Trump was "seething," according to a Republican close to the White House The charges only served to fuel questions about Trump's ties to Russia The dramatic intensification of the Russia investigation on Monday reignited President Donald Trump’s fury at the controversy clouding his presidency, prompting his aides to urgently advise him against lashing out at special counsel Robert Mueller as they work to revive a halting policy agenda. Watching the developments unfold on the large television screens installed in his private residence, Trump was “seething,” according to a Republican close to the White House. The indictments on Monday of campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates weren’t a surprise to Trump, according to people who have spoken with the President. Trump has long assumed that members of his presidential campaign would be swept up in Mueller’s probe. The revelation that another campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI was far less expected, the sources said. And the assumption that Papadopoulos is cooperating with the FBI’s Russia probe stirred even more unease among Trump’s allies. Related article Ex-Trump campaign adviser pleads guilty to making false statement Even as the White House sought to downplay the developments, the charges only served to fuel questions about Trump’s ties to Russia, which he has angrily denied and worked to discredit. A question Trump asked on Twitter – punctuated by five question marks – offered the clearest window into his mindset: “But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????” Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus????? The President’s attempt to change the subject was complicated by the highly detailed indictments of his two former aides, which painted Manafort as a well-compensated broker of pro-Russian interests. It was complicated even more by the unveiling of a guilty plea from a third adviser who had repeated contacts with officials close to the Kremlin – the clearest connection so far between the Trump campaign and Russia. As revelations from the Russia investigation rocked Washington on Monday, Trump spent much of the day hunkered down, surrounded by only a handful of aides in the third-story living quarters of the White House. Ex-Trump campaign adviser pleads guilty to false statementTrump ‘seething’ as Mueller probe reaches former aidesAnalysis: Why guilty plea is a big deal for TrumpWho could be next in Mueller investigation?Analysis: Mueller is Washington’s most powerful man Ex-Trump campaign adviser pleads guilty to false statementTrump ‘seething’ as Mueller probe reaches former aidesAnalysis: Why guilty plea is a big deal for TrumpWho could be next in Mueller investigation?Analysis: Mueller is Washington’s most powerful man Huddled with members of his legal team – including Ty Cobb, his in-house lawyer focused on the Mueller probe; John Dowd, an outside legal adviser; and Jay Sekulow, who called into the White House from his base in Nashville – Trump was bolstered by the sense among his team that the charges against Manafort bore only the loosest connections to the presidential campaign. He griped that Manafort’s role on his campaign had taken outsized importance in the media, and insisted his former chairman played only a minor role. Senior aides, according to a senior White House official, expected Mueller to target top members of Trump’s campaign team like Manafort, but the addition of Papadopoulos surprised the President. “The President is going, ‘Really, this is the guy?’ ” a senior White House official said in describing Trump’s reaction to Papadopoulos’ guilty plea. As the morning carried on, however, Trump grew increasingly frustrated as he viewed cable news coverage of his onetime campaign chairman arriving at the FBI field office in downtown Washington, believing his former aides’ roles were being inflated. The West Wing suddenly was back in full combat mode, with an internal tug-of-war emerging over how aggressively Trump should seek to discredit Mueller and his investigation. Even as White House lawyers urged the President to avoid directly criticizing Mueller, other advisers – including his former chief strategist Steve Bannon – suggested he aggressively push back. “Calling for Mueller’s firing would undercut the White House argument,” one senior administration official told CNN. Cobb, a White House lawyer, has been a leading voice inside the West Wing to urge cooperation with Mueller’s investigation. White House chief of staff John Kelly has reinforced that argument inside the administration. Both have told Trump that providing Mueller with information – including, potentially, an interview with the President himself – would allow the investigation to reach a conclusion quicker. Their recommendations have gone beyond simply cooperation, however; Cobb and Kelly have both warned Trump that spouting off on Mueller on Twitter or during friendly interviews on Fox News would backfire badly. For the past several months, Trump has largely followed that advice. But as word of indictments emerged late last week, other members of his team – both West Wing aides and informal advisers – have said that Trump’s kid-gloves approach to Mueller has yielded no results. Bannon, who was dismissed in August, has told associates that Trump’s legal team is steering the President in the wrong direction, and has suggested a more combative approach to Mueller, according to administration officials. A source familiar with Bannon’s thinking tells CNN that he is urging the President to start to fight back aggressively against Mueller. He wants the White House to get Republicans to cut funding, publicly debate Mueller’s mandate and slow down document production in court. But so far there is no evidence that Trump is willing to change course and several Republican lawmakers have warned against going after Mueller. “The President frequently changes his mind,” said one person familiar with the President’s legal strategy, “and we are always revisiting every plan.” Another person familiar with the President’s thinking said it wouldn’t be surprising for more lawyers to join Trump’s legal team. Many of the President’s allies have privately speculated that Monday’s indictments only made it more likely he would ultimately find some way of hampering the probe, including potentially dismissing Mueller. Cobb took care to note in a statement the President was “continuing to cooperate” with the special counsel’s office and investigation, and White House press secretary Sarah Sanders would only say Monday the President has “no intention or plan” to fire Mueller. During his morning session with his lawyers, Trump asked for an explanation of the federal grand jury indictment process, and why a sealed indictment was used, according to a senior White House official. He was also interested to know whether the indictments signaled that the investigation is speeding up toward its conclusion, the official said. Officially, the White House insists the probe is nearing its end. “We still expect this to conclude soon,” Sanders said. But privately, there are few legal experts or even close allies of Trump who believe Mueller is close to finished. A sense of tension and uncertainty was palpable in the West Wing on Monday, officials said, as they sought to keep the President focused on the week’s busy calendar. The dramatic scaling up of Mueller’s investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia comes ahead of what the White House hoped would be a policy-centric several weeks, with the opportunity to reset an off-course agenda. Republicans on Wednesday are set to visit the White House after unveiling their tax plan on Capitol Hill. Trump is expected to introduce Jerome Powell as his Federal Reserve chairman on Thursday. And on Friday he departs for a 12-day trip to Asia, where North Korea’s nuclear threat will demand full attention. Trump’s Asia swing amounts to the longest presidential trip to that continent in decades, a fact that has some of his advisers anxious about the results that jet lag and a foreign environment could have on the President’s mindset. It won’t be the first time Trump has departed overseas just as a swirl of Russia-related scandal mounts back home. A day before he departed for his first presidential foreign trip in May, the Justice Department appointed Mueller as special counsel, ensuring the story would follow Trump on his stops in the Middle East and Europe. Trump avoided tweeting almost entirely on that first swing, his cantankerous mood tempered by the presence of his wife, Melania, and a rapid-pace schedule that included stops in five countries. Some of Trump’s advisers have already expressed the hope his trip to Asia proceeds in similar fashion – though they acknowledge that attempts to rein in Trump’s behavior often result in the President entrenching himself in the very actions his advisers recommended against. Trump, meanwhile, has expressed concern the special counsel’s ongoing investigation could hurt his ability to negotiate with foreign leaders as he prepares to head to Asia. “He worries about his ability to negotiate with various entities and how much he’s hamstrung by this,” the official said, adding the President feels hobbled by the investigation and he and the White House believe he will be in a stronger position politically and internationally once the investigation concludes. At the heart of the President’s fury is the very existence of the special counsel, for which he still blames Attorney General Jeff Session and his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. At a previously scheduled lunch on Monday with Sessions in the private dining room just off the Oval Office, an official said the President did not raise the Russia investigation. Rather, a spokesman said, they talked about immigration, the opioid epidemic and upcoming judicial appointments. And Trump revealed few outward worries when he emerged in public late in the day Monday to greet trick-or-treaters from a spider-webbed White House South Portico. With Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” blaring from the speakers, Trump handed out plastic-wrapped cookies and high-fived costumed kids – including a skeleton in a “Make America Great Again” hat. But when a reporter shouted a question about the day’s indictments, all Trump did was wave. CNN’s Dana Bash, Jeremy Diamond, Dan Merica and Gloria Borger contributed to this report.


UK Prime Minister Theresa May warned Saturday that “ideology” should not get in the way as she called for a new security treaty to be agreed between Britain and the European Union after Brexit. In a speech at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, May said Britain wanted to continue vital cooperation on security with its European partners after it leaves the EU in March 2019 through a “deep and special partnership.” But she warned that “rigid institutional restrictions or deep-seated ideology” should not put the security of UK citizens at risk. “We must do whatever is most practical and pragmatic in ensuring our collective security,” she said. Related article Britain's Brexit crisis is now critical for Theresa May May recalled the terror attacks that killed dozens in London, Manchester, England, and other European cities last year as she urged EU leaders to continue working together with Britain to meet the evolving threats posed by extremist groups. “Those who threaten our security would like nothing more than to see us fractured. They would like nothing more than to see us put debates about mechanisms and means ahead of doing what’s most practical and effective in keeping our people safe,” she said. “So let the message ring out loud and clear today: We will not let that happen. We will together protect and project our values in the world. And we will keep our people safe now and in the years to come.” Britain currently cooperates with its European partners on security through intelligence sharing and its membership in the European police agency, Europol, and the European Arrest Warrant system. In an important concession, May said Britain would continue to respect the remit of the European Court of Justice when participating in EU agencies. She previously insisted that Britain would pull out of the ECJ, a position Brexit supporters in her own party insist she maintains. Addressing the conference after May, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the “security bridge” between Britain and the EU would be maintained and was still needed. “However, you cannot mix up this question with other questions that are important in the context with Brexit,” Juncker said. “You have to look at them individually. And you have to answer question by question, matter by matter. But I do not want to mix up security policy considerations with other considerations.” Related article Brexit is far from Europe's biggest problem In her speech, May said a new treaty must preserve current operational capabilities but also be respectful of the UK’s and the EU’s separate and sovereign legal systems. It should also include a form of independent dispute resolution across all areas of future partnership, May said. On the matter of data protection, the UK will “align” with the EU framework, but the UK will still have its own, separate, customized data protection plan, she said. “I recognize there is no existing security agreement between the EU and a third country that captures the full depth and breadth of our existing relationship,” May said. “But there is precedent for comprehensive, strategic relationships between the EU and third countries in other fields, such as trade. And there is no legal or operational reason why such an agreement could not be reached in the area of internal security.” The EU and UK are set to embark on negotiations on the terms of a transition period after Britain’s departure before moving onto future trade and security relations. CNN’s Nic Robertson and Simon Cullen contributed to this report.


Founded by Portuguese colonialists, the island nation of Cape Verde draws its influences from both Africa and Europe. Small, diverse and laid back, the archipelago nonetheless has a dark past. New finds from archaeologists have brought to light fresh evidence of Cape Verde’s role at the center of the transatlantic slave trade. Cape Verde’s oldest city, Cidade Velho (formerly Ribeira Grande) was settled by the Portuguese in 1462. Exploration had found the island – like the rest of the archipelago – was completely uninhabited; a blank canvas to build  a strategically important gateway between Europe, West Africa and the soon to be ‘discovered’ Americas. Tchinda Andrade: Cape Verde's transgender hero As a huge wealth creator for the Portuguese, the city naturally came under attack from its rivals, the English and French. Charles Akibode, director of Cape Verde’s Institute of Cultural Heritage claims nations often sent pirates to do their dirty work. “We know that pirates were like the army of the enemy in order to destroy the economy of the other,” he explains. “To attack Cidade Velha [was to intend] to destroy the economy of Portugal.” The city was destroyed on seven occasions, says Akibode, but such was the wealth of the place that it was rebuilt, time and again. Some clear vestiges of the city’s slave past still remain: balconies from which owners would negotiate prices for human property, or the city’s imposing fort. Others are more subtle, lying underground. Using 18th century maps, archaeologists are busy unearthing these chapters of Cape Verde’s past. So far they’ve discovering marble from Italy, limestone from neighboring Maio Island and tiles in Islamic styles. “The remnants of the Grao Parara and the Maranhao company are still here – it handled slave trade and business with the African coast,” says Jailson Monterio, an archaeologist from the Instituto do Patrimonio Cultural. “To the east we have the home on an army colonel. There is a Jesuit school to the west. There are many structures to be found.” A team from the University of Cambridge in the UK have recently uncovered the first church to be built by Europeans in Sub-Saharan Africa. After 20,000 years, the world's oldest people face a crisis of culture “It may be hard to understand why the church was built here,” says Monterio. “It’s built right on the shore. The water flows right through here.” Like many other structures in the city, the church was rebuilt multiple times – in this case mainly because of rainwater damage. Meanwhile, off the coast lie multiple untouched shipwrecks, evidence of a transitional moment in Cape Verde’s history, when the slave trade declined and the archipelago was forced to repurpose itself, becoming a port of call for whalers and ships on transatlantic journeys. There’s a wealthy of artifacts to explore, but Cape Verde is not a rich nation. Compounding the issue is the problem that many sites on land are privately owned, and permissions are not always straightforward. “Excavation requires a lot of funding,” admits Montiero, who hopes money can be found for further discoveries. “We already have some idea of what is here. What we don’t know is the scale and magnitude of it.” Cape Verde – tiny Atlantic islands where ‘people breathe music’ Madeira, island of eternal spring: 19 reasons to visit


Haley: "Security council is sending a clear message to North Korea today" Tensions with Russia ran high during Friday's meeting The UN security council unanimously passed a resolution with new sanctions against North Korea Friday after the regime launched its ninth ballistic missile test of the year. The resolution slapped even more UN sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) and condemns the regime’s continued proliferation of its nuclear and ballistic program. The new sanctions extend a travel ban and asset freeze on high-level North Korean officials and state entities that deal with the program, according to the resolution. The new asset and travel freeze by this resolution target senior officials and its core military apparatus that are directly responsible for the regime’s illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs, South Korea ambassador to the UN, Cho Tae-Yul, told the council on Friday. The list of expanded sanctions also included state officials and banks. “Some DPRK businessmen and commercial entities are also newly designated, which I believe will help further restrict the DPRK’s ability to finance its illicit activities,” he said. Though US military exercises in the Korean peninsula have been controversial in the international community, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley urged security council members to enforce the new sanctions. Related article As US military flexes, North Korea marches toward nuclear capability “The security council is sending a clear message to North Korea today – stop firing ballistic missiles or face the consequences,” Haley said after the vote. “Countries must also do more to break up North Korean smuggling rings, and cut off the sources of funding North Korea uses to pay for the development of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them,” she said in a statement. Ambassadors of countries such as France and Italy supported the resolution but stressed that sanctions are only a means to an end, not a goal realized. “Sanctions are not a goal in itself but as long as DPRK doesn’t stop its behavior, we’ll have no other choice than reinforcing the pressure on the regime,” Permanent Representative of France to the UN Francois Delattre told reporters Friday. Tensions with Russia ran high in the security council meeting Friday. New US sanctions were announced Thursday in anticipation of the UN resolution restricting alleged suppliers to the North Korea’s weapons programs, according to the US Treasury. Deputy UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov criticized the US unilateral action, citing three Russian entities and a Russian national newly blacklisted. “We are compelled to point out that after change of administration in the United States, and the sanctions as though by inertia remain a constant of American policy and this includes attempts to use them against Russian entities and citizens,” Safronkov said during the security council meeting. Russia, who historically is often a deciding factor in security council votes, condemned DPRK behavior, but not without voicing continued disapproval of US military muscle flexing against North Korea. “The reason for the tension on the peninsula is not just the nuclear missiles of Pyongyang but also the heightened military activity of some regional and especially out of the region states in Northeast Asia,” Safronkov said. US ambassador Haley, however, reaffirmed recent US policy in the region is precautionary. “The United States is fully committed to defending ourselves and our allies against North Korean aggression,” Haley said. Safronkov named the controversial American anti-missile THAAD system as destabilizing factor” in the region and called on the US and South Korea to reconsider recent military exercises. The missile defense system is built to take down North Korean missile, according to te US military. The US military arrived in South Korea after North Korea test-fired four ballistic missiles back in March. Experts seem to think the recent ramp-up in US military presence in the region seems only to be escalating the situation. “There is no amount of military pressure alone that will compel Kim Jong Un to volunteer to eliminate his nuclear and missile programs,” Adam Mount, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress,  told CNN. Statements from Pyongyang say their missile program is a defense against threatening American forces. Related article Missile defense system that China opposes arrives in South Korea “On May 29, the US imperialists committed a grave military provocation by letting a formation of infamous B-1B nuclear strategic bombers fly over south Korea once again to stage a nuclear bomb dropping drill,” said a statement from North Korea’s state-run media outlet KCNA. “The gangster-like US imperialists are making all the more desperate in their moves to ignite a nuclear war despite the repeated warnings of the DPRK,” it said. Mount, the Center for American Progress analyst, says the fact that the US hasn’t given North Korea any “red lines” it cannot cross means the Kim regime has no reason to stop moving ahead with its nuclear missile program. “Deterrence requires clear communication to work effectively,” Mount said. The Trump administration “seems to stake its credibility on North Korea refraining from developing an ICBM, without sending a strong signal to deter it from doing so. It’s the worst of both worlds,” he said. CNN’s Zachary Cohen and Brad Lendon contributed to this report.

United Nations Security Council sanctions on North Korea


Editor’s Note: S.E. Cupp is the author of “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity,” co-author of “Why You’re Wrong About the Right” and a columnist at the New York Daily News. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. S.E. Cupp: There's nothing conventional about the way Donald Trump has run his campaign Trump has done little to indicate he is capable of, let alone interested in, changing his penchant for "telling it like it is," she says Google “Trump pivot” and you get about 707,000 search results. That’s because reporters, political strategists, pundits, many voters – and presumably members of his own staff – have for this entire election cycle been collectively wondering if Donald Trump is ever going to become a smart, serious and disciplined candidate. The speculation over whether the campaign is leaving its old ways behind has bubbled up again with Paul Manafort’s replacement as campaign manager with a seasoned pollster, Trump’s vague but still surprising expression of regret last week for his hurtful words and the seeming effort to walk back a promise to employ a “deportation force” to physically remove 11 million illegal immigrants. Predictably, the mainstream media narrative has started to fall into line, with headlines like: “Regretful Trump Pivots 107 Days Late,” “Trump Goes Mainstream – But Will it Last?” and “Donald Trump (Maybe) Finally Pivots! It (Probably) Won’t Work.” But while the focus now seems to be the durability or otherwise of this latest “pivot,” few are asking the much more important question: When did we construct this new version of the political pivot, whereby a year’s worth of garbage is erased or forgiven, and why do we apply it only to Donald Trump? Related article For Trump, turning this around won't be easy From the moment Trump descended on the Trump Tower escalator last year, and proceeded to call Mexican immigrants “rapists,” to just this Monday, when he tweeted out tabloid gossip about a pair of MSNBC hosts, there’s nothing conventional about the way Trump has run his campaign. Some have found that exciting – indeed, enough to elect him the Republican nominee. But many others, including most other Republicans, have found it disturbing or even disqualifying. Trump himself has offered conflicting takes on a so-called pivot. Back in April he promised that the hiring of the likes of political “expert” Manafort was proof that “the campaign is evolving and transitioning, and so am I. I’ll be more effective and more disciplined.” Of course, under Manafort’s tenure, Trump tweeted out a pandering Taco Bowl message, attacked a Gold Star family and called on Russia to hack us. And after his New York primary win he said that he would be “so presidential, you will be so bored.” We’ve yet to feel bored, and as recently as last week, he told a Wisconsin television station, “I am who I am. It’s me. I don’t want to change. …I don’t want to pivot. …If you start pivoting, you’re not being honest with people.” Related video Mark Cuban on Trump's attempt to pivot Clearly, Trump has done little, save for occasionally reading from a teleprompter, to indicate he is capable of, let alone interested in, changing his penchant for “telling it like it is” – or, what psychologists call blurting. But as GOP strategist Rick Wilson noted, with exasperation, the media falls for the pivot talk every time. “It’s the 87th pivot this year. And every time this happens you know that there’s a clock running. And that clock is, when does Donald Trump get his phone back and start tweeting again? When does Donald Trump start letting his verbal dysentery spray out all over the world again?” Of course, most presidential candidates have to shift somewhat after courting their base voters to courting undecideds, independents and moderates. But those shifts typically look more like a slight broadening and softening of message. What those shifts do not entail is an expectation of some kind of mass amnesia, whereby general election voters forget about the inexcusable, offensive, alarming things the candidate has said or done for the past year. Those that have mulled a more dramatic repositioning have learned that you cannot, as Mitt Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom suggested in 2012, treat the general election pivot as an “Etch A Sketch” where you can “kind of shake it up and we start all over again.” Why? Because we don’t live in the era of the Pony Express, when news took forever to reach us. There’s no un-seeing or un-hearing what someone – especially someone as loud-mouthed as Trump – has been saying for a year. Even a voter who isn’t tuning in during the primary will have heard about his antics. Related article Donald Trump: America's one-night stand Yet this reality doesn’t seem to stop the media offering the Trump campaign the privilege of the pivot treatment. No one suggested, for example, that after Hillary Clinton admitted keeping a private server at her house was a bad idea that she was somehow pivoting toward becoming a more truthful person or accountable person. Yet, we are discussing on an almost daily basis whether Trump can pivot toward becoming a less extreme person. What is particularly disturbing about all this is that we in the media are feeding into this idea that what a candidate says over the course of an election is somehow meaningless, malleable, temporary and transposable. In doing so, we are telegraphing to voters the exact opposite of how to hold a person seeking public office accountable. If we’re not, why should they? Ultimately, if Trump really were pivoting, it would either mean he said the things he did – from banning Muslims to use of nuclear weapons – because he believed them, or because he was only using them to win. Neither should be an acceptable excuse. Words matter, and they should stick. Let’s ban the word pivot, until it can be used appropriately and responsibly again. Because in the era of Trump, there’s no such thing.


Editor’s Note: Jeffrey D. Sachs is university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. America is engulfed in a tsunami of unethical activity, Jeffrey D. Sachs says Trump continues to mingle public interest and his personal business interests, he says In a recent speech in Poland, President Donald Trump asked whether the West “has the will to survive.” It’s a good question, but aimed in the wrong direction. While Trump spoke about foreign aggression, the real threat to the West is the collapse of ethical norms, led by Trump and others like him. America is engulfed in a tsunami of unethical activity, and there is no assurance it has the will to save itself. The most recent sign of this rot from within is the decision of a federal appeals court to reverse the conviction of former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Silver got rich on bribes and kickbacks from individuals and companies doing business with New York state. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison for fraud, extortion and money laundering. Yet the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed the jury decision this month on the grounds that Silver’s bribes and kickbacks didn’t necessarily constitute crimes under federal precedents. They sent the case back to the lower court for retrial.  (Silver’s attorneys have denied he committed any wrongdoing.) The court’s “precedents” explanation reaches back to another case involving former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, asked for and received around $175,000 in payments from a Virginia businessman seeking regulatory favors from the state. The governor set up meetings, briefings and events so that the businessman could make his case to state officials.  A jury in 2014 reached the obvious conclusion that Bob McDonnell was guilty of bribery. Two years later, the US Supreme Court said no, he did not necessarily commit bribery, and vacated his conviction. There was nothing wrong, according to the twisted wisdom of the Supreme Court, with the good governor accepting enormous gifts from a constituent seeking favors from the state in return for the governor clearing a path for the businessman to make his pitch. These activities, said Chief Justice John Roberts, did not fit the definition of an “official action” under federal corruption law. However “distasteful” they were, they were part of the normal relations between a politician and a constituent, according to his absurd reasoning. One might be shocked that the Supreme Court, the epicenter of America’s rule of law, would allow a crooked politician to walk, scot-free.  Yet remember, this is the same Supreme Court that decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to eliminate nearly all restrictions on independent campaign spending by corporations, on the grounds that such restrictions violate the “free speech” guarantee of the First Amendment. Related article Trump's authoritarian playbook -- what's next? The court astoundingly argued that such contributions “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” and that “the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”  That claim is absurd. Overwhelming majorities of Americans hold that money has a greater influence on politics than in the past and that there should be limits on campaign spending. So here we are. Bribes are no longer bribes, campaign funds from corporations are free speech, and the politicians are just being good public servants when they accept money from those who seek their favor. Crooked politicians are thrilled; the rest of us look on shocked at the pageantry of cynicism and immorality.  Senior officials in law-abiding countries have told me they can hardly believe their eyes as to what is underway in the United States. Which brings us to Donald Trump. Trump seems to know no limits whatsoever in his commingling of the public interest and his personal business interests. He failed to give up his ownership interest in his businesses upon taking office. (Trump resigned from positions in his companies and said his two sons are in charge.) Government and Republican Party activities have been booked into Trump properties. Trump campaign funds are used to hire lawyers to defend Donald Trump Jr. in the Russia probe. Campaign associates such as Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn have been under scrutiny for their business dealings with clients tied to foreign governments. In response to the stench, the former head of the government ethics office recently resigned, declaring that the United States is “pretty close to a laughingstock at this point.” The resignation was not remarkable under the circumstances.  What was remarkable is that most Republicans politicians remain mum to these abuses. Of course too many politicians of both parties are deeply compromised by financial dependence on corporate campaign donors. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Some countries collapse in an orgy of corruption before they heal themselves. Brazil is a vivid case of a country that turned a blind eye toward corruption until much of the political class was implicated. Now Brazil has sunk into a deep political, moral and economic crisis, its former president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, heading for jail. Donald Trump, you are right. We are indeed fighting for the survival of democracy. And you, and the ethical collapse you represent, are our greatest threat.


Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on September 22, 2016. It has been updated to reflect recent developments. Indian army says it conducted "surgical attacks" along the disputed border Pakistan denies that the site of the attack was a terrorist base Could India and Pakistan really go to war? This is a question that has long been purely rhetorical - and almost absurd. After all, both countries have long been nuclear powers, a deterrent that encompasses the lives of a combined 1.4 billion people. Both nations have also seen some years of relative peace along their border, a break from the wars that pockmarked the 20th century. And yet. Today the question seems less absurd, and more urgent. India is claiming to have launched what it calls a “surgical strike” across what is known as the Line of Control with Pakistan. India’s version of events is that its strike attacked a terrorist launching pad. Pakistan denies that the site of the attack was a terrorist base, pointing out that two of its soldiers have been killed. India and Pakistan’s bitter dispute in Kashmir explained The latest flashpoint - a major escalation - comes after 18 were killed in an attack on an army base in Indian-administered Kashmir on September 18. At the time, the director-general of military operations for the Indian Army announced that the terrorists responsible for this attack carried gear which had “Pakistani markings.” The allegation unleashed a torrent of fury on social media. “Pakistan is a terrorist state and it should be identified and isolated as such,” tweeted Rajnath Singh, India’s home minister. Pakistan is a terrorist state and it should be identified and isolated as such. Ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s Secretary General Ram Madhav took to Facebook. “For one tooth, the complete jaw,” he posted, seeming to imply a disproportionate retaliation. On India’s many TV news channels, a steady drum beat calling for war gained momentum, reaching a crescendo of sorts in primetime. Arnab Goswami, the host of the country’s most-watched English news hour, expressed rage at Pakistan: “We need to cripple them, we need to bring them down on their knees.” One of his guests, a retired army general, went a step further: “We must be seen as inflicting punishment on Pakistan by non-terrorist means … the nation needs a catharsis!” But what about the ready nuclear arsenals both countries possessed? Surely that would be a deterrent? Related video Fareed's Take: Nuclear deterrence The retired army man, Major General G. D. Bakshi, had a clear answer: “Pakistan is one-fifth the size of India. If we fire even a part of our arsenal, most of it will be on the Pakistani Punjab, from where the Pakistani army comes: Not a crop will grow there for 800 years!” “Let’s stop self-deterring ourselves,” he cried. Pakistan put together a terse response. Sartaj Aziz, the foreign affairs adviser to Pakistan’s Prime Minister, issued a statement saying the country “categorically rejects the baseless and irresponsible accusations being leveled by senior officials in Prime Minister Modi’s government.” Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman told CNN that India was “desperately looking for ways to deflect the world’s attention from the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir,” referring to the protests and unrest there. And emotions have boiled over on the Pakistani side, too. On September 20, an Indian journalist was reportedly asked to leave a press briefing by the Pakistani foreign secretary. “Remove this Indian,” were the words an official used in Hindi, according to NDTV, the Indian news channel whose reporter was purportedly forced to walk away. “It’s easy to get carried away by the public rhetoric we’re seeing,” says Ajai Shukla, a former Indian army colonel who is now the strategic affairs editor of Business Standard. The September 18 attack is not the first deadly attack on Indian soil that New Delhi has accused Pakistan of having a hand in. Related video The hero nanny of Mumbai In January, another Indian military base was attacked in northwestern Punjab, not far from the border with Pakistan. And then there were the Mumbai attacks in 2008 in which 164 people were killed. While Indian officials continue to link those attacks to the Pakistan government, Islamabad has consistently denied any involvement. In each of these terror attacks, and others like them, there have been calls for a strong Indian response. “When it makes decisions, the (Indian) government is guided by realities, not by a public outcry,” says Shukla. “They realize that if they do attack Pakistan it does not play out in India’s favor.” Related video India displays military might Shukla points out that India is not strategically prepared to launch an attack – which he says is a “failure of the planning process.” One also cannot ignore the fact that Pakistan has the 11th biggest army in the world, says Shukla. “We’re in a symmetrical relationship,” he says. “The consequences of any form of attack are far worse than people realize.” Perhaps one difference with the September 18 attack, as compared with previous ones, is that some of the calls for an Indian retaliation are coming from within the government itself, which may necessitate action if only to save face. Pakistan is watching the rhetoric in India very closely, says Mosharraf Zaidi, an Islamabad-based commentator who has previously served as the principal adviser to the country’s foreign minister. “The sentiment of hurt and anger in India is understandable,” says Zaidi. “But the Indian assertion that the attackers were from Jaish-e-Mohammad, within a mere three to four hours of the attack, and the notion that the group is an extension of Pakistani policy, is completely counterintuitive to even the worst, most cynical notions of Pakistan.” Zaidi says that while Islamabad may once have been supportive of groups that operated in Kashmir in the 1990s, Pakistan had long eschewed that path, with consistent and public statements from the Prime Minister and the army chief. “In 2016, that would be a suicidal policy. Pakistan is a country that is trying to stitch together an economy. It is trying to market itself as a hub of trade for countries like China,” Zaidi said. India’s tough rhetoric and calls for isolating Pakistan are a bonanza for hawks on both sides, says Zaidi: “It undermines the voices of reason.” For decades, New Delhi has been resolutely aloof on foreign policy: It was one of the founders of the “Non-Aligned Movement,” which kept the country neutral to superpower influence. But at this month’s NAM meeting in Caracas, India was not represented by its Prime Minister for the first time since 1961. Instead, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made a point of cozying up to the United States. He has met with US President Barack Obama eight times since 2014, and three times so far in 2016. Modi’s foreign policy is decidedly more aligned and decisive – perhaps one reason why his supporters expect a muscular move against Pakistan. (After the September 18 attacks, for example, #MakePakPay was trending on Twitter in India.) But the overwhelming prerogative for both India and Pakistan remains growth, not war. And in the past few years, India has not heeded public calls for attacking Pakistan and that strategy has served it well. According to a survey released Monday by the Pew Research Center, 81% of Indians hold a favorable view of Modi and 61% approve of his handling of terrorism. While 73% of Indians hold an unfavorable view of Pakistan, 56% favor talks between the two countries to reduce tensions, according to the survey. Much of the world will be hoping Modi listens to the polling numbers, and not the fevered rhetoric on social media.


The National Rifle Association is setting aside years of documents related to its interactions with a Kremlin-linked banker, as the gun-rights group appears to be bracing for a possible investigation, according to sources familiar with the situation. The NRA has faced fresh scrutiny from congressional investigators about its finances and ties to Alexander Torshin, one of the 17 prominent Russian government officials the US Treasury Department recently slapped with sanctions. The gun-rights group has said it is reexamining its relationship with Torshin, who is a lifetime NRA member, in the wake of the sanctions. The renewed attention has highlighted the close-knit if sometimes uneasy alliance between top NRA officials and Torshin – a relationship that ensnared members of Trump’s team during the presidential campaign, inviting further congressional scrutiny. Related article The Russia sanctions list: Who's on the new US blacklist Those inquiries could shed light on the tightly held fundraising practices and political activities of the NRA. The political powerhouse shelled out more than $30 million in 2016 to back Donald Trump’s candidacy – more than it spent on 2008 and 2012 political races combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Vice President Mike Pence is slated to speak at the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Dallas next Friday, an official told CNN. The NRA recently found itself facing allegations that the FBI was investigating whether Torshin illegally funneled money through the group to bolster Trump, according to a McClatchy report. The NRA has publicly denied any contact from the FBI and insisted it hasn’t accepted illegal donations. Despite the public denials, officials at the gun-rights group have been anxiously preparing as if they were already under investigation, sources said. Some employees have been tasked with preserving years of documents mentioning Torshin or his associate, Maria Butina, who runs a pro-guns group in Russia, a source familiar with the situation said. Privately, some officials have expressed anxiety about a potential investigation and the group’s Russian ties. Related article McClatchy: FBI investigating potential Russian donations to NRA to boost Trump The NRA’s precautions could be little more than due diligence as the group faces inquiries from congressional investigators and the media about its relationship with Torshin. But the feeling among some officials internally is that the group appears to be readying for an investigation. “True believers to the cause are getting very antsy,” said a person privy to the NRA’s internal deliberations. “They were definitely preparing, they were bracing themselves.” The NRA declined to comment. Torshin, the deputy head of Russia’s central bank who served for years as a senator in the Russian parliament, began making inroads into the NRA with the help of Tennessee lawyer G. Kline Preston. Preston, who said he has known Torshin for about a decade, said the Russian wanted to meet the leadership of the NRA, so Preston cold-called then-NRA President David Keene. In other media interviews, Preston said that call took place around 2011. “I can certainly say without any reservation that Torshin’s intent was purely about helping with the expansion of gun rights,” Preston said. “Infiltrating to influence the NRA politically is a red herring.” But even some within the NRA viewed the partnership warily. When Donald Trump Jr. arrived for a dinner on the sidelines of the NRA’s 2016 annual meeting in Louisville, some attendees – including NRA officials – were startled to discover Torshin and Butina already present at the restaurant where the reception was being held, according to sources familiar with the event. Torshin and Butina weren’t invited to the dinner, but they were asked to stay and speak anyway. “Donald J. Trump Jr. was attending an NRA convention and having dinner when an acquaintance asked him to say hello to Torshin and made an introduction,” said Alan Futerfas, an attorney for Trump Jr. “They made small talk for a few minutes and went back to their separate meals. That is the extent of their communication or contact.” The seemingly impromptu encounter left some officials at the gun-rights group wondering whether it was a setup by the Russians, sources said. Throughout the campaign, a number of people made overtures to Trump campaign aides on Torshin’s behalf. Those emissaries sometimes touted their NRA connections as they aimed to helped Torshin quietly facilitate a relationship between then-presidential candidate Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. In one such email, a conservative activist reached out on Torshin’s behalf to say his goal was “cultivating a back-channel to President Putin’s Kremlin.” The activist added, “Putin is deadly serious about building a good relationship with Mr. Trump,” according to the House Intelligence Committee reports. The outreach efforts reached Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, campaign manager Paul Manafort, his deputy Rick Gates, then-campaign adviser Rick Dearborn and Jeff Sessions, then a foreign policy adviser and now the attorney general, according to emails reviewed by the House Intelligence Committee. In at least some of the cases their overtures were rebuffed. Torshin was unable to schedule a meeting with candidate Trump at the 2016 NRA meeting, but ultimately managed to meet Trump Jr. Trump Jr. told congressional investigators he didn’t speak to Torshin about the upcoming presidential election, according to the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia report. In an interview with Bloomberg News nearly a year after the event, Torshin touted his dinner with Trump Jr. at the NRA meeting and claimed he had known Trump for nearly five years. It’s unclear whether the outreach to Trump aides attracted the attention of special counsel Robert Mueller. But he and his team have been delving into the possibility that Russians may have injected foreign money into the 2016 race to influence the election. The White House did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign declined to comment. The skepticism among some NRA officials about the pair of gun-loving Russians may have been well-founded. Torshin’s years-long involvement with the NRA had all the hallmarks of a Russian influence operation, Russia experts said. Russian operatives often look to build relationships with polarizing groups – on either end of the political spectrum – to breed division and advance the Russian agenda. “We could give them the benefit of the doubt and say this is just a natural interest and affinity; this guy Torshin and this woman Butina are just gun aficionados,” said Alina Polyakova, a Russia expert and foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution. But given Torshin’s stature – a former Russian senator and now a deputy head at the Russian central bank – that is exceedingly unlikely, experts said. “To me this seems like part and parcel of an influence operation,” Polyakova said. Torshin did not respond to requests for comment. Prolific on Twitter, he has tweeted that the report of an FBI investigation was little more than a rumor. Preston, the Tennessee lawyer, said Torshin was similarly dismissive of those reports when the two men saw one another on Preston’s recent trip to Moscow. “A lot of it, I think, he sees as comical,” Preston said of Torshin’s reaction. “It’s absurd.” If some NRA officials were surprised to encounter Butina and Torshin awaiting Trump Jr. at that private event in 2016, one prominent NRA official was not: David Keene. Keene, now an NRA board member, said there was a small birthday dinner for him that evening, which Torshin and Butina attended. It happened to take place at the same restaurant as the NRA gathering, he said, and someone brought Trump Jr. by to say hello. Keene played a central role in fostering the relationship between Torshin and the NRA. In 2015, Keene brought a delegation of NRA backers to Moscow for a flurry of events with Torshin and Butina, who had founded her own version of the NRA – Right to Bear Arms – in Moscow. Related article Big Russian delegation anticipated for prayer breakfast in Washington The group went sightseeing, toured a Russian gun manufacturer and met with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin – one of the first Russians the Obama administration slapped with sanctions after Russia annexed Crimea. One of the members of the tour group, former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, rose to become a prominent Trump surrogate during the campaign. In an ethics filing, he disclosed that the Russian Right to Bear Arms group shelled out $6,000 for his meals, lodging and excursions on the trip. Butina shared a photo of the group of Facebook, which described the excursion as an official visit from an NRA delegation. That’s exactly what the NRA’s leadership was hoping to avoid. Ahead of the trip, top NRA officials had expressed concern that the Moscow visit could invite political backlash, according to sources familiar with their thinking. They pulled the NRA president at the time from the trip, which he was slated to attend, and encouraged Keene to treat it as an independent excursion. Keene declined to comment on the Moscow trip. In a recent letter to Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is examining the NRA’s finances, the NRA once again downplayed its association with the 2015 Moscow junket. It insisted one of the attendees – a top NRA donor – traveled to Russia “in his personal capacity,” rather than as a representative of the organization. The GOP-controlled committees have shown little interest in investigating the NRA, but some Democrats are clamoring for additional information. Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee “refused to investigate whether Russian-linked intermediaries used the NRA to illegally funnel money to the Trump Campaign, to open lines of communication with or approaches to Trump or his associates, and how those approaches may have informed,” Russian interference in the 2016 election, Democrats on the committee wrote in their rebuttal to their GOP colleagues’ assessment that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Meanwhile, Russia experts said the Russian gun-rights group appears to mainly be a facade to build ties with the NRA. It has little influence in Russia, which has strict gun laws and little public support for loosening them. “It doesn’t exist really in Russia,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and an expert on economic policy in countries including Russia, said of the group. “This is the old Soviet fashion of operating through front organizations. The purpose is to infiltrate the NRA and, probably, also transfer money.” By 2016, both Torshin and Butina had become fixtures at the NRA’s high-dollar donor events, according to attendees. The pair has popped up at the Golden Ring of Freedom Dinner, an exclusive event for donors who have given $1 million or more, and hospitality suites for lifetime members. Butina has also attended the women’s luncheon hosted by the wife of Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president. Tickets start at $250 a head, according to sources familiar with the event. Related article NRA claims it didn't use foreign funds for election spending Sometimes the Russians attended as guests of other members or alongside corporate sponsors. As for Keene, he said he was not aware of any donations to the NRA from either Torshin or Butina. He said he has not been contacted by the FBI. The NRA has said that Torshin paid membership dues but said he has not made any additional contributions. The NRA has also acknowledged that it accepts donations from foreign donors and entities, which it is legally allowed to do. The group would only run afoul of US law if it used foreign donations for certain election-related purposes. In the letter to Wyden, the NRA said it found “no foreign donations in connection with a United States election, either directly or through a conduit.” The NRA’s general counsel also said no Russian nationals have ever been members of the Golden Ring of Freedom program for million-dollar donors, according to the letter to Wyden. Wyden appeared unconvinced, peppering the group with an additional round of questions. In its latest response, the NRA said it no longer plans to cooperate with Wyden’s inquiries. Mary Ilyushina, Gloria Borger, Kara Scannell and Kaitlan Collins contributed to this report.


On one of the Syrian capital’s main highways, a plume of smoke is visible in the distance. A taxi driver leans out his car window and calls out to a cabbie next to him: “The fighting’s started in Douma again today?” Eastern Ghouta’s largest city, and last rebel holdout, is less than 10 miles from the center of Damascus. But when reports surfaced about a suspected chemical attack claiming scores of lives in the enclave on Saturday, it felt like a world away. As US President Donald Trump promised to respond “forcefully” within “24 or 48 hours,” people on the streets of Damascus went about daily life. And Syrian state TV, which normally broadcasts round-the-clock news, aired a program about mouth cancer. With the specter of an imminent US strike looming, Damascenes CNN spoke with said an attack couldn’t be worse than the last seven years of war. CNN is in the country with the permission of the Syrian government. After a two-month government assault earlier this year left more than 1,000 people dead in Eastern Ghouta, most of the suburb’s rebels were expelled, thousands of civilians fled and the area was left in tatters. Related video Video shows Syrians affected by chemical attack And on Saturday, an alleged chemical attack targeted those still remaining in Douma, killing at least 48, many of them sheltering in basements, the White Helmets rescue group and the Syrian American Medical Society charity group said. Videos circulating on social media showed dead children, pale and frothing at the mouth, sending shock waves around the world, and leading the UN Security Council to conduct a tense meeting over the attacks. Syrian state TV dismissed the reports as “theater,” and Damascus locals that spoke to CNN said the reports “made no sense.” “There definitely wasn’t a chemical attack in Ghouta, for the simple reason that the regime doesn’t need to chemically attack Ghouta in order to recapture it,” said one man in his mid-20s who didn’t give his name for security reasons. The alleged attack took place just hours before a deal ending the standoff in Douma was set to take effect – the remaining rebel group, Jaish al-Islam, began evacuations to opposition-held Jarablus in Syria’s north. The rebels’ pro-government captives, many women and children held in Douma for as long as three years, were also released as part of the deal. Some locals say the timing was suspect. Government forces, they say, were on the brink of victory against the rebels and a chemical attack would not have helped them achieve their aims. Related video Pleitgen: Russians believe attack is a hoax “Misinformation campaigns always happen when the Syrian army is on the verge of victory,” Syrian Minister for Public Administration Hussein Makhlouf told CNN. Asked whether the Syrian government feared the US strikes, Makhlouf said: “Of course not. Ask any child in Syria, any young man, any woman, they won’t be afraid.” Over the course of the Syrian war, which entered its eighth year this March, the capital was nearly surrounded by rebel holdouts. Government forces laid waste to the areas in their attempts to recapture the territory. A drive through the suburbs is testimony to the army’s use of force. Damascenes say the rebels placed daily life in a chokehold. According to Syria’s health ministry, at least 8,000 people in Damascus were killed in rebel mortar fire from the suburbs since 2012. The government’s recapture of rebel-held areas heralds the resumption of normal life. People in the capital say this is more important than Trump’s threats. Asked how people feel about the fate of those in Eastern Ghouta, tens of thousands of whom have been displaced, the same man in his mid-20s appeared defensive. “I wish the media would stop making it seem like we don’t care about the people of Ghouta. It’s not us vs them. They are part of us,” he said. “We’re all Syria. When I read ‘Bashar al Assad’s Syria’ in the media, I consider this the biggest insult.”


Jean-Claude Juncker chastises members on low turnout for Maltese leader's speech Parliamentary officials: Few attended because no vote was scheduled on any issue Bickering within the European Union is as much part of life in the bloc as the rows between the 28 countries that belong to it. But relations between the European Commission, the EU’s executive, and the European Parliament took a turn for the worse Tuesday. Jean-Claude Juncker,  the European Commission president, called the assembly  “ridiculous”  after less than 5% of its 751 members turned up to hear Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat. “The European Parliament is ridiculous, very ridiculous. I salute those who made the effort to be in the room. But the fact that there’s about 30 members of Parliament present in this debate has sufficiently shown that Parliament is not serious,” Juncker said. “If Mr. Muscat was Mrs. Merkel, hard as that is to imagine, or Mr. Macron, a bit easier to imagine, we would have a full house,” Juncker said, referring to the leaders of Germany and France, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron. Visibly annoyed, Italy’s Antonio Tajani, the president of the Parliament, asked Juncker to show some respect. “It’s not the commission that controls the Parliament, but the Parliament that controls the commission,” he said. Muscat, whose country is the smallest in the 28-nation bloc, was invited to speak to the EU’s only directly elected body following the completion of the Mediterranean island’s six-month EU presidency. The European Parliament is usually based in Brussels, Belgium, but once a month its members travel more than 200 miles with their staff and documents in tow to Strasbourg, France, where the Parliament also has a chamber. Although parliamentarians are required to attend the sessions in Strasbourg, they often turn up to sign for their daily allowance of 306 euros ($347) and then leave. Parliamentary officials told CNN there were so few attendees because there was no vote scheduled on any issue. Estonia is the next country to take the six-month EU rotating presidency.


Once again, a driver has plowed into a crowd, turning a vehicle into a lethal weapon. This time, it was in Muenster, Germany, where police said several people were killed and at least a dozen seriously injured Saturday after a delivery truck slammed into people. Authorities are treating the incident as a deliberate attack, according to a police spokeswoman. Muenster joins a list of other cities that have fallen victim to a growing trend. Here’s a look at some similar incidents in the past few years and the possible motives behind them: Date of attack: October 31, 2017 Number of casualties: At least eight people were killed and about a dozen were injured, authorities said. What happened: The driver of a rental truck hopped a curb and drove down the bicycle path on the west side of West Side Highway in Lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center. After crashing the truck into a school bus, the suspect exited the vehicle while displaying imitation firearms and was shot in the abdomen by a police officer, according to the New York Police Department. Why it happened: Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, a 29-year-old originally from the central Asian nation of Uzbekistan, was arrested and charged with 22 federal counts, including eight counts of murder. He told investigators he was inspired by ISIS videos to use a truck in the attack “to inflict maximum damage against civilians,” according to a complaint. Investigators searched two of his cell phones and found about 90 videos and 3,800 pictures, many of which were ISIS-related propaganda. In particular, Saipov said he was motivated to proceed with his plan after watching a video of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi questioning “what Muslims in the United States and elsewhere were doing to respond to the killing of Muslims in Iraq.” Date of attack: August 17, 2017 Number of casualties: At least 14 people were killed and more than 100 were injured, authorities said. What happened: A van plowed into crowds on the Barcelona thoroughfare of Las Ramblas, a popular stretch filled with cafes, bars and street performers. Why it happened: Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy labeled the Barcelona attack “jihadi terrorism.” The ISIS media wing, Amaq, has said the Barcelona attackers were “soldiers of the Islamic State” but stopped short of explicitly claiming responsibility for the attacks or providing evidence for their claims. Date of attack: August 12, 2017 Number of casualties: A 32-year-old woman was killed and 19 people were injured. What happened: A gray Dodge Challenger rammed into the back of a silver convertible on a narrow side street crowded with anti-racism counterprotesters in downtown Charlottesville. The Dodge driver slammed the car in reverse, going back up the street at a high rate of speed, dragging its front bumper. The attack took place as rallies drew white nationalists and right-wing activists from across the country to the progressive college town. Why it happened: Authorities have not announced a motive, but the suspect, James Alex Fields Jr., faces charges including second-degree murder. Investigators have not said whether they believe it was an act of terrorism. Fields’ mother told The Toledo Blade that she knew her son was going to an “alt-right” rally, but said she was stunned to learn he is suspected in a deadly attack. Date of attack: June 3, 2017 Number of casualties: Eight people were killed and more than 40 were wounded. What happened: Three men drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge before going on a stabbing rampage at bars at nearby Borough Market. They were shot dead by police. Inside the van, police found two blowtorches as well as what appeared to be 13 Molotov cocktails. The van also had office chairs and a suitcase. Police believe the attackers told relatives they were using it to move. Why it happened:  Police named the attackers as Khuram Shazad Butt, 27; Rachid Redouane, 30; and Youssef Zaghba, 22. Butt is believed to have associated with the outlawed radical Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, co-founded by notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary. Counterterrorism sources told CNN that Butt was considered a potential threat to British security and was still under active investigation at the time he carried out the deadly assault. In a raid of an east London apartment rented by Redouane, police found an English-language copy of the Koran opened at a page describing martyrdom and materials that may have been used to make the Molotov cocktails. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, although the group provided no evidence for its involvement or details of the attack. Date of attack: April 7, 2017 Number of casualties: Five people were killed and about a dozen injured, the Stockholm County Council said. What happened: A stolen beer truck barreled into pedestrians on a busy shopping street in the center of the Swedish capital before it plowed into a department store.  Sweden stepped up its security. National counterterrorism, bomb and air assets also provided support. Why it happened: The attacker, Rakhmat Akilov, had shown sympathies to extremist groups, including ISIS, Swedish police said. Akilov, 39, was from the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan. He admitted to carrying out a “terrorist crime,” his lawyer said. Date of attack: March 22, 2017 Number of casualties: Five people died in the attack, including an American man and an unarmed police officer, and scores of others were injured. What happened: Police say an assailant rammed his rental car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, not far from the UK Parliament. The suspect then entered Parliament grounds and fatally stabbed a police officer before being shot dead by other officers. Why it happened: The attacker, identified as 52-year-old British man Khalid Masood, acted alone and was inspired by international terrorism, officials said. He had been convicted on a string of violent crimes and weapons charges, but officials said they weren’t sure how he became radicalized. “Clearly that’s the main line of our investigation – is what led him to be radicalized,” said Mark Rowley, Britain’s top counterterrorism officer. “Was it through influences in a community, influences from overseas or through online propaganda?” Date of attack: July 14, 2016 Number of casualties: Eighty-four people were killed and more than 200 wounded. Related video Who was Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel? What happened: Authorities said Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel used a 20-ton truck to strike hundreds of people in Nice, where large crowds gathered to watch Bastille Day fireworks. After the truck barreled through the crowd for almost a mile, police shot and killed Bouhlel. Why it happened: ISIS said the attack was retaliation for France’s role in the fight against ISIS. “The person who carried out the run-over in Nice, France, is one of the Islamic State soldiers and carried out the operation in response to calls to target nationals of the coalition which is fighting the Islamic State,” the terror group said in a statement. But French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Bouhlel had no record of making militant statements and was not believed to be a member of ISIS. “It seems he became radicalized very quickly,” Cazeneuve said. Date of attack: December 19, 2016 Number of casualties: Twelve people killed, at least 48 wounded Related video Berlin suspect pledged allegiance to ISIS What happened: A tractor-trailer rammed into a crowd at a bustling Christmas market, which was filled with holiday shoppers. The suspect, Anis Amri, was killed later in a shootout with police in Italy. Why it happened: A video showed Amri pledging allegiance to ISIS, and the ISIS-affiliated Amaq news agency said the attack was carried out by “a soldier of the Islamic State” to target citizens of countries fighting ISIS. But CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said ISIS often uses that kind of terminology to refer to attacks by alleged sympathizers in the West. “This should not be taken to mean the group is claiming it directed this attack,” Cruickshank said. Date of attack: November 28, 2016 Number of casualties: Eleven people wounded What happened: Abdul Razak Ali Artan, an Ohio State University student, rammed his car into a group of pedestrians on the campus. He got out and lunged at passers-by with a knife. Moments later, an Ohio State University police officer fatally shot Artan after he refused to stop. Related gallery Ohio State students photograph lockdown Why it happened: Authorities said they believe Artan was inspired by terrorist propaganda from ISIS and the late Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, two law enforcement sources said. In a Facebook post shortly before the rampage, the Somali immigrant said he was “sick and tired” of seeing fellow Muslims “killed and tortured,” federal law enforcement officials said. He urged America “to stop interfering with other countries, especially the Muslim Ummah,” a term for Muslim people at large. “By Allah, we will not let you sleep unless you give peace to the Muslims,” he wrote. Date of attack: January 8, 2017 Number of casualties: Four soldiers killed, at least 10 people wounded Related video Video shows truck ram into soldiers What happened: Authorities said 28-year-old Fadi Qunbar plowed into a group of Israeli soldiers on a popular promenade overlooking the walled Old City of Jerusalem. Why it happened: The driver may have been an ISIS sympathizer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. “All signs show he is a supporter of the Islamic State,” Netanyahu said. “We know there is a sequence of terror attacks, and it’s quite possible that there is a connection between them, from France, Berlin and now Jerusalem.” Date of attack: October 20, 2014 Number of casualties: One soldier killed, one soldier wounded What happened: Police said Martin Rouleau Couture used his car to strike two Canadian soldiers walking in a strip mall parking lot in St.-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec. After leading police on a chase, Couture got out of his car and was fatally shot. Related video Man who had been 'radicalized' kills soldier Why it happened: Authorities said they believe Couture had been “radicalized.” He was arrested in July 2013, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said. “When he was arrested, he was about to go to Turkey,” police spokeswoman Martine Fontaine said. “We stopped him as he was about to leave Canada for terrorist actions. He was questioned when he was arrested.” But authorities lacked enough evidence to keep Couture in custody. While not all vehicle attacks are linked to terrorism, groups such as ISIS and al Qaeda have called on followers to use trucks as weapons. In fact, an al Qaeda magazine published an article in 2010 titled “The Ultimate Mowing Machine.” Related video Terror expert: Radical cleric continues to inspire The article calls for using a pickup as a “mowing machine, not to mow grass but mow down the enemies of Allah.” It said a four-wheel-drive pickup is needed – “the stronger the better.” “To achieve maximum carnage, you need to pick up as much speed as you can while still retaining good control of your vehicle in order to maximize your inertia and be able to strike as many people as possible in your first run,” the article says. John Miller, deputy commissioner of intelligence for New York police, has said ISIS calls on supporters to use cars as weapons if they have no other means of attack. “The ISIS call, as well as that of other terrorist groups, has been to use what you have on hand,” Miller said in 2015. “And that means if you can make a bomb, you’re a bomber. But if you can’t, use a gun. And if you can’t find a gun, use a knife. And if you can’t find a knife, use a car. So when we look at that, that is a broad spectrum of threats, and it’s something to prepare for.” CNN’s James Griffiths, Eric Levenson, Matt Wotus, Brynn Gingras, Ray Sanchez and Shimon Prokupecz contributed to this report.


North Korea has greatly increased the frequency of nuclear and missile tests in recent years Kim Jong Un said in January that the country has intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities North Korea’s test of a rocket engine Sunday showed “meaningful” signs of progress, according to South Korean officials. “Through this test, it is assessed that (North Korea) has made meaningful progress in engine performance, but further analysis is needed for exact thrust and its possible uses in future,” said South Korean Defense Ministry deputy spokesman Lee Jin-woo. He said the equipment tested “appears to have one main engine with four auxiliary engines connected to it. We believe this was an attempt to develop a new engine.” Two US defense officials told CNN the engine could possibly be used in an eventual intercontinental ballistic missile, but it was unclear if that was its eventual purpose. Pyongyang, for its part, touted the test as a “great leap forward” in its rocket program. Many analysts linked the timing of the test to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s first visit to north Asia, which ended in Beijing Sunday. According to the official North Korean news agency KCNA, the test measured the thrust power in the combustion chamber, the structural safety and reliability of the engine, and the movement of the turbine pipe. The KCNA statement mentioned only civil, rather than military, purposes for the new engines, saying it would “help consolidate the scientific and technological foundation to match the world-level satellite delivery capability in the field of outer space development.” The engine was tested at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station, a major space facility on the country’s northwest coast, from which North Korea successfully launched its first satellite into orbit in December 2012. North Korea insists its space program is peaceful and focused on putting scientific satellites into orbit. However, analysts have long accused Pyongyang of using the program as a covert weapons testing scheme. As aerospace engineer John Schilling wrote in January, North Korea’s primary space launch vehicle, the Unha-3, “could be pressed into service as a crude ICBM.” “An ICBM variant of the Unha could be sufficiently similar to the space launch vehicle in that it would be very likely to succeed, making it a good candidate for a political demonstration even though the Unha would make for a poor missile.” China followed a similar path with its space and ballistic missile program beginning in the 1960s. Engines used in the Long March 2 satellite launcher were later repurposed for the “development of the DF-5 ballistic missile – China’s first true intercontinental range missile,” according to David Wright, co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists. However, in a recent paper published in the journal Korea Observer, weapons experts Markus Schiller and Theodore Postol wrote that the potential for North Korea to repurpose a space rocket to deliver an ICBM “does not mean that North Korea has the ability, or is likely to have the ability, to use this postulated ICBM to materially threaten the United States with a nuclear attack.” “It is unlikely that North Korea now has a nuclear weapon that weighs as little as 1,000 kg (2,200 lb). It is also unlikely that such a first-generation nuclear weapon would be capable of surviving the unavoidable 50 G deceleration during warhead reentry from a range of nearly 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles),” they wrote. “This engine produces enough thrust for the first stage, possibly even the second stage, of a large ICBM,” Michael Elleman of the US-based International Institute for Strategic Studies told CNN. Elleman said that the engine appeared “too large” for the ICBM prototypes that North Korea has demonstrated during military parades, but added “we think they could shrink it down and fit it onto either of the prototypes that they have paraded to date.” While in the past North Korea has been largely dependent on existing – mostly Soviet and Chinese technology – Schilling pointed out last year that “we have now seen that North Korea can build large rockets using both solid and high-energy liquid propellants, to their own requirements.” Space and security analyst Markus Schiller suggested on Twitter that the effusive press release put out by KCNA could indicate that “they are finally running their first indigenous engine.” Euan Graham, director of international security at Australia’s Lowy Institute, said the North Korea’s twin civilian and military rocket programs may have “become so sophisticated they’re moving on separate tracks.” He cautioned against underestimating the country’s capabilities, pointing to recent submarine launches. “I think a lot of people would have scoffed at the idea that a country of threadbare means like North Korea would be able to test (submarine-launched ballistic missiles),” he said. The rocket engine test came hours before Tillerson met Chinese President Xi Jinping, and a day after America’s top diplomat warned that all options – including military action – remained on the table when it came to dealing with North Korea. Sunday’s test was a “precisely-timed spectacular,” said Peter Hayes, director of the US-based Nautilus Institute, “the kind we’ve come to expect from Kim Jong Un.” “(The test) was clearly aimed to put pressure on China and to expose the fecklessness of Tillerson’s threat to somehow stop the regime,” he said. Graham added that the value of such testing for internal propaganda purposes should also not be ignored. North Korea operates on a military-first principle, which Kim has increasingly shifted towards nuclear and weapons technology, and away from the traditional standing army. “Let’s not forget the ideological aspect of this,” Graham said. “It’s important to them to have this ability to demonstrate technological prowess.” CNN’s Taehoon Lee contributed reporting from Seoul and Barbara Starr contributed reporting from Washington.


Former Obama administration officials are decrying President Donald Trump’s announcement that he will potentially halt the US’ participation in the Iran nuclear deal, and are warning that the move could jeopardize the United States’ position at the negotiating table for future agreements. “After today, what incentive would the leadership in North Korea have to sit down with the United States, China and other partners to negotiate a diplomatic resolution to the escalating nuclear crisis?” Vice President Joe Biden wrote on Facebook. “After today, why would the rest of the world join us in pushing for a diplomatic solution we might not uphold? After today, what is America’s word worth in the world?” Two years ago, the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China reached an historic agreement... Two years ago, the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China reached an historic agreement... Trump formally announced on Friday he would pull out of the agreement completely if Congress and US allies do not work to address “the deal’s many serious flaws.” Citing “multiple violations of the agreement,” Trump said Iran had failed to meet its end of the 2015 deal. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency, American allies and the US government all have said Tehran is complying with the official pact. Biden is one of several former officials from the Obama era – the administration under which the deal was constructed – who responded to Trump and shared their own set of concerns regarding the US’ new approach. In a statement issued on Friday, former Secretary of State John Kerry said Trump’s decision is “creating an international crisis.” “I can’t tell you why the President can’t acknowledge what the IAEA, our allies, and the adults in his own cabinet all know to be true: Iran has lived up to its end of the nuclear agreement, and as long as they continue to do so, we and our allies are infinitely more secure than we would be without it. But whatever his reasons, the reality is that by destabilizing the agreement, the President weakens our hand, alienates us from our allies, empowers Iranian hardliners, makes it harder to resolve North Korea, and risks moving us closer to military conflict,” Kerry wrote. Ben Rhodes, Obama’s former deputy national security adviser who served as an adviser to the President on the Iran deal, also warned that the risk of passing legislation on the deal “could lead us into a war.” “Essentially, Trump is urging Congress to do something that could precipitate a nuclear crisis with Iran at the same time that he is faced with a significant crisis on the Korean peninsula,” Rhodes said. “What Trump is doing with Iran is going to make it that much harder for him to achieve any diplomatic resolution with North Korea.” Wendy Sherman, a negotiator for the Iran deal, said the United States has “weakened our position and isolated ourselves.” “When the President goes to China next month, wanting China to be tougher with North Korea, get North Korea into some serious dialogue, China will be in a very difficult position to say to North Korea, ‘well you should in fact sit down with the Americans,’ when in fact the Americans have just put a deal at risk to make sure that Iran doesn’t obtain nuclear weapons,” Sherman said. When criticizing the deal, Trump said he took issue with the “sunset” provision. But former Obama officials pushed back. “The fear of a future sunset should not lead us out of some kind of illogical approach to fast-forward sunset and bring it to our doorstep,” said Robert Malley, a negotiator for the Iran deal. “I think that this is entirely about Trump’s annoyance with the certification process, which forces him to certify that Iran is complying with the deal, that the deal is working, and that all of his bombastic rhetoric about the deal has been based in dishonesty,” Rhodes said. Biden wrote that the President’s decision “goes (against) reason and evidence.” “So President Trump’s decision today to decertify the nuclear deal goes (against) reason and evidence,” Biden wrote on Facebook. “It constitutes an unfounded and unnecessary threat to America’s national security – one that inflicts lasting damage to American global leadership. Unilaterally putting the deal at risk does not isolate Iran. It isolates us.” Kerry called on Congress to take up the issue. “Congress now gets an opportunity to be the adult in the room and act in America’s genuine national security interest. The country and the world really are watching,” he said. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded to Trump shortly after his announcement, and said it was not only up to Trump. “This is an international, multilateral deal that has been ratified by the UN Security Council,” Rouhani said. “It is a UN document. Is it possible for a President to unilaterally decertify this deal? Apparently, he’s not in the know.”

President Donald Trump's announcement to potentially halt US participation in the Iran nuclear deal


From office sweepstakes to gambling grannies, Grand National fever is sweeping the UK ahead of the nation’s world-famous horse race at Aintree on Saturday. A record-breaking $219m is expected to be laid in bets across the globe on which colorfully named horse will master the fearsome fences over the four-mile course. “It is the biggest betting event of the year by a long way,” Mark Pearson, of British bookmaker Betfred, told CNN. “With a worldwide television audience of 600m in 2014, it is simply the world’s biggest race.” Irish jockey Tony McCoy will be the star attraction at Aintree as the multiple champion jockey races in his final Grand National on mount Shutthefrontdoor. Aintree braced for @AP_McCoy fever http://t.co/l1dA9SPfrj pic.twitter.com/Z7xMhzffkc But for those looking for an outside bet, then the rival Grand National Sheepstakes in Devon could be just the ticket. Grand National fever is so entrenched in the UK that some ideas are a little barmier (or should that be baa-mier?) than others. Visitors to the Big Sheep family attraction in Devon on Saturday can place their bets on six of the best jumping sheep, including Woolly Jumper, Red Ram and Sheargar. The racy sheep, which jump over show jumping poles, must be careful not to unseat their knitted jockeys. Ascot, home to the prestigious royal flat racing meeting in June, also got in on the woolly races, by staging the Lamb National last month. It's not just horse racing today. The @campaignforwool Lamb National is another big draw #PCFRaceday https://t.co/MYyI0T2AFV There was even a royal presence for the novice hurdlers as Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall watched from the sidelines. “They did appear to be having a great time,” Nick Smith, Ascot Head of Communications and International Racing, told CNN. Sheep racing events are an unlikely success despite the dangers that the sheep will just follow each other aimlessly around the course. “There’s a sheep dog. They wouldn’t do it on their own,” laughed Smith. “If anyone can get a sheep to jump a fence without a sheep dog I’m be very, very surprised. The sheep dog is the key talent in this operation. “Having said that one or two of the lambs got a bit lost and the sheep dog had to round them up.” Could sheep racing ever usurp horse racing in the hearts and minds of the betting public? Smith, for one, was quick to scotch the idea that sheep racing could be a regular fixture of the Ascot race calendar. “It was a novelty event,” he explained. “The chances of anyone watching a sheep dog race as a fan and transferring that into an interest in horse racing is nil.”


Wisconsin’s Republican governor says President Donald Trump’s newly announced tariffs could be detrimental to American jobs. On Thursday, Trump announced that his administration would implement new tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. The controversial move is likely to invite retaliatory measures from foreign countries, raising the specter of a trade war between the US and several other steel-producing countries. Following the announcement, Gov. Scott Walker has asked Trump to reconsider his position on tariffs if he wants to protect US jobs. “If the President wants to protect good-paying, family-supporting jobs in America, especially here in Wisconsin, then he should reconsider the administration’s position on these tariffs, particularly on ultra-thin aluminum,” Walker said in a statement. “As I described to US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross last year, there is not a market in America that can support the demand for ultra-thin aluminum for employers here in Wisconsin and across the country.” On Friday morning, Trump tweeted about the possibility of a trade war, posting that they are “easy to win.” “When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!” his tweet said. When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy! However, some American companies are already facing potential backlash from the announcement – including Milwaukee-based company Harley-Davidson. “We will not sit idly while our industry is hit with unfair measures that put thousands of European jobs at risk,” European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in a statement. Canada’s foreign minister also voiced opposition. “Should restrictions be imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum products, Canada will take responsive measures to defend its trade interests and workers,” Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a statement. Walker said the move could incentivize American companies to take their business beyond US borders. “Ironically, American companies who will feel the negative impact of the tariffs can actually move their operations to another country, such as Canada, and not face new tariffs on the sale of their products. This scenario would lead to the exact opposite outcome of the administration’s stated objective, which is to protect American jobs,” Walker’s statement said. CNN’s Jeremy Diamond, Ivana Kottasová, Julia Horowitz and Patrick Gillespie contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum imports


Sen. Mark Warner attending a Senate banking hearing on treasury nominations He used that hearing to highlight financial documents he wants from Treasury Department Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said Tuesday that the Treasury Department has not fully complied with his committee’s requests for documents relevant to its probe into Russian meddling in the US election. Likewise, Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter on Tuesday to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin requesting records of Trump businesses and any connections to Russia by June 2. Warner and Senate intelligence committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, sent a request for documents last month to the department’s division on terrorism and financial intelligence. Warner was addressing the nomination of Sigal Mandelker, the Trump administration’s nominee to run that division at the Treasury Department. He said his support had an “important condition.” “While the committee has received some documents from Treasury, the information received thus far is insufficient and we’ve expressed this concern to Treasury,” the Virginia Democrat said during a Senate banking committee hearing considering nominations. “I find myself in an undesirable position today, one that could have been avoided by an administration that has blamed Democrats for obstructing their nominees.” CNN reached out to the Treasury Department for comment and has not yet received a response. “The truth is, while Chairman Burr and I asked this administration for documentation that we believe necessary to support the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Russian interference, unfortunately, the administration so far has failed to make an appropriate appreciation for our sense of urgency by not fully responding to our requests,” the Virginia Democrat said. “My hope is before Ms. Mandelker comes to the Senate floor, they will respond,” Warner said about a full Senate vote on the nominee and the related material that’s been requested. CNN’s Tom LoBianco contributed to this report.


North Korea will not get any sanctions relief until it has demonstrated “verifiable and irreversible” steps to denuclearization, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said Sunday. The comments come less than 10 days before a planned summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, a high-stakes meeting that the US hopes will lead to North Korean nuclear disarmament. “We can anticipate, at best, a bumpy road to the negotiation,” said Mattis, who was speaking alongside South Korean and Japanese defense ministers at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual security summit in Singapore that draws government officials and academics from around the world. “We must maintain a strong collaborative defensive stance so we enable our diplomats to negotiate from a strong position of strength in this critical time,” said Mattis. “We must remain vigilant, and we will continue to implement all UN security council resolutions on North Korea. North Korea will receive relief only when it demonstrates verifiable and irreversible steps to denuclearization,” added Mattis. On Friday, Trump confirmed that his on-again off-again summit with Kim would go ahead on June 12, in a remarkable about-turn following a previous decision by the US President to cancel the meeting. Trump’s announcement follows negotiations between diplomats on both sides of the Pacific, intended to iron out the summit’s final agenda. The issue of denuclearization, long a sticking point between the two countries, remains the most contentious and challenging aspect of any potential deal. The North Korean regime has historically shown an unwillingness to relinquish its nuclear capabilities, which it views as a guarantee of survival in the face of US intimidation. Previously, the US has floated the idea of providing the North with economic assistance and sanctions relief should it agree to a timetable for abandoning its nuclear weapons program. Speaking at a separate session in Singapore on Saturday, Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera noted that while recent developments with North Korea have been positive, expectations needed to be grounded in reality and long term peace can only be secured through concrete action. “We have seen history repeat where North Korea would declare to denuclearize, by portraying itself as a consolatory and forthcoming, only to turn around and avoid all international efforts towards peace,” said Onodera. Related article World shouldn't question Kim Jong Un's motives, says South Korean defense minister Concerns have risen among the US’ regional allies in recent days that Trump might consider cutting a deal with Kim that would see Pyongyang agreeing to give up its long-range missiles in return for sanctions relief, while being allowed to hold on to its short-range arsenal, leaving Japan and South Korea in the cross hairs. “In light of how North Korea has behaved in the past, I believe it is important not to reward North Korea solely for agreeing to have a dialogue,” said Onodera, who called for the continuing of the US-led pressure campaign on North Korea during the ongoing dialogue with Pyongyang. “I know that President Trump said that he would not lift sanctions until North Korea agrees to denuclearization and I understand that pressure will remain in place” Onodera said. Mattis, who lauded military cooperation between South Korea, Japan and the United States for putting “significant pressure” on Pyongyang, had previously appeared reticent to publicly address the upcoming summit during his time in Singapore, sticking instead to fairly common talking points from Washington. Addressing Onodera and South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo directly, Mattis said security cooperation between the three partners was vital. “When we consider the unity of purpose among our three democracies, when we consider the combined economic and defense power represented here, we see that our security cooperation is needed more than ever, providing a stabilizing effect in support of our interests for peace, deterrence, and stability,” said Mattis. “I affirm America’s ironclad, unwavering security commitment to your people and our mutual security interests,” Mattis added, echoing comments he made Saturday, in which he ruled out the prospect of reducing US troops in the region as part of any potential deal with North Korea on June 12. “If the diplomats can do their job and reduce the threat then of course they (troop reductions) can come up subsequently,” said Mattis Saturday. “(But the issue is) not on the table, June 12 … nor should it be.” CNN’s Joshua Berlinger contributed to this report from Singapore.


Former President Barack Obama on Tuesday criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to exit the Iran deal, a pillar of Obama’s legacy on foreign policy. “Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans,” Obama said in a statement. “That is why today’s announcement is so misguided.” Trump announced on Tuesday afternoon that he was withdrawing the US from the nuclear agreement with Iran and said he would impose new sanctions. In his statement defending the multiparty agreement with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Obama cited many who support the deal, including the US’ European allies, and he invoked the support of US Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who has said it is in the interest of the US to stay in the agreement. “In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next,” Obama’s statement continued. “But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.” The former President was joined in his disapproval of Trump’s decision on Tuesday by former Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State John Kerry. Biden said in a statement following Trump’s announcement that the decision is “a profound mistake” and that it would put Iran on the path to developing nuclear weapons without diplomatic recourse. “This wholly unnecessary crisis could ultimately put the safety of our country and our fellow citizens, including thousands of men and women in uniform serving across the Middle East, at risk by setting us back on a path to war with Iran,” Biden said. Kerry condemned the move by Trump to abandon the agreement he had helped forge. “Today’s announcement weakens our security, breaks America’s word, isolates us from our European allies, puts Israel at greater risk, empowers Iran’s hardliners, and reduces our global leverage to address Tehran’s misbehavior, while damaging the ability of future Administrations to make international agreements,” Kerry’s statement said. In the leadup to Trump’s announcement, Kerry called for Trump to keep the agreement intact, and on Monday, Trump criticized Kerry on Twitter for what he called “shadow diplomacy.”

President Donald Trump's decision to exit the Iran deal