A 19-year-old man with a van full of guns and explosives has been charged by feds for plotting the&nbsp;assassination of&nbsp;Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

It comes on the same day as the last presidential debate and with less than two weeks to go for the US election 2020 on November 3.

Alexander Hillel&nbsp;Treisman&nbsp;had posted a&nbsp;meme captioned "should I kill Joe Biden?"

The feds believe that it was not an idle threat as&nbsp;Treisman had conducted internet searches seeking information about Biden's home address, state gun laws, and night vision goggles.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-calmer-debate-biden-and-trump-offer-sharply-divergent-visions-for-nation-337432" hreflang="en">In calmer debate, Biden and Trump offer sharply divergent visions for nation</a>

He was arrested&nbsp;after a search of his abandoned white Ford van in Kannapolis, North Carolina revealed several weapons including an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle and a canister of explosive material.

The search also found&nbsp;books on bomb-making, $509,000 in US currency, and drawings of swastikas and planes crashing into buildings, according to the October 6 filing in the US District Court for the Middle District, North Carolina.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-election-2020-whats-different-in-joe-bidens-plan-to-tackle-covid-19-337344/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The currency was believed to be&nbsp;Treisman's inheritance, officials said in the filing.&nbsp;

Following his arrest, the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched his phone, computers, and other devices and found 1,248 videos and 6,721 images of child pornography content, according to federal prosecutors..

He also purchased an AR-15 in New Hampshire and traveled to a Wendy's fast-food restaurant within four miles of Biden's home and wrote a checklist note ending with "execute," according to testimony by officers in the court filing, first reported by the Daily Beast on Thursday.

After his arrest the "defendant disclosed that he has an interest in terrorist incidents and mass shootings," and had traveled across the country to buy a variety of firearms, the document said.

Treisman&nbsp;was arrested on May 28 and on September 28 was indicted by a federal grand jury for possession of child pornography, it said.

Treisman&nbsp;did not have any prior criminal history.

ABC News said it was not clear why&nbsp;Treisman&nbsp;has so far just been charged with possession of child pornography.

A 19-year-old man with a van full of guns and explosives has been charged by feds for plotting the assassination of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. It comes on the same day as the last presidential debate and with less than two weeks to go for the US election 2020 on November 3.

A 19-year-old man with a van full of guns and explosives has been charged by feds for plotting the assassination of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. It comes on the same day as the last presidential debate and with less than two weeks to go for the US election 2020 on November 3. Alexander Hillel Treisman had posted a meme captioned "should I kill Joe Biden?" The feds believe that it was not an idle threat as Treisman had conducted internet searches seeking information about Biden's home address, state gun laws, and night vision goggles. Also read: In calmer debate, Biden and Trump offer sharply divergent visions for nation He was arrested after a search of his abandoned white Ford van in Kannapolis, North Carolina revealed several weapons including an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle and a canister of explosive material. The search also found books on bomb-making, $509,000 in US currency, and drawings of swastikas and planes crashing into buildings, according to the October 6 filing in the US District Court for the Middle District, North Carolina. The currency was believed to be Treisman's inheritance, officials said in the filing. Following his arrest, the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched his phone, computers, and other devices and found 1,248 videos and 6,721 images of child pornography content, according to federal prosecutors.. He also purchased an AR-15 in New Hampshire and traveled to a Wendy's fast-food restaurant within four miles of Biden's home and wrote a checklist note ending with "execute," according to testimony by officers in the court filing, first reported by the Daily Beast on Thursday. After his arrest the "defendant disclosed that he has an interest in terrorist incidents and mass shootings," and had traveled across the country to buy a variety of firearms, the document said. Treisman was arrested on May 28 and on September 28 was indicted by a federal grand jury for possession of child pornography, it said. Treisman did not have any prior criminal history. ABC News said it was not clear why Treisman has so far just been charged with possession of child pornography.

US election 2020: 19-year-old charged for plotting the assassination of Joe Biden

Poland's Constitutional Tribunal ruled on Thursday that abortion due to foetal defects was unconstitutional, banning the most common of the few legal grounds for pregnancy termination in the predominantly Catholic country.

After the ruling goes into effect, abortion will only be permissible in&nbsp;Poland&nbsp;in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's health and life, which make up only around 2 per cent&nbsp;of legal terminations conducted in recent years.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/abortion-due-to-foetal-defects-termed-legal-in-poland-337389/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The development pushes&nbsp;Poland&nbsp;further away from the European mainstream, as the only EU country apart from tiny Malta to severely restrict access to abortion.

Women's rights groups reacted with dismay and Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic called it a "sad day for women's rights."

"Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in&nbsp;Poland&nbsp;amounts to a ban and violates human rights. Today's ruling of the Constitutional Court means underground/abroad abortions for those who can afford and even greater ordeal for all others," Mijatovic wrote.

Conservative values have played a growing role in public life in&nbsp;Poland&nbsp;since the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) came into power five years ago on a promise to defend what it sees as the nation's traditional, Catholic character.

Curbing access to abortion has been a long-standing ambition of the party, but it has stepped back from previous legislative proposals amid a widespread public backlash.

Critics say the Constitutional Tribunal may have acted on the party's behalf. While the Tribunal is nominally independent, most of its judges have been appointed by PiS. The party denies trying to influence the court.

Poland's Constitutional Tribunal ruled on Thursday that abortion due to foetal defects was unconstitutional, banning the most common of the few legal grounds for pregnancy termination in the predominantly Catholic country.

Poland's Constitutional Tribunal ruled on Thursday that abortion due to foetal defects was unconstitutional, banning the most common of the few legal grounds for pregnancy termination in the predominantly Catholic country. After the ruling goes into effect, abortion will only be permissible in Poland in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's health and life, which make up only around 2 per cent of legal terminations conducted in recent years. The development pushes Poland further away from the European mainstream, as the only EU country apart from tiny Malta to severely restrict access to abortion. Women's rights groups reacted with dismay and Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic called it a "sad day for women's rights." "Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in Poland amounts to a ban and violates human rights. Today's ruling of the Constitutional Court means underground/abroad abortions for those who can afford and even greater ordeal for all others," Mijatovic wrote. Conservative values have played a growing role in public life in Poland since the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) came into power five years ago on a promise to defend what it sees as the nation's traditional, Catholic character. Curbing access to abortion has been a long-standing ambition of the party, but it has stepped back from previous legislative proposals amid a widespread public backlash. Critics say the Constitutional Tribunal may have acted on the party's behalf. While the Tribunal is nominally independent, most of its judges have been appointed by PiS. The party denies trying to influence the court.

Poland abortion: Apex court bans almost all terminations

NBC News journalist Kristen&nbsp;Welker&nbsp;has been labeled the ''clear'' and ''obvious winner'' of the final&nbsp;presidential debate between Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden.

Welker has been lauded online for her performance as a moderator for ensuring the candidates did not exceed their time limits and not allowing them to talk over her.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/us-election-2020-who-is-kristen-welker-moderator-of-last-presidential-debate-337231">US election 2020: Who is Kristen Welker, moderator of last presidential debate?</a>

The 44-year-old was&nbsp;born in Philadelphia and studied at Harvard before becoming a reporter.

There have been more than 125,000 tweets about the NBC journalist, who became only the second black woman to moderate a presidential debate alone, 28 years after ABC News journalist Carole Simpson became the first in 1992.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Reminder?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Reminder</a>: Only two black women have ever hosted a general election presidential debate. 
 
Carol Simpson (1992) and Kristen Welker (2020). Wild to believe that there's a whole generation of voters (millennial and Gen-Z) who weren't alive during the 92' town hall. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/debates?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#debates</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Debate?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Debate</a> <a href="https://t.co/bzFiIqyOy6">pic.twitter.com/bzFiIqyOy6</a>
— Beatrice-Elizabeth Peterson (@MissBeaE) <a href="https://twitter.com/MissBeaE/status/1319475880239026176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
winner of the debate is obviously kristen welker 
 
trump cleared the bar for himself, that is, he didn’t rant and rave again. 
 
biden had a very solid performance. 
 
no game changers here in either direction means, i think, that this is a good result for biden.
— b-boy boooo-eebaisse (@jbouie) <a href="https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1319468359931580422?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Welker, known for her calm demeanor and incisive questioning, was&nbsp;helped by the muting of the candidates' microphones when they are not answering questions.

Welker was expected to bring order to the showdown in Nashville, Tennessee, after Fox News anchor Chris Wallace was criticised for presiding over a hard-to-watch bickering fest between the septuagenarians last time out.

Following the debate, when Wallace&nbsp;was asked on air what he thought of the tenor of the final debate moderated by Welker. “First of all, I’m jealous,” he said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The winner of tonight’s debate is none other than <a href="https://twitter.com/kwelkernbc?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@kwelkernbc</a>. This debate felt normal. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Debates2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Debates2020</a>
— Omar Jimenez (@OmarJimenez) <a href="https://twitter.com/OmarJimenez/status/1319468453846286336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Welker&nbsp;had&nbsp;chosen the six topics for discussion, as tradition dictates. They were: fighting COVID-19, American families, race, climate change, and national security.

Before the debate,&nbsp;President Trump and his entourage had accused her of&nbsp;belonging to the left-wing&nbsp;saying that the parents of the first woman of color to host a presidential debate since 1992 were fervent Democrats.

Welker&nbsp;was registered as a Democrat in 2012 but is not politically affiliated today and has never donated to any party.

NBC News journalist Kristen Welker has been labeled the ''clear'' and ''obvious winner'' of the final presidential debate between Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden.

NBC News journalist Kristen Welker has been labeled the ''clear'' and ''obvious winner'' of the final presidential debate between Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden. Welker has been lauded online for her performance as a moderator for ensuring the candidates did not exceed their time limits and not allowing them to talk over her. Also read: US election 2020: Who is Kristen Welker, moderator of last presidential debate? The 44-year-old was born in Philadelphia and studied at Harvard before becoming a reporter. There have been more than 125,000 tweets about the NBC journalist, who became only the second black woman to moderate a presidential debate alone, 28 years after ABC News journalist Carole Simpson became the first in 1992. #Reminder: Only two black women have ever hosted a general election presidential debate. Carol Simpson (1992) and Kristen Welker (2020). Wild to believe that there's a whole generation of voters (millennial and Gen-Z) who weren't alive during the 92' town hall. #debates #Debate pic.twitter.com/bzFiIqyOy6 — Beatrice-Elizabeth Peterson (@MissBeaE) October 23, 2020 × winner of the debate is obviously kristen welker trump cleared the bar for himself, that is, he didn’t rant and rave again. biden had a very solid performance. no game changers here in either direction means, i think, that this is a good result for biden. — b-boy boooo-eebaisse (@jbouie) October 23, 2020 × Welker, known for her calm demeanor and incisive questioning, was helped by the muting of the candidates' microphones when they are not answering questions. Welker was expected to bring order to the showdown in Nashville, Tennessee, after Fox News anchor Chris Wallace was criticised for presiding over a hard-to-watch bickering fest between the septuagenarians last time out. Following the debate, when Wallace was asked on air what he thought of the tenor of the final debate moderated by Welker. “First of all, I’m jealous,” he said. The winner of tonight’s debate is none other than @kwelkernbc. This debate felt normal. #Debates2020 — Omar Jimenez (@OmarJimenez) October 23, 2020 × Welker had chosen the six topics for discussion, as tradition dictates. They were: fighting COVID-19, American families, race, climate change, and national security. Before the debate, President Trump and his entourage had accused her of belonging to the left-wing saying that the parents of the first woman of color to host a presidential debate since 1992 were fervent Democrats. Welker was registered as a Democrat in 2012 but is not politically affiliated today and has never donated to any party.

US election 2020: Social media labels presidential debate moderator Kristen Welker as 'clear winner'

With multicoloured lights and jets of water blasting into the night sky, the United Arab Emirate's newest attraction set a world record on Thursday as the largest fountain ever.

Located at The Pointe in&nbsp;Dubai's waterfront Palm Jumeirah area, the glitzy Palm Fountain was unveiled in a launch that was live-streamed around the world.

The fountain spans over 14,000 square feet (1,300 square meters) of seawater, according to Gail Sangster, asset director at Nakheel Malls, the developers behind the fountain. She said it features 128 super shooters reaching up to 105 metres (344 feet) in height.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/worlds-largest-fountain-unveiled-in-dubai-337449/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The Palm Fountain has been crowned the Guinness World Record holder for the world's largest fountain, stealing the title from the Banpo Moonlight Rainbow Fountain in South Korea.

"GWR is delighted to officially see The Palm&nbsp;Fountain&nbsp;breaking the title of the Largest&nbsp;fountain," Shaddy Gaad, Senior Marketing Manager at Guinness World Records said in a statement.

"This&nbsp;fountain&nbsp;is an example of another milestone in Dubai's architectural achievements," it said, adding that Guinness was declaring it "Officially Amazing".

Dubai, one of the seven emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates, already holds a string of world record titles -- including the world's tallest building, Burj Khalifa, and the fastest police car in service, a Bugatti Veyron.&nbsp;

The city that attracts millions of tourists had already one of the largest fountains in the world near Burj Khalifa.

The new&nbsp;fountain&nbsp;has over 3,000 LED lights, 7,500 nozzles and can shoot water up to 105 metres, according to Guinness.

Last month, British artist Sacha Jafri broke the record for the largest art canvas measuring 1,595 square metres, also in Dubai, Guinness said.

The 44-year-old contemporary artist has said he hoped to raise at least $30 million to fund health and education initiatives for children in impoverished parts of the world.

Dubai, which has the most diversified economy in the oil-rich Gulf region, has been badly hit by the coronavirus slowdown.

Its GDP has contracted 3.5 per cent in the first quarter, following two years of modest growth.&nbsp;

Tourism has long been a mainstay of the emirate, which welcomed more than 16 million visitors last year.

Before the pandemic crippled global travel, the aim was to reach 20 million this year.

Dubai is now largely open for business and tourism, but infection rates have been rising in recent weeks.

With multicoloured lights and jets of water blasting into the night sky, the United Arab Emirate's newest attraction set a world record on Thursday as the largest fountain ever.

With multicoloured lights and jets of water blasting into the night sky, the United Arab Emirate's newest attraction set a world record on Thursday as the largest fountain ever. Located at The Pointe in Dubai's waterfront Palm Jumeirah area, the glitzy Palm Fountain was unveiled in a launch that was live-streamed around the world. The fountain spans over 14,000 square feet (1,300 square meters) of seawater, according to Gail Sangster, asset director at Nakheel Malls, the developers behind the fountain. She said it features 128 super shooters reaching up to 105 metres (344 feet) in height. The Palm Fountain has been crowned the Guinness World Record holder for the world's largest fountain, stealing the title from the Banpo Moonlight Rainbow Fountain in South Korea. "GWR is delighted to officially see The Palm Fountain breaking the title of the Largest fountain," Shaddy Gaad, Senior Marketing Manager at Guinness World Records said in a statement. "This fountain is an example of another milestone in Dubai's architectural achievements," it said, adding that Guinness was declaring it "Officially Amazing". Dubai, one of the seven emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates, already holds a string of world record titles -- including the world's tallest building, Burj Khalifa, and the fastest police car in service, a Bugatti Veyron. The city that attracts millions of tourists had already one of the largest fountains in the world near Burj Khalifa. The new fountain has over 3,000 LED lights, 7,500 nozzles and can shoot water up to 105 metres, according to Guinness. Last month, British artist Sacha Jafri broke the record for the largest art canvas measuring 1,595 square metres, also in Dubai, Guinness said. The 44-year-old contemporary artist has said he hoped to raise at least $30 million to fund health and education initiatives for children in impoverished parts of the world. Dubai, which has the most diversified economy in the oil-rich Gulf region, has been badly hit by the coronavirus slowdown. Its GDP has contracted 3.5 per cent in the first quarter, following two years of modest growth. Tourism has long been a mainstay of the emirate, which welcomed more than 16 million visitors last year. Before the pandemic crippled global travel, the aim was to reach 20 million this year. Dubai is now largely open for business and tourism, but infection rates have been rising in recent weeks.

Dubai's 'The Pointe' at Palm Jumeirah breaks world record for largest fountain

US election 2020: Trump family finally wears facemasks at the last presidential debate

WE KNOW WHO HER ALLIES ARE, AND WE KNOW HOW TO READ WHAT SHE’S WRITTEN OR SIGNED.

We saw the future of the Supreme Court this week, and its name is Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s 4-4 deadlock Monday on whether Pennsylvania must count some late-arriving ballots said it all.

The four most conservative justices sided with the Republican Party, which has fought tooth and nail against permitting states to make accommodations to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Trump-induced collapse of the United States Postal Service by relaxing rules, including deadlines. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to grant the party’s request for a stay of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision providing that ballots will be counted if postmarked by the night of Nov. 3 and received within the following three days.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court’s three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, in voting to let the decision stand. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would undoubtedly have voted with them. With her or without her, the conservatives would still be one vote short of the five needed to grant a stay.

Can I be certain that soon-to-be Justice Barrett, President Trump’s choice to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, would have been that fifth vote? Can I assume that she would really have been so bold, so unabashed about carrying the Republican Party’s water within days of her arrival following the strong-arm tactics the party used to secure her confirmation?

No, of course, I can’t. All I know for sure is who her friends are — and what she said and didn’t say during her two long days before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. I don’t know whether the four justices who voted to block the Pennsylvania court’s decision have ever met Judge Barrett. But they seem to consider her their ally-in-waiting.

I say that because when the Supreme Court denies a stay without opinion, as it did on Monday, there is no requirement or general practice for indicating the actual vote or the identities of the justices who voted one way or another. When a tie vote makes the court unable to decide a case it has actually heard on the merits, a more consequential step than the mere denial of a stay, the court says nothing more than “the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” We are left to guess who was on which side.

Yet here, the four justices who voted unsuccessfully for a stay chose to reveal themselves by noting that they “would grant the application.” Why did they do that? It’s not too cynical to suppose that they wanted to make it clear to the base how much they needed Judge Barrett to join them, now, before other cases like this one inevitably come along. Do Supreme Court justices have a base? These do.

On the subject of abortion, we don’t need to read tea leaves. We just need to know how to read. And I don’t mean the statement Judge Barrett signed back in 2006 opposing “abortion on demand” and supporting the “right to life from fertilization to a natural death.” I mean an opinion she joined in 2018 calling for her court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to reconsider as a full court an opinion by a smaller panel of the court that had invalidated an Indiana anti-abortion law.

Because the opinion was a dissent, one that she joined but didn’t write, and because the requested full-court rehearing never took place, the case, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, has remained under the radar. It emerged only once during last week’s hearing, in a question by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. Judge Barrett deflected the question with an answer that struck me as close to disingenuous, and the senator, either pressed for time or not fully understanding the exchange, let the matter drop.

For that reason, and because I see this procedurally obscure case as providing the clearest indication of how Judge Barrett will approach abortion cases, it’s worth unpacking in some detail.

In 2016, the Indiana legislature passed and Gov. Mike Pence signed an abortion law with two provisions. One required clinics to treat aborted fetuses as deceased persons, by cremation or burial. The other prohibited doctors from performing an abortion knowing that the woman’s decision was based on the sex or race of the fetus or because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome or “any other disability.” A federal district judge barred enforcement of both provisions, and a Seventh Circuit panel upheld that ruling in April 2018.

One of the three judges on the panel, Daniel Manion, dissented from the fetal-remains portion of the opinion. He then said he found it “regrettable” that Supreme Court precedent required him to concur with his colleagues that the other provision was unconstitutional, acknowledging that the Supreme Court has ruled that before fetal viability, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion.

He then proceeded to rail against the court’s abortion jurisprudence in a separate 20-page opinion that contained the blithe assertion that “children with Down syndrome bring joy to everyone around them” — an observation that had no bearing on the legal issue and that coming from a 78-year-old man might well appear cavalier to a young family struggling to grasp the uncertain future that such a diagnosis portends; most families faced with a Down syndrome diagnosis choose abortion.

“Indiana made a noble attempt to protect the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable group,” Judge Manion wrote, adding, “The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence proved an insurmountable obstacle.”

The state sought a rehearing before the full court on the fetal-remains provision. It did not ask the court to reconsider the validity of the provision prohibiting abortions sought for particular reasons. The court denied rehearing over the dissent of five judges in an opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook. His opinion is a remarkable document. Even though the state had not put the prohibition portion of the statute at issue, Judge Easterbrook proceeded to address it at length, calling it “an anti-eugenics law.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Easterbrook wrote:

Casey and other decisions hold that, until a fetus is viable, a woman is entitled to decide whether to bear a child. But there is a difference between ‘I don’t want a child’ and ‘I want a child, but only a male’ or ‘I want only children whose genes predict success in life.’ Using abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable on grounds different from those that underlay the statutes Casey considered. None of the court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.

He added, “We ought not to impute to the justices decisions they have not made about problems they have not faced.”

In other words, Judge Easterbrook, and the judges who joined him in dissent, would have, if they had the power, reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s precedents to uphold a statute that those precedents clearly prohibit. One of those judges was Judge Barrett.

Asked about the case by Senator Leahy, Judge Barrett said this, referring to “the eugenics portion of the bill”:

It is true the state of Indiana did not seek ‘en banc’ rehearing on that, but we had many other states enter the case urging us to take that claim up, and what Judge Easterbrook’s dissent did was explain why he thought it was an open question, but one that’s left to the Supreme Court, and we did not reach any conclusion with respect to it.

No, Judge Barrett. It’s not an “open question.” It’s a question with one answer and one answer only. For now.

(In May 2019, the Supreme Court, over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, overturned the Seventh Circuit and upheld the fetal-remains portion of the statute. The court denied Indiana’s appeal on the prohibition portion, letting stand the panel’s decision on its unconstitutionality. A separate opinion by Justice Thomas mirrored, fervently and at length, Judge Easterbrook’s complaint.)

Judge Barrett had left the witness chair by Friday, the Judiciary Committee’s wrap-up day. But outside the hearing room, far from Washington, the lock-step march of the Trump administration’s anti-abortion judges continued. With two Trump judges in the 2-1 majority, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a Kentucky law that will have the effect of closing the two remaining abortion clinics in the state, a decision that the dissenting judge, Eric Clay, called “terribly and tragically wrong.”

The law requires abortion clinics, in order to maintain their license, to have a “transfer agreement” with a nearby Kentucky-licensed hospital to accept any patients needing care. This is a copycat law in imitation of the admitting-privileges requirement that the Supreme Court has invalidated in two successive decisions. Needless to say, the two Trump appointees in the majority, Judges Joan Larsen and Chad Readler, had to jump through many hoops to justify upholding this law.

But the richest part of their opinion was their assertion that the two clinics, neither of which has been able to reach a hospital agreement, hadn’t demonstrated with sufficient persuasiveness that they would actually have to close. That’s because the law offers the chance to apply for a 90-day waiver. To the clinics’ objection that they can’t remain in business if they can’t assure their staff of employment after 90 days, Judge Larsen had this to say in her majority opinion: “We must presume that the inspector general will consider waiver applications in good faith and will not act simply to make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion.”

It was somehow fitting for this decision to appear on the day the Judiciary Committee finished its astonishingly rushed confirmation hearing for Judge Barrett. As I read the majority opinion, this thought occurred to me: Here, with Roe v. Wade still on the books, a state can force the closure of all abortion clinics within its borders. So at this rate, when the Supreme Court gets around sooner or later to overturning Roe, how will anyone be able to tell?

WE KNOW WHO HER ALLIES ARE, AND WE KNOW HOW TO READ WHAT SHE’S WRITTEN OR SIGNED. We saw the future of the Supreme Court this week, and its name is Amy Coney Barrett.

WE KNOW WHO HER ALLIES ARE, AND WE KNOW HOW TO READ WHAT SHE’S WRITTEN OR SIGNED. We saw the future of the Supreme Court this week, and its name is Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s 4-4 deadlock Monday on whether Pennsylvania must count some late-arriving ballots said it all. The four most conservative justices sided with the Republican Party, which has fought tooth and nail against permitting states to make accommodations to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Trump-induced collapse of the United States Postal Service by relaxing rules, including deadlines. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to grant the party’s request for a stay of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision providing that ballots will be counted if postmarked by the night of Nov. 3 and received within the following three days. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court’s three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, in voting to let the decision stand. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would undoubtedly have voted with them. With her or without her, the conservatives would still be one vote short of the five needed to grant a stay. Can I be certain that soon-to-be Justice Barrett, President Trump’s choice to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, would have been that fifth vote? Can I assume that she would really have been so bold, so unabashed about carrying the Republican Party’s water within days of her arrival following the strong-arm tactics the party used to secure her confirmation? No, of course, I can’t. All I know for sure is who her friends are — and what she said and didn’t say during her two long days before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. I don’t know whether the four justices who voted to block the Pennsylvania court’s decision have ever met Judge Barrett. But they seem to consider her their ally-in-waiting. I say that because when the Supreme Court denies a stay without opinion, as it did on Monday, there is no requirement or general practice for indicating the actual vote or the identities of the justices who voted one way or another. When a tie vote makes the court unable to decide a case it has actually heard on the merits, a more consequential step than the mere denial of a stay, the court says nothing more than “the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” We are left to guess who was on which side. Yet here, the four justices who voted unsuccessfully for a stay chose to reveal themselves by noting that they “would grant the application.” Why did they do that? It’s not too cynical to suppose that they wanted to make it clear to the base how much they needed Judge Barrett to join them, now, before other cases like this one inevitably come along. Do Supreme Court justices have a base? These do. On the subject of abortion, we don’t need to read tea leaves. We just need to know how to read. And I don’t mean the statement Judge Barrett signed back in 2006 opposing “abortion on demand” and supporting the “right to life from fertilization to a natural death.” I mean an opinion she joined in 2018 calling for her court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to reconsider as a full court an opinion by a smaller panel of the court that had invalidated an Indiana anti-abortion law. Because the opinion was a dissent, one that she joined but didn’t write, and because the requested full-court rehearing never took place, the case, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, has remained under the radar. It emerged only once during last week’s hearing, in a question by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. Judge Barrett deflected the question with an answer that struck me as close to disingenuous, and the senator, either pressed for time or not fully understanding the exchange, let the matter drop. For that reason, and because I see this procedurally obscure case as providing the clearest indication of how Judge Barrett will approach abortion cases, it’s worth unpacking in some detail. In 2016, the Indiana legislature passed and Gov. Mike Pence signed an abortion law with two provisions. One required clinics to treat aborted fetuses as deceased persons, by cremation or burial. The other prohibited doctors from performing an abortion knowing that the woman’s decision was based on the sex or race of the fetus or because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome or “any other disability.” A federal district judge barred enforcement of both provisions, and a Seventh Circuit panel upheld that ruling in April 2018. One of the three judges on the panel, Daniel Manion, dissented from the fetal-remains portion of the opinion. He then said he found it “regrettable” that Supreme Court precedent required him to concur with his colleagues that the other provision was unconstitutional, acknowledging that the Supreme Court has ruled that before fetal viability, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion. He then proceeded to rail against the court’s abortion jurisprudence in a separate 20-page opinion that contained the blithe assertion that “children with Down syndrome bring joy to everyone around them” — an observation that had no bearing on the legal issue and that coming from a 78-year-old man might well appear cavalier to a young family struggling to grasp the uncertain future that such a diagnosis portends; most families faced with a Down syndrome diagnosis choose abortion. “Indiana made a noble attempt to protect the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable group,” Judge Manion wrote, adding, “The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence proved an insurmountable obstacle.” The state sought a rehearing before the full court on the fetal-remains provision. It did not ask the court to reconsider the validity of the provision prohibiting abortions sought for particular reasons. The court denied rehearing over the dissent of five judges in an opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook. His opinion is a remarkable document. Even though the state had not put the prohibition portion of the statute at issue, Judge Easterbrook proceeded to address it at length, calling it “an anti-eugenics law.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Easterbrook wrote: Casey and other decisions hold that, until a fetus is viable, a woman is entitled to decide whether to bear a child. But there is a difference between ‘I don’t want a child’ and ‘I want a child, but only a male’ or ‘I want only children whose genes predict success in life.’ Using abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable on grounds different from those that underlay the statutes Casey considered. None of the court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children. He added, “We ought not to impute to the justices decisions they have not made about problems they have not faced.” In other words, Judge Easterbrook, and the judges who joined him in dissent, would have, if they had the power, reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s precedents to uphold a statute that those precedents clearly prohibit. One of those judges was Judge Barrett. Asked about the case by Senator Leahy, Judge Barrett said this, referring to “the eugenics portion of the bill”: It is true the state of Indiana did not seek ‘en banc’ rehearing on that, but we had many other states enter the case urging us to take that claim up, and what Judge Easterbrook’s dissent did was explain why he thought it was an open question, but one that’s left to the Supreme Court, and we did not reach any conclusion with respect to it. No, Judge Barrett. It’s not an “open question.” It’s a question with one answer and one answer only. For now. (In May 2019, the Supreme Court, over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, overturned the Seventh Circuit and upheld the fetal-remains portion of the statute. The court denied Indiana’s appeal on the prohibition portion, letting stand the panel’s decision on its unconstitutionality. A separate opinion by Justice Thomas mirrored, fervently and at length, Judge Easterbrook’s complaint.) Judge Barrett had left the witness chair by Friday, the Judiciary Committee’s wrap-up day. But outside the hearing room, far from Washington, the lock-step march of the Trump administration’s anti-abortion judges continued. With two Trump judges in the 2-1 majority, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a Kentucky law that will have the effect of closing the two remaining abortion clinics in the state, a decision that the dissenting judge, Eric Clay, called “terribly and tragically wrong.” The law requires abortion clinics, in order to maintain their license, to have a “transfer agreement” with a nearby Kentucky-licensed hospital to accept any patients needing care. This is a copycat law in imitation of the admitting-privileges requirement that the Supreme Court has invalidated in two successive decisions. Needless to say, the two Trump appointees in the majority, Judges Joan Larsen and Chad Readler, had to jump through many hoops to justify upholding this law. But the richest part of their opinion was their assertion that the two clinics, neither of which has been able to reach a hospital agreement, hadn’t demonstrated with sufficient persuasiveness that they would actually have to close. That’s because the law offers the chance to apply for a 90-day waiver. To the clinics’ objection that they can’t remain in business if they can’t assure their staff of employment after 90 days, Judge Larsen had this to say in her majority opinion: “We must presume that the inspector general will consider waiver applications in good faith and will not act simply to make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion.” It was somehow fitting for this decision to appear on the day the Judiciary Committee finished its astonishingly rushed confirmation hearing for Judge Barrett. As I read the majority opinion, this thought occurred to me: Here, with Roe v. Wade still on the books, a state can force the closure of all abortion clinics within its borders. So at this rate, when the Supreme Court gets around sooner or later to overturning Roe, how will anyone be able to tell?

What does Amy Coney Barrett mean for the Supreme Court?

The University of&nbsp;Oxford's Brazilian trial of its vaccine candidate will continue after the death of a volunteer, the university said on Wednesday, adding an independent review had revealed no safety concerns.

"Following careful assessment of this case in Brazil, there have been no concerns about the safety of the clinical trial and the independent review in addition to the Brazilian regulator have recommended that the trial should continue," a spokesman for the university said in a statement.

It is the first death reported in the various coronavirus vaccine trials taking place worldwide.

Media reports said the volunteer was a 28-year-old doctor working on the front lines of the pandemic who died of complications from Covid-19.

Brazilian newspaper Globo and international news agency Bloomberg said he was in the control group and had received a placebo rather than the test vaccine, citing sources close to the trials.

"Following careful assessment of this case in Brazil, there have been no concerns about the safety of the clinical trial, and the independent review in addition to the Brazilian regulator have recommended that the trial should continue,"&nbsp;Oxford&nbsp;said in a statement.

AstraZeneca said medical confidentiality meant it could not give details on any individual volunteer, but that independent review had "not led to any concerns about the continuation of the ongoing study."

Brazil's national health regulator, Anvisa, confirmed it had been notified of the case on October 19.

The D'Or Teaching and Research Institute (IDOR), which is helping organize the tests in Brazil, said the independent review had "raised no doubts about the safety of the study, and recommended it continue."

Oxford&nbsp;and AstraZeneca previously had to suspend testing of the vaccine in September when a volunteer in Britain developed an unexplained illness.

Trials resumed after British regulators and an independent review concluded the illness was not a side effect of the vaccine.

Half the volunteers in the final-stage clinical trial -- a double-blind, randomized, controlled study -- receive a placebo, IDOR said.

Around 8,000 volunteers have been vaccinated so far in Brazil, and more than 20,000 worldwide, it said.

Study participants must be doctors, nurses, or other health sector workers who come into regular contact with the virus.

The deceased volunteer was a young doctor who had been treating Covid-19 patients since March in the emergency rooms and intensive care units at two hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Globo said.

He graduated from medical school last year, and was in good health prior to contracting the disease, family and friends told the newspaper.

The University of Oxford's Brazilian trial of its vaccine candidate will continue after the death of a volunteer, the university said on Wednesday, adding an independent review had revealed no safety concerns.

The University of Oxford's Brazilian trial of its vaccine candidate will continue after the death of a volunteer, the university said on Wednesday, adding an independent review had revealed no safety concerns. "Following careful assessment of this case in Brazil, there have been no concerns about the safety of the clinical trial and the independent review in addition to the Brazilian regulator have recommended that the trial should continue," a spokesman for the university said in a statement. It is the first death reported in the various coronavirus vaccine trials taking place worldwide. Media reports said the volunteer was a 28-year-old doctor working on the front lines of the pandemic who died of complications from Covid-19. Brazilian newspaper Globo and international news agency Bloomberg said he was in the control group and had received a placebo rather than the test vaccine, citing sources close to the trials. "Following careful assessment of this case in Brazil, there have been no concerns about the safety of the clinical trial, and the independent review in addition to the Brazilian regulator have recommended that the trial should continue," Oxford said in a statement. AstraZeneca said medical confidentiality meant it could not give details on any individual volunteer, but that independent review had "not led to any concerns about the continuation of the ongoing study." Brazil's national health regulator, Anvisa, confirmed it had been notified of the case on October 19. The D'Or Teaching and Research Institute (IDOR), which is helping organize the tests in Brazil, said the independent review had "raised no doubts about the safety of the study, and recommended it continue." Oxford and AstraZeneca previously had to suspend testing of the vaccine in September when a volunteer in Britain developed an unexplained illness. Trials resumed after British regulators and an independent review concluded the illness was not a side effect of the vaccine. Half the volunteers in the final-stage clinical trial -- a double-blind, randomized, controlled study -- receive a placebo, IDOR said. Around 8,000 volunteers have been vaccinated so far in Brazil, and more than 20,000 worldwide, it said. Study participants must be doctors, nurses, or other health sector workers who come into regular contact with the virus. The deceased volunteer was a young doctor who had been treating Covid-19 patients since March in the emergency rooms and intensive care units at two hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Globo said. He graduated from medical school last year, and was in good health prior to contracting the disease, family and friends told the newspaper.

Oxford's Brazil vaccine trial to continue even after volunteer's death

Treated with contempt by President Donald Trump, who considers them rivals and deadbeats instead of allies, many European leaders look forward to the possibility of a Biden presidency. But they are painfully aware that four years of Trump have changed the world — and the United States — in ways that will not be easily reversed.

Even if civility can be restored, a fundamental trust has been broken, and many European diplomats and experts believe that US&nbsp;foreign policy is no longer bipartisan, so is no longer reliable. “The shining city on the hill is not as shining as it used to be,” Reinhard Bütikofer, a prominent German member of the European Parliament, put it bluntly.

For the first time, said Ivan Krastev, director of the Center for Liberal Strategies, “Europeans are afraid that there is no longer a foreign-policy consensus in the United States. Every new administration can mean a totally new policy, and for them, this is a nightmare.”

The ideological divide will be on display Thursday when Trump and Joe Biden are scheduled to hold their final presidential debate.

There will be what most consider low-hanging fruit for a Biden administration that will please Europeans. The crop includes an extension to New START, the nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, and returns to the Paris climate accord, the World Health Organization, and even the Iran nuclear accord. There will be feel-good meetings and statements about multilateralism, less confrontation about trade, renewed efforts to reform the World Trade Organization, and a less combative atmosphere at summits of the Group of 7 and NATO.

But Trump’s complaints are shared by many Americans, and given the polarization in America, President Emmanuel Macron of France has pushed Europe to step up in an altered world, where China is rising and the Trump administration is only a symptom of a US&nbsp;retreat from global leadership, not the cause.

The idea of European “strategic autonomy” — of a Europe less dependent on Washington and with its own strong voice in the world — has been gaining ground, even if it is more aspiration than reality.

Some, like Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy’s Institute of International Affairs, and François Heisbourg, a French security analyst, fear that a Biden presidency could short-circuit European autonomy and let Europeans continue, as Tocci said, “sticking our heads in the sand.”

Trump's re-election, of course, might accelerate the trend toward autonomy, even if few believe that Trump would be able to pull out of NATO, as one of his former national security advisers, John Bolton, suggested he might.

US&nbsp;foreign policy was traditionally bipartisan — the old phrase that “politics stops at the water’s edge” had merit, especially during the Cold War. But the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that foreign policy, too, was subject to deepening political polarization in the United States.

“There is an incredible decay in Europe of the sense of the United States as a leader,” accelerated and symbolized by mishandling of the coronavirus, said Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“Biden doesn’t solve their America problem,” he said. “He’s not going to be president forever, and Democrats won’t always be in power, and people have learned that the US&nbsp;can’t be trusted on foreign policy because the next administration will come in and wipe it away.”

The inconsistency of US&nbsp;foreign policy has undermined US&nbsp;credibility, some warned.

There is “an American decline in geopolitical weight,” said Francis Fukuyama of Stanford University.

“The single fact that shapes the US&nbsp;role in global politics is polarization, and this polarization will not disappear if Joe Biden is elected,” he said. “Americans simply don’t agree with one another on basic premises, even on how much America should be involved in global affairs and NATO.”

William J. Burns, a former senior US&nbsp;diplomat who now runs the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, thinks the damage is lasting, no matter who wins the election.

“One of the more insidious effects of polarization is to make foreign policy a tool of partisan politics,” he said. “It’s done enduring damage to America’s reputation in the world for being able to keep its word.”

While Europeans would see a Biden presidency “as a return to civilization,” as Heisbourg called it, a new partnership would come with demands for new obligations and commitments, especially in China.

After Trump, however, there would also be a new wariness and unwillingness to take big risks on the part of America’s allies, said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “If you know that whatever you’re doing will at most last until the next election, you look at everything in a more contingent way,” he said.

Europeans see US&nbsp;confrontation with China as one of the few bipartisan issues that are driving US&nbsp;foreign policy, and Europeans are reluctant to be made a pawn or a playing card in that rivalry, given that China is Europe’s second-largest trading partner behind the United States.

Opinion polls show that most Europeans do not want to take sides in some battle between Washington and Beijing. “We don’t see the China challenge the same way and we’re not the peer competitor,” said Rem Korteweg of the Clingendael Institute.

There will also be continued pressure from Washington on Europeans to spend more on defense — one bipartisan demand that has not fractured.

Trump successfully goaded the Europeans to spend more. But Europeans were also reacting to a vacuum in trans-Atlantic leadership, doubts about Trump’s commitment to collective security, and his view of Europe as a burden and a competitor.

“I see European partners more assertive in saying that we disagree with US&nbsp;policies — that’s the healthier legacy left by Trump,” said Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, director of the German Marshall Fund in Paris.

Before Trump, those disagreements were rarely fundamental. “We had differences, but there was never a basic mistrust about having common views of the world,” said Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway, who has dealt with numerous American presidents of both parties.

But over the past four years, she said, several European leaders “no longer take for granted that they can trust the US, even on basic things.”

Confidence in Washington will not return quickly, she said. “While most European leaders think it best for the global system to build on a close US-Europe relationship,” she said, “to have such a polarized situation between the two main parties in the US&nbsp;is scary, and you wonder where that goes.”

For Burns of the Carnegie Endowment, US&nbsp;global hegemony is over. He sees little US&nbsp;appetite “for grand foreign-policy crusades” and says: “We cannot return to 1949 or 1992 — or even 2016. The world has changed, and the trans-Atlantic relationship must change with it.”

A Biden administration would first concentrate on domestic renewal in a country clobbered by the coronavirus, he said. It would seek a more collaborative partnership with Europe, supporting “a European security identity that doesn’t come at the expense of NATO.”

The Europeans have “their own skepticism, given the drift they’ve seen in a more inward-looking America,” Burns said. But workable coalitions are possible on China, 5G, Russia, Africa, and climate change.

But Europeans must commit, too, Burns said. “Both sides must step up to invest in a new relationship, which they haven’t always done in the past.”

Treated with contempt by President Donald Trump, who considers them rivals and deadbeats instead of allies, many European leaders look forward to the possibility of a Biden presidency.

Treated with contempt by President Donald Trump, who considers them rivals and deadbeats instead of allies, many European leaders look forward to the possibility of a Biden presidency. But they are painfully aware that four years of Trump have changed the world — and the United States — in ways that will not be easily reversed. Even if civility can be restored, a fundamental trust has been broken, and many European diplomats and experts believe that US foreign policy is no longer bipartisan, so is no longer reliable. “The shining city on the hill is not as shining as it used to be,” Reinhard Bütikofer, a prominent German member of the European Parliament, put it bluntly. For the first time, said Ivan Krastev, director of the Center for Liberal Strategies, “Europeans are afraid that there is no longer a foreign-policy consensus in the United States. Every new administration can mean a totally new policy, and for them, this is a nightmare.” The ideological divide will be on display Thursday when Trump and Joe Biden are scheduled to hold their final presidential debate. There will be what most consider low-hanging fruit for a Biden administration that will please Europeans. The crop includes an extension to New START, the nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, and returns to the Paris climate accord, the World Health Organization, and even the Iran nuclear accord. There will be feel-good meetings and statements about multilateralism, less confrontation about trade, renewed efforts to reform the World Trade Organization, and a less combative atmosphere at summits of the Group of 7 and NATO. But Trump’s complaints are shared by many Americans, and given the polarization in America, President Emmanuel Macron of France has pushed Europe to step up in an altered world, where China is rising and the Trump administration is only a symptom of a US retreat from global leadership, not the cause. The idea of European “strategic autonomy” — of a Europe less dependent on Washington and with its own strong voice in the world — has been gaining ground, even if it is more aspiration than reality. Some, like Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy’s Institute of International Affairs, and François Heisbourg, a French security analyst, fear that a Biden presidency could short-circuit European autonomy and let Europeans continue, as Tocci said, “sticking our heads in the sand.” Trump's re-election, of course, might accelerate the trend toward autonomy, even if few believe that Trump would be able to pull out of NATO, as one of his former national security advisers, John Bolton, suggested he might. US foreign policy was traditionally bipartisan — the old phrase that “politics stops at the water’s edge” had merit, especially during the Cold War. But the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that foreign policy, too, was subject to deepening political polarization in the United States. “There is an incredible decay in Europe of the sense of the United States as a leader,” accelerated and symbolized by mishandling of the coronavirus, said Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Biden doesn’t solve their America problem,” he said. “He’s not going to be president forever, and Democrats won’t always be in power, and people have learned that the US can’t be trusted on foreign policy because the next administration will come in and wipe it away.” The inconsistency of US foreign policy has undermined US credibility, some warned. There is “an American decline in geopolitical weight,” said Francis Fukuyama of Stanford University. “The single fact that shapes the US role in global politics is polarization, and this polarization will not disappear if Joe Biden is elected,” he said. “Americans simply don’t agree with one another on basic premises, even on how much America should be involved in global affairs and NATO.” William J. Burns, a former senior US diplomat who now runs the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, thinks the damage is lasting, no matter who wins the election. “One of the more insidious effects of polarization is to make foreign policy a tool of partisan politics,” he said. “It’s done enduring damage to America’s reputation in the world for being able to keep its word.” While Europeans would see a Biden presidency “as a return to civilization,” as Heisbourg called it, a new partnership would come with demands for new obligations and commitments, especially in China. After Trump, however, there would also be a new wariness and unwillingness to take big risks on the part of America’s allies, said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “If you know that whatever you’re doing will at most last until the next election, you look at everything in a more contingent way,” he said. Europeans see US confrontation with China as one of the few bipartisan issues that are driving US foreign policy, and Europeans are reluctant to be made a pawn or a playing card in that rivalry, given that China is Europe’s second-largest trading partner behind the United States. Opinion polls show that most Europeans do not want to take sides in some battle between Washington and Beijing. “We don’t see the China challenge the same way and we’re not the peer competitor,” said Rem Korteweg of the Clingendael Institute. There will also be continued pressure from Washington on Europeans to spend more on defense — one bipartisan demand that has not fractured. Trump successfully goaded the Europeans to spend more. But Europeans were also reacting to a vacuum in trans-Atlantic leadership, doubts about Trump’s commitment to collective security, and his view of Europe as a burden and a competitor. “I see European partners more assertive in saying that we disagree with US policies — that’s the healthier legacy left by Trump,” said Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, director of the German Marshall Fund in Paris. Before Trump, those disagreements were rarely fundamental. “We had differences, but there was never a basic mistrust about having common views of the world,” said Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway, who has dealt with numerous American presidents of both parties. But over the past four years, she said, several European leaders “no longer take for granted that they can trust the US, even on basic things.” Confidence in Washington will not return quickly, she said. “While most European leaders think it best for the global system to build on a close US-Europe relationship,” she said, “to have such a polarized situation between the two main parties in the US is scary, and you wonder where that goes.” For Burns of the Carnegie Endowment, US global hegemony is over. He sees little US appetite “for grand foreign-policy crusades” and says: “We cannot return to 1949 or 1992 — or even 2016. The world has changed, and the trans-Atlantic relationship must change with it.” A Biden administration would first concentrate on domestic renewal in a country clobbered by the coronavirus, he said. It would seek a more collaborative partnership with Europe, supporting “a European security identity that doesn’t come at the expense of NATO.” The Europeans have “their own skepticism, given the drift they’ve seen in a more inward-looking America,” Burns said. But workable coalitions are possible on China, 5G, Russia, Africa, and climate change. But Europeans must commit, too, Burns said. “Both sides must step up to invest in a new relationship, which they haven’t always done in the past.”

Europe wonders if it can rely on US again, whoever wins

Turkey&nbsp;has reiterated its support for Azerbaijan as hopes of ending nearly a month of bloodshed in the mountain enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh were receding.

Speaking at a military drill on Wednesday, Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said Ankara is ready to give every support to Azerbaijan, amid new battles ahead of Washington talks.

Also see:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/azerbaijan-armenia-conflict-the-human-cost-of-war-in-pictures-333182">Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict: The human cost of war in pictures</a>

Turkey&nbsp;has said it will not hesitate to send soldiers and provide military support for Azerbaijan if such a request is made by its close ally.

Plans for US&nbsp;Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to meet the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia on Friday raised hopes this week that the two former Soviet republics would agree to end their deadliest fighting since the mid-1990s.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/covid-19-secondary-for-nagorno-karabakh-civilians-truce-trays-amid-fresh-shelling-337026/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

But those hopes have been dented by the continued heavy fighting in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, a breakaway territory which is inside Azerbaijan but controlled by ethnic Armenians, and by angry rhetoric from both sides.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said on Wednesday he could see no diplomatic resolution of the long-running conflict at this stage.

In a transcript of comments to the Nikkei newspaper published on Thursday, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev said the prospects of reaching a peace settlement were "very remote".

Reiterating Azerbaijan's main condition for ending the fighting, Aliyev demanded promises that his country will be handed back control of Nagorno-Karabakh, which broke away as the Soviet Union collapsed.

"So our main objective at these discussions will be to find out whether the Armenian leadership is ready to liberate our territories or not, and if ready, then when?" he said.

Armenians regard Nagorno-Karabakh as part of their historic homeland and accuse Azerbaijan of making a land grab in the recent fighting.

Aliyev said he would not rule out "cultural autonomy" for ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh but not say what he meant by this.

Turkey has reiterated its support for Azerbaijan as hopes of ending nearly a month of bloodshed in the mountain enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh were receding. Speaking at a military drill on Wednesday, Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said Ankara is ready to give every support to Azerbaijan, amid new battles ahead of Washington talks.

Turkey has reiterated its support for Azerbaijan as hopes of ending nearly a month of bloodshed in the mountain enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh were receding. Speaking at a military drill on Wednesday, Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said Ankara is ready to give every support to Azerbaijan, amid new battles ahead of Washington talks. Also see: Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict: The human cost of war in pictures Turkey has said it will not hesitate to send soldiers and provide military support for Azerbaijan if such a request is made by its close ally. Plans for US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to meet the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia on Friday raised hopes this week that the two former Soviet republics would agree to end their deadliest fighting since the mid-1990s. But those hopes have been dented by the continued heavy fighting in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, a breakaway territory which is inside Azerbaijan but controlled by ethnic Armenians, and by angry rhetoric from both sides. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said on Wednesday he could see no diplomatic resolution of the long-running conflict at this stage. In a transcript of comments to the Nikkei newspaper published on Thursday, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev said the prospects of reaching a peace settlement were "very remote". Reiterating Azerbaijan's main condition for ending the fighting, Aliyev demanded promises that his country will be handed back control of Nagorno-Karabakh, which broke away as the Soviet Union collapsed. "So our main objective at these discussions will be to find out whether the Armenian leadership is ready to liberate our territories or not, and if ready, then when?" he said. Armenians regard Nagorno-Karabakh as part of their historic homeland and accuse Azerbaijan of making a land grab in the recent fighting. Aliyev said he would not rule out "cultural autonomy" for ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh but not say what he meant by this.

Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire: Hopes diminish after Turkey reaffirms support for Azerbaijan

The killer of French history teacher Samuel Paty, who murdered for showing&nbsp;cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in class, has contact&nbsp;with a Russian-speaking jihadist in Syria.

Seven people have been charged with being complicit in a "terrorist murder" after 18-year-old Chechen Abdullakh Anzorov beheaded Paty on the outskirts of Paris on Friday, including two teenagers who helped him identify the teacher.

France paid homage to Paty on Wednesday, with President Emmanuel Macron saying that the history and geography teacher had been slain by "cowards" for representing the secular, democratic values of the French Republic.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/france-to-dissolve-pro-hamas-muslim-group-macron-vows-action-against-islamist-extremism-336882">France to dissolve pro-Hamas Muslim group; Macron vows action against Islamist extremism</a>

"Islamists want to take our future," Macron said. "They will never have it."

Traced to Idlib

Le Parisien newspaper reported on Thursday that Anzorov's suspected contact had been located through an IP address traced back to Idlib, a jihadist holdout in northwestern Syria.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/french-teachers-murderer-reportedly-paid-students-outside-school-to-identify-paty-336964">French teacher's murderer reportedly paid students outside school to identify Paty</a>

The teenagers who pointed out Paty to his killer in return for 300-350 euros ($356-$414) were charged late Wednesday over the killing. &nbsp;

The parent of one of Paty's students, who started the social media campaign against the teacher even though his daughter was not in class when the cartoons were shown, was also charged.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-beheading-french-vows-wont-give-up-cartoons-as-2-teens-charged-with-complicity-337060/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Also charged was a known Islamist radical who helped the father stir up outrage against Paty.

The other three facing prosecutions are friends of Anzorov, one of who allegedly drove him to the scene of the crime while another accompanied him to purchase a weapon.

Two of them also face charges of being complicit in terrorist murder while the third was charged with a lesser offence, the anti-terrorist prosecutor's office said.

'Murdered for his teachings'&nbsp;

Paty, 47, became the target of an online hate campaign over his choice of lesson material -- the same images which unleashed a bloody assault by Islamist gunmen on the Paris offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January 2015.

Police have carried out dozens of raids since the crime, while the government has ordered the six-month closure of a mosque outside Paris and dissolved the Sheikh Yassin Collective, a group they said supported Hamas.

The French government has also earmarked for dissolution more than 50 other organisations it accuses of having links to radical Islam.

Paty's beheading was the second knife attack in the name of avenging the Prophet Mohammed since a trial of alleged accomplices in the Charlie Hebdo attack started last month.

The killing has prompted an outpouring of emotion in France, with tens of thousands taking part in rallies countrywide in defence of free speech and the right to mock religion.

"We will not give up cartoons," Macron vowed at Wednesday's ceremony at the Sorbonne University in Paris.

An opinion poll by the Ifop institute on Thursday found that nearly 80 per cent of those questioned said it was appropriate for teachers to use cartoons making fun of religion in the classroom.

UNICEF director-general Audrey Azoulay on Thursday said that "a teacher has been murdered for his teachings".

Azoulay told a virtual education summit that she wanted to "pay tribute to this teacher, and all the other teachers in the world who take risks educating our children and young people".

The killer of French history teacher Samuel Paty, who murdered for showing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in class, has contact with a Russian-speaking jihadist in Syria.

The killer of French history teacher Samuel Paty, who murdered for showing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in class, has contact with a Russian-speaking jihadist in Syria. Seven people have been charged with being complicit in a "terrorist murder" after 18-year-old Chechen Abdullakh Anzorov beheaded Paty on the outskirts of Paris on Friday, including two teenagers who helped him identify the teacher. France paid homage to Paty on Wednesday, with President Emmanuel Macron saying that the history and geography teacher had been slain by "cowards" for representing the secular, democratic values of the French Republic. Also read: France to dissolve pro-Hamas Muslim group; Macron vows action against Islamist extremism "Islamists want to take our future," Macron said. "They will never have it." Traced to Idlib Le Parisien newspaper reported on Thursday that Anzorov's suspected contact had been located through an IP address traced back to Idlib, a jihadist holdout in northwestern Syria. Also read: French teacher's murderer reportedly paid students outside school to identify Paty The teenagers who pointed out Paty to his killer in return for 300-350 euros ($356-$414) were charged late Wednesday over the killing. The parent of one of Paty's students, who started the social media campaign against the teacher even though his daughter was not in class when the cartoons were shown, was also charged. Also charged was a known Islamist radical who helped the father stir up outrage against Paty. The other three facing prosecutions are friends of Anzorov, one of who allegedly drove him to the scene of the crime while another accompanied him to purchase a weapon. Two of them also face charges of being complicit in terrorist murder while the third was charged with a lesser offence, the anti-terrorist prosecutor's office said. 'Murdered for his teachings' Paty, 47, became the target of an online hate campaign over his choice of lesson material -- the same images which unleashed a bloody assault by Islamist gunmen on the Paris offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January 2015. Police have carried out dozens of raids since the crime, while the government has ordered the six-month closure of a mosque outside Paris and dissolved the Sheikh Yassin Collective, a group they said supported Hamas. The French government has also earmarked for dissolution more than 50 other organisations it accuses of having links to radical Islam. Paty's beheading was the second knife attack in the name of avenging the Prophet Mohammed since a trial of alleged accomplices in the Charlie Hebdo attack started last month. The killing has prompted an outpouring of emotion in France, with tens of thousands taking part in rallies countrywide in defence of free speech and the right to mock religion. "We will not give up cartoons," Macron vowed at Wednesday's ceremony at the Sorbonne University in Paris. An opinion poll by the Ifop institute on Thursday found that nearly 80 per cent of those questioned said it was appropriate for teachers to use cartoons making fun of religion in the classroom. UNICEF director-general Audrey Azoulay on Thursday said that "a teacher has been murdered for his teachings". Azoulay told a virtual education summit that she wanted to "pay tribute to this teacher, and all the other teachers in the world who take risks educating our children and young people".

France teacher attack: Samuel Paty's killer had 'contact' with jihadist in Syria

The European Union wants the World Health Organization to become more transparent about how states report emerging health crises, a draft proposal on reforming the UN&nbsp;agency says, following criticism of China's initial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper, drawn up by the German government after discussions with other member states, is the latest to outline the EU's months-long plans to address the WHO's shortcomings on funding, governance, and legal powers.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-coronavirus-pandemic-response-probe-a-litmus-test-for-the-agency-312377">WHO coronavirus pandemic response probe a litmus test for the agency</a>

The document, dated Oct. 19 and seen by Reuters, urges the WHO to adopt measures that would increase "transparency on national compliance" with International Health Regulations. These require WHO member states to quickly share information on health emergencies.

The United States has accused the WHO of being too close to China in the first phase of the pandemic when Beijing was slow in sharing crucial information on the new coronavirus - which first appeared in the city of Wuhan.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/who-coronavirus-may-never-go-away-298548/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

President Donald Trump has said the United States will end its membership in the agency and stop its funding as a result.

The WHO has repeatedly dismissed the allegations. It did not respond to requests for comment on the EU proposal.

Asked about the document on Thursday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said China wanted to "actively participate" in WHO reform, which he said should not serve the interests of anyone country.

Reforms should "better remove political interference" from the WHO, increase its resources and ability to deal with global public health crises, and strengthen support for developing countries, he said in Beijing.

The German government declined to comment on the content of the document as it was still a draft.

The EU and its states are among the WHO's largest donors, and would become by far the top public contributors if the United States withdraws from the U.N. agency.

The EU draft will be discussed by EU health ministers at a video conference next week and is aimed to be the EU's common position ahead of the WHO assembly in mid-November, it said.

It reiterates EU support for the WHO and stresses the agency's central role in addressing global health challenges.

However, it lists insufficient transparency as the first of many challenges faced by the U.N. agency, as well as a lack of "predictable and sustainable" financing.

It also calls for "a more effective and consistently applied reporting system by State Parties to the WHO Secretariat".

That appears to be addressing criticisms that China and other countries have not shared information on the pandemic in a timely fashion.

The document says mechanisms to evaluate countries' compliance with reporting obligations should be strengthened and become periodic.

The disparity between WHO member states' expectations and the organisation's capacities should be addressed as a priority, it said.

"WAKE-UP CALL"

Preparations for a review of the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic by the WHO and governments have been underway for months, and Germany has repeatedly urged EU member states to speed up that process so that a reform of the body could be discussed in earnest.

EU health ministers have already broadly agreed a common position on reforms the WHO would need to undergo at a video conference they held in early October, according to a debrief of the meeting seen by Reuters.

Germany wanted a "much more ambitious" overhaul than many states would have accepted, the debrief says without elaborating.

At that meeting, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Gheybreyesus told EU ministers the COVID-19 pandemic "should be seen as a wake-up call" and said the agency was reviewing how its rules were applied by member states, according to the debrief.

The EU draft document, which was prepared after that meeting, also urges the WHO to revise its alerting methods in health emergencies, adopting a "traffic light system" that would convey more precisely the gravity of a crisis.

The European Union wants the World Health Organization to become more transparent about how states report emerging health crises, a draft proposal on reforming the UN agency says, following criticism of China's initial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The European Union wants the World Health Organization to become more transparent about how states report emerging health crises, a draft proposal on reforming the UN agency says, following criticism of China's initial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper, drawn up by the German government after discussions with other member states, is the latest to outline the EU's months-long plans to address the WHO's shortcomings on funding, governance, and legal powers. Also read: WHO coronavirus pandemic response probe a litmus test for the agency The document, dated Oct. 19 and seen by Reuters, urges the WHO to adopt measures that would increase "transparency on national compliance" with International Health Regulations. These require WHO member states to quickly share information on health emergencies. The United States has accused the WHO of being too close to China in the first phase of the pandemic when Beijing was slow in sharing crucial information on the new coronavirus - which first appeared in the city of Wuhan. President Donald Trump has said the United States will end its membership in the agency and stop its funding as a result. The WHO has repeatedly dismissed the allegations. It did not respond to requests for comment on the EU proposal. Asked about the document on Thursday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said China wanted to "actively participate" in WHO reform, which he said should not serve the interests of anyone country. Reforms should "better remove political interference" from the WHO, increase its resources and ability to deal with global public health crises, and strengthen support for developing countries, he said in Beijing. The German government declined to comment on the content of the document as it was still a draft. The EU and its states are among the WHO's largest donors, and would become by far the top public contributors if the United States withdraws from the U.N. agency. The EU draft will be discussed by EU health ministers at a video conference next week and is aimed to be the EU's common position ahead of the WHO assembly in mid-November, it said. It reiterates EU support for the WHO and stresses the agency's central role in addressing global health challenges. However, it lists insufficient transparency as the first of many challenges faced by the U.N. agency, as well as a lack of "predictable and sustainable" financing. It also calls for "a more effective and consistently applied reporting system by State Parties to the WHO Secretariat". That appears to be addressing criticisms that China and other countries have not shared information on the pandemic in a timely fashion. The document says mechanisms to evaluate countries' compliance with reporting obligations should be strengthened and become periodic. The disparity between WHO member states' expectations and the organisation's capacities should be addressed as a priority, it said. "WAKE-UP CALL" Preparations for a review of the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic by the WHO and governments have been underway for months, and Germany has repeatedly urged EU member states to speed up that process so that a reform of the body could be discussed in earnest. EU health ministers have already broadly agreed a common position on reforms the WHO would need to undergo at a video conference they held in early October, according to a debrief of the meeting seen by Reuters. Germany wanted a "much more ambitious" overhaul than many states would have accepted, the debrief says without elaborating. At that meeting, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Gheybreyesus told EU ministers the COVID-19 pandemic "should be seen as a wake-up call" and said the agency was reviewing how its rules were applied by member states, according to the debrief. The EU draft document, which was prepared after that meeting, also urges the WHO to revise its alerting methods in health emergencies, adopting a "traffic light system" that would convey more precisely the gravity of a crisis.

In WHO overhaul push, EU urges changes to handling of pandemics

Both Russia and Iran on Thursday denied&nbsp;US allegations of having taken actions to influence public opinion ahead of the November 3 US presidential election.

According to the US Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Russia&nbsp;and Iran have obtained the US voter information and taken actions to influence public opinion ahead of the US election 2020.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-russia-obtained-voter-registration-information-says-us-intelligence-director-john-ratcliffe-337000">Iran, Russia obtained voter registration information, says US intelligence director John Ratcliffe</a>

"Accusations are raining down every day. All of them are absolutely groundless, they are not based on anything," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters after the allegations made by the US director of national intelligence.

US authorities "have put forward a baseless claim on the verge of the country's election so that they would advance their undemocratic and predefined scenario through shifting the blame," Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said in a statement, after summoning the Swiss ambassador.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-election-2020-trump-biden-to-meet-for-final-face-off-today-337056/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Alireza Miryousefi, called the allegations "another scenario to undermine voter confidence" in the US and said the world had seen Washington's attempts to "question the outcome of its own elections at the highest level".

The US announcement came after registered Democratic voters reported receiving personally addressed emails in the name of the Proud Boys militia, and from the internet, a domain linked to the Proud Boys.

A number of voters in Florida and other key battleground states said they had gotten the messages.

"You will vote for Trump on election day or we will come after you," the emails said.

"Change your party affiliation to Republican to let us know you received our message and will comply. We will know which candidate you voted for," they said.

"I would take this seriously if I were you," the message ends, adding the voter's address. "Good luck.

Ratcliffe, with FBI Director Christopher Wray beside him, did not explain how the Russians and Iranians had obtained the voter information, or how the Russians might be using it.

US intelligence agencies have repeatedly warned that Russia, Iran, and China to a lesser extent had taken part in social media disinformation efforts aimed at influencing US voters.

In 2016, US officials say, Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw hacking and social media operations aimed at helping Trump to election victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Iran's alleged use of the Proud Boys name in emails came after Trump refused to distance himself, and appeared to encourage, the group, which has appeared at political rallies heavily armed, and menacing others.

Both Russia and Iran on Thursday denied US allegations of having taken actions to influence public opinion ahead of the November 3 US presidential election. According to the US Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Russia and Iran have obtained the US voter information and taken actions to influence public opinion ahead of the US election 2020.

Both Russia and Iran on Thursday denied US allegations of having taken actions to influence public opinion ahead of the November 3 US presidential election. According to the US Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Russia and Iran have obtained the US voter information and taken actions to influence public opinion ahead of the US election 2020. Also read: Iran, Russia obtained voter registration information, says US intelligence director John Ratcliffe "Accusations are raining down every day. All of them are absolutely groundless, they are not based on anything," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters after the allegations made by the US director of national intelligence. US authorities "have put forward a baseless claim on the verge of the country's election so that they would advance their undemocratic and predefined scenario through shifting the blame," Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said in a statement, after summoning the Swiss ambassador. Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Alireza Miryousefi, called the allegations "another scenario to undermine voter confidence" in the US and said the world had seen Washington's attempts to "question the outcome of its own elections at the highest level". The US announcement came after registered Democratic voters reported receiving personally addressed emails in the name of the Proud Boys militia, and from the internet, a domain linked to the Proud Boys. A number of voters in Florida and other key battleground states said they had gotten the messages. "You will vote for Trump on election day or we will come after you," the emails said. "Change your party affiliation to Republican to let us know you received our message and will comply. We will know which candidate you voted for," they said. "I would take this seriously if I were you," the message ends, adding the voter's address. "Good luck. Ratcliffe, with FBI Director Christopher Wray beside him, did not explain how the Russians and Iranians had obtained the voter information, or how the Russians might be using it. US intelligence agencies have repeatedly warned that Russia, Iran, and China to a lesser extent had taken part in social media disinformation efforts aimed at influencing US voters. In 2016, US officials say, Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw hacking and social media operations aimed at helping Trump to election victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Iran's alleged use of the Proud Boys name in emails came after Trump refused to distance himself, and appeared to encourage, the group, which has appeared at political rallies heavily armed, and menacing others.

US election 2020: Russia and Iran call meddling claims 'groundless'

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Vyomica Berry

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.