obama administration formal authorization under the War Powers Resolution. An authorization bill was drafted by Sens. John Kerry and John McCain, but the legislation was tabled before it could be voted on by Sanders or anyone else. The Senate resolution, which was largely symbolic, did endorse actions taken by the United Nations Security Council, and urged that body “to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” The resolution also welcomed the administration’s outreach to opposition groups in Libya and noted support for “an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.” Because the resolution was approved by unanimous consent, Sanders didn’t technically “vote” on it, but as a co-sponsor, it’s clear he endorsed the measure. So did Sanders support the intervention? In a June 2011 interview, Sanders told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he had “reservations” about the Obama administration’s military intervention in Libya. “I mean, we are in a huge deficit,” Sanders said. “We are in two wars. And I would become somewhat conservative on that issue.” Our verdict: Sen. Sanders co-sponsored a resolution endorsing U.N. Security Council action in Libya. He never technically voted on the measure, but his endorsement of it was clear. Clinton’s assertion is therefore mostly true. Reality Check: On Social Security Cap, Clinton claims she and Sanders agree By Kate Grise, CNN During one of their many sparring matches during the debate, Clinton tried to convince her opponent that they had more in common than not on the issue of Social Security. Regarding raising the payroll income cap, Clinton said that she and Sanders actually share the same view. “I have supported it. We are in vigorous agreement here, senator,” Clinton said. Sanders didn’t appear convinced about his opponent’s commitment to protect the Social Security trust fund by asking wealthier Americans to pay more. “If I hear you correctly, Madam Secretary, you are now coming out finally in favor of lifting the cap on taxable income and extending and expanding social security,” Sanders said. “If that is the case, welcome on board. I’m glad you’re here.” During her campaign, Clinton has been warming to the idea of raising the cap on income that can be taxed for Social Security. Under current law, workers do not pay Social Security taxes on anything they earn above $118,500. According to Clinton’s website, she aims to defend Social Security and “understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap, and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system.” Clinton, in campaign appearances, has also said she is committed to extending the life of the Social Security trust fund. She has pointed to taxing incomes at higher levels and applying Social Security taxes to passive income as ways of doing so, but, unlike Senator Sanders, she has stopped short of proposing any specific plans to ensure the longevity of Social Security. And these comments are a shift from her position in 2008 on lifting the cap. During her first run for the White House, Clinton spoke out against the idea. “I’m certainly against one of Senator Obama’s ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax,” Clinton said during a Democratic primary debate in 2008. We rate her claim as true, but given her lack of specific proposals, it’s understandable Sanders is skeptical of his opponent’s long-standing commitment on the issue. Reality Check: Clinton on out-of-state guns in New York crimes By Kate Grise and Eve Bower, CNN Clinton has recently suggested that places such as Sanders’ home state of Vermont are responsible for much of the gun violence in New York. She didn’t go that far Thursday night, but she did say: “The facts are that most of the guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from out of state. They come from the states that don’t have the kind of serious efforts to control guns that we do in New York.” The statistics on where guns used in crimes come from are complicated. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recovered a total of 7,686 guns in 2014, but only 4,585 of those were traced back to the states where they were last registered. That means that a full 40% of those guns cannot be linked definitively to any state at all – a fact that severely limits the validity of Clinton’s claim. Of the 4,585 that can be linked to a state, more than 30% come from inside New York state itself. Furthermore, the ATF’s database of traced weapons is itself limited to begin with. The ATF says “not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.” So we don’t even know that all of the guns traced were used in violent crimes, as Clinton implies. Because of the imperfections in the data set, the ATF says the data “should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals.” Even though the ATF’s data is incomplete, it is still the best record of weapons that have been recovered by law enforcement and then traced. Clinton avoided wading into more trouble by staying away from her statement earlier in the week that “the state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont.” Of the guns traced to a state, only 55, or just over 1%, were traced to Vermont. Her emphasis on the phrase “per capita” makes all the difference: just 55 of the 4,585 guns that the ATF traced in New York in 2014 came from Vermont. As a share of Vermont’s total population of some 626,000, that ends up being 8.7 guns per 100,000 residents. South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia are the next closest states with 5.3, 4.74, and 3.82 per capita, respectively. Both during Thursday night’s debate and in her comments last week, Clinton is making a claim that is a big leap based on the evidence available. But because the evidence is too incomplete to prove her wrong, our verdict has to be it’s complicated. Reality Check: Clinton’s role getting NATO involved in Libya By Eve Bower, CNN During an extended exchange about America’s role in the downfall of Gadhafi, Clinton and Sanders clashed over the nature of Clinton’s influence within the Obama administration in early 2011. And though numerous senior officials at the time painted a picture of an active and influential Clinton, on the Brooklyn debate stage five years later, Clinton seemed to downplay her own role in crafting U.S. policy in Libya. In a recent interview, President Barack Obama said that his administration’s “failing” to plan for the aftermath of the 2011 U.S.-led NATO intervention in Libya was among his biggest mistakes in office. Echoing this, Sanders accused Clinton of having contributed to a “very dangerous foothold” for ISIS in Libya through her “active effort for regime change” as part of the Obama administration at the time. In her response, Clinton emphasized that the decision to intervene was Obama’s, and that her role as secretary of state was – merely, she implied – one of “due diligence.” But as the President announced his administration’s decision to enforce a no-fly zone in March 2011, senior U.S. officials were clear that Clinton had been instrumental in persuading U.S. allies to join the coalition. Clinton traveled between Washington, Paris, Cairo, and Tunisia, pressuring her counterparts in other countries to send planes to Libya and support a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing intervention. In these actions, she is widely described as having been part of a strong alliance of powerful voices within Obama’s administration that included U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and National Security Council member Samantha Power. Clinton’s advocacy put her at odds, however, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who had publicly argued against a no-fly zone, and Vice President Joe Biden, who was said to favor a much more cautious approach. Perhaps some of the clearest signs that Clinton herself, at one time at least, saw the importance of her own role can be found in emails she exchanged with advisers in 2011, and later made public as part of congressional inquiries into the deaths of four Americans in the 2012 Benghazi terror attack. In one email, she complained to staffers about timelines they had compiled for the media that did not show “much of what I did.” One such timeline detailed a “tick-tock” of 22 milestones in Clinton’s “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.” Clinton’s minimized her efforts at Thursday’s debate as mere “due diligence.” Because the statement obscures the real impacts she had, we rate her statement as false. Reality Check: Clinton on toy guns By Lisa Rose, CNN During a contentious discussion of gun control, Clinton criticized Sanders for his vote supporting a 2005 law that protects firearms dealers and manufacturers from consumer lawsuits. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act limits the liability of gun companies when crime victims try to sue. Clinton described the law as a “gift” to the gun industry. She declared, “We have tougher standards holding toy gun manufacturers and sellers to account than we do for real guns.” There actually are not rigorous rules for toy gun manufacturers and sellers, beyond the usual consumer product safety protections. Imitation firearms like air rifles and BB guns must be marked with an orange tip, in accordance with a law passed in 1990, but there are no further federal regulations on the controversial toys. Although it’s clear that Clinton was trying to punctuate her point by comparing manufacturers of real guns with those of fake guns, her suggestion that there are tough standards for toy guns is, at the very least, an overstatement. Verdict: False. Reality Check: Did Obama do enough to stave off global climate change? By Amy Gallagher, CNN Sanders and Clinton engaged in an heated exchange about whether incremental measures are enough in the face of the impending threat of climate change. Sanders threw down the gauntlet by comparing the threat of a climate change to the threat of an attack on the United States, saying, “we have an enemy” and going on to list “droughts, floods and extreme weather events” as the imminent threats we face from climate change. Clinton countered by touting her role, along with Obama, in bringing about the Paris Agreement for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, claiming that “putting together 195 countries … was a major accomplishment … and (Obama) deserves our appreciation.” Sanders described this and other actions taken by Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state as” incremental” and said “we have a crisis of historical consequence here … and those little steps are not enough.” In question here is whether the Paris Agreement, also known as COP21, goes far enough to prevent irreversible damage from climate change. It is acknowledged that the reductions agreed to by the governments of those 195 countries do not go far enough to meet the goal of preventing average temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius. What this means is that while compliance with the Paris agreement would lessen the effects of global warming, it would not prevent irreversible damage from occurring. The countries that produce the most greenhouse gases have not committed to reduce their emissions enough. We rate Sanders’ claim as true that this step is incremental and does not go far enough to prevent a climate change crisis. However, it is generally conceded that when facing a threat that is imminent and complex and which requires massive changes to the way that energy is produced and consumed in residential, commercial and industrial settings, cooperation between governments is absolutely a critical piece of any response and is difficult to accomplish. In many cases, such as in strategic arms limitation agreements, a first agreement with small goals has built trust between governments that all parties will abide by their side of the agreement and thereby paved the way for further commitments to greater change in the future. Before the Paris agreement, China, India and the United States had not previously all participated in any greenhouse gas reduction agreement. We therefore also rate Clinton’s claim as true that the accomplishment of Obama’s administration, with her participation, in bringing China, India and the United States, the world’s three largest polluters, together to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions was a major accomplishment and one that experts believe is a critical first step to a global climate change solution. CNN’s Chad Weaver, Justin Gamble and Katelyn Newman contributed to this report.


Mario DiGirolamo grew as a photographer even as he worked as a doctor and scientist He captured images of everyday life in his native Italy and New York They are quiet moments – a young couple bending their heads together in 1956, a little boy clutching a ball in 1958, a nun collecting donations in 1959, three generations perched on worn steps in 1968. They showed themselves to Mario DiGirolamo. He photographed them before the subjects even noticed and went on with his day – his entire life, really. “I’m not a professional. I’m not a photojournalist,” he said. “When I see a picture that I want to collect, I want to get it.” DiGirolamo was born in Rome in 1934 to a family of doctors. He wasn’t interested in medicine, at first; he preferred to wander with a camera, especially the 1935 Rolleiflex he found in his father’s desk drawer. But by the late 1950s, he had continued in the family business. He was out of medical school, working at a hospital in New York and stalking the streets with a camera on weekends. He married his wife, Gay, in 1963, and kept shooting photos as they traveled from New York to Italy, and then to Atlanta, where he worked for decades as a  physician and scientist at Emory University. He stayed active in camera clubs, tucking away images year after year. He exhibited in both solo and group shows and published a book, “Sole e Ombra/Sun and Shadows: Images of Italy,” in 2000. Still, DiGirolamo said he felt like a bit of a “second-class citizen” in photography, gathering images while he attended scientific conferences and journeyed between Europe and the United States with his ever-patient wife. “I’ve learned by doing,” DiGirolamo said. “I think I’m holding my own.” There’s a new wave of attention around his recent book, “Visione: A Midcentury Photographic Memoir,” and a May exhibition at Lumiere gallery in Atlanta. It uncovers those quiet, long-ago moments shot in New York and Rome, those glances at family members who knew him forever, strangers he never knew at all and places that have mostly faded away. He thinks his images “are interesting from a human point of view – their expressions, their composition, their moments of life,” DiGirolamo said, even as he argues that street photography has been around forever. Humbly, he agrees: “Probably, it would be more difficult to take these pictures now.” In the introduction to “Visione,” LensWork magazine editor Brooks Jensen said it’s more than that. Social mediaFollow @CNNPhotos on Twitter to join the conversation about photography. “It is a glimpse at a place and time that probably didn’t feel all that historic as he was living and photographing it, but now that these moments are gone and irreplaceable, his photographs take on an importance in helping us remember,” Jensen wrote. “These are not newsworthy events but instead are the kind of visual moments that stay with us, making a personal history of our lives.” For DiGirolamo, it’s nice to look back on a body of work, and see that it holds up. “I wish I could convey all this excitement of being rediscovered, or being looked at with new eyes,” he said. He doesn’t shoot much in black-and-white now. Instead, he spends time with his photographer friends, and takes his little point-and-shoot to junkyards, to spot colors and textures and examine them closely. But he still has that old Rolleiflex. Mario DiGirolamo is an Italian-born photographer based in Atlanta.


It bills itself as the hotel with the worst view in the world. And it doesn’t disappoint. Nearly every window from the Walled Off Hotel opens up to a 30-foot wall of concrete. It is the first ever hotel designed and financed by Banksy, the world-famous, but anonymous, graffiti artist. His mark – already visible on the concrete wall outside the entrance of the hotel – is even more evident in the 9 guest rooms and presidential suite. Construction and preparation of the Walled Off Hotel began 14 months ago. Banksy did most of the artwork himself, from the cherubs on life support hanging above the player piano to the Israeli soldier pillow fighting with the masked Palestinian above one of the beds. Two rooms were set aside for other artists, who were kept almost entirely in the dark until the hotel was nearly complete. “It’s been pretty mental to be honest. It’s been a crazy journey just (being) locked in here,” laughed Dominique Petrin, a Montreal-based artist who was invited to do one of the rooms. She has spent the last month locked in her room, not allowed to see the rest of the hotel. Her room is the most conservatively decorated… to a point. “I made this room like a nice, lushy, colonial room,” said Petrin, “but when you look at some details, you see something is really going wrong. You know when things are going so good, but at the same time it’s apart?” Each room has its own unique style. One room is painted to look like the guest is surrounded by concrete walls, and yet somehow, the room still manages to feel comfortable. Another room feels like an army barracks – furnished with bunk beds with foot lockers. The presidential suite, complete with its own mini-theater, study, and bar, also has a luxurious jacuzzi. But the water for the jacuzzi comes from what appears to be a water tank speckled with bullet holes. Instead of a gym, the hotel has a museum. The exhibition is dedicated to enlightening visitors about the separation barrier and providing context, while being painstakingly careful not to pick a side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that surrounds the hotel. “It’s meant to be a space that’s both empowering and informing for people,” said Gavin Grindon, the museum’s co-curator. At the entrance to the museum sits a lifelike figure of former British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour, whose Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed the UK’s support for establishing a “national home for the Jewish people” in British-mandate Palestine. One hundred years later, Balfour is still one of the most controversial figures in the conflict – thanked by Israelis, detested by Palestinians. Welcome to Dismaland: Banksy's grotesque new art theme park “It’s exactly one hundred years since Britain took control of Palestine and started re-arranging the furniture - with chaotic results,” said Banksy in a press release handed out at the hotel’s opening. “I don’t know why, but it felt like a good time to reflect on what happens when the United Kingdom makes a huge political decision without fully comprehending the consequences,” the statement read, referencing in one line Balfour and Brexit. The hotel sits in Area C, a portion of the West Bank under Israeli control. That means both Israelis and Palestinians are allowed to visit. A few steps away is Area A, where Israelis are forbidden, while many Palestinians face major restrictions in Israel. The Walled Off Hotel is intended as a place of meeting – a safe space for discussion. The hotel itself, in its art and its literature, refuses to take one side while acknowledging both. The wall “divides the nation of Palestine from the state of Israel and restricts movement between the two for citizens of both sides,” the hotel’s website reads. “Depending on who you talk to its either a vital security measure or an instrument of apartheid. “Its route is highly controversial and it has a dramatic impact on the daily lives of a lot of people. The one thing beyond dispute is that everything here is under dispute.” The wall, mere steps from the hotel’s front door, has been described as the biggest canvas in the world. 'The Hive': Sound and light installation controlled by bees Political graffiti, art, and different messages adorn nearly the entire length of the wall as it cuts between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Banksy painted nine pictures on and near the wall a decade ago. An art supply store is connected to the hotel in case guests want to add their own message to the separation barrier. “Walls are hot right now, but I was into them long before Trump made it cool,” Banksy said in his statement. For more information about the hotel visit the website here. Watch a previously recorded Facebook Live here.


Russia insists it is striking ISIS and other terrorists in Syria, but activists say 36 civilians were killed Russia says it's coordinating with the Assad regime on its targets for airstrikes Many suspect Russia is actually targeting Syrian rebels, whom the U.S. and allies support Is Russia really targeting ISIS with airstrikes in Syria? Or is it doing something the U.S. considers more troubling? Russia stunned the U.S. on Wednesday by giving it just a one-hour heads-up that it was going to pummel ISIS targets. U.S. aircraft should stay out of the way, it said. The problem, analysts say, is that Russia doesn’t seem to be pounding ISIS targets. Instead, they say, Russia appears to be attacking rebels to help crush Syrian dissent and bolster Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Either way, Russia’s new attacks can have big ramifications not just for the Syrian civil war, but for the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS. Russia said its airstrikes in Syria came at the request of al-Assad. And the Kremlin said it’s coordinating its targets with the Syrian regime. Related gallery Syria's civil war in pictures The Russian Defense Ministry said warplanes targeted eight ISIS positions Wednesday, including arms, transportation, communications and control positions. But the targets aren’t limited to ISIS, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the state news agency Tass. “This operation is aimed at supporting the Syrian armed forces in the fight against the Islamic State terrorist group (banned in Russia) and other extremist groups,” Peskov said. The phrase “other extremist groups” is critical. Since the beginning of Syria’s four-year civil war, al-Assad has referred to his opponents as “terrorist groups” – starting well before ISIS became a serious threat in Syria. That raises the possibility that Russian airstrikes could land on Syrian rebels and civilian dissidents. And that could escalate the massive refugee crisis that has sent millions of Syrians fleeing to other countries. The Russian attacks Wednesday didn’t appear to hit targets under the control of ISIS, which operates in the north and east of the country, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said. And a senior U.S. administration official said a Russian airstrike near the Syrian city of Homs “has no strategic purpose” in combating ISIS, which “shows they are not there to go after ISIL” – another acronym for ISIS. The Institute for the Study of War said Russian airstrikes appeared to target Syrian rebels, not ISIS. “Russian warplanes conducted 20 airstrikes on the rebel-held towns of Rastan and Talbisah north of Homs City, as well as on the towns of Al Latamneh and Kafr Zeita in Hama Province,” the institute said. It added that “local Syrian sources claim the airstrikes exclusively targeted rebel positions.” France, part of the U.S.-led coalition striking ISIS targets in Syria, said it is also questioning Russia’s true motives. Related video France: If Russia hits non-ISIS, only aim is backing Assad “We have to check that it really was Daesh and terrorist groups that really have been targeted and not opponents to the Syrian regime or the civilian population,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters Wednesday. Daesh is the Arabic acronym for ISIS. “I’m not accusing anybody of anything, but we have to check the facts,” he added. But the Syrian National Coalition, a dissident group, reported 36 people were killed in the Russian airstrikes  – all civilians. Lots of military jets from different countries flying in cramped airspace could be disastrous. Related video Russia unleashes airstrikes in Syria “This is going to get very dangerous,” CNN military analyst and retired Lt. Col. Rick Francona said Thursday. “Right now you’ve got the aircraft of the Syrian air force, the Russian air force, and the U.S.-led coalition operating in a very confined area. These are high-performance aircraft – lots of weapons, lots of people on edge when they’re flying these missions.” He said any mistake “could result in an incident with fatalities on somebody’s side.” Related video Russia runs bombing missions in Syria Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said Russian airstrikes in Syria are “beneficial.” He said he would welcome Russia’s expansion to his ISIS-plagued country if Moscow joins the U.S.-led international coalition effort. “Don’t forget, Iraq was attacked from across the Syrian border into Iraq by Daesh, by ISIL,” al-Abadi said in an interview with PBS. “And that cost us a lot of human costs in terms of people killed, people being kidnapped, people being enslaved, women, children. So any joining of this fight against Daesh by anyone, we very much welcome.” Russia’s Syria expedition: Why now? Russia has long been a staunch ally of Syria – even as other world leaders say al-Assad’s regime has killed tens of thousands of civilians and must go. Related gallery Europe's migration crisis in 25 photos Syrian dissidents have been demanding an end to over 40 years of al-Assad family rule. But what started as peaceful protests in 2011 led to a violent government crackdown and now a full-blown civil war, with more than 200,000 people killed – mostly civilians. Moscow has been allies with al-Assad’s family since the Soviet days, when it was the main military supporter of al-Assad’s father four decades ago. It supplied hundreds of military advisers in the 1967 war against Israel and billions worth of sophisticated equipment since. In return, it got a lease on a naval supply depot in the port of Tartus. That base is critical because Russia had no other reliable port facilities for its navy in the Mediterranean Sea. On top of that, the Syrian regime has been a big customer for Russian weapons, with billions of dollars in estimated spending. The U.S. intelligence community now suspects Russia beefed up its military strength in Syria because al-Assad may not be able to hang onto power – and Moscow wants to position itself to back a proxy if the regime were to collapse. Related video U.S. and Russia give joint statement on Syria The Pentagon has the same suspicion, Department of Defense officials told CNN. Russia’s bold move in Syria “will clearly signal to regional and international powers Russia’s determination to prevent Assad’s ouster,” said Ayham Kamel of the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy. Ultimately, Russia’s intervention is a game-changer in Syria, the Institute for the Study of War says. “It will alter the nature of international negotiations, compromise and weaken the cohesion and efforts of the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition (and) strengthen the Assad regime.” Toll of Syria’s war: Baby born with shrapnel on forehead CNN’s Tim Lister, Kevin Liptak, Elise Labott, Barbara Starr and Brian Walker contributed to this report.


On the 50th anniversary of his capture in Vietnam, Sen. John McCain recalled the specifics of his ordeal – and fellow prisoners recounted the courage with which he faced it. “Hard to believe 50 years ago today my A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over North Vietnam,” McCain wrote Thursday in a Facebook post. “The great honor of my life was to serve in the company of heroes in Vietnam, Americans whose comradery, bravery and resilience in the face of tremendous hardship inspired us to resist our captors and find strength and hope even in the darkest of hours.” The Arizona Republican looked back on the experience in a video featuring archival news footage and photos, along with recollections from fellow prisoners of war. McCain was captured in 1967 and held in the infamous detention facility known as the “Hanoi Hilton” for more than five years, where he was repeatedly tortured. He was released in March 1973. Related article The absolutely remarkable life of John McCain “I met John McCain in the Hanoi prison camps when I watched him through a peephole in my door display incredible courage and stamina under the most unbelievable conditions,” Col. Tom Moe said in an undated clip in the video. “I watched him personally go through these situations, and he would resolutely stand up to the enemy, not only refusing early release but maintaining his courage and his resistance all the way until the day we came home.” The video also features McCain’s own memories of the time from a 2003 interview. The senator rarely addresses his time as a POW publicly. “I think he feels that it’s just wrong to try to trade on being a hero, but he is,” Col. George Bud Day, McCain’s POW roommate, says in a clip. McCain has increasingly emerged as a figurehead for the Republican opposition to President Donald Trump. In a blistering speech last week widely seen as a rebuke of Trump’s politics, McCain warned against the US turning toward “half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems.” After, Trump warned that McCain should “be careful.” “I’m being very nice. I’m being very, very nice. But at some point I fight back, and it won’t be pretty,” Trump said. Related article John McCain keeps serving his revenge to Donald Trump ice cold McCain also appeared to target the President’s Vietnam War-era military deferments in an interview this week. “One aspect of the conflict, by the way, that I will never ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest income level of America and the highest income level found a doctor that would say they had a bone spur,” McCain told C-SPAN. Trump, who attended the private New York Military Academy as a young man, received five military draft deferments during the Vietnam War, including one medical deferment after he was diagnosed with bone spurs in his foot. The feud between the two stretches back to the 2016 presidential campaign, when then-candidate Trump scoffed at the McCain’s time as a POW. “He is not a war hero,” Trump said. “He is a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK? I hate to tell you. He is a war hero because he was captured.” CNN’s Dan Merica contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Former US Rep. Steve Israel, a Democrat from New York, is chairman of the Global Institute at Long Island University and a CNN contributor. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. CNN Special Report “The First Son: The Life of Donald Trump Jr.” airs Friday at 9:30 p.m. ET/PT. Steve Israel: I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Although we conducted opposition research, we never met with questionable sources. The President is wrong when he says that most people would have taken that meeting, he writes At Thursday’s press conference in Paris, President Trump said that “most people would’ve taken that meeting” with Natalia Veselnitskaya, described in bombshell emails released by Donald Trump Jr. as a “Russian government attorney” who was offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. While some people might have taken that meeting, there are many who would have refused meetings that were far less consequential than one with someone purportedly acting on behalf of a hostile power trying to influence an election. (Veselnitskaya has denied that she is connected to the Kremlin.) Related article Donald Trump Jr. astonishes America For four years, I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. There’s no question that standard opposition research was a valid tool in our campaigns and in our opponent’s campaigns. But when that research raises troubling questions as to sources, methods and provenance, we were quite clear with our candidates: if you have received materials from a potentially unsavory source, immediately turn it over to the appropriate authorities. I stressed this at candidate briefings and in conference calls. Mostly it came up when a candidate would report receiving some envelope with no return address, filled with innuendos and gossip. One of the most recent and widely reported cases occurred in 2000, in an event that became known as “Debategate,” when the Gore campaign received a packet containing sensitive debate preparation materials apparently stolen from Texas Governor George Bush’s campaign. Former Congressman Tom Downey, who was helping Vice President Gore with debate prep and received the suspicious package at his Washington Office, didn’t say, as Donald Trump Jr. said, “I love it!” He immediately delivered it to the FBI. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook One other thing on the very nature of opposition research – it is usually conducted by trained researchers using openly sourced and widely available materials: Lexis-Nexis searches, municipal records, etc. Not based on “dirt” offered by a foreign national connected with the government of a hostile power. The President is wrong when he says that most people would have taken that meeting. Not anyone, sir. But certainly, your son, your campaign manager and your son-in-law.


Nine other people were injured, the state-run Saudi Press Agency says It says the explosion, which happened in the kingdom's Asir region, is thought to have been caused by a suicide bomber The mosque belongs to a Saudi security force, the SPA reports An explosion ripped through a mosque belonging to a special emergency force in southwestern Saudi Arabia on Thursday, killing at least 13 people and leaving nine others wounded, the state-run Saudi Press Agency reported. The Islamist extremist group ISIS claimed responsibility for the explosion, saying it was caused by a suicide bomber. Investigators do believe a suicide bomber caused the blast in the mosque, which is located inside an emergency force  headquarters building in the kingdom’s Asir region, the SPA reported, citing an Interior Ministry spokesman. Officers were participating in noon prayers in the mosque when the blast happened. Ten of the 13 killed were emergency force members; the rest were others who worked at the site, SPA reported. The kingdom’s special emergency force, answering to the Interior Ministry, comprises quick-response security officers used for a variety of situations, including rescues, riot control and other police actions. ISIS’ statement claims the emergency force played a significant role in torturing ISIS supporters. The statement was distributed on Twitter through accounts known to support ISIS. This is the third Saudi Arabia mosque attack claimed by ISIS since May. On May 22, a suicide bomber detonated himself, killing 21 people, at the Imam Ali mosque in the Persian Gulf-area village of Qudayh, in one of Saudi Arabia’s few Shiite population centers in the majority Sunni kingdom. A week later, a man disguised as a woman blew himself up – killing three people – outside a mosque in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Damman, the capital of Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province. In July, Saudi Arabia’s government said it had arrested 431 people with alleged ISIS ties, some of whom the kingdom said were involved in the May bombings. The Asir region, where Thursday’s attack happened, includes a small portion of the kingdom’s border with Yemen. Saudi Arabia has launched numerous airstrikes in Yemen this year in support of that country’s deposed president, targeting Houthi rebels who took over Yemen’s capital.