U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper says he’s certain that the awarding of a $10 billion cloud-computing contract to Microsoft instead of Amazon was done fairly.Esper was asked about the controversy at a news conference Friday in Seoul, South Korea.After the Pentagon awarded the contract to Microsoft in late October, Amazon announced its intent to challenge the decision in court. Amazon on Thursday said there was “unmistakable bias” on the government’s part.President Donald Trump said in July that he has received complaints about the Pentagon award process and that the contract was not competitively bid.Esper, who recused himself from the contract decision because his son had worked for one of the other unsuccessful bidders, said there was no “outside influence” on the decisionmakers.
…
The director of a Spanish research center says a giant telescope, costing $1.4 billion, is one step nearer to being built on the Canary Islands in the event an international consortium gives up its plans to build it in Hawaii.
Canary Islands Astrophysics Institute Director Rafael Rebolo has told The Associated Press that a building permit for the telescope has been granted by the town of Puntagorda on the island of La Palma.
He said “there are no more building permits needed according to Spanish legislation.”
The international consortium backing the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope wants to build it atop Hawaii’s tallest peak. But some native Hawaiians consider the Mauna Kea summit sacred and their protests have stopped construction from going ahead since mid-July.
…
Bolivian police and military forces used armored vehicles and helicopters to clear access to a major gas plant in the city of El Alto on Tuesday, a show of strength after blockades at the facility had cut off fuel supply to nearby La Paz.
Helicopters flew above roads around the Senkata gas plant, operated by state-run YPFB, which were blocked with piles of burning tires, according to a Reuters witness. Protesters are demanding the return of unseated leftist leader Evo Morales.
Morales resigned on Nov. 10 amid anti-government demonstrations and rising pressure over vote-rigging allegations after an audit by the Organization of American States (OAS) found serious irregularities in an Oct. 20 election.
But Morales supporters have since ramped up protests, calling for caretaker President Jeanine Anez to step down and for Morales to return. Mounting violence in the South American nation has seen 27 people killed in street clashes.
In what it said was a bid to restore calm, Bolivia’s congress, controlled by lawmakers from Morales’ Movement for Socialism (MAS), said on Tuesday it would cancel a contentious vote in the legislature that had been expected to reject Morales’ resignation.
The vote would be suspended “to create and contribute to an environment conducive to dialogue and peace,” the Legislative Assembly said in a statement, citing instructions from new Senate head and MAS lawmaker Monica Eva Copa Murga.
Eva Copa Murga later told reporters the assembly would prepare legislation to annul the Oct. 20 election and move towards new elections as soon as possible. The two chambers of Congress will convene separately on Wednesday.
“We do not want more deaths, we do not want more blood,” she said, flanked by the majority of the MAS party lawmakers, calling on the military and pro-Morales group to demobilize.
The country’s human right ombudsman said that three people have been killed in clashes with security forces around Senkata.
The military said in a statement they had carried out a “peaceful” operation after trying negotiation and dialogue.
The MAS party – which itself has been split over how to proceed – holds a majority in the congress and could have voted to reject Morales’ resignation, potentially creating dueling claims on the country’s leadership and raising pressure on Anez.
Morales has railed at what he has called a right-wing coup against him and hinted he could return to the country, though he has pledged repeatedly not to run again in a new election. He stepped down after weeks of protests led to allies and eventually the military urging him to go.
Desperate to Buy
Bolivians are feeling the pinch of the turmoil, with fuel shortages mounting and grocery stores short of basic goods as supporters of Morales blockade key transport routes.
In the highland capital La Paz, roads have grown quiet as people preserve gasoline, with long queues for food staples.
People lined up with gas canisters next to the Senkata plant on Tuesday. Images showed some fuel trucks moving through the area under a strong military and police presence.
“Unfortunately this has been going on for three to four weeks, so people are desperate to buy everything they find,” said Ema Lopez, 81, a retiree in La Paz.
Daniel Castro, a 63-year-old worker in the city, blamed Morales for what he called “food terrorism.”
“This is chaos and you’re seeing this chaos in (La Paz’s) Plaza Villarroel with more than 5,000 people just there to get a chicken,” he said.
The country’s hydrocarbons minister, Victor Hugo Zamora, said on Tuesday he was looking to unlock fuel deliveries for La Paz and called on the pro-Morales movements to join talks and allow economic activity to resume.
Juan Carlos Huarachi, head of the powerful Bolivian Workers’ Center union and once a staunch Morales backer, called on lawmakers to find a resolution. “Our only priority is to bring peace to the country,” he told reporters.
Jorge Quiroga, a former president and Morales critic, said Morales wanted to see Bolivia “burn,” echoing other detractors who say he has continued to stoke unrest from Mexico, which Morales denies.
read moreThirty-eight more Colombian municipalities are considered free of landmines and unexploded ordinance, President Ivan Duque said Tuesday, as civilian and military efforts to remove improvised explosives continue despite ongoing conflict in some areas.
Colombia was once among the countries where people suffered the most injuries from landmines, one result of more than five decades of armed conflict between leftist guerrillas, crime gangs, right-wing paramilitary groups and the government.
More than 700 of Colombia’s 1,122 municipalities once had landmines, but 391 of those are now certified as mine-free.
“Today we make history because we are freeing 38 municipalities from suspicion of mines,” Duque told attendees at a ceremony in the Andean country’s southwest. “Thirty-eight municipalities have said goodbye to this tragedy; they have the light of new hope.”
Mines, widely used by both rebels and crime gangs to impede military movements, have killed 2,297 people and injured another 9,492 since 1990, government figures show.
A 2016 peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels allowed de-mining work to accelerate in certain mountain and jungle areas which formerly had guerrilla presence, but remaining rebel group the National Liberation Army (ELN) and crime gangs continue to use improvised explosives, non-governmental organizations say.
Some 9.8 million square meters have been cleaned of mines and 7,100 explosive devices destroyed across the country of 48 million. The army and 11 civilian groups and NGOs, including the Halo Trust, are responsible for de-mining work.
Colombia, along with more than 160 other countries, is a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, which forbids the manufacture, storage and use of landmines.
It has pledged to remove all mines by 2021 and will need to ask fellow signatories to approve an extension if it misses its removal target.
After a month of preparations and goodbyes, Bei Bei, the Washington National Zoo’s most eligible giant panda bachelor, was on his way to China on Tuesday, where scientists hope he will help increase the population of his species.
The departure of 4-year-old Bei Bei to his parents’ homeland had been pre-arranged and was announced last month by the zoo, where giant pandas have always been a visitor favorite.
Bei Bei, which means “precious treasure,” munched his last American breakfast of bamboo and leaf eater biscuits early Tuesday before entering a custom travel crate that was loaded onto a truck for the trip to Dulles International Airport, the zoo said.
From there, he began the 16-hour direct flight to Chengdu, China, aboard a dedicated Boeing 777F flown by FedEx and stocked with his favorite snacks, such as bamboo shoots, pears, and cooked sweet potatoes, it said.
“Today is bittersweet,” zoo Director Steve Monfort said. “We’ve cared for Bei Bei, and along with millions, watched him grow into a true ambassador for his species.”
Visitors have spent the past few weeks getting their last looks as zookeepers got Bei Bei accustomed to his travel crate, first by training him to walk through it, then spending time inside with the door closed.
Breeding programs are key to efforts to reintroduce pandas into the wild. Thanks to reforestation to expand habitats in which the species can survive, pandas have been reclassified from “endangered” to “vulnerable” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. There are an estimated 1,800 giant pandas in the wild.
Mei Xiang and Tian Tian
Bei Bei is not the first in his family to travel abroad. His parents, Mei Xiang and Tian Tian, arrived from China in 2000, and his older siblings Tai Shan and Bao Bao both packed their bags for China when they came of breeding age.
Mei Xiang and Tian Tian are the zoo’s only remaining giant pandas.
Zoo spokeswoman Pamela Baker-Masson did not rule out another breeding attempt, but added in an email that “Mei Xiang is of advanced maternal age so it is highly unlikely that she will have another cub.”
An artificial insemination last year of Mei Xiang, who has been at the zoo for 20 years, failed to produce a cub.
The zoo has collaborated with Chinese scientists on a breeding program since it received its first pandas in 1972 following President Richard Nixon’s visit to China.
South Korean and U.S. officials broke off talks on Tuesday aimed at settling the cost burden for Seoul of hosting the U.S. military, South Korea’s Foreign Ministry said, amid a public backlash over a U.S. demand for a sharp increase in the bill.
Officials had resumed a planned two-day negotiation on Monday, trying to narrow a $4 billion gap in what they believe South Korea should contribute for the cost of stationing U.S. troops in the country for next year.
“Our position is that it should be within the mutually acceptable Special Measures Agreement (SMA) framework that has been agreed upon by South Korea and the U.S. for the past 28 years,” South Korea’s Foreign Ministry said, referring to the cost-sharing deal’s official name.
“The U.S. believes that the share of defense spending should be increased significantly by creating a new category,” the ministry said in a statement.
Negotiators left the table after only about one hour of discussions while the talks were scheduled throughout the day, South Korean media reported, citing unnamed foreign ministry officials.
South Korean lawmakers have said U.S. officials had demanded up to $5 billion a year, more than five times the 1.04 trillion won ($896 million) Seoul agreed to pay this year for hosting the 28,500 troops.
U.S. officials have not publicly confirmed the number, but Trump has previously said the U.S. military presence in and around South Korea was “$5 billion worth of protection.”
The negotiations are taking place as U.S. efforts to reach an agreement with North Korea over its nuclear and missile programs appear stalled, ahead of a year-end deadline from Pyongyang for the U.S. to shift its approach.
Lee Hye-hoon, head of South Korea’s parliamentary intelligence committee, said in a radio interview on Tuesday the U.S. ambassador to South Korea talked to her at length earlier this month about how Seoul had been only paying one-fifth what it should have been paying for the cost of stationing U.S. troops.
Under South Korean law, the military cost-sharing deal must be approved by parliament.
Ruling party lawmakers have said this week they will “refuse to ratify any excessive outcome of the current negotiations” that deviate from the established principle and structure of the agreements for about 30 years.
Trump has long railed against what he says are inadequate contributions from allies towards defense costs. The United States is due to begin separate negotiations for new defense cost-sharing deals with Japan, Germany and NATO next year.
read moreThe union representing U.S. diplomats said on Monday it has raised tens of thousands of dollars in the last week alone to help defray the legal costs of foreign service officers who have testified in U.S. President Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry.
The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) also issued a statement defending U.S. diplomats after Trump criticized several of those who have appeared before Congress and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said nothing specific in their support.
“These patriots go abroad to every corner of the world and serve the interests of the American people,” AFSA President Eric Rubin said in a statement. “They do so with integrity and have no partisan or hidden agenda.”
“We should honor the service of each and every one of them.”
Separately, Rubin said: “We have raised tens of thousands of dollars in the past week alone” in the union’s Legal Defense Fund to help defray lawyers’ bills. He did not provide details.
One person caught up in the inquiry said he had already run up a legal bill of more than $25,000.
Neither the State Department nor the White House responded to requests for comment. A State Department spokesperson has previously said the agency planned to provide legal assistance to employees called to testify but did not give details.
Trump lashed out on Sunday at Jennifer Williams, a U.S. diplomat and foreign policy aide to Vice President Mike Pence who has testified that some of Trump’s comments on a July 25 phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart were “inappropriate.”
The call is at the heart of the Democratic-led House of Representatives’ inquiry into whether Republican Trump misused U.S. foreign policy to undermine former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, a potential opponent in the 2020 election.
Writing on Twitter, Trump accused Williams of being a “Never Trumper” who should “work out a better presidential attack.”
Trump has denied wrongdoing and branded the probe a witch hunt aimed at hurting his re-election chances.
Asked on Monday why he had not spoken in support of his employees, Pompeo said he would talk about U.S. policy toward Ukraine but not about the impeachment inquiry.
Pressed, he said nothing specific: “I always defend State Department employees. It’s the greatest diplomatic corps in the history of the world. Very proud of the team.”
Asked if he shared Trump’s view, expressed on Twitter, that “everywhere (former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad,” Pompeo replied: “I’ll defer to the White House about particular statements.”
read more
Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to gradually move the country to a government-funded health care system has further inflamed the debate over “Medicare for All,” likely ensuring the issue will play a significant role in this week’s Democratic presidential debate.
The Massachusetts senator announced Friday that her administration would immediately build on existing laws, including the Affordable Care Act, to expand access to health care while taking up to three years to fully implement Medicare for All. That attempt to thread the political needle has roiled her more moderate rivals, who say she’s waffling, while worrying some on the left, who see Warren’s commitment to a single-payer system wavering.
The divide could complicate plans by Democrats to turn health care into a winning issue in 2020. The party successfully took back control of the House last year by championing programs that ensure that people with preexisting medical conditions keep their insurance coverage while arguing that Republicans want to weaken such provisions. But the Medicare for All debate is more delicate as advocates including Warren grapple with concerns that a new government-run system won’t provide the same quality of coverage as private insurance – and would be prohibitively expensive.
“The Medicare for All proposal has turned out to be a real deal-breaker in who gets the Democratic nomination,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University School of Public Health professor whose teaching responsibilities include courses on political strategy in health policy and public opinion polling. “This is not just another issue.’’
Warren’s transition plan indicates she’d use her first 100 days as president to expand existing public health insurance options. That is closer to what has been supported by former Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana. Both Democratic presidential candidates have criticized Medicare for All for wiping out private insurance – something they say many Americans aren’t ready for.
Warren insists she’s simply working to expand health insurance in the short term to people who don’t have it while remaining committed to the full plan in the long run.
“My commitment to Medicare for All is all the way,” Warren said while campaigning in Iowa over the weekend.
Still, the transition signified a step toward pragmatism and an acknowledgement that the government has ways to expand health insurance coverage before embracing a universal system – something that would be difficult for any president to get through Congress. Consider that current entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, were phased in over years, not all at once.
“If she’s looked at it and decides the sensible thing to do in order to not cause too much disruption in employment situations and within the medical system is to gear up over three years, she’s probably right,” said Cindy Wolf, a customer service and shipping manager who attended the California state Democratic Convention on Saturday in Long Beach.
Still, the move may prove politically problematic for a candidate who has long decried others settling for consultant-driven campaigns seeking incremental changes at the expense of big ideas.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the original architect of Medicare for All and has made fighting for it the centerpiece of his 2020 White House bid. He tweeted following the release of Warren’s transition plan: “In my first week as president, we will introduce Medicare for All legislation.’’
Campaigning in Nevada on Monday, California Sen. Kamala Harris said, “I believe that government should not be in a position of taking away people’s choice.”
“Especially on one of the most intimate and personal decisions people can make,” Harris said, “which is about how to address their health care needs.’’
The criticism from others was far sharper. Top Biden adviser Kate Bedingfield dismissed Warren’s plan as “trying to muddy the waters” by offering “a full program of flips and twists.” Buttigieg spokeswoman Lis Smith said it was a “transparently political attempt to paper over a very serious policy problem.’’
It’s easy to see the issue spilling into Wednesday’s debate because Warren rode a steady summer climb in the polls to become one of the primary field’s front-runners – but no longer seems to be rising. Polls recently show her support stabilizing, though not dipping, as focus on her Medicare for All ideas intensifies.
The last two debates featured Warren failing to answer direct questions on whether she would be forced to raise middle class taxes to pay for the universal health care system she envisions. That set up a plan released two-plus weeks ago in which Warren vowed to generate $20-plus trillion in new government revenue without increasing taxes on the middle class – but that’s been decried by critics who accuse Warren of underestimating how much Medicare for All would really cost.
And, though Warren never promised to begin working toward Medicare for All on Day 1 of her administration, the release of the transition plan, which spelled out that the process will take years, has unsettled some.
Una Lee Jost, a lawyer who was holding “Bernie” signs in Chinese and English at the California Democratic Convention, called any lengthy transition to Medicare for All “a serious concern.’’
“We should have implemented this decades ago,” she said.
read moreHundreds of students from a New Delhi university faced off Monday with police, who stopped their march toward Parliament to protest increased student housing fees.
The students from Jawaharlal Nehru University chanted slogans and attempted to cross police barricades. Police detained several students during the march.
The Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union said in a statement that the students were attacked by the police during the protest.
“The police used brutal force to disrupt our peaceful march and several students have been injured,” the statement said.
The students wanted to appeal to lawmakers to intervene in their university’s decision to hike the fees, which they have been protesting for more than two weeks. Last week, hundreds of protesting students clashed with the police during the university’s graduation ceremony.
Rent for a single-bedroom was increased to the equivalent of more than $8 per month from less than $1 per month. The security deposit more than doubled to more than $160.
Many students said they fear the fee structure would make education inaccessible to underprivileged students.
“I am the first from my family to study at a university. By raising housing fees, the university administration is putting a price on affordable education,” said Jyoti Sharma, a student at the march.
Students held signs at the march reading “Save public education” and “Ensure affordable hostels for all.”
Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Sitaram Yechury offered his support to the protesting students.
“A peaceful protest march to Parliament against the unprecedented fee hikes is being forcibly stopped by the police. Strongly condemn this denial of basic democratic right to protest,” he tweeted.
The students marched despite the university saying it would partially roll back the fees.
“The students will not pay the increased fee,” said Ashutosh Verma, a student.
China on Monday called on the U.S. military to stop flexing its muscles in the South China Sea
and to avoid adding “new uncertainties” over Taiwan, during high-level talks that underscored tension between the world’s two largest economies.
The remarks by Chinese Defence Minister Wei Fenghe to U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, recounted by a Chinese spokesman, came just two weeks after a top White House official denounced Chinese “intimidation” in the busy waterway.
It also came a day after Esper publicly accused Beijing of “increasingly resorting to coercion and intimidation to advance its strategic objectives” in the region.
During closed-door talks on the sidelines of a gathering of defense ministers in Bangkok, Wei urged Esper to “stop flexing muscles in the South China Sea and to not provoke and escalate
tensions in the South China Sea”, the spokesman, Wu Qian, said.
China claims almost all the energy-rich waters of the South China Sea, where it has established military outposts on artificial islands. However, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to parts of the sea.
The United States accuses China of militarizing the South China Sea and trying to intimidate Asian neighbors who might want to exploit its extensive oil and gas reserves.
The U.S. Navy regularly vexes China by conducting what it calls “freedom of navigation” operations by ships close to some of the islands China occupies, asserting freedom of access to international waterways.
Asked specifically what Wei sought for the United States to do differently, and whether that included halting such freedom of navigation operations, Wu said: “We (call on) the U.S. side
to stop intervening in the South China Sea and stop military provocation in the South China Sea.”
In a statement, Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said Esper, in his meeting with Wei, noted China’s “perpetual reluctance” to adhere to international norms.
“Secretary Esper pointedly reiterated that the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows – and we will encourage and protect the rights of other sovereign nations to do the same,” Hoffman said.
Chinese carrier transit
Despite warm words exchanged in front of reporters, Wei and Esper also discussed thorny issues, including Chinese-ruled Hong Kong, which has seen months of anti-government protests.
They also talked about democratic Taiwan, which is claimed by China as a wayward province and is the Communist Party’s most sensitive and important territorial issue.
Fenghe underscored to Esper China’s position that it would “not tolerate any Taiwan independence incident”, Wu said, adding that it opposed any official or military contact with Taiwan. China has in the past threatened to attack if Taiwan, set to hold a presidential election next year, moves towards independence.
“The Chinese side also requires the U.S. side to carefully handle the Taiwan related-issue and to not add new uncertainties to the Strait,” Wu said.
The exchange came a day after news that China sailed a carrier group into the sensitive Taiwan Strait, led by its first domestically built aircraft carrier.
read moreNigeria’s Oscar Committee is urging the country’s filmmakers to use more native languages in their productions. This, after the U.S. Academy Awards disqualified a Nigerian entry in the International Feature Film category because the movie used too much English. While some in Nigeria’s Hollywood – known as Nollywood – support the idea of more native languages in films, others argue that non-English films limit their audience reach.
Nollywood filmmaker Desmond Utomwen is aiming for a U.S. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Award, popularly known as an Oscar, by producing a film in a native Nigerian language.
“It’s actually a Hausa-based film, so it’s a language film, it’s not English. I’ve done a couple of them in English but, that’s actually my first film in Hausa,’ he says.
Most Nigerian filmmakers make English-language movies to reach a larger audience globally but also inside Nigeria, where the former British colony made English the official language.
Filmmaker Darlington Abuda has been in the industry for years.
“In Nigeria, if I do a purely language film, I have made my film a regional film,” Abuda says. “It will not get the appeal and audience traction that it needs in the other parts of the country.”
But that tide may be slowly turning after the Academy Awards this month disqualified Nigeria’s first entry in the International Feature Film category.
Only 11 minutes of Genevieve Nnaji’s “Lion Heart” – the first Nollywood film by Netflix – was in the native Igbo language. To qualify for the international feature award, at least 50 percent of a film’s dialogue must be in a language other than English.
While the rejection was roundly criticized in Nigeria, C.J. Obasi, a member of a Nigerian Oscar committee which was set up five years ago, is optimistic.
“If you look at the bigger picture you realize that it’s a victory in that we made a submission for the first time ever,” Obasi says. “What that does is that it re-positions the hearts and minds of filmmakers as to how we are going to tell our stories moving forward.”
Nigeria’s Oscar Selection Committee says the rejection should motivate Nollywood filmmakers to create more movies in the country’s over 500 native languages.
But convincing Nigerian filmmakers to turn away from English – the language that ties the country together and with the world – will remain a challenge.
And, for some Nollywood filmmakers like Jim Iyke, the language used is not the point.
“If someone sits in their living room and decide where my movie should be, and what platform or what awards I should get, that is on them,” Iyke says. ” I’ve done my job. I’ve fed the artist in me.”
While Lion Heart won’t make the February Academy Awards, being rejected and having the backing of Netflix are already drawing more international attention to Nollywood — and what Nigerian filmmakers will produce next.
read more
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg holds a clear lead among Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa, the state that will hold the first nominating contest in February, a new Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom opinion poll showed on Saturday.
Buttigieg’s support climbed to 25%, a 16-point increase since the previous survey in September, CNN reported.
It said there was a close three-way battle for second with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren at 16%, and former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders each at 15%.
Since September, Warren dropped six percentage points and Biden slipped five points, while Sanders gained four points, CNN said.
Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, told the network the news was encouraging and his campaign felt growing momentum in the farm state, but there was “still a lot of work to do” in increasing his name recognition there.
Buttigieg also led Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa in a Monmouth University poll released on Tuesday.
A New York Times/Sienna poll released earlier this month also showed Buttigieg’s support surging in Iowa, but still behind Warren and Sanders. Nationally, he does not fare nearly as well, averaging around 8% in polls.
Buttigieg’s campaign is betting a strong finish in the Iowa caucus on Feb. 3 will help quell questions about whether he is ready for the big stage, and persuade reluctant black and Hispanic voters to give him a second look.
Buttigieg, 37, has invested heavily in Iowa from the start.
His campaign has more than 100 staffers and 20 offices in the state, among the most of any candidate.
Buttigieg finished the third quarter with $23.4 million in campaign cash on hand, ranking third behind Warren and Sanders at $25.7 million and $33.7 million, respectively. Biden had $8.9 million, forcing his campaign to abandon a promise to reject support from political action committees.
read more
Impeachment hearings targeting U.S. President Donald Trump are heading into a second week, with key witnesses set to testify about how he pushed Ukraine to investigate one of his chief 2020 Democratic challengers, former Vice President Joe Biden, while temporarily withholding military aid Kyiv wanted.
Eight more current and former government officials will appear before the House Intelligence Committee for nationally televised sessions, with a central figure, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, set to appear Wednesday.
In amended behind-closed-doors testimony, Sondland, a million-dollar Trump political donor before being tapped by Trump for the EU posting in Brussels, said that he had warned an aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in early September that it would not get the U.S. military assistance it wanted unless the Kyiv leader publicly committed to opening the investigation of Biden.
It was a reciprocal, quid pro quo deal that Trump has denied occurred but is central to the efforts of Democratic lawmakers to impeach the country’s 45th president. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and ridiculed the impeachment effort as a sham proceeding. Trump eventually released the $391 million in military aid on Sept. 11 without Ukraine launching a Biden investigation.
Other figures linked to the impeachment inquiry have corroborated Sondland’s testimony. In a transcript of private testimony released Saturday, Tim Morrison, a White House national security aide, said late last month that Sondland had spoken with Trump about a half dozen times in recent months and had talked with a top Ukraine official about winning release of the military assistance Kyiv wanted to help fight pro-Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country in exchange for investigations that benefited Trump politically.
“His mandate from the president was to go make deals,” Morrison said of Sondland.
Morrison is set to testify publicly before the impeachment panel on Tuesday, alongside Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine who, as others have, testified that Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer named by him to oversee Ukraine affairs, was the driving force to get Kyiv to open the politically tinged investigation to help the U.S. leader.
Late last week, David Holmes, an aide to William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Kyiv, told impeachment investigations in private testimony that he overheard a July 26 cell phone conversation between Trump and Sondland at a Kyiv restaurant in which the president inquired whether Zelenskiy was going to pursue the investigations of Biden, his son Hunter Biden’s work for a Ukrainian natural gas company and a debunked theory that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election that Trump won. U.S. intelligence community concluded Russia was behind the election meddling.
Holmes said Sondland in the cell phone call assured Trump that Zelenskiy “loves your ass.”
“So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” Holmes quoted Trump as asking. Sondland, according to Holmes, replied, “He’s gonna do it,” while adding that Zelenskiy will do “anything you ask him to.”
Holmes said he later asked Sondland if Trump cared about Ukraine, with the envoy replying that Trump did not “give a s**t about Ukraine.”
“I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the president only cares about ‘big stuff,’” Holmes testified, according to a transcript posted by CNN. “I noted that there was ‘big stuff’ going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant ‘big stuff’ that benefits the president, like the ‘Biden investigation.”’
Before Sondland revised his testimony to say there had been a quid pro quo — the military aid for the Biden investigation — Trump had called Sondland a “great American.” But after Sondland changed his testimony, Trump said, “I hardly know the gentleman.”
On Tuesday, the House Intelligence panel is also set to hear from Jennifer Williams, a foreign affairs aide to Vice President Mike Pence, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director for European affairs at the National Security Council. Both of them listened in on Trump’s July 25 call with Zelenskiy asking the Ukrainian leader for “a favor,” the investigations of the Bidens.
Both Williams and Vindman have voiced concerns about Trump’s request. It is against U.S. campaign finance law to solicit foreign assistance for help in a U.S. election.
Aside from Sondland, the Intelligence panel is also hearing Wednesday from Laura Cooper, a Defense Department official, and David Hale, the undersecretary of State for political affairs. Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia, is testifying Thursday.
Political analysts in Washington say the Trump impeachment drama could last for several months. If Trump is impeached by a simple majority in the House, perhaps by the end of the year as appears possible, a trial would be held in January in the Republican-majority Senate, where a two-thirds vote would be needed for his conviction and removal from office.
The time frame could bump up against the first Democratic party presidential nominating contests starting in February, when voters will begin casting ballots on who they want to oppose Trump when he seeks a second four-year term in the November 2020 national election. Six Democratic senators are among those running for the party’s presidential nomination, but could be forced to stay in Washington to sit as jurors in the 100-member Senate as it decides Trump’s fate, rather than campaign full-time for the presidency.
Trump’s removal from office remains unlikely, with at least 20 Republicans needed to turn against him and vote for his conviction.
To date, while a small number of Republicans have criticized Trump for his actions on Ukraine, no Republican senator has called for his removal from office through impeachment, a drastic action that has never occurred in U.S. history.
read moreStudent protesters in Hong Kong engaged in fierce clashes with police at a university campus into the early morning hours of Monday, in what appeared to be some of the worst violence since anti-government protests began five months ago.
Police late Sunday raided the campus of Hong Kong Polytechnic University, where a group of student protesters had barricaded themselves for most of the week, stockpiling makeshift weapons, including bricks, slingshots, and Molotov cocktails.
Police advanced in waves throughout the night, firing tear gas and water cannons before retreating, as protesters lobbed petrol bombs and other weapons. At one point, an armored police vehicle appeared to be completely on fire.
Police eventually surrounded the campus and gave several deadlines for the protesters to exit the campus. Just after midnight local time, police warned they may use live rounds on protesters if they kept attacking the police.
There were no immediate reports of deaths. A group of international journalists, including some from VOA, stayed behind on the campus, with many vowing to stay until the situation was resolved.
On the streets outside the campus, police also engaged in clashes with protesters, some of whom appeared to be trying to come to the rescue of the besieged students. Calls on social messaging sites issued calls for Hong Kongers to stream in from all directions to help free the students.
Since June, Hong Kong has seen massive, regular demonstrations, which started in opposition to a proposed bill that would have allowed Hong Kong citizens to be extradited to the mainland. The protests quickly morphed into wider calls for democracy and opposition to growing Chinese influence.
A smaller group of hardcore protesters, many of whom are college students, have also increasingly engaged in more aggressive tactics — clashing with police, destroying public infrastructure, and vandalizing symbols of state power. The students have defended the tactics as a necessary response to police violence and the government’s refusal to accept their demands.
Hong Kong Polytechnic University is one of at least five campuses where students this week barricaded themselves in, blocking roads and collecting makeshift weapons in case of an attack by authorities. Most of the protesters had left the other campuses by Saturday, though a group of hardcore protesters remained at Polytechnic.
The protests escalated in the past week, following the first death of a protester who fell from a building during clashes between protesters and police.
On Saturday, dozens of Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers helped clear protester barricades from a street, emerging from their barracks for the first time since the latest round of protests began.
Pro-democracy lawmakers immediately condemned the move as a violation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini constitution, which forbids interference by mainland Chinese soldiers unless formally requested by the Hong Kong government.
read moreBritish Prime Minister Boris Johnson says all Conservative Party candidates in the upcoming election have pledged to back his Brexit deal.
“All 635 Conservative candidates standing at this election — every single one of them — has pledged to me that if elected they will vote in Parliament to pass my Brexit deal so we can end the uncertainty and finally leave the EU,” Johnson told London’s Telegraph newspaper in an interview published late on Saturday.
“I am offering a pact with the people: If you vote Conservative you can be 100% sure a majority Conservative government will unblock Parliament and get Brexit done,” he said.
The December 12 election was called to end three years of disagreement over Brexit that has sapped investors’ faith in the stability of the world’s fifth-largest economy and damaged Britain’s standing since it voted in a 2016 referendum to leave the European Union.
Johnson, 55, hopes to win a majority to push through the last-minute Brexit deal he struck with the EU last month after the bloc granted a third delay to the divorce that was originally supposed to take place March 29. Voters in a 2016 referendum narrowly voted in favor of leaving the EU.
Johnson’s Conservatives lead Labour by sizable margins, four polls published Saturday show.
A YouGov poll showed support for the Conservatives at 45%, the highest level since 2017, compared with Labour at 28%, unchanged. The pro-European Union Liberal Democrats were at 15%, and the Brexit Party was at 4%, unchanged.
A separate poll for SavantaComRes also said support for the Conservatives was the highest since 2017, at 41%. Labour’s support was at 33%.
The Conservatives have a 16-point lead over Labour, according to an opinion poll published by Opinium Research, and a poll by the Mail on Sunday said Johnson’s party had a 15-point lead over Labour.
read moreA federal judge on Saturday ordered that a German citizen arrested on her return to the country on suspicion of being a member of Islamic State should remain in custody, prosecutors said.
Authorities said the suspect, identified only as Nasim A., left Germany for Syria in 2014, married a fighter and moved with him to Iraq. There she was paid to maintain an IS-controlled house and carried a weapon.
She and her husband later moved to Syria, where she also maintained a house, prosecutors said. Kurdish security forces arrested her in early 2019.
The woman was arrested Friday evening in Frankfurt upon her return to Germany.
The judge determined Saturday that she remain in detention because of “suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organization in a foreign country,” prosecutors said.
A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has upended a long-standing legal roadblock that has given the gun industry far-reaching immunity from lawsuits in the aftermath of mass killings.
The court this week allowed families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre to sue the maker of the AR-15 used in the attack. The case against Remington will now proceed in the Connecticut courts.
Remington is widely expected to win the case, but critics of the gun industry are eyeing what they see as a significant outcome even in the face of defeat: getting the gunmaker to open its books about how it markets firearms.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs are certain to request that Remington turn over volumes of documents as part of the discovery phase. Those materials might include company emails, memos, business plans and corporate strategies, or anything that might suggest the company purposely marketed the firearm that may have compelled the shooter to use the weapon to carry out the slaughter.
Message to gun companies
The plaintiffs also believe the ruling will put gun companies on notice about how they conduct business, knowing they could wind up in the courts in similar fashion.
“If the industry wakes up and understands their conduct behind closed doors is not protected, then the industry itself … will take steps to try to help the massive problem we have instead of do nothing and sit by and cash the checks,” said Joshua Koskoff, the Connecticut attorney who represents a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown, Connecticut, school on December 14, 2012.
The case hinges on Connecticut state consumer law that challenges how the firearm used by the Newtown shooter — a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle — was marketed, with plaintiffs alleging Remington purposely used advertisements that targeted younger, at-risk males. One of Remington’s ads features the rifle against a plain backdrop and the phrase: “Consider Your Man Card Reissued.”
Remington did not respond to requests for comment after the U.S. Supreme Court denied its efforts to quash the lawsuit.
Larry Keane, senior vice president and legal counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gunmakers, said he expected Remington to ultimately prevail and that it was unfair to blame the gunmaker for Adam Lanza’s crime.
“Adam Lanza alone is the responsible person. Not Remington,” he said.
2005 law
Suing the firearms industry has never been easy, and it was made even harder after Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005. The law backed by the National Rifle Association gave broad immunity to the gun industry.
The plaintiffs’ chances of succeeding in this case are slim — a sentiment shared by the Connecticut Supreme Court, which said they face a “Herculean task” to prevail.
Judges and juries generally have a tough time blaming anyone but the shooter for the crime, said Timothy D. Lytton, professor at Georgia State University’s College of Law and author of “Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts.”
Add into the mix that Lanza himself didn’t own the firearm; he stole it from his mother after killing her in the home they shared, then went to the elementary school in Newtown, where he killed 20 children and six adults.
“It makes it harder for juries to connect the dots. It’s a significant hurdle in all of these cases. It’s very rare that you have a very close time frame between the marketing of a weapon and a mass shooting,” Lytton said.
Lanza’s mother purchased the Bushmaster AR-platform rifle in 2010 from a Connecticut gun shop. It’s unclear if she or her son were influenced by or had seen Remington’s advertising.
Tough times for industry
Still, it’s been a tough few years for the industry. Sales plummeted with the election of President Donald Trump, and gun-control advocates have outspent perhaps his most loyal supporter: the NRA. With slumping sales, some companies, including Remington, have faced bankruptcy. And in the wake of high-profile mass shootings, corporate America has begun pushing back against the industry.
AR-platform long guns have been a particular bone of contention for gun-control advocates who believe the firearms — once banned for a decade in the U.S. — are especially attractive to mass shooters for their ease of use and their ability to carry large-capacity magazines.
While handguns remain used more often in mass shootings, ARs have been involved in some of the deadliest shootings, including when a gunman fired on a crowd of concertgoers outside his hotel room in Las Vegas in 2017, killing 58 people and wounding hundreds.
The AR-15, its design based on the military M-16, has become one of the most popular firearms in the U.S. in recent decades. It’s lightweight, easy to customize and able to carry extended magazines, and its sales took off once the ban expired in 2004. There are now an estimated 16 million AR-platform long guns in the U.S.
‘Embarrassing’ information
Robert J. Spitzer, chairman of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland and a longtime watcher of gun politics, said a case against Remington could cause “pretty embarrassing information” to come out.
“And it is certainly possible [plaintiffs] will find memos or other documents that may significantly support their case that Remington was manifestly irresponsible in the way they marketed their guns,” he said.
Even if embarrassing information isn’t uncovered, he said, it could have a long-lasting impact on the industry and, more specifically, Remington. Considered the oldest gunmaker in the United States, Remington — founded in New York in 1816 and now based in Madison, North Carolina — only emerged from bankruptcy in 2018.
“They’re obviously in a precarious financial situation and this suit is certainly not helpful to them trying to restore their financial health,” Spitzer said.
The Hong Kong government is probably considering measures to strengthen its crackdown on anti-government protesters after Chinese President Xi Jinping issued a direct warning, urging the city to “end violence and restore order,” analysts say.
Stepping up the suppression, however, may backfire, fueling tensions in the city and further hurting its economy if protesters refuse to back down, they add.
Xi told a summit in Brazil Thursday that “persistent radical and violent crimes have seriously trampled on the basic principle of ‘one country, two systems’ scheme” in Hong Kong, the state news agency People’s Daily reported.
Xi’s warning
“Stopping the violence and restoring order is Hong Kong’s most urgent task at present,” he said.
Xi also expressed support for the city’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, the Hong Kong police, and its judiciary in punishing what he called “violent criminals.”
“The Chinese government is unwavering in safeguarding its sovereignty, security and developmental interests, implementing the ‘one country, two systems’ scheme and deterring any interference by foreign forces in Hong Kong affairs,” he added.
While a reiteration of Beijing’s long-held stance, Xi’s remarks are effectively a direct order for Lam to get tough and end the city’s five months of political unrest, said Sang Pu, a critic and Hong Kong commentator.
“This [stance] was reiterated by Xi Jinping in his statement in Brazil and this Brazil statement makes sure that suppression overrides and prevails everything else. And this suppression will not go away very easily,” Sang said.
On Friday, protesters continued to paralyze parts of Hong Kong for a fifth day, forcing schools to close and blocking some main roads, as university students barricaded campuses and authorities struggled to calm the violence.
Lam also condemned an “attack” in London on Hong Kong Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng during a confrontation with protesters, during which Cheng suffered “serious bodily harm,” according to Hong Kong government statement. Lam said the incident was barbaric and violated the principles of a civilized society, the Hong Kong government said.
More emergency measures?
Sang said he believes Lam is considering emergency measures such as curfews or cutting off the Internet, as Xi’s statement followed a short-lived tweet by China’s tightly censored Global Times, saying that the city government was expected to announce a curfew this weekend.
The tweet was quickly deleted as by editor-in-chief Hu Xijin because there wasn’t sufficient information to back it up.
Media speculation was rife in Hong Kong that a meeting of ministers chaired by Lam late Wednesday was devoted to discussing emergency measures including the curfew. That led the city government to issue a press statement Thursday to clarify what it calls “rumors … totally unfounded.”
Sang said he believes the deleted tweet was meant to test the level of tolerance or fear for curfews among Hong Kongers while Lam gauges pressure from the outside world in deciding her next move.
Were Lam to step up the suppression against protesters, the city’s political crisis would worsen, as protesters would not back down, Sang said.
“Even if they’re tired, even this battle will not be the winning battle, they will still stride on because actually they have no other choices,” he said.
The reason is, he said “that if they now step back and then forgo any resistance anymore, the real suppression will come.”
“Many people including me myself and many other Hong Kongers will be arrested at home and even disappear suddenly,” he said.
Escalation to hurt economy
The city’s political crisis appears to be deteriorating as internal conflicts aren’t easy to resolve, but any further escalation of tensions will badly hurt the city’s economy, said Liao Qun, chief economist at China CITIC Bank International.
Hong Kong “has already slipped into a recession in the third quarter and I expect to see another negative growth in the fourth quarter,” he said.
The recession will continue if the unrest fails to cool, he said, “However, if things cool down, we may begin to see a mild rebound.”
The economist warned that the city’s economy would take another hit if legislation under consideration in the U.S. Congress to impose sanctions on those responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong were to become law, but that would not force China to change how it rules Hong Kong, said Shi Yinhong, an international relations professor at Beijing’s Renmin University.
The act, he said, “will definitely have a serious adverse impact on the China-U.S. relations, the Chinese economy and Hong Kong’s financial stability.”
“No matter how large an impact there is, the People’s Republic of China government’s determination to safeguard its sovereignty over Hong Kong and the city’s stability won’t waver,” he said.
Shi added that Beijing will firmly support the Hong Kong government’s decisions to solve its political crisis even if Lam decides to invoke her emergency powers.
read moreStudent protesters are barricading themselves at universities across Hong Kong, stockpiling makeshift weapons and turning campuses into what look like war zones. It marks a dangerous new phase in Hong Kong’s 5-month-old anti-government protests.
Hong Kong Polytechnic University now looks something more like a fortress. Hundreds of students have hunkered down, laying bricks to obstruct police vehicles they are certain eventually will arrive, and setting up multiple levels of security checkpoints. Inside, students arm themselves with whatever they can, including arrows, bricks and molotov cocktails.
Hong Kong has seen 24 weeks of protests, but what is taking place here is new. Students barricading themselves in at universities, preparing for extended confrontations. It’s the start of what could be a dangerous new phase of anti-government protests.”
WATCH: Inside Campus Fortresses, Hong Kong Students Prep for Battle
Students don’t want to give their names. But this protester is eager to defend the aggressive tactics.
“We have seen the police brutality in Hong Kong … how can we tolerate that?”
This is going on in at least five Hong Kong campuses. Many schools canceled class for the semester. At the Chinese University of Hong Kong, police moved in earlier this week, prompting a night of clashes that looked more like battles for territory. Police later accused the students of turning the campuses into “weapons factories.”
But this protester says that’s unfair.
“The violence between us and the police is imbalanced. You can see that. We just use the things we have, just only some bottles or some plastic. But the police have the gun, have the tear gas. So the violence between us and the police is totally unbalanced.”
In the downtime, the students test their weapons, which sometimes don’t work. A light moment that masks the gravity of what they’re doing.
“All the protesters are scared. Because maybe we will die. But we think if we don’t stand up this day, all the freedom in Hong Kong will lose. So there is no way to [go] back for us.”
These are student protesters who know they’ll probably lose, but who nonetheless are prepared to fight.
read more
Ізраїльський шахрай ігор коломойський продовжує робити відчайдушні спроби врятуватися із пастки судів у Британії і США, які вже сьогодні виставляють йому фінансові претензії на суми у декілька разів більші, ніж він поцупив в українців за все своє нікчемне життя.
Як відомо, 15 жовтня 2019 року український ПриватБанк виграв апеляцію в суді Лондона в суперечці з екс-власниками банку ігорем коломойським і геннадієм боголюбовим. Апеляційний суд виніс рішення, яким підтвердив, що англійський суд має! юрисдикцію розглядати позов Приватбанку про шахрайство коломойського і боголюбова, скоєне за попередньою змовою осіб.
Апеляційний суд в повному обсязі задовольнив апеляційну скаргу ПриватБанку з усіх питань. Судді дійшли висновку, що український Приватбанк має достатньо підстав для повного відшкодування 3 млрд дол США із врахуванням відсотків, і що судовий наказ про всесвітній арешт активів коломойського і боголюбова, який був отриманий в грудні 2017 року, залишається в силі. Крім того, Апеляційний суд Лондона відмовив коломойському і боголюбову у дозволі на оскарження цього рішення.
Розуміючи, що пахне смаженим, а витрати на дорогущих адвокатів вимірюються шестизначними цифрами, ізраїльський шахрай коломойський дає інтерв’ю The New York Times, в якому яскраво демонструє своє зневажливо-презирлеве відношення до українців. А також прояснює своє безрадісне майбутнє.
Він признається, що зараз американці і британці у його життєвій схемі “принижуйся і принижуй”, категорично відмовились бути для нього господарем. Бо для них мати справу із міжнародним злодієм, шахраєм і вбивцею є категорично неприйнятним. А тому у нього залишається єдиний шлях – смоктати у дідугана путіна. Хоча коломойський розуміє, що цей шлях не ідеальний і він може призвести до тюрми, чи могили. Але шанс, як у гобліна-кримського у нього є і бєня прагне ним скористатися.
Та кривавий карлик поставив перед коломойським ряд завдань та умов, які можливо вбережуть останнього від наглої смерті і принесуть значний гешефт.
1.Змусити нинішнє клоунське українське керівництво відмовитися від співпраці з Міжнародним валютним фондом.
2.Навколішки просити кредити у кривавого кацапського карлика.
3.Терміново забути усіх загиблих і поранених українських Героїв та зробити вигляд, що їх подвиги були марними.
4.Швиденько попроситися у нову московську колонію і радіти, коли українські хлопці будуть гинути за рассею по всьому світу.
5.Всіляко залякувати українців та їх нинішніх клоунів-керівників, що якщо вони не погодяться, то кацапські танки скоро стоятимуть біля Кракова та Варшави. А НАТО, в цей час, забруднить свої штани й купить «памперси», – додав коломойський. Бо він добре пам’ятає, як у нього самого завжди регулярно виникали такі казуси у скрутні моменти життя.
6.Якщо ж наведені кроки все ж не приведуть українців у кацапське ярмо, то підлесливим голоском потрібно пояснити їм, що насправді Сполучені Штати просто використовують Україну, щоб ослабити свого геополітичного суперника – мокшандію. А саме вона і тільки вона є справжнім другом і братом українців.
Сподіваючись на шалені гроші від дідугана путіна, коломойський сьогодні наймає одного з найдорожчих американських адвокатів Марка Касовіца (Marc Elliot Kasowitz). Останній відомий тим, що на протязі декількох років працював із Дональдом Трампом. Бєня сподівається, що з його допомогою вдасться врятувати бізнес і нерухомість у США, які були куплені на вкрадені в українців гроші.
Щиро бажаємо ізраїльському шахраю коломойському, щоб результат в суді штату Делавер був аналогічний рішенню Апеляційного суду Лондона плюс багатомільйонні втрати на адвокатів.
Washington’s defense cost-sharing demand could hurt the U.S.-South Korean alliance, said a former military general, suggesting the demand seems to stem from “a new paradigm” the Trump administration has adopted.
Bernard Champoux, a retired three-star general who served as commander of the Eighth Army in South Korea during the Obama administration, said he is “concerned about the impact” the increased cost-sharing demand “will have on the alliance.”
The U.S. has been asking South Korea to pay more for keeping about 28,500 American troops in South Korea in the cost-sharing deal set to expire at the end of this year.
In the last round of negotiations for the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) held in October in Honolulu, Washington asked Seoul to pay about $5 billion for next year, an amount that is more than five times the $924 million Seoul agreed to shoulder for this year.
New cost-sharing paradigm
Champoux said the U.S. demand for the increased defense cost-sharing stems from a “new paradigm” adopted by the Trump administration.
Champoux said the increased cost-sharing demand “is not a negotiating tactic because this is the result of a new paradigm.” He continued, “It’s perhaps consistent with the way this administration has looked at the burden sharing of all our allies, to include Japan and the NATO allies.”
As a way of pushing his “American First” policy, a slogan Trump used in his presidential campaign, Trump has given a priority to U.S. national economic interests in broad-ranging foreign policy issues including trade and military alliances.
The approach had Trump declaring the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), America’s military alliance with North American and European countries, was “obsolete” and costing too much in January, only to roll back to say, “It’s no longer obsolete” in April.
For years before he entered the political arena, Trump had complained that U.S. allies did not pay the U.S. enough for bases and troops used in their defense and, earlier this year, pushed for the “Cost Plus 50” plan.
Under the plan, the U.S. could ask countries hosting American forces such as South Korea, Japan and Germany to pay five to six times as much as they currently pay or an additional 50 percent of current amounts.
“Wealthy, wealthy countries that we’re protecting are all under notice,” said Trump in January.
Trump has backed away from pushing the plan, and it is uncertain whether it will become official U.S. policy, but the idea is being played out in Washington’s defense cost-sharing negotiations with Seoul.
Mark Milley, chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the American public needs an explanation of how much it costs for U.S. forces to defend wealthy countries like South Korea and Japan. He made the remark while en route to Tokyo on Sunday. He arrived in Seoul on Wednesday and met with South Korean General Park Han-Ki for the Annual Military Committee Meeting.
“The average American looking at the forward deployed U.S. troops in South Korea and Japan asks some fundamental questions: Why are they needed there? How much does it cost? These are very rich and wealthy countries, why can’t they defend themselves?” Milley said.
He continued, “It is incumbent on us … to make sure we adequately explain how the U.S. military is a stabilizing force in Northeast Asia.”
Ahead of Milley’s trip, Randall Schriver, assistant defense secretary for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, said the U.S. allies “have to be willing to pick up a larger share of the burden, as the president has emphasized globally, not just related to South Korea.”
Champoux says Washington’s steep increase in Seoul’s burden of defense cost could impact the alliance in a way that could benefit its adversaries.
“Our adversaries would love there to be an issue or challenge that drives a wedge in the alliance,” Champoux said.
David Maxwell, a former U.S. Special Forces colonel and current fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said, “Of course, Korean people are asking why should they pay more.” He continued, “We are heading for a train wreck.”
On Wednesday, North Korea, one of the adversaries considered by the U.S., expressed anger over the planned joint military drills between the U.S. and South Korea scheduled for December saying they are “hostile” to North Korea. It vowed to respond with “force in kind,” through a statement carried by its official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
North Korea’s statement came as U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Wednesday while traveling to Seoul that he is open to the possibility of adjusting the joint drills to provide space for diplomacy.
In Seoul, Esper will be attending the 51st U.S.-ROK Security Consultative Meeting on Friday where he is expected to discuss with South Korea a host of important alliance issues, including the defense cost-sharing deal and an intelligence-sharing pact set to expire this month, which Seoul announced in August that it will terminate with Tokyo against the U.S. urges.
After the 44th Military Committee Meeting in Seoul on Thursday, Milley said the U.S. remains ready to use “the full range of U.S. military capabilities” to respond to “any attacks on the Korean Peninsula” according to a joint statement.
VOA Korean reporter Christy Lee contributed to this report
read moreThe impeachment inquiry involving President Donald Trump moved into an important new phase this week — public hearings. Opposition Democrats believe Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival, Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden. They hope the hearings will sway public opinion to support their case against the president, just as Republicans are counting on an aggressive defense to move the public to oppose impeachment. VOA national correspondent Jim Malone has more on the political stakes in the impeachment battle from Washington.
read moreA day of testimony in the impeachment inquiry targeting U.S. President Donald Trump changed no minds in Washington, with his critics convinced as ever that he abused his office by pushing Ukraine for political investigations of Democrats in the U.S. and his staunchest allies unwavering in their opinion that he did nothing wrong.
Trump declared on Twitter, “This Impeachment Hoax is such a bad precedent and sooo bad for our Country!”
….that the House Democrats have done since she’s become Speaker, other than chase Donald Trump.” This Impeachment Hoax is such a bad precedent and sooo bad for our Country!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 14, 2019
But Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, said that Trump’s actions amounted to bribery — temporarily withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine while pushing for an investigation of one of his chief 2020 Democratic challengers, former Vice President Joe Biden.
“The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections. That’s bribery,” Pelosi said at a news conference. “What the president has admitted to and says it’s perfect, I say it’s perfectly wrong. It’s bribery.”
Trump called Wednesday’s testimony from two career U.S. diplomats detailing his efforts to get Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open the investigation of Biden “a joke.” The U.S. leader delighted in retweeting comments from supporters, including Congressman Mark Meadows’s assessment that the hearing was “a MAJOR setback for the unfounded impeachment fantasy.”
But Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that could soon push for Trump’s impeachment, called the day’s testimony “pretty damning.” However, Nadler said he would remain open-minded “for the moment” on whether articles of impeachment should be written.
White House adviser Kellyanne Conway told CNN, “The president was very placid. I’ll tell you why. There was nothing new yesterday.”
She dismissed the importance of the day’s major news from the first of several days of the public impeachment inquiry, only the fourth against a U.S. president in the country’s 243-year history.
William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testified that an aide of his overheard a cell phone conversation at a Kyiv restaurant on July 26 in which Trump asked Gordon Sondland, a million-dollar Trump political donor and now the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, about whether Ukraine was opening “the investigations” he wanted about Biden, his son Hunter Biden’s work for a Ukrainian natural gas company and a debunked theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election Trump won. The U.S. intelligence community concluded Russia was behind the election meddling.
The overheard conversation occurred a day after Trump from the White House asked Zelenskiy in a half-hour call for “a favor” — the investigations of the Bidens — at a time when he was blocking release of $391 million in military aid to Ukraine that it needed to help fight pro-Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country.
Taylor said his aide, David Holmes, told him that Sondland said he believed Trump was more concerned about the investigations of the Bidens, which Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani was pursuing, than anything else in Ukraine.
Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier, a member of the House Intelligence Committee conducting the impeachment inquiry, called the previously undisclosed phone conversation “so explosive.”
But Trump adviser Conway said, “You’re calling that evidence, respectfully. In a real court of law we’d not be referring to something as evidence that is, oh, someone on my staff recalled overhearing a conversation between someone else and the president where they think they heard the president use the word investigations. This is not what due process and the rule of law in our great democracy allows.”
Trump said he knew “nothing” about the alleged Kyiv call from Sondland.
Impeachment investigators are interviewing Holmes, the Taylor aide, on Friday, while Sondland is set to testify before the impeachment inquiry next Wednesday. Sondland has already testified for hours in private behind closed doors, telling investigators that he told an aide to Zelenskiy that Ukraine would not get the military assistance unless the Ukrainian leader promised publicly that it would initiate the Biden investigations.
Trump at one point called Sondland a “‘great American,” but after he revised his testimony to say there were conditions on the Ukraine aid, Trump contended, “I hardly know the gentleman.”
Trump has denied a quid pro quo with Zelenskiy – release of the military aid in exchange for the Biden investigations – and described his July 25 call with Zelenskiy as “perfect.” After a 55-day delay, Trump released the military assistance on Sept. 11 without Ukraine undertaking the Biden investigations.
Trump’s Republican supporters say the fact that he released the aid without Ukraine investigating the Bidens is prime evidence there was no quid pro quo. They also pointed to the testimony from Taylor and George Kent, the State Department’s top Ukraine overseer, that they have had no personal interactions with Trump during the months that the Ukraine drama has played out.
Trump called the diplomats “NEVER TRUMPERS,” but both denied the characterization and cited their long service in the diplomatic corps under both Republican and Democratic presidents.
The House Intelligence Committee is now turning its attention to Friday’s testimony from Marie Yovanovitch, a former U.S. ambassador to Kyiv who was ousted from her posting earlier this year by the Trump administration months before her tour of duty was set to end.
Her dismissal, according to career diplomats who watched helplessly as it unfolded, came after Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney he had assigned to oversee Ukraine affairs outside normal State Department channels, pushed for her removal, viewing her as an impediment to getting Ukraine to undertake the Biden investigations.
Trump called Yovanovitch “bad news” in his July call with Zelenskiy.
Next week, the impeachment panel is calling eight more witnesses, including two on Tuesday who listened in as Trump talked with Zelenskiy — Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who serves as director for European affairs on the White House’s National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, a foreign affairs aide to Vice President Mike Pence.
Political analysts in Washington say the Trump impeachment drama could last for several months. If Trump is impeached by a simple majority in the House, perhaps by the end of the year as appears possible, a trial would be held in January in the Republican-majority Senate, where a two-thirds vote would be needed for his conviction and removal from office.
The time frame could bump up against the first Democratic party presidential nominating contests starting in February, when voters will begin voting on who they want to oppose Trump when he seeks a second four-year term in the November 2020 national election. Six Democratic senators are among those running for the party’s presidential nomination, but could be forced to stay in Washington to sit as jurors in the 100-member Senate as it decides Trump’s fate, rather than campaign full-time for the presidency.
Trump’s removal remains unlikely, with at least 20 Republicans needed to turn against him and vote for his conviction. To date, while a small number of Republicans have criticized Trump for his actions on Ukraine, no Republican senator has called for his removal from office via impeachment, a drastic action that has never occurred in U.S. history.
read more
A band of GOP senators rebuffed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s effort to depict anti-Islamic State Kurd forces as terrorists in a contentious Oval Office meeting, as the White House allies took a far harder line against Erdogan than did President Donald Trump.
Participants said Erdogan played a propaganda video for Republican senators attending Wednesday’s meeting, drawing a rebuke from Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and others.
Graham said Thursday that he asked Erdogan, “do you want me to get the Kurds to play a video about what your forces have done?”
The lawmakers also told Erdogan that he is risking economic sanctions by going ahead with a new Russian anti-aircraft missile system.
The exchange behind the scenes was far more confrontational than the reception Trump gave Erdogan in public.
Several more witnesses scheduled to testify in the House impeachment hearings over the next week are expected to say they too worried about President Donald Trump’s push for Ukraine to investigate Democrats as the U.S. withheld military aid from the country.
What’s ahead on the impeachment schedule:
More witnesses
The House intelligence committee, which is conducting the impeachment hearings, has set a packed schedule of open hearings over the next week.
On Friday, lawmakers will hear from former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was ousted in May at Trump’s direction. She told lawmakers in a closed-door deposition last month that there was a “concerted campaign” against her as Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani pushed for probes of Democrat Joe Biden and other political opponents.
Eight more witnesses will testify next week, some in back-to-back hearings on the same day. Among them will be Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official who said he raised concerns in the White House about Trump’s push for investigations; Gordon Sondland, Trump’s European Union ambassador, who spoke to the president about the Ukraine policy; and Fiona Hill, a former Russia adviser to the White House who told lawmakers about national security adviser John Bolton’s concerns about Ukraine.
All witnesses testifying this week and next have already spoken to investigators in closed depositions, some of them for 10 hours or more.
Back behind closed doors
Though those private depositions are largely done, Democrats have scheduled two more for this week — at the same time they are conducting the open hearings.
Democrats have scheduled a closed-door session with David Holmes, the political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, for Friday. An official familiar with the matter said Holmes is the person Taylor referred to in his testimony on Wednesday when he said an aide had overheard a conversation between Sondland and Trump in July about Ukraine conducting investigations.
They have also scheduled a Saturday deposition with Mark Sandy, an official at the Office of Management and Budget. Sandy is one of several OMB officials who have been invited by the committee to appear as lawmakers try to find out more about the military aid that was withheld. So far, none of those officials has shown up for their depositions as Trump has instructed his administration not to cooperate.
While the open hearings are being conducted by the intelligence panel, the closed-door hearings have been held by the intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees.
Headed to judiciary
The public hearings are expected to last at least another week. After that, the three committees will submit a report to the Judiciary panel, which will oversee the impeachment process.
Judiciary is expected to hold its own hearings and, eventually, vote on articles of impeachment. Democrats say they are still deciding whether to write them.
Next would come a floor vote, and if articles of impeachment are approved by the House, there would then be a Senate trial.
House Democrats are hoping to finish the process by the end of the year. A Senate trial, if called for, would likely come in 2020.
read more
Microsoft is bringing holograms to the office. The company recently started shipping its 2nd version of HoloLens, a headset that allows users to touch and interact with 3D holograms in everyday settings. Various industries have begun experimenting with the new computing device and VOA’s Tina Trinh had a chance to check it out.
read moreThe U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services naturalized 833,000 people — an 11-year high in new oaths of citizenship — in fiscal 2019, which ended Sept. 30. This fiscal year, USCIS administered the Oath of Allegiance to 60 of America’s newest citizens, from 51 countries, during a special naturalizing ceremony Tuesday at Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian. Saqib Ul Islam talked to some of the new citizens about how they feel and what they are looking forward to as a U.S. citizen.
ukrlines skype чат
