Datasets:

vattvar

/

capstone_test

like 0

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

“I said a long time ago that maybe I’ll be a sleeper on foreign policy,” Mr. Trump noted in a Saturday afternoon news conference in Osaka. Even a brief handshake meeting could also make sense for Mr. Kim, who many experts — and more than one senior Trump administration official — believe will never willingly give up his nuclear weapons. Mr. Kim’s meetings with Mr. Trump enhance his stature at home and help legitimize one of the world’s most notorious dictators and human-rights offenders. Mr. Kim may also be motivated by the American political calendar. “From Kim’s perspective, Trump is still the best possible president to make a deal with, since it is highly unlikely that the next U.S. president would put on the negotiating table big-ticket items that the North has always sought, such as a peace treaty,” said Sue Mi Terry, who served as a National Security Council aide specializing in Korean affairs under both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But another encounter could bring risks for both men. Mr. Kim was embarrassed by the breakdown of talks in Hanoi after he had taken a train journey of 70 hours to meet with Mr. Trump. Mr. Kim has said the United States must present “a new calculation” before he would return to formal talks. In his Saturday news conference, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he knew when he posted his invitation on Twitter that if Mr. Kim didn’t trek the approximately 100 miles from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang to the border, “everyone was going to say, ‘Oh, he got stood up.’” And even if Mr. Kim does show, Mr. Trump could face increased pressure to turn the personal rapport into tangible action. Trump’s latest foray into nuclear diplomacy with Mr. Kim comes just after the first anniversary of their initial summit meeting, last June in Singapore, where Mr. Kim made a vague commitment to denuclearization under an unspecified timeline.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

President Trump arrived Sunday for a meeting with South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in, with both leaders expected to address reporters afterward. Meanwhile, the prospect of Trump meeting later in the day with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the Demilitarized Zone remained a possibility. Trump told reporters prior to his session with Moon that logistical and security issues still had to be overcome to make a meeting with Kim possible -- but said he and Kim were hoping to meet face-to-face Sunday, if only for a handshake. TRUMP HEADS TO DMZ, DANGLING POSSIBILITY OF MEETING KIM AND CROSSING INTO NORTH KOREA "Let's see what happens,” Trump added. “They're trying to work it out." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Moon said such a meeting between Trump and Kim would be “a significant milestone” and a “historic event.” Trump will be traveling to the DMZ even if Kim is unable to be there. During his visit, he is expected to view some items from the Korean War era. The Associated Press contributed to this story.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image copyright Ian & Liesel Simmons Image caption Liesel Pritzker Simmons and husband Ian Simmons run an investment firm focussing on social enterprises Liesel Pritzker Simmons is fabulously wealthy. But this member of one of America's richest families is also uneasy about it. "It's time for us who are blessed with unusual financial success or luck to contribute more to our common good and common future," she told the BBC. "The best way that we in this fortunate bubble can contribute is that we want to be taxed more." Ms Pritzker Simmons accepts it's a rather unorthodox view. But this week she, and 17 other super-rich individuals, set out their reasons in an open letter.. America's economic and social ills have created a crisis for the young, the poor, and the environment, they said. We don't have all the answers, but we can help: Impose a wealth tax on us - it's our moral and patriotic duty to hand over a bigger slice of our fortunes. With her husband Ian, an heir to a family fortune himself, they discussed going public with people they knew held similar concerns. Investor George Soros, Facebook's co-founder Chris Hughes, and Disney heiress Abigail Disney, were among those signing up. "There could have been more", Mr Simmons said. "We just wanted to pull in enough names to get the conversation going." They are not wedded to a particular proposal, but one suggestion was this: Add a tax of two cents per dollar on assets after a $50m exemption, and one cent per dollar tax on assets above $1bn. It would generate nearly $3tn in revenue over ten years, they said. Newspaper columnists and Twitter's angry brigade came out in force to criticise and mock this "billionaires club with a conscience" and bunch of privileged misguided do-gooders. 'Don't be afraid of us' "This is an uncomfortable conversation. We recognise that," said Ms Pritzker Simmons, whose family built their fortune on the Hyatt hotel group. She's no desire to become a campaigning figurehead. Nor are any of them after a "pat on the back". Anyway, she's had her share of headlines already, starting as a celebrated child actor in the Oscar-winning A Little Princess and then as the daughter to Harrison Ford's US President in Air Force One. (A young Jodie Foster, he called her). Image copyright Twitter There was then a bitter court battle in which she successfully sued the family estate over her inheritance, reportedly securing $500m. Now 35 years old, she describes herself as "quite a private person", running an investment firm with her husband that focuses on social and environmental enterprises. So why go public now? The idea of a wealth tax is gaining credence in the Democratic Party, and with the presidential debates underway it was felt now was the time to intervene. Ms Pritzker Simmons said: "We just wanted to go on the record and say: please don't be timid about tax reform because you're afraid that this class of people is going to get upset. "There's a healthy group of us who absolutely are in favour of it [a wealth tax], and we wanted to make that really clear to politicians and future politicians, as well as the American people." In recent years, members of the mega-rich class have individually voiced worries about the wealth imbalance, including Warren Buffett. But the signatories hope their letter will prompt a group momentum. Already the Swiss-born US-based billionaire Hansjoerg Wyss has added his name to the letter, and the property and insurance magnate Eli Broad has written of his support. Fixing the system But they are not going unchallenged. Conservative US television talk show host Laura Ingraham was among the first out the blocks with a tweet that summed up the counter-view of many. "If these billionaires think they pay too little in taxes, why not just send more money to the IRS? Or are they not smart enough to figure that out?" she tweeted her near-three million followers. That misses the point, says Mr Simmons, 44. Writing a cheque to the Treasury is just philanthropy, and you can't address the challenges facing society based on the whim of rich people giving money away. Image copyright WireImage Image caption A young Liesel Matthews (her stage name) with Air Force One co-stars Harrison Ford and Wendy Crewson "I don't think philanthropy is going to fix systemic wealth inequality, and nor do most economists who study inequality," he said. He's not dismissing philanthropy. He and his wife do their bit. "But the good intentions of the few are not a substitute for good rules for everyone. Having a few of us write a few more cheques to the Treasury is not going to create universal childcare or take a revolutionary approach to the climate crisis or retire student debt." Nor do they want the extra money ring-fenced for specific projects. "It's up to our government - that's what tax is for," Ms Pritzker Simmons said. "There are things that I personally care about, but [ring-fencing] betrays the purpose of a tax that benefits everybody." She's convinced they're tapping into a new mood among voters: "We've watched a couple of generations of trickle-down economics, and it's not working. There is a change in mood, but it's based on solid data that shows things are not working." Donald Trump - who once proposed a one-off wealth tax to tackle America's debt - points to Wall Street's record-breaking stock markets as evidence things are, in fact, working. "It's not a very compelling argument to the half of Americans who have absolutely no exposure to the stock market," she said. She says voters - Republican and Democrat - are increasingly demanding action, which is why people who say Congress would never pass a wealth tax are wrong. And while the rich can hide or undervalue assets, that's not an argument for doing nothing. As she puts it: "Are you really going to leave 50 cents on the table because you can't get the dollar." America's top tier is not going to suffer after paying a bit more into the system, she said. "We will continue to have an incredibly fortunate life. If this [a wealth tax] is considered a hardship, then I think we're pretty lucky."

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image copyright Getty Images In a tiny room on the edge of a nondescript building complex sits an unlikely participant in Hong Kong's protest movement. Behind his laptop computer, Tony (not his real name) monitors scores of groups on private messaging app Telegram and online forums. Organisers say volunteers like Tony are running hundreds of Telegram groups that are powering Hong Kong's protest turned civil disobedience campaign. They claim that more than two million people have taken to the streets in recent weeks to express opposition to a controversial extradition law. Hong Kong has experienced a series of mass rallies against the proposed law, which critics fear could spell an end to its judicial independence. Protestors expect a large turnout on 1 July, the anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China. Real-time voting Many of the calls to protest are made anonymously, on message boards and in group chats on encrypted messaging apps. Some groups have up to 70,000 active subscribers, representing about 1% of Hong Kong's entire population. Many provide updates and first-hand reports relating to the protests, while others act as a crowdsourced lookout for police, warning protestors of nearby activity. There are also smaller groups made up of lawyers, first aiders and medics. They provide legal advice and get supplies to protesters on the front lines. Demonstrators say the online co-ordination of protests offers a convenient and instant way to disseminate information. The chat groups also let participants vote - in real time - to decide the next moves. Image caption Votes are held in anonymous Telegram groups. In this one, 61% voted to "return" and 39% said "police station" "They tend to only work when the choices are few or obvious. They do work when the situation lends itself to a black and white vote," Tony explains. On the evening of 21 June, close to 4,000 protesters voted in a Telegram group to determine whether the crowd would return home in the evening or continue to protest outside Hong Kong's police headquarters. Only 39% voted to take the protests to the police headquarters - but there was still a six-hour siege of the building. Other apps and services have also helped the protesters organise their activity. In public areas, posters and banners advertising forthcoming events are spread over Airdrop, which lets people share files with nearby iPhones and iPads. This week, a group of anonymous activists raised more than half a million dollars on a crowdfunding website. They plan to place advertisements in international newspapers calling for Hong Kong's extradition bill to be discussed at the G20 summit. The demonstrators say technology has made this a leaderless protest movement. Hidden identity "The deeper cause is a result of the distrust towards the authorities," said Prof Edmund Cheng, from Hong Kong Baptist University. "Many protest leaders in the Umbrella Movement have been prosecuted and imprisoned," he said, referring to pro-democracy protests in 2014. In April this year, nine leaders of those protests were found guilty of inciting others to cause a public nuisance. "There are several potential charges you could be facing if you were to participate with an obvious organised movement or protest," says Tony. Image copyright EPA / getty images Many of Hong Kong's protesters go to great lengths to avoid leaving a digital footprint. "We are just using cash, we don't even use ATMs during the protest," says Johnny, a 25-year old who has been attending demonstrations with his partner. He uses an old mobile phone and fresh Sim card each time he attends a protest. Another group administrator - who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals - said some people use multiple accounts to hide their online footprint. "Some of us have three or four phones, an iPad, desktops and notebooks. One person can control five or six accounts. People won't know they are the same person and also multiple people use one account," they told the BBC. Protection Tony believes that decision-making via group votes could protect individuals from charges. He argues chat group administrators have no affiliation to political parties and have no control over what members post in their groups. "The government is not going to arrest every single participant in this movement. It is not feasible to do so," he says. But he recognises that law enforcement may pursue other avenues. "They will pick influential targets or opinion leaders and make an example of them so that they could warn off the other participants." On 12 June, one administrator of a Telegram group was arrested for allegedly conspiring with others to storm Hong Kong's law-making complex and barricade the surrounding roads. "They want to let others know that even if you hide on the internet they may still come to arrest you in your home," said Bond Ng, a Hong Kong lawyer who represents several arrested protesters.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption Wales currently has no unicorn firms, with most being based in London Wales could have tech "unicorns" if it develops and attracts digital talent and the right level of investment, according to a top business expert. Britain is one of the best places for $1bn technology start-ups, or unicorns, but none are currently in Wales. Prof Dylan Jones-Evans said having unicorns would help brand the nation as a place where such businesses can grow. Welsh ministers said they were focusing on "creating the right conditions for businesses of all sizes to thrive". Research shows Britain has produced 72 tech unicorns over 20 years, including 13 in the last year. Most are in London with hubs in Oxford, Bristol, Edinburgh, Leeds, Manchester and Cambridge, none were listed in Wales. Prof Jones-Evans, Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of South Wales, said attracting sufficient capital and skills was a big issue for "peripheral economies" like Wales. "London has become a particular hotspot for financial technology, or FinTech companies, mainly around the city of London because the demand is there for this type of disruptive technology, that can make a real difference to the market place. And also there's a lot of capital in London at this time. "And now, because of the situation where you have lots of the companies, Google and Microsoft and other major companies going there, they can attract a certain type of individual who can actually create these kind of businesses that may hopefully grow into unicorns based on the disruptive technology they develop." Image caption Dylan Jones-Evans: "You need to attract an enormous amount of investment" Prof Jones-Evans said, however, that over the last five years Cardiff has been recognised by the UK entrepreneur network Tech Nation as being a future hotspot, particularly for digital and financial technologies companies. "At the moment I would say there are probably three or four companies in Wales. 'If, and that's always a big if, because remember these are uber-growth companies that are a very small part of the population, if everything goes well for them they could become unicorns in the future." Cardiff-based business intelligence and research firm AMPLYFI has been tipped to become one of Wales' first unicorns. It started in 2015, offering innovative products, such as surface and deep web search engines, to global customers and it is now set to reach a turnover of £130m in the next four years. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Wales is home to some of the most innovative tech firms in the world, say Welsh ministers Prof Jones-Evans said that to grow "world class businesses" into unicorns "you need to be in a position where you can attract an enormous amount of investment" and attract and develop "digitally skilled individuals". "Wales can't do that on its own, it has to have a far more liberal immigration policy than we have now and one that it is targeted at attracting those people. That's what every investor and every entrepreneur in this field says. We need the talent." "And the second thing is the finance. We have a Development Bank of Wales that has been going for 18 months. "The key for the Development Bank is that, clearly, it can help to take companies up to a certain level, but when you need major equity or venture capital investment we still do not have that in Wales. "I think there's a role for organisations such as the British Business Bank, to say rather than concentrating as they do the majority of investment of the south east of England when it comes to venture capital or equity, they should be looking to places like Wales, Northern Ireland and the north east of England that really don't have that base or venture capital to grow unicorns over time, and to actually make sure that that public investment goes into those regions." 'No apology' Wales Economy Minister Ken Skates said: "Wales is home to some of the most innovative and highly regarded tech, cyber, fintech and semiconductor companies in the world and we can be rightly proud of the business environment and skills we continue to nurture and attract here. "We are bucking the trend too, with leading research group Beauhurst recently identifying that Wales had the highest number of investments on record over the past year, whilst equity deals in the UK had dropped. "We make no apology for focusing, through our Economic Action Plan, on creating the right conditions for businesses of all sizes to thrive in Wales." A UK government spokesperson said: "Through our modern Industrial Strategy, we've driven £50m into Wales to boost game-changing research and innovation, while the British Business Bank is currently supporting £341m of finance for nearly 3,000 Welsh businesses. "The Development Bank of Wales has done an excellent job at building strong relationships with local tech incubators, universities, business angels and venture capital funds, and the British Business Bank is developing similar networks across the whole of the UK, including Wales. "These strong local networks of research, innovation and investment mean that the UK remains the location of choice for world-beating unicorn companies." Sunday Politics Wales is broadcast on BBC One Wales on 30 June at 11:00 BST. Watch later on iPlayer.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Polygraph machines measure bodily responses associated with lying The producers of ITV's Jeremy Kyle Show have been labelled as "irresponsible" after admitting that lie detector tests used on the show were "not 100% accurate". Speaking at a parliamentary inquiry launched after the death of a participant who failed a test on the show, the channel's chief executive Dame Carolyn McCall said they would not make any similar series involving lie detectors in the future. What are lie detectors? Lie detectors - or polygraphs - measure a number of bodily responses, such as blood pressure or sweaty palms, to detect traits associated with lying. Advocates claim that when carried out by professionals in the right conditions, the accuracy is estimated to be between 80 and 90%. But the American Psychological Association advises that people should "remain sceptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph". No-one claims the tests are 100% accurate, but lie detectors can be and are used in the UK. Who uses lie detector tests? The most high-profile use in the UK is by the probation service. The option to use lie detector tests on serious sex offenders on parole in England and Wales has been in place since 2007 but, since 2014, mandatory tests can be attached to an offender's release conditions. It came after Ministry of Justice research showed that sex offenders taking a test were twice as likely to admit breaching release conditions when a polygraph was used. If a sex offender fails a lie detector test, it is "not conclusive proof that the individual is lying", but it could lead to further investigation or supervision. In February 2018, the Ministry of Justice said that, since the tests had been introduced, 166 sex offenders had been returned to jail after polygraphs flagged concerns about their behaviour and had then faced further investigations. Around 50 people were being tested each month. Similar measures are currently being considered for released domestic abuse offenders in England and Wales as part of the Domestic Abuse Bill. At the beginning of the year, a former chief of UK immigration enforcement said polygraphs should also be used to spot "signs of deception" by some asylum seekers, but the Home Office rejected the idea. Probation services and police forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland currently do not use lie detectors Can lie detector results be used as evidence? Once a polygraph test is taken, the results cannot be used in the courts to prove a case in the UK, says Ian Kelcey, a criminal law solicitor. "It is not admissible in this country as evidence. Some states in America allow them, but you're never going to get it admitted here." Police can use polygraphs to assist investigations and monitor certain high-risk individuals. Currently, seven police forces in England and Wales use them with existing sex offenders and occasionally suspects, but this remains voluntary. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Lie detector results cannot be used in criminal court proceedings Michelle Skeer, the National Police Chiefs' Council's lead on managing sexual offenders, said: "Work is currently ongoing to understand the benefits of polygraph within policing and whether its use could be expanded in the future. Findings from this research will be evaluated this year. "Any continued use of polygraph or its expansion will be done with due oversight." Can employers use lie detectors? Employers are allowed to offer a lie detector test to staff, but again this must always be optional. Elizabeth Maxwell, an employment law specialist, says that a lack of regulation or a universal standard makes their use uncharted territory. "An employer could use it, but it would come down to whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting gross misconduct and ensuring a fair procedure was followed. "Polygraph results could be used [in tribunals], but are generally used to settle disputes before they reach this stage. If they do go further, it would be up to a judge to decide whether it's admissible." Refusal to do one should not be used solely as evidence of an employee's guilt, as this is likely to be considered unfair, but it can form part of a case against an individual. What claims do you want BBC Reality Check to investigate? Get in touch Read more from Reality Check Follow us on Twitter

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

At a press conference Saturday, President Donald Trump appeared to be confounded by the terms school “busing” and Western-style democratic “liberalism” that was attacked by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Asked about the Russian leader’s attack, Trump thought Putin was criticizing “liberals” and he started to rant about California — Los Angeles and San Francisco in particular. Trump also talked around two questions about busing from reporters in Osaka as the G-20 Summit in Japan wrapped up. He seemed to think it referred to merely the “primary method of getting people to schools.” He failed to address the issue of busing children to other districts beginning in the 1970s to desegregate American classrooms. NBC News’ Kristen Welker asked if he believed busing was a “viable way of integrating schools.” “Well, it has been something that they’ve done for a long period of time,” Trump vaguely responded. “I mean, you know, there aren’t that many ways you’re going to get people to schools. So this is something that’s been done ... it is certainly a primary method of getting people to schools.” Trump on busing: “It is certainly a primary method of getting people to schools.” pic.twitter.com/ersbSr6mj1 — Josh Billinson (@jbillinson) June 29, 2019 The issue was raised earlier when he was asked to comment about a heated disagreement at the Democratic primary debate Thursday between Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). Biden opposed federally mandated busing to desegregate schools, while Harris pointed out that she was a beneficiary of busing as a child. Trump responded to that question with a mysterious reference to a “certain policy” that “I will tell you in about four weeks.” It’s “going to be very interesting and very surprising, I think, to a lot of people,” he added. He offered no other details. The president was also asked to respond to Putin’s remarks that the democratic liberalism of the western world — which involves things like free speech, voting and the freedom of the individual — is obsolete. Trump apparently thought Putin was talking about California Democrats. “He sees what’s going on — I guess if you look at what’s happening in Los Angeles, where it’s so sad to look, and what’s happening in San Francisco and a couple of other cities, which are run by an extraordinary group of liberal people,” he responded. “I don’t know what they’re thinking.” Trump closes the news conference by acknowledging Putin has a point when he says that western-style liberalism is obsolete, citing "what's happening in Los Angeles, where it's so sad to look," and adds that "at a certain point, I think the federal govt maybe has to get involved" pic.twitter.com/WZ7TWOA45w — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 29, 2019 Even Trump’s critics were taken aback by his comments. Lawyer George Conway, husband of senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, called his answers “completely bizarre,” and wondered if the president was “breathtakingly ignorant” or his answers were a sign of “cognitive decline.” The Washington Post headlined that Trump’s “apparent ignorance of basic political terms” was on display overseas. Putin told The Financial Times in an interview on Thursday that Western democratic values such as multiculturalism, open borders and social tolerance were no longer accepted by most people, and had “outlived their purpose.” He also attacked gender nonconformity. He praised Trump for responding to voters who reject those values. Boris Johnson, who may be the next prime minister of the UK, called Putin “totally wrong ” in his assessment. “Our values, freedom and democracy, the rule of law, free speech, those things are imperishable and they will succeed,” he said. Outgoing British Prime Minister Theresa May responded with a statement saying that the UK “would continue to unequivocally defend liberal democracy and protect the human rights and equality of all groups, including LGBT people.” OMG- so trump has no idea what busing actually was and thinks he is working on busing policy now.... ok then. #stablegenius 😱😱😱 — Martina Navratilova (@Martina) June 29, 2019 If you're shocked that Trump thinks "western-style liberalism" is a reference to California Democrats and "busing" is just about school buses in general, remember that he has repeatedly stated that stealth planes are literally invisible to the human eye. https://t.co/RjptGBnHDZ — Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) June 29, 2019 Trump thinks stealth planes are literally invisible "It is stealth, you can't see it. It is real hard to beat something when you can't see it." pic.twitter.com/1QON7Do7fa — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 29, 2019

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is open to President Trump meeting with Kim Jong Un a third time. Graham told Margaret Brennan on "Face The Nation" that "there's no downside to keep trying" for denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Mr. Trump issued a tweet on Saturday in hopes of meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for a handshake at the Demilitarized Zone. North Korea responded by calling the invitation a "very interesting suggestion" but said they hadn't received an official proposal. "They haven't exploded a bomb. They haven't tested any [intercontinental ballistic missiles] in quite a while," Graham said. The last time North Korea was known to have tested ICBMs was in 2017. "So, I would encourage the president to keep talking," Graham continued. "But the point is to get irreversible, verifiable denuclearization of the [Korean] peninsula. That's the goal." Mr. Trump's February meeting with Kim in Vietnam ended early and without progress — a setback from the 2018 Singapore summit at which both sides agreed to work towards denuclearization of the North. Graham remains optimistic, so long as the president believes an ongoing discussion is worth pursuing. "If Trump thinks he can do this by continue to engage Kim Jong Un, let's give it a try," Graham said.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham warned people to "underestimate Joe Biden at your own peril." But Graham told "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan that Biden has "got to up his game" before the next Democratic debate. Graham, who is a longtime friend of Biden's and served in the Senate with him for six years, also predicted that Kamala Harris will be a "force to be reckoned with." Harris delivered a blow to Biden on the second night of the first debates when she criticized his recent comments about working with segregationist senators, along with Biden's opposition in the 1970s to federally mandated busing. Harris started out her remarks by saying "I don't believe you are a racist," but said "it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and careers on the segregation of race in this country." When confronted by Harris, Biden said she mischaracterized his position. Graham said: "Anybody that knows Joe Biden, there's not a racist bone in his body." "But the narrative is that maybe it's not his time and that he's not up to the task," Graham said. "The policy options being presented to the country by the leading contenders on the Democratic side are their biggest problem. Pretty liberal, pretty extreme. But when it comes to Joe Biden, I think the next debate, he's got to change the narrative." Graham went on to compliment Harris saying: "She's got game. She is very talented, she's very smart and she'll be a force to be reckoned with."

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

The world’s leaders have pushed social media giants to root out terrorism and violent extremist content to protect everyone using the internet. The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, earned a significant victory at the G20 summit by convincing all leaders of the world’s major economies to agree to take action, inspired by the live-streamed Christchurch massacre. “We urge online platforms to step up the ambition and pace of their efforts to prevent terrorist and VECT (violent extremism conducive to terrorism) content from being streamed, uploaded, or re-uploaded,” the statement released on Saturday said. Trade wars, tweets and western liberalism: G20 summit wraps up in Osaka Read more “We issue this statement to raise the bar of expectation for online platforms to do their part.” Morrison said the consensus position from G20 leaders sent a clear message to technology companies. “The impetus of this is to say to the companies, you have the technology, you have the innovation, you have the resources, and now you have the clear communicated will of the world’s leaders to get this right,” he told reporters in Osaka. Morrison was persuaded by the March attack in New Zealand – when an Australian man allegedly killed 51 Muslims at two mosques and wounded dozens more – to push for a global crackdown. It’s hoped the G20 statement will now give leaders the political support to enact individual initiatives in their own countries. “Global leadership, domestic action: it’s now up to them to take their actions to protect not only Australian citizens but citizens all around the world from the internet being used in this way,” Morrison said. Australia’s laws have been held up as the gold standard for others to follow. The Coalition government, with the help of Labor, passed laws just before the federal election to make it a criminal offence for companies not to take down videos that show abhorrent violent content. Australia passes social media law penalising platforms for violent content Read more Morrison also said he would share with G20 leaders the recommendations from a taskforce of major digital platforms and Australian internet service providers which has looked at how to better control live-streaming and stop the spread of terrorist content. Australia’s move received strong support from Canada’s Justin Trudeau, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, and the European Union. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the UK prime minister, Theresa May, also spoke in support of the initiative. It is understood the US was concerned asking social media companies to halt the publication of such content would constitute censorship, but ultimately signed on after language in the statement was tempered.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

(CNN) President Donald Trump was met quite literally by K-pop star power when he landed in South Korea on Saturday. Trump traveled to Seoul to meet with President Moon Jae-in on the final day of the G20 Summit. When he arrived at the Blue House, the South Korean presidential office, Moon brought along the K-pop group EXO to welcome him. Members of the Korean-Chinese group gave Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, signed copies of their fifth album, "Love Shot." Members of K-pop band EXO stand while President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and South Korean President Moon Jae-in wait at the presidential Blue House in Seoul on Saturday, June 29. Trump, Moon and the group were joined for a photo by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner and South Korean officials. Trump tweeted Saturday that his meeting with Moon to discuss a revised trade deal went "very well" and he outlined his plans to visit US troops stationed in the country. Read More

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

After days of speculation -- and optimistic statements by the two leaders -- President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met and shook hands Sunday at the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea. It was their first face-to-face meeting since an ill-fated summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, in February. Trump arrived at the DMZ shortly before 2 a.m. Eastern U.S. time, accompanied by South Korean President Moon Jae-in. They were shown awaiting Kim's arrival, along with South Korean military members and other officials. But before the meeting with Kim was expected to begin, Trump met with some military members and others and was expected to review some relics from the Korean War era. "We're with you all the way," Trump told the service members, who included both U.S. troops stationed in South Korea as well as South Korean forces. Finally around 2:40 a.m. ET, the two leaders spotted one another from a short distance apart, then walked toward one another. They met, shook hands, then briefly walked across the border into North Korea before crossing back to the DMZ. Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to step foot inside the Hermit Kingdom. "I was proud to step over the line," Trump told Kim later, inside the Freedom House on the South Korea side, according to the Associated Press. "It is a great day for the world." Kim appeared pleased by the meeting, the report said. "I believe this is an expression of his willingness to eliminate all the unfortunate past and open a new future," Kim said of Trump, according to the AP. He added that he was "surprised" when Trump extended the invitation on Saturday. "I believe this is an expression of [President Trump's] willingness to eliminate all the unfortunate past and open a new future." — Kim Jong Un, North Korean leader TRUMP HEADS TO DMZ, DANGLING POSSIBILITY OF MEETING KIM AND CROSSING INTO NORTH KOREA Earlier, while taking in the view from Observation Post Ouellette at the DMZ before meeting with Kim, Trump told reporters that there has been "tremendous" improvement in U.S.-North Korea relations since the first summit with Kim in Singapore last June. Later, Trump said he would invite Kim to visit the U.S., and possibly the White House. "I would invite him right now," Trump said, according to the AP. Kim, speaking through a translator, said he would invite Trump to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, "at the right time." It was Trump's first visit to the DMZ, which every president since Ronald Reagan -- except for President George H.W. Bush -- has toured during their time in office, according to the Associated Press. But the elder Bush, who died last year, visited the DMZ while serving as vice president under Reagan, the AP reported. Earlier Sunday, Moon told reporters that Kim had agreed to meet with Trump. The confirmation came at a joint news conference between Moon and Trump following their brief meeting in Seoul. "President Trump is the maker of peace in the Korean Peninsula," Moon said in announcing the plan. "President Trump is the maker of peace in the Korean Peninsula." — South Korean President Moon Jae-in Prior to the news conference, both Trump and Kim had expressed hopes that the meeting would be possible. But Trump said earlier Sunday that logistical and security issues still needed to be addressed. At the news conference, Moon told reporters that Kim had accepted Trump's invitation to meet at the DMZ, the heavily fortified site at the Korean border village of Panmunjom. Trump also offered to be the first U.S. president to step into North Korea. Trump told reporters he was looking forward to the meeting with Kim, which would follow their previous summits -- at Singapore last June and in Hanoi in February. Nonetheless, Trump downplayed the significance of the meeting, saying it would be "just a step" in trying to repair the relationship between the U.S. and North Korea and move toward a U.S. goal of nuclear disarmament on the Korean Peninsula. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Trump is in South Korea visiting Moon after attending the G-20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, where he met with the leaders of China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, among others. This is a developing story. Check back for updates. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

After days of speculation -- and optimistic statements by the two leaders -- President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will meet Sunday at the Demilitarized Zone. The confirmation came from South Korean President Moon Jae-in at a joint news conference with President Trump following their brief meeting in Seoul. "President Trump is the maker of peace in the Korean Peninsula," Moon said in announcing the plan. TRUMP HEADS TO DMZ, DANGLING POSSIBILITY OF MEETING KIM AND CROSSING INTO NORTH KOREA "President Trump is the maker of peace in the Korean Peninsula." — South Korean President Moon Jae-in Prior to the news conference, both Trump and Kim had expressed hopes that the meeting would be possible. But Trump said earlier Sunday that logistical and security issues still needed to be addressed. At the news conference, Moon told reporters that Kim had accepted Trump's invitation to meet at the DMZ, the heavily fortified site at the Korean border village of Panmunjom. Trump also offered to be the first U.S. president to step into North Korea. Trump told reporters he was looking forward to the meeting with Kim, which would follow their previous summits -- at Singapore last June and in Hanoi in February. Nonetheless, Trump downplayed the significance of the meeting, saying it would be "just a step" in trying to repair the relationship between the U.S. and North Korea and move toward a U.S. goal of nuclear disarmament on the Korean Peninsula. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Trump is in South Korea visiting Moon after attending the G-20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, where he met with the leaders of China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, among others. This is a developing story. Check back for updates. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Vladimir Putin says deal due to expire on Sunday will be extended by six to nine months Russia has agreed with Saudi Arabia to extend by six to nine months a deal with Opec on reducing oil output, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said, as oil prices come under renewed pressure from rising US supplies and a slowing global economy. The Saudi energy minister, Khalid al-Falih, said on Sunday that the deal would most likely be extended by nine months and no deeper reductions were needed. Putin, speaking after talks with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, told a news conference the deal – which is due to expire on Sunday – would be extended in its current form and with the same volumes. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Russia and other producers, an alliance known as Opec+, meet on July 1-2 to discuss the deal, which involves curbing oil output by 1.2 million barrels per day. Opec weighs up the risks if Russia goes it alone on prices Read more The United States, the world’s largest oil producer ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia, is not participating in the pact. “We will support the extension, both Russia and Saudi Arabia. As far as the length of the extension is concerned, we have yet to decide whether it will be six or nine months. Maybe it will be nine months,” said Putin, who met the crown prince on the sidelines of a G20 summit in Japan. Falih, arriving in Vienna for the Opec+ talks, told reporters when asked about Saudi preferences: “I think most likely a nine-month extension.” Asked about a deeper cut, Falih said: “I don’t think the market needs that.” “Demand is softening a little bit but I think it’s still healthy,” the Saudi minister said, adding that he expected the market to balance in the next six to nine months. A nine-month extension would mean the deal runs out in March 2020. Russia’s consent means the Opec+ group may have a smooth meeting if Opec’s third-largest producer, Iran, also endorses the arrangement. New US sanctions on Iran have reduced its exports to a trickle as Washington seeks to change what it calls a “corrupt” regime in Tehran. Iran has denounced the sanctions as illegal and says the White House is run by “mentally retarded” people. Kirill Dmitriev, chief executive of the Russian Direct Investment Fund who helped design the Opec-Russia deal, said the pact in place since 2017 had lifted Russian budget revenues by more than 7 trillion roubles ($110 bn). Forget Putin’s ‘liberalism’ jibe. This man runs a war machine | Natalie Nougayrède Read more “The strategic partnership within Opec+ has led to the stabilisation of oil markets and allows both to reduce and increase production depending on the market demand conditions, which contributes to the predictability and growth of investments in the industry,” Dmitriev said. Benchmark Brent crude has climbed more than 25% since the start of 2019. But prices could stall as a slowing global economy squeezes demand and US oil floods the market, a Reuters poll of analysts found. Falih said the new deal would help reduce global oil stocks, balance the market and spur investments in future energy supplies. “The agreement confirms that the Saudi-Russian partnership paved the way to guarantee the interest of producers and consumers and the continued growth of the global economy,” Falih tweeted. That Russia and Saudi Arabia effectively announced the deal before the Opec gatherings will likely anger smaller members of the organisation, who feel sidelined. “Who needs an Opec meeting?,” one delegate said after learning about the headlines from the Russia-Saudi talks. Some delegates said Iran might still put up a fight on Monday. Russia’s energy minister, Alexander Novak, said he believed most Opec members, including Iran, have already expressed support to extend the output-cutting deal. He said it may be wise to extend the agreement by nine rather than six months to avoid raising output during weak seasonal demand. “It might make sense to keep the deal in place during the winter period,” he told reporters.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Video After months of peaceful protest, Omar al-Bashir was ousted as Sudan's president in April. But on 3 June the country's security forces opened fire on demonstrators in Khartoum as they called for a civilian administration. Doctors said more than 120 people were killed. The authorities said 61 died. The bloody crackdown left Sudan's streets quiet - until now. Produced and filmed by Charlotte Pamment and Efrem Gebreab

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Protesters gathered in Madrid, furious at the suspension of an anti-pollution plan Thousands of protesters flooded the streets of Madrid on Saturday to oppose the newly elected conservative mayor's decision to reverse car pollution restrictions. The People's Party-run city hall has provoked an outcry by suspending a ban on most petrol and diesel cars in Madrid's centre. The policy aimed to ensure the city complied with the EU's clean air rules. Fines were levied on drivers who broke the rules. But PP mayor José Luis Martínez-Almeida, who took office on 15 June, has shelved the scheme, introduced last November by Madrid's former left-wing mayor. The new mayor has been backed by other parties, including centrist Ciudadanos and the far-right VOX. They oppose the plan, known as "Madrid Central". In heatwave conditions, demonstrators thronged the streets of the Spanish capital on Saturday, calling on the mayor to reinstate the ban. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Madrid's People's Party-run government has suspended the "Madrid Central" plan Image copyright Reuters Image caption Protesters held up placards at the march in Madrid's city centre Some protesters chanted, "yes we can, I do want Madrid central". Others waved placards and banners, including one containing the message "I want to breathe free". Mariano Sánchez Bayle, a retired paediatrician, told Spanish newspaper El País he was marching to "defend the population" from pollution. "Pollution is one of the most important health problems now," he said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Nitrogen dioxide air pollution 5-10 January (sequence is played twice) "We have to save [the planet] starting at the local and small level, the first thing is Madrid's centre," actress Laura Martin, 39, told Reuters news agency. She fears Madrid's new mayor may seek to weaken environmental regulations. Madrid's scheme mirrored those of other European cities such as London, Stockholm and Milan, whose governments are ramping up anti-pollution efforts as evidence of the harmful effects of vehicle emissions grows. Under the plan, certain petrol and diesel cars were prohibited from entering a restricted area of around five sq km (two sq miles). Drivers were fined €90 (£80) if they did so. Image copyright Madrid City Council Research by environmental groups suggests the plan has reduced air pollution levels to historic lows. A report by Ecologists in Action found that in May levels of nitrogen dioxide - a pollutant emitted by vehicles - reached the lowest level since records began in 2010. But despite the reported success of the scheme, Mr Martínez-Almeida vowed to reverse the restrictions after his election win. From 1 July, the restrictions will be lifted while Mr Martínez-Almeida's government reviews the plan to make it "compatible with citizens' mobility needs". The European Commission has warned Madrid it faces sanctions if it fails to meet air quality standards.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

US President Donald Trump says he agreed with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to restart talks after nuclear negotiations stalled earlier this year. “We just had a very, very good meeting with Chairman Kim,” Trump told reporters after parting with Kim at the Korean border. “We’ve agreed that we’re each going to designate a team. The teams will try to work out some details,” he said. The US team would be led by the current US special representative for North Korea, Stephen Biegun, said Trump, adding, "Good luck, Steve." Trump said the teams would begin working and meeting over the next two to three weeks, but insisted he wasn’t looking to rush into an agreement. “Speed is not the object,” Trump said. “Nobody knows how things turn out.” Watch Trump's remarks here:

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper disputed President Donald Trump’s claim that President Barack Obama wanted to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Clapper, appearing Sunday on CNN’s "State of the Union," said that Trump stepping into North Korea is a “great historic moment” but said he personally does not believe the North Koreans have long-term any intent to denuclearize. "I think it's a great historic moment ... and it's the first time a sitting president ever set foot in North Korea," Clapper, now a CNN national security analyst, told CNN's Brianna Keilar when asked if it was a breakthrough moment in US-North Korea relations. "I think when it comes to the hard business of negotiating here, I think that's another story. I personally don't believe the North Koreans have long term any intent to denuclearize." Clapper questioned why North Korea would denuclearize. "Why should they," he said. "It's their ticket to survival." Clapper looked puzzled after watching a clip of Trump saying that the Obama administration begged for a meeting with Kim. "In all the deliberations that I participated in on North Korea during the Obama administration, I can recall no instance whatever where President Obama ever indicated any interest whatsoever in meeting with Chairman Kim. I just -- that's news to me."

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump walk together into North Korean territory at the DMZ. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images US President Donald Trump crossed the low stone curb separating the North and South at 3:45 p.m. local time, making his way alongside a grinning Kim into a country that's long been a global pariah for its nuclear ambitions and dismal record on human rights. In total Trump took 20 steps into North Korea, making history as the first serving US leader to set foot in the hermit kingdom. The event, seemingly spontaneous and broadcast live, took to a new level Trump's showman instincts and view of diplomacy as a test of interpersonal skills. Later, Trump said he was "proud to step over the line" and thanked Kim for the meeting. He invited him to the White House, though later acknowledged such a visit would likely not come soon. You can read more about the historic moment here:

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

US President Donald Trump, standing with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on the south side of the Joint Security Area, has invited Kim to Washington. "I'll invite him to the White House right now," Trump said before shaking hands with Kim, who did not immediately respond to Trump's comment. "A lot of really positive things are happening," Trump said earlier. "Really positive."

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Both US President Donald Trump and his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in have confirmed that they will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) today. "I look forward to it very much," Trump said. "We understand each other." Moon said this would be "the first time in history the leaders of the US and North Korea will be standing face to face in Panmunjom," the border village in the DMZ. One party to the meeting which hasn't confirmed it: Pyongyang. North Korean state media previously noted Trump's comments about a potential meeting, and indications are that Kim is headed to the DMZ, but nothing is certain. While presumably Trump and Moon would not have advertised the meeting unless they were certain it would happen, Kim has perhaps the biggest opportunity to snub a US leader in the history of relations between Pyongyang and Washington and show that it's he, not the two men south of the DMZ, in charge of this issue. After Kim and Trump's much vaunted second summit in Hanoi, Vietnam ended in failure, it's not impossible that an attempted reset today could result in similar embarrassment.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

The new White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham came off worse for wear in a scuffle with North Korean officials during chaotic scenes as White House press pool and North Korean reporters were hustled into the meeting room where US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are currently talking in private. A source on the scene said Grisham got in "an all out brawl" with the North Koreans, adding that she was bruised a bit in the scuffle. Grisham could be seen later directing reporters outside the building in which Kim and Trump are meeting.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are meeting privately at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between the Koreas, shortly after they shook hands and walked on either side of the military demarcation line which has split the Peninsula since the end of the Korean War in 1953. It was an historical moment and a huge step forward in a relationship which appeared to be unravelling after a failed second summit between Trump and Kim in Hanoi, Vietnam earlier this year. That relationship now seems to be firmly back on track, with Trump and Kim greeting each other warmly and appearing to enjoy each other's company. Trump even suggested they could follow the meeting at the DMZ with a visit by Kim to the White House, the first ever time a North Korean leader would visit the US if it took place.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore on June 12, 2018. SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images US President Donald Trump is in South Korea today, fresh from the two day G20 Summit in the Japanese city of Osaka, which wrapped up Saturday. But all eyes will be on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who Trump has invited for a "hand shake" at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that separates the two Koreas. Here's what you need to know:

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

US President Donald Trump says a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone (DMZ), which separates the two Koreas, has yet to be confirmed. Asked whether he'd firmed up the encounter, proposed a day earlier, Trump said arrangements were still being sorted. "We're trying to work it out,” Trump said. “We both want to do it.” Trump said if he does meet Kim, it would be brief -- which is fine, he said.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

US President Donald Trump told a gathering of South Korean business executives Sunday morning that the US would continue its investments in the country, but that he expected a more reciprocal relationship going forward. “We’re doing a lot for you. We’re doing a lot. We’re spending a lot of money. Money that hasn’t been reimbursed. They’re agreeing to reimburse us for some of this because the cost is astronomical. We have 42,000 soldiers. We’ve had them for many years. And we’re working on that. And it’s really working along well... You’re going to have a very safe country," Trump said. Trump has previously bemoaned the costs of housing US troops in South Korea, and his administration recently negotiated an agreement by which South Korea would pay more. The dispute had led to fears Trump would propose a withdrawal or drawdown of US troops in the country, but he suggested Sunday the matter had been resolved to his liking. Trump also went on various tangents about the construction business, saying he’d admired several landmarks from the Seoul skyline as he was landing, and later recalling his advice to a fellow developer, who Trump said built buildings with windows that were too small. “It’s nice to build them nice. It doesn’t cost that much more,” he said.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

US President Donald Trump has said that he hopes to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un today when he arrives at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between the two Koreas shortly. Pyongyang, however, so far been coy, with state media saying only that the government had noted Trump's statement with interest. But at least one analyst thinks a meeting is already a done deal. "President Trump and Chairman Kim will definitely meet along the DMZ and make history by shaking hands in front of the cameras but with an historic twist: Trump will cross briefly into North Korea and shake hands with Kim, becoming the first US president to officially set foot there, cementing both leader’s commitment to a better relationship," predicted Harry J. Kazianis, senior director of Korean studies at the US-based Center for National Interest. What to expect today: Kazianis added that "we should expect the meeting itself to be short but meaningful, as it will mark a reset in relations. It will also allow both sides to test each other’s intentions, possibly picking up from where negotiations left off in Hanoi." "Such a deal would likely see North Korea agree to a big step towards denuclearization for some sort of sanctions relief, a peace declaration ending the Korean War as well as the opening of liaison offices," Kazianis said.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

US President Donald Trump, asked whether there would be a third summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, said, "Let's see what happens today." Trump is set to meet with Kim at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) border later today -- but Trump said it was "just a step." "What we're doing today is a step. It might be an important step and it might not... As far as another meeting, let’s see what happens today before we start thinking about that," Trump said. Asked by the US press what his meeting today with Kim will accomplish, Trump did not directly answer the question. Instead he touted the progress he claims to have made since taking office and pointed a finger at former President Obama, claiming if he wasn't elected the US would be "right now at war with North Korea." Former Obama administration officials have disputed the notion that Trump’s predecessor was heading toward war with North Korea.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Competing marchers clashed on Saturday, with right-wing protesters and anti-fascist groups fighting on the streets of Portland, Oregon. The Portland Police Department said three people were arrested after the day of violence. Portland police, along with the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, Federal Protective Services and fire and rescue, had been prepared for the likelihood of clashes in downtown Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square. Among the groups marching were the Proud Boys, a right-wing group founded in 2016 by Gavin McInnes, and self-proclaimed "Western chauvinists." They are designated as an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Andy Ngo, a conservative journalist for the outlet Quillette, said he was among those assaulted at the march. Ngo bills himself on his Twitter account as "hated by antifa." Dave Killen/The Oregonian via AP Police said "milkshakes" were thrown at people, which contained "a substance mixed in that was similar to a quick drying cement." Jessyca Jones, 29, an EMT worker from Salem, Oregon, told ABC News she was in Portland to protest right-wing marchers. "I'm here to protest the alt right -- the ones that say they aren’t fascists or Nazis, but have proved themselves otherwise. And I like throwing milkshakes at bigots,” Jones said. The three people who were arrested are: Gage Halupowski, 23, charged with assault and assault on a public safety officer; James K. Stocks, 21, charged with harassment; and Maria Dehart, 23, charged with disorderly conduct and harassment. "Demonstration events are very fluid in nature and the management of these events is complex," Portland Police Assistant Chief Chris Davis said in a statement. "There are hundreds of peaceful free speech events in the City in a given year that do not result in violence. Unfortunately, today some community members and officers were injured. We are actively investigating these incidents to hold those responsible accountable." Just after 9 p.m. local time, Portland police advised the gathering was "now a civil disturbance and unlawful assembly" and said anyone not obeying the dispersal order would be subject to arrest. Eight people were treated by medics for minor injuries, including three police officers. Three civilians were taken to the hospital after being "assaulted with weapons," police said. Dave Killen/The Oregonian via AP Two police officers were pepper sprayed, officials said in a release. Police said they would be conducting more arrests if necessary after reviewing video from the event. Portland has become a regular flashpoint for protests in recent years. Clashes between anti-fascist and right-wing protesters boiled over in August 2018 as well. Four people were arrested at that event, a so-called conservative Patriot Prayer rally, and weapons and shields, including one with the Confederate flag, were confiscated. ABC News' Soo Youn contributed to this report.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

US president’s trip to border between Koreas comes as he hails China trade deal as ‘far better than expected’ Trump to travel to demilitarised zone for possible meeting with Kim Jong-un Donald Trump will travel to the demilitarised zone dividing the two Koreas on Sunday for a possible impromptu summit with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un. In tweets early on Sunday Trump did not mention Kim but said his schedule for the day would include a speech to US troops and a “long planned” visit to the DMZ. He also hailed the trade talks with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at the G20 in Japan on Saturday as “far better than expected” and vowed to hold off on further tariffs as negotiations continue. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) I had a great meeting with President Xi of China yesterday, far better than expected. I agreed not to increase the already existing Tariffs that we charge China while we continue to negotiate. China has agreed that, during the negotiation, they will begin purchasing large..... “The quality of the transaction is far more important to me than speed. I am in no hurry, but things look very good!” Trump tweeted on Sunday. The ceasefire that halts damaging trade frictions came after a hotly anticipated meeting between the leaders of the world’s top two economies on the sidelines of the G20 summit. Washington confirmed that it would not impose any further tariffs on Beijing’s exports. On Sunday Trump reiterated that China had agreed to buy “large amounts of agricultural products from our great Farmers.” “Importantly, we have opened up negotiations again with China as our relationship with them continues to be a very good one,” he tweeted. Trump proposes meeting with Kim Jong-un in demilitarised zone Read more Trump had threatened to extend existing tariffs to cover almost all imports from China to the US unless Beijing made progress in meeting US demands for economic reforms. Their trade dispute escalated when talks collapsed in May after Washington accused Beijing of reneging on reform pledges. Trump raised tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese goods, and China retaliated with levies on US imports. Focus will turn today to the Koreas, when Trump could meet the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, having extended and invitation to “shake his hand and say Hello(?!)“ in a tweet on Saturday. Trump and Kim first met in Singapore last year in a blaze of publicity – the first-ever encounter between a leader of the nuclear-armed North and a sitting US president, whose forces and their allies fought each other to a stalemate in the 1950-53 Korean war. That summit produced a vaguely-worded pledge about denuclearisation, but a second meeting in Hanoi in February broke up abruptly without agreement. Contact between the two sides has since been minimal – with Pyongyang issuing frequent criticisms of the US position – but the two leaders have exchanged a series of letters. Trump said at the G20 that he would have “no problem” stepping into the North with Kim – in what would be a dramatic re-enactment of the extraordinary scene last year when Kim invited the South Korean, President Moon Jae-in, to walk over the military demarcation line that forms the border between the Koreas. It was not clear whether Kim would attend the rendezvous. In an unusually fast and public response, within hours of Trump’s tweet the North’s official KCNA news agency quoted the vice foreign minister, Choe Son Hui, as saying the offer was “a very interesting suggestion” but that no official request had been received. Cheong Seong-chang, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute in Seoul, said the KCNA comments indicated Kim had “practically accepted” Trump’s invitation. “If he [Kim] isn’t interested he would not release such a statement to begin with.” A meeting in the DMZ would make a powerful visual statement, but analysts were divided over its potential impact. The 4km-wide (2.5 miles) zone, running for 250km, is where the front line lay when the Korean war ended in 1953, with a ceasefire rather than a peace treaty, and is described as the world’s last Cold War frontier. “The meeting, however short, will have a huge impact as the DMZ symbolises the military tension between North Korea and the United States,” said Koh Yu-hwan, a professor at Dongguk University in Seoul. However, Robert Kelly of Pusan National University, derided Trump’s invitation as “emblematic of why the Trump NK effort is a farce: thrown-together; last-minute; made-for-TV”. It was driven by Trump’s “lust for optics and drama rather than substance” and “a photo-op for the 2020 election”, he tweeted. But John Delury of Yonsei University in Seoul said a meeting in the “barren no man’s land that embodies the unhealed wound of post-WWII division, the Korean war, and 70 years of animosity” would help improve ties. “It’s not just about denuclearisation and it’s not all about a deal – important as those are,” he said. “If Trump and Kim meet & can announce some kind of interim agreement, that’s great. If they meet and don’t, that’s ok too. If in the end they don’t meet, it’s good that Trump offered to.”

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Video Protesters called for the “Madrid Central” scheme, which banned some diesel and petrol cars from the city centre, to be reimposed. The policy was shelved by José Luis Martínez-Almeida, the recently elected People’s Party mayor of the Spanish capital.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

A partial transcript is as follows: TUCKER CARLSON: Andy, what is the matter with Portland? ANDY NGO: I think Portland is an example of what happens when you have a city that is an ideological monoculture with no counterpoints. And so these ideas on the left become radicalized in their own echo chambers. The city is also very secular so their’s an erosion of traditional sources of purpose and meaning. For example, instead of religion, people are turning to political ideologies and they want to be heroes, but instead of dedicating their lives to service or joining the military, they are joining movements like Antifa and going out on the streets to fight because they think they are actually in a battle with fascists. CARLSON: That’s a deep and true analysis, I think. Portland is a beautiful city and there are normal and nice people who live there. What do they think? Not everyone in Portland agrees with Antifa. Do they have a voice? NGO: I think the genius in Antifa is actually in their name because they’ve put themselves in a position where it’s actually very hard for left-leaning politicians to criticize because it sounds like you’re being against anti-fascists, which sounds like a noble thing to be, right?… For a long time, Portland residents were reluctant to be too critical of this movement. Portland has been victimized through various riots and scenes of violence, so I think more normal people are waking up and seeing that this movement is indiscriminate in who they target. They target U.S. citizens trying to drive through, trying to pass through, or trying to run a business. And hopefully with what I’m doing, by trying to go to these protests as they happen to bring attention to it, more people will wake up and realize that we’re not dealing with a noble, anti-fascist movement. We’re actually dealing with a reactionary, anti0gvernment, anti-American revolutionary movement that is also willing to use violence.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

2020 Democratic hopeful Kamala Harris was the target of a birtherism-like attack — retweeted and then deleted by President Trump's son Donald Trump Jr. — targeting her identity as "not an American Black." Her rivals for the Democratic nomination jumped to her defense on Saturday, including former Vice President Joe Biden, who she confronted about race at Thursday's debate. Harris was born in Oakland, California to parents who had emigrated to the U.S. from India and Jamaica. The viral tweet by right-wing personality Ali Alexander — whose Twitter bio claims that he "exposed" Harris and includes the hashtag #NeverKamala — mentioned her parents' background and said "I'm so sick of people robbing American Blacks (like myself) of our history. It's disgusting. Now using it for debate time at #DemDebate2? These are my people not her people." The tweet appeared to get the attention of Donald Trump Jr., who has more than three million followers. Trump Jr. wrote "Is this true? Wow" on Thursday, but soon deleted it. A spokesman told The New York Times Trump Jr. was "asking if it was true that Kamala Harris was half-Indian because it's not something he had ever heard before." Harris has often resisted sharing her personal background on the campaign trail. But during Thursday's debate, she confronted Biden about his history opposing busing and said she herself had been bused to a public school. Kamala Harris is seen as a child in an undated photo released by her presidential campaign during the Democratic presidential debate in Miami, Florida, U.S. June 27, 2019. HANDOUT Harris' campaign manager, Lily Adams, said in a statement to CBS News "this is the same type of racist attacks used to attack Barack Obama. It didn't work then and it won't work now." Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, expressed his gratitude on Twitter to those who came to his wife's defense. "...Thx to all the 2020 candidates and everyone else for calling out this crap for what it is"... Emhoff tweeted. On Saturday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was the first 2020 candidate to tweet in support of Harris. "The attacks against @KamalaHarris are racist and ugly. We all have an obligation to speak out and say so. And it's within the power and obligation of tech companies to stop these vile lies dead in their tracks," Warren tweeted. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey chimed in with a tweet saying "@kamalaharris doesn't have sh[**] to prove." Strong remarks also came from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Biden, the current frontrunner, tweeted on Saturday "The same forces of hatred rooted in 'birtherism' that questioned @BarackObama's American citizenship, and even his racial identity, are now being used against Senator @KamalaHarris. It's disgusting and we have to call it out when we see it. Racism has no place in America." President Trump was one of the leading voices, along with a group of conspiracy theorists, who questioned whether former President Obama was really born in the U.S. Earlier this month, Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, would not directly answer whether the president's birther conspiracy against Mr. Obama was racist. Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as she visits the outside of a detention center for migrant children on June 28, 2019 in Homestead, Florida. Joe Raedle / Getty Images Alexander fired back at the 2020 candidates who defended Harris on Twitter Saturday, claiming there is a "racist Democratic smear campaign against him." A Howard University Professor directly responded. "Shut down the weaponized ignorance," said professor Greg Carr, Howard University's chair of Afro-American Studies. Carr pointed to the 2016 presidential primary campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada, also faced criticism from the then-frontrunner, Mr. Trump, but Carr and other civil rights activists say Cruz did not face anywhere near the "crowd swell of birtherism" that former President Obama and now Harris have faced. Carr called birtherism race-based and absolutely racist. There has been social media criticism of Harris and Booker — who is African American and from Newark, New Jersey — propelled by an online campaign that operates under #ADOS: American Descendants of Slavery. Online, the group says they "seeks to reclaim/restore the critical national character of the African American identity and experience." Carr believes their social media discussion around reparations may be driving a conversation to separate those who are "black" and "African American" — or "American Black" as Alexander put it. Carr made sure to emphasize that ADOS has nothing to do with major national groups fighting for reparations, like the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. He connects ADOS to a group that attempts to create controversy or issues in black communities that might lead to nefarious goals, like suppressing the African American vote. "What good does it do to any of us to assert pride of privilege in oppression," said Carr. Carr said he would tell Ali "stop standing between attempts to solve our collective problems and people's attempts to understand how best to do it. This doesn't add anything positive to public discourse. And of course my next question would be if you are not in fact just acting out of ignorance, 'Who are you working for?' because we've seen this show before."

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

The trade minister, Simon Birmingham, says the Morrison government will be watching “very, very closely” to ensure a weekend detente between America and China does not squeeze Australian agricultural exports. Donald Trump and Xi Jinping at the G20 reached something of a ceasefire in their escalating trade war, with the American president saying the US would not impose further tariffs in a conflict that threatens global growth. Trump lifted a ban on American companies selling parts to Chinese telco Huawei in Osaka. In pointing to the ceasefire, Trump told reporters China had agreed to buy “a tremendous amount of food and agricultural products from American farmers”. Trade wars, tweets and western liberalism: G20 summit wraps up in Osaka Read more “We are going to give them lists of things we want them to buy,” the American president said. Birmingham, who was part of the Australian delegation at the G20 at the weekend, was asked by the ABC on Sunday whether he knew what Trump meant by that observation, and what the impact would be for Australian farmers, given Australia has a bilateral free trade deal with Beijing. The trade minister said Australia was “watching very closely”. He said any peace deal between Washington and Beijing needed to be World Trade Organisation compliant, allowing Australian farmers to compete with other exporters on fair terms. “We don’t want to see a managed outcome that sees particular contracts struck in a way negotiated between governments that cut away opportunities for farmers or businesses from other countries, such as ours, to be able to compete fairly,” Birmingham said on Sunday. “We’ll be watching very closely in that space.” Birmingham said “on the whole” taking a “long-term perspective” it was welcome news that Trump and Xi appeared to be stepping back from trade hostilities “but we’ll keep an eye on the detail and be monitoring that very, very closely”. The trade dispute was the dominant issue at the Osaka forum. Trump had threatened to extend existing tariffs to cover almost all imports from China to the US unless Beijing made progress in meeting US demands for economic reforms. US-China trade talks back on track, says Trump Read more The standoff has significant economic implications. The International Monetary Fund earlier this month predicted the tit-for-tat tariffs would cost $455bn in lost output next year. The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, had dampened expectations of a quick fix on Friday evening, saying it was “unrealistic” to think the argument could be patched up in a weekend. After the events of Saturday he welcomed the progress as better than expected. But Morrison argues the conflict underscores the need for Australia to diversify its economic and diplomatic relationships. “What all this demonstrates is why Australia has to be out and about as much as possible, engaging with as many countries as we can, to secure as many opportunities as we can,” he told reporters at the G20 of Friday. “What we have to do is continue in the advocacy we are making, but not stand still.”

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

President Donald Trump conceded in Osaka Saturday that he “gets along” better with the world’s autocrats and dictators than with U.S. reporters. The president made the confession in a testy confrontation with CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, who challenged him at a press conference at the end of the G-20 Summit. The journalist asked: “What is it with your coziness with some of the dictators and autocrats at these summits?” Trump responded to the room of reporters: “I get along with everybody, except you people ... I get along with President Putin, I get along with Mohammed [bin Salman] from Saudi Arabia.” Trump also often touts his friendship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “What is it with your cosiness with some of these dictators and autocrats at these summits?” President Trump responds to a question from CNN’s Jim Acosta by saying “I get along with everybody…I get along with President Putin. I get along with Mohammad from Saudi Arabia.” pic.twitter.com/XTzGch646d — Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) June 29, 2019 Acosta also asked Trump if he failed to confront bin Salman over Khashoggi because he was “afraid of offending him.” Trump answered: “I don’t really care about offending people. I sort of thought you’d know that.” He said he is “very unhappy about that whole event.” But Trump added that “no one has pointed a finger directly at the future king of Saudi Arabia,” though the CIA has. He also said it’s important to remember that the country will spend $400 billion on “different things” in America. Trump said earlier that he raised Khashoggi’s murder with the prince in a private meeting.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Rivals defend Kamala Harris against online attacks they compare to 'birtherism' Former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted, "It’s disgusting and we have to call it out when we see it."

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

A worker cleans shop signs behind an installation depicting shoppers at a shopping mall in Beijing January 19, 2015. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon BEIJING (Reuters) - Growth in China’s services sector activity held firm in June, an official survey showed on Sunday, despite growing pressure on the broader economy from tougher U.S. trade measures. The official non-manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) fell to 54.2 from 54.3 in May, but stayed well above the 50-point mark that separates growth from contraction. Services account for more than half of China’s economy, and rising wages have increased Chinese consumers’ spending power. But the sector softened late last year along with a slowdown in the economy. The official June composite PMI, which covers both manufacturing and services activity, slipped to 53.0 from May’s 53.3.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

CLOSE President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore in 2018. (Photo: Evan Vucci, AP) SEOUL – President Donald Trump prepared Sunday to tour the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone between South and North Korea – and, quite possibly, speak with nuclear-armed leader Kim Jong Un and become the first U.S. president to actually step over the border into North Korea itself. "I'd like to say hello – it's going to be very short," Trump said to a group of South Korean business leaders before his DMZ visit. While he did not specifically say he would see Kim there, Trump did tell the crowd that "I understand they want to meet." Trump, who extended his invitation to Kim Saturday on Twitter, cast the potential encounter with Kim as "just a quick hello," not a full-on summit to negotiate the ending of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. "We won’t call it a summit," he said on Saturday. "We'll call it a handshake, if it does happen." The two leaders have held summits in Singapore and Vietnam but have been unable to strike a deal in which North Korea junks its nuclear weapons facilities in exchange for reductions of economic sanctions. The DMZ includes the border between North and South Korea, and no U.S. president has ever stepped over that line. Trump said he would have "no problem" becoming the first U.S. president to actually touch down in North Korean territory. Before his DMZ visit, Trump spoke to a group of South Korean business leaders. He also has a meeting with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who is pushing for a third summit between Trump and Kim to discuss denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Before taking Air Force One back to the U.S., Trump on Sunday will speak to U.S. troops stationed at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Trump arrived in Seoul after attending the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan. While there, he and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to re-start talks on a new trade agreement that could end the economically damaging trade war between the world's two largest economies. The last time Trump and Kim met, they broke off negotiations after a second summit in Hanoi, Vietnam. That meeting failed to yield progress toward an agreement in which North Korea would dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. More: Trump's own brand of diplomacy is on display at G20. How will it fare with Valdimir Putin, Xi Jinping? More: Donald Trump, Kim Jong Un fail to strike deal, call off nuclear weapons talks early Kim and the North Koreans said they would not submit a specific plan to dismantle nuclear weapons sites until the U.S. removes economic sanctions; Trump and the U.S. said they wouldn't remove sanctions until Kim and the North Koreans put up a denuclearization plan. Early in his term, Trump mocked Kim as "Little Rocket Man," and threatened to rain "fire and fury" on North Korea if it ever made a move to use nuclear weapons. As the North Koreans made overtures for settlement talks, Trump changed his tune toward Kim. In the wake of the summits, first in Singapore and then in Vietnam, Trump now casts Kim as someone with whom he can make a deal. Trump's faith is in contrast to foreign policy analysts and some aides who believe Kim will never give up his nuclear weapons, the key to control of his regime. "We get along," Trump said of Kim before his trip to Seoul. However informal, many foreign analysts see a potential Trump-Kim get-together as a prelude to a third summit. Harry J. Kazianis, senior director of Korean Studies with the Center for the National Interest, said the two leaders can't afford to renew the kinds of threats they made little more than two years ago. "There will be a reset in relations, and that is a win for both leaders," Kazianis said. "Both men have too much to lose now if they were to go back to the dark days of 'fire and fury.' A deal will take time to come together, but it will come together." Olivia Enos, a policy analyst with the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, said an impromptu Trump-Kim meeting would do little to advance denuclearization. That requires "sustained working-level negotiations" among experienced negotiators, she said, not "another photo-opp" with a "rights-abusing, illegal nuclear weapons-possessing North Korean dictator." Trump had planned to visit the Demilitarized Zone during a trip to South Korea in 2017, but bad weather forced him to cancel. Visiting the DMZ, one of the world's most heavily guarded areas, has become a near rite of passage for American leaders. Every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan has toured the area except for George H.W. Bush, and he went when he was vice president. Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/29/donald-trump-looks-brief-handshake-meeting-kim-jong-un/1608092001/

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Katy Gallagher says Labor will see whether Coalition able to pass tax cut package with crossbench before making final decision Labor will wait and see whether the Morrison government is able to pass its income tax cut package with the crossbench before making a final decision on whether to support or reject cuts for the highest income earners, according to the shadow finance minister. With federal parliament set to resume on Tuesday for the first sitting since the 18 May election, and with the $158bn package set to be introduced to the House on day one, Katy Gallagher told Sky News on Sunday Labor’s position was not locked. Gallagher said shadow cabinet and caucus would discuss tax cuts early in the week, but “we have to be able to make decisions in the parliament as situations unfold”. “If and when the government is able to get a deal with the crossbench, and that’s not for certain at this point in time, we would have to take decisions based on what was happening at the time,” Gallagher told Sky News. “The government doesn’t have the numbers yet, we’ve got a strong negotiating position that we’ve put and we are still trying to convince the government that is the way to go.” The Coalition’s tax plan has three stages, with the more immediate relief targeted at low and middle-income earners. Labor supports the first two stages, and wants to bring stage two forward as a stimulus measure to boost the flagging economy, along with accelerated spending on infrastructure. Labor is divided on stage three, which is not scheduled to take effect until 2024-25, with some in the opposition arguing the whole package should be waved through because the Coalition has a mandate, and others opposed on the basis the final stage gives tax relief to the highest income earners, and is fiscally unsustainable. Labor has argued the government should defer consideration of stage three. Gallagher said on Sunday the final tranche should be put off because “it’s a lot of money where it’s not clear about how it’s going to be paid for and, when you look at it in those individual years in 2024-25, that stage three is about $19bn a year”. The government could legislate the package with crossbench support if it can lock in the necessary four votes. The Centre Alliance bloc of two are confident a deal can be reached, and the government has the support of Cory Bernardi, which puts the returning Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie in the box seat. While parliament opens on Tuesday, the short week is largely ceremonial, and a day has been set aside for tributes to the late Bob Hawke. The tax package will be introduced on Tuesday but is not expected to hit substantive debate until Thursday. On Sunday, the trade minister, Simon Birmingham, declared Labor needed to “end the verbal gymnastics about exactly what their final position will be” and he warned that, if the opposition declined to support the package, it would be “a stain on the Labor party that will last all the way through to the next election”. US-China trade truce must not harm Australian farmers, government says Read more Appearing on the ABC, Birmingham also dead batted questions about whether Scott Morrison’s supporters were active on his behalf in the week where Malcolm Turnbull was removed from the prime ministership. Questions about the events of last August have resurfaced as a consequence of the imminent publication of books about the boilover last August, and a Sky News documentary last week. The trade minister, who was a Turnbull backer, said he had “complete confidence that Scott Morrison did everything that he possibly could to support Malcolm Turnbull” and what individuals did in the ballots was a matter for them. “Much as any of us may try to influence those votes from time to time, each individual is responsible for their vote,” he said. Birmingham also said raking over the history wars was unhelpful to the government’s standing as a new parliament opened. “I mean, a discussion of these matters, looking backwards on them, it doesn’t really serve anybody’s purposes”.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Sri Lanka's former defence secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa (C), pictured in 2010 At a funeral for one of the victims of Sri Lanka's Easter Sunday bombings, a grief-stricken relative wailed and shouted: "We need Gota, We need Gota." She was referring to Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, the wartime defence chief who played a leading role in crushing Tamil rebels in a bloody civil war which ended 10 years ago. Sri Lanka's minority Tamils loathe Mr Rajapaksa but he's celebrated as a hero by many in the majority Sinhalese population, particularly hardliners. Mr Rajapaksa served as defence secretary from 2005 to 2015, when his brother Mahinda was president. But his tenure was marred by allegations of crimes against humanity, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Amid the chaos and confusion that followed the suicide attacks in April this year, many Sri Lankans said a perceived strongman like Gotabhaya Rajapaksa could stamp out Islamist extremism in the country. Mr Rajapaksa spoke to the BBC from his home in Colombo in the wake of the attacks. "During our time we gave top priority to national security," he said. "This government did not do that. They have dismantled certain security measures we took during our time." Intelligence failures have been cited as one of the main reasons the Easter bombings - claimed by Islamic State militants - were not prevented. Mr Rajapaksa said that during his tenure he set up a special military intelligence cell to monitor radicalisation, particularly on the internet. A military officer was also sent to the US for special training, he said, and Arabic-speaking agents were recruited to track jihadists. He said that some of those units had been disbanded by the current government, but a spokesman for President Maithripala Sirisena denied Mr Rajapaksa's assertion, suggesting they were only restructured and were still functioning. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption More than 250 people were killed in the Easter bombings I first met Mr Rajapaksa 10 years ago in Colombo during the final stages of the civil war. He was known for his volatile temper, and many journalists were too scared to ask him tough questions, especially questions about alleged rights abuses committed by Sri Lankan security forces. But during our most recent meeting, Mr Rajapaksa sounded like a different man. Sitting in his study, surrounded by books, he answered difficult questions calmly - although he still dismissed all the allegations against him. His critics, say he must answer for crimes committed against thousands of people over many years. His change in demeanour could be down to the fact that Sri Lanka is due to hold presidential elections in December. Mr Rajapaksa said he intends to stand. "I will be the candidate for the main opposition SLPP [Sri Lanka People's Front]. We will also get the support of other parties and groups," he said. The SLPP has not officially declared its presidential candidate and there are still six months to go before the election is held. Mr Rajapaksa's elder brother, Mahinda, cannot stand again because of a two-term limit. Mr Rajapaksa said he was confident of victory but he had some hurdles to surmount. One is his health. Following our interview, he had open heart surgery and has been recuperating at a hospital in Singapore. Doctors have said he will need six weeks to recover. Then there are issues to resolve over his dual nationality. He holds both Sri Lankan and American citizenship and, according to the constitution, cannot therefore run for president until he gives up the latter. Mr Rajapaksa said he had submitted documents to the US embassy in Colombo that stated his desire to relinquish his US citizenship. Image caption Gotabhaya Rajapaksa intends to run for Sri Lanka's presidency Another issue relates to cases against him in US courts. In the first, filed in April, he is accused of ordering the murder of a newspaper editor, Lasantha Wickrematunge, in Sri Lanka a decade ago. A second case relates to the alleged torture of a Tamil detainee during the war. Wickrematunge was the well-known editor of The Sunday Leader and a vocal critic of the Rajapaksas. He published a series of reports alleging corruption in arms deals by then-defence secretary Mr Rajapaksa. Wickrematunge received death threats for his reports, and wrote an editorial before his death predicting that the government would kill him. In January 2009, he was shot and stabbed to death in broad daylight in Colombo by unidentified men. No one has been brought to trial for his murder - and few expect anyone ever will be. The murder shook the nation, coming just days before the editor was to give evidence against Mr Rajapaksa. Mr Wickrematunge's daughter, Ahimsa, is now seeking unspecified damages in the case filed in California. It accuses Mr Rajapaksa of instigating and authorising her father's murder. Image copyright AFP Image caption Lasantha Wickrematunge edited the Sunday Leader, which was critical of then President Mahinda Rajapaksa The second case relates to Roy Samathanam, a Tamil civilian with Canadian citizenship. He was arrested in Sri Lanka before the war ended over suspected links with the Tamil Tigers. He alleges he was tortured in custody and forced to sign a confession before he was released in 2010. The cases have been filed in US courts because of Mr Rajapaksa's American citizenship. "Both cases are baseless because I did not do these things," he told me. He listed various actions taken during his tenure to bring Mr Wickrematunge's killers to justice. Since I interviewed him, the number of cases Mr Rajapaksa is facing has risen. On 26 June, 10 more plaintiffs filed papers in Californian courts seeking damages from him. They allege that they were tortured and, in some cases, raped and sexually assaulted by security forces under his command. All the allegations against him are "politically motivated", Mr Rajapaksa said. "I have been visiting the US for so many years, Why [are they raising it] at this time?" Mr Rajapaksa and his supporters may be right about the timing - his opponents would like to stop him running for president because they fear he has a real chance of winning. With cases against him under way in the US courts he may find it harder to renounce his US citizenship. And that would stop him standing for election. The Easter Sunday bombings happened just a month before the country observed the 10th anniversary of the end of the war with the Tamil Tigers. The conflict lasted almost three decades and it is estimated at least 100,000 people were killed. Many thousands are still missing. The UN and other agencies estimate that at least 40,000 people were killed in the last stages when the Sri Lankan military launched its final assault. Tens of thousands of civilians, and the rebels themselves, were eventually trapped in a small sliver of coastal land in the north-east. The military pounded the area with artillery while the rebels also shot civilians trying to escape. A UN official in Colombo at the time said their warnings of a bloodbath had become a reality. The Tamil Tigers were eventually routed and thousands surrendered to the Sri Lankan army. But hundreds of families of rebels who surrendered say they have still not heard from them. Detailed video footage and eyewitness accounts emerged after the war showing what are alleged to be widescale extra-judicial killings of Tamils by the military in the final stages of the conflict. Image copyright Reuters Image caption A commemoration ceremony to mark the 10th anniversary of the end of the war took place in May Based on that evidence, the UN and other rights groups have called on the Sri Lankan government to establish a war crimes tribunal to investigate the allegations of crimes against humanity, both by the military and the Tamil militants. Successive Sri Lankan governments have resisted attempts to establish an international inquiry, saying it is a domestic issue and the allegations should be looked into internally. But virtually nothing been done to pursue justice after the war. During a visit to northern Sri Lanka last year, I met a group of Tamil women and men protesting in the Tamil-dominated town of Kilinochchi. They were demanding to know the whereabouts of their sons, brothers, and daughters who had surrendered to the military. Mr Rajapaksa vehemently denied that those who surrendered were killed in cold blood. "No I don't believe that," he told me. "Anybody who surrendered to the army was registered. Everything happened in a rush, everything happened in a chaotic situation," he said. He said that about 13,000 Tamil rebels who were either captured or surrendered had been rehabilitated since the end of the war. He dismissed suggestions that some Tamil Tigers were being kept in secret prisons. "No we did not run any secret prisons. It is not easy in this country to have secret places," he said. Image caption Tamil women are demanding information on their relatives who they say surrendered to the army in 2009 His many critics would disagree. After the war, army camps were out of bounds to journalists, human rights officials, and relatives of the missing. There is still no independent confirmation of what happened to those who disappeared. Minority Tamils and rights activists rejoiced when Mahinda Rajapaksa unexpectedly lost the election in 2015. They hoped that normal life would resume in the country and freedom of speech and media rights would be protected. There has been peace in the years since the war ended, allowing some of scars to begin to heal. But the Easter bombings shattered that process - the attacks, along with a recent political crisis, have changed people's opinions. Many Sri Lankans now say they are disappointed with government infighting and a blame game over the bombings between the current president and the prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe. In Sri Lanka, and around the world, people were shocked by the image of bungling incompetency the government projected. That goes some way to explaining why many Sri Lankans are calling for a strong leader at a time of national crisis. Mr Rajapaksa believes he is the right man for the job. But human rights activists warn that the desire for a strong leader should not supersede civil liberties and media freedom. Mr Rajapaksa will be a tough man to beat for the top job, if he gets to run.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to South Korean business leaders at the Hyatt Hotel, Sunday, June 30, 2019, in Seoul, South Korea. Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via REUTERS SEOUL (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said he and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had “a good feeling” and “a good relationship” and he hoped to meet him at the Demilitarized Zone border dividing the two Koreas later on Sunday. “I’m going to the DMZ and I understand that they want to meet and I’d love to say hello,” Trump told a group of South Korean business leaders including the heads of Samsung, Hyundai and SK Groups, on Sunday. “It’s going to be very short.”

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Former Vice President Joe Biden dropped ten points following Thursday evening’s bruising primary debate, according to a Morning Consult/FiveThirtyEight poll. The poll, released on Friday, shows 31.5 percent of likely Democrat voters would vote for Biden if the election were held today, down from 41.5 percent who voiced the same sentiments prior to the debate. The Democrat Party’s early front-runner was forced to defend his record on race in the face of tough questions from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). That was only after he defended his age after jabs from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), one of two millennial candidates, in the prime-time clash. “I do not believe you are a racist,” Harris said, though she described Biden’s record of working with Democrat segregationist senators on non-race issues as “hurtful.” Clearly on defense, the 76-year-old called the Harris attack “a complete mischaracterization of my record.” He declared, “I ran because of civil rights.” According to the poll, Harris jumped from 7.9 percent prior to the debate to 16.6 percent afterward — roughly a nine point increase. Morning Consult and FiveThirtyEight polled the 7,150 registered voters between June 19-26, and then 1,399 of such respondents from June 27-28. The survey has a margin of error of three percentage points. The debate marked an abrupt turning point in a Democrat primary in which candidates have largely tiptoed around each other, focusing instead on their shared desire to beat President Trump. However, the debate revealed just how deep the fissures are within the Democrat Party eight months before primary voting begins. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Scott Morrison says world leaders at G20 summit have offered assistance to help find Sigley The prime minister, Scott Morrison, says Australian authorities are still attempting to establish what happened to Perth student Alek Sigley, who disappeared in North Korea several days ago. Morrison told reporters at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, on Saturday evening that he had been in contact with Sigley’s family. He said world leaders at the summit had offered their assistance in attempts to locate the young man. “I will just be measured in what I say because that is all about using the best opportunities we have right now to, to inform ourselves about where Alek is and what his safety is and where he is being held, in what conditions,” he told reporters on Saturday evening. Sigley, one of only a handful of western students in the secretive country, last made contact with his Australian family on Tuesday. His Facebook page, which had been taken down to prevent unnecessary speculation online, briefly reappeared on Saturday. Sigley’s Twitter account has remained online and members of the public have posted messages of support there. The 29-year-old Australian moved to North Korea to study for a master’s degree in Korean literature at Kim Il-sung University in Pyongyang, and also ran a small tour company specialising in educational trips to North Korea. He posted regularly, on a private blog and on social media accounts, about food, fashion and every day life in the secretive state. Guardian Australia published a first-person account by Sigley in March. Experts have suggested Sigley might have been silenced in the lead-up to US president Donald Trump’s visit to the demilitarised zone (DMZ). When asked if Trump’s visit to the Korean DMZ presented an opportunity for the Americans to make representations, Morrison said he would not allow the issue to be taken up with other agendas. “We’re going to work with everybody to secure Alek’s safety and the best way we can do that is doing it quietly, effectively, working with our partners … not allowing this to be taken up into other agendas,” he said. “It’s not about that. It’s simply, for me, about Alek’s safety. Sorry.” The treatment of foreign citizens by the secretive North has long been a contentious issue. American student Otto Warmbier died in 2017 after being detained in North Korea for stealing a propaganda poster from his hotel room.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

BEIJING/OSAKA (Reuters) - China and the United States will face a long road before they can reach a deal to end their bitter trade war, with more fights ahead likely, Chinese state media said after the two countries’ presidents held ice-breaking talks in Japan. U.S. President Donald Trump and China's President Xi Jinping pose for a photo ahead of their bilateral meeting during the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan, June 29, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque The world’s two largest economies are in the midst of a bitter trade war, which has seen them level increasingly severe tariffs on each other’s imports. In a sign of significant progress in relations on Saturday, Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka, agreed to a ceasefire and a return to talks. However, the official China Daily, an English-language daily often used by Beijing to put its message out to the rest of the world, warned while there was now a greater likelihood of reaching an agreement, there’s no guarantee there would be one. “Even though Washington agreed to postpone levying additional tariffs on Chinese goods to make way for negotiations, and Trump even hinted at putting off decisions on Huawei until the end of negotiations, things are still very much up in the air,” it said in an editorial late Saturday. “Agreement on 90 percent of the issues has proved not to be enough, and with the remaining 10 percent where their fundamental differences reside, it is not going to be easy to reach a 100-percent consensus, since at this point, they remain widely apart even on the conceptual level.” Trump also offered an olive branch to Xi on Huawei Technologies Co, the world’s biggest telecom network equipment maker. The Trump administration has said the Chinese firm poses a national security risk given its close ties to China’s government, and has lobbied U.S. allies to keep Huawei out of next-generation 5G telecommunications infrastructure. The Chinese government’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, in a lengthy statement about G20 released by the Foreign Ministry following the delegation’s return to Beijing, said the Xi-Trump meeting had sent a “positive signal” to the world. Though problems between the two countries remain, China is confident as long as they both follow the consensus reached by their leaders they can resolve their problems on the basis of mutual respect, Wang said in the statement released late Saturday. Trump’s comments on Huawei, made at a more than hour-long news conference in Osaka following his sit-down with Xi, generated only a cautious welcome from China. The word “Huawei” was not mentioned at all in the top diplomat’s appraisal of G20. Wang Xiaolong, the Foreign Ministry’s special envoy of G20 affairs and head of the ministry’s Department of International Economic Affairs, said if the United States does what it says on Huawei then China would of course welcome it. “To put restrictions in areas that go beyond technology and economic factors will definitely lead to a lose-lose situation. So if the U.S. side can do what it says then we will certainly welcome that,” Wang told reporters. The pause in tensions is likely to be welcomed by the business community, and markets, which have swooned on both sides of the Pacific due to the trade war. Jacob Parker, vice-president of China operations at the U.S.-China Business Council, said returning to talks was good news for the business community and added much needed certainty to “a slowly deteriorating relationship”. “Now comes the hard work of finding consensus on the most difficult issues in the relationship, but with a commitment from the top we’re hopeful this will put the two sides on a sustained path to resolution.” Slideshow (2 Images) China’s position as the trade war has progressed has become increasingly strident, saying it would not be bullied, would not give in to pressure, and that it would “fight to the end”. Taoran Notes, an influential WeChat account run by China’s Economic Daily, said the United States was now aware that China was not going to give in, and that tariffs on Chinese goods were increasingly unpopular back home. “We’ve said it before - communication and friction between China and the United States is a long-term, difficult and complex thing. Fighting then talking, fighting then talking, is the normal state of affairs,” it said.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

(CNN) Maj. Gen. Laura Yeager is the first woman to lead a US Army infantry division. The California National Guard's 40th Infantry Division has been led by men since it was formed in 1917, the guard said in a news release. Its soldiers have fought in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and most recently, in Afghanistan. Yeager assumed command of the division Saturday during a ceremony at the Joint Forces Training Base at Los Alamitos, California. She assumes command from Maj. Gen. Mark Malanka, who is retiring. In 2016, Yeager was promoted to brigadier general, making her, at that time, the fourth female general in California National Guard history. Ahead of her promotion, she spoke to the Defense Department news service about being a woman in the military. "As a female, I have found the military to provide opportunities and benefits unmatched by any profession," Yeager said in 2016. Read More

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

McKay says she can beat Gladys Berejiklian and education will be a ‘critical issue’ under her leadership Jodi McKay: new NSW Labor leader says party must regain the 'faith and trust' of voters Newly elected New South Wales Labor leader Jodi McKay says she is ready to start rebuilding voters’ faith and trust in the party. The Strathfield MP emphatically won the ballot against Chris Minns on Saturday to become NSW’s new opposition leader, with 60.5% of the vote, some three months after Michael Daley quit following Labor’s state election loss. McKay secured 29 votes to Minns’s 21 in the caucus, and gained 63% of 10,822 rank-and-file votes. “I want to thank each and every member of the Labor party who took part in this history-making process,” she said in a statement on Saturday night. “From our oldest life members to the newest of Labor recruits, to our trade union members – this contest has energised our movement.” During her campaign, McKay highlighted her “record of standing up to powerful and vested interests” and said she could beat the NSW premier, Gladys Berejiklian, at the 2023 state poll. The former journalist said reaching out to rural NSW, western Sydney and multicultural communities would be a priority under her leadership, and education policy was a “critical issue”. “If I can leave one message to the people of NSW tonight – it is that you matter,” the 49-year-old said. “Labor, under my leadership, starts its journey in rebuilding faith and trust with you.” The federal Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, offered his congratulations to McKay on Sunday morning. “A progressive woman of integrity and principle with experience and great connections to communities,” Albanese tweeted. McKay will address the media after a street walk in Burwood on Sunday.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image copyright Reuters/Getty Images Prime ministerial hopeful Jeremy Hunt has said he would consider withholding some of the UK's £39bn "divorce bill" in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The foreign secretary told the Sunday Times he would not hand over "a penny more than is legally required of us". Fellow leadership contender Boris Johnson previously unveiled similar plans to hold back money from Brussels. Mr Hunt's proposals come as details emerged of the rivals forming new Brexit negotiating teams. 'No blank cheque' Earlier this month, Mr Johnson told the Sunday Times he would "retain" the financial settlement demanded by the EU until he had struck a deal more favourable than Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement. On Sunday Mr Hunt told the paper: "As a businessman I always paid my bills. That being said, if we leave without a deal I will not hand over a penny more than is legally required of us." "Anyone who thinks I am going to write a blank cheque to the European Union is sorely mistaken," he added. The Institute for Government (IFG) think tank previously said refusing to pay could lead the EU to launch a legal challenge. But a House of Lords report into Brexit and the EU budget stated: "While the legal advice we have received differed, the stronger argument suggests that the UK will not be strictly obliged, as a matter of law, to render any payments at all after leaving." BBC political correspondent Iain Watson says Mr Hunt knows that his voting to Remain in the EU has not endeared him to some sections of the Conservative membership and is attempting to reassure them of his commitment to Brexit. Mr Hunt and Mr Johnson are taking part in 15 hustings across the country as Conservative Party members decide on their party's next leader - and the next UK prime minister. The 160,000 members will begin voting next week and the winner is expected to be announced on 23 July. Mr Hunt's campaign team said he was in talks with the former Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, who he hopes could help to draw up plans for a deal similar to Canada's free trade agreement with the EU. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Stephen Harper was prime minister of Canada for nearly 10 years before losing an election to Justin Trudeau in 2015 Mr Johnson, who has already recruited Health Secretary Matt Hancock into his team, is thought to be drafting in Brexiteers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg as negotiators. Meanwhile, chief Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins will resign from his role this summer. The civil servant masterminded Theresa May's deal which was rejected by Parliament three times. He is expected to step down shortly after the new prime minister enters office at the end of July. Mr Robbins is the latest in a wave of civil servants to choose to quit rather than negotiate a new deal by within 100 days of either Mr Hunt or Mr Johnson becoming prime minister, to deliver Brexit by the delayed deadline of 31 October.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Trump said Saturday that he would be willing to step into North Korea himself, should he be invited. He also said that if Kim failed to show up at the DMZ, he would not take it as a bad sign.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

LAMPEDUSA, Sicily (AP) — The German captain of a humanitarian rescue ship with 40 migrants aboard has been arrested after she rammed her vessel into an Italian border police motorboat while docking at a tiny Mediterranean island Saturday in defiance of Italy’s anti-migrant interior minister. Jeering onlookers shouted “handcuffs, handcuffs” as Carola Rackete, the 31-year-old captain, was escorted off the boat at Lampedusa, which is closer to north Africa than to the Italian mainland. The migrants, meanwhile, hugged personnel of the German Sea-Watch charity who helped them during their 17 days at sea. Some kissed the ground after disembarking from Sea-Watch 3 at dawn’s break. The migrants had been rescued from an unseaworthy vessel launched by Libya-based human traffickers but Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini had refused to let them disembark on Lampedusa until other European Union countries agreed to take them. Five nations so pledged to do on Friday: Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Portugal. The humanitarian rescue operation ended dramatically and violently when Rackete decided she could no longer wait for permission to dock given the odyssey of the migrants aboard. “It’s enough. After 16 days following the rescue, #SeaWatch3 enters in port,” the organization tweeted early Saturday shortly before the ship started heading dockside. The captain steered her vessel toward the island before dawn, ramming the much smaller police boat, which was blocking Sea-Watch 3′s path to the dock. In past years, Lampedusa had won international praise for its generous welcome to many of the hundreds of thousands of rescued migrants. But even as the migrants’ numbers dwindled as Italy cracked down on private rescue ships, many Italians lost patience, including economic migrants ineligible for asylum. Salvini’s anti-migrant League party has soared in popularity. Some on the island applauded when the migrants disembarked. But another group yelled insults, including “Gypsy, go home” to the captain. A senator from the opposition Democrats, Davide Faraone, filmed the intense scene and then posted it on Twitter. “You must handcuff her immediately,” a woman shouted before Rackete was hustled into a police car. Ascoltate cosa urlavano i sostenitori di Salvini a Lampedusa. La Sea Watch era stata appena ormeggiata, arrestavano Carola, noi assistevamo alle operazioni e loro non provavano un minimo di vergogna a proferire queste parole. Ve le faccio ascoltare senza alcun filtro. #freeCarola pic.twitter.com/MrcjqaUD3M — Davide Faraone (@davidefaraone) June 29, 2019 Her lawyer, Leonardo Marino, told Italian state TV that she was arrested for investigation of resisting a warship, a reference to plowing into the motorboat of the customs and border police force. No one was injured but the motorboat’s side was damaged. If convicted, Rackete risks up to 10 years in prison. She also risks a fine as high as 50,000 euros ($58,000) under a recent Salvini-backed law cracking down on private rescue vessels. Any fine might be covered by a reported 100,000 euros supporters in Italy recently donated to help Sea-Watch. Salvini slammed the captain’s defiance, branding her actions as tantamount to an “act of war.” “I have asked for the arrest of an outlaw who put (lives) at risk,” Salvini told RAI state radio. He also ordered that authorities sequester the ship, “which went around the Mediterranean breaking laws.” Sea-Watch defended Rackete’s actions. “She enforced the rights of the rescued people to be disembarked to a place of safety,” Sea-Watch said in a statement. But a Sicily-based prosecutor, Luigi Patronaggio, indicated otherwise. “Humanitarian reasons cannot justify inadmissible acts against those who work at sea for the safety of everybody,” ANSA quoted the prosecutor as saying. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas appeared to criticize the Italian decision to arrest the captain. “Saving lives is a humanitarian duty,” he said on Twitter. “Rescue at sea must not be criminalized. It’s up to the Italian justice system to swiftly resolve the allegations.” A judge will decide after closed-door hearings in coming days whether Rackete should be freed or stay under house arrest while the investigation continues. Among those backing the captain’s conduct was a leader of Germany’s Green party, Robert Habeck. “The arrest of Captain Rackete shows the nefariousness of the Italian government and the dilemma of European refugee policy,” he told German media group RND. “The real scandal is the drownings in the Mediterranean, the lack of legal pathways to flee and the absence of a European distribution mechanism.” His outrage was echoed by the head of Germany’s Protestant Church, Heinrich Bedford-Strohm. “A young woman is arrested in a European country because she saved human lives and wanted to bring the rescued people to land safely,” he said in a statement. ”(This is) a disgrace for Europe!” Thousands of migrants have drowned trying to reach European shores in recent years aboard migrant smugglers’ unseaworthy vessels. Democratic Party lawmaker Graziano Delrio, after disembarking himself, likened her actions to that of a driver of a Red Cross ambulance “which goes through a red light” to speed ailing patients to a hospital. Sea-Watch 3 had rescued 53 people on June 12, but later 13 of the migrants were taken to Italy for medical care. After reaching Italy following rescue at sea, migrants are transferred to centers where they can file initial asylum request documentation. Even if their asylum bids failed, many migrants manage to stay in the country or try to make their way to northern Europe where many have relatives. The overwhelming majority of the migrants’ home countries don’t have repatriation agreements with Italy, meaning even if their asylum bids are rebuffed, Italy can’t expel them, despite Salvini’s pledges. ___ Frances D’Emilio reported from Rome. Associated Press writer Frank Jordans in Berlin contributed to this report.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

SEOUL (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday he and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un both want to meet at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) dividing the two Koreas later in the day, raising hopes for an encounter that could jump-start stalled nuclear talks. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to South Korean business leaders at the Hyatt Hotel, Sunday, June 30, 2019, in Seoul, South Korea. Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via REUTERS Trump arrived in Seoul late on Saturday for talks with South Korean President Moon Jae-in after attending the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, during which he made a surprise, spur-of-the-moment offer to meet Kim. If Trump and Kim meet, it would be for the third time in just over a year, and four months since their second summit in Hanoi, Vietnam broke down. “Well we’ll see. He very much wants to,” Trump said when asked by a reporter whether Kim would meet him at the DMZ later on Sunday when Trump is scheduled to visit the heavily armed border. “They’re trying to work it out. We both want to do it,” he said after a meeting with South Korean business leaders including the heads of Samsung, Hyundai Motor, Lotte, SK and Poongsan groups. “It’s going to be very short, virtually a handshake. But that’s OK. A handshake means a lot.” He said he and Kim had a “good relationship” but there was still a long way to go to reach an agreement that would end the North’s nuclear program in return for an end to sanctions and permanent peace on the Korean peninsula. North Korea has pursued nuclear and missile programs for years in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and easing tensions with North Korea is one of the U.S. President’s top foreign policy priorities. Trump made the offer to meet in a message on Twitter about his visit to South Korea. “While there, if Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!” Trump wrote. ‘VERY INTERESTING SUGGESTION’ In response, state news agency KCNA quoted a senior North Korean official several hours later saying it was a “very interesting suggestion” and would be a “meaningful occasion,” but that North Korea had not received an official proposal. Moon told Trump during a dinner on Saturday that such a meeting would be an “historic event.” But even if it did not take place, Moon said, the offer would have a “significant outcome” because Trump showed sincerity to Kim. Trump wanted to visit the DMZ during a 2017 visit to South Korea, but heavy fog prevented it. Kim and Moon held their historic first summit in the zone last year, which preceded the U.S.-North Korean meeting in Singapore. Moon has championed efforts to end the hostilities between North Korea and the United States, vowing to play a mediator role in nudging Pyongyang into giving up its nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief and security guarantees. Moon’s press secretary said late on Saturday that a meeting between Trump and Kim would be a “crucial chance” to reinvigorate the talks. Moon said at his meeting with Trump on Sunday he would go with Trump to the border. The Joint Security Area, with its cluster of distinctive bright blue buildings, has a checkered history of defections, tension and death. In 1976, axe-wielding North Korean soldiers murdered two American soldiers who were cutting down a poplar tree there to secure a clear view. Trump, speaking at a news conference in Japan on Saturday, said he would be “very comfortable” stepping across the border into North Korea, as Moon did briefly last year. Slideshow (4 Images) Some South Korean analysts said another Trump-Kim encounter would do little to advance progress on denuclearization. “Trump is trying to get a free hand in controlling peace on the Korean peninsula with his tweets and we can’t let that happen,” said Kim Dong-yup of Kyungnam University’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies in Seoul. “It’s a strategy and technique he adopted to deal with those who are in a weak position in negotiations, and that’s for domestic politics.”

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of people paraded through the streets of Mexico City on Saturday to celebrate the capital’s growing role as a beacon of tolerance for migrants fleeing persecution for their gender and sexuality in Latin America. Participants take part in the gay pride parade in Mexico City, Mexico June 29, 2019. REUTERS/Luis Cortes Clowns on stilts and drag queens in stilettos towered over the crowd filling the city’s Reforma boulevard for the 41st annual pride parade, while revelers pushed past policemen to join the throng of bright flags and gaudy outfits. The first Latin American capital to legalize gay marriage a decade ago, Mexico City has become a bastion of progressive causes in a country whose border cities have been under increasing scrutiny for their treatment of vulnerable migrants. “Here, I feel free compared to my own country, which is very repressive,” said Daniela Morillo, 25, a lesbian in rainbow garb who left Venezuela to marry her partner. Above her, a panoply of balloons hovered over the crowd, as peddlers offered cold drinks and rainbow face paint, applying all six colors in one thick brush stroke. Mexican immigration authorities do not register sexual orientation, but activists say the number of LGBTQ migrants in the capital has risen as people flee discrimination elsewhere. The LGBTQ exiles have been part of a surge in mostly U.S.-bound migrants that has pushed into the country from Central America and fueled tension between Mexico and U.S. President Donald Trump, who wants the exodus halted. The road through Mexico is perilous, and LGBTQ people, especially transgender women, are even more exposed. Some have been attacked in border cities like Tijuana. Nashieli Ramirez, head of Mexico City’s human rights commission, said the capital has received a number of migrants returning from towns on the U.S. frontier, including a group of transgender women who retreated from Tijuana last December. “They decided to come back because in the border city, they were being doubly discriminated against,” she told Reuters. Still, officials say the capital has its own problems. Mark Manly, the Mexico representative for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said even Mexico City needed to do more to curb discrimination as the UNHCR made its first-ever appearance at the parade this year. Henry Javier Umana, a migrant from Honduras, never had dreams of going all the way north. Once an activist in his local LGBTQ community, Umana began thinking about fleeing his homeland for Mexico when his ex-partner was murdered there. “I heard that Mexico City was very big, and very open,” said Umana, a shaggy-haired 34-year-old who wore a “love has no borders” shirt as he walked in the section for migrants and asylum-seekers - another first for the Mexico City parade. Parade organizer Patria Jimenez said solidarity with LGBTQ migrants had become more important since Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on June 7 agreed with Trump to send the National Guard to border regions to stem the flow of people. “We’re really worried,” Jimenez said, “since this has made migrants’ paths more difficult.”

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image copyright EPA Image caption US President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in have met for talks President Trump says he is still hoping to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un when he visits the fortified strip dividing the two Koreas shortly. He told a banquet in South Korea he was still "trying to work out" a meeting at the demilitarised zone (DMZ). He invited Mr Kim in an apparently spontaneous tweet from the G20 summit in Japan on Saturday. North Korea described the offer as interesting, but has not said whether Mr Kim will take it up. Mr Trump is in South Korea to discuss the flagging North Korea denuclearisation talks and trade. He will visit the DMZ with his South Korean counterpart, Moon Jae-in. A meeting with Mr Kim would be a symbolic encounter, typifying Mr Trump's unusual style of diplomacy. So far, two summits - in Singapore and Vietnam - have failed to bridge differences over North Korea's nuclear ambitions. A third meeting between the pair at the DMZ, commentators say, would have long-lasting resonance but minimal impact on the progress of denuclearisation talks. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un: From enemies to frenemies Mr Trump has not confirmed Mr Kim will be there, only saying he expects a "really interesting" visit to the DMZ. North Korea described the offer as a "very interesting suggestion", but stressed it had not received an official request. Mr Trump is expected to arrive at the DMZ at 2.30pm local time (06.30 GMT), according to the White House. What did Mr Trump say? At a banquet with South Korean business leaders, Mr Trump reiterated his wish to "say hello" to Mr Kim at the DMZ, saying both sides were "trying to work it out" but it was "not so easy". "I understand that they want to meet," he said. "It will be very short but that's OK. A handshake means a lot," he added. Earlier on Sunday, he said he would have "no problem" setting foot in North Korean territory to meet Mr Kim. He would be the first US president to cross the DMZ, a band 2.5 miles (4 km) wide and 150 miles (241 km) long which has divided the peninsula since the Korean War ended in 1953. Image copyright AFP Image caption South Korean soldier stands guard at the truce village of Panmunjom inside the DMZ None of his predecessors managed it, including Bill Clinton, who once described the DMZ as the "scariest place on Earth". It was Mr Trump's seemingly off-the-cuff tweet that built anticipation of a possible third face-to-face encounter between the pair. "If Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!," Mr Trump tweeted from Osaka. How are North Korea-US relations? They have soured somewhat since Mr Trump and Mr Kim met in Hanoi, Vietnam. The summit - their second after Singapore in June 2018 - ended abruptly without agreement on North Korea's progress towards denuclearisation. Mr Trump has repeatedly insisted that North Korea must dismantle its nuclear arsenal before economic sanctions can be lifted. Since the Hanoi summit, North Korea has risked incurring the wrath of the Trump administration by testing several short-range missiles. But Mr Trump, who once threatened North Korea with "fire and fury", has struck a more conciliatory tone recently, describing Mr Kim as a "very smart guy" and that he expected "a lot of good things" to come out of North Korea. Last week, Mr Trump - who this month said North Korea under Mr Kim's leadership had "tremendous potential" - sent the North Korean leader a personal letter whose content Mr Kim praised as "excellent".

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Fellow Democratic presidential candidates stepped up to defend Sen. Kamala Harris on Saturday from what they termed "racist" attacks. The criticism, fueled by a conservative commentator and amplified by Donald Trump Jr., also revived debate over "birtherism" -- a false allegation that dogged President Barack Obama. Ali Alexander, a black conservative political commentator, tweeted Thursday during the Democratic debate that Harris's comments on race were "freaking disgusting" and said she was not "an American Black." "Kamala Harris is *not* an American Black. She is half Indian and half Jamaican," he tweeted. "I'm so sick of people robbing American Blacks (like myself) of our history. It's disgusting. Now using it for debate time at #DemDebate2? These are my people not her people. Freaking disgusting." Harris was born in Oakland, California, to a a Tamil Indian mother and Jamaican father. Alexander openly claims he is a "#NeverKamala" supporter. He later said he was only making the distinction that her ancestors were Jamaican, not African American, and "didn't experience Jim Crow or US slavery." Trump Jr., the eldest son of the president, retweeted Alexander's comments during the debate, adding, "is this true? wow," before later deleting the tweet. Sen. Elizabeth Warren was the first Democratic opponent to weigh in on Alexander's comments. It's not clear which candidates were aware of Trump Jr.'s deleted tweet. "The attacks against @KamalaHarris are racist and ugly," she tweeted. "We all have an obligation to speak out and say so. And it’s within the power and obligation of tech companies to stop these vile lies dead in their tracks." The attacks against @KamalaHarris are racist and ugly. We all have an obligation to speak out and say so. And it’s within the power and obligation of tech companies to stop these vile lies dead in their tracks. — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 29, 2019 Washington Gov. Jay Inslee raised the issue of "birtherism," and criticized Trump Jr. for "peddling birtherism again." The coordinated smear campaign on Senator @KamalaHarris is racist and vile. The Trump family is peddling birtherism again and it’s incumbent on all of us to speak out against it. — Jay Inslee (@JayInslee) June 29, 2019 In the years prior to his candidacy, in 2011, President Donald Trump repeatedly -- and falsely -- questioned whether Obama was an American citizen. Even during the campaign, five years after Obama produced his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, Trump refused to answer a question from The Washington Post about whether he believed Obama was American. Tim Ryan echoed Inslee, saying, "The attack on @KamalaHarris is racist and we can't allow it to go unchecked. We have a responsibility to call out this birtherism and the continued spread of misinformation." Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Bill de Blasio and Kirsten Gillibrand all defended Harris, who has not dignified the remarks with a comment. Biden, Obama's vice president, also echoed the criticism of the birther movement. The same forces of hatred rooted in 'birtherism' that questioned @BarackObama's American citizenship, and even his racial identity, are now being used against Senator @KamalaHarris. It’s disgusting and we have to call it out when we see it. Racism has no place in America. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) June 29, 2019 The attacks against @KamalaHarris are racist & un-American, period. — Bill de Blasio (@BilldeBlasio) June 29, 2019 Harris graduated from Howard University, a historically black university, and was a member of the Alpha chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, the first Greek sorority for black women, founded by black women. ABC News' Rachel Scott, Cheyenne Haslett and Chris Donato contributed to this report.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

The "guardian angel" who donated two organs More than 100,000 people in the United States are waiting for an organ transplant. Statistics show that while 95% of Americans say they support organ donation, only 58% are actually signed up as a donor. But one man, James Neal, has given two organs away: he donated a kidney in 2016 and has now given part of his liver to a total stranger. Nikki Battiste reports.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Three people were arrested Saturday in connection with the violent Antifa protests that erupted in Portland, which resulted in the hospitalization of journalist and editor of Quilette, Andy Ngo. According to KPTV, police have arrested three suspects. Demonstration Events Conclude in Downtown Portland -Three Arrested (Photo) https://t.co/Wk9w43dxqI pic.twitter.com/ZId9Jd1pk0 — Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) June 30, 2019 Details via KPTV: Gage Halupowski, 23, on charges of second-degree assault and assault on a public safety officer. James K. Stocks, 21, on the charge of harassment. Maria C. Dehart, 23, on the charge of second-degree disorderly conduct and harassment. Antifa protesters in downtown Portland physically attacked Ngo, who was worried that something like that could occur. “I am nervous about tomorrow’s Portland Antifa rally,” he tweeted Friday. “They’re promising ‘physical confrontation’ & have singled me out to be assaulted.” “I went on Tucker Carlson last year to explain why I think they’re doing this: They’re seeking meaning through violence,” he added. I am nervous about tomorrow’s Portland antifa rally. They’re promising “physical confrontation” & have singled me out to be assaulted. I went on Tucker Carlson last year to explain why I think they’re doing this: They’re seeking meaning through violence. https://t.co/kpkESjsOmI pic.twitter.com/J45MMshyyK — Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) June 28, 2019 His concerns were well-founded, and the incident was, in part, captured on video. First skirmish I’ve seen. Didn’t see how this started, but @MrAndyNgo got roughed up. pic.twitter.com/hDkfQchRhG — Jim Ryan (@Jimryan015) June 29, 2019 Ngo was taken to the hospital and is reportedly being treated for injuries to his face and neck, including a ripped earlobe. Michelle Malkin provided an update: Attackers tore his ear lobe and you can see the injuries he sustained to his face and neck. Please keep sending messages of encouragement with your much appreciated donations to keep his spirits up and let him know how much his journalism matters. Portland Police also confirmed that some of the milkshakes thrown by protesters contained quick-drying cement. Police have received information that some of the milkshakes thrown today during the demonstration contained quick-drying cement. We are encouraging anyone hit with a substance today to report it to police. — Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) June 29, 2019 KPTV noted that more arrests could be on the way.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Republican lawmakers returned to the Oregon Senate on Saturday, ending an acrimonious nine-day walkout over a carbon emissions bill that would have been the second such legislation in the nation. The boycott had escalated when the Democratic governor ordered the state police to find and return the rogue Republicans to the Senate so the chamber could convene, and a counter-threat by one GOP senator to violently resist any such attempt. Senate Republicans fled the state to avoid being forcibly returned by the Oregon State Police, whose jurisdiction ends at the state line. Democrats have an 18 to 12 majority in the Senate but need at least 20 members — and therefore at least two Republicans — present to vote on legislation. Nine minority Republicans returned to the Senate on Saturday after Senate President Peter Courtney said the majority Democrats lacked the necessary 16 votes to pass the legislation, a statewide cap on carbon that allows companies to trade pollution credits. Shortly after convening, senators quickly voted 17-10 to send the climate proposal back to committee, essentially killing it for the session. Sen. Sara Gelser, a Democrat from the college town of Corvallis, said the demise of the cap-and-trade bill has deeply upset many constituents. “That’s a bill that’s been many, many years in the making,” Gelser told reporters Saturday. “I think there’s a lot of heartbreak, but today is one day and we’ll come back and address it. We have to. Our planet demands it.” The House had previously passed the bill, one of the centerpieces of Oregon’s 2019 legislative session, which is scheduled to end late Sunday. Republicans, who make up the minority in both chambers, uniformly opposed the proposal saying it would increase the cost of fuel and wreak financial havoc on the trucking and the logging industries. One of the Republicans absent Saturday was Sen. Brian Boquist, who had told state police to come heavily armed and to send bachelor officers if they were going to forcibly return him to the Senate during the walkout. Senate Republican leader Herman Baertschiger, Jr., on Friday refused to condemn Boquist’s words, only saying the comments were unhelpful. Boquist faces a formal complaint that will be taken up at a special committee hearing in July. The walkout by the Republicans, which began June 20, inspired protests at the Capitol by their backers and led to the building being closed one day due to a possible militia threat. But Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick said that the walkout didn’t change much, as the measure didn’t have enough support to get to the governor’s desk even before Republicans left the statehouse. “As the person who counts the votes, my personal sense is that the votes were not there,” Burdick told reporters earlier this week. The Republicans, though, painted their boycott as a triumph. “Our mission in walking out was to kill cap and trade,” Senate Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger told reporters Friday. “And that’s what we did.” Democrats had said the climate legislation was critical to make Oregon a leader in the fight against climate change and will ultimately create jobs and transform the economy. The bill, if passed, would have been the second in the nation, after California, to cap and trade pollution credits among companies. It aimed to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases by 2050 by capping carbon emissions and requiring businesses to buy or trade for an ever-dwindling pool of pollution “allowances.” With only two days before the 2019 legislative session officially ends, the Senate hurried through some of the more than 100 bills and motions that were still pending. Among the measures are ones on paid family and medical leave, campaign funding, and funding for the Oregon Food Bank and for Medicaid. Other big-ticket items are a bill aimed at addressing sexual harassment in the Capitol, money to expand affordable housing and an increased tobacco tax. The Republicans wielded power disproportionate to their numbers this session. They walked out of the Senate last month to block a school funding tax package. They returned only after Gov. Kate Brown brokered a deal in which Democrats dropped legislation on gun control and children’s vaccination requirements. “This is not how our democracy is supposed to work,” said Tara Hurst, executive director of the lobbying group Renew Oregon, which helped craft the climate proposal. Rep. Rachel Prusak, a freshman Democrat from a Portland suburb, said she is “heartbroken over the state of our Legislature.” Eleven Republicans participated in the walkout, with one Senate seat vacant due to the death of veteran lawmaker Jackie Winters in May, from cancer. Denyc Boles, who had been serving in the House, was sworn in Friday to take Winters’ seat, restoring the GOP caucus to its full number of 12. ___ This story has been updated to correct the spelling of the last name for Rep. Rachel Prusak. ___ Follow Andrew Selsky on Twitter at https://twitter.com/andrewselsky and Sarah Zimmerman at http://www.twitter.com/sarahzimm95

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

After a confrontation between authorities and protesters, police use pepper spray as multiple groups, including Rose City Antifa and the Proud Boys, protest in downtown Portland, Oregon, on Saturday. Dave Killen / AP

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s hands-off policy when it comes to Antifa protestors came under scrutiny on Saturday after journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by masked Antifa assailants. Wheeler, who is also police commissioner, said nothing on Saturday, as hundreds of Antifa protestors gathered on the streets, with some throwing milkshakes — potentially mixed with quick-drying cement — and assaulting Ngo. Ngo, shaken and bloodied, began livestreaming on his phone after his assault, and could be heard asking a police officer, “Where the hell were all of you?” U.S. Ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, who is openly gay like Ngo, tweeted, “Where is Mayor @tedwheeler?” Wheeler was silent on his Twitter account and issued no statement to media. “This is unacceptable. I am outraged. This violence from intolerants must stop. Portland leaders must be held to account,” Grenell tweeted again later. UFC fighter Ted Kennedy called on Wheeler to resign: What happened to @MrAndyNgo is horrible and inexcusable. The #mayor @tedwheeler should be resign for what he has done to #portland. I feel bad for the @PortlandPolice having their hands tied. The socialists with #antifa are dangerous and un-American. pic.twitter.com/k7PV2YTUgW — Tim Kennedy (@TimKennedyMMA) June 30, 2019 The Antifa groups participating in the protest reportedly included Rose City Antifa and the Democratic Socialists of America of Portland. They were allegedly protesting a “Him-Too” rally, where only dozens showed up, according to one photo. Wheeler previously defended his hands-off approach to dealing with Antifa in October, after members of the left-wing movement blocked streets and harassed drivers. “This is the story of Goldilocks and the two bears. The porridge is either too hot or it’s too cold,” he told reporters, according to a Washington Times article. “At any given moment in this city, the police are criticized for being heavy-handed and intervening too quickly, or they’re being criticized for being standoffish and not intervening quickly enough.” Wheeler also criticized a Fox News story that was headlined, “Mob rule? Leftist protesters take over Portland street.” “I’m willing to take criticism all day long from Fox News,” he said, according to the article. “But I’m not willing to accept criticism from Fox News of the men and women of the Portland Police Bureau.” Other journalists covering the protest described a chaotic and violent scene, with Antifa protestors allegedly throwing eggs and milkshakes at police officers, too: .@PortlandPolice say Pioneer Courthouse Square is closed and that: “Police have been hit with eggs and milkshakes.” — Jim Ryan (@Jimryan015) June 29, 2019 Protestors could be heard screaming at police officers who were at the protest. One shouted, “F-ck you pig!” Police on bikes broke up opposing protesters at Broadway and Morrison. pic.twitter.com/jIvsgntH4d — Jim Ryan (@Jimryan015) June 29, 2019 Second cop got egged right in front of me #PortlandOR SWBroadway & SW Morrison pic.twitter.com/Crq7dtyled — Jimmy Dore (@jimmy_dore) June 29, 2019 Antifa protestors also threw trash cans, newspaper stands, and patio furniture into the streets, according to a KPTV reporter: Some people threw trash cans, newspaper stands, and patio furniture into the street pic.twitter.com/QGN9UPE88O — Audrey Weil (@audreytweil) June 29, 2019 Antifa protestors were also reportedly using pepper spray. Later in the evening, police reportedly began using pepper spray and zip ties. The police department warned of arrest and use of force. PPB advising this is now a civil disturbance and unlawful assembly. If you do not disperse, you are subject to arrest or use of force. — Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) June 29, 2019 However, at the end of the day, only three people were arrested, according to KPTV.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image copyright Edi Rama Facebook Image caption PM Rama mocks the opposition during a campaign rally Albania is set for an election like no other since emerging from half a century of communism in 1990. Prime Minister Edi Rama has campaigned hard for Sunday's local polls - even though his Socialist candidates face almost no opposition at the ballot box. The main opposition is boycotting, but has urged militants to remain peaceful. President Ilir Meta has issued a decree to postpone the poll, but Mr Rama has rejected it and has started moves to impeach the president, once an ally. For months now, the opposition has held protests demanding the resignation of the prime minister and new general elections. They accuse Mr Rama of previous electoral fraud and corruption - which he denies. What is happening on Sunday? The vote is going ahead, with critics calling it just that, not an election given the lack of competition. Some local opposition mayors have used their powers to stop the use of public buildings - such as schools - as polling stations. Image copyright AFP Image caption The opposition says the government is corrupt Their supporters have clashed with police - and in some cases set fire to ballot papers and boxes. Lulzim Basha, leader of the largest opposition Democratic Party, has been under international pressure to rein in militants. On the eve of the vote, he urged supporters to refrain from violence. Mr Rama has been mercilessly mocking him, the president and the president's wife who now leads one of the opposition parties. What's causing this confrontation? Mr Rama - in power since 2013 - won the last parliamentary elections in 2017. Early this year, the opposition alleged that the vote had been "bought". German newspaper Bild has published intercepted telephone conversations that the opposition says prove their charges. Mr Rama has sued in a German court. Every poll result since the 1991 election - which took place a year after the fall of communism - has been disputed. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Petrol bombs hurled at Albanian prime minister's office earlier this year This time, however, the Albanian opposition took the unprecedented step of relinquishing their parliamentary mandates en bloc. Their tactic appears to have backfired. They had hoped to derail the work of parliament and force the government to back down. Is there any hope of reconciliation? Unlikely. Traditionally, election winners in Albania have adopted a "winner-takes-all approach" and the opposition has often seen street protests deliver what parliamentary discourse failed to. Western diplomats have been busy interceding to enable Sunday's vote to proceed without violence. Image copyright Reuters Image caption The EU has criticised some of the violent tactics use by protesters over the past few months The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has deployed election observers. Their initial report underlines the challenges they face. European Union leaders are assessing whether to start of membership negotiations for the Balkan nation, also a Nato ally. A decision expected in October may hinge on the outcome of Sunday's exercise.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

A partial transcript is as follows: ANDERSON COOPER: I still do not get used to President Trump genuflecting in front of dictators around the world. DAN RATHER: This is deeply strange, at least borderline bizarre, to see what happened today in that meeting with Putin. But as you just outlined, that was only the beginning. He praises the leader of Saudi Arabia. To put this in context, we have to understand, and whether you’re Republican, Democrat, Independent or whatever, that under President Trump, American foreign policy has become incoherent and immaturish. For example, tweeting to the president of North Korea, “Meet me at the DMZ, just to see you and say hello,” Those kinds of things. COOPER: I thought that was actually a joke when somebody said there’s now this tweet saying “Oh, you know, I’ll swing by the border just to saw hello.” RATHER: It turns out it wasn’t a joke. We knew it came directly from the president. The point is history is watching through all this. And let’s just start but we won’t end with whatever’s going on with President Trump and President Putin. As I say, deeply strange and dangerous. History’s watching, but they’re also watching all of this business with America foreign policies being incoherent all over the lot. The president himself doesn’t seem all that interested in learning about foreign policy, which can be complicated. He no longer reads the intelligence report… It’s hard to say in President Trump’s case whether it’s more ineptitude, ignorance or mendacity. But whatever it is, it’s dangerous for the country. And there is this, at the same time the president is almost praising ay autocrat he can find.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Dozens of Democrats have called for Trump impeachment proceedings in wake of Mueller’s report – but Pelosi has remained steadfast in opposing an inquiry In the House of Representatives the apparently frustrated Democratic congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, had one question for the leadership of her party: when would they impeach Donald Trump? “The thing that we’re struggling with is that we don’t know what we’re waiting for in terms of a caucus. And folks that are saying, ‘No, not yet. Not yet.’ OK – accepting that that’s your position, what are you waiting for?” the New York socialist said to reporters this week. “Are you waiting for some kind of revelation?” Nancy Pelosi tells Democrats: I want Trump 'in prison' but not impeached Read more That’s a question a growing number of Democrats are asking. Dozens of Democrats on Capitol Hill, including 2020 hopefuls such as Elizabeth Warren, have called for impeachment proceedings in the wake of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s damning report into Russia interference in the 2016 election, which also outlined numerous instances of obstruction of justice on the part of the president. Nor is it just leftwing firebrands like Ocasio-Cortez. One notable recent convert to the impeachment cause was California congresswoman Katie Porter, who announced her support by admitting: “I didn’t come to Congress to impeach the president.” But Porter added: “When faced with a crisis of this magnitude, I cannot with a clean conscience ignore my duty to defend the constitution.” Porter’s support struck a chord in Washington because, as the representative of a swing district, her announcement carried personal political risk. Most others who have called for impeachment hail from safely blue districts. Only one Republican – Michigan congressman Justin Amash – has signed up to the cause. The question now is, will the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, succumb to the growing pressure, or will she stand her ground? It is a fierce debate that is increasingly dividing the party, pitting pragmatists against ideologues, the leadership against its own members and advocates of policy who believe they have a constitutional duty to act against wrongdoing against those who prefer to wage politics and want to remove Trump by thrashing him at the 2020 ballot box. Pelosi has so far remained steadfast in opposing an impeachment inquiry on the grounds such a move would fail in the Republican-controlled Senate and could be politically divisive, potentially jeopardizing Democrats’ chances at ousting Trump via the ballot box in 2020. In March, she said in an interview with the Washington Post that impeachment would be “so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path”. A four-page summary later that month of Mueller’s report by William Barr, the Mueller critic Trump installed as attorney general, made that position seem prescient. Barr wrote in a letter to lawmakers that Mueller did not establish collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and that he’d punted on the issue of obstruction. Barr and his then deputy, Rod Rosenstein, cleared Trump of charges that he sought to interfere with the inquiry. When faced with a crisis of this magnitude, I cannot with a clean conscience ignore my duty to defend the constitution Katie Porter But in April, Barr released a redacted version of Mueller’s 448-page report that revealed his initial summary – and a bizarre, pre-publication press conference in which the attorney general sought to spin the findings like he was a member of Trump’s defense team – to be wildly misleading. On the question of obstruction of justice, Mueller laid out a series of episodes in which Trump personally sought to undermine the investigation, including by firing former FBI director James Comey and attempting to fire the special counsel himself. The reason Trump was not charged with a crime, Mueller implied, is because he did not believe justice department protocol allowed for a sitting president to be indicted. Holding the president accountable, he suggested, would necessarily be Congress, not the criminal justice system. For some Democrats, like the congressman and 2020 presidential candidate Eric Swalwell, that was a call to action. “The congressman is concentrated on protecting our democracy and believes that a fair process will either remove a corrupt president or acquit him but inaction is no longer an option,” a representative for Swalwell said. The momentum behind impeachment may be having some impact. Pelosi has introduced the word into her vocabulary as of late, implying that she was keeping the door open to the possibility. But she has also stayed the course, tamping down criticism from her ranks that it’s Congress’s duty to hold the president accountable – regardless of whether it would succeed or not. Instead, she has called for Democrats to press on with their investigations, as well as to focus on kitchen table issues such as healthcare, which helped them take

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Syrian refugees in Lebanon are being forced to tear down their own homes in the face of an aggressive new campaign by the Lebanese authorities to pressure refugees into returning home. In the border town of Arsal, informal settlements that house 55,000 refugees were the scene of frantic activity under the hot summer sun on Friday as young men took apart the breeze-block homes with pickaxes, hammers and drills, covering the ground in rubble and dust. “We don’t have anywhere else to live and there is no one to help us,” 84-year-old Rasmeera Raad said between sobs as she sat with her two disabled adult daughters in a makeshift mosque near the site of their old house. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Refugees at the camp in Arsal. Photograph: Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images Local officials have decided to implement a military decree demanding the demolition of Syrian concrete structures more than 1 metre high before a 1 July deadline. Fearing that the army will come with bulldozers and raze the camps to the ground, families have decided to carry out the work themselves in order to save the few possessions they own. The British charity Edinburgh Direct Aid (EDA) as well as the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) are on the ground helping to construct and move families into new wood and tarpaulin shelters, but time is running out before the Monday deadline and the evictions have stretched aid groups’ financial resources. “I cried when we got the order to demolish our home,” said a 47-year-old father of five, Mohamed al-Qasem, who lost his leg after a shelling attack in Syria. “The breeze-block walls protect us from the worst of the winter storms. I couldn’t do the work with one leg but I had no choice, even if it took me six months on crutches. Now we can relax – our home is finished and we have obeyed the army rules. But what about the next time they order us to do something? We never know.” Lebanon has become home to about 1.5 million Syrians since the war next door broke out in 2011. Fearing the newcomers would permanently settle – like the Palestinians before them – the Lebanese government has not allowed the creation of formal refugee camps and outlawed the construction of “permanent residences” using concrete. The ordered demolition in Arsal has left 5,000 families and as many as 15,000 children homeless again, according to Save the Children, forced to relive the traumatic experience of sleeping outside or in overcrowded tents. Anti-refugee sentiment has grown and faded in Lebanon over the years, but is on the rise again as a result of a deteriorating economy and the growing profile of the foreign minister, Gebran Bassil, who has spearheaded a new campaign to send Syrians home. Bassil, the leader of Lebanon’s largest Christian party, the Free Patriotic Movement, portrays himself as the protector of the country’s dwindling Christian population by referring to what he says is a Lebanese “genetic distinction” and nationalist slogans such as “Lebanon above all”. It is believed he has ambitions to take over as president from his ageing father-in-law, Michel Aoun. His government coalition allies have begun enforcing laws that were previously rarely implemented, shutting down shops owned by or employing Syrians without permits and ordering the demolition of permanent refugee structures. The hostile rhetoric has spiralled into violent incidents, such as an arson attack on a Syrian settlement near the town of Deir al-Qamar this month which displaced 400 people. After eight years of exile in miserable conditions, many Syrians express a desire to return home. Aid agencies and rights groups say, however, that without a political resolution to the war or guarantees for returners’ safety the country is still too dangerous for any large-scale return programme. “While many parts of Syria are not witnessing active conflict any more, vast swaths of the country are still facing unprecedented destruction. This means that many refugees do not have homes to return to or services when they get there,” said Joelle Bassoul, regional media manager for Save the Children. “In addition, men fear conscription into the Syrian armed forces, and many families are concerned about arrest, detention, and imprisonment if they return.” In Arsal on Friday, a visit from the army to inspect the demolition work sent tensions in the camp skyrocketing. “We battle on and we will meet the deadline but the future for Syrian refugees in Lebanon is bleak,” Maggie Tookey, overseas project director for EDA, said from the site. “I saw the hopelessness in the eyes of Fatima Zahouri, a young teacher. She asked me: ‘Is this the way our lives will always be?’”

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

(CNN) Cedric Willis spent nearly 12 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Since his exoneration in 2006, he worked as a motivational speaker, helped register Mississippi residents to vote and visited schools talking about his experience. "He'd been working out, he was feeling good," says Emily Maw, his attorney with the Innocence Project New Orleans (IPNO). The two had become good friends and Maw says the last time she saw him three weeks ago, "things seemed to be going so well for him." On June 24, Willis was shot and killed in his Jackson, Mississippi, neighborhood, two blocks from his home. The Jackson Police Department has not said if they have a suspect or provided any information on the motive. CNN has attempted to reach the department multiple times but has not received a response. His mother, Elayne Willis, said police visited last week and told her the incident is still under investigation. "The only thing I know for certain is my son is dead. He left home and he didn't come back," she told CNN. "I don't know what, why, I don't know anything." Willis was failed by the country again and again, Maw says. "America hurts black men in so many ways. Two of the main ways it does that is through the criminal justice system and the utter failure to control guns. Cedric has been a victim of both and that's particularly tragic." DNA evidence, mistaken eyewitnesses In the summer of 1994, Willis was 19 and celebrating the birth of his son, CJ, when he was arrested and accused of the rape of a woman in one armed robbery and the murder of a man in another in Jackson. The two robberies, and three others committed in Jackson at the time, had similar patterns and evidence showed the same gun had been used. Victims gave similar descriptions of the perpetrator, IPNO said. The suspect, victims said, had a gold tooth and no tattoos, IPNO said, but Willis had no gold teeth and his arms were inked. He was also 70 pounds heavier than their descriptions, according to IPNO. But victims from both robberies later identified Willis as the perpetrator. Testing determined his DNA did not match the sample found on the rape victim and prosecutors dropped those charges, but he was tried for the second robbery and murder. At trial, the jury did not hear about the DNA testing that excluded Willis from one robbery and the rape. "Eyewitnesses are so often wrong. If you've excluded forensics that point in another direction from eyewitness identification, that's an enormous red flag," Maw said. Cedric Willis and IPNO attorney Emily Maw Willis was convicted of murder and armed robbery in 1997 and sentenced to life in prison plus 90 years, according to the Life After Exoneration Program (LAEP). "They knew they had the wrong man and they prosecuted him any way," Maw said. Willis was taken to the Mississippi State Penitentiary, where he was kept in solitary confinement for four years, according to the National Registry of Exonerations , which compiles information about exonerations. His time in prison, Maw says, was especially difficult because he suffered from epilepsy and often had blackouts and seizures. Willis' request for a new trial went ignored for years, the registry reports. IPNO heard about WIllis' case in 2004 and in 2005, after the nonprofit law office's request, he was granted a new trial. "Cedric was very shy and very wary," Maw says of when the two first met. "He'd come to the point where he didn't really trust or believe anyone remembered that he was there except his mom and his family." "It took a while for him to trust that we were going to stick around and get this done," she said. In 2006, a judge found previous witness testimony inadmissible, according to the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, and the charges against Willis were dismissed. On March 6, 2006, he became a free man. A 'very low-key guy' Willis' mother never believed he committed the crimes and always hoped he'd be free again. "He had just become a father, he's not going out and killing anybody," she said of the summer when he was arrested. While he was in prison, Habitat for Humanity built Elayne Willis a house and she insisted they add one more bedroom for her son. "I told [them] my son was coming home and I've got to have a room for him," she said. That bedroom is where Willis lived after he was freed and until he died. In the years since his exoneration, he built a strong relationship with his son and family, and even though his epilepsy often got in the way of keeping a job, Willis kept busy. He spoke with the NAACP, Maw said. He worked with the ACLU, registering people to vote, doing what he loved to call "election protection," the attorney said. He helped take care of his cousin's and sister's kids, took on a few jobs periodically and, more recently, was enjoying his new role as a grandfather. "He was just a kindhearted, loving person trying to help people," Elayne Willis said. His mother says his wrongful conviction had deeply affected him, but he "never ever let it show." "He was a very low-key guy dealing with an awful lot: the unimaginable wrong and pain he suffered and the difficulty of being a black man in Jackson, Mississippi," Maw says. Willis was on his way home when he was killed, his mother said. "He gave me so much joy," she said. "And I'm just going to miss him."

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Donald Trump Jr. was bashed on Twitter Saturday for boosting a new kind of “birtherism” campaign against Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) that’s surging now in the wake of her breakout performance in the Democratic primary debate. A right-wing operative attacked Harris on Twitter after the debate, claiming she had no right to represent American blacks because her father grew up in Jamaica. Harris is of Indian and Jamaican heritage and was born in Oakland. The attack went viral thanks in part to Donald Jr.’s retweet and an assist from Twitter accounts identified as bots. The onslaught echoes the “birther” campaign against Barack Obama falsely claiming he was born in Africa and couldn’t therefore legally be president. Donald Trump (with wife Melania ) was a leading voice among a group of conspiracy theorists that promulgated the Obama birther lie. Now the attack moves down a generation. The irony is that those challenging Harris’ “bonafides” as a minority are battling to undermine equality from within a right-wing perspective. Screen shot/Donald Trump Jr. tweet Several other candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination quickly came to Harris’ defense — and lashed Donald Jr. He deleted the birtherism tweet after boosting its readership. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee ripped the Tump family’s birther legacy. The coordinated smear campaign on Senator @KamalaHarris is racist and vile. The Trump family is peddling birtherism again and it’s incumbent on all of us to speak out against it. — Jay Inslee (@JayInslee) June 29, 2019 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) deadpanned: “Donald Trump Jr. is a racist too. Shocker.” And Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) declared that Harris “doesn’t have shit to prove.” Donald Trump Jr. is a racist too. Shocker. https://t.co/cy0N6fUseX — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) June 29, 2019 Joe Biden — who Harris clashed with over desegregation busing in the debate— slammed the “same forces of hatred” behind the birtherism attacks on Obama and Harris. The same forces of hatred rooted in 'birtherism' that questioned @BarackObama's American citizenship, and even his racial identity, are now being used against Senator @KamalaHarris. It’s disgusting and we have to call it out when we see it. Racism has no place in America. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) June 29, 2019 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was the first of the rival candidates to attack the “racist” attack in a tweet. The attacks against @KamalaHarris are racist and ugly. We all have an obligation to speak out and say so. And it’s within the power and obligation of tech companies to stop these vile lies dead in their tracks. — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 29, 2019 The presidential competitive field is stronger because Kamala Harris has been powerfully voicing her Black American experience. Her first-generation story embodies the American dream. It’s long past time to end these racist, birther-style attacks. https://t.co/x5Wdx8DKr8 — Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) June 29, 2019 There's a long history of black Americans being told they don't belong—and millions are kept down and shut out to this day. @KamalaHarris is an American. Period. And all of us must call out attempts to question her identity for what they are: racist. https://t.co/g3n7lmoU2h — Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) June 29, 2019 Harris’ husband, Douglas Emhoff, thanked his wife’s defenders on Twitter for “calling out this crap for what it is.”

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

For Donald Trump the showman, this may have been the greatest performance of his presidency. In one dramatic gesture, he became the first U.S. president to set foot in North Korea -- and the first to arrange an impromptu meeting with a North Korean dictator via tweet. Thirty-two hours after @realdonaldtrump extended his Twitter invite to Kim Jong Un, the two men were at the demilitarized zone, shaking hands across the border that separates North and South Korea. Of course, there is no progress yet on dismantling North Korea's nuclear program, just a promise of more talks. But the Kim/Trump show is back on, something that was not guaranteed after the February summit in Hanoi broke off without an agreement. The danger is still there. But the apocalyptic insults are on hold. And so are the nuclear tests and long-range missile tests. The scene at the DMZ was dramatic and chaotic because there was no agenda, no plan, no advance work. This was improv. North Korean leaders are not known for improv. And neither, for that matter, are U.S. diplomats. AP Photo/Susan Walsh The first moves seemed well choreographed: the handshake, the walk over to the North Korean side and the walk back to the South Korean side. It's a move that not even a South Korean president had ever done until President Moon Jae-in did it last April. Then -- chaos. The two leaders walked around and talked, security guards for both sides were seemingly unclear about where they were going and where the press would be allowed to go. After both men addressed the press outside, they were joined by South Korea's president as they walked into a building, called the House of Freedom, on the South Korean side of the border. There was lots of yelling as some of the Korean press followed the leaders into the building. There were shouts to the press to back away from the building. Then, moments later, shouts for the U.S. press to come inside. The lone U.S. video camera rolls through it all --- capturing the pushing, yelling, shoving. At one point, incoming White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham appears. She elbows and shoves aside a Korean security guard who was among those trying to block the U.S. press from getting into the room where Kim and Trump were now meeting. It's one hell of an introduction to the job for the new press secretary. AP Photo/Susan Walsh By the time the U.S. press got into the room, Kim was already talking and he kept talking as the White House pool camera fought to get into a position to take it all in. After the cameras left, Trump and Kim met for another 40 minutes. Then, Trump escorted Kim Jong Un back to North Korea. The show goes on.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Labor is considering backing a Senate inquiry into compliance with ministerial standards which is being pursued by the Centre Alliance after controversy over Christopher Pyne’s decision to join a major consultancy firm. Pyne, the former defence minister, announced last week he had taken up a job with EY to help the consulting group expand its defence business. The current federal ministerial standards require that ministers do not lobby, advocate for or have business meetings with government, parliamentarians, or the defence force on “any matters on which they have had official dealings” in the past 18 months. The standards also say that ministers should not use information they have obtained in office for private gain. The guidelines are not enforceable, and transgressions are rarely policed. With parliament set to resume on Tuesday, Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick has now called for a Senate inquiry into compliance with the standards. “Mr Pyne cannot unknow what he knows from nearly three years’ service at the top of the defence portfolio,” he said Sunday. “His acceptance of his new job with EY is unquestionably a breach of the spirit, and indeed the letter, of the prime minister’s standards. The question is now what is the prime minister going to do about it?” Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong, who was critical of Pyne’s decision to join the firm last week, said the opposition was considering the Patrick proposal for a Senate investigation. “When even Mr Pyne’s own party colleagues raise concerns about his actions, as we saw with Senator Abetz … it is clear Mr Morrison needs to act to enforce his own code of conduct,” Wong said. Abetz said he wanted to see a full disclosure of Pyne’s new role to ensure his former colleague had not breached the guidelines. The home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, suggested on Friday the issue might end up before the privileges committee. Alek Sigley: Facebook page of Australian missing in North Korea briefly reappears Read more Pyne’s appointment has also prompted frustration from the Australia Defence Association, which says ministers should be subject to the same requirements as high ranking military officers and senior defence public servants, who are typically required to avoid private work related to their previous dealings in government for 12 months. Patrick told Guardian Australia on Sunday there would be no need for a Senate inquiry if Morrison was prepared to take concrete action to enforce the standards. “There is a statement of ministerial standards, and it either means something or it doesn’t.” EY has issued a statement saying it would ensure that no work Pyne did for the company would breach the ministerial standards. “Mr Pyne has made clear that he is totally aware of his obligations under the ministerial code of conduct and is committed to adhering to them,” the statement said.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

From right, North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un walks with US President Donald Trump during a break in talks at their historic US-North Korea summit, at the Capella Hotel on Sentosa island in Singapore on June 12, 2018. Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images file

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Trump meets Kim Jong Un, becomes first sitting U.S. president to step into North Korea "Stepping across that line was a great honor," Trump said after the two walked toward each other and shook hands.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Stephanie Grisham replaced Sarah Sanders as White House press secretary only recently, but Grisham reportedly has already been injured on the job. Grisham suffered bruises when a scuffle broke out Sunday between North Korean security guards and members of the media trying to get close to President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as they shook hands at the Demilitarized Zone, the Associated Press reported. STEPHANIE GRISHAM, MELANIA TRUMP'S SPOKESWOMAN, NAMED WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: WHAT TO KNOW The new press secretary was reportedly pushing back against the guards, trying to help members of the White House press corps position themselves to cover the historic moment between Trump and Kim. Several reporters tweeted about the clash between the guards and the media. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP It was not immediately clear if Grisham required medical attention or if anyone else was injured or detained by the guards. Grisham, 42, had been a spokeswoman for first lady Melania Trump before being named last week as the successor to Sarah Sanders, whose last day at the White House was Friday. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

BEIJING (Reuters) - China’s state planning agency on Sunday said it has cut the number of sectors subject to foreign investment restrictions, as Beijing moved to fulfill its promise to open major industries. Employees are seen working on a production line of a factory manufacturing composite material products in Nantong, Jiangsu province, China May 24, 2019. Picture taken May 24, 2019. REUTERS/Stringer The loosening in curbs, though widely anticipated, comes after the United States and China agreed on the weekend to restart trade talks with U.S. President Donald Trump offering concessions on tariffs and an easing of restrictions on tech company Huawei. The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said it has eased foreign investment curbs on sectors including petroleum and gas exploration and widened access to agriculture, mining and manufacturing. NDRC published on its website the new, shorter so-called negative list that sets out industries where foreign investment is limited or prohibited. The number of sectors and subsectors on the negative list was cut to 40 from 48 in the previous version, which was published in June last year. The new list takes effect on July 30. The NDRC document said domestic shipping agencies, gas and heat pipelines in cities with more than 500,000 people, cinemas and performance agencies no longer needed to be controlled by Chinese entities. It also widened access to petroleum and gas exploration, agriculture and some metals resources exploration. China has repeatedly promised to further open its markets to foreign investment, but has stressed such decisions would be based on the economy’s own needs and not due to external pressure. It shortened the negative list last year, easing curbs on sectors including banking, the automotive and heavy industries, while also allowing 100% foreign ownership in some industries where ownership caps previously applied. Foreign investment in China was previously assessed on a case-by-case basis with approval granted by the local branch of the commerce ministry. Under the negative list system, only investments in industries specified in the list are prohibited or subject to review. Despite the reforms of recent years, foreign businesses say progress has been slow with foreign investment in many industries still restricted while fresh promises of greater access do little more that repeat earlier pledges.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

(CNN) A pair of beagles discovered two Giant African Snails in the luggage of a passenger arriving at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International airport, according to US Customs and Border Protection. Canine comrades Candie and Chipper, members of CBP's "Beagle Brigade," alerted customs officials Sunday to a checked bag from Nigeria at the international baggage claim. Inside were two Giant African Snails -- a particularly invasive species -- and prohibited fruits and vegetables, according to a news release from the CBP. What's so bad about a couple of snails? This snail species is "one of the most damaging" in the world, according to the US Department of Agriculture , because they reproduce quickly -- about 1,200 eggs in one year -- and eat at least 500 types of plants, including peanuts and melons. They can also cause damage to the structure of plaster and stucco buildings. And once they are in, it's hard to get them out. When Giant African Snails were first found in southern Florida in the 1960s, it took a decade and $1 million to eradicate them, the USDA said. Eradication efforts are ongoing after the snails were reintroduced in 2011. "CBP is on the frontline 24/7, searching for anything entering our country that could potentially harm our citizens," Lee Deloatch, the acting area port director for the Atlanta CBP in a statement. "Our beagles sniffing out these snails highlights how valuable our canine members are to protecting the U.S." Read More

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

(CNN) Beto O'Rourke is set to visit Mexico on Sunday to meet with migrants in an effort to highlight the conditions facing those forced to wait outside the United States as they seek asylum. The former Texas congressman will meet in Mexico with people who are seeking asylum, predominantly from the "Northern Triangle" countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and are being forced to wait outside the country for the duration of their immigration proceedings under President Donald Trump's administration's "Remain in Mexico" program -- which O'Rourke's campaign said is "unlawful." "In all of the debate around immigration, we can't forget who it impacts most: the people traveling thousands of miles, fleeing the worst kind of violence and oppression," O'Rourke said in a statement. "Turning away refugees, families and asylum seekers is not who we are as a country. But as long as Donald Trump is president -- it will be." It's O'Rourke's first international trip as a Democratic presidential candidate, but to a city he has visited often: the bridge from Ciudad Juárez to El Paso is just five miles from O'Rourke's house, which overlooks Mexico. Read More

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

The link between austerity and stalling life expectancy, and between inequality and adverse health and wellbeing, is so strongly supported that I am unsure that we need the full-scale inquiry that many eminent epidemiologists are proposing (“Why is life expectancy faltering?” Special Report). Might it not be better to direct attention to the sort of fine-grained, focused studies that help us understand how these economic and social differences get under the skin? People dying earlier are dying of specific things. How can we link lack of money, cuts to support available and the impact of austerity and inequality on the life choices people consider they have with the illnesses they are dying prematurely of? We also need to understand what is working in other countries where life expectancy is higher and in other parts of the UK where local experiences are bucking trends. These sorts of studies open the way to interventions to disrupt the connections between disadvantage and adverse outcome and to replicate successes. Epidemiologists have interpreted the world in valuable ways; the point, however, is to change it. Neil Small Professor of health research, University of Bradford In response to “We want to live forever” (Magazine), the meaning of carpe diem as used by Horace is not to ignore the future, but, rather, not to trust that everything is going to fall into place for you. But should that involve making heroic attempts to extend one’s already considerable lifespan? I am proud to have been part of the therapeutic drugs revolution that took place over the latter half of the last century. But what if we were to make a series of breakthroughs (via drugs, gene therapy or lifestyle) that extended life to 150 years and beyond? In an already overcrowded world, the consequences would be horrendous. I feel content to have a mere 20 years of fruitful retirement – more than my grandparents had – and to leave the world to the next generations. So be content with the 70, 80 or 90 years you have been given and at the same time “do not go gentle into that good night”. Robert Jones Professor emeritus, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Edinburgh Johnson, Hunt and the planet You say of Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, with regards to Brexit, that they “seem entirely unperturbed about its impact on the least affluent areas of the country” (Editorial). What about Brexit’s impact on the least affluent areas of the world where climate change is already having a devastating impact? How will we cope with our task of cutting back our carbon emissions if we are busy setting up new trading agreements with Japan and planning to import beef from Australia and chickens from America? “The damage they seem all too willing to wreak on Britain” they will also, one way or the other, wreak on the whole planet. Barbara Mullarney Wright London W3 Oxbridge ethics exposed Of course “cultural institutions should have some principles”, but there can be little surprise that Oxford University is going to set up a “predator-funded ethics centre” with the £150m donation from financier Stephen Schwarzman (“Ethics fly out of the window at Oxford when big donors come calling”, Comment). The university, like Cambridge, has failed to introduce a contextual admissions policy that would increase diversity among undergraduates, offer more opportunities to students from northern and working-class backgrounds and decrease the domination of private schools. Rather than adopting a more “ethical” admissions policy, it would appear the opposite may be happening, so one of our top universities accepting a massive gift of dubiously acquired money should astonish no one. Vice-chancellor Louise Richardson claims Oxford’s “judginess” has been left behind, but only, it would appear, when it comes to money! Bernie Evans Liverpool A rotten prison regime This government, like so many before it, has professed to do something-anything about our profligate and damaging over-reliance on prison but chickened out (“There are better answers than jail for women who have offended”, Comment). This is especially so for non-violent offenders and those deemed at low risk of future offending. The likelihood of converting them into recidivists is boosted several-fold by their unintelligent incarceration. The self-same perverse recipe – if in doubt, jail – also applies to male offenders, in particular the young and those so geriatric that the notion of them reoffending would be laughable were it not so indefensible. Empty the prisons – any mature administration would be leading from the front on this vexed issue, rather than remaining afraid of its own shadow and addressing the initial reticence of a society surely open to rational persuasion. We have almost doubled our prison population since the early 90s, abjuring the dictates of common sense and the examples of more enlightened and effective policies in an increasing number of other nations. Why is what passes for a strategy so stuck in aspic? Malcolm Fowler Solicitor and higher court advocate (retired), former chair of the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee, Kings Heath, Birmingham Rylance’s principled exit Vanessa Thorpe, in her assessment of Mark Rylance’s decision to leave the RSC, says cultural institutions must inevitably prostitute themselves to big business, regardless of how nefarious those businesses’ practices are (“Mark Rylance is brave...”, Comment). Failure to do so, she asserts, will threaten the financial viability of many institutions and mean the certain end to the RSC’s cheap ticket scheme for young people. Neither would be the case if the government ended its subsidies to the fossil-fuel industries, which at the last count stood at £10.5bn per annum, and applied a small proportion of that towards proper funding of the arts. The more artists who follow Rylance’s lead (and the more of us who welcome these stands), the sooner, hopefully, the government might act accordingly. Dave Hunter Bristol You cannot fault Rylance’s moral probity, but this is a sullied and compromised world and sometimes right-minded principles may have to be shelved for the ultimate good and viability of the commodity. The arts are being subjected to more and more cuts and privations and sometimes the greater cultural benefits to its people can offset its dubious connections. If we all step away, the financial ground might open up and swallow our cultural scene altogether. There is enough uncertainty without losing thought-provoking plays that can often in this medium make sense of our mendacious world. Shakespeare said: “How far that little candle throws its beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world”, but we don’t want to extinguish the light completely as we are in need of it more than ever to lift our spirits. Judith A Daniels Cobholm, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Vladimir Putin has many faces: Russian patriot, man of the people, macho sportsman, global power-broker. But the mask slipped last week. The world glimpsed the real Putin and it was an ugly sight. There is a meanness about him, a smallness of mind born of fear and anger. His world view, warped by the cold war and his KGB training, is twisted, resentful, defensive. He has almost nothing positive to say. Putin is an empty space where leadership and moral example should be. Why, then, should anybody care what he thinks? His remarks proclaiming western liberalism “obsolete” were deliberately provocative. His inflammatory comments about immigration and multiculturalism, his ill-disguised homophobia and his chilling vow to punish “traitors” (a reference to last year’s Salisbury poisonings by Russian agents) were familiar tactics, intended to sow division and unease. Why rise to such obvious incitements? Surely it would be better to ignore him? Western leaders find that impossible in part because they fear Putin may be right. Certainly not on matters of principle, nor in terms of his nasty prejudices. But when he suggests reactionary nationalist and populist forces are everywhere advancing, that the postwar democratic consensus no longer holds and that “the liberal idea [is in] conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population”, they worry there could be a grain of truth. This is the truly menacing, subversive face of Putinism. And it is infecting the global body politic. It’s an eat-or-be-eaten world in which cold-eyed men like Putin and Trump are predators-in-chief Putinism has an ally in Donald Trump, who greeted Russia’s president as an honoured friend at this weekend’s Osaka G20 summit. The two men share a liking for authoritarian governance by executive decree, intolerance for democratic, legal and parliamentary constraints and a crude vision of a world divided by nations, money and brute force. Putin praised Trump’s mistreatment of migrants who, he said, “kill, plunder and rape with impunity”. A smirking Trump joked about Putin’s illicit election meddling (which helped him win in 2016) and what fun it would be to “get rid” of journalists. In fact, Putin has pursued the latter idea with lethal efficiency for 20 years. In places such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Brazil, the Philippines, Sudan and Egypt, Putinism is catching on. Basically, “strongman” leaders centralise power, buy off, lock up or eliminate opponents, silence the media, lie to the public and then do whatever they want. Xi Jinping’s China has its own variation on the theme. Europe’s emulators include Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. The central, fear-inducing message of such leaders is that the people and the nation are under threat from multiple outside forces and only they will protect them. This is the dystopia evoked by Putin’s bragging. This is the alternative, nightmare world he represents, where democratic consent no longer matters, where individual rights are scorned, where gender and racial differences are penalised, where courts and judges are no longer impartial, where newspapers print what they are ordered, where tolerance and compassion are seen as weaknesses and where international law, regulating relations between states, is ignored. It’s an eat-or-be-eaten world in which cold-eyed men such as Putin and Trump are predators-in-chief. The threat from the right is plain. But those on the left who act as apologists for Putin’s Russia should take a long, hard look at themselves. Collaboration with the many faces of modern fascism is as repulsive as ever. Democracy’s weaknesses, and the imperfections of institutions such as the EU, do not remotely justify their destruction and vilification. Know your enemy: that is the lesson of 1930s Europe and it is urgently applicable today. Essential, vibrant liberal values and beliefs are worth fighting for now, just as much as during the great struggles of the 20th century. The proud legacy of a consensual, rules-based world order is ours to defend, develop and project, not heedlessly squander or tamely surrender to the demagogues of the new nationalist-populist miasma. As the EU council president, Donald Tusk, says, what is really obsolete is “authoritarianism, personality cults, the rule of oligarchs”. And that, surely, is the point. The anxious introspection triggered by Putin should not obstruct a clear-eyed view of the Russia he has built. Putin rose to power in 1999-2000 on the back of an atrocious conflict in the Caucasus and has been waging unjust wars, in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, ever since. Under Putin’s rule, Russia suffers de facto one-party rule, systemic corruption, repression of civil rights, censorship and mafia-style assassinations that routinely go unpunished. The idea that Putinism offers a viable, alternative governance model is as ridiculous as it is sickening. Who massacred the citizens of Grozny and Aleppo and is still killing innocents in Idlib today? Who killed Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko? Who killed Boris Nemtsov? Who killed 298 people aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine? And who tried to kill the Skripals? Vladimir Putin is definitely among the world’s most wanted men – but not for the reasons he thinks.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Imagine an opposition political party in a land being taken over by an oligarchy, headed by a would-be tyrant. Democrats divided as pressure to impeach builds: ‘What are you waiting for?’ Read more The tyrant and the oligarchy have convinced many voters the reason they feel powerless and economically insecure isn’t because the oligarchy has taken most of the economic gains and overwhelmed the government with its money. It’s because the country has been taken over by undocumented migrants, Latinos, African Americans and a “deep state” of coastal liberals, intelligence agencies and mainstream media. This is rubbish, of course, but the tyrant is masterful at telling big lies and he is backed by the oligarchy’s money. 'Moderate' or 'centrist' mean little in a land succumbing to tyranny and oligarchy Imagine further that the opposition party will soon face another election in which it could possibly depose the tyrant and overcome the oligarchy. But at the rate they are consolidating power – over the courts, politics and the media – this could be the opposition’s last chance. What would it do? Would it allow virtually anyone to seek to be the party’s candidate for president (and gain valuable brand recognition along the way), including spiritual gurus, one-issue entrepreneurs and minor elected officials who have never even run for state office? I doubt it. The party would establish criteria to filter out those who had no real chance. Would it let almost every one of them go on television to debate one other, thereby placing a premium on one-line zingers, fast talk and rapid-fire putdowns? Would it assign them randomly to one of two nights, so several candidates with the most support would not even get to debate one other? Of course not. Instead, it would take the half-dozen who had the best chance and structure the debates so they could demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the forcefulness of their ideas in lengthy back-and-forth exchanges. Would it encourage them to split the party over policy issues that almost no one understands, such as the meaning of “Medicare for all”, thereby causing some voters to become alarmed about a government takeover of the healthcare system and others to worry the government won’t go far enough?

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Pressure is mounting within the Conservative party to end its block on new onshore windfarms after evidence that Tory supporters overwhelmingly back their return. Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, who are battling to become the party’s new leader, are facing internal calls to give the green light to new onshore wind projects that could slash the price of energy. Latest research suggests Tory voters are far more concerned about fracking than they are about onshore windfarms. Clamping down on onshore wind turbines was used by David Cameron to appease Tory heartlands when he was prime minister. He said people were “frankly fed up” with the farms and slashed their subsidies, effectively making new installations unfeasible. The move led to an 80% slump last year in new onshore wind farms, with the fewest built since 2011. However, polling of more than 15,000 Tory voters suggests there is now clear support for onshore wind farms. The survey, carried out by Survation, for the Conservative Environment Network, showed that 74% of people who voted Conservative in the last election support onshore wind farms. The figure was twice the number of Tory voters who back fracking – just 37%. Analysis of the poll carried out by Chris Hanretty, professor of politics at Royal Holloway University, found support was high in eight of the 10 constituencies identified by Conservatives as swing seats, targeted by Liberal Democrats. This includes Bath and Richmond Park, where support is 80.7% and 78.1% respectively. Many Tory MPs, irrespective of whether they backed Remain or Leave at the referendum, are uniting in calling for a rethink. Vicky Ford, MP for Chelmsford, who is backing Hunt, said: “Times have changed. More people are more concerned about climate change than ever before, and most people support onshore wind too. Back in 2015, many members of the public were concerned about onshore wind planning applications. That clearly isn’t the case any more – our own voters are telling us otherwise. We should let onshore wind be built where communities want it.” Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond Park, who is backing Johnson, said: “Our constituents want to see us do more to tackle climate change. By introducing the net zero target we are responding with world-leading legislation. They support the technologies that will help us to get to that net zero future, which includes the use of onshore wind farms. “The next election will be fought on several key issues where we clearly diverge from other parties. But we shouldn’t be ceding ground on those that are straightforward, like bringing back onshore wind farms.” Theresa May commits to net zero UK carbon emissions by 2050 Read more There is mounting evidence that onshore wind is significantly cheaper than other forms of energy. The government has already committed to a “net-zero” carbon emissions target by 2050. Onshore wind is currently excluded from competing in Contracts for Difference auctions, which are designed to provide stability and certainty to investors. The exclusion has been blamed for stopping further investment. It has led to complaints of an effective ban on new onshore wind projects in England. Trade body RenewableUK has said that a boom in new onshore wind projects could also cut energy bills by £50 a year, compared with a system reliant on gas. Simon Clarke, another MP backing Johnson, said: “As we are going for net zero, then we need to completely decarbonise our electrical grid, and onshore wind is the cheapest way to do this. We need to embrace this important technology. If communities are happy to have an onshore wind farm nearby, if they want cheaper bills and to tackle climate change, then we shouldn’t be stopping them.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Zac Goldsmith says voters support technologies that will help UK get to a net-zero future. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

If the private sector cannot develop a water system fit for a dry future it could be time to reconsider the business model A smelly sewage works in Southampton was the least of Southern Water’s misdemeanours. Almost all of the record-breaking £126m fine imposed on the company last week by Ofwat, its regulator, was attributed to the dirty, untreated water that flowed from the taps of as many as 4.3 million residents. Southern’s managers, who covered up leaks at treatment plants from Kent to Hampshire, are a gift for those who believe it is time to end a 30-year experiment in privatisation and take all the water companies into public ownership. Until now, campaigners have focused on the raw deal given to customers, who must pay through the nose to a private monopoly provider. Loaded with debt by their owners, the water companies must use most of their income to pay the interest, while the rest is paid out of profits to shareholders. Deteriorating networks are maintained to the very minimum insisted on by the regulator. Clean water at a fair price is something the privatised industry constantly fails to provide. Now that Europe is sweltering in record-breaking heat, a second front is opening up against the water companies. And this centres on the investment needed, not just to replace leaking pipes but to support efforts to tackle the climate emergency. Even in Britain, water is becoming a scarce resource. In the torrential storms that have become increasingly prevalent, the water runs off the land, into rivers, rages through town centres and out to sea. Parts of the country need more reservoirs, which means giving over land near cities that might otherwise be farmed, left fallow for wildlife or used for some form of development. Where aquifers are running dry due to overextraction, public bodies need to decide on the priorities, juggling the competing demands of farmers, local businesses and households. Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘Even in Britain, water is becoming a scarce resource.’ A water depth marker stands on dry ground at a reservoir in central England, in February 2012. Photograph: Darren Staples/Reuters Polluted rivers must be cleaned up and that can only come about when there is more pressure on farmers to stop putting so much nitrogen and phosphorous on the land. Treatment plants must be upgraded, as Southern Water will need to do. The World Wildlife Fund found that 40% of rivers in England and Wales were polluted with sewage in 2017, mostly from overflows following heavy rain that existing plants failed to process. Overflows are allowed under the current regime if they are exceptional. The WWF report says that 8%-14% of the 18,000 overflows it examined over a nine-month period spilled sewage into rivers at least once a week, and between a third and a half at least once a month. A separate study by Manchester University found that the river Tame at Denton, to the east of the city, ranked as the worst in the world for microplastics. We know others might be worse, we just haven’t tested them yet.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

The New York Times’ chief reporter in Washington has produced an indispensable guide to an epochal shift in US politics Confirmation Bias lifts the curtain on Republican efforts to make the federal bench a black-robed adjunct. When it comes to the judiciary, the GOP is portrayed as disciplined and relentless. By contrast, the Democrats, from Barack Obama down, appear as little more than enraged bystanders, ill-prepared for the events of the past 40 months. Is this how American democracy is supposed to work? No it's not | Justice Elena Kagan Read more The Senate’s shift in 2014 to Republican hands was a game-changer. Looking back, Obamacare extracted a hefty and lasting political price, far beyond what was contemplated in the heat of the moment. Carl Hulse has produced an engrossing take on America’s judicial wars, a highly informed deep dive, not a whodunnit. We know how the story ends but Confirmation Bias remains essential reading. The New York Times’ chief Washington correspondent fills his book with interviews and history, which people readily share. Hulse recalls how Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell hatched his strategy of owning the supreme court seat opened by the sudden death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016. Within hours of Scalia passing into history, McConnell declared that any Obama nominee would effectively be DOA. The Democrats had their own history that gave cover to the GOP’s bare-knuckle tactics McConnell would not cede the Senate’s prerogatives sooner than he was forced to. As he put it, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” As the saying goes, “elections have consequences”. So did the GOP presidential primaries. Hulse captures how the nominating process fused with broad-based disdain for Senator Ted Cruz helped force McConnell’s hand. Josh Holmes, McConnell’s former chief of staff, tells Hulse that with the South Carolina GOP debate to be held almost moments after Scalia’s death, the Republicans could ill-afford Cruz, Texas’ widely reviled junior senator, being first to announce a blockade on whoever Obama picked. Holmes was “absolutely sure that Cruz was going to take the furthest position”, which was seen as possessing crippling consequences for the party once the confirmation process was actually under way. Specifically, Holmes believed that if Cruz emerged as the leader in the expected confirmation fight, the GOP “could lose half the conference”. Still, as Hulse makes clear, McConnell was not operating on a blank slate. The Democrats had their own history that gave cover to the GOP’s bare-knuckle tactics. For years they had shaped the judicial landscape, and it wasn’t just about Robert Bork crashing and burning or Clarence Thomas’ alleged penchant for pornography. In June 1992, in the midst of a presidential election, Senator Joe Biden announced that that if a supreme court vacancy emerged prior to the election, “the Senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over”. Welcome to the now-christened “Biden Rule”, which would come to kill any chance Merrick Garland, Obama’s pick, ever had. On a similar note, Confirmation Bias reviews how changes to Senate rules of debate driven by the Democrats and Harry Reid, McConnell’s predecessor as majority leader, helped pave the way for the GOP pulling out all stops to preserve the court’s conservative majority. Long story short, Team Reid killed the filibuster on lower court nominations in reaction to Republican resistance to Obama’s judicial selections, which in turn was payback for earlier skirmishes. In Hulse’ telling, McConnell and Don McGahn, Trump’s now je

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Perhaps it is a problem of language. The dictionary lacks a necessary word: UKish. Northern Ireland is not in Britain but it is in the UK. The porous boundary that divides it from the rest of Ireland is not, strictly speaking, a British frontier. So it is called “the Irish border”, making it, for the Brexiters, someone else’s problem. The terrain where a post-Brexit UK meets the remaining 27-member EU bloc is, as the miserable Tory leadership debate shows yet again, somewhere over there. For Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, its troubles are, as Neville Chamberlain might put it, “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing”. They might have to know more about it if only we could call it what it is: the UKish border. Hunt and Johnson both agree that a no-deal Brexit must be kept alive as a serious proposition. Both also agree that once in Downing Street they will reopen negotiations with the EU with the primary aim of ditching from the withdrawal agreement the so-called Irish backstop, which is also, of course, the UKish backstop. Hunt puts this in more emollient terms than Johnson, but makes up for this weakness by promising to include on his negotiating team representatives of the famously emollient Democratic Unionist party, which does not represent most voters in Northern Ireland. All of this is so drearily familiar (this hobbyhorse comes round and round on the non-stop Brexit carousel) that it is hard to remember how surreal it is. It is weird not just because the backstop was designed around British demands; not just because Hunt and Johnson were in the cabinet when it was negotiated; not just because they both voted for it in parliament; and not just because the EU has repeated, over and over, that, in the words of the European council in January: “The backstop is part of the withdrawal agreement and the withdrawal agreement is not open for renegotiation.” That should be enough to be going on with, but there is an even deeper absurdity. On 4 April last, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, flew to Dublin. This was the moment the Brexiters had been waiting for: Britain had held its nerve and now Merkel (in their worldview the puppet master of Europe) was going to deliver the bad news to the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar – Germany had done its best to protect the Irish peace process and prevent a hard border on the island, but that game was up. Realpolitik was now the order of the day: bye-bye backstop. That was the dreamworld. In reality, Merkel met Varadkar but made no demands for change to the withdrawal agreement. And then she spent time talking and listening to people who live and work and run businesses on both sides of the border. When she emerged from the meeting, she said: “For 34 years I lived behind the Iron Curtain so I know only too well what it means once borders vanish, once walls fall.” She understood the border question more deeply, and had much more emotional investment in it, than the government that is actually responsible for it – the British cabinet. This is what is so bizarre – the German chancellor has spent more time listening to the UK citizens who live on the border than either Johnson or Hunt ever have. She understands what it’s like when a wall falls; they don’t. No facts must be allowed to disturb the tranquillity of this blissfully wilful ignorance All of this, of course, passed the Brexiters by. It belongs to the world of inconvenient truth. Oliver Norgrove, who was a staffer on the official Leave campaign, recently recalled in the Irish Times an awkward moment about a month before the referendum of June 2016. A request came in from the BBC’s Newsnight. Would the Leave campaign send a representative to debate the effects of Brexit on the Irish border? “Nobody in the office,” recalled Norgrove, “was keen to take up the request, with even our more polished and experienced media performers rejecting the opportunity on the grounds that they simply lacked real knowledge of the issue. I remember quite vividly the feeling of unease and discomfort about the prospect of us talking about something we just didn’t feel needed addressing.” And, as both Hunt and Johnson have shown, no facts must be allowed to disturb the tranquillity of this blissfully wilful ignorance. Here, nonetheless, are three of them. First, the backstop in its final and troublesome form is not an Irish or European invention. The original version (agreed in December 2017) affected Northern Ireland only and did not tie the rest of the UK to the customs union. It was changed because the British side, under pressure from the DUP, insisted. Second, the EU Withdrawal Act, passed at Westminster in 2018, states that nothing in it may “diminish any form of north-south co-operation provided for by the Belfast agreement”. This is UK law – and an official mapping exercise identifies 142 policy areas of north-south co-operation, 51 relating to the operation of the north-south ministerial council established under the agreement. A no-deal exit or a ditching of the backstop would break that law. Third, the backstop does not preclude the “alternative arrangements” of “abundant, abundant technical fixes” that Johnson promises. On the contrary, if he actually believed in that promise, the backstop is irrelevant – it comes into play only in the absence of a workable alternative. But these are mere facts and thus as meaningless as the most obscure fact of all: that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, a state whose very shape is defined by its frontiers. But that raises the even bigger issue of the union itself and what Brexit will do to it. We can be sure that neither Hunt nor Johnson wants to ask that awkward UKish question. • Fintan O’Toole is a columnist with the Irish Times and author of Heroic Failure: Brexit and the Politics of Pain.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

‘What we may be witnessing is the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” So wrote Francis Fukuyama in his 1989 essay, The End of History?, as he surveyed the collapse of the Soviet empire. Thirty years on, the argument seems to have been turned on its head. As Vladimir Putin, virtual tsar of the Russian nation that has emerged from the debris of the Soviet Union, declared on the eve of the G20 conference in Osaka, it’s not history but liberal democracy that seems to have “outlived its purpose”. Liberalism, he told the Financial Times, has “come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population”. Putin’s vision of liberalism is, of course, a caricature. The “liberal idea”, he suggests, “presupposes that… migrants can kill, plunder and rape with impunity because their rights… have to be protected.” Liberals “claim now that children can play five or six gender roles”. The rise of populist movements reveals a yearning for belonging and identity that liberalism cannot satisfy Nor is it true that social liberalism has been rejected by “the overwhelming majority of the population”. In some countries, such as Russia or Brazil, attitudes to immigration or gay rights may have hardened. But in others, including Britain, social attitudes have become more liberal, even as they have become more polarised. In Donald Trump’s America, for instance, people have become more supportive of immigration, but also more partisan. But however warped Putin’s vision of liberalism, it is incontestably facing challenges it rarely has before. From America to the Philippines, the rise of populist movements reveals a yearning for belonging and identity that liberalism cannot satisfy. The emergence of non-liberal economic powers such as China calls into question the postwar “liberal order”. Putin, FT editor, Lionel Barber, told Radio 4’s Today programme, “feels he is on the right side of history”. Many liberals fear that, too. Hence the global impact of Putin’s comments. The real issue, though, is not that social attitudes have become more illiberal, but that liberalism has been unable to address the fundamental issue of the relationship between the individual and society even as that issue has become one of the most salient. As a philosophy, liberalism exists in many, often competing, forms. At the heart of most forms, however, stands the individual. Humans, wrote John Locke, the 17th-century philosophical founder of liberalism, naturally exist in “a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions… without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man”. Classically, liberals held that society comprises free individuals who come together in voluntary rational agreement. Any restraint placed on an individual’s liberty, including the right to own property, had to be both justified and minimal. Critics pointed out that humans do not live merely as individuals. We are social beings and find our individuality and discover meaning only through others. Hence the importance to political life not just of individuals but also of communities and collectives. The critique of liberal individualism adopted both conservative and radical garb. Conservatives saw history, tradition and the nation as the means by which the individual became part of a greater whole. A nation, as Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism, wrote, is found not just in a set of values but also in “an idea of continuity, which extends in time as well as in numbers and in space”. For radical critics of liberalism, particularly socialists and Marxists, an individual realised himself or herself not through tradition but rather through struggles to transform society, from battles for decent working conditions to campaigns for equal rights. These struggles created organisations, such as trade unions and civil rights movements, which drew individuals into new modes of collective life and forged new forms of belonging and common purpose. Conservative and radical ways of thinking about belonging have long coexisted in tension. The idea of a community or of a nation inevitably draws upon a past that has shaped its present. But the existence of movements for social change transforms the meaning of the past and of the ways in which one thinks of identity. “Britain” or “Russia” means something different if defined in terms of what we want the nation to be, rather than just of what it has been. The tension between liberalism and radicalism has been even more important. Liberalism ensured that the issue of individual rights and liberties remained central to many strands of the left, even as socialists rejected liberal notions of private property. Radicalism injected into liberalism a social conscience. Over time, many strands of liberalism modified both the classical attachment to private property as sacrosanct and the distaste for state intervention. The relationship between liberalism, radicalism and conservatism began to change in the last decades of the 20th century, largely as the left disintegrated. The idea of an alternative to capitalism seemed to many chimerical, more so after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even before the Berlin Wall had come down, a new kind of economic liberalism, unstitched from the restraints of social need, had emerged – what many now call “neoliberalism”. At its core was a philosophy of deregulation, privatisation and the introduction of market forces into virtually every nook and cranny of social life. Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘In 2016, just a quarter of Trump voters thought their candidate had “good judgment” but four out of five thought he could “bring about change”.’ Photograph: UPI / Barcroft Images At the same time, the organisations that had provided working-class people with hope and dignity crumbled. Trade unions were crushed and radical social movements eroded. Societies became atomised and much of the social architecture essential for people to flourish was dismantled. It was a process not confined to the west, but visible across the globe. Against this background, many of those looking to recreate a sense of social solidarity have been drawn to conservative, even reactionary, ideas of belonging, rooted in nation, tradition and race. And, in an age in which there exist few transformative social movements, many have turned to strongmen to do the job. In the 2016 US presidential elections, just a quarter of Trump voters thought their candidate had “good judgment”, but four out of five thought he could “bring about change”. Much the same is true of authoritarian leaders across the globe, from Putin to Erdoğan, from Salvini to Duterte. The irony is that the problem faced by liberalism is less the retrenchment of social liberalism than that the retreat of the left has allowed for the success of the ugly side of individualism. The irony, too, is that what is exposed by this is not simply a problem for liberalism, but an even bigger problem for the left. • Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Donald Trump is orchestrating his Fourth of July extravaganza to be his most spectacular act of self-flattery, his first appearance on the National Mall since his inauguration but before a certifiably larger crowd and ending with a burst of fireworks. He has always given careful thought to his staging. His introduction to The Apprentice, driven to the thumping beat of For the Love of Money, showed the master of the universe striding from a limousine at Trump Tower, riding in a Trump helicopter and climbing the ramp of a Trump airplane. Now, however, he will display himself on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. With the illuminated statue of the 16th president as his backdrop, Trump will highlight the magnitude of his own greatness by standing in reflected glory. Or maybe Trump thinks it’s the other way around and he, not Lincoln, will be the radiant one. Since becoming president, Trump’s estimation of Lincoln has declined even as his estimation of himself has inflated. In 2017, Trump was willing to concede that Lincoln was the greatest president, saying: “With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office.” By the next year, he had eclipsed Lincoln in his mind, proclaiming: “You know, a poll just came out that I am the most popular person in the history of the Republican party. Beating Lincoln. I beat our Honest Abe.” (Of course, there were no polls in the 19th century.) Then, this year, bringing the Boston Red Sox into the Lincoln Bedroom, according to the Red Sox chairman, Tom Werner, Trump “was talking about Abraham Lincoln losing the war, and he said I know you guys lost a game or two but this was a war”. As Trump’s defense of Confederate monuments since Charlottesville has risen, his opinion of Lincoln has fallen Lincoln? Loser. Trump’s most recent reflection on his competition with Lincoln came in his interview with George Stephanopoulos, broadcast on 16 June on ABC News, in which he blurted: “If you can believe it, Abraham Lincoln was treated supposedly very badly, but nobody’s been treated badly like me.” Just two weeks earlier, on 2 June, he had delivered a brief speech written for him at the gala of Ford’s Theatre, praising Lincoln’s “eternal legacy”. Left to his own devices, demoting the “supposedly” tragic event at that theater, Trump rated himself superior as a martyr. On 4 July, while Trump mugs on the Mall, the marble Lincoln will maintain a dignified silence. Many have wondered what Lincoln might say if confronted by the people and events of their time. In 1914, at the beginning of the first world war, the poet Vachel Lindsay, in Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight, portrayed a ghostly Lincoln deploring the conflagration. But we do not have to wonder what Lincoln might say about demagogic exploitation of the Fourth of July or hypocritical displays about the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. His statements on the subject were voluminous, plain and scathing. Here is a small sample: To a friend, 15 August 1855: On the question of liberty, as a principle, we are not what we have been. When we were the political slaves of King George, and wanted to be free, we called the maxim that ‘all men are created equal,’ a self-evident truth; but now when we have grown fat, and have lost all dread of being slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to be masters that we call the same maxim ‘a self-evident lie.’ The Fourth of July has not quite dwindled away; it is still a great day – for burning fire-crackers!!! More than the expropriation of Independence Day to justify slavery agitated Lincoln. A week later, on 24 August, he wrote his close friend Joshua Speed to complain about the rising anti-immigrant, nativist and super-patriotic Know Nothing party as a duplicitous mockery of the Declaration of Independence:

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Video Mr Trump said US and South Korea officials were "working very hard" to try and arrange the historic rendezvous. He spoke at a press conference alongside South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who will accompany him at the demilitarised zone (DMZ).

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

ASSOCIATED PRESS In this June 20 image taken from video footage run by China's CCTV, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un delivers a speech during a banquet for Chinese President Xi Jinping in Pyongyang, North Korea. Xi offered encouragement for North Korea's new focus on economic development in a speech in Pyongyang, turning to a topic Beijing has long pressed with its communist neighbor, amid wider concerns over the North's nuclear weapons program. (CCTV via AP) SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — President Donald Trump will meet Sunday with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un at the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea a day after he issued an unprecedented invitation and expressed willingness to cross the border for what would be a history-making photo op. South Korean President Moon Jae-in announced that Kim accepted Trump’s invitation to meet when the U.S. president visits the heavily fortified site at the Korean border village of Panmunjom. Moon praised the two leaders for “being so brave” to hold the meeting and said: “I hope President Trump will go down in history as the president who achieves peace on Korean Peninsula.” Trump said he looked forward to meeting with Kim, but sought to tamp down expectations, predicting it would be “very short.” He added: “Virtually a handshake, but that’s okay. A handshake means a lot.” Officials spent Sunday morning working out logistical and security details, Trump said during an earlier appearance with Moon. The invitation, while long rumored in diplomatic circles, still came across as an impulsive display of showmanship by a president bent on obtaining a legacy-defining nuclear deal. North Korea initially responded by calling the offer a “very interesting suggestion.” Presidential visits to the DMZ are traditionally carefully guarded secrets for security reasons. White House officials couldn’t immediately say whether Kim had agreed to meet with Trump. “All I did is put out a feeler, if you’d like to meet,” Trump said in Japan. He added, somewhat implausibly: “I just thought of it this morning.” Before arriving in Seoul, Trump said at a news conference in Japan that he’d “feel very comfortable” crossing the border into North Korea if Kim showed up, saying he’d “have no problem” becoming the first U.S. president to step into North Korea. His comments came hours after Trump asked for Kim to meet him there. “If Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!” he tweeted. It was not immediately clear what the agenda, if any, would be for the potential third meeting between Trump and Kim. “If he’s there we’ll see each other for two minutes,” Trump predicted. Such a spectacle would present a valuable propaganda victory for Kim, who has long been denied the recognition they sought on the international stage. North Korea’s first vice foreign minister, Choe Son Hui, said the meeting, if realized, would serve as “another meaningful occasion in further deepening the personal relations between the two leaders and advancing the bilateral relations.” Meeting with Trump at South Korea’s presidential Blue House on Sunday, Moon said when he saw Trump’s invitation to Kim, “I could really feel that the flower of peace was truly blossoming on the Korean peninsula.” Trump’s summit with Kim in Vietnam earlier this year collapsed without an agreement for denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. He became the first sitting U.S. president to meet with the leader of the isolated nation last year when they signed an agreement in Singapore to bring the North toward denuclearization. Substantive talks between the nations have largely broken down since then. The North has balked at Trump’s insistence that it give up its weapons before it sees relief from crushing international sanctions. Still, Trump has sought to praise Kim, who oversees an authoritarian government, in hopes of keeping the prospects of a deal alive, and the two have traded flowery letters in recent weeks.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

President Trump said following his historic meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong Un on Sunday that the two leaders had agreed to restart a discussion on the communist nation's nuclear program. Speaking to reporters after visiting the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea, Trump said the U.S. and North Korea have both designated teams to resume the stalled talks within weeks. WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY STEPHANIE GRISHAM ROUGHED UP BY NORTH KOREAN SECURITY GUARDS The president — after roughly 50 minutes behind closed doors with Kim — said "speed is not the object" in trying to reach a deal but noted he believes both sides want to get the job done. "We're looking to get it right," Trump said. The meeting between Trump and Kim was the first face-to-face meeting between the two since their failed summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, in February. Prior to that, they met in Singapore last June. Talks between the U.S. and North Korea had mostly broken down since the Hanoi summit, which ended without a deal. North Korea has hesitated at Trump's insistence that it give up its nuclear ambitions before it sees relief from crushing international sanctions. The U.S. has said the North must submit to "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization" before sanctions are lifted. Despite their nearly hour-long chat, Trump said that sanctions on North Korea are still in place, although seemingly left open the possibility of scaling them back as part of renewed negotiations. AUSTRALIAN STUDENT MAY HAVE BEEN DETAINED IN NORTH KOREA “At some point during the negotiation, things can happen," the president told reporters, adding that he suggested Kim could visit Washington, D.C., during their discussions. Trump says he told Kim that, “at the right time, you’re going to come over” and that that could be “any time he wants to do it.” He added that he “would certainly extend the invite” and that, “at some point” it will happen. Hours earlier, Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to step foot inside North Korea. He described it as "a great day for the world." Inside the "Freedom House" on the South Korean side of the zone, Trump and Kim were joined by the president's daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP It was Trump's first visit to the DMZ, which every president since Ronald Reagan — except for President George H.W. Bush — has toured during their time in office, according to the Associated Press. But the elder Bush, who died last year, visited the DMZ while serving as vice president under Reagan. Later Sunday, the president addressed U.S. troops at Osan Air Force Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea. Fox News' Dom Calicchio and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

TEL AVIV – The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday held an informal session on combating antisemitism and other forms of racism and hate. Israel’s envoy to the UN Danny Danon spearheaded the session, the Israeli UN mission said in a statement, to “declare war on antisemitism.” Danon called for additional measures to be implemented at the international body, including the appointment of a UN envoy tasked with combating antisemitism, compiling an annual report on the phenomenon around the world and adding the elimination of antisemitism to the UN’s sustainable development goals. More than 90 countries participated in the event including Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey and Iran. Representatives from Jewish and pro-Israel organizations were also in attendance, as was the EU Commission Coordinator for combating antisemitism, Katharina von Schnurbein. Also present were victims of antisemitic hate crimes, including Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, who was injured in the Poway shooting attack in San Diego. He was joined by the daughter and sister of Lori Gilbert Kaye, who was killed in the attack. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres opened the session by citing a recent study from Tel Aviv University that showed that the total number of antisemitic physical assaults rose 13 percent in 2018. “We must tackle the tsunami of hatred that is so visible and violent across the world today. I guarantee you that I will continue to call out antisemitic racism and other forms of hatred loudly and unapologetically,” he said. “In the United States, Europe and elsewhere, attacks on synagogues, graveyards and individuals continue to make many Jews feel insecure,” Guterres added. “This age-old hatred is showing grim staying power.” Danon said, “The world’s approach to eradicating antisemitism must be like that of modern warfare. It must attack on multiple fronts.” Rabbi Goldstein pointed to the increasing number of places around the world where Jews feel unsafe. “In far too many places around the world Jews are becoming more vulnerable,” he said. “They are paying a shockingly high price to keep themselves safe.” Von Schnurbein said in a speech: “Antisemitism is not just a European problem and the EU is determined to fight it beyond its borders together with its partners.”

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

CLOSE Sen. Herman E. Baertschiger Jr., R-Grants Pass, says Republican senators will return Saturday morning after they walked out more than a week ago. Anna Reed, Statesman Journal Story Highlights 9 of 12 Republican senators returned for a floor session. The Senate had about 130 bills on its agenda when Saturday's session began. The Legislature has until midnight on June 30 to complete all of its business before it must adjourn. Most Republican senators returned to the Oregon Senate on Saturday, ending their walkout and allowing the chamber to vote on 105 bills as lawmakers raced to finish their work before the constitutional session deadline at midnight Sunday. "I'm not sure I've ever been a part of that kind of (session)," Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, said at the conclusion of Saturday's floor session. "We will start tomorrow at 9 and we will finish because we have to." It was the first time Republican senators were present for a floor session since June 19, the day before their walkout in protest of a controversial greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade bill. Three Republican senators were still missing — Sen. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, and Sen. Dennis Linthicum, R-Klamath Falls — but the nine who arrived were enough for the Senate to conduct business. Hundreds rise in ovation: At Salem's first World Beat naturalization ceremony Republican staff said Girod and Linthicum would not be returning for the rest of session. Boquist was en route back to Salem in the morning, while for the evening session he was asked to remain off the floor because some Democratic members feared for their safety after comments he made last week. Boquist shocked the Capitol after making threats against Oregon State Police officers and Courtney. Democratic senators raised a series of questions and concerns during a caucus meeting before the floor session, including that Boquist might bring a firearm onto the Senate floor (which is legal). Courtney later asked Boquist not to come to the floor, according to his spokeswoman. Tension was high on the Senate floor when it convened at 7 p.m., with at least 10 uniformed and plain-clothed Oregon State Police officers positioned on the floor or in the wings. "I felt much safer with those officers on the floor," said Senate Democratic Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland. But while they were doing work, the Senate was able to pass 105 bills. In the name of making their constitutional deadline, speeches about bills (even the most controversial) were nonexistent, and many details about the legislation that would have normally been shared on the floor were relegated to written vote explanations. There was also one bill, House Bill 3145, that was changed so dramatically during the legislative process that advocates began lobbying against the bill and, as a result, it failed 0-27 on the Senate floor to roars of laughter and jokes of "historic bipartisanship." The House also reconvened Saturday, passing a series of major budget bills. The first vote the Senate held was on HB 2020 — the greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade bill that sent Senate Republicans fleeing from the state last week. Sen. Chuck Thomsen, R-Hood River, (left) and Sen. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario, return to the Oregon Senate floor for the first time since June 19 at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem, Oregon, on Saturday, June 29, 2019. (Photo: CONNOR RADNOVICH / Statesman Journal) The bill would have been the nation’s second economy-wide cap on carbon gas emissions. Its purpose was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Its death came as a shock to environmental activists, but many rural Oregonians were convinced that if the bill passed it would wreck industry, including farming, ranching and logging. Life well lived: Keizer paramedic died in a race crash, but he's still helping others Carbon cap bill buried in committee Because of where HB 2020 was sitting in the legislative process, it required a vote. In the end, nearly half of the Democratic senators (including several who support the bill) joined all present Republicans in sending the bill back to committee by a vote of 17-10. The bill does not have the votes to pass the Senate and is dead, according to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The Legislature has until midnight Sunday, June 30, to complete all of its business before it is constitutionally required to adjourn. How long a session takes depends on the time spent debating each bill, the speed at which paperwork can be completed and if each chamber agrees to suspend some parliamentary rules. A senate floor session at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem on June 29, 2019. Republican senators returned to the Capitol Saturday morning after walking out more than a week ago in protest of a sweeping greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade bill. (Photo: ANNA REED / STATESMAN JOURNAL) Campaign bills advance Two campaign finance bills passed out of the Senate, one on its way to the governor's desk and the other to the House. The former, HB 2716 would require that an advertisement in support or opposition to a candidate would have to identify the committee that paid for the advertisement and the names of the five people who made the largest contributions if those are $10,000 or more in aggregate. It received bipartisan support in the House. The Senate also passed SJR 18, which would send to voters the question of amending the state Constitution to allow governing bodies to pass laws on campaign finance. It's the "enabling legislation" of other campaign finance legislation this session and in future sessions. One of Gov. Kate Brown's campaign reform proposals passed out of the Senate as well — SB 861, a plan to use state money to pay for the postage on ballot return envelopes. In recent years, the concept of paid ballot postage has advanced as a way to get more participation in elections when paired with vote-by-mail or early voting systems. Toxic water: Arsenic taints Big Cliff Reservoir, public should avoid swimming, fishing Controversial bills pass quietly A trio of the most controversial bills remaining on the Senate agenda passed without anything said against them, a significant departure from the rhetoric previously in session. Staff said there is an informal agreement to allow the Senate to get through its agenda as quickly as possible, which has meant limiting floor speeches. The first was SB 116, which dictates that if the Student Success Act passed this session is referred to voters, that the vote be held during a special election on Jan. 21, 2020. It's similar to what the Legislature did in 2017, setting an unusual January special session date for Ballot Measure 101, which attempted to block parts of a health care tax. Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, speaks during a floor session at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem on June 29, 2019. Republican senators returned to the Capitol Saturday morning after walking out more than a week ago in protest of a sweeping greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade bill. (Photo: ANNA REED / STATESMAN JOURNAL) Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, had voiced concerns about the bill and suggested during the walkout that it be taken into consideration during negotiations to return. Another contentious bill that passed Saturday morning was HB 2015, which would allow a person to obtain a driver's license without having to prove legal residency. If signed by the governor, instead of having to provide a Social Security number or prove legal residence to the Department of Transportation, an applicant for a driver's license, driver's permit or identification card can provide a written statement indicating they have not been assigned a Social Security number. Advocates say that undocumented immigrants living in Oregon would benefit from the expanded eligibility, as would people who lose or misplace their documents. Hatchery funds: North Santiam summer steelhead fishing continues with state money The Senate also concurred with House amendments to SB 1013, would eliminate many of the circumstances that could make a homicide aggravated murder — the only crime punishable by death in Oregon. The Senate passed the bill narrowing the definition earlier this month, but the House amended it to include the premeditated murder of a police officer, parole or probation officer. Currently there are 20 circumstances that could qualify as aggravated murder — if the governor signs the law that would shrink to four. Additional bills head to governor On its way to the governor's desk is also HB 2024, aimed at improving access to childcare programs for families whose incomes are at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. The pilot program, under the Early Learning Division, would have the funds to place around 235 infants and toddlers with local childcare providers. Supporters consider this program an investment in future generations and an opportunity to provide data to the state, which is looking to expand access to childcare. Oregon Farm-to-School grant program is also on its way to receiving an expansion if signed by the governor, thanks to HB 2579. The nationally-recognized program incentivizes Oregon school districts to purchase Oregon-grown and Oregon-processed food. It also provides educational opportunities to kids to learn about the food they are eating. House passes budget bills The House convened for about half an hour Saturday afternoon, primarily for procedural work, then during an evening session plowed through budget bills sent from the Senate. Lawmakers went through six budget bills in less than an hour Saturday night. They include big-ticket items: The Oregon Department of Corrections and Oregon Housing and Community Services Department budgets among them. Others included the Judicial Department, Oregon Department of Justice, Bureau of Labor and Industries and State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Earlier the House re-passed HB 2333, which establishes rules for people who convert recreational vehicles to permanent structures, including surrendering the Oregon Department of Transportation title. Lawmakers also signed off on Senate amendments to HB 3239, which removes the limit of how many on-premises sales licenses that a distillery can have. The House is expected to do more work on legislation Saturday night and Sunday, as the Senate sends more bills to the lower chamber. Statesman Journal reporters Ben Botkin and Samantha Hawkins contributed to this report. Contact Connor Radnovich at [email protected] or 503-399-6864, or follow him on Twitter at @CDRadnovich Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/29/oregon-republican-senators-end-walkout/1610781001/

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

The headmaster of Stowe was greeted with utter incredulity a few weeks ago when he publicly worried that his pupils were victims of social engineering. New figures out last week from the Sutton Trust remind us why his musings were so absurd. The tiny cohort of privately educated people is not two or three times more likely than the comprehensively educated to end up in influential jobs: the figure is a massive 12 times. So defenders of the status quo are arguing that the privately educated are twelvefold more qualified to be ministers, news editors and diplomats. It’s ludicrous and insulting. The left seems content to combine a moral distaste for parents who go private with a timidity for disrupting the system These figures, which have barely budged in years, prompt a mix of guilt and frustration in me. Guilt because, as someone who went to a private school, I’m uncomfortably aware I’m a symptom of this elitism. Frustration because the solutions we jump to – slightly lower university requirements for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, “blind” CV recruitment – feel like tinkering around the edges. You might think that dismantling a system that unfairly benefits just 7% of children – the extra resources that get ploughed into their education, the self-assurance and confidence it instils, the access to the old boys’ network that going to a school such as Eton or Winchester opens – might be quite popular with the parents of the 93%. But the Independent Schools Council often wheels out the stat that in one of its surveys, almost six in 10 parents said they would send their child to an independent school if they could afford to. Despite evidence to the contrary, Brits generally believe we inhabit a meritocracy: in 2012, 84% of people said they thought hard work is essential or very important to getting on in life; just one in three thought the same of “knowing the right people. We’ve all got a stake in maintaining that illusion. People at the top like to believe they made it there through hard work and talent, not luck and privilege. For the rest, there’s the promise of the possible inherent in the belief that we live in a meritocracy. Perhaps this is why even as the left professes its commitment to dismantling privilege, it seems content to combine a moral distaste for parents who go private with a timidity for actually disrupting the system. Labour’s 2017 manifesto was a damp education squib. It proposed charging VAT on private school fees – floated by Michael Gove a few months earlier, hardly very radical. Its flagship pledge wasn’t to expand the almost £30k average subsidy the disproportionately middle-class young people who go to university get to the disproportionately working-class young people who don’t, but to increase the gap further by scrapping tuition fees altogether. It said nothing about the robust reform needed to a school admissions system that allows more affluent parents to dominate the best state schools via the housing market: houses near top comprehensives attract an average premium of more than £45,000. You can’t blame parents for wanting to do what they see as best by their children. The paradox of the Sutton Trust report is that, even as it highlights a huge social problem, it also underlines the great advantage conferred by attending a top public school, followed by an elite university, in charting a route to career success. And so the problem becomes self-perpetuating. It’s precisely because you can’t expect parents to make the most socially beneficial decisions that more radical government intervention is needed. There’s always the nuclear option of effectively

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Get ready to hear from Neil Woodford. Four weeks have passed since dealings were suspended in his Equity Income Fund and the arrival of the 28-day mark obliges the manager to say something. The suspension must be formally reviewed and investors must be told if they will soon have access to their cash. Here’s a spoiler: the chances of the gates being released on Monday are close to zero. The fund had roughly £3.5bn of assets at suspension and too few holdings have been liquidated in the past month to meet the anticipated level of redemption requests. Add up Woodford’s public disclosures of sales of stakes in quoted companies and they come to about £300m, a figure inflated in the past week thanks to a chunky holding in BCA Marketplace, the car auction firm on the receiving end of a takeover bid. Stakes in unquoted companies – the source of most of Woodford’s woes – are harder to shift and only a handful seem to have been sold in recent weeks. So the bald arithmetic makes a quick release of the gates almost impossible: ready cash of £300m-ish is unlikely to be enough to meet the demand from investors to get out of the fund. Kent county council alone wants its £250m and Hargreaves Lansdown is reviewing the £600m it has invested via multi-manager funds. The intentions of the many thousands of private investors are harder to read but Link Asset Services, as authorised corporate director, is obliged to err on the side of caution when assessing whether there is enough liquidity to remove the gates. Neil Woodford fund was sailing close to the wind, watchdog says Read more Woodford’s fund does not remotely look to be near that point yet. Interest on Monday, therefore, will centre on what Woodford says about the debacle. On day one, he said he was “extremely sorry” that trading had to be suspended, but the questions in his Q&A session via YouTube were all set by himself. If Woodford wants to retain a morsel of credibility, he has to address the hard issues. Three stand out. • Does he accept that he broke the spirit of the rules when he listed some unquoted holdings on Guernsey’s stock exchange to stay with the 10% cap on illiquid assets in an open-ended equity portfolio? “Listing something on an exchange where trading does not actually happen, as far as I can see, does not actually count as liquidity,” said Andrew Bailey, chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, in testimony to MPs. Does Woodford concede that such “regulatory arbitrage”, as Bailey called it, was underhand? • Why didn’t Woodford tell Hargreaves Lansdown, his biggest cheerleader, that he had breached the 10% level on two occasions in 2018? The investment platform had concerns over liquidity as early as 2017 and had asked to be told of any breaches; it says it only got the news via Bailey’s revelations a fortnight ago. • How can Woodford possibly justify charging management fees, estimated to be £60,000 a day, while dealings in the Equity Income Fund are suspended? The thin argument so far is that the fees cover “the infrastructure and resource costs associated with managing an actively managed fund”. But Bailey, Hargreaves and Nicky Morgan, chair of the Treasury select committee, have called on Woodford to waive the charges and the moral case to do so is overwhelming: Woodford Capital, the company 65% owned by Woodford and 35% by his business partner, has received £97m since the fund management venture set out in 2014. If Woodford merely offers another soft-soap video on Monday, he will burn any remaining goodwill. It’s time for some answers.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Despite fears stoked by Trump, fewer migrants are arriving at the border than in past years – but most are now children headed to facilities that are ill-equipped to receive them At a border patrol processing facility in McAllen, Texas on 11 June, a group of lawyers and doctors met a 17-year-old girl from Guatemala. She was in a wheelchair and she held her tiny one-month-old daughter, who was swaddled in a gray sweatshirt so dirty it was almost black. ‘People with no names’: the drowned migrants buried in pauper’s graves Read more The mother said she had an emergency C-section in Mexico at eight months pregnant. She was in so much pain she couldn’t stand, she said, yet US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), the agency in charge of screening and processing migrants, had told her it couldn’t release her unless she could walk. “I took a Kleenex with water and I washed dirt, black dirt, off her neck,” said Hope Frye, an immigration attorney, of the infant she now calls “Baby K”. When Frye and the rest of the group saw the mother the next day, Baby K was shaking violently and cold to the touch. The sweatshirt had been replaced with a thin, threadbare towel. On 13 June CBP released Baby K and her mother for immediate medical attention, after Frye and her team, worried the premature baby might die, publicized their condition. The facility in McAllen was not designed to hold Baby K and her mother. But over the past month, reports have emerged that hundreds of children are being detained in such processing centers for weeks, in squalid conditions one eyewitness called “affirmatively cruel”. It’s profoundly dystopian to think that in 2019 this is being done in the hands of the United States Warren Binford The US immigration system is failing to accommodate children and families seeking legal asylum. Experts say it is a manufactured crisis, designed to create a backlog, drive political support for the president’s hardline policies and, in theory, deter migrants from crossing the border. As a policy, it is not working. The number of children and families arriving at the border seeking asylum – a process the US is required to observe under international law – has increased as conditions in Central America have become more desperate. In the early 2000s, the majority of those apprehended at the border were single male workers, predominantly from Mexico. Most are now children and families seeking asylum. According to CBP data, about 72% of those apprehended at the border in May were families or children. In 2012, only 10% were families or children. The vast majority of these migrants are from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras – countries where political turmoil,

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

‘There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.” As explained in Joseph Heller’s great novel, one had to be crazy to want to do combat duty, but “anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy”. Lots of people are talking about George Clooney’s new television series of the book, but I also recommend to the many people who fear they are being driven crazy by this Brexit nonsense that, at least to my mind, there is no substitute for a return to the original novel. I am reminded of the time when John Major became chancellor of the exchequer after Nigel Lawson’s resignation in October 1989 and I wrote a column based on the character Major Major in Catch-22. Heller was the writer in residence at St Catherine’s College, Oxford, and I sent him a copy out of courtesy. What I did not expect was the sequel. When the New York Times asked Heller to write a satirical piece about the first Gulf war (August 1990 to February 1991) he rather flatteringly delegated the task to me. However nemesis struck when they turned down my effort. I apologised to the great man for letting him down, but he was most generous and we agreed that “war is not funny at the time”. After all, Catch-22 was published 16 years after the end of the second world war. Nor is this Brexit nonsense funny. Let’s face it: it is crazy. I am reminded of another passage in Catch-22 where Colonel Cargill says: “Men. You’re American officers. The officers of no other army in the world can make that statement. Think about it.” Hunt and Johnson are vying with each other in an absurd battle of increasingly unrealistic promises Well, Alexander “Boris” Johnson and Jeremy Hunt: you are the only candidates left to run for the premiership of the United Kingdom. No other politicians can make that statement. What is more, you are competing to take over the reins of government of a once great country on the votes of a mere 160,000 Conservative party members – in a process neatly described by the aforementioned New York Times as “unrepresentative democracy”. You are vying with each other in an absurd battle of increasingly unrealistic and unrealisable promises. You are evidently prepared – one of you more than the other – to take this country out of the European Union on 31 October without even achieving any kind of deal about future arrangements. It is worth repeating the results of a recent YouGov poll which found that the majority of those Conservative party members eligible to vote are so hell-bent on the pursuit of Brexit that they are prepared to contemplate the break-up of the United Kingdom, “significant damage to the UK economy” and even the collapse of their own party. It is of course worth asking whether some of the puppet-masters of the no-deal brigade are really indulging in self-harm by willing “significant economic damage”. There could well be economic damage for the many, but there could also be significant offshore tax advantages for rich Brexiters escaping from EU regulatory constraints, as the New European newspaper pointed out just under a year ago. Despite the fact that parliament has voted against no deal, the terrible prospect of overriding the majority of MPs via the device of prorogation has reared its ugly head, and has not been ruled out by Johnson at the time of writing. It is therefore reassuring that Lord Pannick QC – who was counsel to the campaigner Gina Miller when they successfully challenged Theresa May’s attempt to override parliament in January 2017 – is firmly of the view that Johnson (for it would probably be he) would be acting unlawfully in urging prorogation upon the Queen. To go back to the wonders of Catch-22: it is my firm belief – and, I think, that of a growing majority of the electorate if the YouGov research is to be believed – that we are being rational in regarding Brexit as “a real and immediate” danger to this country. Oh, and by the way: Heller was once asked by a disrespectful interviewer why he had not subsequently written anything as good as Catch-22. To which he replied: “Who has?” Let me finish by quoting a politician who is not to be underrated – John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, on the possibility of there being another referendum. “I’d vote for Remain,” he said. “I can’t see anything better than what we’ve got at the moment.” I agree.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

The Unwanted: The Secret Windrush Files (BBC Two) | iPlayer Beecham House (ITV) | ITV Hub The Looming Tower (BBC Two) | iPlayer The Lawyer (Channel 4) | All 4 Aldwyn Roberts is not the best known name in musical history. But, as “Lord Kitchener”, who in 1948 sang the first two stanzas of London Is the Place for Me for reporters on Tilbury docks bad-dancing to calypso, his is a name that deserves its place in any history of British racism. The song used to be played by the BBC in gentler times as a celebration of diversity – I think the corporation was required by statute to use it in any segment mentioning the Windrush – and, since last year’s scandals over attempted repatriation, replayed with a kind of silent nagging sarcasm. Because London wasn’t the place for them (geddit?). Only meet, then, that it should have bookended David Olusoga’s quietly excoriating documentary The Unwanted: The Secret Windrush Files, about the sly and slimy decades that preceded Theresa May’s 2012-plus “hostile environment”, which, no matter how inadvertently and croc-tear regrettably, caught in its web way too many Britons. They were only children when they arrived on His Majesty’s troopship Empire Windrush (the clue’s in the name; they were a part of empire), yet recent years have spun them, now in their 50s and having lived generally splendid (British) lives, into cycles of savage debt and depression. This was important – no, it was crucial – watching because, until this very week, in my slothful naivety, I hadn’t truly appreciated the deep levels of historical racism within the British establishment, or press – and by extension its people – nor how swiftly a group can be “othered” by a few strokes of a pen, a few cry-wolf headlines. I, in my smugness, tend to congratulate myself on judging people purely by the cuts of their jib, but this was an eye-opener. Because what Olusoga, fast emerging as one of our smartest and kindest modern historians, did was take a teensy bit of all-too-justifiable anger but, quietly and painstakingly and with a minimum of shouty hand-waving from any of the participants, prove that a sizable minority of white people in government and in the press haven’t ever, basically, much liked the idea of black people. It went back to Attlee. No government, left or right, was immune, post-Windrush and ankle-nipped by the press, to covert attempts to stem immigration while studiously not appearing to favour white, “safe” immigration. In 1962, under Macmillan, after a fractious 50s (Churchill had suggested fighting one election on the slogan Keep England White), they almost managed. That year’s Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which promised a voucher scheme based on employment prospects, was greeted by Rab Butler – I’d once thought him one of the good guys – as a “sad necessity” but, his uncovered memo continued, “the great merit of this scheme is that it can be presented as making no distinction on grounds of race or colour but would in practice operate on people of colour almost exclusively”. Searing, historically foul and, as I may have mentioned, personally eye-opening, this is what questing TV should be when it quests to change, or even nudge open, minds. Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘Jolly enough’: Tom Bateman and Dakota Blue Richards in Beecham House. Photograph: ITV Right. I’m sure I’m just go

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

So the robots are coming for our jobs, are they? Yawn. That’s such an old story. Goes back to Elizabeth I and the stocking frame, if my memory serves me right. Machines have been taking our jobs forever. But economists, despite their reputation as practitioners of the “dismal science”, have always been upbeat about that. Sure, machines destroy jobs, they say. But hey, the new industries that new technology enables create even more new jobs. Granted, there may be a bit of “disruption” between destruction and creation, but that’s just capitalist business as usual. Besides, it’s progress, innit? We have now lived through what one might call Automation 1.0. The paradigmatic example is car manufacturing. Henry Ford’s production line metamorphosed into Toyota’s “lean machine” and thence to the point where few humans, if any, are visible on an assembly line. Once upon a time, the car industry employed hundreds of thousands of people. We called them blue-collar workers. Now it employs far fewer. The robots did indeed take their jobs. In some cases, those made redundant found other employment, but many didn’t. And sometimes their communities were devastated as a result. But GDP went up, nevertheless, so economists were happy. Now we’re embarking on Automation 2.0. This is largely driven by technologies employing machine learning (ML) and big data, what we misleadingly call “artificial intelligence”. The types of job it targets are different from those addressed by Automation 1.0: they have some cognitive content but also a lot of routine. We call them white-collar jobs. And the new machines can often do them adequately or well. One of the things we are learning about digital technology is that it has become an amplifier of inequality Which may explain why people are beginning to be more agitated about the widespread deployment of the technology than they ever were about Automation 1.0. Early studies of the likely impact were pretty alarmist. For example, in 2013 Carl Frey and Mike Osborne in Oxford predicted that nearly half of the 700+ job categories used by the US Bureau of Labor were vulnerable. In their book The Future of the Professions, Richard and Daniel Susskind foresaw a radical impact on professional experts such as accountants, lawyers and management consultants. The word got out that maybe a lot of high-status employment might be vulnerable to automation and people began to fret about the hollowing-out of the middle class. After all, there isn’t a functioning democracy without one. (Strangely, the same liberal democracy has apparently been able to survive the unemployment of millions of blue-collar workers. But we will let that pass.) Last week, Oxford Economics, a high-end consultancy, unveiled the findings of its latest peek into the future in a report entitled How Robots Change the World. Like most of these inquiries, it foresees a “great displacement” of employment by Automation 2.0. But this displacement, the report says, will not be evenly distributed around the world or within countries. “Our research shows,” it says, “that the negative effects of robotisation are disproportionately felt in the lower-income regions of the globe’s major economies – on average, a new robot displaces nearly twice as many jobs in lower-income regions compared with higher-income regions of the same country. At a time of worldwide concern about growing levels of economic inequality and political polarisation, this finding has important social and political implications.” The report makes for pretty sobering reading. It claims that, on average, each additional robot wipes out 1.6 jobs. In lower-income regions of the world, each machine displaces 2.2 jobs, but only 1.3 in higher-income areas. The researchers compiled a “vulnerability score” for different regions in five countries – the UK, USA, France, Germany and Japan. The resulting maps confirm that employment in poorer areas will be hit harder by automation. “The regional inequalities that exist within countries,” it concludes, “such as England’s north-south divide, could be exacerbated by the rise of the robots.” The report notes that this trend “has important implications for policy design in advanced economies pursuing international competitiveness through automation”. You bet it has. One of the things we are learning about digital technology is that in almost every area of its deployment it has become an amplifier of inequality. The tech companies that control it employ almost no one in comparison either to their profits or to non-tech companies of comparable size and scale. Volkswagen, for example, employs nearly 656,000 people worldwide. As of December 2018, Facebook employed only 35,587. Likewise, tech companies pay derisory amounts in tax in the territories where they make colossal profits. In 2018, for example, Amazon paid nothing in US federal income tax on more than $11bn in profits before taxes. It also received a $129m tax rebate from the federal government. Automation 2.0 is likely to be very profitable for the companies that deploy it, but it’ll be governments that will be left to pick up the pieces. Some progress. What I’m reading Flight of fancy Do jet-setting professors produce more knowledge? A wicked LSE blogpost by Seth Wynes reveals that the oft-airborne academic is not necessarily a high flyer. A little knowledge Read Brian Keegan’s terrific essay on why Wikipedia is special – and why it’s threatened by the unscrupulous decision of YouTube to co-opt it so it can dodge responsibility for publishing garbage. French dressing “A year in Paris that transformed Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis” – the title of a nice New York Times essay by Ann Mah, who followed in Jackie’s student footsteps.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

The 150-page white paper, prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says the U.S. is underestimating the scope of Russia's aggression under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. | Yuri Kadobnov/Pool Photo via AP defense Pentagon study: Russia outgunning U.S. in race for global influence A divided America is failing to counter Moscow's efforts to undermine democracy and cast doubt on U.S. alliances, says the report, which warns of a surge in 'political warfare.' The U.S. is ill-equipped to counter the increasingly brazen political warfare Russia is waging to undermine democracies, the Pentagon and independent strategists warn in a detailed assessment that happens to echo much bipartisan criticism of President Donald Trump's approach to Moscow. The more than 150-page white paper, prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and shared with POLITICO, says the U.S. is still underestimating the scope of Russia's aggression, which includes the use of propaganda and disinformation to sway public opinion across Europe, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America. The study also points to the dangers of a growing alignment between Russia and China, which share a fear of the United States' international alliances and an affinity for "authoritarian stability." Story Continued Below Its authors contend that disarray at home is hampering U.S. efforts to respond — saying America lacks the kind of compelling “story” it used to win the Cold War. The study doesn't offer any criticisms of Trump, but it comes amid continued chaffing by security hawks in both parties who have objected to the president's repeated slights at U.S. alliances in Europe and Asia, public affection for authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, and his habit of scoffing at the evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. A grinning Trump added to that pattern Friday in Osaka, Japan, where he got a chuckle out of Putin by admonishing him, "Don't meddle in the election, president." In interviews with POLITICO, other Russia watchers supported the report's warnings that the U.S. needs to up its game. "Russia is attacking Western institutions in ways more shrewd and strategically discreet than many realize,” said Natalia Arno, president of the Free Russia Foundation, an anti-Putin Washington think tank that recently completed its own study of Russian efforts to undermine the West. “The attacks may seem more subtle and craftier, but they are every bit as destructive as governments are influenced, laws are changed, legal decisions are undermined, law enforcement is thwarted and military intervention is disguised." Global Translations A new podcast series from POLITICO. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. The unclassified “Strategic Multilayer Assessment” marks a clear warning from the military establishment to civilian leaders about a national security threat that strategists fear, if left unchecked, could ultimately lead to armed conflict. "In this environment, economic competition, influence campaigns, paramilitary actions, cyber intrusions, and political warfare will likely become more prevalent," writes Navy Rear Adm. Jeffrey Czerewko, the Joint Chiefs' deputy director for global operations, in the preface to the report. "Such confrontations increase the risk of misperception and miscalculation, between powers with significant military strength, which may then increase the risk of armed conflict." The Pentagon paper, which has not been widely disseminated, assesses Russia's intentions in an attempt to understand what drives its strategy, outlines a range of malign activities attributed to Russia in regions as diverse as Africa and the Arctic and lays out ways the United States could strengthen its response. Among other steps, it recommends that the State Department spearhead more aggressive "influence operations," including sowing divisions between Russia and China. The study addresses what it refers to as Moscow's "gray zone" activities — the emboldened attempts by Putin's regime to undermine democratic nations, particularly on Russia's periphery, using means short of direct military conflict. "These activities include threatening other states militarily, or compromising their societies, economies, and governments by employing a range of means and methods to include propaganda, disinformation, and cultural, religious, and energy coercion," writes Jason Werchan, who works in the strategy division of the U.S. European Command, the military headquarters responsible for deterring the Russian military, in one chapter. poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201906/40/1155968404_6053682224001_6053679083001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Yet the report laments the lack of a unified message within the United States, in turn due to a lack of coordination or agreement among executive branch agencies and Congress. Belinda Bragg, a research scientist for NSI, a government consulting firm that specializes in social science research, adds in the study that "we need to better articulate U.S. interests and strategy to both ourselves and others." But that requires coming to an agreement about what the U.S. message should be, said Anna Borshchevskaya, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who wrote a chapter about Russian efforts to win over both governments and opposition forces in Africa. “We still have a story to tell but because we are so polarized and are doubting ourselves we have a narrative problem,” Borshchevskaya said in an interview. “Russia does not.” Another crucial step, Bragg recommends, is to develop a better understanding of how much target populations trust the United States "and have in place strategies to bolster that trust when it is low." The paper also raises alarm about what the authors view as a burgeoning anti-American alliance by Russia and communist China, who have traditionally been fierce competitors despite being on the same side of the Cold War's ideological divide. Steps to counter that could include sowing Russian distrust of China's expanding power on Russia's eastern periphery, as well as Beijing's economic and infrastructure projects on multiple continents. “The world system, and America’s influence in it, would be completed upended if Moscow and Beijing aligned more closely,” warns Werchan. Morning Defense newsletter Sign up for Morning Defense, a daily briefing on Washington's national security apparatus. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. On the other hand, the assessment sees an urgent need for cooperation with Russia in key areas — especially in the realm of nuclear weapons. "It is clear that a fresh round of arms racing threatens," writes another of the study's Pentagon contributors, John Arquilla, a director at the Naval Postgraduate School. "The United States can either embrace this, hoping to outpace the Russians, or try to head off such a costly competition with a rededicated arms control/reduction policy." Such an approach should also seek to "corral" other nuclear weapons states such as North Korea, China, Iran, India and Pakistan, Arquilla wrote. "Revisiting Ronald Reagan's offer to Russia, made back in the '80s, to share research on ballistic missile defense, would be an adroit move as well." Arquilla acknowledged that former President Barack Obama failed in his attempted "reset" with Russia failed, and that "Trump wanted to do this but he was derailed by the electioneering apparently orchestrated by Moscow." "Still it is not too late for such a move," he wrote. "After all the United States works closely with Russia on space operations. Is it a bridge too far to hope for more cooperation at the terrestrial level?" The greatest check on Putin's ambitions could be the Russian people, said the study, which pointed to evidence of deep public wariness about Moscow's foreign policy, including the 2014 invasion of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, military support for Russian separatists and "the Kremlin's assertions that the US is a looming external danger." Survey data compiled for the study by Thomas Sherlock, a professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, suggests "relatively weak approval among the [Russian] public for a forceful external posture, including intervention in the 'near abroad' to check American power or protect Russian-speakers from perceived discrimination." Even Russian elites seem skeptical of Putin's strategy, the paper contends. "While both elites and members of the mass public are supportive of restoring Russia's great power status, they often define a great power and its priorities more in terms of socio-economic development than in the production and demonstration of hard power," it says. "These perspectives increasingly come into conflict with those of the Kremlin."

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image caption The scheme offered financial incentives for businesses to use renewable fuels to generate heat Changes to Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme payments earlier this year meant a "raw deal" for participants, a committee of MPs has said. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said the Department for the Economy should "revisit" deep cuts in payments. It comes after businesses said the cuts had left them struggling. Chairman Simon Hoare MP said firms in Northern Ireland now had payments which were worth "half as much" as in Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The economy department said it had received the committee's report and would respond when it had considered the findings. The Westminster inquiry began after legislation enabling the subsidy cuts was rushed through parliament in a single day in March 2019, fuelling claims that there been insufficient time for proper scrutiny. The committee also called on Northern Ireland Secretary Karen Bradley to end the practice of passing Northern Ireland legislation quickly using what is known as "emergency procedures". The Northern Ireland Office said it too would respond after considering the report. Image caption A biomass boiler, similar to those owned by some RHI scheme claimants The 2019 cuts meant that payments to the most common sized boiler in Northern Ireland fell from £13,000 a year to £2,200. An equivalent scheme in Great Britain will pay out at least £5,300 - meaning a difference of tens of thousands of pounds over the 20-year term of the scheme. The committee said it was concerned by evidence suggesting this could impact the competitiveness of poultry production in Northern Ireland, a key part of the agri-food industry. About 800 of the 2,100 RHI scheme participants own chicken farms, with the bulk of them supplying processing giant Moy Park. A court challenge will be heard later this year about the legality of the recent changes. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption 800 out of 2,100 RHI participants were poultry farmers The department said it had to act because the existing subsidies were in breach of EU competition law on state support for businesses. Failure to do so would have meant there would have been no legal basis for continued payments and the subsidies would have had to be stopped. It said the difference in subsidy is because GB businesses put in boilers earlier, when the technology was more expensive. Most were also using gas which was considerably cheaper than wood pellets and so required a bigger incentive to switch. In Northern Ireland's scheme the equivalent fuel was oil, which is closer in price to pellets and so the subsidy rate could be set lower. However many poultry producers who got into RHI were using liquid petroleum gas (LPG). Not a subsidy Boiler owners believed they had a government guarantee that payments would rise with inflation and many made long-term investment decisions based on the income. The economy department has said the scheme was never meant to subsidise business, but was designed solely to incentivise companies to switch from fossil fuel to renewable heat. The subsidy was only ever meant to cover the cost difference between the traditional and renewable boilers, any fuel price differential and provide a 12% rate of return on the investment. But the original uncapped scheme was poorly designed and overgenerous, leading to overcompensation which threatened the Northern Ireland budget with what officials said was a potential bill of up to £700m, though the figure is disputed. A series of cuts to the subsidy rate has avoided the risk of a massive overspend but means that available treasury cash will not now be drawn down. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said whatever the outcome of the court challenge, the department had a "moral imperative" to consider any other reasonable investments firms had made when reviewing their payments.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Public at greater risk from ex-offenders as study reveals more than a third of officers ‘cut corners’ The extent of Chris Grayling’s botched privatisation of the probation service is exposed by research which brands it an “unmitigated disaster” that left the public at greater risk from ex-offenders released from jail. Probation officers say bigger caseloads and unrealistic targets, ushered in when Grayling was the justice secretary, have meant that they are unable to keep to the same standards as before. More than a third – 36% – of those interviewed as part of the research admit that they regularly cut corners and compromise professional standards to meet targets. “The privatisation of probation is unprecedented in terms of its scale and scope and it has proven to be something of an unmitigated disaster for professionals,” write Professor Gill Kirton, of Queen Mary University of London, and Dr Cécile Guillaume, of Roehampton University, in the journal Work, Employment and Society, published by the British Sociological Association. The pair looked at the effects of the government’s privatisation of about half of the probation service in 2015, in which lower-risk offenders were monitored by 21 private companies and the rest left to public sector organisations.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the Korean border village of Panmunjom on June 30, 2019. | Susan Walsh/AP Photo Trump meets Kim Jong Un Trump takes historic step into North Korea with Kim Jong Un After the theatrical gesture, both leaders' pledged to restart stalled nuclear negotiations between the two countries. SEOUL, South Korea — President Donald Trump on Sunday took a step no other sitting American president had before, crossing into North Korea with its leader, Kim Jong Un — a theatrical gesture meant to kick start stalled nuclear negotiations between the two countries. And, after meeting privately for nearly an hour, the two leaders pledged to do just that. Story Continued Below "This was a great day," Trump told reporters. "It will be even more historic of something comes out [of it]." It was a made-for-TV moment for the reality show-groomed president that unfolded at the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. Trump approached the border from the south, while Kim approached from the north. The two met at the line demarcating the two countries, grinned and shook hands. “It is good to see you again,” Kim said through an interpreter. “I never expected to meet you in this place.” “Big moment,” Trump said. "Big progress." Trump said Kim then asked him if he would like to cross into North Korea. Trump said he would be honored and walked about 20 steps into the country. Global Translations A new podcast series from POLITICO. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. The two leaders then decamped to Freedom House, a small building on the southern side of the border that has been used for occasional talks between North and South Korean officials for two decades. They emerged 53 minutes later and announced they would appoint teams to restart nuclear negotiations. “This has a lot of significance because it means that we want to bring an end to the unpleasant past and try to create a new future, so it’s a very courageous and determined act,” Kim told reporters. Trump then invited Kim to the White House, which would mark an even more dramatic first. But it remains to be seen if the grand gesture leads to any progress in getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, Trump's long-stated goal. Talks between Washington and Pyongyang broke down in February when Trump abruptly cut short his second summit with Kim, balking at a request that the U.S. significantly ease sanctions in exchange for the minimal steps Pyongyang had taken to denuclearize. Trump balked at doing that and stopped the conversations. Since then, North Korea has resumed short-range missile tests, although it has continued the pause on nuclear testing implemented when the two countries began negotiations. Troops respond as President Donald Trump arrives at Osan Air Base in South Korea on June 30, 2019. | Susan Walsh/AP Photo Trump arrived at the DMZ by helicopter at about 2:45 p.m. Sunday, local time, near a cluster of buildings at Panmunjom truce village where North and South Korean forces still stand face-to-face 66 years after the end of fighting in the Korean War. Kim arrived an hour later. Trump was accompanied by South Korean President Moon Jae-in. Earlier, when Trump and Moon announced the meeting would take place, the South Korean leader called Trump “the maker of peace on the Korean peninsula." The president stressed that point repeatedly to reporters on Sunday, arguing that North Korea has become more peaceful since he and Kim began their negotiations. “There’s been a tremendous difference,” he said. “There was great conflict before. Now it’s been extremely peaceful. It’s a different world.” Previous presidents have trekked to the DMZ, but none have met with either leader of North Korea or South Korea while there. Trump extended his invitation to meet Kim at the border only a day before it happened. He tweeted out the idea on Saturday while still in Japan for a G-20 summit, an annual meeting of the world’s 20 biggest economies. The president insisted he had only just thought of making the offer that morning, but he had been privately musing about the possibility to reporters earlier that week. North Korea welcomed the invitation, and the two sides spent the next 24 hours scrambling to hash out the logistics of having the two leaders meet at one of the most tightly secured borders in the world. “I believe that if a North-U.S. summit is realized on the line dividing Korea, as President Trump wishes, it will become another opportunity to deepen the friendship that exists between the two heads of state and to improve relations of the two nations,” said Choe Son-hui, North Korea’s first vice foreign minister, in a statement carried on the official Korean News Agency.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during a visit at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque PAJU, South Korea (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump arrived at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separating the two Koreas on Sunday ahead of his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in visited a guard post in the northernmost part of the South Korean side of the DMZ, looking into the North, where he will speak with U.S. and South Korean servicemen. Trump and Kim are expected to meet at the Joint Security Area patrolled by soldiers from both Koreas near the inter-Korean border. Related Coverage Factbox: Some facts about the DMZ separating the two Koreas

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Tim Alberta is chief political correspondent at Politico Magazine. MIAMI—Marianne Williamson narrowed her eyes and gazed into my soul, channeling some of the same telekinetic lifeforce she’d used minutes earlier to cast a spell on Donald Trump in her closing statement of Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate. Inside a sweaty spin room, with swarms of reporters enfolding Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand, the author and self-help spiritualist drifted through the madness with a mien of Zen-like satisfaction. It was only when I asked her a question—what does she say to people who don’t think she belonged on that debate stage?—that Williamson’s sorcerous intensity returned. “This is a democracy, that’s what I say to them,” she replied, her hypnotic voice anchored by an accent perfected at Rick’s Café. “There’s this political class, and media class, that thinks they get to tell people who becomes president. This is what’s wrong with America. We don’t do aristocracy here. We do democracy.” Story Continued Below For better and worse. In 2016, Hillary Clinton was served the Democratic presidential nomination on a silver platter. With a monopoly on the left’s biggest donors and top strategists, with the implicit backing of the incumbent president, with the consensus support of the party’s most prominent officials, and with only four challengers standing in her way—the most viable of whom had spent the past quarter-century wandering the halls of Congress alone muttering under his breath—Clinton couldn’t lose. The ascendant talents on the left knew better than to interfere. She had already been denied her turn once before; daring to disrupt the party’s line of succession would be career suicide. This coronation yielded one of the weakest general-election nominees in modern American history—someone disliked and distrusted by more than half of the electorate, someone guided by a sense of entitlement rather than a sense of urgency, someone incapable of mobilizing the party’s base to defeat the most polarizing and unpopular Republican nominee in our lifetimes. Democrats don’t have to worry about another coronation. Instead, with two dozen candidates battling for the right to challenge Trump next November, they are dealing with the opposite problem: a circus. Three days after the maelstrom in Miami, top Democratic officials insist there’s no sense of panic. They say everything is under control. They tell anyone who will listen that by virtue of the rules and debate qualification requirements they’ve implemented, this mammoth primary field will soon shrink in half, which should limit the internecine destruction and hasten the selection of a standard-bearer. But based on conversations with candidates and campaign operatives, it might be too late for that. The unifying objective of defeating Trump in 2020 likely won’t be sufficient to ward off what everyone now believes will be a long, divisive primary. First impressions are everything in politics. And it was understood by those candidates and campaign officials departing Miami that what America was introduced to this week—more than a year before the Democrats will choose their nominee at the 2020 convention—was a party searching not only for a leader but for an identity, for a vision, for a coherent argument about how voters would benefit from a change in leadership. “I don’t think there’s a sense among the American people of what the national Democratic Party stands for. And I think there’s actually more confusion about that now,” Michael Bennet, the Colorado senator and presidential candidate, told me after participating in Thursday night’s forum. Some confusion is inevitable when 20 candidates, many of them unfamiliar to a national audience, are allotted five to seven minutes to explain why they are qualified to lead the free world. Yet the perception in the eyes of the political class—and the feeling on the ground was something closer to chaos. With a record number of viewers tuning in between the two nights, a record number of candidates talked over one another, contorted themselves ideologically, evaded straightforward questions and traded insults both implicit and explicit. With such a splayed primary field, some of this is to be expected: Debates are imperative to exposing the fault lines within the Democratic coalition, to refining and forging the left’s governing philosophy through the fires of competition. A measured clash of ideas and worldviews is healthy for a party seeking a return to power. What’s not healthy for a party is when the frontrunner, a white man, is waylaid by the ferociously talented up-and-comer, a black woman, who prefaces her attack: “I do not believe you are a racist…” What’s not healthy for a party is when a smug, self-impressed congressman with no business being on the stage flails wildly with juvenile sound bites. What’s not healthy for a party is when a successful red-state governor and a decorated war hero-turned-congressman are forced to watch from home as an oracular mystic with no experience in policymaking lectures her opponents on the folly of having actual “plans” to govern the country. Granted, these lowlights and many others came during the second debate. Just 22 hours before it commenced, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez sounded relieved at how relatively painless the first contest had been. “We talked about the issues. We didn’t talk about hand size,” Perez told me after the end of the Wednesday night debate. (Perez was grinning in reference to the 2016 Republican debate in which Donald Trump, responding to Marco Rubio’s vulgar euphemism, assured viewers of his plentiful genitalia.) “The Republican candidates were only concerned about how they could put a knife in their opponent’s back,” Perez added. “We had spirited discussions. We had some disagreements, but they were all about the merits and the issues. They weren’t, ‘Not only are you wrong, but your mother wears army boots.’” Even in that first debate of this week’s campaign-opening doubleheader, however, there was no shortage of skirmishes that felt deeply personal, opening wounds that won’t easily scab over in the campaign ahead. History will remember Harris confronting Biden on Thursday, the testier of the two debates, in a moment that dominated news coverage and could well come to inform one or both of their campaign trajectories. But even on Wednesday, there was Tim Ryan and Tulsi Gabbard, a clash of the congressional back-benchers, feuding over the use of American military force abroad. Gabbard, an Iraq veteran, won the round on points by correcting Ryan’s assertion that the Taliban attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. This so visibly irked Ryan that he fumed to reporters afterward, “I personally don’t need to be lectured by somebody who’s dining with a dictator who gassed kids,” a reference to the congresswoman’s rapport with Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad. There was Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor once considered the party’s brightest rising star, aiming to recapture mojo stolen by Beto O’Rourke. Unleashing on his unsuspecting fellow Texan, Castro repeatedly told O’Rourke to “do your homework” on the issue of immigration law, criticizing him for failing to back a sweeping change that would decriminalize border crossings. It was a stinging rebuke that punctuated O’Rourke’s dismal night and gave Castro’s camp their biggest boost of the campaign. And there was Eric Swalwell, the catchphrase-happy California congressman, cynically scolding Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, for not firing his police chief after a black man’s killing at the hands of a white officer. Buttigieg responded with a cold stare, crystallizing all the campaigns’ feelings about Swalwell, for whom indiscriminate attacks seem to be a strategic cornerstone. The significance in these events was not merely what was said in the moment, but what is now assured in the future. Upcoming debates will almost certainly feature discussion of Gabbard’s shadowy connections to Syria, and more broadly, of the party’s ambiguous post-Obama foreign policy doctrine. There will be greater pressure to conform to Castro’s argument on decriminalizing border crossings, a position that animates the progressive base but may well alienate moderates and independents. The whispers of Buttigieg’s struggle with black voters will surely intensify, and his opponents are already scheming of ways to use one of his debate responses—“I couldn’t get it done”—against him. This is to say nothing of the other minefields that await: opposition-research files presented on live television, litmus-test questions on issues such as abortion and guns, not to mention the ideological pressure placed on the field by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, neither of whom were seriously tested in the first set of debates but whose ambitious big-government proposals are driving the party’s agenda and putting more moderate candidates in a bind. As for Biden, regardless of whether his poll numbers plummet or hold steady in the weeks ahead, one thing was obvious in Thursday’s aftermath: blood in the water. You could hear it in the voices of rival campaign officials, whispering of how they knew the frontrunner was fundamentally vulnerable due to his detachment from today’s party. You could see it on the faces of Biden’s own allies, who struggled to defend his showing. “What I saw was a person who listened to Kamala Harris’s pain,” Cedric Richmond, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and one of Biden’s highest-profile surrogates, said after the debate ended. Referring to the busing controversy, Richmond added, “All of that was out there when the first African-American president of the United States decided to pick Joe Biden as his running mate, and he had the vice president’s back every day of the week. So, I’m not sure that voters are going back 40 years to judge positions.” They don’t have to. What the maiden debates of the 2020 election cycle demonstrated above all else is the acceleration of change inside the Democratic Party—not just since Biden came to Congress in 1973, but since he became vice president in 2009. Ten years ago this September, Barack Obama convened a joint session of Congress to reset the narrative of his health-care reform push and dispel some of the more sinister myths surrounding it. One particular point of emphasis for Obama: The Affordable Care Act would not cover undocumented immigrants. On Thursday, every one of the 10 candidates on stage—Biden included—said their government plans would do exactly that. The front-runner has cloaked himself in the 44th president’s legacy, invoking “the Obama-Biden administration” as a shield to deflect all manner of criticism. And yet, parts of that legacy—from enshrining the Hyde Amendment, to deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants, to aggressively carrying out drone strikes overseas, to sanctioning deep cuts in government spending—are suddenly and fatally out of step with the modern left. This crop of Democrats won’t hesitate to score points at the previous administration’s expense, as evidenced by Harris’s censure of Obama’s deportation policies. And the gravitational pull of the party’s base will continue to threaten the long-term viability of top contenders, as evidenced by the continuing talk of eliminating private insurance and Harris’s own shaky explanations of whether she supports doing so. For months, Democratic officials have expressed confidence that their party would avoid the reality TV-inspired meltdown that was the 2016 Republican primary. After all, the star of that show is the common enemy of everyone seeking the Democratic nomination. Miami was not a promising start. With so many candidates, with so little fear of the frontrunner, with so much pressure on the bottom three-quarters of the field to turn in campaign-prolonging performances, nothing could keep a lid on the emotions and ambitions at work. It’s irresistible to compare the enormous fields of 2016 and 2020. But the fact is, when Republicans gathered for their first debate in August 2015, Trump had already surged to the top of the field. He held the pole position for the duration of the race, despite so much talk of volatility in the primary electorate, because he relentlessly stayed on the offensive, never absorbing a blow without throwing two counter-punches in return. Leaving Miami, it was apparent to Democrats that they have a very different race on their hands—and a very different frontrunner. Biden’s team talks openly about a strategy of disengagement, an approach that sounds reasonable but in fact puts the entire party at risk. The danger Democrats face is not that a talented field of candidates will be systematically wiped out by a dominant political force. The danger is that there is no dominant political force; that at this intersection of ideological drift and generational discontent and institutional disruption, an obtrusively large collection of candidates will be emboldened to keep fighting not just for their candidacies but for their conception of liberalism itself, feeding the perception of a party in turmoil and easing the president’s fight for reelection. In the spin room after Wednesday night’s debate, a blur of heat and bright lights and body odor, John Delaney, the Maryland congressman, was red in the face explaining that none of the voters he talks with care about impeaching Trump. A few feet away, Bill DeBlasio, the New York City mayor, whacked the “moderate folks” like Delaney for not understanding where the base is, promising “a fight for the soul of the party.” Just over his shoulder, Washington Governor Jay Inslee slammed the complacency of his fellow Democrats on the issue of climate change, decrying “the tyranny of the fossil fuel industry” over both political parties. Joaquin Castro, the congressman and twin brother to Julián, stood off to the side observing the mayhem. Just as he was explaining how “at least 20” reporters had mistaken him for his brother that night, the two of us were nearly stampeded underneath a mob of reporters encircling Elizabeth Warren. “Man,” he said, looking warily from side to side. “This is surreal.”

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Video US President Donald Trump has confirmed he will meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un at the demilitarised zone (DMZ) in a press conference alongside South Korean President Moon Jae-in. Mr Trump said he has “developed a very good relationship” with Mr Kim, who he invited to the meeting in a tweet on Saturday. The president is travelling to Panmunjom, the so-called truce village inside the border zone, with Mr Moon for the meeting.

polusa

2019_1_test.csv

2019_1_test.csv0 53010215 1 59549287 2 59633617 3 52963105 4 18321756 ... 162989 4829910 162990 4889401 162991 4884295 162992 4760206 162993 4533244 Name: id, Length: 162994, dtype: int64

Image copyright NurPhoto/Getty Image example Niger President Muhamadou Issoufou, go lead ECOWAS till June 2020 ECOWAS heads of state and goment don elect President Muhamadou Issoufou of Niger Republic as di new chairman of ECOWAS for di next one year. President Issoufou go take over from Nigeria president Muhammadu Buhari wey don lead ECOWAS since July 2018. Dem elect oga Issoufou for di 55th Ordinary Session of di ECOWAS leaders on Saturday for Abuja. Presidents of 13 out of 15 kontris attend di session and dem include Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Togo. Cape Verde Minister of Regional Integration Julio Cesar Lopes and Senegal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Amadou Ba na dem represent dia kontris. ECOWAS don agree say dia next ordinary session for for December 21 go happun for Abuja.