Sunday, June 28, 2020
Must the United States demonise China?
Simply existing as a prosperous power is enough to make China an enemy, which must be isolated, contained, if not destroyed, like a disease. Hong Kong is but another factor in this hegemonic calculus
Alex Lo
SCMP Columnist
My Take by Alex Lo
Simply existing as a prosperous power is enough to make China an enemy, which must be isolated, contained, if not destroyed, like a disease. Hong Kong is but another factor in this hegemonic calculus
Alex Lo
SCMP Columnist
My Take by Alex Lo
Published: 26 Jun, 2020
America has always needed an enemy. China is but the latest in a long series of “monsters” in need of destruction. What Adams, the sixth US president, famously warned against has long ago become the blueprint for the United States’ engagement with the world.
Every post-war president, including Donald Trump, went into office trying to follow Adams’ wise advice but ended up doing the opposite. When you have a democracy, public opinion must be managed or manufactured.
US Senate passes bill to punish China for Hong Kong national security law
26 Jun 2020
When you run a national security state, you must control your own citizens domestically and use all your powers, hard, soft and sharp, to bring to heel allies and rivals alike. Disobedience demands punishment, which can range from relatively bloodless sanctions to outright invasion and war.
When your military is deployed in more than 150 countries in a world that has fewer than 200, you are running a global empire, regardless of what fanciful claims you make to justify their worldwide presence. Simply existing as a rising power – like China – is enough to make someone an enemy, which must be isolated, demonised, contained, if not destroyed. Hong Kong is but another factor in this hegemonic calculus.
But to create an enemy, your opposing entity has to behave like one, or openly declare itself as one. Here’s the problem for Washington. China doesn’t want to be an enemy
That’s why frustrated American politicians are poking and provoking Beijing at every opportunity. China has so far refused to take the bait. But for how long? The answer to that question will determine the war and peace, and poverty and prosperity, of this century.
Who’s a ‘bad actor’ on the world stage?
Washington says it’s China but, from arms control to human rights, America poses a far greater threat
Alex Lo
Published: 16 Jun, 2020
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has slammed China for the umpteenth time for being “a bad actor”, by which he didn’t mean the Hollywood variety. China is no angel. But that pernicious title more appropriately belongs to the United States.
This conclusion can be justified by looking at not what officials like Pompeo say but what they do in terms of international law, treaties and norms.
Washington is expected to pull out of the 35-nation, 20-year-old Open Skies treaty allowing unarmed surveillance flights at short notice over member countries. Last year, it withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty as well as the Arms Trade Treaty, set by the United Nations.
The latter regulates the transfers of conventional arms and has long been the target of the right-wing National Rifle Association, the main barrier to proper gun control legislation within the US. Together, they amount to the greatest assault on global arms control in recent years. The US, of course, unilaterally broke off the Iran nuclear deal.
Trump administration bans Chinese passenger airlines from flying to US destinations
US President Donald Trump and Pompeo have been criticised for making Washington an unreliable international partner. But they are merely continuing a long US tradition.
According to Human Rights Watch, these are commonly accepted international human rights treaties that the US has ignored: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Convention on the Rights of the Child; Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance; Mine Ban Treaty; Convention on Cluster Munitions; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol; and the Convention against Torture.
Of the 18 human rights agreements under the UN, America has only ratified five. Even China has done eight.
Trade war cost US firms US$1.7 trillion in market value, New York Fed says
30 May 2020
But, in light of the latest development, Washington’s rejection of the International Criminal Court is especially relevant. China, too, has not signed on to the ICC but continues to be officially engaged with it.
The Trump White House has just imposed sanctions on ICC officials for investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.
Pompeo has called the ICC a “kangaroo” court. Incredibly, he said the latest sanctions could also apply to the family members of ICC officials. Don Corleone in the Godfather would have been proud.
Intriguingly, Washington thinks it can sanction China for allegedly breaching a bilateral treaty, the Joint Declaration with Britain over Hong Kong, to which it is not even a party. Guess if you can sanction the ICC, you can sanction anyone!
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Who’s a ‘bad actor’ on the world stage?
Alex Lo has been a Post columnist since 2012, covering major issues affecting Hong Kong and the rest of China. A journalist for 25 years, he has worked for various publications in Hong Kong and Toronto as a news reporter and editor. He has also lectured in journalism at the University of Hong Kong.
“She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colours and usurp the standard of freedom.
“The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit …” – John Quincy Adams, 1821
America has always needed an enemy. China is but the latest in a long series of “monsters” in need of destruction. What Adams, the sixth US president, famously warned against has long ago become the blueprint for the United States’ engagement with the world.
Every post-war president, including Donald Trump, went into office trying to follow Adams’ wise advice but ended up doing the opposite. When you have a democracy, public opinion must be managed or manufactured.
US Senate passes bill to punish China for Hong Kong national security law
26 Jun 2020
When you run a national security state, you must control your own citizens domestically and use all your powers, hard, soft and sharp, to bring to heel allies and rivals alike. Disobedience demands punishment, which can range from relatively bloodless sanctions to outright invasion and war.
When your military is deployed in more than 150 countries in a world that has fewer than 200, you are running a global empire, regardless of what fanciful claims you make to justify their worldwide presence. Simply existing as a rising power – like China – is enough to make someone an enemy, which must be isolated, demonised, contained, if not destroyed. Hong Kong is but another factor in this hegemonic calculus.
But to create an enemy, your opposing entity has to behave like one, or openly declare itself as one. Here’s the problem for Washington. China doesn’t want to be an enemy
That’s why frustrated American politicians are poking and provoking Beijing at every opportunity. China has so far refused to take the bait. But for how long? The answer to that question will determine the war and peace, and poverty and prosperity, of this century.
Who’s a ‘bad actor’ on the world stage?
Washington says it’s China but, from arms control to human rights, America poses a far greater threat
Alex Lo
Published: 16 Jun, 2020
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has slammed China for the umpteenth time for being “a bad actor”, by which he didn’t mean the Hollywood variety. China is no angel. But that pernicious title more appropriately belongs to the United States.
This conclusion can be justified by looking at not what officials like Pompeo say but what they do in terms of international law, treaties and norms.
Washington is expected to pull out of the 35-nation, 20-year-old Open Skies treaty allowing unarmed surveillance flights at short notice over member countries. Last year, it withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty as well as the Arms Trade Treaty, set by the United Nations.
The latter regulates the transfers of conventional arms and has long been the target of the right-wing National Rifle Association, the main barrier to proper gun control legislation within the US. Together, they amount to the greatest assault on global arms control in recent years. The US, of course, unilaterally broke off the Iran nuclear deal.
Trump administration bans Chinese passenger airlines from flying to US destinations
US President Donald Trump and Pompeo have been criticised for making Washington an unreliable international partner. But they are merely continuing a long US tradition.
According to Human Rights Watch, these are commonly accepted international human rights treaties that the US has ignored: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Convention on the Rights of the Child; Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance; Mine Ban Treaty; Convention on Cluster Munitions; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol; and the Convention against Torture.
Of the 18 human rights agreements under the UN, America has only ratified five. Even China has done eight.
Trade war cost US firms US$1.7 trillion in market value, New York Fed says
30 May 2020
But, in light of the latest development, Washington’s rejection of the International Criminal Court is especially relevant. China, too, has not signed on to the ICC but continues to be officially engaged with it.
The Trump White House has just imposed sanctions on ICC officials for investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.
Pompeo has called the ICC a “kangaroo” court. Incredibly, he said the latest sanctions could also apply to the family members of ICC officials. Don Corleone in the Godfather would have been proud.
Intriguingly, Washington thinks it can sanction China for allegedly breaching a bilateral treaty, the Joint Declaration with Britain over Hong Kong, to which it is not even a party. Guess if you can sanction the ICC, you can sanction anyone!
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Who’s a ‘bad actor’ on the world stage?
Alex Lo has been a Post columnist since 2012, covering major issues affecting Hong Kong and the rest of China. A journalist for 25 years, he has worked for various publications in Hong Kong and Toronto as a news reporter and editor. He has also lectured in journalism at the University of Hong Kong.
Opinion-Editorial - by SCMP
US is shunning its responsibilities on arms control
Observers believe the American strategy is a cynical ploy to complicate and derail negotiations
SCMP Editorial Published: 28 Jun, 2020
US envoy Marshall Billingslea tweeted a photo of Chinese flags on an empty negotiating table before the start of US-China arms control talks in Vienna on June 22, 2020. Photo: Twitter
Negotiations between Washington and Russia on a new agreement to cap their arsenals of nuclear warheads are being jeopardised by America’s insistence of Chinese involvement. The world is being made evermore dangerous with each accord the Trump administration shuns.
Arms treaties are complex arrangements that involve much bargaining. The new START pact between the US and Russia expires next February, already a tight deadline;
yet the American side treated the latest round of talks in Vienna this week as less about meeting a deadline than ensuring it would be missed by trying to complicate matters with China’s inclusion.
‘New battlefield’ as China refuses to join nuclear talks with US, Russia
11 Jun 2020
Trump has already left two treaties with Russia, one on overflights and the other on intermediate-range nuclear forces. He withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, despite international weapons inspectors insisting that the agreement struck with seven nations in 2015 was working.
Russia and the US have by far the world’s biggest nuclear weapons arsenals, with an estimated 6,300 and 5,800 respectively. The new START, negotiated by Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, allows the nations to each deploy a maximum of 1,550 nuclear weapons and halve the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers.
China, with an expanding nuclear programme but far fewer arms, has repeatedly rejected American pressure to participate and Russia has countered by also calling for the joining of American allies France and Britain, which have 290 and 215 warheads. Observers believe the US strategy is a cynical ploy to complicate and derail the negotiations.
Beijing’s motives are for the global good, not self-interest. By joining the Arms Trade Treaty, it has signed on to a multilateral pact aimed at regulating cross-border sales of several categories of conventional arms and prohibits their transfer under certain circumstances. Participating in such accords is what is expected of a responsible world power.
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: US amiss in talks to control arms trade
US is shunning its responsibilities on arms control
Observers believe the American strategy is a cynical ploy to complicate and derail negotiations
SCMP Editorial Published: 28 Jun, 2020
US envoy Marshall Billingslea tweeted a photo of Chinese flags on an empty negotiating table before the start of US-China arms control talks in Vienna on June 22, 2020. Photo: Twitter
The disparity between China’s global aspirations and those of the United States under President Donald Trump could not be more plainly on show than in attitudes towards weapons pacts. Beijing has agreed to join the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty, which the American leader announced last year he would withdraw his country from.
Negotiations between Washington and Russia on a new agreement to cap their arsenals of nuclear warheads are being jeopardised by America’s insistence of Chinese involvement. The world is being made evermore dangerous with each accord the Trump administration shuns.
Arms treaties are complex arrangements that involve much bargaining. The new START pact between the US and Russia expires next February, already a tight deadline;
yet the American side treated the latest round of talks in Vienna this week as less about meeting a deadline than ensuring it would be missed by trying to complicate matters with China’s inclusion.
‘New battlefield’ as China refuses to join nuclear talks with US, Russia
11 Jun 2020
Trump has already left two treaties with Russia, one on overflights and the other on intermediate-range nuclear forces. He withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, despite international weapons inspectors insisting that the agreement struck with seven nations in 2015 was working.
Russia and the US have by far the world’s biggest nuclear weapons arsenals, with an estimated 6,300 and 5,800 respectively. The new START, negotiated by Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, allows the nations to each deploy a maximum of 1,550 nuclear weapons and halve the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers.
China, with an expanding nuclear programme but far fewer arms, has repeatedly rejected American pressure to participate and Russia has countered by also calling for the joining of American allies France and Britain, which have 290 and 215 warheads. Observers believe the US strategy is a cynical ploy to complicate and derail the negotiations.
Beijing’s motives are for the global good, not self-interest. By joining the Arms Trade Treaty, it has signed on to a multilateral pact aimed at regulating cross-border sales of several categories of conventional arms and prohibits their transfer under certain circumstances. Participating in such accords is what is expected of a responsible world power.
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: US amiss in talks to control arms trade
Rolling Stones Working With BMI to Stop Trump's Use of 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' at Rallies
LOS ANGELES (Variety.com) - For years, it has seemed as if Donald Trump can always get what he wants, at least when it comes to using classic rock and pop hits at his campaign rallies against the wishes of the original artists. But the Rolling Stones, who have tried for years to keep the president from appropriating “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” as his walk-off music, have not thrown in the towel.
On Saturday, the group sent out a statement saying it is enlisting BMI, the performing rights organization that oversees public use of the song, in their quest to keep the track from being used for politically partisan purposes. And the band says there’ll be a lawsuit if the president continues using the song without a license.
The Rolling Stones perform during their No Filter U.S. Tour at Rose Bowl Stadium in Pasadena, California, U.S., August 22, 2019. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni
News of the Stones and BMI working together on the issue was first reported by Deadline.
In a statement released earlier to Variety and Deadline, BMI said: “The Trump campaign has a Political Entities License which authorizes the public performance of more than 15 million musical works in BMI’s repertoire wherever campaign events occur. There is a provision, however, that allows BMI to exclude musical works from the license if a songwriter or publisher objects to its use by a campaign. BMI has received such an objection and sent a letter notifying the Trump campaign that the Rolling Stones’ works have been removed from the campaign license, and advising the campaign that any future use of these musical compositions will be in breach of its license agreement with BMI.”
News of the Stones taking up the fight to have their song excluded from campaign appearances follows on the heels of the Tom Petty family uniting last weekend to release a statement objecting to “I Won’t Back Down” at the president’s contentious campaign rally in Tulsa. Brendon Urie soon followed with a strongly worded statement condemning Trump’s use of the Panic! at the Disco song “High Hopes” at the same rally. The long list of musicians who’ve previously publicly objected to Trump campaign song use includes Neil Young and R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe.
Left unaddressed, as it has been since Trump began using “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” at the end of his campaign speeches in 2016, is what message the candidate even intends to send with a song whose very title expresses the thought that expectations should be tempered.
LOS ANGELES (Variety.com) - For years, it has seemed as if Donald Trump can always get what he wants, at least when it comes to using classic rock and pop hits at his campaign rallies against the wishes of the original artists. But the Rolling Stones, who have tried for years to keep the president from appropriating “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” as his walk-off music, have not thrown in the towel.
On Saturday, the group sent out a statement saying it is enlisting BMI, the performing rights organization that oversees public use of the song, in their quest to keep the track from being used for politically partisan purposes. And the band says there’ll be a lawsuit if the president continues using the song without a license.
“This could be the last time President Donald Trump uses Stones songs,” reads the headline to a release sent out by the Stones’ reps. The statement reads, in part: “Despite cease & desist directives to Donald Trump in the past, the Rolling Stones are taking further steps to exclude him using their songs at any of his future political campaigning. The Stones’ legal team [is] working with BMI... BMI (has) notified the Trump campaign on behalf of the Stones that the unauthorized use of their songs will constitute a breach of its licensing agreement. If Donald Trump disregards the exclusion and persists, then he would face a lawsuit for breaking the embargo and playing music that has not been licensed.”
As these disputes have arisen, at issue is whether a song’s use in a campaign rally is covered by a blanket license held by the host venue for all performance purposes. BMI is joining the Stones in contending that the Trump campaign is subject to a license specifically established for political uses, which allows songwriters to object to and withhold use.
Jodie Thomas, BMI’s executive director of corporate communications, clarified the performing rights org’s position for Variety Saturday after the Stones’ statement was released.
“BMI’s Political Entities License was implemented about ten years ago to cover political campaigns,” Thomas says. “Since many political events and rallies are often held at places that don’t typically require a music license, such as airport hangars or community fields, a Political Entities License ensures that wherever the campaign stops, it is in compliance with copyright law. A venue license was never intended to cover political campaigns. So if a campaign attempts to rely on a venue license to cover its music use, there’s risk involved.”
Continued Thomas, “BMI licenses political campaigns and events through its Political Entities or Organizations License, which clearly states that a campaign cannot rely on a venue license to authorize its performance of an excluded work. Therefore, a political campaign cannot and should not try to circumvent BMI’s withdrawal of musical works under its Political Entities License by attempting to rely on another license.”
As these disputes have arisen, at issue is whether a song’s use in a campaign rally is covered by a blanket license held by the host venue for all performance purposes. BMI is joining the Stones in contending that the Trump campaign is subject to a license specifically established for political uses, which allows songwriters to object to and withhold use.
Jodie Thomas, BMI’s executive director of corporate communications, clarified the performing rights org’s position for Variety Saturday after the Stones’ statement was released.
“BMI’s Political Entities License was implemented about ten years ago to cover political campaigns,” Thomas says. “Since many political events and rallies are often held at places that don’t typically require a music license, such as airport hangars or community fields, a Political Entities License ensures that wherever the campaign stops, it is in compliance with copyright law. A venue license was never intended to cover political campaigns. So if a campaign attempts to rely on a venue license to cover its music use, there’s risk involved.”
Continued Thomas, “BMI licenses political campaigns and events through its Political Entities or Organizations License, which clearly states that a campaign cannot rely on a venue license to authorize its performance of an excluded work. Therefore, a political campaign cannot and should not try to circumvent BMI’s withdrawal of musical works under its Political Entities License by attempting to rely on another license.”
The Rolling Stones perform during their No Filter U.S. Tour at Rose Bowl Stadium in Pasadena, California, U.S., August 22, 2019. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni
News of the Stones and BMI working together on the issue was first reported by Deadline.
In a statement released earlier to Variety and Deadline, BMI said: “The Trump campaign has a Political Entities License which authorizes the public performance of more than 15 million musical works in BMI’s repertoire wherever campaign events occur. There is a provision, however, that allows BMI to exclude musical works from the license if a songwriter or publisher objects to its use by a campaign. BMI has received such an objection and sent a letter notifying the Trump campaign that the Rolling Stones’ works have been removed from the campaign license, and advising the campaign that any future use of these musical compositions will be in breach of its license agreement with BMI.”
News of the Stones taking up the fight to have their song excluded from campaign appearances follows on the heels of the Tom Petty family uniting last weekend to release a statement objecting to “I Won’t Back Down” at the president’s contentious campaign rally in Tulsa. Brendon Urie soon followed with a strongly worded statement condemning Trump’s use of the Panic! at the Disco song “High Hopes” at the same rally. The long list of musicians who’ve previously publicly objected to Trump campaign song use includes Neil Young and R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe.
Left unaddressed, as it has been since Trump began using “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” at the end of his campaign speeches in 2016, is what message the candidate even intends to send with a song whose very title expresses the thought that expectations should be tempered.
Dozens arrested as Hong Kongers protest planned national security laws
Scott Murdoch
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong police arrested at least 53 people on Sunday after scuffles erupted during a relatively peaceful protest against planned national security legislation to be implemented by the mainland Chinese government.
Riot policeask ORDER people to leave to avoid mass gathering during a protest against the looming national security legislation in Hong Kong, China June 28, 2020. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu
Armed riot police were present as a crowd of several hundred moved from Jordan to Mong Kok in the Kowloon district, staging what was intended as a “silent protest” against the planned law.
RELATED COVERAGE
China lawmakers review draft of Hong Kong national security bill: Xinhua
However, chanting and slogans were shouted towards police and later scuffles broke out in Mong Kok, prompting police to use pepper spray to subdue parts of the crowd.
Hong Kong Police said on Facebook that 53 people had been arrested and charged with unlawful assembly, adding that earlier some protesters tried to blockade roads in the area.
The proposed national security law has raised concerns among Hong Kong democracy activists and some foreign governments that Beijing is further eroding the extensive autonomy promised when Britain handed the territory back to China in 1997.
“The governments wants to shut us up and to kick us out,” one protester, Roy Chan, 44, said. “We must stand up and strike down all those people who deprive Hong Kong people’s freedom.”
Sunday’s event came a day after Hong Kong police refused permission for an annual march usually held on July 1 to mark the 1997 handover, citing a ban on large gatherings amid the coronavirus pandemic.
China has said the new security law will target only a small group of troublemakers as it tackles separatism, subversion, terrorism and foreign interference in Hong Kong.
China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee reviewed a draft of the bill on Sunday.
Chinese state media reported that lawmakers overwhelmingly supported the draft. The Chinese government has “unshakable determination to push ahead with enactment of the security bill and safeguard national sovereignty and interest,” state broadcaster CCTV reported, citing a government spokesperson.
Reporting by Scott Murdoch; Additional reporting by Jessie Pang, Tyrone Siu and Joyce Zhou; Editing by Christopher Cushing, Tom Hogue, Frances Kerry and Peter Graff
Scott Murdoch
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong police arrested at least 53 people on Sunday after scuffles erupted during a relatively peaceful protest against planned national security legislation to be implemented by the mainland Chinese government.
Riot police
Armed riot police were present as a crowd of several hundred moved from Jordan to Mong Kok in the Kowloon district, staging what was intended as a “silent protest” against the planned law.
RELATED COVERAGE
China lawmakers review draft of Hong Kong national security bill: Xinhua
However, chanting and slogans were shouted towards police and later scuffles broke out in Mong Kok, prompting police to use pepper spray to subdue parts of the crowd.
Hong Kong Police said on Facebook that 53 people had been arrested and charged with unlawful assembly, adding that earlier some protesters tried to blockade roads in the area.
The proposed national security law has raised concerns among Hong Kong democracy activists and some foreign governments that Beijing is further eroding the extensive autonomy promised when Britain handed the territory back to China in 1997.
“The governments wants to shut us up and to kick us out,” one protester, Roy Chan, 44, said. “We must stand up and strike down all those people who deprive Hong Kong people’s freedom.”
Sunday’s event came a day after Hong Kong police refused permission for an annual march usually held on July 1 to mark the 1997 handover, citing a ban on large gatherings amid the coronavirus pandemic.
China has said the new security law will target only a small group of troublemakers as it tackles separatism, subversion, terrorism and foreign interference in Hong Kong.
China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee reviewed a draft of the bill on Sunday.
Chinese state media reported that lawmakers overwhelmingly supported the draft. The Chinese government has “unshakable determination to push ahead with enactment of the security bill and safeguard national sovereignty and interest,” state broadcaster CCTV reported, citing a government spokesperson.
Reporting by Scott Murdoch; Additional reporting by Jessie Pang, Tyrone Siu and Joyce Zhou; Editing by Christopher Cushing, Tom Hogue, Frances Kerry and Peter Graff
Pandemic curtails most U.S. Pride events, but some will march on
Ben Kellerman
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The coronavirus pandemic has forced the cancellation of most Pride events this year, but organizers of a march in Manhattan on Sunday expect to draw tens of thousands of people to the streets in solidarity with protesters demanding an end to racial injustice and police brutality.
Rainbow flags fly at Rockefeller Center in midtown Manhattan in support of the LGBT community, prior to the 51st anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, in New York City, New York, U.S., June 26, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Segar
The second annual Queer Liberation March will cap a month of Pride events, virtual and live, during which the celebration of LGBTQ lives has merged with the nationwide demonstrations ignited by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month.
“It has to be centered on the movement for Black lives, it has to be focused on issues of police brutality,” said Jay W. Walker, co-founder the Reclaim Pride Coalition, the group organizing the march.
The group staged its first protest last year by walking in the opposite direction to New York City’s marquee Pride parade, rejecting that event’s large uniformed police presence and the ubiquitous corporate-sponsored floats that normally drift down Manhattan’s 5th Avenue each year.
This year, the march promises to be the city’s main in-person event on Pride Sunday, after the official parade was canceled in April for the first time in its 50-year history due to the pandemic.
On June 28, 1969, patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village, fought back during a police raid, sparking days of sometimes violent demonstrations against harassment and giving birth to the modern LGBTQ rights movement.
Activists memorialized the first anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion with what they called Christopher Street Liberation Day, starting an annual Pride tradition that is now celebrated around the world.
Marches and rallies with a focus on racial injustice, and the struggle of Black transgender people in particular, are planned in other U.S. cities on Sunday.
In Chicago, a Pride march will aim to draw attention to the historic origins of Pride as a movement of protest.
Grassroots activist group ACTIVATE:CHI said it was working with the organizers of this year’s Pride, spurred on by “the current political, social, and economic climate coupled with the clear inability of our government to protect the most vulnerable members of our communities.”
Reporting by Benjamin Keller in New York; Additional reporting and writing by Maria Caspani in New York; Editing by Daniel Wallis
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Ben Kellerman
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The coronavirus pandemic has forced the cancellation of most Pride events this year, but organizers of a march in Manhattan on Sunday expect to draw tens of thousands of people to the streets in solidarity with protesters demanding an end to racial injustice and police brutality.
Rainbow flags fly at Rockefeller Center in midtown Manhattan in support of the LGBT community, prior to the 51st anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, in New York City, New York, U.S., June 26, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Segar
The second annual Queer Liberation March will cap a month of Pride events, virtual and live, during which the celebration of LGBTQ lives has merged with the nationwide demonstrations ignited by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month.
“It has to be centered on the movement for Black lives, it has to be focused on issues of police brutality,” said Jay W. Walker, co-founder the Reclaim Pride Coalition, the group organizing the march.
The group staged its first protest last year by walking in the opposite direction to New York City’s marquee Pride parade, rejecting that event’s large uniformed police presence and the ubiquitous corporate-sponsored floats that normally drift down Manhattan’s 5th Avenue each year.
This year, the march promises to be the city’s main in-person event on Pride Sunday, after the official parade was canceled in April for the first time in its 50-year history due to the pandemic.
On June 28, 1969, patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village, fought back during a police raid, sparking days of sometimes violent demonstrations against harassment and giving birth to the modern LGBTQ rights movement.
Activists memorialized the first anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion with what they called Christopher Street Liberation Day, starting an annual Pride tradition that is now celebrated around the world.
Marches and rallies with a focus on racial injustice, and the struggle of Black transgender people in particular, are planned in other U.S. cities on Sunday.
In Chicago, a Pride march will aim to draw attention to the historic origins of Pride as a movement of protest.
Grassroots activist group ACTIVATE:CHI said it was working with the organizers of this year’s Pride, spurred on by “the current political, social, and economic climate coupled with the clear inability of our government to protect the most vulnerable members of our communities.”
Reporting by Benjamin Keller in New York; Additional reporting and writing by Maria Caspani in New York; Editing by Daniel Wallis
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
'The money's gone': Wirecard collapses owing $4 billion
Arno Schuetze, John O'Donnell
FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Wirecard collapsed on Thursday owing creditors almost $4 billion after disclosing a gaping hole in its books that its auditor EY said was the result of a sophisticated global fraud.
The payments company filed for insolvency at a Munich court saying that, with 1.3 billion euros ($1.5 billion) of loans due within a week its survival as a going concern was “not assured”.
Wirecard’s implosion came just seven days after EY, its auditor for more than a decade, refused to sign off on the 2019 accounts, forcing out Chief Executive Markus Braun and leading it to admit that $2.1 billion of its cash probably didn’t exist.
“There are clear indications that this was an elaborate and sophisticated fraud involving multiple parties around the world,” EY said in a statement.
EY said while it was completing the 2019 audit, it was provided with false confirmations with regard to escrow accounts and reported them to the relevant authorities.
RELATED COVERAGE
Factbox: German payments firm Wirecard goes from boom to bust
Wirecard declined to comment following EY’s statement.
The financial technology company is the first member of Germany’s prestigious DAX stock index to go bust, barely two years after winning a spot among the country’s top 30 listed companies with a market valuation of $28 billion.
“The Wirecard case damages corporate Germany. It should be a wake-up call for reforms,” said Volker Potthoff, chairman of corporate governance think-tank ArMID.
Creditors have scant hope of getting back the 3.5 billion euros they are owed, sources familiar with the matter said. Of that total, Wirecard has borrowed 1.75 billion from 15 banks and issued 500 million in bonds.
“The money’s gone,” said one banker. “We may recoup a few euros in a couple of years but will write off the loan now.”
‘TOTAL DISASTER’
The collapse of Wirecard, once one of the hottest fintech companies in Europe, dwarfs other German corporate failures. It has shaken the country’s financial establishment with Felix Hufeld, head of regulator BaFin, calling it a “total disaster”.
German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz described the collapse as a “scandal”, acknowledging it was time to review regulation.
“We must rethink our supervisory structures,” said Scholz, adding he had asked his ministry to come up with ideas in the next few days.
“If legal, legislative, regulatory measures are needed, we will embrace them and implement them,” he said. “A scandal like Wirecard is a wake-up call that we need more monitoring and oversight than we have today,” he said.
Wirecard shares, which were suspended ahead of an earlier announcement that it would seek creditor protection, crashed 80% when trading resumed. They have lost 98% since auditor EY questioned its accounts last Thursday.
EY, one of the world’s “Big Four” accountancy and consulting firms, faces a wave of litigation in a debacle that has drawn comparisons with Arthur Andersen’s disastrous oversight of U.S. energy company Enron.
German law firm Schirp & Partner said that with Wirecard now effectively sidelined, it would file class actions against EY on behalf of shareholders and bondholders.
“It is frightening how long Wirecard AG was able to operate without being objected to by the auditors,” partner Wolfgang Schirp said.
Wirecard’s new management had been in crisis talks with creditors but pulled out on Thursday morning “due to impending insolvency and over-indebtedness”.
The insolvency filing did not include its Wirecard Bank subsidiary, which holds an estimated 1.4 billion euros in deposits and is already under emergency management by BaFin.
FILE PHOTO: The headquarters of Wirecard AG, an independent provider of outsourcing and white label solutions for electronic payment transactions is seen in Aschheim near Munich, Germany April 25, 2019. REUTERS/Michael Dalder/File Photo
‘COMPLETE VINDICATION’
A second source close to talks with creditors said although the company had a healthy core, it had faked two-thirds of its sales. This meant there was no way it could repay all its debt, notwithstanding all the legal challenges it will face.
The ascent of Wirecard, which was founded in 1999 and is based in a Munich suburb, was dogged by allegations from whistleblowers, reporters and speculators that its revenue and profits had been pumped up through fake transactions.
Braun fended off the critics for years before finally calling in outside auditor KPMG late last year to run an independent investigation.
KPMG, which published its findings in April, was unable to verify 1 billion euros in cash balances, questioned Wirecard’s acquisition accounting and said it could not trace hundreds of millions in cash advances to merchants.
“Today is a complete vindication for those that exposed the fraud,” said Fraser Perring, who bet on a fall in Wirecard’s shares and co-authored a 2016 report that alleged fraud.
The Munich prosecutor’s office, which is investigating Braun on suspicion of misrepresenting Wirecard’s accounts and of market manipulation, said: “We will now look at all possible criminal offences.”
Braun was arrested on Monday and released on bail of 5 million euros a day later. Former chief operating officer Jan Marsalek is also under suspicion and believed to be in the Philippines, according to justice officials there.
($1 = 0.8903 euros)
Native Americans protesting Trump trip to Mount Rushmore
By STEPHEN GROVES June 26, 2020
FILE - In this Sept. 11, 2002, file photo, the sun rises on Mt. Rushmore National Memorial near Keystone, S.D. as the flag is flown at half staff in honor of the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. President Donald Trump is planning to kick off Independence Day weekend in South Dakota with a show of patriotism _ fireworks popping, fighter jets thundering overhead and revelers crowding beneath a piece of classic Americana _ Mount Rushmore. (AP Photo/Laura Rauch, File)
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — President Donald Trump’s plans to kick off Independence Day with a showy display at Mount Rushmore have angered Native Americans, who view the monument as a desecration of land violently stolen from them and used to pay homage to leaders hostile to Indigenous people.
Several groups led by Native American activists are planning protests for Trump’s July 3 visit, part of Trump’s “comeback” campaign for a nation reeling from sickness, unemployment and, recently, social unrest. The event is slated to include fighter jets thundering over the 79-year-old stone monument in South Dakota’s Black Hills and the first fireworks display at the site since 2009.
But it comes amid a national reckoning over racism and a reconsideration of the symbolism of monuments around the globe. Many Native American activists say the Rushmore memorial is as reprehensible as the many Confederate monuments being toppled around the nation.
“Mount Rushmore is a symbol of white supremacy, of structural racism that’s still alive and well in society today,” said Nick Tilsen, a member of the Oglala Lakota tribe and the president of a local activist organization called NDN Collective. “It’s an injustice to actively steal Indigenous people’s land, then carve the white faces of the colonizers who committed genocide.”
While some activists, like Tilsen, want to see the monument removed and the Black Hills returned to the Lakota, others have called for a share in the economic benefits from the region.
Trump has long shown a fascination with Mount Rushmore. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem said in 2018 that he once told her straight-faced that it was his dream to have his face carved into the monument. He later joked at a campaign rally about getting enshrined alongside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. And while it was Noem, a Republican, who pushed for a return of fireworks on the eve of Independence Day, Trump committed to visiting South Dakota for the celebration.
Some wildfire experts have raised concerns the pyrotechnics could spark fires, especially because the region has seen dry weather this year. Firefighters called in crews from two other states to help Thursday as a blaze consumed approximately 150 acres (61 hectares) about 6 miles (10 kilometers) south of the monument.
The four faces, carved into the mountain with dynamite and drills, are known as the “shrine to democracy.” The presidents were chosen by sculptor Gutzon Borglum for their leadership during four phases of American development: Washington led the birth of the nation; Jefferson sparked its westward expansion; Lincoln preserved the union and emancipated slaves; Roosevelt championed industrial innovation.
And yet, for many Native American people, including the Lakota, Cheyenne, Omaha, Arapaho, Kiowa and Kiowa-Apache, the monument is a desecration to the Black Hills, which they consider sacred. Lakota people know the area as Paha Sapa — “the heart of everything that is.”
As monuments to Confederate and Colonial leaders have been removed nationwide, some conservatives have expressed fear that Mount Rushmore could be next. Commentator Ben Shapiro this week suggested that the “woke historical revisionist priesthood” wanted to blow up the monument. Noem responded by tweeting, “Not on my watch.”
The governor told Fox News on Wednesday, “These men have flaws, obviously every leader has flaws, but we’re missing the opportunity we have in this discussion to talk about the virtues and what they brought to this country, and the fact that this is the foundation that we’re built on and the heritage we should be carrying forward.”
Tim Giago, a journalist who is a member of the Oglala Lakota tribe, said he doesn’t see four great American leaders when he looks at the monument; he sees four white men who either made racist remarks or initiated actions that removed Native Americans from their land. Washington and Jefferson held slaves. Lincoln, though he led the abolition of slavery, approved the hanging of 38 Dakota men in Minnesota after a violent conflict with white settlers there. Roosevelt is reported to have said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are ...”
The monument has long been a “Rorschach test,” said John Taliaferro, author of “Great White Fathers,” a history of the monument. “All sorts of people can go there and see it in different ways.”
The monument often starts conversations on the paradox of American democracy — that a republic that promoted the ideals of freedom, determination and innovation also enslaved people and drove others from their land, he said.
“If we’re having this discussion today about what American democracy is, Mount Rushmore is really serving its purpose because that conversation goes on there,” he said. “Is it fragile? Is it permanent? Is it cracking somewhat?”
The monument was conceived in the 1920s as a tourist draw for the new fad in vacationing called the road trip. South Dakota historian Doane Robinson recruited Borglum to abandon his work creating the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial in Georgia, which was to feature Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson.
Borglum was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, according to Mount Rushmore historian and writer Tom Griffith. Borglum joined the Klan to raise money for the Confederate memorial, and Griffith argues his allegiance was more practical than ideological.
Native American activists have long staged protests at the site to raise awareness of the history of the Black Hills, which were seized despite treaties with the United States protecting the land. Fifty years ago, a group of activists associated with an organization called United Native Americans climbed to the top of the monument and occupied it.
Quanah Brightman, who now runs United Native Americans, said the activism in the 1970s grew out of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He hopes a similar movement for Native Americans comes from the Black Lives Matter movement.
“What people find here is the story of America — it’s multidimensional, it’s complex,” Griffith said. “It’s important to understand it was people just trying to do right as best they knew it then.”
The White House declined to comment.
By STEPHEN GROVES June 26, 2020
FILE - In this Sept. 11, 2002, file photo, the sun rises on Mt. Rushmore National Memorial near Keystone, S.D. as the flag is flown at half staff in honor of the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. President Donald Trump is planning to kick off Independence Day weekend in South Dakota with a show of patriotism _ fireworks popping, fighter jets thundering overhead and revelers crowding beneath a piece of classic Americana _ Mount Rushmore. (AP Photo/Laura Rauch, File)
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — President Donald Trump’s plans to kick off Independence Day with a showy display at Mount Rushmore have angered Native Americans, who view the monument as a desecration of land violently stolen from them and used to pay homage to leaders hostile to Indigenous people.
Several groups led by Native American activists are planning protests for Trump’s July 3 visit, part of Trump’s “comeback” campaign for a nation reeling from sickness, unemployment and, recently, social unrest. The event is slated to include fighter jets thundering over the 79-year-old stone monument in South Dakota’s Black Hills and the first fireworks display at the site since 2009.
But it comes amid a national reckoning over racism and a reconsideration of the symbolism of monuments around the globe. Many Native American activists say the Rushmore memorial is as reprehensible as the many Confederate monuments being toppled around the nation.
“Mount Rushmore is a symbol of white supremacy, of structural racism that’s still alive and well in society today,” said Nick Tilsen, a member of the Oglala Lakota tribe and the president of a local activist organization called NDN Collective. “It’s an injustice to actively steal Indigenous people’s land, then carve the white faces of the colonizers who committed genocide.”
While some activists, like Tilsen, want to see the monument removed and the Black Hills returned to the Lakota, others have called for a share in the economic benefits from the region.
Trump has long shown a fascination with Mount Rushmore. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem said in 2018 that he once told her straight-faced that it was his dream to have his face carved into the monument. He later joked at a campaign rally about getting enshrined alongside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. And while it was Noem, a Republican, who pushed for a return of fireworks on the eve of Independence Day, Trump committed to visiting South Dakota for the celebration.
Some wildfire experts have raised concerns the pyrotechnics could spark fires, especially because the region has seen dry weather this year. Firefighters called in crews from two other states to help Thursday as a blaze consumed approximately 150 acres (61 hectares) about 6 miles (10 kilometers) south of the monument.
The four faces, carved into the mountain with dynamite and drills, are known as the “shrine to democracy.” The presidents were chosen by sculptor Gutzon Borglum for their leadership during four phases of American development: Washington led the birth of the nation; Jefferson sparked its westward expansion; Lincoln preserved the union and emancipated slaves; Roosevelt championed industrial innovation.
And yet, for many Native American people, including the Lakota, Cheyenne, Omaha, Arapaho, Kiowa and Kiowa-Apache, the monument is a desecration to the Black Hills, which they consider sacred. Lakota people know the area as Paha Sapa — “the heart of everything that is.”
As monuments to Confederate and Colonial leaders have been removed nationwide, some conservatives have expressed fear that Mount Rushmore could be next. Commentator Ben Shapiro this week suggested that the “woke historical revisionist priesthood” wanted to blow up the monument. Noem responded by tweeting, “Not on my watch.”
The governor told Fox News on Wednesday, “These men have flaws, obviously every leader has flaws, but we’re missing the opportunity we have in this discussion to talk about the virtues and what they brought to this country, and the fact that this is the foundation that we’re built on and the heritage we should be carrying forward.”
Tim Giago, a journalist who is a member of the Oglala Lakota tribe, said he doesn’t see four great American leaders when he looks at the monument; he sees four white men who either made racist remarks or initiated actions that removed Native Americans from their land. Washington and Jefferson held slaves. Lincoln, though he led the abolition of slavery, approved the hanging of 38 Dakota men in Minnesota after a violent conflict with white settlers there. Roosevelt is reported to have said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are ...”
The monument has long been a “Rorschach test,” said John Taliaferro, author of “Great White Fathers,” a history of the monument. “All sorts of people can go there and see it in different ways.”
The monument often starts conversations on the paradox of American democracy — that a republic that promoted the ideals of freedom, determination and innovation also enslaved people and drove others from their land, he said.
“If we’re having this discussion today about what American democracy is, Mount Rushmore is really serving its purpose because that conversation goes on there,” he said. “Is it fragile? Is it permanent? Is it cracking somewhat?”
The monument was conceived in the 1920s as a tourist draw for the new fad in vacationing called the road trip. South Dakota historian Doane Robinson recruited Borglum to abandon his work creating the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial in Georgia, which was to feature Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson.
Borglum was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, according to Mount Rushmore historian and writer Tom Griffith. Borglum joined the Klan to raise money for the Confederate memorial, and Griffith argues his allegiance was more practical than ideological.
Native American activists have long staged protests at the site to raise awareness of the history of the Black Hills, which were seized despite treaties with the United States protecting the land. Fifty years ago, a group of activists associated with an organization called United Native Americans climbed to the top of the monument and occupied it.
Quanah Brightman, who now runs United Native Americans, said the activism in the 1970s grew out of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He hopes a similar movement for Native Americans comes from the Black Lives Matter movement.
“What people find here is the story of America — it’s multidimensional, it’s complex,” Griffith said. “It’s important to understand it was people just trying to do right as best they knew it then.”
The White House declined to comment.
Former National security officials are questioning the White House's claim Trump never knew about a Russian bounty on US troops
Tom Porter
The White House on Saturday pushed back against the story, claiming that "neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence."
But former national security officials questions say that if this is true, it exposes huge failings in the Trump administration's national security apparatus and want to know why the president would have been kept in the dark.
After an explosive report claimed that a Russian military intelligence unit in Afghanistan offered a bounty to Taliban-linked militias to kill US and coalition soldiers, the questions critics want answers to is 'what did the president know', and 'why didn't he act?'
In a statement Saturday evening, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said that neither President Trump nor Vice President Mike Pence had been briefed on the intelligence.
The New York Times story on Friday claimed the president had been made aware of the matter in March, but chose not to act.
"The CIA Director, National Security Advisor, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence...The United States receives thousands of intelligence reports a day, and they are subject to strict scrutiny," McEnany said in a statement.
But former national security officials question the plausibility of the denial and say that even if true, it exposes huge failings in the Trump administration.
David Priess, a CIA agent during Bill Clinton and George W Bush's presidency, delivered the President's Daily Briefing to top intelligence officials after 9/11.
The briefing is a daily summary of plots and emerging threats to US national security across the globe.
In a thread on Twitter, he laid out the various possibilities, noting the White House was not disputing the truth of the intelligence. He concluded that if the president was not made aware of it constituted a failing by the national intelligence community. If he had, it represented a grave failing by the president himself.
—Office of the DNI (@ODNIgov) June 28, 2020
"Maybe the assessment was briefed only sub-POTUS because it was judged not to merit his attention. (This would be at odds with reporting just now by the same NYT trio—that it was, in fact, in the President's Daily Brief.) If so, shame on the system," he wrote.
—David Priess (@DavidPriess) June 28, 2020
"Maybe POTUS was, in fact, orally briefed on it—but White House officials have decided to lie about it, perhaps in a weak attempt to avoid the logical next question: Why hasn't the commander in chief responded to such a grave development? If so, shame on them. And on him."
Several Obama administration officials also expressed their alarm.
Susan Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, said that even if the denial were true, and the intelligence never made its way to the president, it would signal the incompetence of the Trump administration.
"I don't believe this for a minute, but if it were true, it means that Trump is not even pretending to serve as commander in chief. And no one around him has the guts to ask him to. More evidence of their deadly incompetence," she wrote, following the White House denial.
Her deputy at the time, Ben Rhodes, wrote: "In addition to being almost certainly a lie, the idea that Trump wouldn't be briefed on Russia putting a bounty on US troops is even crazier than him being briefed and doing nothing."
Asha Rangappa, a former CIA agent who works as an analyst for CNN, questioned why John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence, had not been fired if it was accurate that the president had not been apprised about the threat to the lives of US forces from an international adversary.
—Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) June 28, 2020
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on criticism of its statement Saturday.
The report has again raised questions about Trump's relationship with Russia, which has dogged him throughout his presidency.
As recently as May — about two months after sources told the Times he had been told of the Russian plot — Trump was calling for Russia to be reinstated into the G7, a meeting of the world's major economies from which Russia was excluded after the 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.
On Saturday, Trump's rival for the presidency, Democrat Joe Biden, accused Trump of betraying his duty as president.
"His entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale," Biden said during a virtual town hall Saturday. "It's a betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm's way. It's a betrayal of every single American family with a loved one serving in Afghanistan or anywhere overseas."
Tom Porter
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel and President Donald Trump attend the swearing-in ceremony for Haspel as CIA director at agency headquarters, May 21, 2018 in Langley, Virginia. Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Russia placed a bounty on the heads of US troops in Afghanistan, and Trump chose not to act after being briefed on the matter, according to a report Friday by The New York Times.
Russia placed a bounty on the heads of US troops in Afghanistan, and Trump chose not to act after being briefed on the matter, according to a report Friday by The New York Times.
The White House on Saturday pushed back against the story, claiming that "neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence."
But former national security officials questions say that if this is true, it exposes huge failings in the Trump administration's national security apparatus and want to know why the president would have been kept in the dark.
After an explosive report claimed that a Russian military intelligence unit in Afghanistan offered a bounty to Taliban-linked militias to kill US and coalition soldiers, the questions critics want answers to is 'what did the president know', and 'why didn't he act?'
In a statement Saturday evening, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said that neither President Trump nor Vice President Mike Pence had been briefed on the intelligence.
The New York Times story on Friday claimed the president had been made aware of the matter in March, but chose not to act.
"The CIA Director, National Security Advisor, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence...The United States receives thousands of intelligence reports a day, and they are subject to strict scrutiny," McEnany said in a statement.
But former national security officials question the plausibility of the denial and say that even if true, it exposes huge failings in the Trump administration.
David Priess, a CIA agent during Bill Clinton and George W Bush's presidency, delivered the President's Daily Briefing to top intelligence officials after 9/11.
The briefing is a daily summary of plots and emerging threats to US national security across the globe.
In a thread on Twitter, he laid out the various possibilities, noting the White House was not disputing the truth of the intelligence. He concluded that if the president was not made aware of it constituted a failing by the national intelligence community. If he had, it represented a grave failing by the president himself.
—Office of the DNI (@ODNIgov) June 28, 2020
"Maybe the assessment was briefed only sub-POTUS because it was judged not to merit his attention. (This would be at odds with reporting just now by the same NYT trio—that it was, in fact, in the President's Daily Brief.) If so, shame on the system," he wrote.
—David Priess (@DavidPriess) June 28, 2020
"Maybe POTUS was, in fact, orally briefed on it—but White House officials have decided to lie about it, perhaps in a weak attempt to avoid the logical next question: Why hasn't the commander in chief responded to such a grave development? If so, shame on them. And on him."
Several Obama administration officials also expressed their alarm.
Susan Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, said that even if the denial were true, and the intelligence never made its way to the president, it would signal the incompetence of the Trump administration.
"I don't believe this for a minute, but if it were true, it means that Trump is not even pretending to serve as commander in chief. And no one around him has the guts to ask him to. More evidence of their deadly incompetence," she wrote, following the White House denial.
Her deputy at the time, Ben Rhodes, wrote: "In addition to being almost certainly a lie, the idea that Trump wouldn't be briefed on Russia putting a bounty on US troops is even crazier than him being briefed and doing nothing."
Asha Rangappa, a former CIA agent who works as an analyst for CNN, questioned why John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence, had not been fired if it was accurate that the president had not been apprised about the threat to the lives of US forces from an international adversary.
—Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) June 28, 2020
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on criticism of its statement Saturday.
The report has again raised questions about Trump's relationship with Russia, which has dogged him throughout his presidency.
As recently as May — about two months after sources told the Times he had been told of the Russian plot — Trump was calling for Russia to be reinstated into the G7, a meeting of the world's major economies from which Russia was excluded after the 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.
On Saturday, Trump's rival for the presidency, Democrat Joe Biden, accused Trump of betraying his duty as president.
"His entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale," Biden said during a virtual town hall Saturday. "It's a betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm's way. It's a betrayal of every single American family with a loved one serving in Afghanistan or anywhere overseas."
Trump denies briefing on reported bounties against US troops
By LYNN BERRY and ZEKE MILLER
President Donald Trump pumps his fist as he walks on the South Lawn after arriving on Marine One at the White House, Thursday, June 25, 2020, in Washington. Trump is returning from Wisconsin. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
THE FASCIST FIST OF FRANCO AND THE FALANGE
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Sunday denied that he had been briefed on reported U.S. intelligence that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American troops in Afghanistan, and he appeared to minimize the allegations against Moscow.
American intelligence officials concluded months ago that Russian officials offered rewards for successful attacks on American service-members last year, at a time when the U.S. and Taliban were holding talks to end the long-running war, according to The New York Times.
Trump, in a Sunday morning tweet, said “Nobody briefed or told me” or Vice President Mike Pence or chief of staff Mark Meadows about “the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians.”
“Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us,” he said.
The White House had issued a statement Saturday denying that Trump or Pence had been briefed on such intelligence. “This does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter,” press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said.
Trump’s director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, also said neither the president nor vice president was “ever briefed on any intelligence alleged” in the Times’ report and he said the White House statement was “accurate.”
Trump’s tweet came a day after presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said that the report, if accurate, was a “truly shocking revelation” about the commander in chief and his failure to protect U.S. troops in Afghanistan and stand up to Russia.
Russia called the report “nonsense.”
“This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists of American intelligence, who instead of inventing something more plausible have to make up this nonsense,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
A Taliban spokesman said the militants “strongly reject this allegation” and are not “indebted to the beneficence of any intelligence organ or foreign country.”
John Bolton, a former national security adviser who was forced out by Trump last September and has now written a tell-all book about his time at the White House, said Sunday that “it it is pretty remarkable the president’s going out of his way to say he hasn’t heard anything about it, one asks, why would he do something like that?”
Bolton told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he thinks the answer “may be precisely because active Russian aggression like that against the American service members is a very, very serious matter and nothing’s been done about it, if it’s true, for these past four or five months, so it may look like he was negligent. But of course, he can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it.”
The Times, citing unnamed officials familiar with the intelligence, said the findings were presented to Trump and discussed by his National Security Council in late March. Officials developed potential responses, starting with a diplomatic complaint to Russia, but the White House has yet to authorize any step, the report said.
Trump responded to Biden on Twitter, saying “Russia ate his and Obama’s lunch during their time in office”
But it was the Obama administration, along with international allies, that suspended Russia from the Group of Eight after its unilateral annexation of Crimea from Ukraine — a move that drew widespread condemnation.
Biden criticized Trump for “his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself” before Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Trump tweeted that “Nobody’s been tougher” on Russia than his administration.
Trump denies being told about Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Sunday said he was never briefed about Russian efforts to pay bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan, blasting a New York Times report that he had been told about the rewards but had not acted to respond to Moscow.
The White House on Saturday also denied that Trump was briefed on U.S. intelligence regarding the affair but it did not address the merits of the intelligence. The Director of National Intelligence also said Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were not briefed, and called the Times report inaccurate.
“Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an ‘anonymous source’ by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us,” Trump tweeted, calling on the newspaper to reveal its source.
The Times on Friday reported that U.S. intelligence had concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit linked to assassination attempts in Europe had offered rewards for successful attacks last year on American and coalition soldiers, and that Islamist militants or those associated with them were believed to have collected some bounty money.
Russia’s foreign ministry dismissed the report.
Democrats said the report and Trump’s denial were the latest evidence of the president’s wish to ignore allegations against Russia and accommodate President Vladimir Putin.
“There is something very wrong here. But this must have an answer,” U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC’s “This Week” program.
“You would think, the minute the president heard of it, he would want to know more, instead of denying that he knew anything,” she said, adding that Trump has already given “gifts” to Putin by diminishing U.S. leadership in NATO, reducing U.S. forces in Germany and inviting Russia back into the G8.
Reporting by Susan Heavey and David Morgan; Editing by Alistair Bell
By LYNN BERRY and ZEKE MILLER
President Donald Trump pumps his fist as he walks on the South Lawn after arriving on Marine One at the White House, Thursday, June 25, 2020, in Washington. Trump is returning from Wisconsin. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
THE FASCIST FIST OF FRANCO AND THE FALANGE
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Sunday denied that he had been briefed on reported U.S. intelligence that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American troops in Afghanistan, and he appeared to minimize the allegations against Moscow.
American intelligence officials concluded months ago that Russian officials offered rewards for successful attacks on American service-members last year, at a time when the U.S. and Taliban were holding talks to end the long-running war, according to The New York Times.
Trump, in a Sunday morning tweet, said “Nobody briefed or told me” or Vice President Mike Pence or chief of staff Mark Meadows about “the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians.”
“Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us,” he said.
The White House had issued a statement Saturday denying that Trump or Pence had been briefed on such intelligence. “This does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter,” press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said.
Trump’s director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, also said neither the president nor vice president was “ever briefed on any intelligence alleged” in the Times’ report and he said the White House statement was “accurate.”
Trump’s tweet came a day after presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said that the report, if accurate, was a “truly shocking revelation” about the commander in chief and his failure to protect U.S. troops in Afghanistan and stand up to Russia.
Russia called the report “nonsense.”
“This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists of American intelligence, who instead of inventing something more plausible have to make up this nonsense,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
A Taliban spokesman said the militants “strongly reject this allegation” and are not “indebted to the beneficence of any intelligence organ or foreign country.”
John Bolton, a former national security adviser who was forced out by Trump last September and has now written a tell-all book about his time at the White House, said Sunday that “it it is pretty remarkable the president’s going out of his way to say he hasn’t heard anything about it, one asks, why would he do something like that?”
Bolton told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he thinks the answer “may be precisely because active Russian aggression like that against the American service members is a very, very serious matter and nothing’s been done about it, if it’s true, for these past four or five months, so it may look like he was negligent. But of course, he can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it.”
The Times, citing unnamed officials familiar with the intelligence, said the findings were presented to Trump and discussed by his National Security Council in late March. Officials developed potential responses, starting with a diplomatic complaint to Russia, but the White House has yet to authorize any step, the report said.
Trump responded to Biden on Twitter, saying “Russia ate his and Obama’s lunch during their time in office”
But it was the Obama administration, along with international allies, that suspended Russia from the Group of Eight after its unilateral annexation of Crimea from Ukraine — a move that drew widespread condemnation.
Biden criticized Trump for “his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself” before Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Trump tweeted that “Nobody’s been tougher” on Russia than his administration.
Trump denies being told about Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Sunday said he was never briefed about Russian efforts to pay bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan, blasting a New York Times report that he had been told about the rewards but had not acted to respond to Moscow.
The White House on Saturday also denied that Trump was briefed on U.S. intelligence regarding the affair but it did not address the merits of the intelligence. The Director of National Intelligence also said Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were not briefed, and called the Times report inaccurate.
“Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an ‘anonymous source’ by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us,” Trump tweeted, calling on the newspaper to reveal its source.
The Times on Friday reported that U.S. intelligence had concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit linked to assassination attempts in Europe had offered rewards for successful attacks last year on American and coalition soldiers, and that Islamist militants or those associated with them were believed to have collected some bounty money.
Russia’s foreign ministry dismissed the report.
Democrats said the report and Trump’s denial were the latest evidence of the president’s wish to ignore allegations against Russia and accommodate President Vladimir Putin.
“There is something very wrong here. But this must have an answer,” U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC’s “This Week” program.
“You would think, the minute the president heard of it, he would want to know more, instead of denying that he knew anything,” she said, adding that Trump has already given “gifts” to Putin by diminishing U.S. leadership in NATO, reducing U.S. forces in Germany and inviting Russia back into the G8.
Reporting by Susan Heavey and David Morgan; Editing by Alistair Bell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)