Editor’s Note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM’s radio’s daily program “The Dean Obeidallah Show” and a columnist for The Daily Beast. Follow him @deanofcomedy. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. On Friday, The Washington Post reported that Jared Kushner tried to open a new line of communication with the Kremlin Dean Obeidallah: Kushner is far too educated and experienced to be called naive, as some have said Jared Kushner may be a lot of things, but naive is definitely not one of them. Yet, following the Washington Post’s story that he suggested in a December meeting with Russia’s ambassador Sergey Kislyak that they create a secret communication channel between the Trump transition team and the Kremlin, many openly asked, could Kushner be so naïve?  We heard it from pundits to even former FBI and KGB agents. While the exact details of what Kushner did or didn’t say to the Russian ambassador are still being determined, one thing is certain: Kushner is not naive. The dictionary defines “naive” as a person who is “innocent” and who shows a “lack of experience, wisdom or judgment.” Though Kushner lacks the political experience of a traditional White House advisor, Kushner’s conduct can in no way be dismissed as simple naivete. He’s a 36-year-old lawyer and real estate/media tycoon. After graduating from Harvard University, Kushner went on to New York University Law School, one of the top ten law schools in America, where he earned both a law degree and an MBA. Even before graduating from law school, Kushner had purchased The New York Observer, a well-respected media publication, for $10 million. Add to that, Kushner shortly thereafter purchased 666 Fifth Avenue, a prestigious New York City office building for $1.8 billion. And it’s clear that Kushner played hardball in the cutthroat world of New York real estate. As The Washington Post reported on Sunday, Kushner used The Observer to go after those who stood in his way.  According to one Washington Post source, when one lender tried to thwart Kushner’s real estate goals, Kushner told the Observer’s editor to run a story that would expose “potentially embarrassing details about the uncooperative lender.” And a former Observer editor noted that Kushner wanted a “hit job” on another business foe at a later date. Kushner also used sophisticated financial strategies, as well as every contact he had, including his father in-law Donald Trump, to save the 666 Fifth Avenue building from foreclosure during the Great Recession. He ultimately made a deal with several of his major creditors that allowed him to ease his debt burden by offering them increased ownership in the property, although Kushner was able to retain majority control. Related article How Kushner could play the Nixon card Now, in addition to the recent revelations about Kushner  raising the idea of a secret communications channel with the Kremlin, it appears Kushner also failed to disclose on his application seeking top security clearance that he met in December with the Russian ambassador as well as the head of a Russian state-run bank that was under US sanctions. Only after the media publicized this omission did Kushner amend his security form to include these meetings. And, on Friday, Reuters reported that Kushner had “at least three previously undisclosed contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States during and after the 2016 presidential campaign.” In response to this revelation. Kushner’s lawyer Jamie Gorelick told CNN on Friday night, “Mr. Kushner participated in thousands of calls in this time period.” Adding, “He has no recollection of the calls as described.” A day earlier, Gorelick stated that Kushner was willing to voluntarily appear before Congress to share the details of the meetings with the Russian diplomat and banker that he had originally failed to include his security application. But with the avalanche of media attention to “Russiagate,” it’s mindboggling why Kushner would conceal this info instead of disclosing it and avoiding a media firestorm. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Add to that Kushner’s family history, and it’s even more shocking that he would expose himself to even a hint of wrongdoing. Kushner is aware that sometimes the wealthy and powerful actually do go to jail in America. That’s because Kushner’s father, Charles, was sentenced to two years in federal prison in 2005 for tax evasion, making illegal campaign contributions and tampering with a witness. Not only did the then 23-year-old Kushner see his father go off to jail, he even visited him every weekend at the Montgomery, Alabama, federal prison he was housed in. Naive? No, that’s certainly not the word that comes to mind when I think of Jared Kushner.


The tornado that was Rudy Giuliani’s media appearances this week – plus personnel changes to President’s Donald Trump’s legal team – may signal a drastic change in how Trump will approach his legal strategy as the Russia investigation and a probe into Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen swirl around the President. Trump’s legal team now consists of several accomplished attorneys with extremely disparate personalities. While Giuliani, who besides his political career is a former federal top prosecutor in Manhattan, captivated journalists with disclosures about Trump this week, three fresh lawyers who’ve shunned media attention are positioned to handle serious legal work to protect the President. Many predict that Giuliani, as the face of the team, will seize opportunities to make news on TV and that he will be more aggressive toward special counsel Robert Mueller. Related article Trump walks back Giuliani: 'He'll get his facts straight' “Playing nice hasn’t gotten them anywhere,” a source familiar with the team said, going on to describe Giuliani as a “professional assassin.” Yet Giuliani’s comments to Fox News about Trump’s legal situations this week appeared to complicate the President’s story. CNN reported Thursday that members of Trump’s legal team – which also includes a cluster of unofficial advisers, largely from Trump’s New York social circle – were caught by surprise when Giuliani spoke about Stormy Daniels, disclosing that Trump had reimbursed Michael Cohen for the adult film star’s hush agreement. The lack of clarity continued Friday, when Trump said Giuliani should “get his facts straight,” and then the former New York mayor released a statement about what he said on Fox News, but didn’t say who ultimately paid Daniels $130,000. Other sources with knowledge of Giuliani’s approach said his comments may have been planned to get ahead of the development if it were to leak. Aside from the drama of the Cohen investigation, which appears to be playing out in New York, Mueller’s team and Trump’s lawyers in Washington have been in talks about an interview between the special counsel and the President. Related video Cooper detangles Giuliani's damage control Giuliani appeared to be in negotiation mode and interested in stoking a media frenzy Wednesday and Thursday, telling news outlets that any investigative interview of Trump wouldn’t be longer than two to three hours and would have a narrow set of questions. “Forget Bob Mueller, no respectable lawyer comes in and dictates what you’re going to do. You don’t go in and make demands,” said Jon Sale, a Miami-based white collar lawyer and friend of Giuliani’s. “You put forth reasonable positions to be persuasive.” Wednesday morning, the legal team had appeared to turn back toward more discreet lawyering, with the announcement that Washington trial lawyer Emmet Flood would join the team inside the White House. Flood and other newcomers on Trump’s legal roster could provide a counterpoint to Giuliani’s New York bluster. In all, Trump’s team that responds to the Russia probe comprises Flood – representing the office of the presidency from inside the White House – and now the four private attorneys, Giuliani, Jay Sekulow, and Jane and Martin Raskin. The White House has its own counsel staff who handle day-to-day executive branch issues, and then the President has several other private lawyers assisting him, including in the criminal probe of Michael Cohen in New York and for civil lawsuits. Flood may be the more experienced lawyer in the peculiar task of aiding a president under the pressure of a special counsel. The trial lawyer and former impeachment adviser to then-President Bill Clinton is taking an air-traffic-control-type position in the White House that has been held since last summer by Ty Cobb, who’s retiring at the end of this month. Related article Cobb out, Clinton impeachment lawyer in amid more lawyer changes White House counsel Donald McGahn and his attorney Bill Burck, who is friends with Flood, lobbied Flood last weekend to join the President’s team, according to a person familiar with the interaction. To make his case, Burck paraphrased the movie “The Dark Knight,” telling Flood that he’s Batman, the hero that Gotham – the country – deserves, this person said. Flood leaves his law firm Williams & Connolly, among Washington’s most elite trial powerhouses and which still represent the Clintons, to take the job. As of Friday – two days into Giuliani’s coup – it wasn’t clear whether Flood had started working at the White House yet. A Chicagoan who early in his career taught high school English, Flood is a “tightly wrapped ” individual who “couldn’t get any further away from Trump’s personality,” according to a source familiar with the situation. Flood and his former law firm have been notoriously silent in response to media inquiries for years, and he did not respond to requests for comment this week. Flood also served in a role similar to the position he’s in now during George W. Bush’s administration. In that role, he directed the White House’s response to investigations. Related video Meet Trump's new lawyer in the Russia probe “My experience with him was he was clear-eyed, no nonsense, no sugarcoating, no bullshitting. Just giving you the straight reality of what you needed to do,” said Scott Jennings, a former assistant to then-President George W. Bush whom Flood counseled during the congressional investigation into the firing of US attorneys. While Jennings had a private defense lawyer help him prepare for Senate testimony – Mark Paoletta, who’s served as counsel to Vice President Mike Pence and general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump years – Flood sat with Jennings during his Senate testimony. Flood’s job was to help Jennings and Paoletta decide when not to answer and assert executive privilege, the ability of a president to keep certain conversations and documents private. “Having somebody like Emmet sitting behind you makes you feel a lot better about life,” said Jennings, who’s now a public relations executive and CNN contributor. “I think I’m the last sitting White House staffer to go to Capitol Hill and correctly invoke executive privilege on behalf of the president.” Assertions of privilege – the ability to decline to answer and keep information secret – could include the president claiming executive branch confidentiality, protecting attorney-client discussions and pleading the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. All could become an avenue for future negotiations and court fights – especially if Mueller interviews Trump or subpoenas him to testify before a grand jury. Among Trump’s personal attorneys, Jay Sekulow, a conservative radio host and nonprofit legal organization head, soldiers on after surviving the turmoil of Marc Kasowitz stepping back, John Dowd exiting and the husband-and-wife duo of Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova never securing the job. Sekulow added Giuliani and now may step back, according to sources familiar with the team. Martin and Jane Raskin of Coral Gables, Florida, signed on to Trump’s personal legal team about two weeks ago. The Raskins, brought aboard after several top Washington lawyers turned down working for Trump, couldn’t be more different from Giuliani. “They’re not grandstanders,” Sale said. Another Florida white collar lawyer who knows both the Raskins and Giuliani described the couple similarly, as “not showboats.” Related article Trump adds former federal prosecutors Jane and Marty Raskin to legal team “You’re not going to hear speeches about the government being crazy from them,” the lawyer said. Still, Giuliani will likely work closely with the Raskins, who are well-respected especially among Florida lawyers for their criminal defense work. “Behind the scenes, anybody as smart as Rudy knows you need to brainstorm with other people on your team and make it a collaborative effort,” Sale said. The Raskins have specialized in criminal defense, primarily in Florida federal court, for years. They’ve cut plea deals for clients, defended people caught in conspiracy and fraud investigations, and run their own firm out of Coral Gables, almost two hours south of Mar-a-Lago, where they met with Trump last month, according to The Washington Post. Jane Raskin worked decades ago with Mueller and with James Quarles, a prosecutor negotiating the interview with Trump. “One thing about the Raskins is they’re very easy to work with,” said the lawyer who’s friendly with them, declining to give his name or law firm. CNN’s Sara Murray, Kara Scannell and Gloria Borger contributed to this report.


Syrian forces have conducted four days of airstrikes in Eastern Ghouta, group says Strikes escalated after a Russian warplane was shot down over the weekend More than 200 civilians have been killed since Monday in Syrian government airstrikes on parts of rebel-held Eastern Ghouta near Damascus, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Thursday. Among the deaths were 54 children and 41 women. The four days of airstrikes by Russian-backed Syrian forces on the besieged area east of the Syrian capital also have left at least 700 civilians injured, according to the UK-based group. The Eastern Ghouta area has been surrounded by Syrian forces for more than four years, with the siege intensifying in May when government forces conducted a large-scale offensive. Related video Russian airstrikes hit rebel-controlled Idlib Airstrikes escalated in recent days after a Russian warplane was shot down over the weekend in the rebel-held northwestern province of Idlib. Relying on information from activists on the ground,  the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said it counted 213 civilian deaths over four days: 31 on Monday, 81 on Tuesday, 41 on Wednesday and 60 on Thursday. Syrian activists report rapidly deteriorating conditions – the worst in four years – in the area controlled by various Islamic rebel groups, with hundreds of thousands of residents struggling from shortages of food and medical supplies. The Eastern Ghouta area was supposed to be a “de-escalation zone,” according to a peace agreement struck by Russia, Turkey and Iran in May. About 400,000 Syrians have been killed since the conflict erupted in 2011, according to the United Nations.


Newly found exoplanet is the second-closest to our solar system and could support life Ross 128 b orbits a "quiet" star that isn't lashed with radiation You may want to get used to the name Ross 128 b. The newly discovered exoplanet  is the second-closest found to our solar system, only 11 light-years away. And it could support life. Announcements about exoplanets, those found outside our solar system, seem almost commonplace in this golden age of discovery for astronomers. So why is Ross 128 b unique – apart from its rather human-sounding name? The planet is about the same size as Earth, and it may have a similar surface temperature, making it a temperate world that could support life. Every 9.9 days, it completes an orbit around its host star, Ross 128, which is what’s known as a red dwarf star: They’re the coolest, faintest and most common stars found in the universe. Related article Closest potentially habitable planet to our solar system found Because of their plentiful nature and the fact that other exoplanets have been found around these types of stars, red dwarfs are being studied and observed with increasing frequency in the hopes of finding more exoplanets. Astronomers found Ross 128 and its planet using the European Southern Observatory’s planet-hunting instrument, called HARPS. The High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher is based at La Silla Observatory in Chile. The astronomers detail their discovery in a new study, published Wednesday in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics. “To be involved in such a discovery is very rewarding, and it helps to realize that so much effort is worth it,” Nicola Astudillo-Defru, one of the study’s co-authors at the University of Geneva’s observatory, wrote in an email. “The special properties of this system means that we are contributing our bit on the search of an Earth 2.0.” Other notable discoveries of Earth-size exoplanets in recent years, like the TRAPPIST planets and Proxima b, were also found around these types of stars. They are also considered to be among the best hopes for supporting life on planets outside our solar system because they exist within the “habitable zones” of their stars, where liquid water could pool on the surface of the planet and potentially support life as we know it. Related article Astronomers discover 7 Earth-sized planets orbiting nearby star The astronomers don’t yet know whether Ross 128 b is in the habitable zone of its star, but it’s likely, given what they understand about red dwarfs and the planets that orbit them. Ross 128 b is 20 times closer to its star than Earth is to the sun, but because the star is small, dim and cool, the planet would still be at a potentially comfortable temperature. The nature of the star is also why the planet is subjected to only 1.38 times the radiation that Earth receives from the sun, even though the planet and star are close together. But the reason astronomers are excited about Ross 128 b is because the star is “quiet.” Other red dwarfs, like Proxima Centauri – the star that Proxima b orbits – have a tendency to lash out at their planets with deadly flares of ultraviolet and X-ray radiation. But Ross 128 doesn’t seem to be doing this, so it’s considered “quieter,” which means the planet is a more comfortable place for life to form without being subjected to such violent episodes from time to time. Related article Newly discovered 'super-Earth' may be the 'most exciting exoplanet' Proxima b is currently the closest exoplanet to our solar system ever discovered, at a distance of 4.2 light-years. Ross 128 b could change this, because the planet and its star are moving toward us. “A detailed study investigated the movement of our stellar neighbor by combining data from the Hipparcos satellite and ground-bases velocimeters,” Astudillo-Defru said. “They list all the close encounters with other stars, and because of the relative movements of stars and the Sun, it results that Ross 128 will be our closest star.” Astronomers estimate that in 79,000 years, Ross 128 b will be our exoplanet neighbor, even closer than Proxima b. That may sound like a long time, but in a universe that is billions of years old, it’s merely a cosmic moment. The astronomers believe that Ross 128 b is a good candidate for further study when the European Southern Observatory’s Extremely Large Telescope can begin searching the atmospheres of exoplanets for biomarkers in 2025. “I plan to continue searching for new worlds, specially around Ross 128 because it is likely that there are more planets,” Astudillo-Defru said.


Editor’s Note: Peter Robert Woodward is Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of Reading. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. CNN is showcasing the work of The Conversation, a collaboration between journalists and academics to provide news analysis and commentary. The content is produced solely by The Conversation. Somaliland wants to be recognized as an independent country Currently 54 African countries are members of the UN Somaliland President Ahmed Mohamed Silanyo recently claimed that more than one million citizens, out of the country’s population of 3.4 million, had signed a petition calling for the international community to recognise Somaliland. Since 1991, and the collapse of the Siad Barre regime in Somalia, the region has declared itself independent. But should it? The examples of the secession of South Sudan and Eritrea raise serious questions and doubts about the outcomes of breakaway states. The general approach to calls for secession in Africa, as set out by the African Union (AU) and its predecessor the Organisation of African Unity, is that they should be opposed. The most frequently heard argument against secession is that granting the right to one country invites others to take the same step. This, the argument goes, would put at risk the internationally recognised system of post-colonial states in Africa. The issue of secession first arose in the 1960s with the wave of decolonisation and questions over the viability of the newly independent states across the continent. Two cases stood out: the Congo, where Katanga’s self-proclaimed breakaway was defeated by United Nations forces; and Nigeria, where the Biafran secession was ended by the Nigerian federal forces. The issue has come up again in recent times. In northeast Africa two states have experienced separation. In 1993 Eritrea was recognised as a separate state from Ethiopia, and the world’s newest state, South Sudan, was recognised in 2011. The circumstances in each of these cases was different. But the purpose here is not to revisit how and why these took place, but to consider what happened next. In both cases separation was intended to deal with historical problems and provide an acceptable alternative in the form of a new internationally recognised state. But have they achieved these objectives? Both the Ethiopian and Sudanese examples suggest that separation isn’t always the straightforward option. The division has led to violent border disputes, economic complications, and poor relations with the wider international community. There is also a case to be made that granting secession has merely served to fuel the claims of other separatist movements. Somaliland’s calls to be recognised as independent, rather than being included in the efforts to rebuild Somalia, is an example. When South Sudan became independent in 2011 a Somaliland delegation arrived in Juba, the capital, wearing t-shirts saying “Somaliland Next”. Any separation involves the recognition of an accepted border between the two states involved. In the case of both Eritrea and South Sudan this has proved contentious. In 1988 there was an issue over Badme, a small town near the Ethiopian border which Eritrea claimed was theirs. This ignited one of the two largest interstate conflicts in Africa since the second world war. The other interstate conflict was Somalia’s attack in 1977 to back up its claim to Ethiopia’s Ogaden region, an area mainly populated by clans of Somali origin. South Sudan’s border with Sudan also proved contentious, and there were clashes over the disputed area of Abyei. Neither the Badme or Abyei issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the two states involved. Instead they continue to fester. The continuing border disputes have resulted in both sides continuing to invest heavily in their armies and in equipment. Eritrea and Ethiopia both maintain large and costly forces facing each other across their disputed border. And while South Sudan and Sudan agreed to an integrated joint force on their common border, it never came into existence. Mutual suspicion and accusations of incursions by both armies persist. Separation always involves questions about economic relations. Eritrea’s independence made Ethiopia a landlocked country. Prior to Eritrea’s independence Ethiopia had access to the sea ports of Massawa and Assab. After separation, Ethiopia expected access to continue, but major differences soon emerged to scupper this. This included the relative value of the two countries’ currencies and tariffs charged by Eritrea on the movement of goods. Worsening economic relations are thought to have played a significant part in the border war that broke out between the two countries. Similarly, South Sudan and Sudan had to share an outlet to the sea. This became problematic. Sudan began extracting oil in the late 1990s with the bulk of the oil originating in the south. It exported oil via pipelines to the Red Sea that ran through the north. The peace agreement, which saw the establishment of the South Sudan government in 2005, involved arrangements to share the oil revenues. But South Sudan’s decision to separate completely in 2011 soon gave rise to complaints that Sudan was not honouring the agreement. It even led at one point to the pipeline to the north being closed. With differences over borders and economic relations, and even overt war, it is unsurprising that diplomatic relations between the governments have proved difficult. It is therefore also unsurprising that they have affected relations with the wider international community. Separation often implies that the former state wasn’t viable. International recognition of a new state therefore assumes that separation is better for both old and new. This has proved questionable in both cases. Eritrea has acquired a reputation as a coercive state and become something of an international pariah. South Sudan has imploded into impoverishment and widespread conflict, leading some to call for it to become a UN mandate, with the presence of a long-term UN force. These cases have left a legacy which suggests that separation, in Africa at least, is not an easy option. It could lead to outcomes that do little to solve the problems of any of the states involved. Many in Africa will have these outcomes in mind as they face Somaliland’s continued call for international recognition as an independent state. Meanwhile, rebuilding in the rest of Somalia continues with the express wish that Somaliland is part of the process.


Editor’s Note: Sreedhar Potarazu, an ophthalmologist and entrepreneur, is the founder of Enziime, a software company focused on providing data science applications to assess health care delivery. He is the author of “Get Off the Dime: The Secret of Changing Who Pays for Your Health Care.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Sreedhar Potarazu: Barack Obama has long admired Gandhi and MLK, hence, he wants to avoid wars The leader of the free world faces circumstances where nonviolent diplomacy is not always an option What would Gandhi do? What would Dr. King do? These are questions that come up as President Obama struggles to balance his vision of a better and more peaceful world with the clamor for swift military responses to the evil acts of ISIS. Before he became a U.S. senator, Obama openly discussed his moral compass and how deeply rooted it was in the convictions and philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. He paid further homage to them when he became president. After a visit to India in 2010, he said: “Throughout my life, including my work as a young man on behalf of the urban poor, I’ve always found inspiration in the life of Gandhi and his simple and profound lesson to be the change we seek in the world. “And just as he summoned Indians to seek their destiny, he influenced champions of equality in my own country, including a young preacher named Martin Luther King. “After making his pilgrimage to India a half century ago, Dr. King called Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolent resistance ‘the only logical and moral approach’ in the struggle for justice and progress.’” But Obama, unlike Gandhi and King, is president of the United States. And when you’re the leader of the free world, nonviolence is not always an option. Related video Obama: GOP rhetoric is recruitment tool for ISIS The President now finds himself stuck in a quagmire of evil in the Mideast. ISIS has gone international, claiming responsibility for this month’s bombing of a Russian passenger jet in Egypt and last week’s coordinated attacks that killed 129 people in Paris. Their new video shows images of Washington, D.C. and New York City. Their intentions are clear. But fighting ISIS could mean siding with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his supporter, Vladimir Putin. If the enemy of his enemy is his friend, then which enemy does Obama choose? This is the dilemma he’s facing. The President has arrived at a twisted fork in the road, and both paths are fraught with peril. He is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who wants to be remembered as having been worthy of the honor, but his current predicament offers no easy way out. In his acceptance speech of the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama was clear on his stance: “I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: ‘Violence never brings permanent peace.  It solves no social problem:  it merely creates new and more complicated ones.’  As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.” Like Gandhi and Dr. King, Obama is a believer in peace and nonviolence. Unlike Gandhi and Dr. King, he has to deal directly – and daily – with powerful thugs and gangsters who see things very differently than he does. He could well be wondering: How do you reason with unreasonable people? How would Gandhi negotiate with Genghis Khan? How might Dr. King talk to Al Capone? Obama’s aspirations are no different from those of Gandhi and Dr. King, but, sadly, there comes a time when nonviolent diplomacy loses out to circumstance. Related video Obama: U.S. ground troops in Syria would be a mistake In some respects, Gandhi’s disappointment in the partitioning of India into two countries – Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India – mirrors the president’s position on accepting Syrian refugees. Gandhi wanted the two religions to coexist in the same country, but it wasn’t meant to be. Obama may likewise be forced to settle for an uncomfortable solution. Earlier this week, during his press conference in Turkey, the President spoke about how gut-wrenching it is to visit soldiers in the hospital whom he has sent to war, and who have come home paralyzed or without limbs. Such is the moral compass of the U.S. commander in chief: He doesn’t want to put more lives of our young husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and sons and daughters in harm’s way. He doesn’t want us to get stuck in more violence, endless conflicts and wars. The President has tried to minimize collateral damage by resorting to a strategy of precision attacks, such as using drones as in the case of “Jihadi John” or Navy SEALs in dealing with Osama bin Laden. I’ve had the privilege of observing the President on many occasions. He is a deep thinker, a man of great intellect who clearly sees the world through a lens far different from any of ours. He bears the weight of global turmoil on his shoulders, but he doesn’t flinch. He keeps his poise. He is not the sort of man who will put lives at stake without calculating the consequences of every step, without measuring every tear and every drop of blood that will be shed. Related article The inconvenient truth: There's no easy military answer to war on ISIS People in leadership roles often become immune to the difficulty of making these decisions, because emotion can cloud objectivity. President Obama will abandon neither. With bombs blowing up airplanes and gunmen mowing down concertgoers, most of us would find it impossible to think about the higher moral cause. But there is no doubt that this is exactly what the President is doing as he considers his next steps. The world is frustrated. It is shouting, “Shoot! Do something! Attack!” But it should pause to ask, “Who is this man? Who is this president?” He is a man who seeks peace and he will not be rash in determining his next steps. He will ask himself, “What would Gandhi do? What would Dr. King do?” The answers may not be comforting, but they will come from deep introspection and not impulse, because that is the inner Obama. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion’s new Flipboard magazine.


Editor’s Note: Mel Robbins is a CNN commentator, legal analyst, best-selling author and keynote speaker. In 2014, she was named outstanding news talk-radio host by the Gracie Awards. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. 3 friends from U.S. among those credited with averting terrorist attack Mel Robbins: They went from vacationers to guardians They were on a packed train heading for Paris when gunshots rang out. Moments later, a shirtless Ayoub El Khazzani entered the train car with multiple weapons. Mark Moogalian, a 51-year-old American and author and teacher, moved on instinct “to protect his wife” and lunged. Meanwhile, Alek Skarlatos, a member of the U.S. National Guard, had seen the gunman, too.  All it took were three words, “Let’s go, go” and he and his childhood buddies Spencer Stone, a U.S. Air Force airman; and Anthony Sadler, a senior at Sacramento State, switched from vacationers to guardians, charging down the aisle of the train to help. Their heroism inspired Chris Norman, a British businessman, to join them. They tackled the potential gunman on behalf of the over 500 people on the train. Skarlatos was slashed with a box cutter, Moogalian was already down, shot in the neck.  There seems little debate that these men stopped an attack that easily could have been “true carnage”: the suspect is said to have had an AK-47, pistol, a blade and a bag of ammunition. President Barack Obama commended their courage and President Francois Hollande awarded them France’s highest honor:  the Legion d’Honneur. We’ve seen it over and over again – ordinary people who become extraordinary heroes in an instant.  Acting on instinct they run toward danger, instead of running away.  They subdue a threat on a plane, a train or on the street. You might think that heroism and courage are complicated matters, but they really aren’t.  It doesn’t come down to training or experience, it just comes down to your heart signaling you to go and help. To pull a fire alarm, as a shooter fires shots in a crowded theater. To shelter others with your own body as a gunman walks down the school hallway. The difference between those of us who freeze and don’t speak up, don’t help and those that do is so simple and so clear that even a 10-year-old can explain it. I know, because I talked to mine about the heroes on the train. What he had to say was so simple and so awesome, I wanted to share it with you. I asked, what is a hero? “That’s a good question.  A lot of people think that heroes are people that have superpowers, but that’s wrong,” he responded. “Not all people with superpowers are good.  There are lots of bad guys with super powers, like the Joker, Loki, Dr. Octavius, and Magneto.  So having a superpower doesn’t make you a hero.  It’s how you use your power that makes you a hero.” How do heroes use their power? “They do it in two ways.  They either protect you, or they make you feel better.” Do you know any heroes? “Yes, I know lots of heroes.  There’s all those heroes that protect us:  the police, firemen, the army, military guys that you’re always thanking, ambulance drivers, like the one who drove me to the hospital, she was a hero … But then there are the helper heroes too – like teachers, seeing eye dogs and doctors.” What is one thing that heroes do that make them heroes? “They always act.  When something blows up and everyone is running away, the hero always runs to the blast to protect you.  Or if it’s a helping hero like a teacher, they always walk up and ask you if you need help.  It’s like they know inside them that someone needs their help. Heroes don’t need to be asked, they just know. Have you ever been a hero? “I don’t know … (stares out the window for a bit) … I’ve been telling my friend whose parents are divorcing that it will be OK. I text her every day to see if she is OK.  She’s got no one to talk to and she’s really worried, so I want her to know she has me. I guess that kinda makes me a helping hero.” Anything else you want to add about heroes? “Yes, anyone can be a hero. You just can’t think about it, you just have do what is in your heart to help.” Speaking to the press after the attack Chris Norman admitted that his “first reaction was to sit down and hide,” and then his heart signaled him to act. “OK, I’m probably going to die anyway, so let’s go.” Hopefully none of us with find ourselves in a situation as terrifying as the one on the train.  As President Hollande said at the French award ceremony: “Here are four men who with the help of others acted not just to save their own lives, but who also came to help others and saved the lives of others.” In doing so, they reminded us that heroic deeds can come at any time, and in many forms. We all have the potential inside us, but we all have to be willing to do one thing: to act when our heart tells us it’s time to go. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.

three American men who averted terrorist attack on train


The news has been filled with stories of prominent men accused of sexual misconduct – many of the alleged misdeeds going back decades. Though the circumstances are different in each case, the same question keeps coming up: Why did the accusers wait so long to come forward? Some who came forward explained their reasons for waiting. In other cases, the treatment accusers endured after coming forward made their reasons apparent. Here are a few examples: While examples abound of accusers’ credibility coming under question, Italian actress and filmmaker Asia Argento’s case was particularly extreme. Related article How to help survivors of sexual assault She was disparaged in the Italian press after the New Yorker published her sexual assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein has repeatedly denied all allegations of non-consensual sex. One opinion writer called her account “prostitution, not rape.” When she gave a TV interview about the accusations, another writer tweeted that Argento was “trying to justify high-class prostitution.” In a radio interview, the editor-in-chief of right-wing publication Libero said the encounter was the price of becoming a great actress, and that it must have been consensual. The treatment led her to flee Italy for a few weeks, she said. Italians “just don’t get it,” she told The Guardian. “We have been so lobotomized by the objectification of women that we, as women, don’t even know that we are being harassed and treated the wrong way,” she said. When the Washington Post published accounts from four women who said Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore pursued them as teenagers, Moore’s supporters said they found the timing “suspect.” Moore has denied the allegations. We’re in Montogomery, Alabama, where women, including his wife Kayla Moore, are speaking in support of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. We’re in Montogomery, Alabama, where women, including his wife Kayla Moore, are speaking in support of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. The Senate race was just weeks away, leading many, including Moore’s wife, to accuse the women of conspiring with the “liberal press” to get “involved” with the race. The Washington Post said none of the women approached the paper with the story. On the contrary, the paper approached the women after receiving a tip and asked them to come forward. Numerous Weinstein accusers said they had long stayed quiet for fear of the consequences of challenging a man who held their career in his hands. In her account of Weinstein’s alleged harassment, actress Gwyneth Paltrow said she feared the repercussions for her career if she were to speak out. After her then-boyfriend, Brad Pitt, confronted Weinstein, the Miramax producer warned her not to tell anyone else, she told The New York Times. “I thought he was going to fire me,” she said. Five women told CNN that political reporter Mark Halperin sexually harassed them while he was at ABC News. None of them reported the incidents. Some of the women said they did not report Halperin’s behavior to management because they feared retribution, given the power Halperin had at ABC and in the industry. Halperin acknowledged pursuing relationships with women he worked with and apologized for his actions. American gymnast Simone Biles explained the guilt victims carry around after being violated. The Olympic champion said she was sexually abused by former USA gymnastics team doctor Larry Nasser, who admitted to taking advantage of young female athletes in his care. He pleaded guilty in November to criminal sexual conduct and faces sentencing this week. Before speaking up, Biles she said she grappled with whether she could have done something to prevent what happened, even though she did nothing to cause it. “For far too long I’ve asked myself ‘Was I too naive? Was it my fault?’” she said Monday. “I now know the answer to those questions. No. No. It was not my fault. No, I will not and should not carry the guilt that belongs to Larry Nassar, USAG, and others.” One of Moore’s accusers told the Washington Post that she didn’t come forward sooner because she worried that her background, which included three divorces and financial troubles, would undermine her credibility. “There is no one here that doesn’t know that I’m not an angel,” Leigh Corfman said, referring to her home town of Gadsden, Alabama. Corfman has since filed a defamation lawsuit against Moore and his campaign for calling her allegations “politically motivated” and “malicious.”

sexual misconduct allegations against prominent men


Girlfriend said gunman "never said anything" to indicate deadly plan Danley has spoken to the FBI and Las Vegas police, her attorney said The girlfriend of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock says she saw no signs he was planning “something horrible,” and that she is “devastated” by the deaths and injuries he caused when he rained bullets down on an outdoor music concert. Marilou Danley, Paddock’s girlfriend, issued a statement Wednesday afternoon through her attorney, Matt Lombard. Danley said Paddock “never said anything to me, or took any action that I was aware of, that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.” “It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone,” she said in the statement. Lombard said Danley is fully cooperating with the investigation into why Paddock, a 64-year-old retired accountant, fired for 9 to 11 minutes from his 32nd-floor hotel window into a crowd of 22,000 concertgoers in the heart of Las Vegas. Fifty-eight people were killed and nearly 500 were injured before Paddock took his own life as police closed in. “I knew Stephen Paddock as a kind, caring, quiet man,” Danley said in the statement. “I loved him and hoped for a quiet future together with him.” Danley said that, more than two weeks ago, Paddock told her he had bought a plane ticket for her to fly to her native Philippines, saying he wanted her to visit her family. While she was in the Philippines, Danley said, Paddock wired her money that he said was for her to buy a house for her and her family. Danley said she was grateful but “worried” that the unexpected trip home and the money “was a way of breaking up with me.” Paddock had recently wired $100,000 to the Philippines, a US law enforcement source confirmed to CNN this week. Danley said she had voluntarily flown back to the United States after Sunday’s massacre because she knew investigators wanted to talk to her. She arrived late Tuesday at Los Angeles International Airport from the Philippines, and spoke Wednesday in Los Angeles with the FBI and Las Vegas police, Lombard said. Danley’s sisters told CNN affiliate Seven Network Australia that Paddock encouraged her to leave the United States last month. “She was sent away. She was sent away so that she will be not there to interfere with what he’s planning,” one of Danley’s sisters told Seven News from their home in Australia’s Gold Coast region. “In that sense, I thank him for sparing my sister’s life,” she said, adding that Danley was “really in love with Steve.” The two sisters, who spoke to Seven News exclusively, did not want to be identified by name and requested their faces be blurred. One sister told Seven News said that Danley didn’t know anything ahead of the shooting. “She didn’t even know that she was going to the Philippines, until Steve said, ‘Marilou, I found you a cheap ticket to the Philippines.’ “ The sister added Danley was likely “even (more) shocked than us” by his actions. Still, the sister left open the possibility that Danley could provide information helpful to investigators. “Of all the people that they have interviewed, … no one can put the puzzles together – no one – except Marilou, because Steve is not here to talk anymore. Only Marilou can maybe help,” she said. “If Marilou was there, this, maybe, as well, didn’t happen because she won’t let it happen.” After Sunday attack, authorities in the United States, the Philippines and Australia joined efforts to search for Danley, hoping she might shed some light on the motive behind the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. The search for her initially spanned several countries, with conflicting reports that she may have been in Japan or the Philippines at the time of the shooting. Danley, 62, who travels on an Australian passport, arrived in the Philippines from Tokyo on September 15, then left for Hong Kong on September 22 and flew back to the Philippines on September 25, said Maria Antoinette Mangrobang, a spokeswoman for the Philippine Bureau of Immigration. Authorities in the Philippines had communicated with the FBI and the US Department of Homeland Security regarding her travel, the spokeswoman said. In the Seven News interview, one sister said Danley would willingly answer investigators’ questions. “She’s a good person, a gentle soul, a mother, a grandmother, a sister, a friend,” the sister said, adding that Danley was having trouble coping with the tragedy because “she’s a very weak person.” Danley lived with Paddock in Mesquite, Nevada, northeast of Las Vegas. It’s unclear when the couple met. Danley’s sisters said they had met Paddock two or three times. “(He was) very quiet, not sociable. He keep to himself. One question, you get your answer directly. That’s it,” one sister said. “It’s a pity, though, because he’s the only one really who can answer this,” she said. “But he cheated. He cheated. He escaped and (left) us here putting (pieces of) the puzzles together.” A previous version of this report incorrectly said that Marilou Danley left Tokyo on September 25. She left on September 15. This article has also been updated to reflect authorities’ revision of the number of people hurt in the shooting. CNN’s Nic Robertson reported from Manila and Evan Perez from Washington, while James Griffiths wrote from Hong Kong. CNN’s Eric Levenson, Darran Simon, Katherine Grise, Emanuella Grinberg, Kelly Chen, Holly Yan and Liz Turrell contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN Opinion who focuses on climate change and social justice. Follow him on Snapchat, Facebook and email. This story is part CNN’s “Vanishing” series. Learn more about the sixth extinction and get involved. The “blue jeans” frog is practically screaming to be noticed. Its head is blood red, and its legs are denim blue. It looks like it’s wearing jeggings. But this little critter, also known as the strawberry poison dart frog, is only about the size of a fingernail. It spends most of its time either high up in the trees in this Central American rainforest or rooting around in the gooey “leaf litter” of the forest floor. As such, it’s practically invisible. Unless you open your ears. Chit-chit-chit-chit-chit. “It sounds like an insect. It buzzes.” That’s Bryan Pijanowski, a “soundscape ecologist” from Purdue University and one of the few people paying attention to the fact that nature – especially the amphibian part – is growing exceptionally quiet these days. Pijanowski and collaborators from around the world have been strapping audio recorders to trees here at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica. The microphones look like funny little robots – boxes with windscreen ears on each side. The equipment has a critical mission. It’s listening for the sound of extinction. Have you heard it already? I ask Pijanowski. “I think so,” he tells me. His muted, baritone voice sounds like a public radio host sharing secrets with you in a library. “There is evidence all around the world.” Scientists fear Earth is on the verge of the sixth era of extinction. There have been five mass extinctions in the planet’s history. If we usher in the sixth, three-quarters of all species could disappear in a couple of centuries, says Anthony Barnosky, executive director of the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve at Stanford and author of “Dodging Extinction: Power, Food, Money and the Future of Life on Earth.” “The best way to envision the sixth mass extinction,” he told me, “is to look outside and then just imagine that three out of every four of the species that were common out there are gone.” If you study amphibians, it can seem like that dystopian future already is here. About 10% of birds and a third of mammals are at high extinction risk. Not good. But more than 40% of amphibians are in similar straits – making them worse off than any other vertebrate group, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Amphibians are vanishing without warning, and often without explanation. “In the past 30 years or so, we’ve seen really dramatic, really rapid extinctions for frog populations all over the world,” says Steven Whitfield, a conservation ecologist at Zoo Miami who joined Pijanowski and me on the visit to Costa Rica this summer. “Many of these extinctions are due to habitat loss. But other extinctions have occurred in pristine rainforests like this – places that look healthy but the frogs are telling us there’s something clearly wrong.” Whitfield spent years studying frogs at this research station in this particular forest. I ask him to show me how it’s done. It doesn’t take long to realize it’s not easy work. When Whitfield conducts a study, he often ropes off a small plot of land and then spends hours searching for every single frog he can find. The search begins with his ears. “I’ll hear [a frog] call and spend half an hour or more looking into a small patch of vegetation, knowing that it’s right there and that I need to find it but unable to see it,” he tells me. Whitfield is an expert at pulling frog sounds out of the EDM freak-out that is the rainforest. If you’ve been, then you know these places, in healthy conditions, are LOUD. I actually had a hard time falling asleep some nights in Costa Rica because it sounded (awesomely) like the forest was yelling at me; and I woke up early to screams of howler monkeys. (Fun aside: Researchers warn newcomers to always wear shoes – because, vipers – and to watch the trees, since the “bullet ant,” which delivers the world’s most painful bite, like a bullet, is all around.) Whitfield’s amphibian-listening powers are impressive, but even he has trouble finding frogs by sight. He takes me and a group of researchers from the Center for Global Soundscapes deep into the forest just after dusk one evening, when some frogs tend to be the most active. Our headlamps provide a washed-out sort of tunnel vision of the diversity hiding all around us. Whitfield can hear and identify frogs at great distance. There’s the “chit-chit-chit” of the blue jeans frog (the one with jeggings), the panicked meowing of a creature aptly nicknamed the “kitten frog.” He hears the slot-machine rattle of the “glass frog,” which has a translucent belly, allowing you to see organs through its skin. Smoky jungle frogs scream like human babies when they’re threatened, and the tink frog seems to be named for its metallic call, which sounds like that ear-piercing noise a smoke detector makes when it wants you to change its battery. This place is way beyond “ribbit.” The sounds are staggering. But finding these frogs by sight? That’s more difficult. In a couple of hours, we saw only a handful of frogs. Spiders almost seem easier to come by. “Those bite,” Whitfield says, pointing to one. “Don’t touch that.” I’m grateful for the research Whitfield and other field ecologists have contributed when it comes to frogs. Their diligent, painstaking, searching-through-the-leaves work is how we know important (and fun) frog facts, like that the female blue jeans frog is an amphibian supermom. Her tadpoles hatch on the forest floor, he says, but that’s a precarious place for them, so she carries them, on her back, high up into the forest canopy, sometimes 10 to 15 meters off the ground – about 33 to 50 feet. She drops the tadpoles off in little puddles of water up there in the forest canopy and makes a mental note of their location. She does this again and again, leaving her young all over the forest canopy. She remembers where all these tadpoles are (!!) and spends her days climbing the trees to deliver food. “That’s pretty complicated behavior for a tiny little frog,” Whitfield says. His research also has helped show that frogs at La Selva are in decline. “We have really good long-term data on what’s been happening with frog populations over four decades,” he tells me. “In the forest here now, there’s only about 25% as many frogs as there were sustained throughout the 1970s. And for us, that’s a concern because it says that something is happening to this rainforest but we don’t fully understand what that is.” That’s worth stating again. Locally, only a quarter of the frogs from the 1970s remain. Meanwhile, the human population jumped from less than 4 billion to 7.4 billion today. Whitfield’s search-the-forest work is critical. But even he would say it could use a technological assist. That’s where Pijanowski and his tree-hugging microphones come in. He’s listening for changes Whitfield might not be able to see. Bryan Pijanowski is an ecologist by training. Before that, he was a “quiet alterboy-ish kind of kid” in the Midwest who also was sort of an audiophile – and an amateur musician. He played guitar in a high school band called Destruction. “Everybody wanted you to play ‘Freebird,’” he said, “so that’s what I played – over and over again.” In school, he set out to become a medical doctor but changed his mind after hearing the “dawn chorus” of a swamp in Michigan. He became obsessed with nature and its music. So he studied birds and ecology, and eventually turned to “soundscapes,” the emerging field of using sound to understand the shifts in the health and function of ecosystems. The work makes him so sound-focused he now has to wear earplugs to sleep. He can’t stop listening. “There are times when [the rainforest] is almost too loud,” he tells me. “It’s like being too close to the speakers at a concert. Your ears ring.” We are failing the elephantsThe great bee die-off: Why you should careHow our throwaway culture is ruining the planetListening for the amphibian apocalypseSutter: We have 20 years to prevent mass extinction5 ways to prevent mass extinction We are failing the elephantsThe great bee die-off: Why you should careHow our throwaway culture is ruining the planetListening for the amphibian apocalypseSutter: We have 20 years to prevent mass extinction5 ways to prevent mass extinction La Selva is now one of his study sites. He’s working to develop others around the world, including underwater to listen for changes to coral reefs. His microphones have taken him to the tip of South America and the deserts of Mongolia. But this site is special both because the rainforest is nearly untouched – and because there’s so much data. Pijanowski got his hands on recordings that date back to 2008 and started making his own recordings here in 2010. At the peak of his research, he’d installed 34 microphone sensors. Now he has 255,000 recordings here, totaling about 6.8 years of tape. He’s still analyzing the data with the help of computer algorithms. What he’s heard – or rather, what he doesn’t hear – definitely freaks him out. One evening, insects and frogs chattering outside, Pijanowski sits me down in an open-window classroom at the research station and shows me some of his sound files. He visualizes the audio in charts called spectrograms. These charts illuminate trends that a walk through the forest can’t. Take a look at this La Selva recording from 2008. And then another from 2015, recorded under similar conditions. Hear the difference? Those are just two moments. Pijanowski’s team can compress a year’s worth of sound into one chart. Take a look at what happens when you look at those years side by side. The red parts of the charts indicate more audible activity. The main frog frequencies grow much bluer, and quieter. It’s too soon to draw scientific conclusions from this, Pijanowski tells me. But he’s frightened. “I’m worried that these would potentially become acoustic fossils,” he says. “In other words, the animals that are in these files are no longer alive. And the only record that we have of some of their presence is in an audio recording. “That is somewhat disturbing to me, as a scientist and also as a citizen of this planet.” A collaborator of Pijanowski’s, Michael Towsey, tells me he has a file of an Australian frog that’s thought to be extinct – a recording that already is an acoustic fossil. You can listen to that frog’s call here on the Internet. But you can no longer hear it in nature. Why does this matter? There’s the self-interested argument. Here’s Steven Whitfield’s take on that. “We are all dependent on the planet for clean water, for oxygen. And ecosystems not only provide food to people but rainforests like this are an important source of medicines. Some of the frogs that live in the rainforest here have chemicals in their skin that have been found to be important medicines. They can be painkillers or heart medicines. So these are things that can be really useful for medicine. And we’d like to not lose those. If we do lose those, it hurts us all.” There’s the ecosystem collapse argument. Bryan Pijanowski: “Some of the theoretical work that we’re doing and ecology suggests that we could have ecosystem collapse. And that’s not good … You don’t wanna start removing organisms and expect the ecosystem to survive and function in a healthy way. It could very well mean that  some of the things that we are much more emotionally attached to are lost.” That should be enough to sway a pragmatist. Still, I think there’s a more human reason you should care about the disappearance of amphibians. Chances are you never or rarely see frogs in your day-to-day life. But when you learn about them – those with translucent bellies, supermom instincts, blue-jean legs and poisonous skin, all of which are calling to be noticed by each other if not by us – then it’s hard to ignore their plight. There are multiple causes of the amphibian apocalypse, but all the trouble points back to us. We’ve helped carry a killer fungus, called chytrid, around the globe, with disastrous consequences. Climate change has been implicated in frog die-offs. Pollution is a big problem since frogs live part-time in water and basically breathe through their skin. They are the front lines – the most vulnerable of species. Yet few of us seem truly outraged by their disappearance. Maybe that will change if we start listening more closely. After all, frog choruses are some of the most fascinating songs in nature. One recording from the island of Borneo – called “dusk by the frog pond” – was voted by the always-wise Internet as “the most beautiful sound in the world.” It’s not too late to stop the sixth extinction from taking permanent hold of us, according to Barnosky, the Stanford researcher. We have at most 20 years to change our ways. There’s hope. But we must ditch fossil fuels, mitigating climate change. We have to stop the spread of invasive species and disease. And, in the view of one prominent biologist, we must set aside half the planet for the benefit of biodiversity and nature. Otherwise, we risk silencing the frogs. And perhaps the rest of nature, too.


Ines Dumig's photo series "Apart Together" follows a Somali refugee living in Germany The underlying themes include isolation and "otherness" and the search for human dignity Editor’s Note: Ines Dumig was recently announced as a CENTER Grant Recipient. Sahra, a Somali refugee, left her home at 14 years old. Throughout her journey in search of asylum, she managed to overcome dangers and discomforts. But she never gave up, and she continuously reminded herself to keep going. She’s the focus of Ines Dumig’s photo series “Apart Together.” Dumig met Sahra through a photo workshop at Refugio, a shelter in Munich, Germany, for refugees and torture victims. What drew Dumig to Sahra specifically was her strength and her ability to effectively reflect on all of her experiences. “It really impressed me how she deals with everything,” Dumig said. “She’s strong in her way of connecting with the culture here and also reflecting on what happened, the culture where she comes from.” The number of refugees seeking asylum in the European Union increased by 25% last year, with Germany receiving the most applications. One of the reasons Dumig decided to photograph Sahra is because growing up in Germany made Dumig realize that she lived a fortunate lifestyle. Another reason has to do with Dumig’s interest in people’s emotions and finding one’s identity. “I realized so many people want to come to Europe, and I always had the feeling to disappear or to go away,” Dumig said. “Seeing how people live in other parts of the world made me realize how privileged I am.” “Apart Together” serves not only as a documentation of Sahra, but as a far-reaching story about people from all backgrounds. The title of Dumig’s work refers to the fact that although people may be physically apart from one another, the comparable feelings they experience are what link all people together. “Sometimes we feel strong, sometimes we feel lost – that’s kind of universal, I think,” Dumig said. “That’s why I want to universalize (Sahra’s) story as well, not only make it about her.” The underlying themes of “Apart Together” include the feelings of isolation and “otherness” and the search for a valuable human dignity. Social mediaFollow @CNNPhotos on Twitter to join the conversation about photography. “Every one of these (refugees) have strong stories, and in the bureaucratic system, they are just a number or a document,” Dumig said. “But they are a person, they are people with emotions and lives.” Sahra is currently under the status of “suspension of deportation,” meaning German immigration officials may grant her discretionary relief from deportation. Dumig describes Sahra as someone living through an unresolved situation. Regardless of the challenges Sahra faces as a refugee in Germany, she is a survivor and the embodiment of resilience, determined to establish a new life for herself. She has learned to speak German fluently, and she has started working in the nation as well. Like an unsolved photographic puzzle, each photo within “Apart Together” provides a piece of insight into Sahra’s experiences. There is no certain and clear way in which to arrange the pieces, because they are a representation of the fragmented nature of Sahra’s life. Many of Dumig’s photos are not of Sahra herself, but instead show her surroundings. This makes “Apart Together” rich in symbolism and challenges viewers to develop their own perceptions. The photos are powerful because of this symbolic nature, as there are infinite interpretations attached to each one. “I think everyone interprets by themselves, by however way they perceive it through their own experience. That’s up to the viewer,” Dumig said. “It depends on who looks at the pictures. … Everyone will see something different.” “Apart Together” allowed Dumig to share various special moments with Sahra, and they were both able to learn from each other. “It was just something we both got something out of,” Dumig said. Ines Dumig is a photographer based in Germany.


Editor’s Note: Errol Louis is the host of “Inside City Hall,” a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. Errol Louis: Jared Kushner's statement to Congress demonstrates an untenable conflict between his two personae -- political operator and bumbling novice It's up to Congress to determine which Jared Kushner has been entrusted with so much power by President Trump, Louis writes Will the real Jared Kushner please stand up? The White House is asking us to believe that Kushner, the President’s son-in-law, is qualified to run point on an astoundingly broad portfolio of top-level domestic and international affairs, including negotiating Middle East peace, tackling the opioid addiction crisis, globe-trotting to Iraq with American generals, hosting an official dinner for the leader of China and launching an effort to bring private sector innovation and efficiency to government operations. But according to his own statement to Congress, Kushner is so naive, inexperienced and disorganized that he knew nothing of the substance, purpose or fellow attendees of key meetings he sat in on with high-ranking Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign and transition – meetings that Kushner repeatedly neglected to disclose, as required by law. These scenarios – Kushner as trusted White House troubleshooter and Kushner as bumbling, overwhelmed novice – are in direct conflict. Both cannot be true. If Kushner is swamped by email and inattentive to details like remembering the name of the Russian ambassador to the United States after meeting him, then the President’s son-in-law should not be tasked with running so many key government initiatives. And if he does possess the almost superhuman ability to manage so many projects, his account of the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, to which he was invited with an email whose subject line read “Clinton - Russia - Private and Confidential,” strains credulity. Kushner says of that fateful meeting in a circulated statement to Congress: “I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees. No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted.” Related article Kushner confirms Russia meetings, says 'all of my actions were proper' We now know that the stated purpose of the meeting – spelled out in the email Kushner claims not to have read – was “to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia. … This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” But 10 minutes into the meeting, says Kushner, he heard talk about the adoption of Russian children, wrote the gathering off as a waste of time, concocted a reason to leave early, and did not follow up on it. At a minimum, that doesn’t sound like the behavior of an official prepared to navigate the minutiae of Middle East diplomacy or the opioid crisis. It also greatly weakens Kushner’s contention, printed in boldfaced type in his statement to Congress, that, “I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government.” How would he know if he did? The man barely seems to be paying attention to what’s going on around him. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Members of Congress should be sure to ask Kushner what steps, if any, he has taken to determine what was actually going on in the June 2016 meeting. They should also ask Kushner if he now realizes that when Russian operatives and officials talk about the adoption of Russian children, they are in fact discussing the lifting of American sanctions imposed in response to Russia’s human rights abuses. And most of all, they should ask Kushner if it’s possible, in retrospect, that Russian operatives were trying to take advantage of his inattention to detail to share damaging information on Clinton, build a case for the lifting of sanctions, or pursue other objectives. With truthful answers, we’ll get a clearer sense of which Jared Kushner has been entrusted with so much power by President Trump.


Trump has overseen a steady transfer of power from the White House to the Pentagon The moves are intended to empower the military at a tactical level In his first six months in office, President Donald Trump has overseen a steady transfer of power from the White House to the Pentagon, handing off several warfighting authorities that previously rested in his hands – and those of past presidents of both parties – to the Pentagon and the commanders overseeing the US’ military campaigns. The moves are intended to empower the military at a tactical level, bolstering the US’ intensifying fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups to praise from several current and former military officials. But those efforts have also raised concerns about whether Trump expects to face the same level of accountability for military decisions he has kicked down to the Pentagon and have drawn attention to the inherent risks of downsizing the White House’s role in overseeing the US’ escalating military campaign against ISIS and al-Qaeda and its offshoots. Trump’s most significant step in this direction came earlier this month when he empowered Defense Secretary James Mattis, a recently retired four-star general, to set troop levels in Afghanistan. The Pentagon and the White House have downplayed the move by noting that Mattis can only act within the guardrails of the current US strategy in that country. But the move effectively empowers Mattis to send thousands more US troops into the warzone without the commander in chief’s signoff for the first time in a 16-year war that has spanned three presidents. In Yemen and Somalia, Trump has given US commanders waging the fight against terrorist groups there more freedom to launch raids and offensive airstrikes without the White House’s OK by designating provinces in both countries as “areas of active hostilities,” leading to a marked uptick in airstrikes in Yemen. In Iraq and Syria, the President has also granted the Pentagon more freedom to manage troop levels. Meanwhile, the White House’s National Security Council – which some at the Pentagon criticized as overbearing in the Obama administration – has seen its power diminished, leaving Pentagon officials to describe a more streamlined decision-making process with fewer White House-crafted hoops to jump through on some military decisions. The CIA, too, has been empowered by Trump, regaining the authority to conduct drone strikes against suspected terrorists – actions President Barack Obama chose to personally authorize via the military. Trump administration officials have described the changes as a deliberate effort to empower the military and reverse the protocols that defined the Obama administration’s oversight of military campaigns that much of the top brass described as micromanagement that needlessly hamstrung commanders. Although not to the same extent, some of those complaints also stemmed from the era of President George W. Bush, military experts said. “No longer will we have slowed decision cycles because Washington, DC, has to authorize tactical movements on the ground,” Mattis said in May. “I have absolute confidence as does the President, our commander in chief, in the commanders on the ground as he’s proven by delegating this authority to me with the authority to further delegate it and they’ve carried it out aggressively.” The sentiment is widespread in military circles. Retired Gen. John Allen, who forcefully criticized Trump during the campaign, expressed support for some of Trump’s moves to empower military commanders. The former top commander in Afghanistan and later Obama’s special envoy for the anti-ISIS coalition recalled how he and other top military officials have long craved “greater flexibility” to more effectively carry out their mission and “maintain the momentum against the enemy.” “Many of these targets are very perishable,” Allen said. “Every time I or other commanders had to come back to Washington for permissions, everything slowed down.” But now, some are questioning whether the changes put into effect by the Trump administration amount to an overcorrection that risks handing over too much authority to the Pentagon. Going forward, the White House will have a diminished role in sounding off on military decisions that could have geopolitical implications as well as political ramifications back home in the US. Trump will be one step removed from more of the military’s airstrikes in Yemen and Somalia, decisions that could lead to more civilian casualties and local uproar in countries where the US is not formally deployed. Military commanders have stressed there has been no change to their tolerance for civilian casualties. As Mattis prepares to send as many as 5,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, the commander in chief won’t need to be in the picture. He has been briefed on the proposals for additional troops, but Trump – who during his campaign railed against “nation-building” and a deepening of the US’ military footprint abroad – ultimately left the final decision to Mattis, distancing himself from a decision that could lead to more US casualties and prove politically unpopular. Under both Presidents Bush 43 and Obama, decisions to send thousands more troops came from the top. “I think there are some legitimate concerns that he is distancing himself from decisions about war and peace,” said retired Adm. John Kirby, a career military officer who served as the Pentagon’s top spokesman during the Obama administration. Kirby, who said he believes there are merits to giving commanders more latitude, said he worried the Trump administration’s decisions represented a “knee-jerk, counter-reaction” to the Obama White House’s involvement in military decision-making. “This could potentially be an overcorrection,” said Kirby, who is now a military and diplomatic analyst for CNN. David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has written extensively about White House national security decision-making, called Trump’s moves to delegate troop levels “a break from, essentially, modern history.” He said the Trump administration’s moves to diminish the National Security Council’s input and devolve power to the Pentagon are “counter-historical.” Short of sending thousands of more troops into a conflict, the decision to give commanders more freedom to carry out airstrikes and special operations raids in some areas without the White House’s signoff could ripple into broader regional implications. The Obama White House also kept a close hold on certain tactical movements to stave off “mission creep,” or the possibility the US could slowly become more deeply entrenched in limited conflicts. Kori Schake, the former NSC director for defense strategy in the Bush administration, praised Trump’s moves to shift more warfighting powers to the Pentagon. But she also expressed concerns that the decision to delegate troop management authority to the Pentagon came without Trump first deciding on a broader US strategy in Afghanistan. Related article As White House defers to Pentagon, Congress mulls new checks on military power “It’s really important for the President to take responsibility for outcome and have a conversation with the American people that prepares people for both what we’re trying to do and the sacrifices that will be required to do it,” Schake said. “The President has not done that on Syria, he has not done that on Afghanistan, he has not done that on the expansion of counterterror operations in Africa and other places. And the risk that runs is that the public – when the casualties start mounting (is not) prepared for the deeper political commitment,” she said. National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton said Trump will decide on the US’ broader strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia in the coming weeks, but decided to grant Mattis the troop authorization beforehand because of the uptick in violence in Afghanistan in recent weeks. Trump administration officials rejected criticism that Trump is shirking his strategic responsibilities as commander in chief, insisting Trump is putting power back to the commanders directly overseeing the US’s fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda and its offshoots. “The President believes the best thing to do is to let the warfighters fight the war,” White House chief strategist Steve Bannon told CNN. Bannon, one of the principal architects of efforts to reduce the White House’s footprint on the military’s tactical decisions, insisted Trump remains deeply engaged in crafting the strategy for defeating ISIS and said decisions on “anything important on the warfighting side” still rest with him. “He hasn’t given up any of the strategic decisions,” Bannon said. The officials said Trump continues to approve the most impactful special operations raids and Anton argued Trump’s moves to empower military commanders speak to Trump’s management style: “He delegates authority,” Anton said. “That’s fine until something goes wrong,” said Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (ret.), the former commanding general of the US Army in Europe. “Then who is going to take the responsibility for those things going wrong? Is it the guy he gave the authority to or is it still him?” Several former military officers and experts interviewed by CNN said their concerns stemmed from one of the first life-and-death decisions Trump made during his term. Days after he was sworn in, Trump signed off on a special operations raid in Yemen that would leave dozens of civilians and a US Navy SEAL dead. Senior Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens would be the first service member killed in the line of duty on Trump’s watch. Weeks later – amid criticism that Trump had hastily approved the raid during a dinner with his defense secretary and with Yemen in uproar over the civilian casualties – the President punted responsibility to the generals who recommended he approve the raid. “This was something that was, you know, just – they wanted to do,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News, referring to the US’ top military men. “And they came to see me and they explained what they wanted to do, the generals, who are very respected … And they lost Ryan.” If Trump sticks to that mindset while shifting power to the Pentagon, Schake, the former Bush administration official, said the military faces a “real risk” that it will be stuck with the blame for negative outcomes – rather than elected officials in Washington, like the President. But while Trump’s moves to give the Pentagon more authority have put some distance between the President and some consequential military decisions, he will be hard-pressed to escape the consequences of those decisions entirely. Allen, the retired four-star general who praised Trump’s moves to give the military “greater flexibility,” said Trump “can’t dodge culpability and responsibility.” “He’s still the commander in chief and he’ll still be held accountable,” Allen said.

Trump administration's transfer of military authority to the Pentagon


Announcement of new electronic surveillance ship a rare move for China's military China's Navy added 18 ships last year, report says China’s Navy has added a new model of electronic reconnaissance ship to its fleet, as Beijing seeks to assert its military might in the South China Sea. The CNS Kaiyangxing or Mizar went into service earlier this week in the eastern port city of Qingdao, the China Daily reported. The paper said divulging details of its intelligence fleet was “a rare move” for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN.) Collin Koh Swee Lean, a research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, said that revealing the ship’s launch served two geopolitical purposes. “Beijing can claim that it has been transparent with its military buildup, and this helps feed the strategic narrative about having a defensive defense policy that it upholds,” he said. “Second, this serves as a form of deterrence against would-be adversaries.  I suspect this is also a signal to the US – or anyone else keen to ramp up naval activities in the disputed waters – that the PLAN has the capability to monitor their activities.” However, Lean said that the vessel was not a combat ship and would be vulnerable without proper protection by other forces. The South China Sea has become a political hot potato between Washington and Beijing as China has built up military bases on disputed islands in the contested waters. President-elect Donald Trump has shown himself to be increasingly willing to challenge Beijing over a range of issues, making ties between the two countries volatile. Last month, China seized a US underwater drone off the coast of the Philippines and sent its aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, to hold drills in the South China Sea. The report said the PLA Navy commissioned a total of 18 ships in 2016. It is also building a domestically designed aircraft carrier in Dalian. The paper said that Navy operates six electronic surveillance vessels. It said the Kaiyangxing had a maximum speed of  20 knots, or 37 kilometers per hour. CNN’s Josh Berlinger contributed to this report


Type of quake and its location helped minimize damage More than 60 aftershocks follow Forecasters canceled tsunami warnings for Alaska and the US and Canadian west coasts Tuesday after an earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska stoked fears of damaging waves. The tsunami alerts were canceled “because additional information and analysis have better defined the threat,” said the National Tsunami Warning Center in Palmer, Alaska. Small tsunami waves of less than 1 foot were reported in Alaska, the center said. The minor tsunami was triggered by a magnitude-7.9 earthquake that struck shortly after midnight. It was centered about 175 miles southeast of Kodiak, at a depth of 15 miles, the US Geological Survey said. The temblor was followed by at least 61 aftershocks, USGS Seismologist Rafael Abreu said. The aftershocks in the region so far were not strong enough to trigger any additional tsunami warnings, but were just the Earth releasing energy, Abreu explained. “Most of the aftershocks seem to be in the magnitude 4.0 range,” Abreu said, adding that “this area of Alaska has seen many earthquakes. It’s pretty active in terms of historical seismicity. So it’s just a typical tectonic boundary event.” Although the tsunami warnings were canceled, San Francisco officials warned residents to stay away from coastlines. About mid-morning, the dangerous-currents advisory from the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management was canceled. Tsunami Watch CANCELLED in #SF, but shoreline areas, marinas, & harbors may have dangerous, strong, & unpredictable currents. Stay away from coastlines for at least 12 hours. Visit https://t.co/kvgkapMonx to learn more about tsunami preparedness. pic.twitter.com/Dq6D1c9jcR Nathaniel Moore was on a commercial fishing boat in Kodiak when the quake hit. He said he felt it “shake really good for a minute.” He and others on the vessel quickly got to shore and headed for higher ground amid the tsunami warning. “The whole town is evacuating,” he told CNN. Tsunami sirens sounded in Kodiak, and police warned: “This is not a drill.” Though the tsunami warnings and evacuation calls were canceled, schools in Kodiak canceled classes after campuses opened overnight as emergency shelters, the district announced via Facebook. Wendy Bliss Snipes described the quake as “a slow roller, so it was felt for at least a minute before the real rolling started. Nothing fell off the walls, and I didn’t have to wake my kiddo.” Heather Rand, who was in Anchorage, told CNN that the earthquake felt like the longest she had ever experienced. “It was a very long, slow build up. Creepy, more than anything. Definitely the longest, and I was born here,” Rand said. She reported no damage besides cracks in the drywall. Both the earthquake and tsunami could have been much worse. Two key factors helped minimize damage. Related article Tsunamis Fast Facts First, the quake’s center was under the ocean, helping prevent catastrophic damage to structures on land. Second, the quake resulted from a strike-slip fault – meaning pressure built up as two plates moved horizontally, CNN senior meteorologist Dave Hennen said. That’s a lot less dangerous than a thrust fault, which happens when a plate displaces vertically. “These are the quakes that produce the large tsunamis,” Hennen said, such as the devastating 2011 quake and tsunami that killed more than 20,000 people in Japan. CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correctly attribute a quotation from an Alaska resident. CNN’s Gianluca Mezzofiore and Artemis Moshtaghian contributed to this report.


President Donald Trump’s lawyers argued in a new court filing Sunday against the FBI search of Michael Cohen’s records, and sided with the former Trump Organization lawyer’s legal team to make sure confidentiality to his legal clients hasn’t been breached. The President’s attorneys called the federal searches of Cohen’s home, office, hotel room and cellphones last Monday “an operation disquieting to lawyers, clients, citizens, and commentators alike.” RELATED: WSJ: Michael Cohen used same company for payment deals for two women The Sunday night filing places the President directly in opposition to the wishes of one of the most significant US attorney’s offices in the Justice Department. Instead, Trump backs his business colleague, who finds himself amid a months-long criminal investigation. The filing marks the first time the President’s legal representatives have waded into an ongoing criminal matter, an unusual but not unheard-of situation for past administrations. Trump’s newly enlisted lawyers from the firm Spears & Imes in New York, who stepped into the case Friday, largely support the same stance as the President’s longtime personal attorney, Cohen, who is asking a judge to prevent federal investigators from using information seized without his review. Related article Michael Cohen raid and attorney-client privilege: What is a 'taint team'? The federal prosecutors – operating out of Manhattan to investigate Cohen’s business dealings and separately from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible Russian collusion – have said they would use a different set of government lawyers to review the materials seized. That walled-off group, called a “taint team,” would look for possible breaches of confidentiality regarding Cohen’s interactions with his legal clients, commonly called attorney-client privilege, and prevent the Manhattan prosecutors from seeing that material. Trump’s lawyers say any rush to review the documents for privilege “makes clear that the taint team will not zealously protect the President’s privilege.” The Department of Justice announced Friday that Cohen had been “under criminal investigation” for months in New York relating to his business dealings. Related article Trump: Attorney-client privilege 'a thing of the past' CNN reported Friday that the FBI seized recordings Cohen made of his conversations with a lawyer representing two women who had alleged affairs with Trump, according to a source familiar with the matter. Cohen is under scrutiny in part for his role in seeking to suppress an alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels through a hush deal. The warrant sought information about that payment along with any information that connected Cohen with efforts to suppress the disclosure of Trump’s alleged affair with Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump and Cohen’s lawyers attempted to block federal prosecutors from using some of the records they obtained during the raid and filed a temporary restraining order. CNN’s Kara Scannell and Julia Jones contributed to this report.


Four ballistic missiles were launched some 1,000 kilometers into the ocean South Korea and the US are currently holding joint military exercises NEW: US says prepared to use full range of capabilities against threat North Korea fired four ballistic missiles early Monday morning in what Japan’s leader described as “an extremely dangerous action.” A fifth missile failed to launch, a US official told CNN. Military authorities in South Korea, Japan and the United States all confirmed the launch of four projectiles, which traveled almost 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) towards the Sea of Japan, also known as the East Sea.  One US official said they were intermediate-range missiles. Three landed inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, which extends 200 nautical miles from its coastline, according to international maritime law. The launch underscored the rapid evolution of North Korea’s weapons program, which experts say has begun moving at a faster rate to develop and deploy missiles. “They did a launch a month ago, they’re now launching (more) in 30 days. That’s a third of the time they used to need,” said Carl Schuster, a professor at Hawaii Pacific University. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the US-based East Asia Nonproliferation Program, told CNN the North Koreans’ recent behavior was the sort “you see from a state that is planning to deploy nuclear weapons to its military units.” Later on Monday, two US officials told CNN that US intelligence is closely monitoring the underground nuclear test site via satellite amid signs the regime could be preparing for another underground test. While an underground test is impossible to predict, officials say some signs of activity at the site are similar to those that occurred just before the last test. A US official also said that Washington is continuing to see activity including missile engine tests at another North Korean launch site, that signal potential additional launches – which the US widely expects. The official said the launch did not involve one of North Korea’s more advanced missiles in development such as the Musudan missile. Speaking to the Japanese Parliament, Abe said Monday the launch was a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Was North Korea practicing to strike US bases in Japan?Why Trump should strike a deal with North KoreaCan China help the US deal with North Korea?Missile launch shows program is speeding upNorth Korea fires four ballistic missiles into Sea of JapanGALLERY: North Korea’s weapons tests Was North Korea practicing to strike US bases in Japan?Why Trump should strike a deal with North KoreaCan China help the US deal with North Korea?Missile launch shows program is speeding upNorth Korea fires four ballistic missiles into Sea of JapanGALLERY: North Korea’s weapons tests Experts said the move was almost certainly in reaction to joint military exercises between South Korea and the US, which Pyongyang views as preparations for an invasion. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson also condemned the missile launches, calling them a threat to international peace and security. The launch took place in Tongchang-ri, in North Korea’s North Pyongan province. A spokesperson for South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said the missiles flew as high as 260 kilometers (162 miles). Speaking to CNN, a US official said a preliminary assessment found that North Korea launched a total of five extended-range SCUD missiles, one of which failed. The other four landed in the sea, the official said. The mobile missile launches did not involve any of North Korea’s more advanced missiles currently in development, such as the Musudan. Acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn told the South Korean National Security Council Monday he strongly condemned North Korea’s actions. “This is a direct challenge to the international community and a grave violation,” he said. “Having seen the brutality of North Korea from Kim Jong Nam, I’d say the consequences of the Kim Jong Un regime having nuclear weapons will be horrible,” he said, referring to the killing of the North Korean leader’s estranged half brother at Kuala Lumpur airport last month. North Korea has denied any involvement in his death. The US State Department said it remained “prepared to use the full range of capabilities at our disposal against this growing threat.” “The DPRK’s provocations only serve to increase the international community’s resolve to counter the DPRK’s prohibited weapons of mass destruction programs,” acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement. Speaking at his regular daily press briefing, Geng Shuang, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman, said they opposed the North Korean launch, adding it was in violation of UN resolutions. “China has also noted that the US and South Korea are holding large-scale military exercises targeting North Korea,” he said. “Under current circumstances, all relevant sides should exercise restraint, and avoid actions that would provoke each other and escalate tensions.” South Korea and United States’ annual military exercises, known as Foal Eagle and which both countries say are defensive in nature, began March 1 and are expected to last until April 30. North Korea has already denounced this year’s exercises through state media service KCNA. “Now that the US imperialists and the South Korean puppet forces again kicked off the dangerous nuclear war drills against the DPRK at its doorstep, our army will counter them with the toughest counteractions,” it said. The exercises usually draw condemnation and retribution from Pyongyang. “They (are) making it clear that as long as the US continues these exercises, North Korea will keep taking steps to bolster their deterrent,” Jeffrey Lewis, Adjunct Professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, told CNN. During last year’s drills, North Korea fired multiple short- to medium-range missiles and announced it could place nuclear warheads on its weapons. This isn’t the first time North Korea has launched multiple missiles over this distance. In September 2016, North Korea launched three ballistic missiles about 1,000 kilometers to land in Japan’s Air Defense Identification Zone, provoking a strong response from the country. Monday’s launch comes weeks after North Korea test-fired a new type of missile, the Pukguksong-2, a medium-long range ballistic missile. That missile was also fired from North Pyongan province and traveled 500 kilometers (310 miles) before landing in the Sea of Japan. The launch happened while Abe was in the United States visiting President Donald Trump. North Korean state media reported that Kim Jong Un personally oversaw the operation. CNN’s Junko Ogura, Lee Taehoon, Barbara Starr, Steven Jiang and Josh Berlinger contributed to this report.


Special counsel Robert Mueller has told President Donald Trump’s lawyers that the President is not currently being considered a criminal target of the Russia probe, The Washington Post reported Tuesday, citing three people familiar with the discussions. The special counsel’s team is compiling a report on Trump’s actions as President and any potential obstruction of justice – which Mueller has also told Trump’s lawyers, two people with knowledge of the conversations told the Post. The report notes that Mueller continues to seek an interview with Trump himself. CNN reported Friday that attorneys for both sides sat down for an in-person meeting on topics that investigators could ask the President about, according to two sources familiar with the talks. CNN reported in January that Mueller’s team had given the President’s lawyers general topics for an interview, such as Trump’s request that then-FBI director James Comey drop the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, his reaction to Comey’s May 2017 testimony on Capitol Hill and Trump’s contact with intelligence officials about the Russia investigation. Mueller’s team is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election and has been looking into any potential ties between Russia and Trump campaign associates. Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion. CNN’s Pamela Brown, Gloria Borger and Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe


Here’s what you might have missed on CNN today: – Blastoff was a success: SpaceX launched the world’s most powerful rocket. – After a dramatic start to the day, the stock market soared. (Here’s what this all means for your wallet.) – The White House said President Trump was joking when he accused Democrats of treason for not standing and applauding during his State of the Union address. – Trump’s chief of staff suggested immigrants who did not sign up for DACA were either “too afraid” or “too lazy.” Meanwhile, the President said he would support a government shutdown over immigration. – South Korea deployed military personnel after 1,200 security guards fell sick from a norovirus outbreak at Winter Olympic facilities. – Poland’s president said he will sign a controversial Holocaust bill that will make it illegal to accuse the nation of being complicit with Nazi Germany. – A contractor promised tens of millions of meals to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. Only 50,000 were delivered and some lawmakers are asking why. – Japan’s princess and her commoner fiance have postponed their wedding. – At least thirty of Queen Elizabeth’s swans died from bird flu.